Which comes back to my original point: other stores can sell DRM-free music, and yet Apple, whose CEO wrote about how much he dislikes DRM, choses not to do so. Or maybe, as you point out, this is not a choice but a
provision of their RIAA contract. But that's puzzling -- if Steve Jobs has the music industry's distribution channels by the balls as the RIAA's complaining would have you think he does, why can't he press for another deal which would rid his store's music of the DRM which he supposedly hates? Either way, I'd appreciate more action and less finger pointing from Apple.
For the record, "providing an out" of re-ripping music from a CD is hardly consumer friendly. Allowing iPods to write songs off its disk to a computer or taking off DRM completely, that would be consumer friendly. It's the rare person (and usually the poster on/.) that finds the time, effort, energy, motivation, and know-how to circumvent DRM.
I have to admit, you're gradually convincing me that DRM is not in Apple's best interest. However, I'm sticking to my main point: if Apple hates DRM so much, it should put its money where its mouth is and not show the kind of hostility to anti-DRM efforts that it has.
The most important part of the article is not among the ones you mentioned -- it's the one about Apple attaching DRM to songs that are sold without DRM on eMusic (I don't know why he chose to put the quote in bold as if it was the most important piece of evidence).
You're claiming that a technology (Fairplay) that only allows music to be played on Apple devices is not lock-in to Apple's products? That argument makes no sense. How could it not be lock in? These songs can't be played anywhere else!
Whether on iPods or not, it's completely irrelevant what happens with other tracks that don't have Fairplay on them (or what percentage of songs on iPods they make up); we're talking about the use of Fairplay itself.
Well if other stores were selling a track DRM-free that Apple was selling with DRM, would that change your position? Perhaps you should read this: http://nanocr.eu/2007/01/13/ihandcuffs/
What are truly ridiculous are your examples. I grant that these scenarios may be possible, and perhaps all of them have occurred at some point in time, but you've covered about 0.001% of all artists there.
The vast majority of artists make the lion's share of their money off of touring. The only exceptions are mega-artists like Metallica and Madonna and The Beatles.
A band doesn't need to tour to make (good) music, of course. And there is no question that new music creation and distribution benefits society. The pertinent question is, are we as a society willing to give up certain freedoms in order to perpetually pay these artists' executives? Don't believe that all creativity will vanish if artists can't get directly paid per-song royalties -- to do so is to misunderstand an artist's motivation to create.
Perhaps you're right, but I hope you mean "free" as in not getting paid and not "free" as in DRM/copyright/whatever. There are good ways to PAY artists without the aid of copyright: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/
There was a military guy who gave a similar presentation (I didn't read TFA) about terrorism and Iraq and open-source warfare. That is, how terrorists are sharing tactics with each other and therefore adapting and evolving their tactics very quickly and effectively.
"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.
Clearly, if you know someone's name well enough to type it into the Google query box, that person is NOT ANONYMOUS. Idiot. This article might set the record for fallacies in one article.
TIME's reasons for the iPhone being its invention of the year:
1. The iPhone is pretty
2. It's touchy-feely
3. It will make other phones better
4. It's not a phone, it's a platform
5. It is but the ghost of iPhones yet to come
1 and 2 are the same thing: ooo! ponies! 3 and 5 aren't even qualities of the iPhone itself (and kind of stating the obvious... 'in the future, technology will advance') and 4 is irrelevant if Steve Jobs makes it as hard as he does for anyone to do anything with the damn thing. Invention of the year? Give me a break.
Just reading the crude generalizations, myopic thinking and lazy analysis in this article made my skin crawl. As has been pointed out in many responses previous, someone who has a blog does not necessarily know anything about assembly programming or page tables. IT was appealing in the past because no one knew much about it and now everyone is a computer expert? Give me a break. When journalists usually say 'computer savvy' they're implying that the person in question can use a keyboard. Yeah, the newest generation is so incompetent/lazy/spoiled/unappreciative/whatever. Just like the one before it... and the one before that... and...
And for the record, I don't think anyone gets a technical degree to become a "Tech support jockey." And everything is the fault of text-messaging, right? I graduated from the same program as Mr. Dodge, and his response pretty much disproves everything the article has to say about that point.
I read an article in a business magazine a few months back that said something similar to this article's 'The new generation is also far bolder in asking for entitlements.' This is just a disgusting statement. First, it presumes that there is something novel about moving up in the world and second, presumes that previous generations were content to be overworked and underpaid. Please, no one of any generation has appreciated that, ever.
You think 99% of people care about data quality (probably not, as you hinted in your post... most don't have a nice home system)? No, they just want their musical ponies. Digital audio is the choice du jour for today's masses. Download it from home, usually for free, without the hassle of going to Tower or (more importantly) shelling out hard-earned cash. Instant gratification. No need for cumbersome CDs.
The amount of trouble that the RIAA is putting themselves through to deal with these flea-market lawbreakers is hilarious. Don't they know where their real enemies are? I must have uploaded the same amount of stuff over P2P just yesterday (perhaps I'm exaggerating, but you get the point). Of course, I encourage the RIAA and its lackeys to waste as much of their dwindling resources as possible... it will hasten their inevitable demise.
I find it hard to sympathize with not-so-poverty-stricken Stanford... have you seen the size of their endowment? Take a look at that figure, and THEN try and make the case that the school is in need of pinching pennies by paying three people to work on DMCA violations. It's peanuts.
To respond to your first point, I agree that online distribution is a tricky if not impossible medium for distribution for a publishing company. But you miss my essential point which is I AM TALKING ABOUT A WORLD IN WHICH THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT. Therefore, no one would ever buy a book (at least, the PDF... as I stated earlier, perhaps they would pay for printing, but that is something different because it's not information and can not be digitally distributed) because anyone could distribute copies of any artistic work, including books, for free. This would eliminate the need for a publishing company.
To respond to your second point, you've already made this point but I appreciate the elaboration. Perhaps there is something undeniably appealing about having a bound paper book in your hands. However, I think that over time this attitude will change as online distribution of information becomes more prevalent and more people become more comfortable with computers and doing more things with them that they previously had done without them (such as reading books). As for the inability to make comments on the side, that strikes me as more of a user interface issue. If Adobe Reader (or whatever PDF-viewing program) that the students used did a better job of integrating that feature (and making sure they knew about it -- this feature might already exist) then that reason for not reading a book online would be eliminated.
You're still thinking in terms of our world today, in which most artistic works are copyrighted. Try to think in terms of a world without copyright, and then apply your arguments. It seems the logical conclusion of instantaneous, perfect distribution of information over the Internet (which is currently being hindered by copyright laws) that online distribution of books will be second to none in terms of how we get things to read, including full-length (text)books.
"You mean besides the fact that most people don't want to read full length books on a computer, that a paper book requires no electricity, is easier to read, can be read anywhere there is light, and is generally easier to bring into a classroom?"
I agree, those are all advantages of dead-tree format books for the end user. For the ink, paper, and profit (and perhaps some tax) for whoever is printing it for you, however, you will have to pay. Contrast this with getting a book for free over the Internet... reading books online looks more appealing all the time, wouldn't you say?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you quoted the wrong thing in the first quote in your post there, so I'll respond as such...
/.) that finds the time, effort, energy, motivation, and know-how to circumvent DRM.
I completely agree with you about that this whole policy is most likely arising from deals that Apple is making with the RIAA that have these secret terms. As for my leg to stand on, how about Amazon's store, for instance? Here's an indie label: http://www.amazon.com/I-Must-Save-The-President/dp/B000QVRVD2/ref=sr_f2_1? ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1203917755&sr=102-1 and here is music from an RIAA member: http://www.amazon.com/Back-To-Black-The-B-Sides/dp/B0013G43U8/ref=dm_ap_alb1
Which comes back to my original point: other stores can sell DRM-free music, and yet Apple, whose CEO wrote about how much he dislikes DRM, choses not to do so. Or maybe, as you point out, this is not a choice but a provision of their RIAA contract. But that's puzzling -- if Steve Jobs has the music industry's distribution channels by the balls as the RIAA's complaining would have you think he does, why can't he press for another deal which would rid his store's music of the DRM which he supposedly hates? Either way, I'd appreciate more action and less finger pointing from Apple.
For the record, "providing an out" of re-ripping music from a CD is hardly consumer friendly. Allowing iPods to write songs off its disk to a computer or taking off DRM completely, that would be consumer friendly. It's the rare person (and usually the poster on
I have to admit, you're gradually convincing me that DRM is not in Apple's best interest. However, I'm sticking to my main point: if Apple hates DRM so much, it should put its money where its mouth is and not show the kind of hostility to anti-DRM efforts that it has.
The most important part of the article is not among the ones you mentioned -- it's the one about Apple attaching DRM to songs that are sold without DRM on eMusic (I don't know why he chose to put the quote in bold as if it was the most important piece of evidence).
You're claiming that a technology (Fairplay) that only allows music to be played on Apple devices is not lock-in to Apple's products? That argument makes no sense. How could it not be lock in? These songs can't be played anywhere else!
Whether on iPods or not, it's completely irrelevant what happens with other tracks that don't have Fairplay on them (or what percentage of songs on iPods they make up); we're talking about the use of Fairplay itself.
Well if other stores were selling a track DRM-free that Apple was selling with DRM, would that change your position? Perhaps you should read this: http://nanocr.eu/2007/01/13/ihandcuffs/
So he bashes DRM http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ and then turns around and has his company issue a take down for anti-DRM software? That's awfully two-faced.
What are truly ridiculous are your examples. I grant that these scenarios may be possible, and perhaps all of them have occurred at some point in time, but you've covered about 0.001% of all artists there.
The vast majority of artists make the lion's share of their money off of touring. The only exceptions are mega-artists like Metallica and Madonna and The Beatles.
A band doesn't need to tour to make (good) music, of course. And there is no question that new music creation and distribution benefits society. The pertinent question is, are we as a society willing to give up certain freedoms in order to perpetually pay these artists' executives? Don't believe that all creativity will vanish if artists can't get directly paid per-song royalties -- to do so is to misunderstand an artist's motivation to create.
I think the command is svn blame
Perhaps you're right, but I hope you mean "free" as in not getting paid and not "free" as in DRM/copyright/whatever. There are good ways to PAY artists without the aid of copyright: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/
Welcome to the future. The alternative to not giving music away for free is having no one listen to it.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft monitors your use of software one way or the other... http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
This company was the subject of this month's Wired Magazine cover story, fyi.
There was a military guy who gave a similar presentation (I didn't read TFA) about terrorism and Iraq and open-source warfare. That is, how terrorists are sharing tactics with each other and therefore adapting and evolving their tactics very quickly and effectively.
"Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr.
Clearly, if you know someone's name well enough to type it into the Google query box, that person is NOT ANONYMOUS. Idiot. This article might set the record for fallacies in one article.
TIME's reasons for the iPhone being its invention of the year:
1. The iPhone is pretty
2. It's touchy-feely
3. It will make other phones better
4. It's not a phone, it's a platform
5. It is but the ghost of iPhones yet to come
1 and 2 are the same thing: ooo! ponies! 3 and 5 aren't even qualities of the iPhone itself (and kind of stating the obvious... 'in the future, technology will advance') and 4 is irrelevant if Steve Jobs makes it as hard as he does for anyone to do anything with the damn thing. Invention of the year? Give me a break.
Exactly. It's a flawed analogy.
/etc/hosts http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=110440
Another solution is to block ads via
Just reading the crude generalizations, myopic thinking and lazy analysis in this article made my skin crawl. As has been pointed out in many responses previous, someone who has a blog does not necessarily know anything about assembly programming or page tables. IT was appealing in the past because no one knew much about it and now everyone is a computer expert? Give me a break. When journalists usually say 'computer savvy' they're implying that the person in question can use a keyboard. Yeah, the newest generation is so incompetent/lazy/spoiled/unappreciative/whatever. Just like the one before it... and the one before that... and...
And for the record, I don't think anyone gets a technical degree to become a "Tech support jockey." And everything is the fault of text-messaging, right? I graduated from the same program as Mr. Dodge, and his response pretty much disproves everything the article has to say about that point.
I read an article in a business magazine a few months back that said something similar to this article's 'The new generation is also far bolder in asking for entitlements.' This is just a disgusting statement. First, it presumes that there is something novel about moving up in the world and second, presumes that previous generations were content to be overworked and underpaid. Please, no one of any generation has appreciated that, ever.
What an awful piece of journalism.
You think 99% of people care about data quality (probably not, as you hinted in your post... most don't have a nice home system)? No, they just want their musical ponies. Digital audio is the choice du jour for today's masses. Download it from home, usually for free, without the hassle of going to Tower or (more importantly) shelling out hard-earned cash. Instant gratification. No need for cumbersome CDs.
The amount of trouble that the RIAA is putting themselves through to deal with these flea-market lawbreakers is hilarious. Don't they know where their real enemies are? I must have uploaded the same amount of stuff over P2P just yesterday (perhaps I'm exaggerating, but you get the point). Of course, I encourage the RIAA and its lackeys to waste as much of their dwindling resources as possible... it will hasten their inevitable demise.
Uh... http://labs.google.com/papers.html
Sounds like most people would enjoy this firefox extension: http://www.customizegoogle.com/
I find it hard to sympathize with not-so-poverty-stricken Stanford ... have you seen the size of their endowment? Take a look at that figure, and THEN try and make the case that the school is in need of pinching pennies by paying three people to work on DMCA violations. It's peanuts.
The reason that so many people are acting as if copyright does not have any merit whatsoever is because it doesn't.
Interesting... can you point me to your source?
To respond to your first point, I agree that online distribution is a tricky if not impossible medium for distribution for a publishing company. But you miss my essential point which is I AM TALKING ABOUT A WORLD IN WHICH THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT. Therefore, no one would ever buy a book (at least, the PDF... as I stated earlier, perhaps they would pay for printing, but that is something different because it's not information and can not be digitally distributed) because anyone could distribute copies of any artistic work, including books, for free. This would eliminate the need for a publishing company.
To respond to your second point, you've already made this point but I appreciate the elaboration. Perhaps there is something undeniably appealing about having a bound paper book in your hands. However, I think that over time this attitude will change as online distribution of information becomes more prevalent and more people become more comfortable with computers and doing more things with them that they previously had done without them (such as reading books). As for the inability to make comments on the side, that strikes me as more of a user interface issue. If Adobe Reader (or whatever PDF-viewing program) that the students used did a better job of integrating that feature (and making sure they knew about it -- this feature might already exist) then that reason for not reading a book online would be eliminated.
You're still thinking in terms of our world today, in which most artistic works are copyrighted. Try to think in terms of a world without copyright, and then apply your arguments. It seems the logical conclusion of instantaneous, perfect distribution of information over the Internet (which is currently being hindered by copyright laws) that online distribution of books will be second to none in terms of how we get things to read, including full-length (text)books.
"You mean besides the fact that most people don't want to read full length books on a computer, that a paper book requires no electricity, is easier to read, can be read anywhere there is light, and is generally easier to bring into a classroom?"
I agree, those are all advantages of dead-tree format books for the end user. For the ink, paper, and profit (and perhaps some tax) for whoever is printing it for you, however, you will have to pay. Contrast this with getting a book for free over the Internet... reading books online looks more appealing all the time, wouldn't you say?
No problem. I've been plugging your site for a while on the /. boards... I definitely drink the copyright-reform kool-aid.