No, the owner has complete control of what to listen to. The owner of the Musak owns the property where it is being played. You have got the wrong "you" here. The customer in a store is not the licensee or customer of the music. the owner of the store is, and they are free to play what they want. You are free not to go to those places. Or you could stick your fingers in your ears, I guess.
The problem is that the Jobs missive simply looks to be a pass-the-buck scenario. Jobs doesn't want to share Fairplay, based on the claim that it's too hard and makes it too insecure.
But what obligation does Apple have to share their DRM? And how can he be "passing the buck," when there is no buck to pass?
Being unwilling to compromise and blaming others for the problem when a reasonable solution exists is not what I call the mark of a reasonable person. Maybe there are
That might be true, if jobs was unwilling to compromise. But that's not true. Jobs opposed DRM from the start, but at the time of establishing the iTunes store, he didn't have enough leverage to get the labels to agree to a non-DRM system. So he negotiated a compromise - he was able to get them to back off on the labels' original demands for the DRM to be more restrictive, and their desire to have a system where they could set prices to be whatever they wanted. Jobs did not get his DRM-free system, but neither did the labels get the DRM system they wanted. The result was an outcome that was better for Apple and consumers - while still not being perfect.
What Jobs did was the very essence of compromise. meanwhile, other online music vendors just caved to the anti-consumer demands of the labels.
Funny, it used to work pretty darn well before DRM-- when I would pay the store, the store would pay the distributor, the distributor would pay the recording company, and the recording company would pay the artist!
That doesn't sound like a system that's "working pretty darn well" to me. Too many middlemen, and the artist getting a tiny fraction of the money, even though they are the creators. Sounds more like a way for a bunch of slack-jawed-yokels to profit from somebody else's creative work.
I don't think anyone here is anti-DRM. In that. DRM just means the artist gets paid for his work.
You must be new here.
The majority opinion on slashdot is that artists don't deserve to get paid for the work, as there should be no such thing as "intellectual property," which is apparently fraud by the state.
You see, artists don't produce any physical goods, or anything of value. So, they should get a job at McDonalds flipping burgers, and release all their music under a Creative Commons license, so everybody can have it for free. The notion of ownership of music is fraudulent, just like software patents.
More importantly, the notion of somebody making money for a creative pursuit is disgusting to the average slashdotter, who is jealous or dismissive of the work that goes into creativity. Programmers should be treated like gods, and any technical work that requires an anal-retentive memory of trivia should be showered with money. Artists should basically be rounded up and shot, because they are a bunch of hippies who know nothing about truly valuable things like C++.
In Norway, one person (the ombudsman) commented that the iTunes store should be illegal. One person. How does this equate to Norway "pounding" on Apple?
Why would Musak be the opposite of open? Muzak was created as a way of not paying licensing fees for "proprietary" closed music, so it could be played anywhere - in public spaces and so forth. If anything, Musak is more open than the music it is inspired by.
Can someone tell me why "racy" pictures of someone under 18 are "clearly illegal"? The writeup doesn't even try to justify this statement or explain it - it is just said as if there can be no other possibility.
I totally agree - technology is the answer. I think most of the people shouting about global warming would disagree though
Why do you think that? Because it makes you feel superior to pretend that people "shouting" about global warming are luddites or something? Show me any evidence of this. The vast majority of environmentalists are pro-technology.
I think what it comes down to is a war between people fighting for stasis and people trying to move forward. The global warming argument is a stasis argument - it is gettting warmer, and any change is inherently bad.
Uhhh, not. It's not that any change is bad - it;s that the effects of global warming will be bad.
Also, your contention that scientists want people to be miserable is totally stupid, and based on a fallacy. It's just as miserable to live in a place that's too hot. Many people LIKE living in cold areas. Why is it that you correlate misery with cold weather? Some of the most horrible places to live in the world are deserts.
but Canadian values increase (like, you know, you can actually live there now...).
Newsflash: you can actually live in Canada now. Several million people do so, and enjoy it. Anyway, what's the big deal about "property values"? Surely quality of life, and sustainability of living is more important than how much a house costs?
My only answer is that this is a new development, and my support for the "fix" for global warming is inversely proportional to the effect it has on the economy.
For starters, it's not a "new" development. Secondly, the economy stands to suffer a lot more if global warming and pollution issues aren't tackled.
Until recently, no one has been paying much attention to that - they just wanted to make all sorts of laws to tell me what I can and can't do.
Utter bullshit. Environmentalists have been talking about the economic value of environmentalism for a couple of decades now, and demonstrating how efficiency and environmentalism improves the economy as well as our lives. Maybe you should have been listening to them, rather than idiots? Most politicians have just been full of shit, because they pump this propaganda (that you seem to believe) that the environment and the economy are naturally opposing forces, that you can't help one without hurting the other. That's what polluters want you to believe, but it's just not true.
Remember WWII? There were massive recycling programmes to provide industry with materials. Farmers grew hemp to make parachutes and rope. Everybody benefited from conservation back then, and it didn't hurt the economy. If it could work in WWII, why can't it work today?
I bought digital music legally many years before 1995. It was on these things called "Compact Discs." Sadly, they weren't very popular, as almost nobody seems to remember them.
Now that Jobs and Co. have control of Apple Records we will see what they do with it,
I predict that Steve Jobs will hold a naked press conference in bed with Yoko Ono. He'll then be shot by a gunman, who turns out to have a copy of the Apple Human Interface Guidelines on his person. When taken into custody and questioned, the gunman will just repeat "Your application will have the same modern, elegant appearance as other Mac OS X applications." over and over again.
Following a period of mourning, Yoko Ono will replace Steve Jobs as CEO. New models of Mac will have the form factor of a single red rose in a glass case, and the startup chime will be Yoko reciting her shopping list continuously in nasal Japanese. Thus demonstrating man's inhumanity towards man. Ringo Starr will launch a new solo album.
When was this mythical time when Microsoft didn't suck? They've never made a good product, and they have always been shady crooks who cared more about market domination than doing good work.
Don't knock it. It works and it might even cause some good things to happen.
I'll knock it if I damn well feel like it. Billboards work, that doesn't mean I have to like billboards. Flamethrowers work too, but I don't think "it works" is a good reason for everybody to start using flamethrowers on each other.
Incidentally, I still think we could use some global warming here in the Northeast. Personally if the temperature was up by 50 or so degrees from where it is today, you would not see me complaining.
You don't seem to understand global warming. Some places will get colder, some places will get warmer. It's about a rise in the global average temperature. It will also lead to more extreme weather patterns. So it's not just a matter of it being a bit warmer, it also means more extreme storms and flooding.
Really, is that any more absurd than halting the world's industrial development in return for colder temperatures that will make the bulk of the industrial world a far worse place to live than it would be if we did nothing?
I'm confused. Who has been advocating halting the world's industrial development in the face of global warming? If anything, global warming will be solved through technology, which will help improve our industrial development, and open up exciting new markets - increasing prosperity and improving our lifestyles.
If anything, it is the polluters who want to halt our industrial development by sticking with outdated technologies and an industrial revolution mindset. We have the potential to be so much more. But neanderthals want us to keep living wasteful lives, so they can make a quick buck from digging up fossil fuels.
Global warming might kill some endangered cold weather species but for every cold weather species that dies there are thousands of warm weather creatures who would thrive and find new homes. Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable?
Are you actually serious? I'm not sure whether your post is as intricate satire of stupid people, or whether it is just stupid.
Only if we create a global system for carbon credit trading,
Carbon credit trading is just a way of allowing certain sectors (coal, for example) to pollute more. It's basically a scam for the energy industry. Put up a few windmills where it's windy, and then sell credits to yourself to allow you to keep running your dirty coal plant closer to cities. Windmills are already profitable on their own, so the net result is a windfall to polluters.
And your old mum is going to spend $400 for an IPhone? Not sure about your mom, but the day my mom wants a phone to check email, take pictures is the day pigs fly; she just wants a phone.
That's about the least funny "your mom" joke I've ever seen.
My choice. No one coerced me. No one held me down and "programmed" me (thus requiring a violent "deprogramming" to get me "out"). No one electro-shocked me. No one drugged me. And no one hypnotised me.
Good for you. But that's not true for everybody. Many other people were lied to and coerced into Scientology. And that's what I have a problem with. Believe all you want, but people who lie and use coercion suck.
Perhaps you may eventually come to realize that some people will not believe as you do, or see the world your way
I do. When did I ever say that everybody believes as I do? In fact, your assumtion that I think this way makes you sound rather holier-than-thou and arrogant. In fact, I think quite the opposite - I'm well aware that my beliefs are not widely held or popular.
Not really. First, they would be careful who they licensed in such a case - bonds posted and so on.
If they were too careful, they would probably be targets of anti-trust litigation. Apple has already been targeted by European countries over their DRM. What if some country threatened legal action if they didn't license their DRM to everybody, or if they were deemed to charge too high a price for it?
Why should it even be Apple's business to get into some licensing mess if they don't want to? Your comment shows just how problematic licensing can be. Why waste time with all that crap, when you could focus on making a better product instead?
Don't start arguing there are no technical solutions, there will be.
That's an assertion with no basis in evidence. Particularly as piracy and licensing are social/political and business issues. Not every social/political or business issue has a technical solution, as much as geeks wish there were.
Whatever the spin, there can be no serious doubt that the point of Fairplay as implemented is to lock in users to a combination of Apple software, the Apple music store and the Apple players
Why can there be no doubt about this? From day one, jobs has been opposed to DRM. If the record labels didn't demand it, it wouldn't exist in iTunes. What is your evidence that Apple wanted DRM in the first place? I doubt that Apple ever expected to have an industry-leading role in this. The success of the iPod surprised everybody, including Apple and their fans.
I've been running Parallels on my Core Duo 2 iMac (2GB RAM). I mostly need parallels for website testing and to use our company's crappy CMS. However, I also run some flight simulators on it that aren't available for Mac.
The performance is pretty astounding. I usually leave a bunch of Mac apps open at the same time - such as FInal Cut Pro, Photoshop, and a handful of smaller apps. The performance of either the Windows or Mac system is not noticeably affected. Both systems run better than many of my colleagues machines running only one of the OSes. It was really quite surprising. Able to switch OSes in seconds, with no noticeable overhead. Very slick.
The best thing is that Windows is way easier to set up, and less painful to run in the VM than it is to run natively. Things like networking and storage devices (which are virtualized) are piss-easy.
Why do you think recycled paper, in the absense of government subsidies, costs so much more than regular paper?
Because logging is effectively subsidized. Logging companies don't pay for the full costs of their operations. If the loggers had to pay for the damage they caused, and didn't keep getting favorable legislation, then non-recycled paper would be more expensive.
There are only two arguably positive things that come from paper recycling. One is reduced landfill space consumption (the importance of which, except in areas of very high population density, is... arguable), and the other is the public relations benefit of being perceived as "green".
No, there's also the benefit of not cutting down trees. Logging leads to soil erosion, destroys animal habitats, can damage water catchments, and takes away important carbon sinks.
Also, the logs have to be transported great distances on trucks. Paper recycling plants can be placed in urban areas closer to where the paper is consumed - saving costs and reducing pollution and fuel consumption.
I suggest you take a drive to your local dump, and start sorting through it for recyclable items.
I didn't say all of it. But it would be possible if humans actually cared enough to put any effort into sustainable energy. Why do you think it's not possible?
Yeah, good luck generating all the world's electricity from solar and wind. Let me know when you've finished that up...
I didn't say all of it. But it would be possible if humans actually cared enough to put any effort into sustainable energy. Why do you think it's not possible?
Why the defeatist attitude? Humans have done many things that were deemed impossible only a short time ago. Like flying, or reaching the moon, or transmitting messages invisibly through the air. Solar and wind power are proven to work, we just lack the will to implement it properly. In many ways, powering everything from sustainable sources is much less "far out" than travelling into space was considered a short time ago. I guess we shouldn't bother trying, because you don't think it's possible?
As opposed to the 2-stroke engine in smaller, cheaper generators?
In don't know, quite possibly. The point is that smaller generators are generally more polluting and less efficient. Being a diesel, and using waste-generated fuel, it probably generates more particulate pollution than your 2-stroke, but saves some fossil fuel and gets rid of some waste.
But in general, small generators suck, which is why they are only used for emergency and other limited applications.
No, for that, you'll have a centralized power plant outside the local dump, with all the pollution controls of any other power plant.
But you'd probably do better by recycling the waste to create other materials, and using sources such as solar and wind for electricity generation. Electricity is not our only demand, materials are also needed. Better to re-use those solid materials when possible than to simply burn it for energy.
I suppose we should have to pay $1300 for a Commodore 64 nowadays, too?
Damn right! If you want a real computer, you have to pay for it. Screw your cruddy Core Duos with their fancy-wanky MacOS and Vista. A real man knows how to compute with 64k of RAM, and walks uphill through snow both ways to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the owner has complete control of what to listen to. The owner of the Musak owns the property where it is being played. You have got the wrong "you" here. The customer in a store is not the licensee or customer of the music. the owner of the store is, and they are free to play what they want. You are free not to go to those places. Or you could stick your fingers in your ears, I guess.
But what obligation does Apple have to share their DRM? And how can he be "passing the buck," when there is no buck to pass?
Being unwilling to compromise and blaming others for the problem when a reasonable solution exists is not what I call the mark of a reasonable person. Maybe there areThat might be true, if jobs was unwilling to compromise. But that's not true. Jobs opposed DRM from the start, but at the time of establishing the iTunes store, he didn't have enough leverage to get the labels to agree to a non-DRM system. So he negotiated a compromise - he was able to get them to back off on the labels' original demands for the DRM to be more restrictive, and their desire to have a system where they could set prices to be whatever they wanted. Jobs did not get his DRM-free system, but neither did the labels get the DRM system they wanted. The result was an outcome that was better for Apple and consumers - while still not being perfect.
What Jobs did was the very essence of compromise. meanwhile, other online music vendors just caved to the anti-consumer demands of the labels.
That doesn't sound like a system that's "working pretty darn well" to me. Too many middlemen, and the artist getting a tiny fraction of the money, even though they are the creators. Sounds more like a way for a bunch of slack-jawed-yokels to profit from somebody else's creative work.
You must be new here.
The majority opinion on slashdot is that artists don't deserve to get paid for the work, as there should be no such thing as "intellectual property," which is apparently fraud by the state.
You see, artists don't produce any physical goods, or anything of value. So, they should get a job at McDonalds flipping burgers, and release all their music under a Creative Commons license, so everybody can have it for free. The notion of ownership of music is fraudulent, just like software patents.
More importantly, the notion of somebody making money for a creative pursuit is disgusting to the average slashdotter, who is jealous or dismissive of the work that goes into creativity. Programmers should be treated like gods, and any technical work that requires an anal-retentive memory of trivia should be showered with money. Artists should basically be rounded up and shot, because they are a bunch of hippies who know nothing about truly valuable things like C++.
In Norway, one person (the ombudsman) commented that the iTunes store should be illegal. One person. How does this equate to Norway "pounding" on Apple?
Why would Musak be the opposite of open? Muzak was created as a way of not paying licensing fees for "proprietary" closed music, so it could be played anywhere - in public spaces and so forth. If anything, Musak is more open than the music it is inspired by.
Can someone tell me why "racy" pictures of someone under 18 are "clearly illegal"? The writeup doesn't even try to justify this statement or explain it - it is just said as if there can be no other possibility.
Why do you think that? Because it makes you feel superior to pretend that people "shouting" about global warming are luddites or something? Show me any evidence of this. The vast majority of environmentalists are pro-technology.
I think what it comes down to is a war between people fighting for stasis and people trying to move forward. The global warming argument is a stasis argument - it is gettting warmer, and any change is inherently bad.Uhhh, not. It's not that any change is bad - it;s that the effects of global warming will be bad.
Also, your contention that scientists want people to be miserable is totally stupid, and based on a fallacy. It's just as miserable to live in a place that's too hot. Many people LIKE living in cold areas. Why is it that you correlate misery with cold weather? Some of the most horrible places to live in the world are deserts.
but Canadian values increase (like, you know, you can actually live there now...).Newsflash: you can actually live in Canada now. Several million people do so, and enjoy it. Anyway, what's the big deal about "property values"? Surely quality of life, and sustainability of living is more important than how much a house costs?
My only answer is that this is a new development, and my support for the "fix" for global warming is inversely proportional to the effect it has on the economy.For starters, it's not a "new" development. Secondly, the economy stands to suffer a lot more if global warming and pollution issues aren't tackled.
Until recently, no one has been paying much attention to that - they just wanted to make all sorts of laws to tell me what I can and can't do.Utter bullshit. Environmentalists have been talking about the economic value of environmentalism for a couple of decades now, and demonstrating how efficiency and environmentalism improves the economy as well as our lives. Maybe you should have been listening to them, rather than idiots? Most politicians have just been full of shit, because they pump this propaganda (that you seem to believe) that the environment and the economy are naturally opposing forces, that you can't help one without hurting the other. That's what polluters want you to believe, but it's just not true.
Remember WWII? There were massive recycling programmes to provide industry with materials. Farmers grew hemp to make parachutes and rope. Everybody benefited from conservation back then, and it didn't hurt the economy. If it could work in WWII, why can't it work today?
I bought digital music legally many years before 1995. It was on these things called "Compact Discs." Sadly, they weren't very popular, as almost nobody seems to remember them.
I predict that Steve Jobs will hold a naked press conference in bed with Yoko Ono. He'll then be shot by a gunman, who turns out to have a copy of the Apple Human Interface Guidelines on his person. When taken into custody and questioned, the gunman will just repeat "Your application will have the same modern, elegant appearance as other Mac OS X applications." over and over again.
Following a period of mourning, Yoko Ono will replace Steve Jobs as CEO. New models of Mac will have the form factor of a single red rose in a glass case, and the startup chime will be Yoko reciting her shopping list continuously in nasal Japanese. Thus demonstrating man's inhumanity towards man. Ringo Starr will launch a new solo album.
Say what?
When was this mythical time when Microsoft didn't suck? They've never made a good product, and they have always been shady crooks who cared more about market domination than doing good work.
I'll knock it if I damn well feel like it. Billboards work, that doesn't mean I have to like billboards. Flamethrowers work too, but I don't think "it works" is a good reason for everybody to start using flamethrowers on each other.
Incidentally, I still think we could use some global warming here in the Northeast. Personally if the temperature was up by 50 or so degrees from where it is today, you would not see me complaining.You don't seem to understand global warming. Some places will get colder, some places will get warmer. It's about a rise in the global average temperature. It will also lead to more extreme weather patterns. So it's not just a matter of it being a bit warmer, it also means more extreme storms and flooding.
Really, is that any more absurd than halting the world's industrial development in return for colder temperatures that will make the bulk of the industrial world a far worse place to live than it would be if we did nothing?I'm confused. Who has been advocating halting the world's industrial development in the face of global warming? If anything, global warming will be solved through technology, which will help improve our industrial development, and open up exciting new markets - increasing prosperity and improving our lifestyles.
If anything, it is the polluters who want to halt our industrial development by sticking with outdated technologies and an industrial revolution mindset. We have the potential to be so much more. But neanderthals want us to keep living wasteful lives, so they can make a quick buck from digging up fossil fuels.
Global warming might kill some endangered cold weather species but for every cold weather species that dies there are thousands of warm weather creatures who would thrive and find new homes. Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable?Are you actually serious? I'm not sure whether your post is as intricate satire of stupid people, or whether it is just stupid.
Nah, they'll just invent prozac-laced marijuana. Hey, that gives me an idea (starts crushing prozac pill into marijuana bowl).
Carbon credit trading is just a way of allowing certain sectors (coal, for example) to pollute more. It's basically a scam for the energy industry. Put up a few windmills where it's windy, and then sell credits to yourself to allow you to keep running your dirty coal plant closer to cities. Windmills are already profitable on their own, so the net result is a windfall to polluters.
It's pronounced 'nucular.' Nu-cu-lar.
That's about the least funny "your mom" joke I've ever seen.
Good for you. But that's not true for everybody. Many other people were lied to and coerced into Scientology. And that's what I have a problem with. Believe all you want, but people who lie and use coercion suck.
Perhaps you may eventually come to realize that some people will not believe as you do, or see the world your wayI do. When did I ever say that everybody believes as I do? In fact, your assumtion that I think this way makes you sound rather holier-than-thou and arrogant. In fact, I think quite the opposite - I'm well aware that my beliefs are not widely held or popular.
So, the moral of this story is: Get a Mac, kill your father?
If they were too careful, they would probably be targets of anti-trust litigation. Apple has already been targeted by European countries over their DRM. What if some country threatened legal action if they didn't license their DRM to everybody, or if they were deemed to charge too high a price for it?
Why should it even be Apple's business to get into some licensing mess if they don't want to? Your comment shows just how problematic licensing can be. Why waste time with all that crap, when you could focus on making a better product instead?
Don't start arguing there are no technical solutions, there will be.That's an assertion with no basis in evidence. Particularly as piracy and licensing are social/political and business issues. Not every social/political or business issue has a technical solution, as much as geeks wish there were.
Whatever the spin, there can be no serious doubt that the point of Fairplay as implemented is to lock in users to a combination of Apple software, the Apple music store and the Apple playersWhy can there be no doubt about this? From day one, jobs has been opposed to DRM. If the record labels didn't demand it, it wouldn't exist in iTunes. What is your evidence that Apple wanted DRM in the first place? I doubt that Apple ever expected to have an industry-leading role in this. The success of the iPod surprised everybody, including Apple and their fans.
The performance is pretty astounding. I usually leave a bunch of Mac apps open at the same time - such as FInal Cut Pro, Photoshop, and a handful of smaller apps. The performance of either the Windows or Mac system is not noticeably affected. Both systems run better than many of my colleagues machines running only one of the OSes. It was really quite surprising. Able to switch OSes in seconds, with no noticeable overhead. Very slick.
The best thing is that Windows is way easier to set up, and less painful to run in the VM than it is to run natively. Things like networking and storage devices (which are virtualized) are piss-easy.
Because logging is effectively subsidized. Logging companies don't pay for the full costs of their operations. If the loggers had to pay for the damage they caused, and didn't keep getting favorable legislation, then non-recycled paper would be more expensive.
There are only two arguably positive things that come from paper recycling. One is reduced landfill space consumption (the importance of which, except in areas of very high population density, is... arguable), and the other is the public relations benefit of being perceived as "green".No, there's also the benefit of not cutting down trees. Logging leads to soil erosion, destroys animal habitats, can damage water catchments, and takes away important carbon sinks.
Also, the logs have to be transported great distances on trucks. Paper recycling plants can be placed in urban areas closer to where the paper is consumed - saving costs and reducing pollution and fuel consumption.
I didn't say all of it. But it would be possible if humans actually cared enough to put any effort into sustainable energy. Why do you think it's not possible?
Yeah, good luck generating all the world's electricity from solar and wind. Let me know when you've finished that up...I didn't say all of it. But it would be possible if humans actually cared enough to put any effort into sustainable energy. Why do you think it's not possible?
Why the defeatist attitude? Humans have done many things that were deemed impossible only a short time ago. Like flying, or reaching the moon, or transmitting messages invisibly through the air. Solar and wind power are proven to work, we just lack the will to implement it properly. In many ways, powering everything from sustainable sources is much less "far out" than travelling into space was considered a short time ago. I guess we shouldn't bother trying, because you don't think it's possible?
In don't know, quite possibly. The point is that smaller generators are generally more polluting and less efficient. Being a diesel, and using waste-generated fuel, it probably generates more particulate pollution than your 2-stroke, but saves some fossil fuel and gets rid of some waste.
But in general, small generators suck, which is why they are only used for emergency and other limited applications.
No, for that, you'll have a centralized power plant outside the local dump, with all the pollution controls of any other power plant.But you'd probably do better by recycling the waste to create other materials, and using sources such as solar and wind for electricity generation. Electricity is not our only demand, materials are also needed. Better to re-use those solid materials when possible than to simply burn it for energy.
Damn right! If you want a real computer, you have to pay for it. Screw your cruddy Core Duos with their fancy-wanky MacOS and Vista. A real man knows how to compute with 64k of RAM, and walks uphill through snow both ways to do it.
Because it's bored and can't find a good book.