"maybe it was only that MS got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that this retraction has occurred"...
ya think? (Hint: how many times have they retracted a patent application *without getting caught like this...
reminds me of all the crappy pop singers who get caught lip-syncing and *swear that on every other night of their lives they sang for real, it's just that they had a sore throat that day and... etc. etc.
Quite confident that they could buy their way out of any resulting trouble using the money from licenses for the thousands of other patent applications on which they did something like this and did not get detected.
This is just another example of the insane way the music business works
FYP. If you can make any sense out of the notion that you have to get (read: buy) permission to hear song X in each region in which your ears happen to find themselves, you need your head (and prolly ears) examined.
Region-specific DVDs are the more familiar example; did we as a society just decide to surrender completely to that one?
Well, if you listen (it's at the end) it's anything but naive. He predicts the vote would be 5-4 (without naming names) and that they would "hate" doing it but would have to.
I also thought I'd ask: he says this will occur "either in Correly,... or something else". I wonder if anyone hear knows what case Correly (sp?) is and what happened?
I remember Eben Moglen at a panel called "The DMCA and You" confidently asserting that the circumvention clause would be stuck down soon because it so obviously did not fit in with a free society.
audio, partial transcript
"for all the bitching about DRM rarely does anybody have a credible alternative that generalises (so "make money on concerts" doesn't count)."
This is a fascinating statement. "Generalises" how, if I may be so bold as to ask? Do you mean that the credible alternative must guarantee that everyone who's currently getting rich off of pop culture continues to do so? If this is what you mean, then yes: making money on the non-digitizable portion of entertainment goods won't cut it. Many of the established power centers require the status quo to stay in business.
But most people don't think that this is a requirement for "credibility".
Ick, too many vendor sports recently. I understand it's Apple and all, but please. There were half a dozen iPhone stories in the first couple days. Now we've got a story about the negative impact that all those other stories *might have, in some guy's opinion, on the eventual product that we've been speculating about.
Surely someone, somewhere is doing something important. Shuttleworth, I'm looking in your direction...
I don't think it'd be hard to roll DeMuDi or Dyne:bolic into an ubuntu-themed & flavored distro. Both of those are working systems, if not yet sporting the famous Ubuntian ease-of-use.
I'm sorry, but this idea is perfectly keeping with the economics of "content" the way they are presently implemented in this country. That logic is:
-person X derives pleasure from something that owes some share of its existence to person Y -X owes Y (or Y's grandchildren, if dead) a quantifiable amount of money.
The rest is just arguing about how to do the calculation.
We can accept this state of affairs, and allow every device we operate to constantly be calculating how much we owe and to whom, or we can adopt different logic, along the lines of
-person Y offers to perform some service or to transfer some product to X for a quantifiable amount of money -X accepts or declines this offer.
You might say that "intellectual property" could be the product in question, but I answer that this is based on a misunderstanding of the word "transfer", i.e. the product is no longer where it used to be.
We are connected to each other now. You can't undo that. Your "content" is for the most part boring as all hell. Some of us will be downloading it, but no harm -- they weren't planning on paying good money for that crap anyway.
Stop trying to prevent us being connected to each other. It's done.
"Why aren't you opening your factory in Malasia and India and offering them good wages and short working hours?"
Because there is a far better option available: microcredits. Instead of seeing how thoroughly you can pillage the locals, invest in them "for real" while -- amazingly -- empowering them to create actual long-term growth through entrepreneurship.
The best part is that the return on your money is often going to be just as good, with less risk because of the smaller overhead when you don't go 'round building factories.
What actual problems is this causing? 'Cause I look at it pretty much the same way as I look at owning *two (gasp) screwdrivers. Some people even own a torx too.
My complaint is about TFA's general misunderstanding of the purpose of having source code. e.g. another graf:
"Few aspire to being their own full time, unpaid systems integrator, or are at all interested in managing their own mobile lifeline as an experimental technology project. In fact, the majority of people who plunk down $500 for a pocket computer, mobile phone, and media player from Apple will expect it to just work."
This is a standard line against open source software. So one more time: it's not that the Average Joe is suddenly going to decide to become a programmer in order to run his phone. It's not.
It's that the Average Joe can choose from among millions of sources for any programming he needs. Only one of these sources is Joe himself.
"Open development has both benefits and disadvantages. The reason Linux has made so little impact in the desktop market is largely because a fully open system tends to devolve into anarchy. "Who supports what? What version is the standard? Where is the commercial incentive to develop for it? Who makes it all work together in a nicely integrated package, and once that happens, it is still open?"
It's all so confusing?!!? Windows, take me away... !!!!
Some people are going to start wanting computers that they actually have control over. Call these people "zealots" and "fanatics". Associate them with hippies, communists... When conversing with/about them, explain that most people "just want to get their work done, and don't have time for 'religious' issues like this." etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"maybe it was only that MS got caught with their hand in the cookie jar that this retraction has occurred" ...
...
... etc. etc.
ya think? (Hint: how many times have they retracted a patent application *without getting caught like this
reminds me of all the crappy pop singers who get caught lip-syncing and *swear that on every other night of their lives they sang for real, it's just that they had a sore throat that day and
Quite confident that they could buy their way out of any resulting trouble using the money from licenses for the thousands of other patent applications on which they did something like this and did not get detected.
"I told a neighbour recently that I did not use Windows. The reply was "What do use instead? Excel?"
That made my day.
Anyone? I'd love to see a widescale analysis of how much vendor lockin actually costs. When it's this bad I imagine it's disastrous
This is just another example of the insane way the music business works
FYP. If you can make any sense out of the notion that you have to get (read: buy) permission to hear song X in each region in which your ears happen to find themselves, you need your head (and prolly ears) examined.
Region-specific DVDs are the more familiar example; did we as a society just decide to surrender completely to that one?
Well, if you listen (it's at the end) it's anything but naive. He predicts the vote would be 5-4 (without naming names) and that they would "hate" doing it but would have to.
... or something else". I wonder if anyone hear knows what case Correly (sp?) is and what happened?
I also thought I'd ask: he says this will occur "either in Correly,
I remember Eben Moglen at a panel called "The DMCA and You" confidently asserting that the circumvention clause would be stuck down soon because it so obviously did not fit in with a free society.
audio, partial transcript
"for all the bitching about DRM rarely does anybody have a credible alternative that generalises (so "make money on concerts" doesn't count)."
This is a fascinating statement. "Generalises" how, if I may be so bold as to ask? Do you mean that the credible alternative must guarantee that everyone who's currently getting rich off of pop culture continues to do so? If this is what you mean, then yes: making money on the non-digitizable portion of entertainment goods won't cut it. Many of the established power centers require the status quo to stay in business.
But most people don't think that this is a requirement for "credibility".
Ick, too many vendor sports recently. I understand it's Apple and all, but please. There were half a dozen iPhone stories in the first couple days. Now we've got a story about the negative impact that all those other stories *might have, in some guy's opinion, on the eventual product that we've been speculating about.
Surely someone, somewhere is doing something important. Shuttleworth, I'm looking in your direction...
nt at all
FYP
Hot and psychopathic dissociative identity disorder to boot...
I don't think it'd be hard to roll DeMuDi or Dyne:bolic into an ubuntu-themed & flavored distro. Both of those are working systems, if not yet sporting the famous Ubuntian ease-of-use.
I'm sorry, but this idea is perfectly keeping with the economics of "content" the way they are presently implemented in this country. That logic is:
-person X derives pleasure from something that owes some share of its existence to person Y
-X owes Y (or Y's grandchildren, if dead) a quantifiable amount of money.
The rest is just arguing about how to do the calculation.
We can accept this state of affairs, and allow every device we operate to constantly be calculating how much we owe and to whom, or we can adopt different logic, along the lines of
-person Y offers to perform some service or to transfer some product to X for a quantifiable amount of money
-X accepts or declines this offer.
You might say that "intellectual property" could be the product in question, but I answer that this is based on a misunderstanding of the word "transfer", i.e. the product is no longer where it used to be.
We are connected to each other now. You can't undo that. Your "content" is for the most part boring as all hell. Some of us will be downloading it, but no harm -- they weren't planning on paying good money for that crap anyway.
Stop trying to prevent us being connected to each other. It's done.
But not worth it. This must fail.
from now on can we just abbreviate?
TMYTYGTTMSSWSTYF
saves screen space
"Why aren't you opening your factory in Malasia and India and offering them good wages and short working hours?"
Because there is a far better option available: microcredits. Instead of seeing how thoroughly you can pillage the locals, invest in them "for real" while -- amazingly -- empowering them to create actual long-term growth through entrepreneurship.
The best part is that the return on your money is often going to be just as good, with less risk because of the smaller overhead when you don't go 'round building factories.
http://www.ifmr.ac.in/cmf/
IIRC, that Mozart story is mostly legend.
Small point, I know, but it brings up the real one: the problem with DRM is decidedly *not that it "doesn't work".
What actual problems is this causing? 'Cause I look at it pretty much the same way as I look at owning *two (gasp) screwdrivers. Some people even own a torx too.
My complaint is about TFA's general misunderstanding of the purpose of having source code. e.g. another graf:
"Few aspire to being their own full time, unpaid systems integrator, or are at all interested in managing their own mobile lifeline as an experimental technology project. In fact, the majority of people who plunk down $500 for a pocket computer, mobile phone, and media player from Apple will expect it to just work."
This is a standard line against open source software. So one more time: it's not that the Average Joe is suddenly going to decide to become a programmer in order to run his phone. It's not.
It's that the Average Joe can choose from among millions of sources for any programming he needs. Only one of these sources is Joe himself.
"Open development has both benefits and disadvantages. The reason Linux has made so little impact in the desktop market is largely because a fully open system tends to devolve into anarchy.
"Who supports what? What version is the standard? Where is the commercial incentive to develop for it? Who makes it all work together in a nicely integrated package, and once that happens, it is still open?"
It's all so confusing?!!? Windows, take me away... !!!!
"Goggle shows clear evidence of prior art"
Finally, someone giving those bastards at google a run for their money
http://goggle.com/
I'm still an emusic subscriber, but wow ... prolly not for long
Some people are going to start wanting computers that they actually have control over. Call these people "zealots" and "fanatics". Associate them with hippies, communists... When conversing with/about them, explain that most people "just want to get their work done, and don't have time for 'religious' issues like this." etc. etc.