They did increase the number of computers that can be "authorized", but what about users who are not happy with this change? Apple did not give them a choice about this. What if Apple reduced the number of CDs that could be burnt to 0, but increased the number of computers that could be authorized to 7. Would that be fair, too?
The "record companies require it" justification for DRM is flawed. If that's the case, Apple should refuse to do business with record companies that require DRM. Just because Apple can make money by selling DRM music doesn't mean that selling DRM music is "okay".
Let me guess... you'd buy poo in a white box if it had the Apple logo on it, right?
- Apple reduced the number of times a playlist can be burnt to a CD from 10 down to 7.
- The videos will undoubtedly play via iTunes and be purchasable from the iTunes store. People who buy songs from iTunes will obviously be the first people to use this new service.
- The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" excuse isn't good enough in this case, because Apple isn't saying "buy encrypted songs only playable with Apple products", they're saying "buy music online". I know that Apple's music store sells encrypted files that can only be played with crippled software, but most users do not realise this and Apple does not make it clear to them.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is more successful. Both companies love proprietary software and DRM. Both companies screw over their customers.
Why should Skype have patented this, and how does this negatively affect Skype?
Skype don't get their money from people installing their client, they get their money from people paying for the extra services like SkypeOut, SkypeIn, and so on. They should regard maintaining the Skype clients as an unwanted hassle. What they really want is as many people as possible connecting to their servers and using the extra services. This is separate from the protocol.
If I was an executive at Skype, I would view this as a good thing for the company. It's only going to result in more users. It's strange that Skype didn't voluntarily open up their protocol earlier!
if you double the pool of users that can be infected, then you also double the number of users that will be infected.
You're assuming Yahoo users can be infected by MSN worms, and vice-versa. I'm assuming that can't happen, which means that each worm can only infect 50% of the users it comes into contact with, as opposed to 100% if the networks were to stay separate.
Of course, this is an overly simplified view, since I'm assuming that worms can infect based on which client is being used.
This should slow down the propagation of worms. Suppose MSN and Yahoo have the same number of users. The space being searched has now doubled, so a worm affecting only one of the major clients (the MSN client or the Yahoo client) will need to attack double the number of users just to successfully infect the same number of users as it currently would.
That's a load of crap. There are valid reasons for disliking Microsoft at the moment. They try to push proprietary, patented file formats/codecs/protocols into the community so that everyone feels pressure to use Microsoft software.
I don't mind if Microsoft software is crap, because I can just choose not to use it. I don't mind if Microsoft software is proprietary, because I can just use something else.
I DO MIND when Microsoft forces their users to try to exchange files with me that are in formats that Microsoft have made sure I can't read, either through secret specifications or through legal (software patent) pressure.
If Microsoft played nice, they could get along well with the Slashdot community. Have you ever considered why Microsoft has Internet Explorer? They don't make money by selling it. It's not really a decent browser - other browsers are better. So why do they have it? Why not just bundle Firefox or something else with Windows? IE is a power grab. Its sole purpose is to be incompatible with web standards so that websites are written specifically for IE and won't work well for users of other operating systems.
Come and get your nice, big wooden horse...
on
A Closed Off System?
·
· Score: 1
What happens when a connection that you initiated results in you getting infected with malware that initiates connections rather than listening for connections?
For example: - LiveJournal ads recently had problems with an advertiser setting their ad to some malware. - MySpace videos very recently had problems with videos containing malware.
As for "being crushed under its own weight", the fact is, it's working now. It has been working well for a number of years now. That doesn't mean it will keep working indefinitely, but your prediction (correct me if I'm wrong...) doesn't seem to be based off anything in particular.
There is nothing wrong with what this company was doing. They were providing a service to consumers. Censorship is only bad when someone else is deciding what you can see against your will. In this case, people sought censored copies. I wouldn't use this service, but they were not doing anything wrong. Any "pro-family" group would be completely correct in advocating a service like this. It provides censoring to those who want it without interfering with the activities of anyone else.
This is voluntary censorship, though. Suppose I've bought Kill Bill and want to see it, but not the violent bits, I could've sent it to this company. No one would've forced me to, though.
There is nothing wrong with people viewing censored material when they asked for it to be censored for them. This decision is effectively censoring censorship!
It isn't possible to steal music unless it comes on CDs or tapes. If you meant that people copy it without permission, that's called copyright infringement.
Am I the only person who wouldn't have voted for Mark Latham before his "vent", but would have afterwards? I was impressed by it, at least more so than I am impressed by Kim "Just Like John" Beazley.
In my opinion, it's about time the economy (businesses) suffered a little bit for the community (people) to be better off.
Stop treating "the economy" as though it is something sacred that mustn't be trampled on. It is just one aspect of our society, and not really the most important one, despite the fact that people treat it like it is.
No, we're not all like John Howard, but the majority of us are. We, Australia, elected him to represent us. If we didn't think John Howard represented us, we could have voted for a different party, of which there are many.
Yes, but that's only one particular aspect of what is actually a larger problem. The problem is that Microsoft refuses to support open standards.
Instead of getting Microsoft to release a Windows minus a media player, the courts should address the problem at its roots: - Force Microsoft to document their file formats. - Don't allow the patent offices to grant patents that prevent software from implementing particular protocols or support for file formats/codecs.
It'll never happen. The fine could be ten times what it is, and Microsoft would still stay in Europe. If their monopoly is compromised in one part of the world, the rest of the world will follow. They can't allow that to happen.
They don't deserve it for bundling a media player with their OS, but they do deserve it for using their monopoly to push proprietary file formats and protocols (eg. Office file formats) so that it is extremely difficult for people to switch away.
They might not be a nice company, but I hope they manage to make every single user pay for Windows, soon. I doubt they will, though, because I think they'd rather people use Windows illegally than use an alternative operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
They did increase the number of computers that can be "authorized", but what about users who are not happy with this change? Apple did not give them a choice about this. What if Apple reduced the number of CDs that could be burnt to 0, but increased the number of computers that could be authorized to 7. Would that be fair, too?
The "record companies require it" justification for DRM is flawed. If that's the case, Apple should refuse to do business with record companies that require DRM. Just because Apple can make money by selling DRM music doesn't mean that selling DRM music is "okay".
Let me guess... you'd buy poo in a white box if it had the Apple logo on it, right?
- Apple reduced the number of times a playlist can be burnt to a CD from 10 down to 7.
- The videos will undoubtedly play via iTunes and be purchasable from the iTunes store. People who buy songs from iTunes will obviously be the first people to use this new service.
- The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" excuse isn't good enough in this case, because Apple isn't saying "buy encrypted songs only playable with Apple products", they're saying "buy music online". I know that Apple's music store sells encrypted files that can only be played with crippled software, but most users do not realise this and Apple does not make it clear to them.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is more successful. Both companies love proprietary software and DRM. Both companies screw over their customers.
:)
Apple fanboys are about to mod me down.
Why should Skype have patented this, and how does this negatively affect Skype?
Skype don't get their money from people installing their client, they get their money from people paying for the extra services like SkypeOut, SkypeIn, and so on. They should regard maintaining the Skype clients as an unwanted hassle. What they really want is as many people as possible connecting to their servers and using the extra services. This is separate from the protocol.
If I was an executive at Skype, I would view this as a good thing for the company. It's only going to result in more users. It's strange that Skype didn't voluntarily open up their protocol earlier!
if you double the pool of users that can be infected, then you also double the number of users that will be infected.
You're assuming Yahoo users can be infected by MSN worms, and vice-versa. I'm assuming that can't happen, which means that each worm can only infect 50% of the users it comes into contact with, as opposed to 100% if the networks were to stay separate.
Of course, this is an overly simplified view, since I'm assuming that worms can infect based on which client is being used.
Lets see how fast the worms spread after this.
This should slow down the propagation of worms. Suppose MSN and Yahoo have the same number of users. The space being searched has now doubled, so a worm affecting only one of the major clients (the MSN client or the Yahoo client) will need to attack double the number of users just to successfully infect the same number of users as it currently would.
Slashdot will forever hate Microsoft
That's a load of crap. There are valid reasons for disliking Microsoft at the moment. They try to push proprietary, patented file formats/codecs/protocols into the community so that everyone feels pressure to use Microsoft software.
I don't mind if Microsoft software is crap, because I can just choose not to use it.
I don't mind if Microsoft software is proprietary, because I can just use something else.
I DO MIND when Microsoft forces their users to try to exchange files with me that are in formats that Microsoft have made sure I can't read, either through secret specifications or through legal (software patent) pressure.
If Microsoft played nice, they could get along well with the Slashdot community. Have you ever considered why Microsoft has Internet Explorer? They don't make money by selling it. It's not really a decent browser - other browsers are better. So why do they have it? Why not just bundle Firefox or something else with Windows? IE is a power grab. Its sole purpose is to be incompatible with web standards so that websites are written specifically for IE and won't work well for users of other operating systems.
Apparently it won't sting quite enough, though. May I remind you that this charade has been going on for over two years already?
What happens when a connection that you initiated results in you getting infected with malware that initiates connections rather than listening for connections?
For example:
- LiveJournal ads recently had problems with an advertiser setting their ad to some malware.
- MySpace videos very recently had problems with videos containing malware.
I picked Kill Bill because I thought it would be a funny example.
You need to read this.
As for "being crushed under its own weight", the fact is, it's working now. It has been working well for a number of years now. That doesn't mean it will keep working indefinitely, but your prediction (correct me if I'm wrong...) doesn't seem to be based off anything in particular.
There is nothing wrong with what this company was doing. They were providing a service to consumers. Censorship is only bad when someone else is deciding what you can see against your will. In this case, people sought censored copies. I wouldn't use this service, but they were not doing anything wrong. Any "pro-family" group would be completely correct in advocating a service like this. It provides censoring to those who want it without interfering with the activities of anyone else.
This is voluntary censorship, though. Suppose I've bought Kill Bill and want to see it, but not the violent bits, I could've sent it to this company. No one would've forced me to, though.
There is nothing wrong with people viewing censored material when they asked for it to be censored for them. This decision is effectively censoring censorship!
I didn't say whether I thought it was 'right' or 'wrong'.
"Stop murdering people!"
"I'm not murdering people, I'm stealing lollipops!"
"Whatever! It's all just semantics. Stop trying to justify it."
Good point. Thanks for the correction.
It isn't possible to steal music unless it comes on CDs or tapes. If you meant that people copy it without permission, that's called copyright infringement.
Am I the only person who wouldn't have voted for Mark Latham before his "vent", but would have afterwards? I was impressed by it, at least more so than I am impressed by Kim "Just Like John" Beazley.
In my opinion, it's about time the economy (businesses) suffered a little bit for the community (people) to be better off.
Stop treating "the economy" as though it is something sacred that mustn't be trampled on. It is just one aspect of our society, and not really the most important one, despite the fact that people treat it like it is.
No, we're not all like John Howard, but the majority of us are. We, Australia, elected him to represent us. If we didn't think John Howard represented us, we could have voted for a different party, of which there are many.
Personally, I vote for The Greens.
They're not facing charges. Police say there isn't enough evidence.
Yes, but that's only one particular aspect of what is actually a larger problem. The problem is that Microsoft refuses to support open standards.
Instead of getting Microsoft to release a Windows minus a media player, the courts should address the problem at its roots:
- Force Microsoft to document their file formats.
- Don't allow the patent offices to grant patents that prevent software from implementing particular protocols or support for file formats/codecs.
It'll never happen. The fine could be ten times what it is, and Microsoft would still stay in Europe. If their monopoly is compromised in one part of the world, the rest of the world will follow. They can't allow that to happen.
They don't deserve it for bundling a media player with their OS, but they do deserve it for using their monopoly to push proprietary file formats and protocols (eg. Office file formats) so that it is extremely difficult for people to switch away.
Software patients must be stopped.
They might not be a nice company, but I hope they manage to make every single user pay for Windows, soon. I doubt they will, though, because I think they'd rather people use Windows illegally than use an alternative operating system.