Wait, what? Reading the patent excerpt suggests that this is no different than doing <script src="http://some.external.site/latest.js"</script>. Or just visiting ANY web app, for that matter - except when dealing with Flash Player, I'm automatically using the latest version of the site without any need to update things at my end.
It would be one thing if any Apple software actually DID this sort of automatic, transparent updating - including their own Dashboard Widgets. If anyone can point me to an example of software from Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) that does this, I could see some level of validity; as far as I'm concerned if they haven't implemented it then this is just patent trolling. The closest I've seen are apps that use the Sparkle update framework which is fairly seamless (better than Apple's Software Update, IMO) but still requires you to give the OK to a download and then a restart. Panic's Coda automatically DLs updates in the background but, again, requires a restart to take effect. I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems that a required restart of the app would go against the idea of no user interference or required user intervention.
But the user experience is pretty much the same, which is what counts. A user runs their day-to-day stuff in an account with limited privileges that has permission to elevate to an admin. If the need arises, you type in the admin password (or click OK in Vista since your default group is a little different; I'm pretty sure you can change it so a password is required) and the OS gives you the privileges to do the operation.
In any case, across all modern platforms, I do something that requires root/admin access, am asked to authenticate, and then proceed with the operation. Compare to XP, which basically just says "No, fuck you!" if you try to run in a limited-access user account. I don't particularly care what the underlying technology that powers it is, so long as it works. While I'll certainly agree with anyone that says Microsoft's implementation is much newer and therefore probably not as hardened, it seems to work well enough and I haven't read about any massive exploits yet.
A goal of terrorism is to terrorize. Destroying the USA's infrastructure will certainly terrorize a lot of americans. Look at the effects of 911. Because of it americans allowed their rights to be abridged and allowed the president to start 2 wars. Heck hurricanes make people afraid.
Allowed? I did nothing of the sort. The government did that of its own accord in a manner that we could do absolutely nothing about. Say what you will about the second term, but most of the atrocities against the Constitution would likely have happened regardless of who had power simply because the government will use any excuse it has to gain power, regardless of how nonsensical it is. The ensuing bickering over political parties is about as relevant as the color of the ink in my pen, since almost everyone in politics has identical goals (become very rich and powerful).
But otherwise I agree. I actively fear my government. My concern over Al-Qaeda and other unfriendly folks doesn't even register compared to my fear of not having any cookies in the house.
Really? I hate VLC on the Mac. Quicktime always seems to work more reliably, except on some REALLY obscure formats (and with the Perian codec pack, I never encounter them). Whenever I play HD video in VLC, I always get annoying pop-up warnings about dropped frames and then it shortly gives up entirely. Quicktime seems to have smoother playback, and even when it does drop frames on high-bitrate content, it doesn't feel the need to call EVEN MORE attention to the fact (never mind ignoring the "suppress further error messages" checkbox).
Now I'm not a huge fan of Quicktime, but of all the video playback apps I've used, it seems to generally be the simplest and most reliable. It doesn't do everything, but what it does covers my needs and does so in a way that's more accessible than what VLC provides. There's such a plethora of video formats and irritating subtleties that I can understand why each player tries to do different things, but that's more an issue of digital video being a giant clusterfuck than an issue with any of the specific players.
There's an issue in general with AC3 audio with video streams with both Quicktime and VLC, but that's more a Mac issue than something specific to either player (the only app that reliably passes encoded audio to an external decoder over spdif is the built-in DVD player; no amount of hacks can get it to work consistently and reliably in either VLC or QT)
First, anything that pushes people to upgrade to a current version of IE is a Good Thing in my books.
Second, while I agree with the idea of not upgrading what's working fine, you do eventually hit a point where you're going to start hitting compatibility issues either way. Just because you've chosen to stick with tried-and-true XP doesn't mean that the rest of the world will do the same, and eventually you'll hit a point where all of the contracted developers that make the specialized apps for internal use will have to overcharge twice as much as usual because you're stuck on a decade-old platform that doesn't have access to a bunch of time-saving APIs.
Now of course I'd suggest that anything created by the government should be as platform-agnostic as possible. That could mean (standards-compliant) web apps for a lot of things, which is increasingly suitable for more and more tasks, and certainly covers the majority of the data entry and analysis that the paper pushers are dealing with. Not forcing upgrades for everything else is best, but eventually you have to drop legacy support - if not, we'd still be limited to 8.3 files in DOS apps.
Why wait for Win7 SP1? On the whole, I've found the early leaked betas (never mind the current stuff that's near RC stage) to be far better than Vista in pretty much every way I can think of. Except for some network sharing issues (which are pretty much to be expected by putting a Windows machine in my network of almost entirely OS X Leopard), it was quite fast and stable.
Granted, security remains TBD which would be my primary reason to wait for SP1, but even Vista has avoided any problems with the notoriety that many XP security flaws gained, and Vista is definitely version 1 of Microsoft's new security model, which at least by MS standards seems fairly secure.
Having said that, unless they need something that's only available in Vista or 7 or can gain some indirect benefit (lower support costs, higher uptime, etc.), I think they should just leave the damn things alone. Don't fix what's not broken - right?
The code isn't encrypted, it's obfuscated. There's no public/private key or anything like that, it's basically a slightly more obfuscated version of ROT13. To call what they're doing encryption would be along the lines of calling compiled code encrypted. It may not be human-readable anymore, but when you run it, the same results are produced.
There's nothing to break - you're just running the code.
In any case, all that Boxee would need to do is re-skin Hulu's web page a bit to match the Boxee UI. If that violates some sort of "no derivative works" copyright clause, than anyone who's ever taken notes in the margin of a book has some 'splainin' to do.
It really does amaze me. All they have to do is run the web page in its completeness as it's sent to them (HTML-deobfuscating JS included) and override the default stylesheet to tweak the player a bit. It's about five lines of code on top of throwing the code Hulu provides in a chrome-less browser.
It took me about three minutes to make a specialized player for the Twit.TV Stickam stream that I open up in an instance of Fluid.app (a single-site browser for those who haven't heard of it) - just throw the embed in a page and use a little absolute positioning CSS to hide elements of the player I don't care about (chat window, etc) and voila - instant video streaming app in the smallest space possible. I envision it as only trivially more difficult to do the same thing to a Hulu page, only because you'd either have to do some ugly DOM traversal to get to the player thanks to the obfuscation or nuke their stylesheets to hide everything but that same player. Maybe ten minutes worth of work, rather than 3.
The ads are (more or less) built directly into the video stream. The issue is that the content producers take issue with people using media center appliances to put their internet content on a TV screen, despite being identical content to what's shown on TV (except that rather than skipping ALL the commercials with a TiVo, people sit through or ignore the single ad in Hulu streams).
Yes, they SHOULD do it that way. Lord knows that I'll never pay for a cable TV subscription (unless by the laws of retarded cable company economics, it lowers my internet bill), and to me it's all the same content regardless of the display medium. As it is, I'll usually just listen to the stream in the background while pretending to work, since Stewart and Colbert don't exactly rely too heavily on visuals.
But that's beside the point - so long as the content producers (NBC, FOX, etc) continue to have last-century business models, Hulu really has to cooperate with them. It's certainly in their best interest from an ad sales perspective to get the content in front of as many people as possible, regardless of the display device - CPM ads only care about the number of eyeballs. I'll happily go back to torrents if they make it hard to watch shows through Hulu, where they'll get exactly $0.00 per viewing.
You can bet just about any and every business traveler will use it. And while I can't exactly claim to be an air traffic controller, I can't see it taking years to rack up 200 flights.
I doubt it. Once they all start doing it, it'll be like text messaging on cell networks - they'll all jack the prices at once. At least this has some infrastructure costs to almost excuse it (texting just fills otherwise-wasted bandwidth and literally costs the telcos nothing to operate)
It only works on WiFi, and Apple has explicitly stated that VOIP over WiFi is allowed - they wouldn't say that if AT&T were going to fight it. It's better for the telcos anyways - you're paying them your monthly rate regardless of whether you use their bandwidth, so the less you use, the more profit they take in.
That's true (well, depending on your location it may or may not be, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it is). But adding every one of those legal.torrent files to a BitTorrent client would result in a monolithic amount of copyright infringement. Finding who downloaded the torrent file is potentially very easy; associating that information with an IP address in the P2P swarm is equally easy. You do the math.
Well, I'd like to think that the defense (had it gotten to that stage) would have made the connection that the woman being charged for two dozen random and unconnected crimes works in a Q-tip factory and that maybe, just maybe, she coughed on a box along the way.
No, but it doesn't have to be either. By providing free source code to developers, it lowers their costs since they don't have to license anything and can produce a cheaper end result. I'd love for the final binaries to be free, but developers have to eat too (even if they thrive off of cheap microwaveable junk).
Plus, it also hugely lowers the barriers to entry for other programmers. A lot of kids with some programming talent (high school age) have access to the engine, and could plausibly make entirely new games (if you feel that the same engine with new levels and textures constitutes a new game; I do) without having to waste months reinventing the wheel.
So make a proof of concept version using the messy steps, then license the levels from id once you get it working for sale and distribute the setup as a whole.
The case has gained national attention because of the defining role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds.
(emphasis mine)
The answer is simple: all of it, always. You're legally required to be at a location owned and paid for by taxpayers. It's not a private location where you willingly give up some of your rights in order to participate. The government has mandated that our youth participate in some form of education, so those youth retain 100% of their constitutionally-protected rights unless they (and/or their parents) pay to go to a private school which may set its own rules.
When does the US Constitution not apply? When you're not in this country. Unless Arizona has recently relocated, I think it's safe to say that's not the case.
Of course, the students will use that logic to say that swearing in school is protected by the first amendment, which is completely unrelated to freedom of speech. That's really beside the point.
Sibling poster jcr has the right idea. This was done by some creeps who thought they could get out of charges by shitting on the Constitution.
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I've seen a.NET product forced to run on a Linux server too. Yes, it worked (by and large). Was the amount of time wasted on both sides of the project far, far more than the cost of buying a copy of Windows Server? You bet.
Right tools for the right job. Yes, I could use a clawhead hammer to screw in a screw if I absolutely had to, but like hell am I going to waste my time trying when I could just go out and spend $3 on a screwdriver.
I'm inclined to think that they want to put IIS (and ASP.NET) in front of as many casual Windows-based web developers as possible. Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work - especially since a number of PHP web apps require some odd hacks to get them to work under IIS.
In order to be "deployable" under these settings, new developers will have to use the same hacks and/or workarounds, and could well forget to address how the standard behavior will act on *AMP servers, theoretically creating a bunch of new PHP web apps that will only deploy properly on PHP/IIS servers.
Of course, the number of hosts that are offering PHP/IIS rather than *AMP is absolutely miniscule, so these apps catching on (if this is the case) is slim to none.
Part of me thinks that it's more a ploy to get.NET in front of PHP developers, trying to sell them on the "look at all of this premade, drag-and-drop functionality" thing, but I doubt that will make a difference. Devs that need what.NET offers are going to already be using IIS setups and PHP devs will probably ignore it due to the relatively steep learning curve (or just being forced to work in Visual Studio unless you want to memorize an entire framework).
So... I have no idea. If my cynicism is correct, then I see what they're trying to do but don't see it working that well. If not, then your guess is as good as mine.
And what do you propose we do? I vote for people that I think will do good things in government. They either don't make it in or end up succumbing to the system like every politician before them, no matter how good their intentions going in.
The one where they legally require you to buy your own private insurance and then call it universal healthcare? Yeah, I'm sure that one is costing the state billions.
That also takes about six seconds of the company's time to fix by adding two lines to an.htaccess file. A problem that simple should never require the customer to wonder if their financial data is in harm's way.
Content on Facebook (and any other social networking site with privacy controls) isn't for public consumption - it's for consumption by those whom you've marked as friends.
Encryption would prevent packet sniffing, and as Facebook is owned and operated in the US, I don't see how the UK government could subpoena the data successfully*. That whole jurisdiction thing - ya know.
*Unless they have servers located in the UK. With 200m or so users, they probably do Of course, Facebook could just threaten to block UK users, posting the contact info of various government officials so you can complain to them for forcing FB into such a situation. Facebook is easily large enough for that kind of stunt to actually work.
It would be rights management on a digital device. But more to the point, DRM has become a catch-all term for any form of vendor lock-in, specifically lock-in which when avoided is punishable by the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, what? Reading the patent excerpt suggests that this is no different than doing <script src="http://some.external.site/latest.js"</script>. Or just visiting ANY web app, for that matter - except when dealing with Flash Player, I'm automatically using the latest version of the site without any need to update things at my end.
It would be one thing if any Apple software actually DID this sort of automatic, transparent updating - including their own Dashboard Widgets. If anyone can point me to an example of software from Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) that does this, I could see some level of validity; as far as I'm concerned if they haven't implemented it then this is just patent trolling. The closest I've seen are apps that use the Sparkle update framework which is fairly seamless (better than Apple's Software Update, IMO) but still requires you to give the OK to a download and then a restart. Panic's Coda automatically DLs updates in the background but, again, requires a restart to take effect. I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems that a required restart of the app would go against the idea of no user interference or required user intervention.
But the user experience is pretty much the same, which is what counts. A user runs their day-to-day stuff in an account with limited privileges that has permission to elevate to an admin. If the need arises, you type in the admin password (or click OK in Vista since your default group is a little different; I'm pretty sure you can change it so a password is required) and the OS gives you the privileges to do the operation.
In any case, across all modern platforms, I do something that requires root/admin access, am asked to authenticate, and then proceed with the operation. Compare to XP, which basically just says "No, fuck you!" if you try to run in a limited-access user account. I don't particularly care what the underlying technology that powers it is, so long as it works. While I'll certainly agree with anyone that says Microsoft's implementation is much newer and therefore probably not as hardened, it seems to work well enough and I haven't read about any massive exploits yet.
A goal of terrorism is to terrorize. Destroying the USA's infrastructure will certainly terrorize a lot of americans. Look at the effects of 911. Because of it americans allowed their rights to be abridged and allowed the president to start 2 wars. Heck hurricanes make people afraid.
Allowed? I did nothing of the sort. The government did that of its own accord in a manner that we could do absolutely nothing about. Say what you will about the second term, but most of the atrocities against the Constitution would likely have happened regardless of who had power simply because the government will use any excuse it has to gain power, regardless of how nonsensical it is. The ensuing bickering over political parties is about as relevant as the color of the ink in my pen, since almost everyone in politics has identical goals (become very rich and powerful).
But otherwise I agree. I actively fear my government. My concern over Al-Qaeda and other unfriendly folks doesn't even register compared to my fear of not having any cookies in the house.
Really? I hate VLC on the Mac. Quicktime always seems to work more reliably, except on some REALLY obscure formats (and with the Perian codec pack, I never encounter them). Whenever I play HD video in VLC, I always get annoying pop-up warnings about dropped frames and then it shortly gives up entirely. Quicktime seems to have smoother playback, and even when it does drop frames on high-bitrate content, it doesn't feel the need to call EVEN MORE attention to the fact (never mind ignoring the "suppress further error messages" checkbox).
Now I'm not a huge fan of Quicktime, but of all the video playback apps I've used, it seems to generally be the simplest and most reliable. It doesn't do everything, but what it does covers my needs and does so in a way that's more accessible than what VLC provides. There's such a plethora of video formats and irritating subtleties that I can understand why each player tries to do different things, but that's more an issue of digital video being a giant clusterfuck than an issue with any of the specific players.
There's an issue in general with AC3 audio with video streams with both Quicktime and VLC, but that's more a Mac issue than something specific to either player (the only app that reliably passes encoded audio to an external decoder over spdif is the built-in DVD player; no amount of hacks can get it to work consistently and reliably in either VLC or QT)
First, anything that pushes people to upgrade to a current version of IE is a Good Thing in my books.
Second, while I agree with the idea of not upgrading what's working fine, you do eventually hit a point where you're going to start hitting compatibility issues either way. Just because you've chosen to stick with tried-and-true XP doesn't mean that the rest of the world will do the same, and eventually you'll hit a point where all of the contracted developers that make the specialized apps for internal use will have to overcharge twice as much as usual because you're stuck on a decade-old platform that doesn't have access to a bunch of time-saving APIs.
Now of course I'd suggest that anything created by the government should be as platform-agnostic as possible. That could mean (standards-compliant) web apps for a lot of things, which is increasingly suitable for more and more tasks, and certainly covers the majority of the data entry and analysis that the paper pushers are dealing with. Not forcing upgrades for everything else is best, but eventually you have to drop legacy support - if not, we'd still be limited to 8.3 files in DOS apps.
Why wait for Win7 SP1? On the whole, I've found the early leaked betas (never mind the current stuff that's near RC stage) to be far better than Vista in pretty much every way I can think of. Except for some network sharing issues (which are pretty much to be expected by putting a Windows machine in my network of almost entirely OS X Leopard), it was quite fast and stable.
Granted, security remains TBD which would be my primary reason to wait for SP1, but even Vista has avoided any problems with the notoriety that many XP security flaws gained, and Vista is definitely version 1 of Microsoft's new security model, which at least by MS standards seems fairly secure.
Having said that, unless they need something that's only available in Vista or 7 or can gain some indirect benefit (lower support costs, higher uptime, etc.), I think they should just leave the damn things alone. Don't fix what's not broken - right?
The code isn't encrypted, it's obfuscated. There's no public/private key or anything like that, it's basically a slightly more obfuscated version of ROT13. To call what they're doing encryption would be along the lines of calling compiled code encrypted. It may not be human-readable anymore, but when you run it, the same results are produced.
There's nothing to break - you're just running the code.
In any case, all that Boxee would need to do is re-skin Hulu's web page a bit to match the Boxee UI. If that violates some sort of "no derivative works" copyright clause, than anyone who's ever taken notes in the margin of a book has some 'splainin' to do.
It really does amaze me. All they have to do is run the web page in its completeness as it's sent to them (HTML-deobfuscating JS included) and override the default stylesheet to tweak the player a bit. It's about five lines of code on top of throwing the code Hulu provides in a chrome-less browser.
It took me about three minutes to make a specialized player for the Twit.TV Stickam stream that I open up in an instance of Fluid.app (a single-site browser for those who haven't heard of it) - just throw the embed in a page and use a little absolute positioning CSS to hide elements of the player I don't care about (chat window, etc) and voila - instant video streaming app in the smallest space possible. I envision it as only trivially more difficult to do the same thing to a Hulu page, only because you'd either have to do some ugly DOM traversal to get to the player thanks to the obfuscation or nuke their stylesheets to hide everything but that same player. Maybe ten minutes worth of work, rather than 3.
The ads are (more or less) built directly into the video stream. The issue is that the content producers take issue with people using media center appliances to put their internet content on a TV screen, despite being identical content to what's shown on TV (except that rather than skipping ALL the commercials with a TiVo, people sit through or ignore the single ad in Hulu streams).
Yes, they SHOULD do it that way. Lord knows that I'll never pay for a cable TV subscription (unless by the laws of retarded cable company economics, it lowers my internet bill), and to me it's all the same content regardless of the display medium. As it is, I'll usually just listen to the stream in the background while pretending to work, since Stewart and Colbert don't exactly rely too heavily on visuals.
But that's beside the point - so long as the content producers (NBC, FOX, etc) continue to have last-century business models, Hulu really has to cooperate with them. It's certainly in their best interest from an ad sales perspective to get the content in front of as many people as possible, regardless of the display device - CPM ads only care about the number of eyeballs. I'll happily go back to torrents if they make it hard to watch shows through Hulu, where they'll get exactly $0.00 per viewing.
You can bet just about any and every business traveler will use it. And while I can't exactly claim to be an air traffic controller, I can't see it taking years to rack up 200 flights.
I doubt it. Once they all start doing it, it'll be like text messaging on cell networks - they'll all jack the prices at once. At least this has some infrastructure costs to almost excuse it (texting just fills otherwise-wasted bandwidth and literally costs the telcos nothing to operate)
It only works on WiFi, and Apple has explicitly stated that VOIP over WiFi is allowed - they wouldn't say that if AT&T were going to fight it. It's better for the telcos anyways - you're paying them your monthly rate regardless of whether you use their bandwidth, so the less you use, the more profit they take in.
That's true (well, depending on your location it may or may not be, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it is). But adding every one of those legal .torrent files to a BitTorrent client would result in a monolithic amount of copyright infringement. Finding who downloaded the torrent file is potentially very easy; associating that information with an IP address in the P2P swarm is equally easy. You do the math.
Well, I'd like to think that the defense (had it gotten to that stage) would have made the connection that the woman being charged for two dozen random and unconnected crimes works in a Q-tip factory and that maybe, just maybe, she coughed on a box along the way.
No, but it doesn't have to be either. By providing free source code to developers, it lowers their costs since they don't have to license anything and can produce a cheaper end result. I'd love for the final binaries to be free, but developers have to eat too (even if they thrive off of cheap microwaveable junk).
Plus, it also hugely lowers the barriers to entry for other programmers. A lot of kids with some programming talent (high school age) have access to the engine, and could plausibly make entirely new games (if you feel that the same engine with new levels and textures constitutes a new game; I do) without having to waste months reinventing the wheel.
So make a proof of concept version using the messy steps, then license the levels from id once you get it working for sale and distribute the setup as a whole.
Indeed. From TFS:
The case has gained national attention because of the defining role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds.
(emphasis mine)
The answer is simple: all of it, always. You're legally required to be at a location owned and paid for by taxpayers. It's not a private location where you willingly give up some of your rights in order to participate. The government has mandated that our youth participate in some form of education, so those youth retain 100% of their constitutionally-protected rights unless they (and/or their parents) pay to go to a private school which may set its own rules.
When does the US Constitution not apply? When you're not in this country. Unless Arizona has recently relocated, I think it's safe to say that's not the case.
Of course, the students will use that logic to say that swearing in school is protected by the first amendment, which is completely unrelated to freedom of speech. That's really beside the point.
Sibling poster jcr has the right idea. This was done by some creeps who thought they could get out of charges by shitting on the Constitution.
Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I've seen a .NET product forced to run on a Linux server too. Yes, it worked (by and large). Was the amount of time wasted on both sides of the project far, far more than the cost of buying a copy of Windows Server? You bet.
Right tools for the right job. Yes, I could use a clawhead hammer to screw in a screw if I absolutely had to, but like hell am I going to waste my time trying when I could just go out and spend $3 on a screwdriver.
So cold fusion is clearly powered by scientific lab coats. I'll accept that Nobel Prize now.
I'm inclined to think that they want to put IIS (and ASP.NET) in front of as many casual Windows-based web developers as possible. Of course with both WAMP and XAMPP taking about three minutes to install I'm not sure that will work - especially since a number of PHP web apps require some odd hacks to get them to work under IIS.
In order to be "deployable" under these settings, new developers will have to use the same hacks and/or workarounds, and could well forget to address how the standard behavior will act on *AMP servers, theoretically creating a bunch of new PHP web apps that will only deploy properly on PHP/IIS servers.
Of course, the number of hosts that are offering PHP/IIS rather than *AMP is absolutely miniscule, so these apps catching on (if this is the case) is slim to none.
Part of me thinks that it's more a ploy to get .NET in front of PHP developers, trying to sell them on the "look at all of this premade, drag-and-drop functionality" thing, but I doubt that will make a difference. Devs that need what .NET offers are going to already be using IIS setups and PHP devs will probably ignore it due to the relatively steep learning curve (or just being forced to work in Visual Studio unless you want to memorize an entire framework).
So... I have no idea. If my cynicism is correct, then I see what they're trying to do but don't see it working that well. If not, then your guess is as good as mine.
And what do you propose we do? I vote for people that I think will do good things in government. They either don't make it in or end up succumbing to the system like every politician before them, no matter how good their intentions going in.
The one where they legally require you to buy your own private insurance and then call it universal healthcare? Yeah, I'm sure that one is costing the state billions.
That also takes about six seconds of the company's time to fix by adding two lines to an .htaccess file. A problem that simple should never require the customer to wonder if their financial data is in harm's way.
Content on Facebook (and any other social networking site with privacy controls) isn't for public consumption - it's for consumption by those whom you've marked as friends.
Encryption would prevent packet sniffing, and as Facebook is owned and operated in the US, I don't see how the UK government could subpoena the data successfully*. That whole jurisdiction thing - ya know.
*Unless they have servers located in the UK. With 200m or so users, they probably do Of course, Facebook could just threaten to block UK users, posting the contact info of various government officials so you can complain to them for forcing FB into such a situation. Facebook is easily large enough for that kind of stunt to actually work.
It would be rights management on a digital device. But more to the point, DRM has become a catch-all term for any form of vendor lock-in, specifically lock-in which when avoided is punishable by the DMCA.