That isn't at all what copyright means. Copyright regulates distribution, not use. If I buy a record, I do not have the right to make bootleg copies of it and hand them out or sell them. If I buy a book, I can't photocopy all the pages and staple them together and hand them out, or type it all into a text file and upload it onto my website. The copyright holder can, and can grant the right to do so. Before you accuse people of not understanding copyright law, you might want to know the definition of copyright.
The concept of fair use is mostly separate from copyright, because it is use and not distribution. If I buy a record and make a tape recording (or a digital one) so that I can listen to it on a portable player, copyright law has nothing to say about it because I'm not distributing it. If I buy a book and type all the content into a text file so I can read it on my laptop, that's fine.
The two areas come into conflict mostly due to the DMCA. Until this law came into force in the US, and its sibling pieces of legislation in other countries, DRM was annoying, as it inhibited place-shifting (fair use), but easily circumvented. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent copy protection, so that, in theory, a person could be prosecuted for removing DRM in order to use a digital file on a portable player different from the intended one. In practice, it allows manufacturers of printers to sue manufacturers of replacement cartridges.
Anyway, I mostly just wanted to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. I can't tell if you're joking.
I find it much easier just to drag and drop the albums I want onto the iPod in the source list in iTunes. It's not any more difficult. It can update automatically as well, if your iPod has more space than your library takes up.
Also, because it builds a library file for the iPod, the interface is better IMHO, since it can preserve playlists and is searchable by artist, album, song title or genre.
Yeah, but they will only be dispatched to computers that are already infected and won't do anything unless the exploit tries to delete them, at which point they will activate a firewall that blocks TCP ports with numbers over 200.
You don't have to use iTunes, as a 10 second google search would reveal.
It doesn't have to do that stupid conversion, it's a checkbox you can uncheck. It does it to conserve space on the iPod. If you're listening through those shitty headphones, you're better off downsampling.
You can't just drag mp3s onto it because the interface depends on building a library file. If it didn't, that would adversely effect seek times and battery life.
It's also trivial to copy music off to another computer. Google.
Not that you should get one. Just enlightening you.
NeoOffice is slower on my MacBook than OpenOffice was on my pentium 3 450 MHz. I only use it because everyone at my university makes fliers in Word and e-mails them out.
Show me an article where MS is literally blocking anyone else from making security software for Vista. It looks to me like they're finally making their own.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not doing something anticompetitive, they're doing something competitive.
"Second, if you encode it again with AAC with the same settings, then the quality does not go down but remains the same."
That isn't true.
That isn't at all what copyright means. Copyright regulates distribution, not use. If I buy a record, I do not have the right to make bootleg copies of it and hand them out or sell them. If I buy a book, I can't photocopy all the pages and staple them together and hand them out, or type it all into a text file and upload it onto my website. The copyright holder can, and can grant the right to do so. Before you accuse people of not understanding copyright law, you might want to know the definition of copyright.
The concept of fair use is mostly separate from copyright, because it is use and not distribution. If I buy a record and make a tape recording (or a digital one) so that I can listen to it on a portable player, copyright law has nothing to say about it because I'm not distributing it. If I buy a book and type all the content into a text file so I can read it on my laptop, that's fine.
The two areas come into conflict mostly due to the DMCA. Until this law came into force in the US, and its sibling pieces of legislation in other countries, DRM was annoying, as it inhibited place-shifting (fair use), but easily circumvented. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent copy protection, so that, in theory, a person could be prosecuted for removing DRM in order to use a digital file on a portable player different from the intended one. In practice, it allows manufacturers of printers to sue manufacturers of replacement cartridges.
Anyway, I mostly just wanted to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. I can't tell if you're joking.
Me too, I love compression artifacts.
I find it much easier just to drag and drop the albums I want onto the iPod in the source list in iTunes. It's not any more difficult. It can update automatically as well, if your iPod has more space than your library takes up. Also, because it builds a library file for the iPod, the interface is better IMHO, since it can preserve playlists and is searchable by artist, album, song title or genre.
Yeah, because the only reason anyone buys an iPod is to play iTunes DRM music. That must be why nobody bought an iPod before the ITMS.
Doesn't the audio get captured in its lossy state, then recompressed? That would be a quality loss whether or not there was an analog conversion.
Yeah, since it plays on an iPod.
-1, Negates purpose for existence.
What if you have a slot-load optical drive, like, oh, all Mac owners (except the desktop powermacs and pre-2001 machines)?
-1, Can't spell.
Yeah, but they will only be dispatched to computers that are already infected and won't do anything unless the exploit tries to delete them, at which point they will activate a firewall that blocks TCP ports with numbers over 200.
A brazilion studies show...
Ok, but how about in the rest of the world?
Yeah, but if its security model works the way it's supposed to, you get complaining users instead of security being compromised.
It's actually The Dalles. Thedallesians get mad when you forget the "the." (Although I have no idea if they like being called "Thedallesians.")
You don't have to use iTunes, as a 10 second google search would reveal.
It doesn't have to do that stupid conversion, it's a checkbox you can uncheck. It does it to conserve space on the iPod. If you're listening through those shitty headphones, you're better off downsampling.
You can't just drag mp3s onto it because the interface depends on building a library file. If it didn't, that would adversely effect seek times and battery life.
It's also trivial to copy music off to another computer. Google.
Not that you should get one. Just enlightening you.
You think time zones are ridiculous concept?
Does someone need to draw you a Venn diagram?
NeoOffice is slower on my MacBook than OpenOffice was on my pentium 3 450 MHz. I only use it because everyone at my university makes fliers in Word and e-mails them out.
Yeah, but everyone knows that Reagan funded ruby back in the 80s.
i'd like to see multiple vendors support documented, open file formats
I'd like to see OpenOffice and KOffice make compatible ODF files.
in Vista, MS is making it impossible or really hard to install another virus/spyware/firewall tool.
Link? (I'm curious, not doubting you.)
Show me an article where MS is literally blocking anyone else from making security software for Vista. It looks to me like they're finally making their own.
I think the AV business should be allowed to compete.
So, let them compete. With history as a guide, do you really think MS's AV software will be good enough to replace all AV products on the market?
I always marvel at the people who think the only way to preserve a free market is for the government to intervene in it.
Hear, hear! Mod parent up.