This is a perfect example of why DRM is wrong in all respects. Hey, I agree, authors need a revenue stream, but damn it, people who pay money for a work shouldn't have to keep paying to use it.
Copyright is a balance between the rights of an author and the good of society. We have lost "the society" as a stake holder in the discussion.
If you produce a medium that prevents the "fair use" of the content, then I believe you should not have the force of copyright to protect you.
Um, Amazon for starters? Or did you not realize that iTunes is not the only digital music store in the world?
The issue is "what do I buy" if I buy a CD, I get all the tracks at the sound quality I want. These days, more often than not, "best of" are your best bet because most CDs have only one good song. MP3 singles are crappy quality and ther eis no option for lossless digital.
Short of that, I'll go to the library.
The MOST frustrating thing is that I like music, I'm willing to pay for it, but I can't actually buy a song that I like in a format that is usable. The music companies are NOT hearing their customers.
take this infantile whining to torrent freak or the playground where such anti-corporate whining isnt seen as the transparent bullshit
I don't think we are "anti-corporate" enough in the U.S.A. They've more or less destroyed the economy with short sighted strategies that can't see past a 3 month horizon.
Businesses move jobs over seas. Umm? Who's going to buy your product? The list of offenses is pretty long from exploitation to pollution.
or get a job and pay for music for a change.
Um, I use Linux, where would I buy digital music that plays on my system and has any value? I want it on my home stereo (CD, DVD, or a Linux box) and my MP3 player. (which is not an iPod)
I buy CDs if I really like the music, but I was so disappointed with Gnarles Barkley, one good song on a whole CD, I usually go to the library and borrow CDs.
copyright and IP is hugely murky and the lawyers want it that way. There is no definitive "this is" or "this is not" test beyond a court.
The thing that bothers me about this whole file "sharing" thing is the scale of distribution.
Do libraries bother you?
Giving a copy to one person is one thing; giving a copy to hundreds or thousands of people is something else
That is true, and if it harms the value of the original work, it is clearly wrong. While it may seem counter intuitive, no harm has ever been proved.
I don't think most reasonable people would say that "sharing" a file between thousands of people falls under fair use.
What is radio? What is television? What are libraries?
File sharing is an awesomely powerful tool. I have used pirate bay to download at least one really interesting debate of religion and atheism.
In fact, I know a lot of people who download files from the internet or use the library to try new music or movies, and then choose to buy OR NOT.
The problem with the media companies are, and I've seen this written before, that they are in an "experience" model, one which they bill for the "experience" of the "work" instead of the "work." So, what they object too isn't the download, per se' but the loss of control over the "experience." They want to SELL the experience, i.e. to make money whether you like a work or not.
They don't make as much money if they have to produce something that you like. The old model is advertisement hype, charge for the movie or CD. If you walk out of the theater or play the CD, if you DON'T like it, they still make their money.
There is no protection for the "experience" AFAIK, only the copyright on the work, so, they are bending and using copyright.
I don't understand how this fellows testimony as to the relationship between album sales and file sharing is relevant. If they broke the law, they broke the law whether or not the record industry lost money. If they didn't break the law, then they did nothing wrong, even if it did cost the record industry money. Does it not work this way in Sweden?
Copyright is an interesting thing. Making a copy isn't actually "theft." The notion of "copyright" is to protect the revenue and value of a work. In fact, in the U.S. one of the limiters of "fair use" is a profit motive and/or a diminished value of the work.
If it can be argued that no harm comes to the value or marketability of a work from mere p2p sharing, then the "spirit" of copyright is not broken, and, in fact, may fall easily into the realm of "fair use" because it is distributed without commercial interest.
So, if two people sharing a work electronically falls under the umbrella of "fair use" in Sweden, then there can be no contribution to a crime by the TPB guys.
What I don't get is how can they call these "new" features when most of them have been in Linux for a while.
If you run Ubuntu Ibex, you'll be just doing a lot of "ho hum" ing at the list.
What happened to Microsoft's "innovation?" Seriously, we've been hearing that Linux is looking at tail lights and playing catchup, but from what I can see, Linux is ahead of Microsoft.
The *only* thing that Windows has its monopoly stranglehold. As an Ubuntu user, I can't see a single thing that "Windows" has to offer. Sure, there are some applications that are popular, but without them, Windows is nothing.
If the IT industry has the balls to break the Office software monopoly, Microsoft will go the way of Wang, DEC, and Pr1me. If Intuit starts supporting Linux with TurboTax and QuickBooks, and Adobe joins in, all the better.
Does anyone find it odd that an ISP would be looking to CUT its customer base?
If you ask me, it isn't about RIAA or MPIAA, the ISPs are greedy. Torrents are hard to shape and take bandwidth that they have to pay for. So, it is a way of booting "expensive" customers and trying to make it look like it is a positive thing.
Seriously, its just a way for them to increase their bottom line.
Microsoft and its monopoly has materially harmed the industry and consumers for so long, it has to stop.
For everyone that argues that Microsoft innovates or has created the computer market in the first place, I submit that you either don't know the history of the personal computer or choose to ignore it.
Thin client computers were killed by Microsoft. The "Are you my friend or are you Larry's" asked Bill Gates, and poof the DEC Shark was dead and so, eventually was DEC.
"Go" computers got killed when Toshiba pulled out of an agreement. The "rumor" was that Microsoft threatened them.
DRI's DRDOS, ConcurrentDOS, Gem Desktop, and the list can go on and on.
Many of these technologies were better than what Microsoft was offering and had a chance until Microsoft used its monopoly position to threaten suppliers and pay off retail outlets.
So, because of Microsoft's actions, we are STUCK with computers that come with Windows pre-installed. No one gets to choose. Its like a DVD player that only plays movies from Sony. That in itself isn't bad, but when that is the only practical DVD player choice, it kills everything else.
I would use Ubuntu on EeePC as it can REALLY be trimmed down, well, at least in theory.
Here's my dream OS configuration for EeePC.
(a) Enough computing power to do things efficiently. (b) Operate in two modes seamlessly:
(1) Portable "netbook" mode.
(2) Tethered mode, where you attach a USB keyboard and disk and a monitor, and it works like a full fledged desktop. Correctly detects the USB drive and replaces/usr or/usr/local with a partition on the USB drive so that it includes "all" the programs you want.
The "free" countries are starting more and more to look like oppressive countries as the effective exercise of freedom becomes more and more.
Before, they could tap your phone and search your mail. We all believed we were free because there were "protections" in place.
"Law Enforcement" is a crock of &^%. It is spying, it is tracking what free people do with their freedom so as to not allow that which challenges government or industry. Maybe, just maybe, we'll catch a criminal, who knows.
Seriously, what is "crime" anyway. If a person smokes pot, why is that a crime? If a person wants to take cocaine in the privacy of their own how, why do our tax dollars have anything to do with that.
Look at prostitution, the only reason why it is a crime is because someone made a law. If two consenting adults engage in sex for money, why am I or anyone else even involved? Hell, why don't we just tax it?
Nope, "Law Enforcement" is a red herring. It is about the control over society that the powerful want. The Internet is shifting too much power to the individual. Time was we had the illusion of freedom and no real way to exercise it. Now with the internet, we really can communicate privately and we really can say things anonymously, that has formerly democratic states worried because preaching a free society is easier than actually having one.
Its funny, the only thing I saw in your post that even looked like a reason was this:
If you are a programmer and you still think they could have delivered their current product in the same timeframe after having volunteered to be hamstrung by obedience to X11, then you might want to consider a career change.
As a more or less lifelong software engineer. I've been employed in the industry for over 25 years, I don't agree.
Take a look at Gnome or KDE and ask what Mac couldn't do.
There's a big difference between the government picking winners and losers and a free market picking them. One is coercive and the other voluntary.
You speak of the "free market" as if it really exists. It doesn't, governments all over world help their industries.
And how did they get to the top? Depends on whom you are talking about.
In some cases it's by using a monopoly illegally, but in others it's from hard work.
Really? I've been in the software industry for a LONG time. Luck has a lot more to do with success than most people admit. I have seen excellent technical companies destroyed and imbecilic stupidity rewarded.
Meanwhile some who do not make it don't because they refuse to offer what consumers and users want.
Like Microsoft and Vista and technologies like DRM? Where is the free market? Why does a CD cost $18.
Adobe has offered 16 bit and 24 bit colour depths for years and CS4 has 48 bits while Photoshop Elements supports 16 bits. The GIMP project keeps promising 16 bits it doesn't even support 12 bit colour depths. All GIMP supports is 8 bit per colour channel, for a total of 24 bits. That is a very esoteric problem and those users who need it should use Photoshop and spend the money. Gimp does virtually anything that even some of the most demanding user needs.
I'm not saying that greater than 24bit color is not important, but most users won't ever see bigger color depth in the near future.
And who determines need and value? One presumes a panel of experts appointed to do this. Not perfect, but something.
In a free market buyers do. The "free market" is a myth. Microsoft buys the free market. My experience getting software into stores like BestBuy and Walmart was insane. The "free market" is controlled by big money. Small shops do not have a reasonable chance.
Yes, I see you've chosen #1 as your remaining complaint. Like I said, most users are thankful for this, and with good reason
And what would that "good reason" be?
The limited capability?
Regardless, all you wanted was to see a Mac do what you suggested, which it can. Now you're demanding that this be the case for all applications...you're trying to score by moving the goalposts.
You can't seriously be suggesting that X11 is unavailable
Not at all, but it is not *the* display system it a legacy add-on for applications designed for other systems. It is certain your iTunes application will not run in this way. On Linux, virtually all the applications will run this way. X11 on mac is a kludge.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a perfect example of why DRM is wrong in all respects. Hey, I agree, authors need a revenue stream, but damn it, people who pay money for a work shouldn't have to keep paying to use it.
Copyright is a balance between the rights of an author and the good of society. We have lost "the society" as a stake holder in the discussion.
If you produce a medium that prevents the "fair use" of the content, then I believe you should not have the force of copyright to protect you.
Um, Amazon for starters? Or did you not realize that iTunes is not the only digital music store in the world?
The issue is "what do I buy" if I buy a CD, I get all the tracks at the sound quality I want. These days, more often than not, "best of" are your best bet because most CDs have only one good song. MP3 singles are crappy quality and ther eis no option for lossless digital.
Short of that, I'll go to the library.
The MOST frustrating thing is that I like music, I'm willing to pay for it, but I can't actually buy a song that I like in a format that is usable. The music companies are NOT hearing their customers.
take this infantile whining to torrent freak or the playground where such anti-corporate whining isnt seen as the transparent bullshit
I don't think we are "anti-corporate" enough in the U.S.A. They've more or less destroyed the economy with short sighted strategies that can't see past a 3 month horizon.
Businesses move jobs over seas. Umm? Who's going to buy your product? The list of offenses is pretty long from exploitation to pollution.
or get a job and pay for music for a change.
Um, I use Linux, where would I buy digital music that plays on my system and has any value? I want it on my home stereo (CD, DVD, or a Linux box) and my MP3 player. (which is not an iPod)
I buy CDs if I really like the music, but I was so disappointed with Gnarles Barkley, one good song on a whole CD, I usually go to the library and borrow CDs.
This is all somewhat fuzzy, though.
copyright and IP is hugely murky and the lawyers want it that way. There is no definitive "this is" or "this is not" test beyond a court.
The thing that bothers me about this whole file "sharing" thing is the scale of distribution.
Do libraries bother you?
Giving a copy to one person is one thing; giving a copy to hundreds or thousands of people is something else
That is true, and if it harms the value of the original work, it is clearly wrong. While it may seem counter intuitive, no harm has ever been proved.
I don't think most reasonable people would say that "sharing" a file between thousands of people falls under fair use.
What is radio? What is television? What are libraries?
File sharing is an awesomely powerful tool. I have used pirate bay to download at least one really interesting debate of religion and atheism.
In fact, I know a lot of people who download files from the internet or use the library to try new music or movies, and then choose to buy OR NOT.
The problem with the media companies are, and I've seen this written before, that they are in an "experience" model, one which they bill for the "experience" of the "work" instead of the "work." So, what they object too isn't the download, per se' but the loss of control over the "experience." They want to SELL the experience, i.e. to make money whether you like a work or not.
They don't make as much money if they have to produce something that you like. The old model is advertisement hype, charge for the movie or CD. If you walk out of the theater or play the CD, if you DON'T like it, they still make their money.
There is no protection for the "experience" AFAIK, only the copyright on the work, so, they are bending and using copyright.
I don't understand how this fellows testimony as to the relationship between album sales and file sharing is relevant. If they broke the law, they broke the law whether or not the record industry lost money. If they didn't break the law, then they did nothing wrong, even if it did cost the record industry money. Does it not work this way in Sweden?
Copyright is an interesting thing. Making a copy isn't actually "theft." The notion of "copyright" is to protect the revenue and value of a work. In fact, in the U.S. one of the limiters of "fair use" is a profit motive and/or a diminished value of the work.
If it can be argued that no harm comes to the value or marketability of a work from mere p2p sharing, then the "spirit" of copyright is not broken, and, in fact, may fall easily into the realm of "fair use" because it is distributed without commercial interest.
So, if two people sharing a work electronically falls under the umbrella of "fair use" in Sweden, then there can be no contribution to a crime by the TPB guys.
What I don't get is how can they call these "new" features when most of them have been in Linux for a while.
If you run Ubuntu Ibex, you'll be just doing a lot of "ho hum" ing at the list.
What happened to Microsoft's "innovation?" Seriously, we've been hearing that Linux is looking at tail lights and playing catchup, but from what I can see, Linux is ahead of Microsoft.
The *only* thing that Windows has its monopoly stranglehold. As an Ubuntu user, I can't see a single thing that "Windows" has to offer. Sure, there are some applications that are popular, but without them, Windows is nothing.
If the IT industry has the balls to break the Office software monopoly, Microsoft will go the way of Wang, DEC, and Pr1me. If Intuit starts supporting Linux with TurboTax and QuickBooks, and Adobe joins in, all the better.
This is actually a pretty cool conversation. A lot of very cool ideas being put out
Self destruct password? Then, they'll get you like they got Martha Stewert. Obstruction of Justice.
One presumes that "obstruction" is the lesser of two crimes.
Of course, since destruction of evidence isn't a crime. Brilliant!
One presumes it is at least a lesser crime, and of course, accidents do happen.
There should be a destruct password, if given at the password prompt, NUKES the contents of the drive!!!!
Police: What's your password?
You: Umm, let me think, oh! yes, "fr0b0zz"
[police enter password]
You: NO! Wait!!! NO!! That's the destruct password don't enter it!@!!
Too late.
Too bad, so sad.
Does anyone find it odd that an ISP would be looking to CUT its customer base?
If you ask me, it isn't about RIAA or MPIAA, the ISPs are greedy. Torrents are hard to shape and take bandwidth that they have to pay for. So, it is a way of booting "expensive" customers and trying to make it look like it is a positive thing.
Seriously, its just a way for them to increase their bottom line.
I must be imagining the Dells and all the netbooks that come with Linux....
Yea, well, when I see Linux or some other general purpose non-microsoft OS, in the retail outlets on name-brand systems, I'll reconsider my views.
Microsoft and its monopoly has materially harmed the industry and consumers for so long, it has to stop.
For everyone that argues that Microsoft innovates or has created the computer market in the first place, I submit that you either don't know the history of the personal computer or choose to ignore it.
Thin client computers were killed by Microsoft. The "Are you my friend or are you Larry's" asked Bill Gates, and poof the DEC Shark was dead and so, eventually was DEC.
"Go" computers got killed when Toshiba pulled out of an agreement. The "rumor" was that Microsoft threatened them.
DRI's DRDOS, ConcurrentDOS, Gem Desktop, and the list can go on and on.
Many of these technologies were better than what Microsoft was offering and had a chance until Microsoft used its monopoly position to threaten suppliers and pay off retail outlets.
So, because of Microsoft's actions, we are STUCK with computers that come with Windows pre-installed. No one gets to choose. Its like a DVD player that only plays movies from Sony. That in itself isn't bad, but when that is the only practical DVD player choice, it kills everything else.
Do it yourself. It's your dream and you can live it yourself.
Sigh, I *know* both that I can do it myself and how to do it.
It would be nice to recommend something *I* didn't need to setup for someone.
Most cruise ships aren't registered under the US flag. So the ships tower isn't in the US. Hence roaming.
That's actually a very reasonable argument. Well done.
Wrong. International Maritime laws recognize only 12 miles of sea from seashore.
Period.
Ahh, like I said, it was "little known," and if you actually read the laws you are claiming to site, you would have noticed a couple addendums to it.
Look at the small print like "Exclusive economic zones"
I would use Ubuntu on EeePC as it can REALLY be trimmed down, well, at least in theory.
Here's my dream OS configuration for EeePC.
(a) Enough computing power to do things efficiently. /usr or /usr/local with a partition on the USB drive so that it includes "all" the programs you want.
(b) Operate in two modes seamlessly:
(1) Portable "netbook" mode.
(2) Tethered mode, where you attach a USB keyboard and disk and a monitor, and it works like a full fledged desktop. Correctly detects the USB drive and replaces
A little known fact, U.S. Territory extends 200 miles off the shore.
The ISP should be fined.
The "free" countries are starting more and more to look like oppressive countries as the effective exercise of freedom becomes more and more.
Before, they could tap your phone and search your mail. We all believed we were free because there were "protections" in place.
"Law Enforcement" is a crock of &^%. It is spying, it is tracking what free people do with their freedom so as to not allow that which challenges government or industry. Maybe, just maybe, we'll catch a criminal, who knows.
Seriously, what is "crime" anyway. If a person smokes pot, why is that a crime? If a person wants to take cocaine in the privacy of their own how, why do our tax dollars have anything to do with that.
Look at prostitution, the only reason why it is a crime is because someone made a law. If two consenting adults engage in sex for money, why am I or anyone else even involved? Hell, why don't we just tax it?
Nope, "Law Enforcement" is a red herring. It is about the control over society that the powerful want. The Internet is shifting too much power to the individual. Time was we had the illusion of freedom and no real way to exercise it. Now with the internet, we really can communicate privately and we really can say things anonymously, that has formerly democratic states worried because preaching a free society is easier than actually having one.
Here is my anti-corporate "free speech" site:
http://www.planetsubarusucks.com/
As much as I like how far Gnome and KDE have come along, they are trailing, and serve only as evidence that NeXT made the right tradeoff 20 years ago.
Besides the fact this nothing more than nonsense, I was talking more about the X layer and how it is exploited by these environments.
You have to do some special trickery to a) get the app to launch on a remote screen
Nope, it works as done. The ssh system ensures proper X port forwarding.
Its funny, the only thing I saw in your post that even looked like a reason was this:
If you are a programmer and you still think they could have delivered their current product in the same timeframe after having volunteered to be hamstrung by obedience to X11, then you might want to consider a career change.
As a more or less lifelong software engineer. I've been employed in the industry for over 25 years, I don't agree.
Take a look at Gnome or KDE and ask what Mac couldn't do.
There's a big difference between the government picking winners and losers and a free market picking them. One is coercive and the other voluntary.
You speak of the "free market" as if it really exists. It doesn't, governments all over world help their industries.
And how did they get to the top?
Depends on whom you are talking about.
In some cases it's by using a monopoly illegally, but in others it's from hard work.
Really? I've been in the software industry for a LONG time. Luck has a lot more to do with success than most people admit. I have seen excellent technical companies destroyed and imbecilic stupidity rewarded.
Meanwhile some who do not make it don't because they refuse to offer what consumers and users want.
Like Microsoft and Vista and technologies like DRM? Where is the free market? Why does a CD cost $18.
Adobe has offered 16 bit and 24 bit colour depths for years and CS4 has 48 bits while Photoshop Elements supports 16 bits. The GIMP project keeps promising 16 bits it doesn't even support 12 bit colour depths. All GIMP supports is 8 bit per colour channel, for a total of 24 bits.
That is a very esoteric problem and those users who need it should use Photoshop and spend the money. Gimp does virtually anything that even some of the most demanding user needs.
I'm not saying that greater than 24bit color is not important, but most users won't ever see bigger color depth in the near future.
And who determines need and value?
One presumes a panel of experts appointed to do this. Not perfect, but something.
In a free market buyers do.
The "free market" is a myth. Microsoft buys the free market. My experience getting software into stores like BestBuy and Walmart was insane. The "free market" is controlled by big money. Small shops do not have a reasonable chance.
Yes, I see you've chosen #1 as your remaining complaint. Like I said, most users are thankful for this, and with good reason
And what would that "good reason" be?
The limited capability?
Regardless, all you wanted was to see a Mac do what you suggested, which it can. Now you're demanding that this be the case for all applications...you're trying to score by moving the goalposts.
Not at all. It is a very important feature.
You can't seriously be suggesting that X11 is unavailable
Not at all, but it is not *the* display system it a legacy add-on for applications designed for other systems. It is certain your iTunes application will not run in this way. On Linux, virtually all the applications will run this way. X11 on mac is a kludge.
So, I can run:
ssh -X root@host gnome-control-center
How would you do that on Mac? VNC? What a kludge.
Abandoning X11 was a mistake.