What you're missing is that anyone can now release DRM-free 256kbit/s music. This means that small labels will have advantages against RIAA labels (EMI aside) who might be reluctant to release DRM-free music.
The policy of iTunes has always been (AFAIK) to have a fixed price for individual songs, but a varied price for albums. Hence an indie band can release a DRM-free 256kbit/s album for $8 if they want to... This might mean we see some real competition in the commercial music scene... finally!
Also, allow me to plug eMusic (www.emusic.com) - You can't beat it for discovering great new music. No personal affiliation, just a satisfied customer. Magnatune seems good too.
Not really. Remember, this is being used to augment a password protection scheme. They can have a fairly low bar to acceptance (resulting in a relatively high false-acceptance* rate) and this doesn't matter, because it's still an extra thing an intruder needs to get right (as well as access to the password) to gain access to the system.
*I'm using "false-acceptance" to mean the system recognising a typed password as acceptable when really it shouldn't have.
The system would likely use some form of adaptive filter or neural network. It would therefore adapt to changes in the password-entry-quantifiers over time, and this wouldn't be a problem - as long as the entered password followed the _trends_ of previously entered passwords.
"Once we learned to shape our environment to our tastes, the game was over."
I think this is wrong. You can't look at the evolution of a single species. Evolution must be considered holistically, because all species interact and change in one species effects, and is affected by the changes occuring in all the species with which it interacts. For this reason, evolution is better viewed as _life_ "aiming" to make itself as robust as possible.
This also means that comments about human evolution ceasing are wrong for several reasons. Firstly, it doesn't make sense to talk about evolution in this way (see above). Secondly, change (and hence evolution) is always occuring. Thirdly, humans are still interacting with the environment, so change will still occur.
The Last reason is a bit more esoteric. We like to try and seperate genetic evolution from behavioural evolution, whereas the two are actually quite closely linked, and each effect the other. I don't think anyone would try to argue that human society is unchanging - hence we have very concrete evidence that human evolution continues.
"what happens when Shuttleworths' money runs out?"
Because it's Free Software - nothing happens if/when money runs out. All the progress has been put back into the community, so anyone can pick up the baton. _That_ is the fantastic thing about Free Software!!:-)
I just don't agree with that - and not because of DRM. I think many people are prepared to pay for entertainment they like - althuogh there'll always be a few tightarses.
"The argument of whether artists should be paid or not isn't really relevant to the discussion."
Of course it is - how can people dedicate their life to something if they can't eat? I'm not talking about pop music - I'm talking about real music - the kind of music that will disappear in the scenario you describe.
"I don't support commercial copyright infringement"
Can you elaborate on why this is? Seems like a double standard to me - either you support intellectual property or you don't. What about all those torrent/p2p websites and their advertising - why is that not commercial copyright infringement?
I think you've fallen into the trap of letting your wants influence your opinions.
while I agree that "there is no inherent right in getting paid for copies," I think that if you want people to make good art, they need to be paid for it. I don't have a problem with (for example) a band making and releasing albums, but deciding not to tour. If consumers of art want people to do this, then they'll need to be prepared to pay for it. There can only be so many freeloaders before the system collapses.
Look at the albums the Beatles made after they ceased touring - I doubt many would consider them inconsequential.
Having said all this, I don't think piracy/copying/sharing is a huge evil in itself, as long as people don't start to think that the consumption of free art is their *right*.
On a side note, what would you think of China mass-producing cheap copies of Volvo cars, and exporting them to the world? That'd be a bit of a knock to the Swedish economy...
Re:Will anyone gain anything from this? Not Linux
on
The End is Nigh for XP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I was going to reply to your original post, but thought I'd reply to this instead.
From experience, I think that _using_ Linux no easier or harder than _using_ Windows. Any difficulties that arise are usually due to particular pieces of software not having a native Linux port. Having said that, the GPL community has been excellent in replicating almost all functionality of almost all common Windows-based software.
It's the _maintenance_ where Linux beats Windows. Out-of-the-box installs of user-friendly distributions will detect and install appropriate drivers for almost all hardware, will auto-configure networks (DHCP), will install a bounty of useful software (intenet, email, chat, office, paint, photo, music, video, etc) and has incredibly easy update procedures. Windows can, in no way, come close to competing with this.
If you want to give Linux a try, I suggest you install (k)Ubuntu or Fedora. Prepare to be amazed! I use only Ubuntu at home on my primary computer - although I have a Windows PC (music studio) and a Mac laptop - and in many ways Ubuntu is my favourite OS.
...and it never ceases to suprise me how many people want to watch the latest crap TV series, (or manufactured pop music) in HD with surround sound! Give me quality content over picture quality any day.
"downloading them off their respective vendor's sites"...And how's my grandma supposed to do that?? Drivers from a website?? oh God.. I dunno... I just don't think Windows is quite ready for the desktop... maybe next year..
...or you could argue that primates already do that in their own civilisation, where they live (and where humans keep "invading"). Giving other primates human rights doesn't mean they should be forced to work at Walmart.
"Reducing individual energy usage has a much shorter name.. poverty"
This is untrue. Energy efficiency, and sensible urban planning allow us to maintain (and even improve) our standard of living while reducing energy consumption. Please don't make straw-man arguements - _sensible_ environmentalists don't want people living in caves, or eating bacterial cultures to save energy.
However, we _do_ need to reassess some aspects of our society. Suburbia tends to have the following characteristics: - people can't walk/cycle around, - they don't even know their neighbours' neighbours, - laziness and inactivity are encouraged and I think this is mostly the result of too much automobile use. I'm not saying that we should all get rid of cars - I'm saying that if we were less dependent on them that, in addition to the myriad environmental benefits, we'd also have huge _social_ benefits.
There's nothing Luddite-ish about this - this is about making a decision about the sort of society and environment in which we want to live, and taking steps to bring it into reality.
Bullshit. DRM sucks, but many/most people _don't_ go and see many live bands, so this crap about supporting bands that "work.. their asses off touring" is just that - crap.
Also, by saying that, you're saying that the only music that has the right to survive is that of touring bands. Again, I call bullshit. Some of the most innovative and interesting music has been made by bands that _haven't_ been actively touring. Remember - the whole point of recordable music is that you don't _have_ to see the band live.
Now, I'm pretty anti-DRM (I shop only at eMusic) but I still think artists should be able to make a buck by selling recordings of their music. Your comment is equivalent to saying that no coder should get paid for the code they write - only for the support they provide. I think most readers could understand that while this might be a workable system*, it's not necessarily gonna produce the best code.
*even on GPL code, there are many coders who are paid to code - that enables them to devote more time to it, and hence drives the system.
amaroK works really well for me on ~14000 tracks (80gb).
It uses either a mySQL or SQLite database for indexing, so I would expect it to scale pretty well.
It supports mp3, ogg, aac, wma, ipods, irivers,... it's the best and most flexible music player that I've seen.
I don't understand why it's necessary to offer a copy of their hard disk to the RIAA representatives as evidence of innocence. If they're essentially accusing pseudo-random people of piracy, then isn't the onus on them to prove it? (I realise that in civil cases it's balance of probability, but even so...)
Why can't they just say: "I'm innocent, and you have no evidence - bugger off" (or words to that effect)?
Most bands that are interested in the art of music, rather than the business of music, make albums that are greater than the sum of their parts. The album has a theme and this changes from album to album - this can't be appreciated if one listens only to the singles.
So yeah, the mas-produced teeny-pop bands and their labels move towards the single de jour, but real bands will continue to make albums.
This leads to an idea I had recently. The only distinguishing value of "big" bands is the fame that fans give them - there are plenty of unsigned/indie bands that are just as good/accessible, but are unknown. The value that RIAA attributes to their songs is merely the demand that fans give it - the songs themselves are (generally) not unique or valuable. That's why their lawsuits are so bogus - they're suing fans for the value that fans give songs - not for any value that the songs have.
This is why sites like eMusic (or youtube, etc) are great - they're cheap, and their product is just as good (if not better), but just isn't as well known and hence doesn't have the same "value".
Slashdot Mirror
What you're missing is that anyone can now release DRM-free 256kbit/s music. This means that small labels will have advantages against RIAA labels (EMI aside) who might be reluctant to release DRM-free music.
The policy of iTunes has always been (AFAIK) to have a fixed price for individual songs, but a varied price for albums. Hence an indie band can release a DRM-free 256kbit/s album for $8 if they want to... This might mean we see some real competition in the commercial music scene... finally!
Also, allow me to plug eMusic (www.emusic.com) - You can't beat it for discovering great new music. No personal affiliation, just a satisfied customer. Magnatune seems good too.
It doesn't say it in the friendly article, but I read somewhere that the price of albums will stay the same, and they will be DRM-free, 256kbit/s.
>That's what the rest of the world thinks when they hear "free".
Really?!? So _that's_ what they mean by "the land of the free"...
Now I get it..
you might be interested in this:
http://www.tokipona.org/
Not really. Remember, this is being used to augment a password protection scheme. They can have a fairly low bar to acceptance (resulting in a relatively high false-acceptance* rate) and this doesn't matter, because it's still an extra thing an intruder needs to get right (as well as access to the password) to gain access to the system.
*I'm using "false-acceptance" to mean the system recognising a typed password as acceptable when really it shouldn't have.
The system would likely use some form of adaptive filter or neural network. It would therefore adapt to changes in the password-entry-quantifiers over time, and this wouldn't be a problem - as long as the entered password followed the _trends_ of previously entered passwords.
Reminds me of conversations I had with a mate in the navy:
"So, how's life on the boat?"
"It's a ship dammit - a SHIP!!"
"Once we learned to shape our environment to our tastes, the game was over."
I think this is wrong. You can't look at the evolution of a single species. Evolution must be considered holistically, because all species interact and change in one species effects, and is affected by the changes occuring in all the species with which it interacts. For this reason, evolution is better viewed as _life_ "aiming" to make itself as robust as possible.
This also means that comments about human evolution ceasing are wrong for several reasons. Firstly, it doesn't make sense to talk about evolution in this way (see above). Secondly, change (and hence evolution) is always occuring. Thirdly, humans are still interacting with the environment, so change will still occur.
The Last reason is a bit more esoteric. We like to try and seperate genetic evolution from behavioural evolution, whereas the two are actually quite closely linked, and each effect the other. I don't think anyone would try to argue that human society is unchanging - hence we have very concrete evidence that human evolution continues.
Vive l'evolution!
"what happens when Shuttleworths' money runs out?"
Because it's Free Software - nothing happens if/when money runs out. All the progress has been put back into the community, so anyone can pick up the baton. _That_ is the fantastic thing about Free Software!!
"you can't make money off distribution any more"
I just don't agree with that - and not because of DRM. I think many people are prepared to pay for entertainment they like - althuogh there'll always be a few tightarses.
"The argument of whether artists should be paid or not isn't really relevant to the discussion."
Of course it is - how can people dedicate their life to something if they can't eat? I'm not talking about pop music - I'm talking about real music - the kind of music that will disappear in the scenario you describe.
"I don't support commercial copyright infringement"
Can you elaborate on why this is? Seems like a double standard to me - either you support intellectual property or you don't. What about all those torrent/p2p websites and their advertising - why is that not commercial copyright infringement?
I think you've fallen into the trap of letting your wants influence your opinions.
while I agree that "there is no inherent right in getting paid for copies," I think that if you want people to make good art, they need to be paid for it. I don't have a problem with (for example) a band making and releasing albums, but deciding not to tour. If consumers of art want people to do this, then they'll need to be prepared to pay for it. There can only be so many freeloaders before the system collapses.
Look at the albums the Beatles made after they ceased touring - I doubt many would consider them inconsequential.
Having said all this, I don't think piracy/copying/sharing is a huge evil in itself, as long as people don't start to think that the consumption of free art is their *right*.
On a side note, what would you think of China mass-producing cheap copies of Volvo cars, and exporting them to the world? That'd be a bit of a knock to the Swedish economy...
I was going to reply to your original post, but thought I'd reply to this instead.
From experience, I think that _using_ Linux no easier or harder than _using_ Windows. Any difficulties that arise are usually due to particular pieces of software not having a native Linux port. Having said that, the GPL community has been excellent in replicating almost all functionality of almost all common Windows-based software.
It's the _maintenance_ where Linux beats Windows. Out-of-the-box installs of user-friendly distributions will detect and install appropriate drivers for almost all hardware, will auto-configure networks (DHCP), will install a bounty of useful software (intenet, email, chat, office, paint, photo, music, video, etc) and has incredibly easy update procedures. Windows can, in no way, come close to competing with this.
If you want to give Linux a try, I suggest you install (k)Ubuntu or Fedora. Prepare to be amazed! I use only Ubuntu at home on my primary computer - although I have a Windows PC (music studio) and a Mac laptop - and in many ways Ubuntu is my favourite OS.
Hackers, terrorists, drug dealers, child molesters, communists:
Useful tools for the control of a fearful and gullible populace.
Being deliberately crude and insulting doesn't add credence to your argument. What ever happened to manners, eh
"downloading them off their respective vendor's sites"
(sorry - I couldn't resist. Good post tho)
"rights come with responsibilities."
I don't think that's as true as you think it is. Next thing you'll be saying cannibalism is ok, as long as you only eat people who don't vote!
...or you could argue that primates already do that in their own civilisation, where they live (and where humans keep "invading"). Giving other primates human rights doesn't mean they should be forced to work at Walmart.
"Reducing individual energy usage has a much shorter name.. poverty"
This is untrue. Energy efficiency, and sensible urban planning allow us to maintain (and even improve) our standard of living while reducing energy consumption. Please don't make straw-man arguements - _sensible_ environmentalists don't want people living in caves, or eating bacterial cultures to save energy.
However, we _do_ need to reassess some aspects of our society.
Suburbia tends to have the following characteristics:
- people can't walk/cycle around,
- they don't even know their neighbours' neighbours,
- laziness and inactivity are encouraged
and I think this is mostly the result of too much automobile use. I'm not saying that we should all get rid of cars - I'm saying that if we were less dependent on them that, in addition to the myriad environmental benefits, we'd also have huge _social_ benefits.
There's nothing Luddite-ish about this - this is about making a decision about the sort of society and environment in which we want to live, and taking steps to bring it into reality.
Bullshit. DRM sucks, but many/most people _don't_ go and see many live bands, so this crap about supporting bands that "work.. their asses off touring" is just that - crap.
Also, by saying that, you're saying that the only music that has the right to survive is that of touring bands. Again, I call bullshit. Some of the most innovative and interesting music has been made by bands that _haven't_ been actively touring. Remember - the whole point of recordable music is that you don't _have_ to see the band live.
Now, I'm pretty anti-DRM (I shop only at eMusic) but I still think artists should be able to make a buck by selling recordings of their music. Your comment is equivalent to saying that no coder should get paid for the code they write - only for the support they provide. I think most readers could understand that while this might be a workable system*, it's not necessarily gonna produce the best code.
*even on GPL code, there are many coders who are paid to code - that enables them to devote more time to it, and hence drives the system.
amaroK works really well for me on ~14000 tracks (80gb). It uses either a mySQL or SQLite database for indexing, so I would expect it to scale pretty well. It supports mp3, ogg, aac, wma, ipods, irivers, ... it's the best and most flexible music player that I've seen.
I can hear grandpaw telling his kids in 2050:
"In my day, we had 3 day ping times, and we liked it!"
"I am not repeat NOT paying for cedega"
How do you run Alpha Centauri on Linux? I've been unable to get it working with WINE... any tips appreciated..
I don't understand why it's necessary to offer a copy of their hard disk to the RIAA representatives as evidence of innocence. If they're essentially accusing pseudo-random people of piracy, then isn't the onus on them to prove it? (I realise that in civil cases it's balance of probability, but even so...)
Why can't they just say: "I'm innocent, and you have no evidence - bugger off" (or words to that effect)?
Most bands that are interested in the art of music, rather than the business of music, make albums that are greater than the sum of their parts. The album has a theme and this changes from album to album - this can't be appreciated if one listens only to the singles.
So yeah, the mas-produced teeny-pop bands and their labels move towards the single de jour, but real bands will continue to make albums.
This leads to an idea I had recently. The only distinguishing value of "big" bands is the fame that fans give them - there are plenty of unsigned/indie bands that are just as good/accessible, but are unknown. The value that RIAA attributes to their songs is merely the demand that fans give it - the songs themselves are (generally) not unique or valuable. That's why their lawsuits are so bogus - they're suing fans for the value that fans give songs - not for any value that the songs have.
This is why sites like eMusic (or youtube, etc) are great - they're cheap, and their product is just as good (if not better), but just isn't as well known and hence doesn't have the same "value".