There are already many, many devices that let you do this: mobile phones.
There will soon be far more music - download equipped handsets than there are iPod like devices.
The music industry love it too, as they an charge a lot more. On the internet piracy, competition and people getting tracks from their own CDs is a poblem for the labels, but mobile platforms are very very closed and people are used to paying for things (unlike free MP3s from the net).
Does a fleeing criminal always know a cop isn't allowed to shoot, or might he pull a gun and go to shoot the cop, thereby giving the cop an excuse to pull his gun?
This is a restriction accepted by Apple from the video owners, and was pretty much the only way they could sell and make money from video on the iTunes Store at all.
Abosultely correct. iTunes, the iPod and iTMS are designed from the start to be a completely self contained, locked in system and to bare other companies from competeing in any of its domains - software and hardware players and store.
The music companies know very well Apple have a monopoly and they don't like it one bit. They're likeyl to want MS to succeed so there's some competition thyere.
What's really importsnt is that the Zune software will peobably come with or be an almost mandatory download for every windows amchine and most people will use it on their PC to listen to music, so when it comes to buying a portable device to take that music out and about the natural choice will be a zune.
I expect to see many PC manufacturers offering Zunes as optional extras, like they do with printers,digital cameras etc. now.
Reading this it's clear how important it is that Nintendo make both the hardware and many of the games for their system. There's a great synergy there that none of the other console companies, or PC games companies, enjoy.
I don't think it's an artificial distinction here. (Though it doesn't really matter if the music is the data or if it's somehow in the data or if the music is only what you can hear).
What you're saying is, I need the music data and the key to actually hear anything.
So you giving me a copy of only the music data isn't enough to give me a copy of the music.
You'd need to give me the key too, which you can't do. So the DRM has prevented you giving me a copy of the music.
That's an interesting point, my original thought was mistaken and what I wrote was unclear, however your reply has a mistake too. I think we've both confused 'the music' and 'the bits'.
You say DRM'd music is just bits, and it is, but that means that those bits can be _accessed_ with no limits (as well as copied) - they just can't be meaningfully interpreted.
If there is a DRM'd music file on one machine and that file is copied to another machine that is not authorised to play it by the DRM, then we have copied the bits across but we've not copied the music - the file on the destination machine is _not_ music, it's not even audible!
(But it can be converted into music again if the machine becomes authorised)
If I have a DRM'd music file on my machine that my machine is authorised to play the DRM doesn't prevent me accessing it (the music) but it does prevent me copying it (the music) and giving it to someone else to play.
On the other hand if I have a DRM'd music file on my machine and my machine is NOT authorised to play it, the DRM DOES prevent me accssing it (the music) and it also prevents me copying it and giving it to someone else to play.
No, it prevents copying. You can still listen to DRM'ed audio, just not copy it.
Of course you can access/listen to it, what would be the point otherwise!
But Microsoft don't have the right to let someone send even three copies of any song for even three days, unless the rigths owner grants it to them.
If they let you share your own song for three days then the device must also allow you to share, say, songs you've copied froma bougth CD for three days - and that is illegal. MS can't just say, "oh,3 days & 3 plays can't do any harm. That's not really IP theft!" because it's not up to them!
It's hypocritical of Apple to complain that people, individuals or governments, want to remove or restrict its use of DRM when the only reason iPods were a success is because of all the music already out there that had no DRM.
According to theregister "The average iPod owner has done little more than dabble with Apple's store, figures show, carrying an average of 21 iTunes-purchased songs" so most of the music on most iPods is either illegally downloaded from the net in forms without DRM or ripped from CDs (and please note that even doing that is not legal in many countries outside the US).
If people had to buy all the music for their iPods from the iTMS they simply wouldn't buy iPods. Apple says their 30GB iPod hold 7500 songs, and at 99c each that's $7425!
Apple took advantage of all those CDs, records and MP3s already out there to get to the top, and now they're trying to lock the door behond them with DRM and legislation to keep them there by stopping competitors having the same chance they did.
All hail the mighty U S of A who have the (god given of course, and a real god too, not one of those crappy non-christian gods!) right to tell people in other countries what to do!
Can't see any mention here of or in the article of the appeal of the fictional names used for the bands.
A good name can make people like a band more.
Names like Guns'n'Roses, Nirvana, Gorillaz etc can be appealing to some people but there are certain names that will put a lot of people off, like Creme Bule, Anal Cunt or Test Icicles (personal bias ahoy!)
Some of the names in the test are:
GO MOREDCAI, NOT FOR SCHOLARS, PARKER THEORY, RYAN ESSMAKER, DANTE, A BLINDING SILENCE, SELSIUS, SILVERFOX, HYDRAULIC SANDWICH.
KNowing nothing else but that I have a bias already that 'Hydraulic Sandwich' are going to be bad.
Hydraulic Sandwich? Shit sandwich.
That's sarcastic and silly.
Apple are using their player and download service to leverage each other.
What you're saying is who cares if they screw the large record companies. Fair enough. But what if they're screwing music consumers too, by limiting what they can do with music they buy for example? Or locking out competition?
My experience FWIW:
Mag a) Edited/laid out on macs, most contributors/writers and even photographers use PCs
b) Edited/laid out on Macs, most contributors/writers and even photographers use PCs
c) Er, exactly the same.
d) Web-based, done on PCs, contributors are a mix of Mac and PC.
This seems to suggest that Macs are fine at DTP, but too expensive and limited for people to buy with their own money and if they want to do other things on them. Bear in mind that DTP/publishing is a trad Mac stronghold.
It is true that digital lets more people try out risky shots and therefore democratizes photography.
With film there were few people who could afford to shoot enough to learn certain skills.
On the other hand it does seem that digital encourage people to shoot away randomly and just choose whichever happens to come out best, rather than actually understanding what they're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
There are already many, many devices that let you do this: mobile phones.
A bba-Waterloo-51670.html
you can buy tracks for £1.50 / $2 wheras on iTunes they're 79c 99p. You often have to pay for the data transfer on top.
There will soon be far more music - download equipped handsets than there are iPod like devices.
The music industry love it too, as they an charge a lot more. On the internet piracy, competition and people getting tracks from their own CDs is a poblem for the labels, but mobile platforms are very very closed and people are used to paying for things (unlike free MP3s from the net).
For exapl here http://www.web2txt.co.uk/mp3-full-track-download-
I wonder is there some reason MS don't want to get into that market, maybe they have conflicting interests there?
Does a fleeing criminal always know a cop isn't allowed to shoot, or might he pull a gun and go to shoot the cop, thereby giving the cop an excuse to pull his gun?
But it's Apple who are charging you for this stuff.
This is a restriction accepted by Apple from the video owners, and was pretty much the only way they could sell and make money from video on the iTunes Store at all.
Abosultely correct. iTunes, the iPod and iTMS are designed from the start to be a completely self contained, locked in system and to bare other companies from competeing in any of its domains - software and hardware players and store.
The music companies know very well Apple have a monopoly and they don't like it one bit. They're likeyl to want MS to succeed so there's some competition thyere.
What's really importsnt is that the Zune software will peobably come with or be an almost mandatory download for every windows amchine and most people will use it on their PC to listen to music, so when it comes to buying a portable device to take that music out and about the natural choice will be a zune. I expect to see many PC manufacturers offering Zunes as optional extras, like they do with printers,digital cameras etc. now.
Reading this it's clear how important it is that Nintendo make both the hardware and many of the games for their system. There's a great synergy there that none of the other console companies, or PC games companies, enjoy.
I don't think it's an artificial distinction here. (Though it doesn't really matter if the music is the data or if it's somehow in the data or if the music is only what you can hear).
What you're saying is, I need the music data and the key to actually hear anything.
So you giving me a copy of only the music data isn't enough to give me a copy of the music. You'd need to give me the key too, which you can't do. So the DRM has prevented you giving me a copy of the music.
(Sorry that looks like a mess, do I have to put the paragraph break tags in manually now?)
That's an interesting point, my original thought was mistaken and what I wrote was unclear, however your reply has a mistake too. I think we've both confused 'the music' and 'the bits'. You say DRM'd music is just bits, and it is, but that means that those bits can be _accessed_ with no limits (as well as copied) - they just can't be meaningfully interpreted. If there is a DRM'd music file on one machine and that file is copied to another machine that is not authorised to play it by the DRM, then we have copied the bits across but we've not copied the music - the file on the destination machine is _not_ music, it's not even audible! (But it can be converted into music again if the machine becomes authorised) If I have a DRM'd music file on my machine that my machine is authorised to play the DRM doesn't prevent me accessing it (the music) but it does prevent me copying it (the music) and giving it to someone else to play. On the other hand if I have a DRM'd music file on my machine and my machine is NOT authorised to play it, the DRM DOES prevent me accssing it (the music) and it also prevents me copying it and giving it to someone else to play.
And I'll give him two. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever eard anyone who's not a member of parliament say.
No, it prevents copying. You can still listen to DRM'ed audio, just not copy it. Of course you can access/listen to it, what would be the point otherwise!
Sharing unlimited numbers of copies of someone else's songs isn't fair use though is it, no matter how few times those songs play.
But Microsoft don't have the right to let someone send even three copies of any song for even three days, unless the rigths owner grants it to them. If they let you share your own song for three days then the device must also allow you to share, say, songs you've copied froma bougth CD for three days - and that is illegal. MS can't just say, "oh,3 days & 3 plays can't do any harm. That's not really IP theft!" because it's not up to them!
Most people only buy an iPod because they know they can take advantage of 'stolen' music.
It's hypocritical of Apple to complain that people, individuals or governments, want to remove or restrict its use of DRM when the only reason iPods were a success is because of all the music already out there that had no DRM.
According to theregister "The average iPod owner has done little more than dabble with Apple's store, figures show, carrying an average of 21 iTunes-purchased songs" so most of the music on most iPods is either illegally downloaded from the net in forms without DRM or ripped from CDs (and please note that even doing that is not legal in many countries outside the US).
If people had to buy all the music for their iPods from the iTMS they simply wouldn't buy iPods. Apple says their 30GB iPod hold 7500 songs, and at 99c each that's $7425! Apple took advantage of all those CDs, records and MP3s already out there to get to the top, and now they're trying to lock the door behond them with DRM and legislation to keep them there by stopping competitors having the same chance they did.
All hail the mighty U S of A who have the (god given of course, and a real god too, not one of those crappy non-christian gods!) right to tell people in other countries what to do!
Yes.
Well with any luck they'll stop Apple using their name, which they've operated under for many years in a very similar market.
Dude!
Do you have two dicks?
Four???
Can't see any mention here of or in the article of the appeal of the fictional names used for the bands. A good name can make people like a band more. Names like Guns'n'Roses, Nirvana, Gorillaz etc can be appealing to some people but there are certain names that will put a lot of people off, like Creme Bule, Anal Cunt or Test Icicles (personal bias ahoy!) Some of the names in the test are: GO MOREDCAI, NOT FOR SCHOLARS, PARKER THEORY, RYAN ESSMAKER, DANTE, A BLINDING SILENCE, SELSIUS, SILVERFOX, HYDRAULIC SANDWICH. KNowing nothing else but that I have a bias already that 'Hydraulic Sandwich' are going to be bad. Hydraulic Sandwich? Shit sandwich.
FWIW I think some people are still under the impression that Quark and maybe even Photoshop are Apple only applications.
That's sarcastic and silly. Apple are using their player and download service to leverage each other. What you're saying is who cares if they screw the large record companies. Fair enough. But what if they're screwing music consumers too, by limiting what they can do with music they buy for example? Or locking out competition?
My experience FWIW: Mag a) Edited/laid out on macs, most contributors/writers and even photographers use PCs b) Edited/laid out on Macs, most contributors/writers and even photographers use PCs c) Er, exactly the same. d) Web-based, done on PCs, contributors are a mix of Mac and PC. This seems to suggest that Macs are fine at DTP, but too expensive and limited for people to buy with their own money and if they want to do other things on them. Bear in mind that DTP/publishing is a trad Mac stronghold.
It is true that digital lets more people try out risky shots and therefore democratizes photography. With film there were few people who could afford to shoot enough to learn certain skills. On the other hand it does seem that digital encourage people to shoot away randomly and just choose whichever happens to come out best, rather than actually understanding what they're doing.