Somewhere deep in the Dept of Homeland Security, a bored shift worker sits at his desk...
"I think I'll download some music to help me get through the day. One of those funky peer apps should do the trick."
ten minutes later...
"Which folder do I want to share? Um, not the music one, they'll notice the bandwidth. I'll just share this 'secrets' folder. That'll keep the secret."
I think the music industry would love the EU to force Apple to licence FairPlay.
For them, the ability of other companies to sell iPod-playable music would be a complete win. In one fell swoop, they'd have almost total control back.
Imagine - the industry puts a demand for variable pricing starting at $2 for older music and topping out at $5 for just-released music. The alternative is that they'll withdraw the licence to sell music. Apple might stand firm as they've done in the past, but they now depend on every other FairPlay licencee standing just as firm. If they stand together, the industry will be forced back to the table. If a single one caves in, the industry will have found the weakness they need to gain the upper hand. Suddenly that company gets all the music to sell, and companies who stood with Apple lose their contract.
Licencing FairPlay is the worst possible outcome for consumers. It hands control to the music industry, maintains DRM and weakens any other attempts to change the online sales models. Consumers have been well served by Apple having strong control and keeping prices lower.
The only point to criticise Apple on is their failure to sell music without DRM. I don't know if they'd want to do that on a band by band basis (might be difficult to manage) but they should be able to do this by label. I've heard rumours that the music industry might have forced a condition on Apple that every song must have DRM. If that's true, then it's a sad thing.
Apple should strongly resist any attempt to licence the ability to sell FairPlay tracks.
There may be a case to make that FairPlay should have a playback-only licence. That is, only Apple can sell the music, but you can play it on any licenced player. That situation would be diametrically opposed to Apple's mission here - to sell iPods. Even allowing other companies to sell music for the iPod maintains their basic goals, but allowing iTMS purchases to play on other players undermines Apple's business.
Lastly, if the solution to the EU's issue is licencing, will the EU dictate the terms Apple must licence on? Will they oversee the negotiations? Will any changes only be binding to the EU iTMS? What if negotiations break down - will Apple be forced to negotiate against its own interests? The EU have raised a number of issues for which they're not putting forward any solutions. "Something must be done!" is always a handy vote-winner, but the real progress comes from the usually unsaid part - "... and this is the workable solution I've come up with."
Furthermore, wtf is a Mac sysadmin anyway? What is a Mac sysadmin? I'd have thought someone who manages a bunch of Macs. Just like a Windows sysadmin manages a bunch of Windows boxes, or a Unix sysadmin manages a bunch of Unix boxes. Seems like a common usage of the term 'sysadmin' to me - I can't see how it confuses you.
OSX is a system for consumers and the occasional designer. Do you have a crack team of sysadmins managing your iPod? Wait a minute! I'm responding to some trolling!
Computers have moved to a point where different people use them for wildly different purposes. As such, you simply can't have "top X products" for an entire OS.
This wasn't a list of the top 22 products for the entire OS. It was a list of 22 products this guy finds indispensible.
I could easily make a similar list for OS X or Windows, based on what I use and the needs of my work. I'd include dev tools and DBMS packages, plus a couple of casual games for relaxing. It wouldn't apply to many other people, but I'm certain you could easily pick 20 apps you find useful.
If on Mac it's not the same, it's that much sadder.
No, you're missing the point. It's not sad. It's just a list of stuff that this guy likes. Don't take it as some sort of inditement on Macs or list that we all must follow. It's just a list.
Ah, but thankfully coal power plants grow natually out of forests, using no resources at all! Nuclear power plants are really a form of grass, and have a massive benefit to the environment. Deer run the stations too. It's all part of nature, beautiful in its way.
If you're going to criticise construction of one form of power plant, remember that all the others have to be built as well. What's the initial and ongoing impact?
Nice use of the term "McMansion" and inventing a "fleet of SUV's and planes" I guess from your baby-seal slaughtering factory that produces nuclear waste and tests it in the eyes of kittens and orphans you're free to make stuff up! It's fun to invent information that demonises others, isn't it!
Apple is a monopolist you said. But you also said Apple has a small marketshare.
Those two statements contradict each other. Which is it? Do they control the desktop market or not?
Are you one of those foolish people who define Apple's monopoly as being on Apple products? I've never seen anyone make a good argument there, it's just spite. Does Ford have a monopoly on Ford cars? Does GE have a monopoly of GE light bulbs? Is using the word "monopoly" even sensible here?
Of course not. It's a trivial thing, meaningless in every legal sense.
As I said earlier, you can fairly criticise Apple for their lack of hardware competition (although it's another foolish claim given that they're a hardware company) but calling them a monopoly is just plain nonsense.
That's what I'm disputing, and you've not provided anything to back yourself up. You call monopoly, but you're just wrong on that charge. You get abusive when challenged, still can't back up your points (every fact is "easily checked" - give me five minutes and I'll make Wikipedia agree with me; got any actual sources or is everything just "easily checked"), leading me to think you're just some punk kid without any real business knowledge and only a weak understanding of law.
Give it up Rix. Your monopoly charge doesn't stick.
Calm down there. All I'm doing is correcting your hyperbole, bringing this weird talk to monopolies back to Earth. Perhaps you might want to learn what the word means before you throw it around?
And Microsoft are more responsible with their market power are they? Then why are they continually being taken to court? I suppose you'd class all the court cases and judgements against them as an anti-Microsoft crusade, impugning all the legal systems involved.
Nice work shifting the debate back and ignoring your own posts. Seems like you've got your own reality plugged into Microsoft's RDF.
O... kay. Not a lawyer, are you? You throw around the word "monopoly" but you don't understand it means. Apple restrict the way their stuff can be used, but that doesn't have anything to do with monopolistic practices. You can fairly criticise Apple for their terms of use, but calling them a monopoly is incorrect at every level.
Not at all, but I'd like to see how that makes Apple "... a far worse monopolist than Microsoft."
There is no monopoly at work here. You may consider this unfair, but I don't think it's wrong for a company to control its products.
To compare - Microsoft used its monopoly power to stamp out competitors, was taken to court and convicted of crimes under the anti-trust act. After appeals, the verdict still stands although the punishment seems to have disappeared.
So - can you back up your claim about how terrible a monopolist Apple is?
Great assertion. Nothing to back it up, no shred of logic behind the claim, but hey! It's great to fling stuff like this about!
Apple also grind up live puppies to make iPods. Microsoft shred kittens to make those new Vista boxes, and many Linux kernels are built using slave labour from China.
I've thought this is the case for a little while now, and I'm happy to see other people with the same idea.
The thing that gets me is that Steve Jobs can't say this in any form - it's not good business to call your partner untrustworthy! That means the argument to licence FairPlay has to be made on other merits, which aren't anywhere near as strong as the case that we've put.
Oh well, at least we're in for some interesting times.
How about licensing their version of the DRM to other companies? Is the RIAA preventing that as well?
Of course the RIAA won't prevent that! They would absolutely *love* it if Apple ensured they had complete control over online sales. It would be their greatest dream come true (apart from someone buying about $80M of Mariah Carey albums).
As soon as Apple licences FairPlay, they lose all power to sway the RIAA. The RIAA will claim that DRM works, negotiate with Apple and all FairPlay licencees to up the price or not sell the music. Someone else will cave in, and Apple will have to play along to the RIAA's tune or close the iTMS. They'll have to maintain FairPlay regardless of whether they sell music or not.
Do you want the RIAA to have total control over music sales? Do you trust them?
Apple are saying that there are only two choices - DRM or no DRM. We've seen how successful DRM was in stopping piracy, so there's only the 'no DRM' option left.
I think the original poster was saying that at the moment, power is not in the hands of the RIAA but in the hands of Apple. As soon as Apple licences FairPlay, the power shifts back to the RIAA, as then any company can sell music for the biggest player in town, the iPod.
It's better now to have the power not rest with the RIAA and try to force the end of DRM rather than give them back everything they need to retain full control over the market.
Does Apple have a monopoly on music? Maybe online music, and while I'd argue they don't, it's not straightforward.
Does the RIAA have a monopoly on music? Absolutely. They control almost all music in every sphere of commerce except online sales, where Apple has the upper hand.
Should we give them more power over online sales? Well, given their history of trying to force price increases (variable pricing on iTunes) and extorting money for players sold ($1 per Zune) it's hard to see that giving them even more power is a good thing.
I agree with the other poster - having Apple control FairPlay completely gives them a bigger wedge to open the RIAA up for dropping DRM. Once DRM is gone, the power shifts away from Apple, but not to the RIAA. It goes to all the music stores, who can now compete fairly against the iTunes Music Store and sell songs for the iPod. This would seem against Apple's interests, until you think about the cost of adding DRM to each track, maintaining DRM systems and all that.
Steve Jobs is right in my opinion - the options are no DRM, or all DRM and we've seen that all DRM isn't working. Licencing destroys the ability to bargain.
I made no claim in this thread. I asked for the original poster to provide something to backup their claim. The parent posts were short, so your failure to actually read them is a bit baffling.
I love ACs on Slashdot - too gutless to put a name in, too stupid to put an argument forward.
I've been to Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier, and it's not growing. It does advance at about 2m per day (it's the world's fastest glacier) but massive chunks are falling off all the time. It's a spectacular show. The actual glacier is relatively constant in size - as more ice comes in, more ice falls off.
Given that I have first-hand knowledge of one glaring flaw on that site, I have to question the rest of the data.
It's also a well-known fact that the death rate of polar bears has increased.
Should we posit that more polar bears equals a cooler planet? That polar bears are critical to the regulation of temperature around the globe?
You need to show causation, not just correlation. And you didn't show correlation anyway. How often to the poles move about? Does that match the cycle of previous warming/cooling periods? Is there any link whatsoever?
You posit that some glaciers are advancing, but this is unreported.
Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?
I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.
Nice rebuttal of the science. Boy, those 95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change makes the opposite case to the two papers you linked to will feel silly now.
Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.
Until then, maybe we can start planning how to deal with this. Even if you disagree with the cause, the fact remains that we have to be concerned about the result.
I tend to agree that the embargo over Cuba is counter-productive, as greater access to goods and services from the US would undermine the control held by the local government. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
There is a problem with the "no embargo for anyone" model though. South Africa was isolated due to its racist policies, and after some time this had the effect of a major shift there. While the country is no paradise, it has improved greatly.
So I'm left with the question: how can we tell when to embargo, and when not to embargo?
I don't know enough about Cuba to comment on it, but couldn't Stallman be pushing Linux because it undermines control of media? A Linux OS is as open as possible, with source code available to anyone who wants to see it. That means that attempting to control media through Linux can be undone by rewriting parts of the OS.
A proprietry OS can implement DRM directly in the OS, where it's extremely difficult to get rid of.
Given the above, open source is the best software for the people of governments who want to control them.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhere deep in the Dept of Homeland Security, a bored shift worker sits at his desk...
"I think I'll download some music to help me get through the day. One of those funky peer apps should do the trick."
ten minutes later...
"Which folder do I want to share? Um, not the music one, they'll notice the bandwidth. I'll just share this 'secrets' folder. That'll keep the secret."
I think the music industry would love the EU to force Apple to licence FairPlay.
For them, the ability of other companies to sell iPod-playable music would be a complete win. In one fell swoop, they'd have almost total control back.
Imagine - the industry puts a demand for variable pricing starting at $2 for older music and topping out at $5 for just-released music. The alternative is that they'll withdraw the licence to sell music. Apple might stand firm as they've done in the past, but they now depend on every other FairPlay licencee standing just as firm. If they stand together, the industry will be forced back to the table. If a single one caves in, the industry will have found the weakness they need to gain the upper hand. Suddenly that company gets all the music to sell, and companies who stood with Apple lose their contract.
Licencing FairPlay is the worst possible outcome for consumers. It hands control to the music industry, maintains DRM and weakens any other attempts to change the online sales models. Consumers have been well served by Apple having strong control and keeping prices lower.
The only point to criticise Apple on is their failure to sell music without DRM. I don't know if they'd want to do that on a band by band basis (might be difficult to manage) but they should be able to do this by label. I've heard rumours that the music industry might have forced a condition on Apple that every song must have DRM. If that's true, then it's a sad thing.
Apple should strongly resist any attempt to licence the ability to sell FairPlay tracks.
There may be a case to make that FairPlay should have a playback-only licence. That is, only Apple can sell the music, but you can play it on any licenced player. That situation would be diametrically opposed to Apple's mission here - to sell iPods. Even allowing other companies to sell music for the iPod maintains their basic goals, but allowing iTMS purchases to play on other players undermines Apple's business.
Lastly, if the solution to the EU's issue is licencing, will the EU dictate the terms Apple must licence on? Will they oversee the negotiations? Will any changes only be binding to the EU iTMS? What if negotiations break down - will Apple be forced to negotiate against its own interests? The EU have raised a number of issues for which they're not putting forward any solutions. "Something must be done!" is always a handy vote-winner, but the real progress comes from the usually unsaid part - "... and this is the workable solution I've come up with."
Furthermore, wtf is a Mac sysadmin anyway?
What is a Mac sysadmin? I'd have thought someone who manages a bunch of Macs. Just like a Windows sysadmin manages a bunch of Windows boxes, or a Unix sysadmin manages a bunch of Unix boxes. Seems like a common usage of the term 'sysadmin' to me - I can't see how it confuses you.
OSX is a system for consumers and the occasional designer. Do you have a crack team of sysadmins managing your iPod?
Wait a minute! I'm responding to some trolling!
Computers have moved to a point where different people use them for wildly different purposes. As such, you simply can't have "top X products" for an entire OS.
This wasn't a list of the top 22 products for the entire OS. It was a list of 22 products this guy finds indispensible.
I could easily make a similar list for OS X or Windows, based on what I use and the needs of my work. I'd include dev tools and DBMS packages, plus a couple of casual games for relaxing. It wouldn't apply to many other people, but I'm certain you could easily pick 20 apps you find useful.
If on Mac it's not the same, it's that much sadder.
No, you're missing the point. It's not sad. It's just a list of stuff that this guy likes. Don't take it as some sort of inditement on Macs or list that we all must follow. It's just a list.
This is a short term special, not the permanent price.
Rest assured, the rest of the world pays through the nose for US-developed software and hardware. You're absolutely not subsidising us.
Globally policed Humans, with roaming execution squads to punish any infraction with death, so as to delay the final end of the Human race.
...
Sounds like a good policy for a happier future!
Is that you Mr Bush?
Ah, but thankfully coal power plants grow natually out of forests, using no resources at all! Nuclear power plants are really a form of grass, and have a massive benefit to the environment. Deer run the stations too. It's all part of nature, beautiful in its way.
If you're going to criticise construction of one form of power plant, remember that all the others have to be built as well. What's the initial and ongoing impact?
Nice use of the term "McMansion" and inventing a "fleet of SUV's and planes" I guess from your baby-seal slaughtering factory that produces nuclear waste and tests it in the eyes of kittens and orphans you're free to make stuff up! It's fun to invent information that demonises others, isn't it!
Apple is a monopolist you said. But you also said Apple has a small marketshare.
Those two statements contradict each other. Which is it? Do they control the desktop market or not?
Are you one of those foolish people who define Apple's monopoly as being on Apple products? I've never seen anyone make a good argument there, it's just spite. Does Ford have a monopoly on Ford cars? Does GE have a monopoly of GE light bulbs? Is using the word "monopoly" even sensible here?
Of course not. It's a trivial thing, meaningless in every legal sense.
As I said earlier, you can fairly criticise Apple for their lack of hardware competition (although it's another foolish claim given that they're a hardware company) but calling them a monopoly is just plain nonsense.
That's what I'm disputing, and you've not provided anything to back yourself up. You call monopoly, but you're just wrong on that charge. You get abusive when challenged, still can't back up your points (every fact is "easily checked" - give me five minutes and I'll make Wikipedia agree with me; got any actual sources or is everything just "easily checked"), leading me to think you're just some punk kid without any real business knowledge and only a weak understanding of law.
Give it up Rix. Your monopoly charge doesn't stick.
So you've dropped your claim that "Apple is a far worse monopolist than Microsoft" now. Fair enough, it was a terrible claim anyway.
I don't accept for a second your other claims, but you seem to have an Apple chip on your shoulder anyway so there's no point arguing with you.
Calm down there. All I'm doing is correcting your hyperbole, bringing this weird talk to monopolies back to Earth. Perhaps you might want to learn what the word means before you throw it around?
And Microsoft are more responsible with their market power are they? Then why are they continually being taken to court? I suppose you'd class all the court cases and judgements against them as an anti-Microsoft crusade, impugning all the legal systems involved.
Nice work shifting the debate back and ignoring your own posts. Seems like you've got your own reality plugged into Microsoft's RDF.
You: "They're a horrible monopolist!"
Me: "Provide some justification for this!"
You: "It's too obvious to need justification!"
O... kay. Not a lawyer, are you? You throw around the word "monopoly" but you don't understand it means. Apple restrict the way their stuff can be used, but that doesn't have anything to do with monopolistic practices. You can fairly criticise Apple for their terms of use, but calling them a monopoly is incorrect at every level.
Not at all, but I'd like to see how that makes Apple "... a far worse monopolist than Microsoft."
There is no monopoly at work here. You may consider this unfair, but I don't think it's wrong for a company to control its products.
To compare - Microsoft used its monopoly power to stamp out competitors, was taken to court and convicted of crimes under the anti-trust act. After appeals, the verdict still stands although the punishment seems to have disappeared.
So - can you back up your claim about how terrible a monopolist Apple is?
Great assertion. Nothing to back it up, no shred of logic behind the claim, but hey! It's great to fling stuff like this about!
Apple also grind up live puppies to make iPods. Microsoft shred kittens to make those new Vista boxes, and many Linux kernels are built using slave labour from China.
I've thought this is the case for a little while now, and I'm happy to see other people with the same idea.
The thing that gets me is that Steve Jobs can't say this in any form - it's not good business to call your partner untrustworthy! That means the argument to licence FairPlay has to be made on other merits, which aren't anywhere near as strong as the case that we've put.
Oh well, at least we're in for some interesting times.
How about licensing their version of the DRM to other companies? Is the RIAA preventing that as well?
Of course the RIAA won't prevent that! They would absolutely *love* it if Apple ensured they had complete control over online sales. It would be their greatest dream come true (apart from someone buying about $80M of Mariah Carey albums).
As soon as Apple licences FairPlay, they lose all power to sway the RIAA. The RIAA will claim that DRM works, negotiate with Apple and all FairPlay licencees to up the price or not sell the music. Someone else will cave in, and Apple will have to play along to the RIAA's tune or close the iTMS. They'll have to maintain FairPlay regardless of whether they sell music or not.
Do you want the RIAA to have total control over music sales? Do you trust them?
Apple are saying that there are only two choices - DRM or no DRM. We've seen how successful DRM was in stopping piracy, so there's only the 'no DRM' option left.
I think the original poster was saying that at the moment, power is not in the hands of the RIAA but in the hands of Apple. As soon as Apple licences FairPlay, the power shifts back to the RIAA, as then any company can sell music for the biggest player in town, the iPod.
It's better now to have the power not rest with the RIAA and try to force the end of DRM rather than give them back everything they need to retain full control over the market.
Does Apple have a monopoly on music? Maybe online music, and while I'd argue they don't, it's not straightforward.
Does the RIAA have a monopoly on music? Absolutely. They control almost all music in every sphere of commerce except online sales, where Apple has the upper hand.
Should we give them more power over online sales? Well, given their history of trying to force price increases (variable pricing on iTunes) and extorting money for players sold ($1 per Zune) it's hard to see that giving them even more power is a good thing.
I agree with the other poster - having Apple control FairPlay completely gives them a bigger wedge to open the RIAA up for dropping DRM. Once DRM is gone, the power shifts away from Apple, but not to the RIAA. It goes to all the music stores, who can now compete fairly against the iTunes Music Store and sell songs for the iPod. This would seem against Apple's interests, until you think about the cost of adding DRM to each track, maintaining DRM systems and all that.
Steve Jobs is right in my opinion - the options are no DRM, or all DRM and we've seen that all DRM isn't working. Licencing destroys the ability to bargain.
You missed my point - I wasn't posting about polar bears but about the attempt to link something to global warming without any shred of evidence.
Polar bears were just the first thing tghat came to mind (saw it on a David Attenborough show the other night). I've never posted about them before.
I made no claim in this thread. I asked for the original poster to provide something to backup their claim. The parent posts were short, so your failure to actually read them is a bit baffling.
I love ACs on Slashdot - too gutless to put a name in, too stupid to put an argument forward.
I wish I had checked that site before posting.
I've been to Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier, and it's not growing. It does advance at about 2m per day (it's the world's fastest glacier) but massive chunks are falling off all the time. It's a spectacular show. The actual glacier is relatively constant in size - as more ice comes in, more ice falls off.
Given that I have first-hand knowledge of one glaring flaw on that site, I have to question the rest of the data.
Hey - it's the responsibility of the original poster to put some evidence if they make a claim. Yes, I can't be bothered doing their part for them.
It's also a well-known fact that the death rate of polar bears has increased.
Should we posit that more polar bears equals a cooler planet? That polar bears are critical to the regulation of temperature around the globe?
You need to show causation, not just correlation. And you didn't show correlation anyway. How often to the poles move about? Does that match the cycle of previous warming/cooling periods? Is there any link whatsoever?
You posit that some glaciers are advancing, but this is unreported.
Why do you suspect this? How do you know? Is it likely that there aren't any glaciers advancing?
I've never heard anything to back up your position, so it seems like you're trying to sow some doubt here without any evidence behind you. I'm happy to debate, but you've got to bring something to the table.
Nice rebuttal of the science. Boy, those 95% of scientists who believe the evidence supporting global climate change makes the opposite case to the two papers you linked to will feel silly now.
Come back when you've got scientific consensus on your side.
Until then, maybe we can start planning how to deal with this. Even if you disagree with the cause, the fact remains that we have to be concerned about the result.
I tend to agree that the embargo over Cuba is counter-productive, as greater access to goods and services from the US would undermine the control held by the local government. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
There is a problem with the "no embargo for anyone" model though. South Africa was isolated due to its racist policies, and after some time this had the effect of a major shift there. While the country is no paradise, it has improved greatly.
So I'm left with the question: how can we tell when to embargo, and when not to embargo?
I wish I had an answer.
I don't know enough about Cuba to comment on it, but couldn't Stallman be pushing Linux because it undermines control of media? A Linux OS is as open as possible, with source code available to anyone who wants to see it. That means that attempting to control media through Linux can be undone by rewriting parts of the OS.
A proprietry OS can implement DRM directly in the OS, where it's extremely difficult to get rid of.
Given the above, open source is the best software for the people of governments who want to control them.