Geeks want to prevent the future? Sounds wacky, but actually seems accurate judging by slashdot of late. Seems that geeks are becoming more backwards-looking. Notice that whenever music or movie downloads are discussed, the typical response here is to whine "Why would I want to download stuff, I'll stick with CDs/DVDs" or "If I'm going to pay for something, I want physical media!" Almost sounds luddite-ish.
It seems the crap implementation of download services has stopped the geeks thinking of better ways to do things, and they just denounce the whole idea. Whatever happened to that geeky idealism and forward-thinking? Most comments appear to be reactionary.
I don't buy it, and yes, I can (and do) buy my music and movies elsewhere *at the moment*.
Where do you get non-DRM DVDs?
But the way things are going, the non-DRM'd sources are going to be gone eventually and then there will be no choice.
On the other hand, without the DRM, I would not have the choice of any legal download options for major label music. So, it seems I have more choices now, where before the only options were to buy a physical CD or to use a file-sharing network. How does more choice equal less choice in your world?
The people who developed those tools are breaking the law and therefore risking their own freedom. So you seem to be saying that DRM is ok, because people (not you) are risking their freedom to develop tools you can use.
You don't have to use those tools. iTunes allows you to burn your songs to an unprotected CD. So you already have a way to "unleash" your music. I'm not a big fan of DRM. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world if people choose to buy music from iTunes.
By the way, it is not illegal in most of the world to create DRM removal tools. Not all the world is the USA.
IMHO, anyone who actively supports DRM by buying DRM'd content is either crazy or has absolutely no understanding of the implications.
So, you refuse to buy or rent DVDs because they have DRM? And what makes somebody crazy for buying DRMed media? It's just media, it's not like it kills people. Get some perspective, there are much bigger issues. There's no guarantee you will be able to use any of your media in the future, even unprotected content in a standard format. But most people aren't that concerned about having a few songs until the end of time.
Exactly, which is why I put it at a lower estimate. If $30 is low, then surely they would be willing to pay more for something that doesn't take 10 hours to set up. Which is why MythTV does not seem cost effective. That's 10 hours you could be spending enjoying your entertainment, not screwing around. If I get a good freelance job, 10 hours of work can be worth $2,000 or more. Surely, somebody could make something better than MythTV for between $300 and $2,000?
I would be unwilling to pay money for content that I *might* be able to use in the future
Then don't buy it. Pretty simple, really. What's your problem? You can buy music or movies elsewhere.
If they give away the keys they're likley going to get sued by the content providers - so on the one hand we have a bunch of outraged customers with whome Apple (or it's liquidators) haven't violated any contract, and on the other hand, if they release the keys, they have almost certainly willingly borken a contract with the content providers.
Well, there are already tools for removing the DRM from iTunes files, so if Apple goes out of business, you could legally use those. I find that most contracts are pretty borked from the beginning, anyway.
But then I lose the functionality of my indicator lights. It is useful to know the status of a device, or if it has power. But I don't want to be blinded or distracted by them. Indicators are supposed to be useful - and as you imply yourself, because of the abuse of blue LEDs by manufacturers, we lose useful functions, or have to put up with garish glaring death rays everywhere.
The blue LED is not invented just to be an indicator lights, man they are too expensive just for that purpose.
So, then why do manufacturers of cheap equipment put them all over the place? Even I can buy them for a few cents each if I buy direct from Asia. I agree that the blue LED has other worthwhile uses, but the misuse of them outweighs any good purposes they might be used for. At the moment, 95% of blue LEDs seem to be used to annoy users.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are probably applicable consumer laws involved. If they are selling you a product, then it is expected that you are able to use said product, otherwise it is not fit for sale, or false advertising. Even if there were no applicable laws, consumer outrage can be a powerful thing. Many lawsuits with zero grounds succeed, or are settled out of court.
and moreover will attempt to automatically sync your local library to your ipod unless you have turned off that (default) action.
Bullshit. This is not the default action. The default action is to ask you if you want to re-sync the iPod to the new machine, and delete the files on it - or to leave them alone. It gives you this choice when you plug the iPod in.
The blue LED is one of the worst inventions ever. It's getting harder and harder to buy computer peripherals, audio equipment, and other devices that aren't festooned with the damn things. It's become a manufacturer's way of saying "my product is cool!"
Why do I want my indicator lights to illuminate the whole damn room? They are extremely uncomfortable to look at, and too bright for purpose they are used for. I want an indicator light to discreetly notify me of the status of my equipment. Not blind me. Is there anything wrong with a subdued red/yellow/green LED for this purpose?
My god, I've even seen high-end speakers for the entertainment industry with these things on the FRONT of them. Newsflash: I want to listen to a speaker, not look at it. Especially when you are using it in a theater - you have to cover the LEDs with tape so they aren't distracting during a black-out or scene with low-level lighting. You fucking idiot manufacturers - why do you think your speakers are BLACK? It's so they're as invisible as possible when on stage. Way to go and wreck that by installing an LED which may as well be an aircraft landing beacon.
Work just provided me with an external HD enclosure that not only has a blue LED, but uses a plastic lens system to simulate the look of a bar LED-array. Of course, this does not function as a meter of the level of activity. ALL of the "lights" are either on or off. So why the hell did they put a whole row of the motherfuckers there? You do not gain any more information over just having a single point of light flashing on and off. Being bright enough to cause eye cancer does not give me any advantage over a low-intensity green LED.
Please, won't somebody think of the LEDs? THIS INSANITY MUST STOP!
Most of the public are sheep and will grudgingly accept malware as 'normal',
I don't know what kind of "public" you live around, but most of the "normal," "non geek" population I know hates that shit. They will put up with CSS on a DVD, because it works transparently and doesn't burden them. However, when it comes to malware or adware - or copy protection that requires jumping through hoops, nobody wants that. You don't have to be "elite" to see that. I think this is more about your superiority complex than reality. You're so smart, everybody else is dumb. Yeah right.
You're arguing with a straw man on the issue of irresponsible drivers or police handling this so-called hazard.
How is my argument a straw man? I honestly don't see it. Perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of the term?
hundreds of examples are readily available of other comparably dangerous items that are not required to be strapped down, and so your argument is largely irrelevant to the grandparent's point about supporting laws, as it seems clear that the reason the law exists is not to protect from projectile humans.
Actually, you are required to secure other objects. Just because it is rarely enforced, does not mean you don't have an obligation to.
Isn't it kind of odd that they would sell a product that allows you to illegally copy their product?
Not really. Selling DVD-R spindles is profitable. Especially as movie rental stores can sell at a higher markup than other places. Why would they care what you use it for? Especially as selling the DVD-R makes it more likely that you will rent it in order to copy it. So, they make a profit from selling the blank discs, as well as renting you the movie you want to copy. After all, if you bought the movie outright, you have less reason to rent/copy it.
This is the whole problem with DRM though - if it has to contact a server to authorize a machine to play it and that server nolonger exists then all the backups in the world won't help you
The DMCA allows you to remove the DRM if the service you were using goes bankrupt or becomes obsolete. If Apple went out of business, they would likely provide you with the keys to keep using your songs.
That's ridiculous, even if it is technically correct.
How can it be both?
I've yet to be pulled over for failing to strap in my groceries or my bowling ball when I travel
That's true, safety laws are not very well enforced. There are many dangerous activities that people are not charged for, but should be. What's your point? Just because you weren't pulled over, doesn't mean you weren't being dangerous.
It is a self-serving law supported by auto-insurers at the expense of your freedom.
Do you have any evidence that these laws are caused by auto insurers? Your freedom? Your freedom to injure innocent third parties? I think people have more right to be free from the actions of dangerous and irresponsible drivers, than you have the right to endanger others with your irresponsibility.
How would the police detect your unsecured cargo, anyway? Sometimes you have to take responsibility for your own actions, not abrogate it to police and blame others for being a shithead,
Do you support seat belt laws? Technically the only person you harm is yourself when you don't wear a seat belt.
Not true. If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are unrestrained, and you can turn into a projectile in the case of an accident. You can kill/maim other passengers in your vehicle, pedestrians, or people in another vehicle if you don't wear a seatbelt.
I told my boss about Macrovision the other day. I described the effect (of the screen "pulsating" lighter and darker. And he said "Holy shit, that happens on my TV at home!" All this time, he had been affected by Macrovision, but did not realize. I didn't get around to asking him what he thought the cause of the poor picture was. He just put up with it.
Many users assume that their stuff doesn't work properly, I guess. Hard to imagine many people care about HD, when they are perfectly happy to watch a screen that irritatingly changes in brightness.
Fact: DVD is near the end of its life for a high quality movie format. Disney titles for the kids? Another ten years, just like VHS is still clinging to life if that niche. A format to drive a 50" HD monitor? No.
How many people really care? A 50" HD monitor is not essential to living, and a movie is just as enjoyable on a smaller SD screen, if it is a good movie.
Fact: If either/both of these new formats catch on they will be good enough to last 10-20 years, like DVD's eventual lifespan will probably end up and about like VHS's reign.
Which is why we should not adopt Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. If this stuff is going to be around for so long, why rely on such a crappy format? It would be better to use a non-physical medium (download from internet) or wait until something with far greater storage comes along. Why adopt a new format, just for minor incremental improvements? Wait until something really next-gen comes along.
I just want tracks 3 and 9 from that album... why should I spend $11.99 for the whole CD?", and iTunes said fine, $1.98 and you can have tracks 3 & 9.
There's no analog to that for movies,
How about when you just want to watch all the boobie shots in a movie, or all the explosions or karate kicks for the action film fans?
For those of us who are parents, the notion of downloading a Disney movie that you couldn't burn to disc is damn near worthless.
You mean, about as worthless as a DVD after it gets anywhere near a child and is destroyed? And how do you know they won't allow burning to disc? That is allowed with iTunes music.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems the crap implementation of download services has stopped the geeks thinking of better ways to do things, and they just denounce the whole idea. Whatever happened to that geeky idealism and forward-thinking? Most comments appear to be reactionary.
Where do you get non-DRM DVDs?
But the way things are going, the non-DRM'd sources are going to be gone eventually and then there will be no choice.
On the other hand, without the DRM, I would not have the choice of any legal download options for major label music. So, it seems I have more choices now, where before the only options were to buy a physical CD or to use a file-sharing network. How does more choice equal less choice in your world?
The people who developed those tools are breaking the law and therefore risking their own freedom. So you seem to be saying that DRM is ok, because people (not you) are risking their freedom to develop tools you can use.
You don't have to use those tools. iTunes allows you to burn your songs to an unprotected CD. So you already have a way to "unleash" your music. I'm not a big fan of DRM. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world if people choose to buy music from iTunes.
By the way, it is not illegal in most of the world to create DRM removal tools. Not all the world is the USA.
IMHO, anyone who actively supports DRM by buying DRM'd content is either crazy or has absolutely no understanding of the implications.
So, you refuse to buy or rent DVDs because they have DRM? And what makes somebody crazy for buying DRMed media? It's just media, it's not like it kills people. Get some perspective, there are much bigger issues. There's no guarantee you will be able to use any of your media in the future, even unprotected content in a standard format. But most people aren't that concerned about having a few songs until the end of time.
Slashdot is not a blog, it's a discussion board. Do you even know what blog means?
Exactly, which is why I put it at a lower estimate. If $30 is low, then surely they would be willing to pay more for something that doesn't take 10 hours to set up. Which is why MythTV does not seem cost effective. That's 10 hours you could be spending enjoying your entertainment, not screwing around. If I get a good freelance job, 10 hours of work can be worth $2,000 or more. Surely, somebody could make something better than MythTV for between $300 and $2,000?
Then don't buy it. Pretty simple, really. What's your problem? You can buy music or movies elsewhere.
If they give away the keys they're likley going to get sued by the content providers - so on the one hand we have a bunch of outraged customers with whome Apple (or it's liquidators) haven't violated any contract, and on the other hand, if they release the keys, they have almost certainly willingly borken a contract with the content providers.
Well, there are already tools for removing the DRM from iTunes files, so if Apple goes out of business, you could legally use those. I find that most contracts are pretty borked from the beginning, anyway.
But then I lose the functionality of my indicator lights. It is useful to know the status of a device, or if it has power. But I don't want to be blinded or distracted by them. Indicators are supposed to be useful - and as you imply yourself, because of the abuse of blue LEDs by manufacturers, we lose useful functions, or have to put up with garish glaring death rays everywhere.
So, then why do manufacturers of cheap equipment put them all over the place? Even I can buy them for a few cents each if I buy direct from Asia. I agree that the blue LED has other worthwhile uses, but the misuse of them outweighs any good purposes they might be used for. At the moment, 95% of blue LEDs seem to be used to annoy users.
Is a dead blog post.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. There are probably applicable consumer laws involved. If they are selling you a product, then it is expected that you are able to use said product, otherwise it is not fit for sale, or false advertising. Even if there were no applicable laws, consumer outrage can be a powerful thing. Many lawsuits with zero grounds succeed, or are settled out of court.
So, it only costs about $300 worth of your time to get it going? That doesn't sound very cost-effective.
Bullshit. This is not the default action. The default action is to ask you if you want to re-sync the iPod to the new machine, and delete the files on it - or to leave them alone. It gives you this choice when you plug the iPod in.
Why do I want my indicator lights to illuminate the whole damn room? They are extremely uncomfortable to look at, and too bright for purpose they are used for. I want an indicator light to discreetly notify me of the status of my equipment. Not blind me. Is there anything wrong with a subdued red/yellow/green LED for this purpose?
My god, I've even seen high-end speakers for the entertainment industry with these things on the FRONT of them. Newsflash: I want to listen to a speaker, not look at it. Especially when you are using it in a theater - you have to cover the LEDs with tape so they aren't distracting during a black-out or scene with low-level lighting. You fucking idiot manufacturers - why do you think your speakers are BLACK? It's so they're as invisible as possible when on stage. Way to go and wreck that by installing an LED which may as well be an aircraft landing beacon.
Work just provided me with an external HD enclosure that not only has a blue LED, but uses a plastic lens system to simulate the look of a bar LED-array. Of course, this does not function as a meter of the level of activity. ALL of the "lights" are either on or off. So why the hell did they put a whole row of the motherfuckers there? You do not gain any more information over just having a single point of light flashing on and off. Being bright enough to cause eye cancer does not give me any advantage over a low-intensity green LED.
Please, won't somebody think of the LEDs? THIS INSANITY MUST STOP!
I don't know what kind of "public" you live around, but most of the "normal," "non geek" population I know hates that shit. They will put up with CSS on a DVD, because it works transparently and doesn't burden them. However, when it comes to malware or adware - or copy protection that requires jumping through hoops, nobody wants that. You don't have to be "elite" to see that. I think this is more about your superiority complex than reality. You're so smart, everybody else is dumb. Yeah right.
How is my argument a straw man? I honestly don't see it. Perhaps you are using a non-standard definition of the term?
hundreds of examples are readily available of other comparably dangerous items that are not required to be strapped down, and so your argument is largely irrelevant to the grandparent's point about supporting laws, as it seems clear that the reason the law exists is not to protect from projectile humans.
Actually, you are required to secure other objects. Just because it is rarely enforced, does not mean you don't have an obligation to.
No, which is why I used the qualifier "likely." Where did I give a guarantee?
(Bear in mind that when apple go out of business it'll be the liquidators deciding what to do with DRM keys, not apple themselves.
And the liquidators probably don't want to get sued and lose money on the liquidation - so they'll probably provide the keys.
And the fact that they probably have a contract with the copyright holders guaranteeing they will never release the DRM keys).
So then they will get sued, probably by both (ex)-Apple and consumers.
Not really. Selling DVD-R spindles is profitable. Especially as movie rental stores can sell at a higher markup than other places. Why would they care what you use it for? Especially as selling the DVD-R makes it more likely that you will rent it in order to copy it. So, they make a profit from selling the blank discs, as well as renting you the movie you want to copy. After all, if you bought the movie outright, you have less reason to rent/copy it.
The DMCA allows you to remove the DRM if the service you were using goes bankrupt or becomes obsolete. If Apple went out of business, they would likely provide you with the keys to keep using your songs.
How can it be both?
I've yet to be pulled over for failing to strap in my groceries or my bowling ball when I travel
That's true, safety laws are not very well enforced. There are many dangerous activities that people are not charged for, but should be. What's your point? Just because you weren't pulled over, doesn't mean you weren't being dangerous.
It is a self-serving law supported by auto-insurers at the expense of your freedom.
Do you have any evidence that these laws are caused by auto insurers? Your freedom? Your freedom to injure innocent third parties? I think people have more right to be free from the actions of dangerous and irresponsible drivers, than you have the right to endanger others with your irresponsibility.
How would the police detect your unsecured cargo, anyway? Sometimes you have to take responsibility for your own actions, not abrogate it to police and blame others for being a shithead,
Not true. If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are unrestrained, and you can turn into a projectile in the case of an accident. You can kill/maim other passengers in your vehicle, pedestrians, or people in another vehicle if you don't wear a seatbelt.
Many users assume that their stuff doesn't work properly, I guess. Hard to imagine many people care about HD, when they are perfectly happy to watch a screen that irritatingly changes in brightness.
How many people really care? A 50" HD monitor is not essential to living, and a movie is just as enjoyable on a smaller SD screen, if it is a good movie.
Fact: If either/both of these new formats catch on they will be good enough to last 10-20 years, like DVD's eventual lifespan will probably end up and about like VHS's reign.
Which is why we should not adopt Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. If this stuff is going to be around for so long, why rely on such a crappy format? It would be better to use a non-physical medium (download from internet) or wait until something with far greater storage comes along. Why adopt a new format, just for minor incremental improvements? Wait until something really next-gen comes along.
Didn't UN weapons inspectors take issue with the idea that there wMDs in Iraq?
How about when you just want to watch all the boobie shots in a movie, or all the explosions or karate kicks for the action film fans?
You mean, about as worthless as a DVD after it gets anywhere near a child and is destroyed? And how do you know they won't allow burning to disc? That is allowed with iTunes music.