DRM'ing purchased content would(has) happen(ed) long before streaming rentals had anything significant to add to the picture. The guys that wear suits and drive fancy cars think we're all thieves waiting to raid their vaults. They think I'll buy a movie then give a copy to all my friends. Netflix, for example, isn't doing anything that would cause them to get even more strict. Actually, it would probably happen in the opposite direction. It has been noted before that piracy has gone down during Netflix's rise in success.
I've been using Clear's Wi-Max service for about a week now. Nobody'll ever claim that it's as well covered as a cellular phone would be, but where I live it's actually working out surprisingly well.
I'm pretty sure that streaming a movie on Netflix doesn't mean that you now *own* a copy of that movie, or have any right to dictate what the studio does with it. Unless someone appointed you King of the Internet and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure that everyone is free to create whatever streaming standards they damn well want to for THEIR content.
Why is this flamebait? No, seriously, what's so offensive about this?
Going back a million years ago when the term DRM came about (hint: It came LONG after copy protection), it was being used to lock down content/software that you owned a permanent license to. DRM, by definition, put a unpredictable time-limit on the software you owned. That is why it is universally BAD BAD BAD that it's used. (For some reason the companies that employ this technique are unaware that as time goes by, the profits they made continually shrink by perpetually providing service to keep that paid-for content alive. I'm amazed that ever got past the conceptual stage, but I digress.)
However, we're not talking about content that is owned here, at best it's a rental. When you view that content, the idea is you are basically paying to view it that one time, as opposed to paying now and watching it say one year from now. That is a very different circumstance that does not apply to all of the DRM hate that's been burning for years.
So why can't they use whatever streaming standards they want? The customers know going in what they're getting, they know it's not supported past that first viewing, and the pricing is done accordingly. If the system itself is too intrusive, good, you've got a winning argument there. But if they want to cripple the life of a video file, which is exactly what a rental is and exactly what DRM is perfect for, what's the BFD?
Right, it's part of the DVD Standard. Anything that plays DVDs will play that disc. Some DVD players will play DivX discs, but the one you have may not. Why? They don't support that standard. Your FreeBSD machine isn't supported. If you were talking about a movie you owned, I'd be right up there with you sharpening the pitchfork. But, we're not, we're talking about a rental whose conditions you will know up-front.
Your problem isn't DRM, it's that you are using a niche product. Tough noogies.
Can I, for example, watch it on the FreeBSD-based media centre / NAS that is connected to the projector in my living room?
No. That's also not the service you're getting from them. You're talking about a one-time-viewing-rental, not about media that you've purchased life-time viewing on.
Google can only associate your searches with your account if you're logged in. If you don't want them to remember your searches, don't log in. Log in to use YouTube when you want to, then log out when you're done.
I run two different browsers. I have Chrome dedicated to email and Opera dedicated to my daily browsing. I believe this separation helps keep things on the level.
Believe me, I love hating on Sony, too. (i.e. I am NOT purchasing a Vita just because they retroactively removed a feature of the PS3.) But, seriously dude, this one ain't gonna gain any attention. Sony's touting multi-player, making GPS available for that actually makes sense.
It wasn't released in the USA, it was released in North America.
If you really want to post at +2, you'll have to do a lot better than that. Try using the phrase 'walled-garden' or 'rounded-rectangle', then you'll be rolling in karma.
Heh. What does it matter. Well, if you had read anything about it, you'd know why it matters and you would have saved yourself all that typing. I guess fanboi is french for 'read the article'.
Secondly, there so much prior art to rounded rectangle this patent has no choice but to be nuked. I have in my hands right now a cell phone circa 2003 that is rounded rectangular with just a screen and a slide out keyboard.
Oh goodie, one more person educated solely on sensationalist headlines.
Thanks Slashdot, good to know you're getting your money's worth from your ad revenue.
You've never touched a Tab 10.1, that much is obvious by your complete lack of corroborating evidence.
Wrong. I'm looking at it right now, actually. Here's a fun little bit of trivia about the Tab: MAME will run on it, and it'll properly support the iCade! It'll ALMOST fit in it, although you've got to leave the flap on the top open since it's a little too big.
How do I know, I actually own a Galaxy Tab 10.1, the application draw acts differently...
Actually I was referring to the physical casing of it, i.e. the very thing the 'rounded-rectangle patent' case is all about. Coincidentally that's the bit Samsung's Lawyers couldn't discern, either, which I brought up in my last post. I find it unlikely that you're unaware of this case as it's been plastered around here for ages.
It certainly is amusing isn't it.
You made it even more so...
Ipads dont have rotation lock like the Galaxy Tab....
... see? Yes, they do, and the vanilla apps on the iPad support it better than the same apps on the Tab. I wouldn't mind much, but if you hold the Tab vertically it's a little too easy to hit the stupid sleep button by accident. Oh.. gee, I guess I wasn't lying about touching a Galaxy Tab. Now if we could just get you to touch and iPad... actually maybe you have and you just thought it was a Tab.
The notion that Samsung copied Apple only exists in the minds of fanboys who've never touched a Samsung Galaxy phone or tablet.
Actually I own a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and yes they copy-catted the iPad to a stupidly obvious level.
Amusingly the people who try to argue with me on that are people who haven't held one and then the other. I wouldn't mind but Samsung's own lawyer couldn't distinguish between the two in front of a judge.
Actually the point is that if what they did really is truly bad, then everybody else has to be held to the same standard. Failure to do that is a symptom of being a Haterade addict.
Despite off-site storage, automatic backups, the ability to auto-sync to multiple sites, and that there are ways to secure it, it's completely useless!
Well, it would have saved you from wasting time responding. Unless, of course, you like making posts without any meaningful content. In which case I'd recommend you visit youtube.com.
It's funny that you're trying to pretend that sound effects *portraying exactly what's going on screen as if you could hear them* equate in any way to a musical score.
It's funny that you don't realize the role sound effects have in presenting a video.
Either you're trolling, or you really are this retarded.
Speaking of being 'retarded', show me a clip of Captain Picard saying "whoah, did hear that Romulan ship fly by?" Or, how about showing me Han Solo telling everybody to shush while the Falcon is attached to the Star Destroyer.
Oh, you can't? You can't find one of Indiana Jones telling the trumpet player to hush, either. Big surprise. The sound is there for you, the audience. That's it, they're the primary concern. If you don't believe me, click this link, mute the sound, and tell me how interesting the clip is.
This is common knowledge, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about it. Thanks for the chuckle, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, no.
DRM'ing purchased content would(has) happen(ed) long before streaming rentals had anything significant to add to the picture. The guys that wear suits and drive fancy cars think we're all thieves waiting to raid their vaults. They think I'll buy a movie then give a copy to all my friends. Netflix, for example, isn't doing anything that would cause them to get even more strict. Actually, it would probably happen in the opposite direction. It has been noted before that piracy has gone down during Netflix's rise in success.
I've been using Clear's Wi-Max service for about a week now. Nobody'll ever claim that it's as well covered as a cellular phone would be, but where I live it's actually working out surprisingly well.
I'm pretty sure that streaming a movie on Netflix doesn't mean that you now *own* a copy of that movie, or have any right to dictate what the studio does with it. Unless someone appointed you King of the Internet and I didn't hear about it, I'm pretty sure that everyone is free to create whatever streaming standards they damn well want to for THEIR content.
Why is this flamebait? No, seriously, what's so offensive about this?
Going back a million years ago when the term DRM came about (hint: It came LONG after copy protection), it was being used to lock down content/software that you owned a permanent license to. DRM, by definition, put a unpredictable time-limit on the software you owned. That is why it is universally BAD BAD BAD that it's used. (For some reason the companies that employ this technique are unaware that as time goes by, the profits they made continually shrink by perpetually providing service to keep that paid-for content alive. I'm amazed that ever got past the conceptual stage, but I digress.)
However, we're not talking about content that is owned here, at best it's a rental. When you view that content, the idea is you are basically paying to view it that one time, as opposed to paying now and watching it say one year from now. That is a very different circumstance that does not apply to all of the DRM hate that's been burning for years.
So why can't they use whatever streaming standards they want? The customers know going in what they're getting, they know it's not supported past that first viewing, and the pricing is done accordingly. If the system itself is too intrusive, good, you've got a winning argument there. But if they want to cripple the life of a video file, which is exactly what a rental is and exactly what DRM is perfect for, what's the BFD?
Parent post's moderation should be re-considered.
Right, it's part of the DVD Standard. Anything that plays DVDs will play that disc. Some DVD players will play DivX discs, but the one you have may not. Why? They don't support that standard. Your FreeBSD machine isn't supported. If you were talking about a movie you owned, I'd be right up there with you sharpening the pitchfork. But, we're not, we're talking about a rental whose conditions you will know up-front.
Your problem isn't DRM, it's that you are using a niche product. Tough noogies.
Can I, for example, watch it on the FreeBSD-based media centre / NAS that is connected to the projector in my living room?
No. That's also not the service you're getting from them. You're talking about a one-time-viewing-rental, not about media that you've purchased life-time viewing on.
Get some perspective, man.
.. and bring back Firefly!!
Nice! (and you undid one of my generalizations to boot!)
Okay, make that two. The one I was thinking of was Wing Commander.
Google can only associate your searches with your account if you're logged in. If you don't want them to remember your searches, don't log in. Log in to use YouTube when you want to, then log out when you're done.
I run two different browsers. I have Chrome dedicated to email and Opera dedicated to my daily browsing. I believe this separation helps keep things on the level.
Well, you can make superior hardware, that doesn't mean you'll get superior games.
Believe me, I love hating on Sony, too. (i.e. I am NOT purchasing a Vita just because they retroactively removed a feature of the PS3.) But, seriously dude, this one ain't gonna gain any attention. Sony's touting multi-player, making GPS available for that actually makes sense.
It wasn't released in the USA, it was released in North America.
If you really want to post at +2, you'll have to do a lot better than that. Try using the phrase 'walled-garden' or 'rounded-rectangle', then you'll be rolling in karma.
You might think Sony would have been warned to provide an amazing experience after the failure of the 3DS.
Small nitpick: The 3DS has not failed, it's actually doing quite well. The launch was screwed up.
I just got done saying it's not a defense. Failure of reading comprehension is also a sign of being a Haterade Addict.
That is a very long way to go to save face. I'm impressed. So.... have you read up on that case, yet?
Heh. What does it matter. Well, if you had read anything about it, you'd know why it matters and you would have saved yourself all that typing. I guess fanboi is french for 'read the article'.
Without looking it up, tell me how many points Apple raised against Samsung in that case.
Secondly, there so much prior art to rounded rectangle this patent has no choice but to be nuked. I have in my hands right now a cell phone circa 2003 that is rounded rectangular with just a screen and a slide out keyboard.
Oh goodie, one more person educated solely on sensationalist headlines.
Thanks Slashdot, good to know you're getting your money's worth from your ad revenue.
You've never touched a Tab 10.1, that much is obvious by your complete lack of corroborating evidence.
Wrong. I'm looking at it right now, actually. Here's a fun little bit of trivia about the Tab: MAME will run on it, and it'll properly support the iCade! It'll ALMOST fit in it, although you've got to leave the flap on the top open since it's a little too big.
How do I know, I actually own a Galaxy Tab 10.1, the application draw acts differently...
Actually I was referring to the physical casing of it, i.e. the very thing the 'rounded-rectangle patent' case is all about. Coincidentally that's the bit Samsung's Lawyers couldn't discern, either, which I brought up in my last post. I find it unlikely that you're unaware of this case as it's been plastered around here for ages.
It certainly is amusing isn't it.
You made it even more so...
Ipads dont have rotation lock like the Galaxy Tab....
... see? Yes, they do, and the vanilla apps on the iPad support it better than the same apps on the Tab. I wouldn't mind much, but if you hold the Tab vertically it's a little too easy to hit the stupid sleep button by accident. Oh.. gee, I guess I wasn't lying about touching a Galaxy Tab. Now if we could just get you to touch and iPad... actually maybe you have and you just thought it was a Tab.
The notion that Samsung copied Apple only exists in the minds of fanboys who've never touched a Samsung Galaxy phone or tablet.
Actually I own a Galaxy Tab 10.1, and yes they copy-catted the iPad to a stupidly obvious level.
Amusingly the people who try to argue with me on that are people who haven't held one and then the other. I wouldn't mind but Samsung's own lawyer couldn't distinguish between the two in front of a judge.
Actually the point is that if what they did really is truly bad, then everybody else has to be held to the same standard. Failure to do that is a symptom of being a Haterade addict.
"You can't fucking steal an idea. Stop purporting this nonsensical line that the intangible can be stolen. Fuck." - MobileTatsu-NJG
Steve Jobs made a career of it.
And Samsung read his book!
The cloud is the answer to NOTHING.
Despite off-site storage, automatic backups, the ability to auto-sync to multiple sites, and that there are ways to secure it, it's completely useless!
Well, it would have saved you from wasting time responding. Unless, of course, you like making posts without any meaningful content. In which case I'd recommend you visit youtube.com.
It's funny that you're trying to pretend that sound effects *portraying exactly what's going on screen as if you could hear them* equate in any way to a musical score.
It's funny that you don't realize the role sound effects have in presenting a video.
Either you're trolling, or you really are this retarded.
Speaking of being 'retarded', show me a clip of Captain Picard saying "whoah, did hear that Romulan ship fly by?" Or, how about showing me Han Solo telling everybody to shush while the Falcon is attached to the Star Destroyer.
Oh, you can't? You can't find one of Indiana Jones telling the trumpet player to hush, either. Big surprise. The sound is there for you, the audience. That's it, they're the primary concern. If you don't believe me, click this link, mute the sound, and tell me how interesting the clip is.
This is common knowledge, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about it. Thanks for the chuckle, though.