The wanker-in-chief Fred Amoroso says:
Quite simply, if the owners of high-value video entertainment are asked to enter, or stay in a digital world that is free of DRM, without protection for their content, then there will be no reason for them to enter, or to stay if they've already entered. The risk will be too great.
Quite simply, this is bullshit. Some of the greatest (sorry, "High value") music and film was produced in an era when there was no DRM. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.
Are we really to believe that people such as these would not pursue their art if there were not DRM? It doesn't even make sense from a hardcore businessperson's point-of-view. If someone stamps their feet and says "Fine, I'm not going to make my brilliant movie because I cannot use DRM," then there is no loss. Someone else with more sense will simply step up to the plate and make their movie instead, and profit from it. To think that one cannot make money on media without DRM is ridiculous. History has shown this. If there is money to made, somebody will do it.
Some will argue that less profit would be made without DRM due to piracy. Even if this were true, less profit does not equal no profit. But various studies have shown that piracy does not affect sales much, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that DRM prevents piracy. In fact, it is more likely that DRM reduces profit, because companies have to pay a "DRM tax" to the ridiculolus companies who make crappy DRM, like Macrovision. It's basically an extra cost that doesn't even prevent piracy.
We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.
Macrovision even think they can do a better job than Apple, and offered to "take responsibility" for Fairplay. This is hilarious. They are obviously jealous of Apple's success, and would love to be given access to Apple's products. Does anyone think that Macrovision could do a better job? Apple is one of the top software producers in the world. Macrovision is a bunch of hacks, a one-trick pony who has made a living from a stupid analog video hack. I doubt they are even competent to write software. We've all seen the kind of shit that bottom-feeding companies like this produce, and it ain't pretty. (think Sony rootkits)
Good to see people in the field questioning 'breakthroughs'.
This is an odd statement, because that's generally what people "in the field" do. The author says this as though it's unusual to see anybody questioning lofty claims. In fact, it's very common. The first slashdot article about this was met mostly with skepticism.
Note: Replying to this post, because I am not getting a "reply" button for the story itself. Anybody else experiencing this bug?
Do not fear! After an unadvised fling with blonde temptress Goldie Gold-digger, DRM Lad develops a nasty cocaine habit and blows all his money on gold-plated copy-protected CDs. Eventually he is found in a ditch choked to death on his own encryption scheme.
Didn't any of you motherfuckers read the title of the parent post? It says to mod it -1 Pedantic, yet you stupid fucking cunts all modded it +1 Insightful. CAN'T YOU EVEN READ??!!? What kind of smegging nerds are you miscreants, anyway?
Yeah ad hominems are fun. Seriously, though, why would anyone waste their time rebutting Ayn Rand? That's an exercise in pointlessness. We have lives to live and better things to do than spend pages rebutting a silly book written by a retarded sociopath.
If a pandemic were to occur, many companies and organizations would ask their staffs to work from home.
"Staff" is already plural. Why would they ask their "staffs" to work from home, unless they were wizards who employed an especially large number of magical sticks?
That's my point. There are a large number of people who live in places where it's not appropriate.
But there are a large number of people who live where it is appropriate. So, what's wrong with doing it there? There are more places that are under-served by public transport than places where it isn't appropriate to have any.
Why so negative?
As for the rest of your post, you need to be realistic if you really want your idea to see the light of day.
How am I not being realistic? Surely, this is the kind of thing that the government should be doing, instead of wasting trillions of dollars on war and corruption? Why is it that people get so outraged when it comes to spending taxes on services that are actually useful and positive, but don't seem to have much outrage when it comes to waste, war and corporate boondoggles? It doesn't make any sense. Public transport is relatively inexpensive, and benefits many people. Why is it treated with such scorn?
You have to be joking. You want mass transit in every city? Do you know how much that would cost?
Less than killing people in Iraq, and it would provide massive benefits to society, unlike the war. Why spend all that money on Iraq, when it could be spent improving the "homeland"?
What about people who need to travel at weird hours? Should they run 24 hours per day?
Why not?
What about people who live in truly rural areas?
Well, if it is not appropriate there, then don't do it.
How many people would have to be on a bus before it's as efficient as that person just driving a car?
Not very many.
Who's going to pay for all of this?
The same people who pay for wars in Iraq and kickbacks to bail out big corporations. It wouldn't cost any extra if you just cut the waste and corruption.
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)?
Sure, why not? That would be kind of cool.
Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences? I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
Who cares? At least some political stories are getting published.
So you take my perception of reality and tell me that I am wrong because I am dumb.
You are wrong because you are wrong. I can only speculate why you hbelieve in such an inaccurate stereotype, but it's definitely wrong. I never said you were dumb. I said you wanted to use stereitypes to feel better about yourself, and to demonize mythical opponents.
The evironmentalists I hear about all want to legislate a solution - forcing treaties, laws, etc. I think any law on the environment makes things worse, not better.
How many environmentalists do you speak to? Or is it all just a media-driven persception?
You are never denied for it (so it does the environment no good at all), but you must spend a few million on it. I want to build rockets. Environmentalists are in my way. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-technology (at least for me).
Sounds more like the government and bureaucrats are in your way.
Ah, but is not the quality of life captured by the property values?
No. For example, America is an expensive place to live, even though the quality of life is much lower than other places. Likewise, living is cities is usually more expensive than living in rural areas, even though quality of life is usually higher in rural areas.
the economy is much smarter than politicians.
Reality shows us that both are pretty damn stupid. Look at the internet bubble for example. The "invisible hand" is too often masturbating to be doing the right thing.
Explain to me that I will not need to spend millions on an environmental assessment for my rocket and then I will believe that environmentalists are not anti-tech. Until then, their actions speak for them.
Uhhh, what? There are very few environmentalists ion government. So, it is not environmentalists who are responsible for those regulations, it is politicians and bureaucrats.
Really, if you don't think they are anti-progress - what do you think the propper action for politicians is? What should Gore do - what laws do you think he should pass?
I think he should create incentives for the conservation of resources, and punish waste. He should teach people how they can make a difference. He should fund research.
If you don't think he should pass any laws, but merely educate, then we agree. But then you would not be an environmental activist, would you?
How so? That doesn't make any sense. Many environmental activists don't believe in government, and take direct action instead.
What I'm really opposing is the mentality that says "global warming is bad! Run for the hills! Blow up everyone's SUV!".
very few people believe that, so why bring this strawman into it? This is something you are putting into people's mouths, because most people who want to do something about global warming are not saying this.
It seems you would rather argue with sensationalism and imaginary people, rather than what the debate is really about.
Could we not do things to mitigate the impacts on areas this would damage, and then help them and enjoy the genuine advantages warming obviously has?
Yet you don't demonstrate any "geniune advantages" from global warming, and basically dismiss the negative consequences.
It seems intuitively that, since (as my fellow poster has said) the temperature increases are mainly in during winter in areas that could use them, global warming would be a definite positive development for humankind.
What's so bad about cold winters?
I suspect that if that was computed, we would find that global warming is more or less a wash overall, and spending trillions of dollars to prevent it would be an enormous waste of resources.
You suspect. I see. Even though you haven't done the computations. I think that increased storm ferocity and the massive wave of refugees from places like Pacific islands would outweigh any marginal benefits from warmer winters. Warmer winters also have a negative impact, because some species like those cold winters.
Anyway, the argument of "trillions of dollars" is a straw-man. It doesn't have to cost ANYTHING to deal with climate change. In fact, smart people could make a PROFIT from it! I really don't understand why people think that being efficient and environmentally conscious is always going to be a cost, and is always opposed to ecdonomic prosperity. There is no evidence of that. In fact, it is quite easy to show how certain measures actuallly save money. Since when did wasting less reources cost more?
Divert a small portion of those resources to buy out the people who will be harmed strikes me as a far better solution than trying to prevent global warming.
Do you think that's even possible? Even if there was the money to do that - it would cost less to avoid the problem in the first place.
Then there's politics. How many people in Western countries do you think would be happy with a sudden influx of refugees from the Pacific and Asia, regardless of how much money there was to pay for it? Those people have to go somewhere - or just drown in the sea. Even quite liberal people often get scared when thinking about the prospect of a massive migration of outsiders.
Yes; it's clearly illegal because it is explicitly against the law.
Which law, and where?
You're not allowed to take that sort of picture of a minor, and under the age of 18 in that state, that's exactly what you are.
What are "those sorts of pictures"? I didn't realize there was a legal definition of "racy." There are pictures that some would consider "racy" of children in swimsuits in various shopping catalogs and advertisements. Are those illegal? What about family photos of kids playing naked? What about art?
There are plenty of other possibilities, but they mostly rely on the law not being as it is.
Laws vary across the country and across the planet. there is no single international law on this matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Being made into coffee sounds less pleasant than being hit with a stick. Oy! The grinding and the scalding and the hot hot hot! Heuven glavin!
Yes, I meant Zonk, the author of the summary.
Quite simply, this is bullshit. Some of the greatest (sorry, "High value") music and film was produced in an era when there was no DRM. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.
Are we really to believe that people such as these would not pursue their art if there were not DRM? It doesn't even make sense from a hardcore businessperson's point-of-view. If someone stamps their feet and says "Fine, I'm not going to make my brilliant movie because I cannot use DRM," then there is no loss. Someone else with more sense will simply step up to the plate and make their movie instead, and profit from it. To think that one cannot make money on media without DRM is ridiculous. History has shown this. If there is money to made, somebody will do it.
Some will argue that less profit would be made without DRM due to piracy. Even if this were true, less profit does not equal no profit. But various studies have shown that piracy does not affect sales much, and nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that DRM prevents piracy. In fact, it is more likely that DRM reduces profit, because companies have to pay a "DRM tax" to the ridiculolus companies who make crappy DRM, like Macrovision. It's basically an extra cost that doesn't even prevent piracy.
We offer to assist Apple in the issues and problems with DRM that you state in your letter. Should you desire, we would also assume responsibility for FairPlay as a part of our evolving DRM offering and enable it to interoperate across other DRMs, thus increasing consumer choice and driving commonality across devices.Macrovision even think they can do a better job than Apple, and offered to "take responsibility" for Fairplay. This is hilarious. They are obviously jealous of Apple's success, and would love to be given access to Apple's products. Does anyone think that Macrovision could do a better job? Apple is one of the top software producers in the world. Macrovision is a bunch of hacks, a one-trick pony who has made a living from a stupid analog video hack. I doubt they are even competent to write software. We've all seen the kind of shit that bottom-feeding companies like this produce, and it ain't pretty. (think Sony rootkits)
This is an odd statement, because that's generally what people "in the field" do. The author says this as though it's unusual to see anybody questioning lofty claims. In fact, it's very common. The first slashdot article about this was met mostly with skepticism.
Note: Replying to this post, because I am not getting a "reply" button for the story itself. Anybody else experiencing this bug?
I don't care, as long as it runs Qbert.
The Jolly Roger.
What the hell is that snake with the raised eyebrows doing in the background? And why is Captain Copyright raising his eyebrows back at the snake?
Do not fear! After an unadvised fling with blonde temptress Goldie Gold-digger, DRM Lad develops a nasty cocaine habit and blows all his money on gold-plated copy-protected CDs. Eventually he is found in a ditch choked to death on his own encryption scheme.
Didn't any of you motherfuckers read the title of the parent post? It says to mod it -1 Pedantic, yet you stupid fucking cunts all modded it +1 Insightful. CAN'T YOU EVEN READ??!!? What kind of smegging nerds are you miscreants, anyway?
How you would define "social networking" has no bearing on what the law says or how courts would interpret it.
Yeah ad hominems are fun. Seriously, though, why would anyone waste their time rebutting Ayn Rand? That's an exercise in pointlessness. We have lives to live and better things to do than spend pages rebutting a silly book written by a retarded sociopath.
Why would one need a few pages for rebuttal? The entire rebuttal could be contained in a single sentence:
Ayn Rand wrote it.
"Staff" is already plural. Why would they ask their "staffs" to work from home, unless they were wizards who employed an especially large number of magical sticks?
4'33" compresses you!
But there are a large number of people who live where it is appropriate. So, what's wrong with doing it there? There are more places that are under-served by public transport than places where it isn't appropriate to have any.
Why so negative?
As for the rest of your post, you need to be realistic if you really want your idea to see the light of day.How am I not being realistic? Surely, this is the kind of thing that the government should be doing, instead of wasting trillions of dollars on war and corruption? Why is it that people get so outraged when it comes to spending taxes on services that are actually useful and positive, but don't seem to have much outrage when it comes to waste, war and corporate boondoggles? It doesn't make any sense. Public transport is relatively inexpensive, and benefits many people. Why is it treated with such scorn?
Less than killing people in Iraq, and it would provide massive benefits to society, unlike the war. Why spend all that money on Iraq, when it could be spent improving the "homeland"?
What about people who need to travel at weird hours? Should they run 24 hours per day?Why not?
What about people who live in truly rural areas?Well, if it is not appropriate there, then don't do it.
How many people would have to be on a bus before it's as efficient as that person just driving a car?Not very many.
Who's going to pay for all of this?The same people who pay for wars in Iraq and kickbacks to bail out big corporations. It wouldn't cost any extra if you just cut the waste and corruption.
So, fucking install nice mass transit everywhere. It doesn't take a genius. Just not being retarded, as some people apparently are.
Somehow I don't think a transvestite performer has much chance for president.
Sure, why not? That would be kind of cool.
Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences? I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?Who cares? At least some political stories are getting published.
You are wrong because you are wrong. I can only speculate why you hbelieve in such an inaccurate stereotype, but it's definitely wrong. I never said you were dumb. I said you wanted to use stereitypes to feel better about yourself, and to demonize mythical opponents.
The evironmentalists I hear about all want to legislate a solution - forcing treaties, laws, etc. I think any law on the environment makes things worse, not better.How many environmentalists do you speak to? Or is it all just a media-driven persception?
You are never denied for it (so it does the environment no good at all), but you must spend a few million on it. I want to build rockets. Environmentalists are in my way. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-technology (at least for me).Sounds more like the government and bureaucrats are in your way.
Ah, but is not the quality of life captured by the property values?No. For example, America is an expensive place to live, even though the quality of life is much lower than other places. Likewise, living is cities is usually more expensive than living in rural areas, even though quality of life is usually higher in rural areas.
the economy is much smarter than politicians.Reality shows us that both are pretty damn stupid. Look at the internet bubble for example. The "invisible hand" is too often masturbating to be doing the right thing.
Explain to me that I will not need to spend millions on an environmental assessment for my rocket and then I will believe that environmentalists are not anti-tech. Until then, their actions speak for them.Uhhh, what? There are very few environmentalists ion government. So, it is not environmentalists who are responsible for those regulations, it is politicians and bureaucrats.
Really, if you don't think they are anti-progress - what do you think the propper action for politicians is? What should Gore do - what laws do you think he should pass?I think he should create incentives for the conservation of resources, and punish waste. He should teach people how they can make a difference. He should fund research.
If you don't think he should pass any laws, but merely educate, then we agree. But then you would not be an environmental activist, would you?How so? That doesn't make any sense. Many environmental activists don't believe in government, and take direct action instead.
No, I outsource production to the slashdot servers.
A series of tubes. Definitely not a dumptruck.
Goodnight!
very few people believe that, so why bring this strawman into it? This is something you are putting into people's mouths, because most people who want to do something about global warming are not saying this.
It seems you would rather argue with sensationalism and imaginary people, rather than what the debate is really about.
Could we not do things to mitigate the impacts on areas this would damage, and then help them and enjoy the genuine advantages warming obviously has?Yet you don't demonstrate any "geniune advantages" from global warming, and basically dismiss the negative consequences.
It seems intuitively that, since (as my fellow poster has said) the temperature increases are mainly in during winter in areas that could use them, global warming would be a definite positive development for humankind.What's so bad about cold winters?
I suspect that if that was computed, we would find that global warming is more or less a wash overall, and spending trillions of dollars to prevent it would be an enormous waste of resources.You suspect. I see. Even though you haven't done the computations. I think that increased storm ferocity and the massive wave of refugees from places like Pacific islands would outweigh any marginal benefits from warmer winters. Warmer winters also have a negative impact, because some species like those cold winters.
Anyway, the argument of "trillions of dollars" is a straw-man. It doesn't have to cost ANYTHING to deal with climate change. In fact, smart people could make a PROFIT from it! I really don't understand why people think that being efficient and environmentally conscious is always going to be a cost, and is always opposed to ecdonomic prosperity. There is no evidence of that. In fact, it is quite easy to show how certain measures actuallly save money. Since when did wasting less reources cost more?
Divert a small portion of those resources to buy out the people who will be harmed strikes me as a far better solution than trying to prevent global warming.Do you think that's even possible? Even if there was the money to do that - it would cost less to avoid the problem in the first place.
Then there's politics. How many people in Western countries do you think would be happy with a sudden influx of refugees from the Pacific and Asia, regardless of how much money there was to pay for it? Those people have to go somewhere - or just drown in the sea. Even quite liberal people often get scared when thinking about the prospect of a massive migration of outsiders.
Which law, and where?
You're not allowed to take that sort of picture of a minor, and under the age of 18 in that state, that's exactly what you are.What are "those sorts of pictures"? I didn't realize there was a legal definition of "racy." There are pictures that some would consider "racy" of children in swimsuits in various shopping catalogs and advertisements. Are those illegal? What about family photos of kids playing naked? What about art?
There are plenty of other possibilities, but they mostly rely on the law not being as it is.Laws vary across the country and across the planet. there is no single international law on this matter.