If it's mostly mp3s, then try organising them in iTunes. If you select your whole library, and tell it to burn a data CD or DVD, and it doesn't all fit on one, then it will keep prompting you for additional media until it's all burnt.
Otherwise, as another poster has suggested.. you could get a real OS. (or install cygwin;-)
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
I know very little about Vista, so won't comment on that, but..
"It converts MP3s and CDs into un-DRMed AAC" well yes, but that's hardly the point. AAC is also known as mp4, and is the successor to mp3 - an openly documented standard (though not a _free_ standard, as ogg is). On a Mac, these files appear as m4a. The files from the iTunes music store are m4p, and are DRMd. The difference between the two is that anyone can play any m4a file. an m4p file can only be played on Mac or Windows, because it encrypts usinng DRM. Note that this is a layer on top of AAC/mp4 and is *not* part of the standard.
""Suckers" already do eat it up like candy, because AAC offers better sound quality than MP3" This is simplistic and is debatable.
At low bit rates (below 160kbit/s) maybe, but once one gets to 192kbits, particularly if using the excellent LAME encoder, the differences are less obvious. Many people think that lame --alt-preset standard exceeds the quality of the iTunes AAC encoder at comparible bit rates.
In any case, this has absolutely *nothing* to do with the (de)merits of DRM.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
"I challenge this concept" -I agree with you. I don't think it's simple. However, this is the reason touted for copyright - correct or not.
"disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain" I think this is an interesing idea, and have suggested it on/. before;-) In some ways, this makes more sense, because IP isn't really 'property' and so perhaps this would help differentiate between _real_ property (which is transferable), and a granted temporary monopoly...
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think you misundersand me.
Imagine an ipod in the future. The ipod doesn't play mp3s anymore - it *only* plays Apple's DRMd music. I'm a musician, and record my band playing music, but I can't put it on my ipod directly - I have to implement DRM on the music for the ipod to play it.
This could happen.
"If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work?"
I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. If I pay you to experience your creation, by what right to you seek to regulate the way I experience it? Will you try and tell me what colour shoes I may wear, for example?
Note that there are two issues here. The first is artist renumeration. This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art. The second is control, and it has nothing to do with renumeration for the artist. Instead it's about power for the distributers of the art - power over both the artist and those who wish to experience their art.
Remember that copyright is not a 'right' per se - it's a TEMPORARY incentive given by the government to help people to profit from their creations, thereby encouraging creation for the benefit of humanity.
Re:the most important
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you"
Uh huh - and what happens when your media player *only* accepts DRMd media? where will you be then?
The way things are going, this will happen - especially as more companies become both vendors of hardware *and* media...
Well, probably. But what you're doing is just adding noise to the system - this can be circumvented by just taking longer to send the time-based data (ie send the data with greater redundancy, so that it's more noise tolerant). Also, adding jitter would slow the network connection because you can't make transmission faster, you can only slow it by the mean delay of your introduced noise.
A more effective method would be to use a method of transmission that wasn't time-dependent on what the user typed. For example, ssh could be designed so that it sent a packet every 100ms (whatever - I don't know the specific time) regardless of what the user had typed. I think this would render this attack useless, but would still introduce some latency...
The article says 'In applications such as telnet and remote desktop, a packet is sent every time a user presses a key' - is this the case with ssh too? I mean - surely *nobody* uses telnet for secure communications!
Why, once the system is booted cleanly, can't it save its state in initrd, and just load the state the next time without going through the boot process? Would that result in fast booting?
Before I say something that makes you howl with frustration, and wish you could pummel me into a pulp...;-)
(I agree - denying evolution is stupid. Evolution is real, and ID is a load of crap, propogated by people with a social and political agenda)
Now... (I'm splitting hairs here, but) science fundamentally *cannot* prove that evolution is a fact. There's no way we can show that there is no god out there pulling strings to manipulate molecules in just the way that we would expect. In fact, there are very few 'facts' that can be 'proven' scientifically. The only thing that science can do is to show what *isn't* true.
Read some of Karl Popper's papers. Reading them, and also 'The burden of proof' by Kevin Lafferty really helped to clarify my understanding of the scientific method.
My opinion is that ID *could* be right. It's possible. However, there's absolutely no proof that ID is true (as opposed to evolution, which has lots of supporting evidence), and ID sure as hell isn't science!
Having said all this, I wouldn't bother making these arguements when argueing with an ID proponent. they wouldn't be a scientist, and wouldn't understand. I'd just stick to the 'ID isn't science, cause it can't be negated' arguement. but this is slashdot, and we're here because we love argueing over technicalities;-)
historical evolution *might* be a fact - we'll never know. I agree that microbiologists, etc have witnessed evolution. Personally, I think the theory of evolution accuratly describes what has occured. Is it perfect? No. Is it getting better? Yes! there's still plenty we don't know about it, but we're learning. Hence the theroy evolves;-).
"there is no reason at all why anyone with an open mind prepared to examine the evidence would disagree with evolution." Yeah.. I agree. the open mind bit is the killer, ain't it?;-)
The best arguements against 'intelligent design' are scientific: It has no falsifiable hypothesis, therefore, it isn't science.
"within the scientific community there is no debate at all that evolution is a fact." Actually, I think that any scientist should say that it appears likely to be true, or at least accurate. Look at gravity:
Galileo -> Newton -> Einstein -> then what? Of course things will be refined further!!!
As time passes, our understanding of evolution will mature, and will more closely resemble the 'truth' (in the sence of Plato's shadows on the cave wall). Please don't assume that because I'm pointing out the scientific reality and limits of empirical knowledge that I'm argueing for Intelligent design!
You're wrong in places.
Evolution is a theory. I think it's a theory that accuratly describes what occured, but it still remains just a theory. It will never be a fact. As a theory, it will be refined over time, and will more closely approach the truth. This is all that science does. Ever. There are no facts.
Climate Change is another theory. There is much evidence that it is occuring, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the majority cause is anthropogenic. My fiance just attended a geological/geophysical conference (where many of the talks were from the petroleum industry), and that was the consensus there too. The loud voices you hear criticising the scientific consensus are generally (I think) paid mouthpieces, or people who have a personal interest in discrediting climate change theory.
Stem cells are different. There are few current applications, but it is thought that research into using stem cells could yield excellent new treatments for many diseases. There isn't really a 'theory of stem cells'. Personally, I favour stem cell research, provided safe-guards are in place. Historically, governments/societies that repress science are well on the way to repressing their citizenry.
The thing that I think ties these issues together, is that the powers that be are using them (along with gay rights, etc) as a wedge issue, to confuse and distract the populace, while they slowly increase their power and that of their cronies at the expense of the vast majority of us. Also, there is an attempt to politicise science and restrict education - always a dangerous thing for any society to do. Our government in Australia is doing the same thing. I think if we continue down this road, we'll see a schism in Western civilisation between Europe on one hand, and Aust/US on the other. The latter will go do sh!t quickly... I reckon a generation or two will do it.
"Only someone lacking in business sense signs an agreement without understanding what the repercussions might be."
So, according to you, it's absolutely fine to take advantage of people who lack business sense, are distracted (eg. single parent), or are just stupid? Is that your general attitude to life?
And really.. would you truely read an entire agreement everytime you purchase a song (remember, the contract could be changed between purchases)? Would you be in a position to negotiate with Apple, if you didn't agree? I mean, c'mon.. this is crazy!
I think this is a good illustration of the free market operating to transfer money and power from the many to the few. I believe in renumeration comensurate with performance, but to argue that a CEO is 1000x (number pulled from ass) more valuable to a company than it's employees on the ground is just ludicrous. The management skills required to run companies are not as rare as the salaries of these people would indicate - especially when one considers the pathetic (and oftentimes illegal) way in which these companies are commonly run.
Thus we have an example of the wealth of the many being transfered to the few (in a manner not based on merit, but rather, groupthink), and why a _totally_ free market is a terrible thing, and not in the interests of the majority.
I agree with you. Perhaps I expressed myself badly. What I meant when I said 'respecting the creations' was really 'giving financial compensation to the creator (of useful things) to encourage the act of creation.'
From Priviledged Producer: "Microsoft......are the targets of promonopoly interference by the U.S. government" and "What I suggest is a definition of monopoly that......is: Monopoly is a market or part of a market reserved to the exclusive possession of one or more sellers by means of the initiation of physical force." yet.. "Similarly, to the extent that France or any country has, or has had, legislation designed to protect large numbers of small merchants, such as butchers, grocers, and haberdashers against the competition of more efficient large chains, that too constitutes the forcible reservation of a market or segment of a market to the exclusive possession of one set of producers"
I don't know that this is relevant. As with anything, there are degrees. French law is quite protectionist of their small merchants - that shouldn't be used as an arguement about market regulation per se. It's an example of using a specific instance to argue against a concept - an invalid arguement.
Then why does Microsoft's lack of interoperability not constitute a 'forcible reservation of a market', and how would a lack of legislation protect the market from such things occuring? (namely: Should MS be able to coerce PC sellers to include Windows? Should they be able to deliberately obfuscate APIs and interfaces to thwart other OSs? Should they have been able to engineer IE to render google more slowly?)
I think the difference between merely being successful, and being oppressive is the deliberate construction of artificial barriers to entry to the market. Microsoft did this, and so too are Apple with FairPlay (in my opinion).
To be honest, I'm skeptical about that URL you're citing. I think they're biased at best. Those articles do not represent an analysis of the antitrust case. Instead, they use it to make an arguement for deregulation of trade. I think they have an agenda (but then, I guess I'm a little left of centre;-).
Interesting. I'm not familiar with Standard Oil. I guess my opinion is that we need some legislation to 'keep the free-market free'.
What's your opinion on the Microsoft antitrust? Should MS be able to coerce PC sellers to include Windows? Should they be able to deliberately obfuscate APIs and interfaces to thwart other OSs? Should they have been able to engineer IE to render google more slowly? I would think these things would be legitimate in a "totally" free-market, without legislation.
Your example of PC hardware is interesting. Do you think there'd be the same investment in research if one's competitors could just rip-off one's inventions? I also think it's interesting that online media companies are engaging in anti-free-market tactics - also known as DRM (while I do concede that this is helped by stupid legislation).
Adam Smith's ideas assumed that the customer was in possession of all the facts. I think we need legislation to prevent corporations taking advantage of stupid/ignorant/distracted customers. Contract law is all very well for large and infrequent deals, but who has the time to check the contract every time they want to buy a song online?
"Cartels exist because they have the legal monopoly to do so" - my (somewhat naive) understanding of economics is that the unregulated free market tends towards mega-corporations - which are basically cartels. I think this has been shown using many computer models, and many initial conditions and that the only way to prevent it is to add some other factor (like regulation/legislation). While free-trade (or libeterianism) seems like a nice ideal, I think that (like other nice ideals: communism, capitalism) it would be horrible in reality (horrible like a boot stamping on a human face, forever).
Anyway, back to the point, I agree that copyright law, as it stands, isn't working. However, I think this is a problem with the implemtation rather than the concept. Copyright law is about respecting the creations of others - it doesn't have to be about killing the market. There are several problems with copyrights, as I see it: 1. They last too damn long 2. They're transferable (can be sold / given away). This comes from the idea of 'intellectual property'. If this wasn't the case, things would be better, I reckon. 3. The big companies that own a majority of the copyrights also own our governments, and bribe them to enact stupid legislation (DMCA).
However, I reckon having a non-transferable copyright that lasted say 10 years would work much better, and would be a better result than just scrapping copyright altogether.
Having said all this, I dind't read your links, but will sometime!;-)
Oh definitely. Imagine subsidising a power source.. the government putting vast amounts of money into an unsustainable business proposition.
The only thing stupider than that would be to, hmm lets see, fight a war for such a resource when other resources could be used instead.
Imagine that, huh? what a waste of money (not to mention life)!
But seriously now, I've heard that the nuclear industry gets similar government rebates - can anyone quantify this? I suppose future governments having to deal with the waste could be seen as a government subsidy..
That's crazy. Money in a bank account is constantly losing value, and you should keep as little there as possible (I usually keep about $500 - $1000). The reason for this is that typical bank transaction accounts basically give you no interest.
You're much better off having a dedicated savings account (that typically has restricted access) with an interest rate at least as high as inflation!
They can only do this editing using deCSS (which is illegal - thank you DMCA).
Using the same methods, they could also remove the adverts at the beginning of the DVD - clearly Hollywood doesn't want this to happen.
As some other posters have noted, this is nothing but a power-grab on the part of Hollywood - in the disguise of artistic integrity.
This is one step towards a DVD (or movie) player that can't FF or RW at all, just plays straight through from beginning to end. Of course, such a media will have commercial breaks - to get a copy without commercials one has to shell out for the premium version.;-)
this is ridiculous - are you suggesting that ITMS shoppers ought to read the entire contract every time they buy a song (this is necessary according to you, since Apple could conceivably change the contract at any time)? Should they 'strike out' parts of the contract they don't agree with?!?
I suggest you get out of your ivory tower, and live in the real world.
Funny you should say that. MacOS is def good, but there's something about the UI in linux that I prefer. Not sure what.
I run Tiger on my G4 800 iBook, as my main OS, but I just got an old laptop from a mate. It's an IBM ThinkPad 600e (P2 397Mhz, 96Mb RAM). I've just installed Xubuntu (The same as Ubuntu, but with XFCE instead of Gnome - it's much lighter). It was a piece of cake, and is excellent to use. I don't think I'll migrate away from my iBook, but if it wasn't for Protools (damn you, Digidesign!) I'd seriously think about running Linux on that too.
The only thing that I love about my iBook, that I doubt would happen under Linux, is the sleep functionality. My iBook wakes from sleep before the lid is completely open. That totally changes the way I use the computer. It's worth opening the computer to do 5 seconds of stuff - not the case when I have to boot Ubuntu that's for sure! (I just read here http://www.tgunkel.de/it/hardware/doc/ibook_g4_lin ux.en that sleep works in recent Linux kernels. Can't verify that tho)
Summary: You should (provided you choose something sensible) be able to get everything working.
Slashdot Mirror
That's approximately 117 mm for the real scientists
If it's mostly mp3s, then try organising them in iTunes. If you select your whole library, and tell it to burn a data CD or DVD, and it doesn't all fit on one, then it will keep prompting you for additional media until it's all burnt.
;-)
Otherwise, as another poster has suggested.. you could get a real OS. (or install cygwin
I know very little about Vista, so won't comment on that, but..
"It converts MP3s and CDs into un-DRMed AAC"
well yes, but that's hardly the point. AAC is also known as mp4, and is the successor to mp3 - an openly documented standard (though not a _free_ standard, as ogg is). On a Mac, these files appear as m4a. The files from the iTunes music store are m4p, and are DRMd. The difference between the two is that anyone can play any m4a file. an m4p file can only be played on Mac or Windows, because it encrypts usinng DRM. Note that this is a layer on top of AAC/mp4 and is *not* part of the standard.
""Suckers" already do eat it up like candy, because AAC offers better sound quality than MP3"
This is simplistic and is debatable.
At low bit rates (below 160kbit/s) maybe, but once one gets to 192kbits, particularly if using the excellent LAME encoder, the differences are less obvious. Many people think that lame --alt-preset standard exceeds the quality of the iTunes AAC encoder at comparible bit rates.
In any case, this has absolutely *nothing* to do with the (de)merits of DRM.
"I challenge this concept"
-I agree with you. I don't think it's simple. However, this is the reason touted for copyright - correct or not.
"disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain"
I think this is an interesing idea, and have suggested it on
In some ways, this makes more sense, because IP isn't really 'property' and so perhaps this would help differentiate between _real_ property (which is transferable), and a granted temporary monopoly...
I think you misundersand me.
Imagine an ipod in the future. The ipod doesn't play mp3s anymore - it *only* plays Apple's DRMd music. I'm a musician, and record my band playing music, but I can't put it on my ipod directly - I have to implement DRM on the music for the ipod to play it.
This could happen.
"If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work?"
I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. If I pay you to experience your creation, by what right to you seek to regulate the way I experience it? Will you try and tell me what colour shoes I may wear, for example?
Note that there are two issues here. The first is artist renumeration. This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art. The second is control, and it has nothing to do with renumeration for the artist. Instead it's about power for the distributers of the art - power over both the artist and those who wish to experience their art.
Remember that copyright is not a 'right' per se - it's a TEMPORARY incentive given by the government to help people to profit from their creations, thereby encouraging creation for the benefit of humanity.
"if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you"
Uh huh - and what happens when your media player *only* accepts DRMd media? where will you be then?
The way things are going, this will happen - especially as more companies become both vendors of hardware *and* media...
Well, probably. But what you're doing is just adding noise to the system - this can be circumvented by just taking longer to send the time-based data (ie send the data with greater redundancy, so that it's more noise tolerant). Also, adding jitter would slow the network connection because you can't make transmission faster, you can only slow it by the mean delay of your introduced noise.
A more effective method would be to use a method of transmission that wasn't time-dependent on what the user typed. For example, ssh could be designed so that it sent a packet every 100ms (whatever - I don't know the specific time) regardless of what the user had typed. I think this would render this attack useless, but would still introduce some latency...
The article says 'In applications such as telnet and remote desktop, a packet is sent every time a user presses a key' - is this the case with ssh too? I mean - surely *nobody* uses telnet for secure communications!
I don't know much about this, but am curious.
Why, once the system is booted cleanly, can't it save its state in initrd, and just load the state the next time without going through the boot process? Would that result in fast booting?
Well, I wouldn't worry about that. If they're using this tech to try to discredit evolution, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
For how many years out of the past 3 - 4 billion has the Earth been near absolute zero? (my guess is none)
Before I say something that makes you howl with frustration, and wish you could pummel me into a pulp... ;-)
;-)
(I agree - denying evolution is stupid. Evolution is real, and ID is a load of crap, propogated by people with a social and political agenda)
Now... (I'm splitting hairs here, but) science fundamentally *cannot* prove that evolution is a fact. There's no way we can show that there is no god out there pulling strings to manipulate molecules in just the way that we would expect. In fact, there are very few 'facts' that can be 'proven' scientifically. The only thing that science can do is to show what *isn't* true.
Read some of Karl Popper's papers. Reading them, and also 'The burden of proof' by Kevin Lafferty really helped to clarify my understanding of the scientific method.
My opinion is that ID *could* be right. It's possible. However, there's absolutely no proof that ID is true (as opposed to evolution, which has lots of supporting evidence), and ID sure as hell isn't science!
Having said all this, I wouldn't bother making these arguements when argueing with an ID proponent. they wouldn't be a scientist, and wouldn't understand. I'd just stick to the 'ID isn't science, cause it can't be negated' arguement. but this is slashdot, and we're here because we love argueing over technicalities
historical evolution *might* be a fact - we'll never know. I agree that microbiologists, etc have witnessed evolution. Personally, I think the theory of evolution accuratly describes what has occured. Is it perfect? No. Is it getting better? Yes! there's still plenty we don't know about it, but we're learning. Hence the theroy evolves ;-).
;-)
"there is no reason at all why anyone with an open mind prepared to examine the evidence would disagree with evolution." Yeah.. I agree. the open mind bit is the killer, ain't it?
The best arguements against 'intelligent design' are scientific: It has no falsifiable hypothesis, therefore, it isn't science.
"within the scientific community there is no debate at all that evolution is a fact." Actually, I think that any scientist should say that it appears likely to be true, or at least accurate. Look at gravity:
Galileo -> Newton -> Einstein -> then what? Of course things will be refined further!!!
As time passes, our understanding of evolution will mature, and will more closely resemble the 'truth' (in the sence of Plato's shadows on the cave wall). Please don't assume that because I'm pointing out the scientific reality and limits of empirical knowledge that I'm argueing for Intelligent design!
You're wrong in places.
Evolution is a theory. I think it's a theory that accuratly describes what occured, but it still remains just a theory. It will never be a fact. As a theory, it will be refined over time, and will more closely approach the truth. This is all that science does. Ever. There are no facts.
Climate Change is another theory. There is much evidence that it is occuring, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the majority cause is anthropogenic. My fiance just attended a geological/geophysical conference (where many of the talks were from the petroleum industry), and that was the consensus there too. The loud voices you hear criticising the scientific consensus are generally (I think) paid mouthpieces, or people who have a personal interest in discrediting climate change theory.
Stem cells are different. There are few current applications, but it is thought that research into using stem cells could yield excellent new treatments for many diseases. There isn't really a 'theory of stem cells'. Personally, I favour stem cell research, provided safe-guards are in place. Historically, governments/societies that repress science are well on the way to repressing their citizenry.
The thing that I think ties these issues together, is that the powers that be are using them (along with gay rights, etc) as a wedge issue, to confuse and distract the populace, while they slowly increase their power and that of their cronies at the expense of the vast majority of us. Also, there is an attempt to politicise science and restrict education - always a dangerous thing for any society to do. Our government in Australia is doing the same thing. I think if we continue down this road, we'll see a schism in Western civilisation between Europe on one hand, and Aust/US on the other. The latter will go do sh!t quickly... I reckon a generation or two will do it.
"...don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum"
t .main/index.html)?
Do you mean a legal public forum like the UN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideas
"Only someone lacking in business sense signs an agreement without understanding what the repercussions might be."
So, according to you, it's absolutely fine to take advantage of people who lack business sense, are distracted (eg. single parent), or are just stupid? Is that your general attitude to life?
And really.. would you truely read an entire agreement everytime you purchase a song (remember, the contract could be changed between purchases)? Would you be in a position to negotiate with Apple, if you didn't agree? I mean, c'mon.. this is crazy!
I think this is a good illustration of the free market operating to transfer money and power from the many to the few. I believe in renumeration comensurate with performance, but to argue that a CEO is 1000x (number pulled from ass) more valuable to a company than it's employees on the ground is just ludicrous. The management skills required to run companies are not as rare as the salaries of these people would indicate - especially when one considers the pathetic (and oftentimes illegal) way in which these companies are commonly run.
Thus we have an example of the wealth of the many being transfered to the few (in a manner not based on merit, but rather, groupthink), and why a _totally_ free market is a terrible thing, and not in the interests of the majority.
I agree with you. Perhaps I expressed myself badly. What I meant when I said 'respecting the creations' was really 'giving financial compensation to the creator (of useful things) to encourage the act of creation.'
;-)
Cheers!
From Priviledged Producer: ...are the targets of promonopoly interference by the U.S. government" and ...is: Monopoly is a market or part of a market reserved to the exclusive possession of one or more sellers by means of the initiation of physical force."
;-).
"Microsoft...
"What I suggest is a definition of monopoly that...
yet..
"Similarly, to the extent that France or any country has, or has had, legislation designed to protect large numbers of small merchants, such as butchers, grocers, and haberdashers against the competition of more efficient large chains, that too constitutes the forcible reservation of a market or segment of a market to the exclusive possession of one set of producers"
I don't know that this is relevant. As with anything, there are degrees. French law is quite protectionist of their small merchants - that shouldn't be used as an arguement about market regulation per se. It's an example of using a specific instance to argue against a concept - an invalid arguement.
Then why does Microsoft's lack of interoperability not constitute a 'forcible reservation of a market', and how would a lack of legislation protect the market from such things occuring? (namely: Should MS be able to coerce PC sellers to include Windows? Should they be able to deliberately obfuscate APIs and interfaces to thwart other OSs? Should they have been able to engineer IE to render google more slowly?)
I think the difference between merely being successful, and being oppressive is the deliberate construction of artificial barriers to entry to the market. Microsoft did this, and so too are Apple with FairPlay (in my opinion).
To be honest, I'm skeptical about that URL you're citing. I think they're biased at best. Those articles do not represent an analysis of the antitrust case. Instead, they use it to make an arguement for deregulation of trade. I think they have an agenda (but then, I guess I'm a little left of centre
Interesting reading, anyway!
Interesting. I'm not familiar with Standard Oil. I guess my opinion is that we need some legislation to 'keep the free-market free'.
What's your opinion on the Microsoft antitrust? Should MS be able to coerce PC sellers to include Windows? Should they be able to deliberately obfuscate APIs and interfaces to thwart other OSs? Should they have been able to engineer IE to render google more slowly? I would think these things would be legitimate in a "totally" free-market, without legislation.
Your example of PC hardware is interesting. Do you think there'd be the same investment in research if one's competitors could just rip-off one's inventions? I also think it's interesting that online media companies are engaging in anti-free-market tactics - also known as DRM (while I do concede that this is helped by stupid legislation).
Adam Smith's ideas assumed that the customer was in possession of all the facts. I think we need legislation to prevent corporations taking advantage of stupid/ignorant/distracted customers. Contract law is all very well for large and infrequent deals, but who has the time to check the contract every time they want to buy a song online?
Well, I think you're right in parts...
;-)
"Cartels exist because they have the legal monopoly to do so" - my (somewhat naive) understanding of economics is that the unregulated free market tends towards mega-corporations - which are basically cartels. I think this has been shown using many computer models, and many initial conditions and that the only way to prevent it is to add some other factor (like regulation/legislation). While free-trade (or libeterianism) seems like a nice ideal, I think that (like other nice ideals: communism, capitalism) it would be horrible in reality (horrible like a boot stamping on a human face, forever).
Anyway, back to the point, I agree that copyright law, as it stands, isn't working. However, I think this is a problem with the implemtation rather than the concept. Copyright law is about respecting the creations of others - it doesn't have to be about killing the market. There are several problems with copyrights, as I see it:
1. They last too damn long
2. They're transferable (can be sold / given away). This comes from the idea of 'intellectual property'. If this wasn't the case, things would be better, I reckon.
3. The big companies that own a majority of the copyrights also own our governments, and bribe them to enact stupid legislation (DMCA).
However, I reckon having a non-transferable copyright that lasted say 10 years would work much better, and would be a better result than just scrapping copyright altogether.
Having said all this, I dind't read your links, but will sometime!
Oh definitely. Imagine subsidising a power source.. the government putting vast amounts of money into an unsustainable business proposition. The only thing stupider than that would be to, hmm lets see, fight a war for such a resource when other resources could be used instead.
Imagine that, huh? what a waste of money (not to mention life)!
But seriously now, I've heard that the nuclear industry gets similar government rebates - can anyone quantify this? I suppose future governments having to deal with the waste could be seen as a government subsidy..
That's crazy. Money in a bank account is constantly losing value, and you should keep as little there as possible (I usually keep about $500 - $1000). The reason for this is that typical bank transaction accounts basically give you no interest.
You're much better off having a dedicated savings account (that typically has restricted access) with an interest rate at least as high as inflation!
They can only do this editing using deCSS (which is illegal - thank you DMCA).
Using the same methods, they could also remove the adverts at the beginning of the DVD - clearly Hollywood doesn't want this to happen.
As some other posters have noted, this is nothing but a power-grab on the part of Hollywood - in the disguise of artistic integrity.
This is one step towards a DVD (or movie) player that can't FF or RW at all, just plays straight through from beginning to end. Of course, such a media will have commercial breaks - to get a copy without commercials one has to shell out for the premium version.
Troll?!? seems a bit unfair to me! Makes a valid point.
this is ridiculous - are you suggesting that ITMS shoppers ought to read the entire contract every time they buy a song (this is necessary according to you, since Apple could conceivably change the contract at any time)? Should they 'strike out' parts of the contract they don't agree with?!?
I suggest you get out of your ivory tower, and live in the real world.
Funny you should say that. MacOS is def good, but there's something about the UI in linux that I prefer. Not sure what.
n ux.en that sleep works in recent Linux kernels. Can't verify that tho)
I run Tiger on my G4 800 iBook, as my main OS, but I just got an old laptop from a mate. It's an IBM ThinkPad 600e (P2 397Mhz, 96Mb RAM). I've just installed Xubuntu (The same as Ubuntu, but with XFCE instead of Gnome - it's much lighter). It was a piece of cake, and is excellent to use. I don't think I'll migrate away from my iBook, but if it wasn't for Protools (damn you, Digidesign!) I'd seriously think about running Linux on that too.
The only thing that I love about my iBook, that I doubt would happen under Linux, is the sleep functionality. My iBook wakes from sleep before the lid is completely open. That totally changes the way I use the computer. It's worth opening the computer to do 5 seconds of stuff - not the case when I have to boot Ubuntu that's for sure! (I just read here http://www.tgunkel.de/it/hardware/doc/ibook_g4_li
Summary: You should (provided you choose something sensible) be able to get everything working.