The same problem can happen without DRM. I can't figure out how to get my LPs into my CD player, for example, and even if I did get them in, I suspect they would not work.
While meant as a joke, there is a serious point to that remark. The typical consumer will be comparing DRM'ed media to physical media, like CDs or books or DVDs, not to computer files. When you compare, say, an audio book to a physical book, or an iTunes album on an iPod to a physical CD, they come out pretty similar.
The use of DRMs does not quite apply to your example. The difference here is that DRMs are placed on a format which is already universally playable on all MP3 players: the MP3. The use of DRM breaks this theoretical compatibility.
So to take your example: imagine you go to a store, and buy a CD. Only that CD does not work with your player, it only works with a player manufactured by certain companies. You go to buy another CD, and that one is only compatible with completely different players. The CDs all follow the exact same algorithms in terms of audio storage, but a lack of cooperation with these media giants makes your life as the consumer rather difficult.
If the music companies stopped calling it an "MP3" file, then it wouldn't be misleading anymore. Then your example of the LP would apply. But right now, there's this idea that these DRM-MP3s are the same as regular MP3s. They are not. They do not abide by the MP3 standard and are in large part unplayable in MP3 players. But of course, no music vendor wants to admit that what they release isn't a "real" MP3, as then no one would go for their product.
I used MP3 as an example here, but the case remains true for all other applications of DRMs to pre-existing universally known formats.
For Firewall's iPod contraption, the way I understood it was that he converted the electrical signals of the fax scan-thingie into analog audio output, and recording that into the iPod.
Or maybe my mind was just trying to make up for the movie's shortcomings. That said, props for the movie's faint realism in handling the initial 1337 haxor attack onto the bank's systems. To stop this attack, Harrison Ford's character makes a rule in iptables to block the hacker's IP (you see him typing away on a terminal in the movie.) Meanwhile, the dedicated network security bloke acts as if that's a solution only a 1337 genious could come up with.
I guess this kind of irony is lost upon the movie's audience.
Wherever you'll see exchange of copyright properties without labels getting money, you'll see lawsuits like this. First they went after P2P, now video sites... but what's next? What's the next logical step? Google Video I'm sure is in the immediate future, but I mean more along the lines of the conceptually different.
Farewell indeed.
I will definitively miss his televised antics, and the world will miss the good he did for the betterment of understanding the natural world.
If they keep on publicly infringe copyrights to make their movie, they'll have a tough time releasing a "Part Two."
The film itself is entertaining, but features a crapload of unlicensed music, footage from "The Day After Tomorrow", none of which are integral to getting the story through. Therefore, it would not likely qualify as fair-use/fair-dealings/national-equivalent. Theatres wouldn't be allowed to play this, even though its free. Distributors wouldn't be allowed to touch this either.
It's tough doing a documentary that doesn't infringe on these copyrights. Very tough. It also brings up a whole sleuth of new issues as well, such as how do you deal with people that release stuff for free? I like Creative Commons as an answer to that, but most labels tend not to. Plus, even the CC has its limits when you do stuff for free (not allowed to participate in paying film festivals in some cases.)
Anywho, if you want a different perspective on the issue, check out the following: www.piracydocumentary.com
Also being pre-/released for free. The completed product is expected to be out in December.
I found it unfortunate that they didn't dwell into the fact that PC Gamer US has a british counterpart.
To be honest, I used to be a great fan of PC Gamer US: a great thick volume of gaming information released each month. But in and about 2001, they drastically cut down their page count (from 200+ to sometimes 50-ish.) That didn't matter all that much. What did bother me, however, is when the editorial staff started producing reviews that reflected more personal taste for advanced graphics and action than the game content. Oh - and they stuck with releasing CDs each issue (why even bother? they can barely hold one demo these days.)
PC Gamer UK I discovered was far superior. The pages were not dedicated each issue to yet-another WW2 shooter; and the reviews were what I considered more balanced and in-depth. It also came with a bonafide DVD, though that wasn't the main selling point for me (reviewer integrity is way more important). Unfortunately though, the cost of obtaining this UK mag is twice that of PCG USA.
Andy Mahood's reviews and finding out the latest on TheVede's misfortunes are the only reasons I still sometimes check out the US version.
Does this not go against the most fundamental rule of designing good encryption and good security systems? That is to say, expose the inner-workings of the system to public scrutiny? Or are they afraid that this could open up their devices to competitors?
DRM. Is it about protecting music, or is it about preventing competition?
Yes, but likewise you don't hear about Germany applying pressures to the USA for copyright extensions. Though they might be worse nationally, the extention propositions have always come from internal corporate lobbying pressures; and not a sense to "catch up with the rest of the world."
It's sad really, as its meant the death of one of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements: the public domain. I equate it to the extermination of public libraries; sacrificing the bettering of society for the sake of saturating the corporate coffers. Of course, when politicians in charge of copyright reforms in the US are themselves bribed (via election funds) $300,000 by entertainment conglomerates, how can we expect any differently.
I'm not saying that corporate concerns should have no say in law-making; I'm saying that the laws that are being designed right now should have more of a balance.
And the first people to make use of this will be the: pr0n industry.
Thanks to this new detail in pictures, people will now:
1 - See incision marks on the boobs of those that upped their racks to Alpha-Double-Omega size.
2 - Reveal that the lip job ain't so much a lip job, but more of an infection.
3 - Realise that the hot chicks portal they were surfing all this time, was actually a drag queen sex site.
And the first people to regret making use of this technology will be the: pr0n industry.
Adaware
Audacity
AutoGK (DVD --> AVI)
AviSynth (Handy for AVI manipulation)
Azureus
Cain & Abel
Cygwin
Daemon Tools (Virtual optical drive)
DVD Decrypter
DVD Santa (AVI --> DVD)
DVD Shrink (9GB DVD --> 5GB DVD)
Ethereal
Firefox
FlashFXP
Foobar2000
GAIM
Hydra IRC
Kerio Personal Firewall
K-Lite Codec Pack/Matroska Pack
Media Player Classic
Netstumbler
Nero Burning ROM
Nmap
NVU (open-source Dreamweaver-like app)
OpenOffice
PHOTOSHOP!!!
Putty
Quicktime Alternative
Quintessential Player (drop winamp)
Rad Video Tools (Great for crossencoding video)
Real Alternative
Spybot S&D
TagScanner (lists MP3s)
Thunderbird Mail
Trillian (Shaft it as you will, I like it)
UltraVNC
Virtualdub
VLC
WinRAR
Pull the $6,600 back out. If they complain, say you tried, they didn't want it.
If only the world could work that way. They call Homelan security if you do pay, they call the FBI if you don't.
1. Bi-directional Firewall. Full disk encryption. Security.
Anyone reading PCWorld should not be simply relying on Windows XP SP2's firewall. They should have already installed something like ZoneAlarm or Kerio - which are bidirectional firewalls. There goes that reason out. As for the full disk encryption: wait until a user forgets their password. There goes all their files. Apart from that, I expect to see a full list of exploits for Vista the first week its out.
2. IE7
Firefox. Does everything IE7 does, and then some. And what self-respecting person uses IE exclusively, except to check for compatibility when doing webdesign. There goes that reason.
3. Eye Candy
Although looks do play a role, it shouldn't be the defining factor for any heavy computer user (PCWorld crowd again). Plus, with the uxtheme.dll hack and custom themes, WinXP looks pretty damn good already. Plus, did you see the specs required to even run that eye candy? There goes all the regular computer crowd too.
4. Desktop Search
Current users (can) already have Google Desktop. It's very nice for Vista to incorporate these things, but I don't see it as a compelling reason for current XP users to switch. Especially with the compatibility issues that these users will face.
5. Non-IE dependant Update system
Already in XP, innit?
6. Better Windows Media Player
With XP, one can already run Quintessential Player, Winamp, Foobar... Media Player Classic, VLC, etc. Again, not a compelling reason for me to switch. Plus, I doubt that the new WMP will be able to let me switch dub streams, or select fonts for my anime subs. Features already supported by its competitiors. Again - no reason for me to switch.
7. Parental Controls
Finally, a potentially compelling reason. If I was a parent. And if I wasn't so very much against webfiltering. And if my kid weren't able to root my box in 30 seconds flat.
8. Better Backups
We're talking about a home desktop program here. I do backups, but I'm content with what I have. Namely, Nero. Nero lets me choose what to backup. I could see the use of this in a server environment; but not with a desktop environment where what you need to backup changes location every week.
9. P2P Collaboration
I prefer chalkboards. If I need to share files, I can do that already. If I need to share desktops, I use VNC.
10. Shorter install time
Yes, because a shorter install time (for something that's done once in an OS' lifetime) is truly a compelling reason to switch.
Now I'm glad that the author gave us these reasons. Because if this is the best he can come up with, I really see no reason to switch. Other than the fact that they're going to purposefully break apps to not work in XP (Halo2). And the reasons not to go with Vista? The author considers the fact that they didn't implement some new apparently confusing ideas (virtual folders) as being a reason not to go for it. Logically, that makes little sense; but such statements makes me wonder if the author is a payed worker by MS.
And what about the whole DRM issues and OPM ordeal? How MS Vista will refuse to play some high-resolution videos on your computer if it doesn't like your monitor, or if you don't have a certain (as of yet unreleased) video card. Or program compatibility with pre-Vista software, since this OS was written from scratch? What about those, truly compelling reasons?
To be honest, I can see alot of the ideas as being good for complete computer noobs. Those that don't patch their computers, don't install firewalls, and use IE exclusively. For them, there are some good reasons. After all, they'll never do anything that will hit DRM restrictions (unless they implement DRM for wordprocessors... Actually, that was implemented in Word 2003 wasn't it... I spoke too fast). But the grandpas and grandmas and the computer illiterates, are these the audience of PCWorld?
I'm really dissapointed at the lack of substance of the article. If anything, this was a "suck up to MS" article.
"Due to all the additionnal greenhouse gases created by having 8,000 barges continuously circumventing the oceans, the Alberta professor now suggests to add more barges... to curb the effect on global warming the old ones created."
Honestly, maybe about 1% of my spam contains links or images. The rest use something called "text" to get their spam-riddled message through, and a written address a la "http://www.something.com" (which is parsed anyways). AOL will still let those through. It'll just block images/links (but not written out addresses).
So I say again: how will this stop spam? The only thing I can see this do is making it a pain for non-profit entities to send mailing lists (schools, charities, orchestras, etc.), and making a quick buck of legitimate companies who want to send legitimate messages to subscribers.
Don't get me wrong: I'm 100% against spam. I just don't think this is an effective manner in any way to stop it. If anything, I'd say its just a means to make a quick, dirty, buck.
Nah, they'll just sue the company they got to make copies for them. They'll call it a "mega piracy bust" or something, and say that they found 30 DVD replicators inside and some pirated goods... namely this one "This Film is Not Yet Rated" documentary.
They didn't have to do this, and one wonders why they did. There is already a perfectly good Open Source, Open Standard DRM system; Project DReaM:
This isn't meant to troll - but out of curiosity.
If a DRM system is open-source, then doesn't it defeat the very purpose of DRM? To assign limitations to content? Because it seems to me like using the source, one could just write software to ignore the limitations imposed by the DRM; or remove it alltogether.
Personally I really, really, really dislike TPMs and DRMs. But it seems like a necessary evil in order to even conduct business with the media content industry. Google swore to do no evil... and is following the mold dictated by the media content industries truly evil? I don't think highly of such moves, but it isn't at the "evil" stage yet. It's a necessary business move.
And what makes you think the human brain is anything more than just algorithms?
The following words "and do not on themselves constitute a self-awareness". Yes we are wired, and thus it can be said that our neurons form basic algorithms. But our self-existence is based upon the massive collection of all these algorithms and processes; not just a single set that is used for body recognition.
These are algorithms, pure and simple, and do not on themselves constitute a self-awareness. Self-awareness would be the robot suddenly talking about wanting beer, and pondering the logistics of whether drinking beer is worth the ensuing short-circuit.
So first they took away our call centers... Then they took away our IT jobs... Now they're taking our priviledge to test dangerous drugs on the poor and destitute?
Microsoft's branch in charge of Office made 11 billion dollars last year. 8 of which was pure profit.
These people don't charge that much because it cost them that much to make, but because they can. This is a business which relies solely on ripping people off for as much as they can. When that's your business dynamic, of course people are going to pirate. Especially those that can't afford the software, be it students or those living in the poorer asian states. I mean the BSA gets most of its piracy loss figures from China/Vietnam, where the pirated software rate is 92/90% respectively. And yet, the software in most case costs more than their annual wages.
Things have been this way for 20 years. And, for 20 years, people have been pirating. It won't stop until they stop.
For Sony to truly regret their acts, they would have to drop DRM alltogether. Who is to blame here: the people who coded this restrictions for our computer (XPC) or the company that wanted those restrictions to begin with? But like the kid who'se afraid of being punished after having done something wrong; Sony is trying to suckup after having all this bad press. They won't drop DRM though. Nothing is going to change, except Sony maybe choosing a different DRM-maker. And because of that, I know they're not repentant.
What was so bad about the days where there were no protections? I mean, hell, even before CD-Rs came along tapes existed then! Yet I don't see the music industry crashing because "too many people shared tapes." And I'm still talking 1:1 burning here, not P2P. Cuz we all know that whether initially DRMed or not, music will still make its way *unmolested* to P2P.
When has DRM on commercial CDs ever worked? Really? When?
Radio died long before the advancement of XM and Sirius.
Taken from The Myth of Media Piracy: [jmcardle.com]
It died when in 1996, the US Federal Communication Commission changed the laws on radio station ownership, removing the limits on how many stations a single company could own. As a consequence, Clear Channel was able to take over station after station. Within a matter of years, it owned 1,200 stations across the United-States; including 247 of the 250 largest radio markets.[1] This severely limited the amount and variety of new music being played on the airwaves. As Touré, a contributing editor to the Rolling Stones put it, "So now if you can't get through Clear Channel, or you can't get through MTV, how does anybody know your record is out?"[2] The fact is, no one can. Furthermore, polls indicated that youths were being turned off by the lack of fresh music on the air.[3]
Radio seemingly play the same 10 songs over and over. It doesn't help that labels like Sony BMG illegally bribed stations to play the tunes they wanted.[4]
These new technologies represent what radio should be: music. Not the worst crap of the 80s/90s repeated every hour. Unfortunately, these technologies either cost money (Sirius), or have to pay such insane royalty fees that they have no choice but to fall in the realm of illegality (Internet Radio). Did you know that an Internet Radio station has to pay $25,000 in royalties every day if it has 10,000 listeners? [5] Traditional radio on the other hand don't have to pay any royalties.
What's supposed to be the logic behind this move? Curb piracy?
And its in that respect that record companies simply don't get it. First of all, they're completely punishing their fans for purchasing their product. After all, how do these CD protections benefit the consumer in any way? The only thing that results is more nuissance for that consumer - thanks to Sony's protection, they aren't able to put the music they bought on an MP3 player for instance. They aren't able to put the MP3s on their computer so that they can listen it from there.
Do they not realise that people use their computers for music these days? Nearly every student I know has some kind of MP3 jukebox set on their machines, where they shift songs between their entire music collection. The companies have been operating on a basis that their products should not be compatible with computers at all, going so far as deceivingly installing these virus-like programs. They think that that will reduce piracy. Fact is: it hasn't, nor will it ever.
As the old addage goes: where there's a will, there's a way. And I've yet to see a CD where its contents could not be ripped. So this does not curb piracy in any way - meanwhile, it makes the CDs less appealing to the fans. Why spend $20 on a product that only half-works? A product that behaves like a computer worm and installs a rootkit?
Piracy doesn't exist because people can do with their CDs as they see fit. It exists because people are getting fooked around by the record industries left, right, and center. Infecting PCs with worms, preventing people to listen to music they legitimately purchased, are hardly steps forward to make the CD format more appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
So to take your example: imagine you go to a store, and buy a CD. Only that CD does not work with your player, it only works with a player manufactured by certain companies. You go to buy another CD, and that one is only compatible with completely different players. The CDs all follow the exact same algorithms in terms of audio storage, but a lack of cooperation with these media giants makes your life as the consumer rather difficult.
If the music companies stopped calling it an "MP3" file, then it wouldn't be misleading anymore. Then your example of the LP would apply. But right now, there's this idea that these DRM-MP3s are the same as regular MP3s. They are not. They do not abide by the MP3 standard and are in large part unplayable in MP3 players. But of course, no music vendor wants to admit that what they release isn't a "real" MP3, as then no one would go for their product.
I used MP3 as an example here, but the case remains true for all other applications of DRMs to pre-existing universally known formats.
For Firewall's iPod contraption, the way I understood it was that he converted the electrical signals of the fax scan-thingie into analog audio output, and recording that into the iPod.
Or maybe my mind was just trying to make up for the movie's shortcomings. That said, props for the movie's faint realism in handling the initial 1337 haxor attack onto the bank's systems. To stop this attack, Harrison Ford's character makes a rule in iptables to block the hacker's IP (you see him typing away on a terminal in the movie.) Meanwhile, the dedicated network security bloke acts as if that's a solution only a 1337 genious could come up with. I guess this kind of irony is lost upon the movie's audience.
Wherever you'll see exchange of copyright properties without labels getting money, you'll see lawsuits like this. First they went after P2P, now video sites... but what's next? What's the next logical step? Google Video I'm sure is in the immediate future, but I mean more along the lines of the conceptually different.
Websites housing lyrics? Oh wait...
Farewell indeed. I will definitively miss his televised antics, and the world will miss the good he did for the betterment of understanding the natural world.
If they keep on publicly infringe copyrights to make their movie, they'll have a tough time releasing a "Part Two."
The film itself is entertaining, but features a crapload of unlicensed music, footage from "The Day After Tomorrow", none of which are integral to getting the story through. Therefore, it would not likely qualify as fair-use/fair-dealings/national-equivalent. Theatres wouldn't be allowed to play this, even though its free. Distributors wouldn't be allowed to touch this either.
It's tough doing a documentary that doesn't infringe on these copyrights. Very tough. It also brings up a whole sleuth of new issues as well, such as how do you deal with people that release stuff for free? I like Creative Commons as an answer to that, but most labels tend not to. Plus, even the CC has its limits when you do stuff for free (not allowed to participate in paying film festivals in some cases.)
Anywho, if you want a different perspective on the issue, check out the following:
www.piracydocumentary.com
Also being pre-/released for free. The completed product is expected to be out in December.
The irony being that releasing full lyrics like that is itself copyright infringement.
I found it unfortunate that they didn't dwell into the fact that PC Gamer US has a british counterpart.
To be honest, I used to be a great fan of PC Gamer US: a great thick volume of gaming information released each month. But in and about 2001, they drastically cut down their page count (from 200+ to sometimes 50-ish.) That didn't matter all that much. What did bother me, however, is when the editorial staff started producing reviews that reflected more personal taste for advanced graphics and action than the game content. Oh - and they stuck with releasing CDs each issue (why even bother? they can barely hold one demo these days.)
PC Gamer UK I discovered was far superior. The pages were not dedicated each issue to yet-another WW2 shooter; and the reviews were what I considered more balanced and in-depth. It also came with a bonafide DVD, though that wasn't the main selling point for me (reviewer integrity is way more important). Unfortunately though, the cost of obtaining this UK mag is twice that of PCG USA.
Andy Mahood's reviews and finding out the latest on TheVede's misfortunes are the only reasons I still sometimes check out the US version.
Fears of revealing trade secrets?
Does this not go against the most fundamental rule of designing good encryption and good security systems? That is to say, expose the inner-workings of the system to public scrutiny? Or are they afraid that this could open up their devices to competitors?
DRM. Is it about protecting music, or is it about preventing competition?
Yes, but likewise you don't hear about Germany applying pressures to the USA for copyright extensions. Though they might be worse nationally, the extention propositions have always come from internal corporate lobbying pressures; and not a sense to "catch up with the rest of the world."
It's sad really, as its meant the death of one of humanity's greatest intellectual achievements: the public domain. I equate it to the extermination of public libraries; sacrificing the bettering of society for the sake of saturating the corporate coffers. Of course, when politicians in charge of copyright reforms in the US are themselves bribed (via election funds) $300,000 by entertainment conglomerates, how can we expect any differently.
I'm not saying that corporate concerns should have no say in law-making; I'm saying that the laws that are being designed right now should have more of a balance.
And the first people to make use of this will be the: pr0n industry.
Thanks to this new detail in pictures, people will now:
1 - See incision marks on the boobs of those that upped their racks to Alpha-Double-Omega size.
2 - Reveal that the lip job ain't so much a lip job, but more of an infection.
3 - Realise that the hot chicks portal they were surfing all this time, was actually a drag queen sex site.
And the first people to regret making use of this technology will be the: pr0n industry.
Adaware Audacity AutoGK (DVD --> AVI) AviSynth (Handy for AVI manipulation) Azureus Cain & Abel Cygwin Daemon Tools (Virtual optical drive) DVD Decrypter DVD Santa (AVI --> DVD) DVD Shrink (9GB DVD --> 5GB DVD) Ethereal Firefox FlashFXP Foobar2000 GAIM Hydra IRC Kerio Personal Firewall K-Lite Codec Pack/Matroska Pack Media Player Classic Netstumbler Nero Burning ROM Nmap NVU (open-source Dreamweaver-like app) OpenOffice PHOTOSHOP!!! Putty Quicktime Alternative Quintessential Player (drop winamp) Rad Video Tools (Great for crossencoding video) Real Alternative Spybot S&D TagScanner (lists MP3s) Thunderbird Mail Trillian (Shaft it as you will, I like it) UltraVNC Virtualdub VLC WinRAR
Pull the $6,600 back out. If they complain, say you tried, they didn't want it. If only the world could work that way. They call Homelan security if you do pay, they call the FBI if you don't.
Let's look at the reasons more closely, shall we?
1. Bi-directional Firewall. Full disk encryption. Security.
Anyone reading PCWorld should not be simply relying on Windows XP SP2's firewall. They should have already installed something like ZoneAlarm or Kerio - which are bidirectional firewalls. There goes that reason out. As for the full disk encryption: wait until a user forgets their password. There goes all their files. Apart from that, I expect to see a full list of exploits for Vista the first week its out.
2. IE7
Firefox. Does everything IE7 does, and then some. And what self-respecting person uses IE exclusively, except to check for compatibility when doing webdesign. There goes that reason.
3. Eye Candy
Although looks do play a role, it shouldn't be the defining factor for any heavy computer user (PCWorld crowd again). Plus, with the uxtheme.dll hack and custom themes, WinXP looks pretty damn good already. Plus, did you see the specs required to even run that eye candy? There goes all the regular computer crowd too.
4. Desktop Search
Current users (can) already have Google Desktop. It's very nice for Vista to incorporate these things, but I don't see it as a compelling reason for current XP users to switch. Especially with the compatibility issues that these users will face.
5. Non-IE dependant Update system
Already in XP, innit?
6. Better Windows Media Player
With XP, one can already run Quintessential Player, Winamp, Foobar... Media Player Classic, VLC, etc. Again, not a compelling reason for me to switch. Plus, I doubt that the new WMP will be able to let me switch dub streams, or select fonts for my anime subs. Features already supported by its competitiors. Again - no reason for me to switch.
7. Parental Controls
Finally, a potentially compelling reason. If I was a parent. And if I wasn't so very much against webfiltering. And if my kid weren't able to root my box in 30 seconds flat.
8. Better Backups
We're talking about a home desktop program here. I do backups, but I'm content with what I have. Namely, Nero. Nero lets me choose what to backup. I could see the use of this in a server environment; but not with a desktop environment where what you need to backup changes location every week.
9. P2P Collaboration
I prefer chalkboards. If I need to share files, I can do that already. If I need to share desktops, I use VNC.
10. Shorter install time
Yes, because a shorter install time (for something that's done once in an OS' lifetime) is truly a compelling reason to switch.
Now I'm glad that the author gave us these reasons. Because if this is the best he can come up with, I really see no reason to switch. Other than the fact that they're going to purposefully break apps to not work in XP (Halo2). And the reasons not to go with Vista? The author considers the fact that they didn't implement some new apparently confusing ideas (virtual folders) as being a reason not to go for it. Logically, that makes little sense; but such statements makes me wonder if the author is a payed worker by MS.
And what about the whole DRM issues and OPM ordeal? How MS Vista will refuse to play some high-resolution videos on your computer if it doesn't like your monitor, or if you don't have a certain (as of yet unreleased) video card. Or program compatibility with pre-Vista software, since this OS was written from scratch? What about those, truly compelling reasons?
To be honest, I can see alot of the ideas as being good for complete computer noobs. Those that don't patch their computers, don't install firewalls, and use IE exclusively. For them, there are some good reasons. After all, they'll never do anything that will hit DRM restrictions (unless they implement DRM for wordprocessors... Actually, that was implemented in Word 2003 wasn't it... I spoke too fast). But the grandpas and grandmas and the computer illiterates, are these the audience of PCWorld?
I'm really dissapointed at the lack of substance of the article. If anything, this was a "suck up to MS" article.
5 Years Later, on Slashdot:
"Due to all the additionnal greenhouse gases created by having 8,000 barges continuously circumventing the oceans, the Alberta professor now suggests to add more barges... to curb the effect on global warming the old ones created."
Honestly, maybe about 1% of my spam contains links or images. The rest use something called "text" to get their spam-riddled message through, and a written address a la "http://www.something.com" (which is parsed anyways). AOL will still let those through. It'll just block images/links (but not written out addresses).
So I say again: how will this stop spam? The only thing I can see this do is making it a pain for non-profit entities to send mailing lists (schools, charities, orchestras, etc.), and making a quick buck of legitimate companies who want to send legitimate messages to subscribers.
Don't get me wrong: I'm 100% against spam. I just don't think this is an effective manner in any way to stop it. If anything, I'd say its just a means to make a quick, dirty, buck.
.... The MPAA will have to sue themselves?
Nah, they'll just sue the company they got to make copies for them. They'll call it a "mega piracy bust" or something, and say that they found 30 DVD replicators inside and some pirated goods... namely this one "This Film is Not Yet Rated" documentary.
They didn't have to do this, and one wonders why they did. There is already a perfectly good Open Source, Open Standard DRM system; Project DReaM:
This isn't meant to troll - but out of curiosity.
If a DRM system is open-source, then doesn't it defeat the very purpose of DRM? To assign limitations to content? Because it seems to me like using the source, one could just write software to ignore the limitations imposed by the DRM; or remove it alltogether.
Personally I really, really, really dislike TPMs and DRMs. But it seems like a necessary evil in order to even conduct business with the media content industry. Google swore to do no evil... and is following the mold dictated by the media content industries truly evil? I don't think highly of such moves, but it isn't at the "evil" stage yet. It's a necessary business move.
"These are algorithms"
And what makes you think the human brain is anything more than just algorithms?
The following words "and do not on themselves constitute a self-awareness". Yes we are wired, and thus it can be said that our neurons form basic algorithms. But our self-existence is based upon the massive collection of all these algorithms and processes; not just a single set that is used for body recognition.
Facial/Body/Robot Recognition != Self-Awareness.
These are algorithms, pure and simple, and do not on themselves constitute a self-awareness. Self-awareness would be the robot suddenly talking about wanting beer, and pondering the logistics of whether drinking beer is worth the ensuing short-circuit.
So first they took away our call centers... Then they took away our IT jobs... Now they're taking our priviledge to test dangerous drugs on the poor and destitute?
Damn you trained and abled Indian workforce!
Microsoft's branch in charge of Office made 11 billion dollars last year. 8 of which was pure profit.
These people don't charge that much because it cost them that much to make, but because they can. This is a business which relies solely on ripping people off for as much as they can. When that's your business dynamic, of course people are going to pirate. Especially those that can't afford the software, be it students or those living in the poorer asian states. I mean the BSA gets most of its piracy loss figures from China/Vietnam, where the pirated software rate is 92/90% respectively. And yet, the software in most case costs more than their annual wages.
Things have been this way for 20 years. And, for 20 years, people have been pirating. It won't stop until they stop.
Sony isn't repentant, you kidding?
For Sony to truly regret their acts, they would have to drop DRM alltogether. Who is to blame here: the people who coded this restrictions for our computer (XPC) or the company that wanted those restrictions to begin with? But like the kid who'se afraid of being punished after having done something wrong; Sony is trying to suckup after having all this bad press. They won't drop DRM though. Nothing is going to change, except Sony maybe choosing a different DRM-maker. And because of that, I know they're not repentant.
What was so bad about the days where there were no protections? I mean, hell, even before CD-Rs came along tapes existed then! Yet I don't see the music industry crashing because "too many people shared tapes." And I'm still talking 1:1 burning here, not P2P. Cuz we all know that whether initially DRMed or not, music will still make its way *unmolested* to P2P.
When has DRM on commercial CDs ever worked? Really? When?
Radio died long before the advancement of XM and Sirius.
_ channel/ i c/interviews/toure.html v =11 - 07-21-radio_x.htm
Taken from The Myth of Media Piracy: [jmcardle.com]
It died when in 1996, the US Federal Communication Commission changed the laws on radio station ownership, removing the limits on how many stations a single company could own. As a consequence, Clear Channel was able to take over station after station. Within a matter of years, it owned 1,200 stations across the United-States; including 247 of the 250 largest radio markets.[1] This severely limited the amount and variety of new music being played on the airwaves. As Touré, a contributing editor to the Rolling Stones put it, "So now if you can't get through Clear Channel, or you can't get through MTV, how does anybody know your record is out?"[2] The fact is, no one can. Furthermore, polls indicated that youths were being turned off by the lack of fresh music on the air.[3]
Radio seemingly play the same 10 songs over and over. It doesn't help that labels like Sony BMG illegally bribed stations to play the tunes they wanted.[4]
These new technologies represent what radio should be: music. Not the worst crap of the 80s/90s repeated every hour. Unfortunately, these technologies either cost money (Sirius), or have to pay such insane royalty fees that they have no choice but to fall in the realm of illegality (Internet Radio). Did you know that an Internet Radio station has to pay $25,000 in royalties every day if it has 10,000 listeners? [5] Traditional radio on the other hand don't have to pay any royalties.
Sources:
1. http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/04/30/clear
2. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/mus
3. http://www.radiodiversity.com/faceofradio.html
4. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050725/music_probe.html?.
5. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2002
net send 192.168.*.* Please Evacuate. Incoming Hurricane.
"Um sir, wasn't that disabled in XP SP2?"
"Crap."
What's supposed to be the logic behind this move? Curb piracy?
And its in that respect that record companies simply don't get it. First of all, they're completely punishing their fans for purchasing their product. After all, how do these CD protections benefit the consumer in any way? The only thing that results is more nuissance for that consumer - thanks to Sony's protection, they aren't able to put the music they bought on an MP3 player for instance. They aren't able to put the MP3s on their computer so that they can listen it from there.
Do they not realise that people use their computers for music these days? Nearly every student I know has some kind of MP3 jukebox set on their machines, where they shift songs between their entire music collection. The companies have been operating on a basis that their products should not be compatible with computers at all, going so far as deceivingly installing these virus-like programs. They think that that will reduce piracy. Fact is: it hasn't, nor will it ever.
As the old addage goes: where there's a will, there's a way. And I've yet to see a CD where its contents could not be ripped. So this does not curb piracy in any way - meanwhile, it makes the CDs less appealing to the fans. Why spend $20 on a product that only half-works? A product that behaves like a computer worm and installs a rootkit?
Piracy doesn't exist because people can do with their CDs as they see fit. It exists because people are getting fooked around by the record industries left, right, and center. Infecting PCs with worms, preventing people to listen to music they legitimately purchased, are hardly steps forward to make the CD format more appealing.
The record labels simply do not get it.