As shitty as it sounds, you don't have Apple's written permission. And since you got the file from them, you're not allowed to use their version of the track that way. You need the distributor's permission to do that sort of thing. You'd be in the same legal standing if you got the author's permission and ripped a track from his RIAA distributed CD.
Presumably, since you got the author's written permission, you could get him to send you a copy of the mp3. Then he would be both original copyright holder and the distributor (for that file). This isn't a DRM issue per se. It's a copyright issue.
Yeah, this is probably iTune's best 'feature', even though it's a bit of a hack. I have a big mp3 collection -- bigger than my laptop's hard drive, so I just keep it on an internet connected linux box running mt-daapd. I can get at it from anywhere I care to.
An argument from authority isn't a logical fallacy.
Actually, argument from authority is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority. I can probably find a non-wikipedia link for you if you'd like, but their article balances the strict lack of logical validity with practical considerations involving discourse. Your argument was fallacious on both counts.
I disagree with your premise that it requires "statistics". A major example is sufficient: look at the IEEE copyright assignment form (search on Google). IEEE is the major publisher for technology, engineering, and CS content.
Statistics are useful. I can find an example of a major journal that doesn't ask for exclusive distribution rights as well. And if this is all we're going on, we're in a stalemate again. The Nature Publishing Group, for instance, does not.
Regarding the IEEE and ArXiv -- that's interesting. Is the IEEE aware that you've done this? If so, have they said anything about it? Are they aware that much of what they publish is on there?
By the same token, 'profits' could be used towards further research, instead of lining investor's coffers. Perhaps it's time to start a 501.c.3 drug company. I will look into the practicality of such a venture. This sounds like a great idea to me.
Implicit argument from authority. Can you say logical fallacy? If you really want to prove this point, come up with some statistics showing that you're right, preferably through a randomized selection process of journals. As it stands, your claim that journals demand exclusive distribution rights is laughable due to contrary evidence.That's not the point. The point is that even the personal subscriptions are way too expensive.
Not really. The journal market is very small. A journal can hope for 20,000 institutional subscriptions if they're very successful. This is very low volume, which drives up the cost of publishing. Many journals also use archival quality paper and good ink. And they do this four to twelve times a year. Moreover, the personal subscription market is much smaller. Most people interested in state-of-the-art research in a field are going to have access to library copies of journals.
Journals are extremely inexpensive considering that a subscription for a library only costs about twice as much as a personal subscription. That is a great deal, especially when you consider that other publishing fields charge five-times-plus for their "library copies." Ask someone at a BlockBuster how much replacing a lost movie costs them -- it's usually in the hundreds of dollars for a movie you can buy for $12 some place else specifically because they come with distribution rights.
Academics usually become academics because they love the field in which they work.
Academics are not "flaunting" copyrights when they publish their articles on the web. They're embracing them. Journals are not usually given exclusive distribution rights. Indeed, if that were so, they wouldn't accept papers that have been pre-printed in the ArXiv.
Journal publishers can't compete with the ArXiv in the online distribution arena, and will never abandon paper distribution.
Neither scientific advances nor engineering advances are protected by copyrights, so your argument is spurious.
And, in any case, we are talking about music here, not science or engineering. Having copyrights for the latest Britney Spears song is not going to advance science or engineering.
But having a fair but strong copyright system to ensure that the academic publishing industry remains viable is going to advance science and engineering. As it has for the last 200 years.
I'm not going to state my position on copyright. But I will say that I think academic publishers have it right (except for a few obnoxious exceptions). Academic journals are expensive, but publishers tend to give very good deals to libraries for the expressed purpose of disseminating the information therein. There's no '500 seat license' or any silliness like that. And they actually respect 'fair use'.
I suspect this is because the writers and editors of most academic journals love the field in which they work. Editors tend to donate their time, though some get a small stipend. Peer reviewers donate their time for their anonymous approval. Writers publish or perish. The distributor only has a minimal role -- there is no gigantic middleman.
The 12% statistic does indeed include the sorts of programs you mentioned. Feel free to look it up. It's part of the census. The "intelligentsia" refers to statistics for the same reason physical scientists do. Because it's the language of correlation and causation. Rigor is a good thing, even if people with silly political axes to grind don't think so.
I appreciate your input. You're right -- I didn't know what I was doing when I did that page. It should be scrapped and redone ASAP. I'll keep your suggestions in mind.
For the record, I didn't call HTML a "programming language." I called it a "computer language," which it is.
I don't want to be preachy, and I've already mentioned this book, but you seem interested in the questions it raises. The Society of the Spectacle. It's easiest to read if you start at paragraph 24, digest it, and then start from the top with 24. in mind.
I don't really want to go into this again, but the US economy requires roughly 12% of the population below the poverty line. This is hardly enough for a subsistence diet and housing. The next 8% or so above them tend to shift into and out of poverty. The market can't fix it. The market causes it.
Bread is obviously good, but what we're calling circuses are in fact an instance of what Debord calls "the spectacle." He writes:
The spectacle is the existing order's uninterrupted discourse about itself, its laudatory monologue. It is the self-portrait of power in the epoch of its totalitarian management of the conditions of existence. The fetishistic, purely objective appearance of spectacular relations conceals the fact that they are relations among men and classes: a second nature with its fatal laws seems to dominate our environment.
The spectacle is our collective self-image, divorced from reality. It clouds our minds and keeps us from even realizing that something is wrong. But there's plenty wrong. Indeed, this was the very point the Juvenal, the poet who coined the phrase "bread and circuses", was trying to make.
If the majority of the websurfers feel that the ads are too intrusive, the site will die.
Or it won't, since no site has majority usage. All it takes is a few thousand people to "ruin it" (or "support it" depending on your point of view) for the rest of us.
Assuming libwmf implemented the WMF standard to specification, ImageMagick + libwmf have the same vulnerability since it's a design vulnerability, not an implementation bug. Open Source software won't protect you from these kinds of issues.
Are you kidding? That's an absurdly high standard. And false, too. Two people may come to think that they're Jesus -- and many have -- but that certainly doesn't make it obvious.
The Comcast software is awful. It requires ActiveX, so you end up needing to install MSIE 5 on your Mac to make it work. Keep in mind, MS has already obsoleted it and as of January 31 is no longer available for download from microsoft.com. Your lucky your technician offered to use his laptop.
In any event, when deadlines loom, energy drinks are a good thing. No matter how relaxed you are, sometimes you have to take care of shit on time. Caffeine also promotes concentration, increases in short term memory, and relaxation in mild (say, 200mg) doses.
Except it doesn't work that way. If the 'enemy' doesn't breach this robot army gap, our robots will be killing people. Even if they do breach the gap, neither side is going to stop fighting until the political reasons for the war are resolved. Wars won't magically stop when their robot army is dismantled.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably, since you got the author's written permission, you could get him to send you a copy of the mp3. Then he would be both original copyright holder and the distributor (for that file). This isn't a DRM issue per se. It's a copyright issue.
Yeah, this is probably iTune's best 'feature', even though it's a bit of a hack. I have a big mp3 collection -- bigger than my laptop's hard drive, so I just keep it on an internet connected linux box running mt-daapd. I can get at it from anywhere I care to.
Actually, argument from authority is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority. I can probably find a non-wikipedia link for you if you'd like, but their article balances the strict lack of logical validity with practical considerations involving discourse. Your argument was fallacious on both counts.
I disagree with your premise that it requires "statistics". A major example is sufficient: look at the IEEE copyright assignment form (search on Google). IEEE is the major publisher for technology, engineering, and CS content.
Statistics are useful. I can find an example of a major journal that doesn't ask for exclusive distribution rights as well. And if this is all we're going on, we're in a stalemate again. The Nature Publishing Group, for instance, does not.
Regarding the IEEE and ArXiv -- that's interesting. Is the IEEE aware that you've done this? If so, have they said anything about it? Are they aware that much of what they publish is on there?
By the same token, 'profits' could be used towards further research, instead of lining investor's coffers. Perhaps it's time to start a 501.c.3 drug company. I will look into the practicality of such a venture. This sounds like a great idea to me.
Implicit argument from authority. Can you say logical fallacy? If you really want to prove this point, come up with some statistics showing that you're right, preferably through a randomized selection process of journals. As it stands, your claim that journals demand exclusive distribution rights is laughable due to contrary evidence. That's not the point. The point is that even the personal subscriptions are way too expensive.
Not really. The journal market is very small. A journal can hope for 20,000 institutional subscriptions if they're very successful. This is very low volume, which drives up the cost of publishing. Many journals also use archival quality paper and good ink. And they do this four to twelve times a year. Moreover, the personal subscription market is much smaller. Most people interested in state-of-the-art research in a field are going to have access to library copies of journals.
Academics usually become academics because they love the field in which they work.
Academics are not "flaunting" copyrights when they publish their articles on the web. They're embracing them. Journals are not usually given exclusive distribution rights. Indeed, if that were so, they wouldn't accept papers that have been pre-printed in the ArXiv.
Journal publishers can't compete with the ArXiv in the online distribution arena, and will never abandon paper distribution.
And, in any case, we are talking about music here, not science or engineering. Having copyrights for the latest Britney Spears song is not going to advance science or engineering.
But having a fair but strong copyright system to ensure that the academic publishing industry remains viable is going to advance science and engineering. As it has for the last 200 years.
I'm not going to state my position on copyright. But I will say that I think academic publishers have it right (except for a few obnoxious exceptions). Academic journals are expensive, but publishers tend to give very good deals to libraries for the expressed purpose of disseminating the information therein. There's no '500 seat license' or any silliness like that. And they actually respect 'fair use'.
I suspect this is because the writers and editors of most academic journals love the field in which they work. Editors tend to donate their time, though some get a small stipend. Peer reviewers donate their time for their anonymous approval. Writers publish or perish. The distributor only has a minimal role -- there is no gigantic middleman.
I apologize for my ad hominem attack.
For the record, I didn't call HTML a "programming language." I called it a "computer language," which it is.
Retard, the poverty line is defined to be just enough for housing and a subsistence diet. Read a book sometime.
But really, wouldn't you rather just hire a slashdotter like me? http://www.reed.edu/~sollaa/
You have confused 'sex' and 'gender'. Gender is a social construct. Sex is biological.
I don't want to be preachy, and I've already mentioned this book, but you seem interested in the questions it raises. The Society of the Spectacle. It's easiest to read if you start at paragraph 24, digest it, and then start from the top with 24. in mind.
I don't really want to go into this again, but the US economy requires roughly 12% of the population below the poverty line. This is hardly enough for a subsistence diet and housing. The next 8% or so above them tend to shift into and out of poverty. The market can't fix it. The market causes it.
Bread is obviously good, but what we're calling circuses are in fact an instance of what Debord calls "the spectacle." He writes:
The spectacle is our collective self-image, divorced from reality. It clouds our minds and keeps us from even realizing that something is wrong. But there's plenty wrong. Indeed, this was the very point the Juvenal, the poet who coined the phrase "bread and circuses", was trying to make.
Sure, but the Colleco's would rust up on you in no time flat.
Or it won't, since no site has majority usage. All it takes is a few thousand people to "ruin it" (or "support it" depending on your point of view) for the rest of us.
Wiping personal data isn't profitable. Selling personal data to the highest bidder is.
Assuming libwmf implemented the WMF standard to specification, ImageMagick + libwmf have the same vulnerability since it's a design vulnerability, not an implementation bug. Open Source software won't protect you from these kinds of issues.
Are you kidding? That's an absurdly high standard. And false, too. Two people may come to think that they're Jesus -- and many have -- but that certainly doesn't make it obvious.
The Comcast software is awful. It requires ActiveX, so you end up needing to install MSIE 5 on your Mac to make it work. Keep in mind, MS has already obsoleted it and as of January 31 is no longer available for download from microsoft.com. Your lucky your technician offered to use his laptop.
In any event, when deadlines loom, energy drinks are a good thing. No matter how relaxed you are, sometimes you have to take care of shit on time. Caffeine also promotes concentration, increases in short term memory, and relaxation in mild (say, 200mg) doses.
Wow. You guys really ran with your misinterpretation of what I said.
Except it doesn't work that way. If the 'enemy' doesn't breach this robot army gap, our robots will be killing people. Even if they do breach the gap, neither side is going to stop fighting until the political reasons for the war are resolved. Wars won't magically stop when their robot army is dismantled.
Does the theft of a regular computer with Linux on it constitute "distribution"? No.
Except, life isn't going to wait around for you to rest.