I've never really read much into the use of DRM; I only knew the concept but, not the operation and use of it. In discussions I just adopted the view held by the Slashdot community which is simply "DRM evil die die die". IMO what you have described supports this opinion. When you buy a CD you are buying the CD and the ownership rights to the CD. However if you buy a DRM album you are only buying the album without the ownership rights. The ownership stays with the vendor and therefore they reserve the right to disallow your use of the content. So in essence DRM is the removal of ownership. Scary.
I think this is a good move for Napster. However I don't agree with them charging an extra $5 so you can play the music on a portable music player (From the article: It costs $15 if the songs are to be transferred to a portable music player.). Why should Napster charge people more so they can download non-DRM music (I'm assuming that songs downloaded under the normal $10 a month subscription have some sort of DRM on them. Can anyone give me any details on that?)? Still I hope that this new tactic will help Napster get back on top.
From the article I got the impression that it was primarily educational. If this is so, then I really doubt the game will take off. I can only see it being used in schools.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never really read much into the use of DRM; I only knew the concept but, not the operation and use of it. In discussions I just adopted the view held by the Slashdot community which is simply "DRM evil die die die". IMO what you have described supports this opinion. When you buy a CD you are buying the CD and the ownership rights to the CD. However if you buy a DRM album you are only buying the album without the ownership rights. The ownership stays with the vendor and therefore they reserve the right to disallow your use of the content. So in essence DRM is the removal of ownership. Scary.
I think this is a good move for Napster. However I don't agree with them charging an extra $5 so you can play the music on a portable music player (From the article: It costs $15 if the songs are to be transferred to a portable music player.). Why should Napster charge people more so they can download non-DRM music (I'm assuming that songs downloaded under the normal $10 a month subscription have some sort of DRM on them. Can anyone give me any details on that?)? Still I hope that this new tactic will help Napster get back on top.
Shouldn't hackers be off "hacking the mainframe" instead of playing with LEGO?
Your one minute off.
Internet killed the TV star?
Marvellous.
It should have been set in WW1. Manfred von Richtoven (AKA the Red Baron) FTW.
travesty-in-the-making Well put :D
You really get into trouble when trying to make a Slashdotter go up a hill.
That sounds terrifying. Advertisement purgatory.
I agree completely. Especially the part about Lemonade.
My favourite line in True Lies was "Go home dipshit".
So can I presume that it will then start telling me to clean my room, do the dishes and take out the bins?
Oh touché RedHat Rocky, touché.
I own "The Wrong Trousers", "A Grand Day Out" and "A Close Shave" on VHS. Nostalgia LOL.
Seeing as we are unfamiliar with the concept of a joke I shall terminate the conversation at this point.
I configure my DNS servers to return funny values. So it's broken?
My point exactly.
[insert obligatory Duke Nukem Forever quip here]
And your point is? I for one would buy it if it was endorsed as a "next-gen Duck Hunt".
From the article I got the impression that it was primarily educational. If this is so, then I really doubt the game will take off. I can only see it being used in schools.
You had me at whiskey.