If the CD has ANY rights protection on it, then the DMCA kicks in and your right to rip goes up in smoke.
If I plug my CD player's headphone jack into my computer;s input jack and sample it as if it were a cassette or LP would I be circumventing its protections? If so how would I know that the protections were there in the first place?
After all, they don't put DRM warning stickers on CDs (probably for fear nobody would buy them).
Yet my TV remote is retarded. It has buttons I never use and never will; there's a button to change color tone, with choices "standard, Sports, movie, and vivid". I never touch it and have no use to. There's a button for enhansed sound/ normal sound; but the "enhansed" function, which gives the illusion of an extra stereo width, greater than the actual speakers in the TV, only works with the TV's built in speakers and just sounds like distortion when hooked to external speakers.
OTOH in order to get it into widescreen format (where it squishes the picture down if you tell the DVD player it's a widescreen TV) you have to go through the menu, with over a half dozen button pushes to reach, and if you change channels or turn the set of it reverts to standard format.
It's frustrating; I'd like a button on the remote for that! But instead I get the color button and the sound button (and others) that I never use.
I think (present company excluded of course) that today's engineers are all retarded. Certainly today's sound engineers are.
In the US at least, you can't copyright anything unless it's "affixed in tangible form". You can't copyright an idea, only its concrete expression. For example, you can make a movie about about an old ex-gunfighter who goes and shoots some cowboys that cut up a whore. You just can't use the script for Unforgiven to do it without permission.
In order to patent something you need more than just an idea, and unlike copyurights, patents are not granted automaticall. You have to spend shitloads of money, and you have to have documented plans. Not just an idea.
I'm Apple and I have an idea for ordering drinks through iPhones from nearby Starbucks and I get a patent for the idea
No, you get a patent for the PROCESS, not the idea of the process.
Microsoft often aren't that great at GUI design, but Apple's decision to standardise on a one-button mouse had to be one of the most perverse design decisions in the history of computing!
Amen to that.
Well, last time I installed Linux it still had its own quirks. I wouldn't wish it on a computer newbie. In fact, I think that even the average Windows user would have trouble deciphering parts of it.
There's the trick; I've installed Linux on Newbies' computers and Linux is as easy to learn (from a beginning user's point of view) as Windows. I've installed it on a couple of newbies' machines and they've been happy with it.
Of course, you have to administer it for them, but the same goes for Windows.
Windows users ar the ones who have trouble with Linux.
The whole thing about there being a choice of desktops,
I don't even let them know they have a choice! I'm familiar with KDE so that's what I install. They don't even know about Gnome and I don't bother telling them.
the deliberately-obscure program names, Like Power Point, or Access, or Excel? How are those names any more descriptave that XMMS or Gimp? How is Star Office or Open Office any less descriptive than Microsoft Office?
the wanky self-referential acronyms, the tedious in-jokes that take too long to explain...
If all they know about Linux they hear from me, then they don't hear the in-jokes or acronyms. GNU's still my favorite self referential in-joke acronym after all these years, but I don't ever mention GNU to a GNUbie (new self-referential acronym in-joke there)
IMO the impression that newbies get from Linux is that this is still basically a system designed by computer geeks, for computer geeks.
If they only know Linux from what they see on the internet, then yes. But not if all they know about it is what you've told them.
In the frequency domain, a square wave is a fundamental sine wave plus odd harmonics
One frequency is the same as another to a signal generator, provided the frequency is within its range. With the ear's hair cells I don't know, but I've heard no other explanation why I've heard LPs that could convince me that there was a live human with a musical instrument in the room, while I've never heard a CD that even coes close.
I've only seen ads for the two dollar names, but I'm only paying fifteen, and that includes hosting. Fifteen bucks isn't much eaither, that's only a case of beer, or a quarter tank of gasoline. Chump change, chicken feed.
If they're so sucessful at their marketing then why are they crying about lost sales and lost revinue? Because it takes a chunk of their sales
I still have yet to see any indicatioon that this is true, let alone proof. It's been shown time and again that people who share files spend MORE on music than non-sharers.
Is it purely coincidence that CD sales started falling shortly AFTER the RIAA sued Napster to oblivion? Yes. It's rising broadband speed and penetration that triggered rises in piracy and falls in sales.
Of course it has nothing to do with the boycott against utterly remorsellessly evil bastard and their sickening actions towards their own customers, or the fact that damned little that's hit the airwaves is worth listening to, let alone buying. No, it's purely a coincindence, nothing more. Riiiiiight. You go on believing that, Mr RIAA lawyer.
Even if there are some positive effects now, who's to say they won't evaporate in a few years? It's a system of guilt right now.
Nobody I know or have even heard of has shown the tinyest hint of feeling guilty about downloading or fearful that they will be sued. If there is a positive effect, why should that effect evaporate? If file sharing does indeed, as the studies show, cause people to spend more there is no reason whatever to believe that should change. You might as well start worrying that the sun won't melt your snowman.
I don't understand why you RIAA folks insist on trying to convince us that water is dry or if water's a little damp it will be dry soon. Facts are facts and the fact is that there is NO INDICATION WHATEVER that file sharing has affected sales in any but a positive way, or that lawsuits have affected file sharing at all.
I realise there have been multiple cases of commercially failed copyrighted works that have been revitalised by piracy.
Commercially failed? This guy was in the top ten, playing on the pop stations back when he was young.
Now tell me, who are you and which label do you work for, or are you with the RIAA itself? Your spin is disingenuous to the point that anyone with half a brain can see that you don';t believe a word of what you write. Your indistry continually shoots itself in the foot, and the blood you see isn't from a pirat's cutlass but from your own stupidity. Your industry needs to wake up to reality, stop lying to yourselves and everyone else before it dies.
There is nothing more offensive than a liar who knows you knows he's lying but still trys to maintain the lies. You have offended me deeply.
And why shouldn't we assume it's leagal? We've been recording tapes from pur LPs for decades, and that practice's legality was explicitly spelled out in the Home Recording Act of 1978.
I see no reason why rupping a CD to MP3 is any different than recording an LP to yape, and neither does anyone else who doesn't work for an RIAA label, or is stupid enough to believe their utter bullshit.
Who wants to buy into an expensive player that can only play half the movies or programs out there?
And actually, high definition isn't that damned great anyway. We've all seen high def, at least those of us who have been in a bar or a trore that sells TVs. Yes, the picture's a little sharper provided there's a high def feed, but honestly it's not worth the money. For what I paid for my 42 inch flat screen CRT I couldn't even get a nineteen inch high def.
It's just not worth the money. Plus, nobody wants to be betamaxed. Nobody in their right mind who actually has to show up every morning and work for their money os going to gamble it on a format war. Nobody in their right mind, any way.
The electronics industry (particularly Sony, don't they remember the betamax?) is incredibly stupid. Their idiotic format war is costing them billions.
As nerds, I'm sure you often her "if you're so damned smart whay ain't you rich?" Well, if these isiots are so damned rich, why ain't they smart? Pick a format and make money your stupid damned riuch bastards!
Not that it matters to me, I just bought my TV about 4 years ago and I'm not going to be in the market for another one any time soon. And without a high def TV I'm not going to need a high def DVD player.
Since as another poster pointed out, the download movies cost twenty bucks vs the DVD of $5 to $15, has DRM, and doesn't have any of the DVD's extras I'd say it was a case of someone putting a retard somewhere in management. I mean come on, if brains were dynamite whoever thought up that harebrained scheme wouldn't have enough to blow his nose.
While hindsight is 20/20 Gee I wish I hadn't called that policeman dirty names...
Slashdot Mirror
If the CD has ANY rights protection on it, then the DMCA kicks in and your right to rip goes up in smoke.
If I plug my CD player's headphone jack into my computer;s input jack and sample it as if it were a cassette or LP would I be circumventing its protections? If so how would I know that the protections were there in the first place?
After all, they don't put DRM warning stickers on CDs (probably for fear nobody would buy them).
-mcgrew
Yet my TV remote is retarded. It has buttons I never use and never will; there's a button to change color tone, with choices "standard, Sports, movie, and vivid". I never touch it and have no use to. There's a button for enhansed sound/ normal sound; but the "enhansed" function, which gives the illusion of an extra stereo width, greater than the actual speakers in the TV, only works with the TV's built in speakers and just sounds like distortion when hooked to external speakers.
OTOH in order to get it into widescreen format (where it squishes the picture down if you tell the DVD player it's a widescreen TV) you have to go through the menu, with over a half dozen button pushes to reach, and if you change channels or turn the set of it reverts to standard format.
It's frustrating; I'd like a button on the remote for that! But instead I get the color button and the sound button (and others) that I never use.
I think (present company excluded of course) that today's engineers are all retarded. Certainly today's sound engineers are.
Hey, I'm sensitivity challenged, acronymically challenged insensitive clod!
I couln't argue with that.
In the US at least, you can't copyright anything unless it's "affixed in tangible form". You can't copyright an idea, only its concrete expression. For example, you can make a movie about about an old ex-gunfighter who goes and shoots some cowboys that cut up a whore. You just can't use the script for Unforgiven to do it without permission.
In order to patent something you need more than just an idea, and unlike copyurights, patents are not granted automaticall. You have to spend shitloads of money, and you have to have documented plans. Not just an idea.
I'm Apple and I have an idea for ordering drinks through iPhones from nearby Starbucks and I get a patent for the idea
No, you get a patent for the PROCESS, not the idea of the process.
Ah, that explains it, and makes sense. I never used CP/M.
Microsoft often aren't that great at GUI design, but Apple's decision to standardise on a one-button mouse had to be one of the most perverse design decisions in the history of computing!
...
Amen to that.
Well, last time I installed Linux it still had its own quirks. I wouldn't wish it on a computer newbie. In fact, I think that even the average Windows user would have trouble deciphering parts of it.
There's the trick; I've installed Linux on Newbies' computers and Linux is as easy to learn (from a beginning user's point of view) as Windows. I've installed it on a couple of newbies' machines and they've been happy with it.
Of course, you have to administer it for them, but the same goes for Windows.
Windows users ar the ones who have trouble with Linux.
The whole thing about there being a choice of desktops,
I don't even let them know they have a choice! I'm familiar with KDE so that's what I install. They don't even know about Gnome and I don't bother telling them.
the deliberately-obscure program names,
Like Power Point, or Access, or Excel? How are those names any more descriptave that XMMS or Gimp? How is Star Office or Open Office any less descriptive than Microsoft Office?
the wanky self-referential acronyms, the tedious in-jokes that take too long to explain
If all they know about Linux they hear from me, then they don't hear the in-jokes or acronyms. GNU's still my favorite self referential in-joke acronym after all these years, but I don't ever mention GNU to a GNUbie (new self-referential acronym in-joke there)
IMO the impression that newbies get from Linux is that this is still basically a system designed by computer geeks, for computer geeks.
If they only know Linux from what they see on the internet, then yes. But not if all they know about it is what you've told them.
In the frequency domain, a square wave is a fundamental sine wave plus odd harmonics
One frequency is the same as another to a signal generator, provided the frequency is within its range. With the ear's hair cells I don't know, but I've heard no other explanation why I've heard LPs that could convince me that there was a live human with a musical instrument in the room, while I've never heard a CD that even coes close.
My money isn't involved, how am I entered into a contract?
I'm in the wrong line of work! How does one go about becoming a tax collector?
If I was a Muslin I would be. Of course, if I was a muslim I'd have gotten the number right. Actually shouldn't that be 42?
At my age the cloisest I'll ever come to doing a virgin is sticking it in farther than anybody else's has been. I mean, since I'm not a Muslim.
I rather think that maybe you slept through class!
Be nice.
I'd rather make somebody laugh. Ot at least make a lame attempt to.
I've only seen ads for the two dollar names, but I'm only paying fifteen, and that includes hosting. Fifteen bucks isn't much eaither, that's only a case of beer, or a quarter tank of gasoline. Chump change, chicken feed.
(my favorite) urinating on their squad car in the donut shop parking lot.
Heartbreak Ridge, great flick!
Cop: I don't give any serviceman's discounts
Jarhead: Too bad, your old lady does!
Don't watch that movie on TV, the censorship ruins it.
If they're so sucessful at their marketing then why are they crying about lost sales and lost revinue? Because it takes a chunk of their sales
I still have yet to see any indicatioon that this is true, let alone proof. It's been shown time and again that people who share files spend MORE on music than non-sharers.
Is it purely coincidence that CD sales started falling shortly AFTER the RIAA sued Napster to oblivion? Yes. It's rising broadband speed and penetration that triggered rises in piracy and falls in sales.
Of course it has nothing to do with the boycott against utterly remorsellessly evil bastard and their sickening actions towards their own customers, or the fact that damned little that's hit the airwaves is worth listening to, let alone buying. No, it's purely a coincindence, nothing more. Riiiiiight. You go on believing that, Mr RIAA lawyer.
Even if there are some positive effects now, who's to say they won't evaporate in a few years? It's a system of guilt right now.
Nobody I know or have even heard of has shown the tinyest hint of feeling guilty about downloading or fearful that they will be sued. If there is a positive effect, why should that effect evaporate? If file sharing does indeed, as the studies show, cause people to spend more there is no reason whatever to believe that should change. You might as well start worrying that the sun won't melt your snowman.
I don't understand why you RIAA folks insist on trying to convince us that water is dry or if water's a little damp it will be dry soon. Facts are facts and the fact is that there is NO INDICATION WHATEVER that file sharing has affected sales in any but a positive way, or that lawsuits have affected file sharing at all.
I realise there have been multiple cases of commercially failed copyrighted works that have been revitalised by piracy.
Commercially failed? This guy was in the top ten, playing on the pop stations back when he was young.
Now tell me, who are you and which label do you work for, or are you with the RIAA itself? Your spin is disingenuous to the point that anyone with half a brain can see that you don';t believe a word of what you write. Your indistry continually shoots itself in the foot, and the blood you see isn't from a pirat's cutlass but from your own stupidity. Your industry needs to wake up to reality, stop lying to yourselves and everyone else before it dies.
There is nothing more offensive than a liar who knows you knows he's lying but still trys to maintain the lies. You have offended me deeply.
-mcgrew
And why shouldn't we assume it's leagal? We've been recording tapes from pur LPs for decades, and that practice's legality was explicitly spelled out in the Home Recording Act of 1978.
I see no reason why rupping a CD to MP3 is any different than recording an LP to yape, and neither does anyone else who doesn't work for an RIAA label, or is stupid enough to believe their utter bullshit.
-mcgrew
Who wants to buy into an expensive player that can only play half the movies or programs out there?
And actually, high definition isn't that damned great anyway. We've all seen high def, at least those of us who have been in a bar or a trore that sells TVs. Yes, the picture's a little sharper provided there's a high def feed, but honestly it's not worth the money. For what I paid for my 42 inch flat screen CRT I couldn't even get a nineteen inch high def.
It's just not worth the money. Plus, nobody wants to be betamaxed. Nobody in their right mind who actually has to show up every morning and work for their money os going to gamble it on a format war. Nobody in their right mind, any way.
The electronics industry (particularly Sony, don't they remember the betamax?) is incredibly stupid. Their idiotic format war is costing them billions.
As nerds, I'm sure you often her "if you're so damned smart whay ain't you rich?" Well, if these isiots are so damned rich, why ain't they smart? Pick a format and make money your stupid damned riuch bastards!
Not that it matters to me, I just bought my TV about 4 years ago and I'm not going to be in the market for another one any time soon. And without a high def TV I'm not going to need a high def DVD player.
-mcgrew
To blow up an airplane
Since as another poster pointed out, the download movies cost twenty bucks vs the DVD of $5 to $15, has DRM, and doesn't have any of the DVD's extras I'd say it was a case of someone putting a retard somewhere in management. I mean come on, if brains were dynamite whoever thought up that harebrained scheme wouldn't have enough to blow his nose.
While hindsight is 20/20
Gee I wish I hadn't called that policeman dirty names...
Is an "APU" an Auxiliary power unit? I googled but I'm not sure I hit the right APU.
If so, we called them "generators" in th eUSAF back in the seventies. But we called Phillips screwdrivers "crosshatches" too.
So you paid more money, for less content, that could be used in less places.
Well, it worked so well with the music industry with their DRM (Dumb Music Restriction) laden, lossy, buck per song downloads.
And I never bought any of them! Or rather, rented stuff. Why do they say "buy" when you pay money for something and you don't own it?
Even funnier is teeny little wal mart squished by "giant" apple and netflix. What alternate universe does the submitter live in anyway?