And is the.NET Framework really the native API for this? Not a great way to encourage existing applications to be ported to WPF, as "managed code" does not play well with compiled languages like C++ (they can't even marshal bool properly, for heaven's sake). The.NET Framework 3.0 has a full library and WYSWYG interface for building WPF apps using managed code. (It also runs WPF on XP SP2 and Win 2003) Why do you think that will discourage people from developing WPF applications? Are you talking about C++ apps exclusively?
In its Order, at 5, the Court suggested that, to sustain a finding of contributory
infringement, plaintiffs were required to show that defendant had substantially participated in the
underlying infringements and that defendant had actual knowledge of those infringements. See
Order, at 4. These assumptions as to the applicable law, on which the Court appears to have
relied heavily in making an award of fees, are incorrect. Is this true? So if I use the wi-fi at the Starbucks to download mp3s, are they guilty of "contributory infringement"? Wouldn't every company that releases a P2P file sharing application be guilty or (given the ubiquity of CD/DVD burners) Blockbuster, Netflix, and every library that loans CDs DVDs? This argument from the RIAA sounds like a pretty desperate claim to me, but then again... IANAL.
The iPod is, for the most part, a hard drive. Hard drives fail. Even when they're not running while they're being carried around, used in warm or humid environments, or run continuously for hours on end. I wouldn't call this type of use of an mp3 player "abuse".
"Abuse" could break an iPod in much less than a year. And "abuse" isn't covered by the warranty anyway. So why not offer a longer warranty if the product normally won't break in two years? I think it's safe to assume Apple did some kind of research into the failure rate of iPods before they decided to ask their customers for an additional $50 to warrant the device for 2 years.
he problem is filtering. I keep looking at that eMusic trial offer and thinking, man, how much time am I going to have to spend getting my money's worth out of that? If they had a built-in, fast working Pandora plug in so I could simply and accurately calibrate my mainstream preferences to their catalog? I would be on that today. http://pandora.emusic.com
eMusic didn't create it, but it does exist. It works pretty well right now. If you have an eMusic account, and the song playing on pandora is available from eMusic (which many on my stations are), it will display a page showing the download on eMusic's site. It's a pretty good way to find new music on eMusic. Of course, it probably takes no more time than reading and posting on slashdot.
Another thing to note, if you RTFA, is that not all music on the site is being sold without DRM. I'm in the US, so I can't buy any music from them without DRM, but the article suggests that it's the indie labels that are offering music in mp3.
First of all, the CEO of eMusic during the Napster Hearings was Gene Hoffman, and yes, he did agree with the court ordered injuction against Napster. Before he made that statement, he asked Napster to remove eMusic files from their index. He also asked that users who shared the songs be unbanned from Napster. Frankly, if I were selling unprotected music, I wouldn't call it "short-sighted" to ask another company not to let people give it away.
But eMusic wasn't just his company. Hoffman cofounded the company with Bob Kohn. Before that, both of them served on the board for Pretty Good Privacy. I know. Total "asshats".
While I agree with boycotting companies for their beliefs and behavior (I don't buy major label music or anything Sony), I have to call bullshit in this case. eMusic provides distribution for many small record labels in a way that lets their users play the music whenever, and on whatever digital music player they want. They are priced fairly (I pay ~ $.18 a song). They have a good business model, and they're legal.
I'm sure it is possible to rationalize not paying for music no matter how it is provided to you. And if the option to obtain it for free exists, you certainly can take advantage of it. But criticizing a good company in a public forum based on outdated information to justify your refusal to pay for music only makes you look like an asshat.
I think you got at the first big difference I noticed between Vista and XP, not including the GUI changes. When I boot my Vista machine, I can click the start button or start an application while the machine loads my startup applications, signs into my instant messengers, loads the sidebar, etc. On my XP machine, I might as well walk away from it for at least 2 minutes while it finishes booting.
I have not disabled system paging. I have 1.5 GB of RAM in my Vista laptop and 2 GB of RAM in my XP desktop.
I noticed you mentioned "modern Windows OSs" in your earlier post. Have you used Vista?
Are people who buy cheap, off-brand equipment really investing the $100-$300 to upgrade their current computer to Windows Vista? It seems more likely that they'd upgrade in a couple of years, when the cheap, off-brand equipment is all running Vista. In that case, the appropriate drivers will be shipped with the machine.
In that case, check out William Elliott Whitmore. He's released three albums that are available on cd and vinyl(without mp3). He has a couple of songs available on eMusic and you can hear 4 of his songs on Daytrotter. He's got a great voice for a 28 year old kid from Iowa. His songwriting is timeless and he's good on the guitar and the banjo. He's one of my favorite artists.
Sub Pop Records sells vinyl directly. They've released albums by Nirvana, Soundgarden, L7, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The Shins, The Postal Service, and more artists. When you buy a record from them that was released in 2007 or later, you get free downloads of all the songs. So you don't even need the USB port.
I'm currently 290 meters away from popular opinion. What the heck does that mean? It's OK. I'm in the states too. It means you're 951.44357 feet from popular opinion.
Also, why exactly does a store about an opinion survey on DRM belong under Apple? If I remember correctly, Apple is not the only company that uses DRM, nor is Steve Jobs the only person to ever have an opinion on it. Did we used to put this under YRO?
Mr Mulligan said he was "surprised" at the strength of the responses which came from large and small record labels, rights bodies, digital stores and technology providers. I know we all hate DRM and would love to think that most of the executives in the major labels agree with us, but I have serious doubts about the numbers and conclusions drawn from this study. The article provides no information on how many people were surveyed or how many of them were execs from large record labels, small record labels, "rights bodies" (whatever that means), digital stores, or "technology providers" (again, a little vague IMHO).
We already know small labels are fine with selling their music without DRM. Merge Records and Sub Pop are now giving their customers DRM-free, digital copies of their music with vinyl copies of it. There are many independent labels on eMusic.com. And there are a number of small stores out there selling DRM-free mp3s.
The point is: these numbers tell us nothing. They are totally useless, because we have no context for the information. They do not suggest that the Big 4 labels dislike DRM at all.
In my opinion, the most annoying thing is when you wait 2-3 minutes for the game to start and a guy on your team is killing himself repeatedly. Usually this can be solved by playing unranked games, but I like the challenge of playing against people with equal skill. Ranked games do a pretty good job of this, except for when idiots reduce their rank by killing themselves repeatedly so they can "xXXX pwn n00bs XXXXx". You can boot people for killing their teammates, but not themselves.
While I'm sure this would just lead to the same idiots running at the other team screaming "KILL ME!", it might help a little at least. Maybe, after 4 suicides, anyone on your team can boot you. That's twice the number of allowed betrayals.
In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. So he's solving the obesity problem in the US at the same time? Brilliant!
When I went out to purchase my copy of Ultimate, the first store I went to, Circuit City, was sold out. With all the negative publicity and mixed reviews, I was a surprised. I guess I spend too much time on Slashdot.
Frankly, I'm a little suspicious of the motives of the governments that are requiring Apple open its DRM to other stores and players. There are real examples of standardized copy protection (CSS, Blu-Ray / HD-DVD protection), and so far they haven't been too effective. It's clear from the article that the labels want some type of restrictions on their music. But if they want something that works, why would they ask that all their vendors can use the same technology? This hasn't worked in the past.
While the governments may be acting in the consumers' interest, the consumers haven't really been complaining that much. They want their iPods regardless of DRM / non-DRM. They'll buy their music from the iTMS because they can easily get it on their iPod. Even if their DRM is opened, Apple doesn't have to allow other vendors to sell music through iTunes. They have the brand name and a simple solution that people already use.
FairPlay does create vendor lock. The vendor lock, however, is between the record labels and Apple. The labels need access to the iPod to sell their digital music. They refuse to remove the DRM, thus they must play ball with Apple. This includes selling songs for no more than $.99, something they clearly want changed.
Didn't France start this whole debate? One of the big 4, Universal is owned in part by Vivendi. If they have influence on the French government that is anything close to what large corporations have on the government in the US, I'd suggest the government is probably acting in their interest more than that of consumers. With open DRM, corporations like Vivendi will have more options for who can sell their music. Other stores will be able to sell DRM'd music that will play on the iPod. And the labels will have more bargaining power when it comes to setting the price of their music. They've got to offset that 23.3 loss somehow, right?
Posting VM images on Bittorrent has always been a violation of license (and of copyright). Even before the virtualization restriction.
With the disabling of BitLocker and the playback of DRM'd media, it seems to me the concern is more that someone will install it in a virtual machine, bypassing the protection they put on the bootloader, and analyze the VM to break their encryption / content protection.
While I don't agree with this approach to security, it doesn't surprise me. The funny thing is that most of the features you pay extra for in Ultimate are disabled when running it in a VM. Well, maybe not Texas Hold'em.
Large companies use EULAs as FUD tactics far more often than you think. If the EULA can scare most people into obeying (not counting those who outright pirate the software anyway), it has served its purpose even if it doesn't hold water in court. It's pretty common knowledge that the average person doesn't even read EULAs. So why bother if the motive is just FUD? At least some lawyers must believe these things have legal value.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPod is, for the most part, a hard drive. Hard drives fail. Even when they're not running while they're being carried around, used in warm or humid environments, or run continuously for hours on end. I wouldn't call this type of use of an mp3 player "abuse".
"Abuse" could break an iPod in much less than a year. And "abuse" isn't covered by the warranty anyway. So why not offer a longer warranty if the product normally won't break in two years? I think it's safe to assume Apple did some kind of research into the failure rate of iPods before they decided to ask their customers for an additional $50 to warrant the device for 2 years.
eMusic didn't create it, but it does exist. It works pretty well right now. If you have an eMusic account, and the song playing on pandora is available from eMusic (which many on my stations are), it will display a page showing the download on eMusic's site. It's a pretty good way to find new music on eMusic. Of course, it probably takes no more time than reading and posting on slashdot.
http://pandora.emusic.com
There you go.
Another thing to note, if you RTFA, is that not all music on the site is being sold without DRM. I'm in the US, so I can't buy any music from them without DRM, but the article suggests that it's the indie labels that are offering music in mp3.
First of all, the CEO of eMusic during the Napster Hearings was Gene Hoffman, and yes, he did agree with the court ordered injuction against Napster. Before he made that statement, he asked Napster to remove eMusic files from their index. He also asked that users who shared the songs be unbanned from Napster. Frankly, if I were selling unprotected music, I wouldn't call it "short-sighted" to ask another company not to let people give it away.
But eMusic wasn't just his company. Hoffman cofounded the company with Bob Kohn. Before that, both of them served on the board for Pretty Good Privacy. I know. Total "asshats".
Either way, the current CEO is David Pakman who has been speaking out against DRM since long before Steve Jobs did.
While I agree with boycotting companies for their beliefs and behavior (I don't buy major label music or anything Sony), I have to call bullshit in this case. eMusic provides distribution for many small record labels in a way that lets their users play the music whenever, and on whatever digital music player they want. They are priced fairly (I pay ~ $.18 a song). They have a good business model, and they're legal.
I'm sure it is possible to rationalize not paying for music no matter how it is provided to you. And if the option to obtain it for free exists, you certainly can take advantage of it. But criticizing a good company in a public forum based on outdated information to justify your refusal to pay for music only makes you look like an asshat.
I think you got at the first big difference I noticed between Vista and XP, not including the GUI changes. When I boot my Vista machine, I can click the start button or start an application while the machine loads my startup applications, signs into my instant messengers, loads the sidebar, etc. On my XP machine, I might as well walk away from it for at least 2 minutes while it finishes booting.
I have not disabled system paging. I have 1.5 GB of RAM in my Vista laptop and 2 GB of RAM in my XP desktop.
I noticed you mentioned "modern Windows OSs" in your earlier post. Have you used Vista?
Are people who buy cheap, off-brand equipment really investing the $100-$300 to upgrade their current computer to Windows Vista? It seems more likely that they'd upgrade in a couple of years, when the cheap, off-brand equipment is all running Vista. In that case, the appropriate drivers will be shipped with the machine.
In that case, check out William Elliott Whitmore. He's released three albums that are available on cd and vinyl(without mp3). He has a couple of songs available on eMusic and you can hear 4 of his songs on Daytrotter. He's got a great voice for a 28 year old kid from Iowa. His songwriting is timeless and he's good on the guitar and the banjo. He's one of my favorite artists.
Sub Pop Records sells vinyl directly. They've released albums by Nirvana, Soundgarden, L7, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The Shins, The Postal Service, and more artists. When you buy a record from them that was released in 2007 or later, you get free downloads of all the songs. So you don't even need the USB port.
Also, why exactly does a store about an opinion survey on DRM belong under Apple? If I remember correctly, Apple is not the only company that uses DRM, nor is Steve Jobs the only person to ever have an opinion on it. Did we used to put this under YRO?
We already know small labels are fine with selling their music without DRM. Merge Records and Sub Pop are now giving their customers DRM-free, digital copies of their music with vinyl copies of it. There are many independent labels on eMusic.com. And there are a number of small stores out there selling DRM-free mp3s.
The point is: these numbers tell us nothing. They are totally useless, because we have no context for the information. They do not suggest that the Big 4 labels dislike DRM at all.
In my opinion, the most annoying thing is when you wait 2-3 minutes for the game to start and a guy on your team is killing himself repeatedly. Usually this can be solved by playing unranked games, but I like the challenge of playing against people with equal skill. Ranked games do a pretty good job of this, except for when idiots reduce their rank by killing themselves repeatedly so they can "xXXX pwn n00bs XXXXx". You can boot people for killing their teammates, but not themselves.
While I'm sure this would just lead to the same idiots running at the other team screaming "KILL ME!", it might help a little at least. Maybe, after 4 suicides, anyone on your team can boot you. That's twice the number of allowed betrayals.
So Norway is calling for Apple to abandon DRM? I thought they were just asking for interoperability.
When I went out to purchase my copy of Ultimate, the first store I went to, Circuit City, was sold out. With all the negative publicity and mixed reviews, I was a surprised. I guess I spend too much time on Slashdot.
For those interested:
R IGHTED_MUSIC?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAU LT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/APPLE_COPY
Frankly, I'm a little suspicious of the motives of the governments that are requiring Apple open its DRM to other stores and players. There are real examples of standardized copy protection (CSS, Blu-Ray / HD-DVD protection), and so far they haven't been too effective. It's clear from the article that the labels want some type of restrictions on their music. But if they want something that works, why would they ask that all their vendors can use the same technology? This hasn't worked in the past.
While the governments may be acting in the consumers' interest, the consumers haven't really been complaining that much. They want their iPods regardless of DRM / non-DRM. They'll buy their music from the iTMS because they can easily get it on their iPod. Even if their DRM is opened, Apple doesn't have to allow other vendors to sell music through iTunes. They have the brand name and a simple solution that people already use.
FairPlay does create vendor lock. The vendor lock, however, is between the record labels and Apple. The labels need access to the iPod to sell their digital music. They refuse to remove the DRM, thus they must play ball with Apple. This includes selling songs for no more than $.99, something they clearly want changed.
Didn't France start this whole debate? One of the big 4, Universal is owned in part by Vivendi. If they have influence on the French government that is anything close to what large corporations have on the government in the US, I'd suggest the government is probably acting in their interest more than that of consumers. With open DRM, corporations like Vivendi will have more options for who can sell their music. Other stores will be able to sell DRM'd music that will play on the iPod. And the labels will have more bargaining power when it comes to setting the price of their music. They've got to offset that 23.3 loss somehow, right?
Here you go.
Open to the world, yet it's still a "Beta" application. Huh.
Posting VM images on Bittorrent has always been a violation of license (and of copyright). Even before the virtualization restriction.
With the disabling of BitLocker and the playback of DRM'd media, it seems to me the concern is more that someone will install it in a virtual machine, bypassing the protection they put on the bootloader, and analyze the VM to break their encryption / content protection.
While I don't agree with this approach to security, it doesn't surprise me. The funny thing is that most of the features you pay extra for in Ultimate are disabled when running it in a VM. Well, maybe not Texas Hold'em.
Does that mean Google is going to drop the "Beta" testing? Who charges for beta apps?