for the comparatively very small number of artists with legal standing to request this.
It doesn't really matter how many artists if you want to lead by example.
(e.g., why do some tracks I bought play on my Zune and others won't?). I know that a lot of people don't buy that argument, but frankly, it's perfectly legitimate.
This argument would be legitimate, but sorry. Apple haven't minded confusing ITMS customers in the past.
EU based companies *cough* Philips *cough* LG *cough*
LG is not European [You've made some Korean's very happy thinking so tho']
Why just fight against DRM for iTunes, and not DRM for everything? If the EU commisioner was really fighting for consumer rights here, it should be all DRM'ed anything, music, movies, electronic books
They are looking at DRM on all music - its just Apple's the biggest DRM dealer/pusher around at the moment.
Or perhaps this is a pre-canned comment you keep ready to drop on someone who says something anti-ITMS?
Anyway, I'll reply to the bit that did seem to intersect my comment:
Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to do it":
Artists have been asking for DRM free ITMS music for months. If Jobs was as concerned about DRM being imposed on him as his little blog makes out, don't you think Apple should lead by example and become the first label (let's face it, that's what they are now) to offer DRM free tunes.
Even an announcement stating they're going to offer DRM-free tunes as soon as technically feasible would be enough for me.
Without that, Jobs' calling on the rest of the music industry to drop DRM when he appears unwilling to drop it himself smacks of hypocrisy.
Apple talking the talk, not walking the walk again.
The same reason Apple is opposed to variable pricing: consistency. They don't want to clutter iTunes with complicated explanations of what you are and aren't allowed to do with each track of music.
First, when you attempt to burn the album (with the video-files, which are only distinguished from the audio-files by a small, obscure grey icon) to CD, the iTunes error message says only that the files "cannot be burned to an audio CD," which led Kim Cameron, an experienced computer user and IT executive, to conclude that the files were locked -- an error stating that these were video files would have been clearer.
If Apple were going for consistency and attempts to not confuse the customer, they failed utterly.
Because if she has, she would know that Jobs himself opposes the DRM scheme.
Aaaah right, I've read Jobs' little blog - and he's it's entirely correct.
However. Why doesn't Jobs' allow the artists who want to sell DRM free music on itunes? There's DRM encumbered music on itunes that's available elsewhere in DRM free formats.
I find the disconnect between Steve Jobs essay & the reality of iTunes.... well, lets just say that perhaps interoperability pressure from the EU was a bigger motivation for Jobs to write that essay then a desire to help remove DRM from the marketplace.
I have no doubt that someone is going to reply to this post saying that consumer 'confusion' is what prevents Apple from having DRM on some music, but not on others. To those people, please read this link.
For the lazy, the link is about four Dylan songs (virtually indistinguishable via the ITMS interface to other songs). These songs have more restrictive DRM on them and cannot be burnt to CD at all. Apple didn't seem to mind confusing their customers in that case.
DRM free music is the only true path to interoperability. Anything else will fall short.
From TFA:
Apple Chairman and CEO Steve Jobs has said that his company would make everybody happy by selling DRM-free music if only the record labels would agree to it.
Thanks Steve - why not offer DRM free music from artists and labels that you already have granted you permission?
Dell's servers being overwhelmed doesn't mean there's an actual overwhelming demand for Linux, just that there's a lot of Linux users with time on their hands who wish to try and give that impression, at least until they lose interest and move on to something else.
Hmmmmmmmn, on the one hand we've got a whole bunch of people saying 'we want Dell to pre-install linux', on the other hand, we've got just you saying 'its a bunch of zealots trying to game Dell to make linux look good'.
Its a bit of a stretch from thier core business model.
MS's core business is undergoing a process of commoditization & attacks from all directions. In case you haven't noticed, they're wildly flailing about in all directions (MSN, xbox, phones, etc) trying to find new markets to expand into.
Unfortunately for them, (but fortunately for consumer choice), everything they've tried that they can't leverage their monopoly in productivity software & operating systems to expand into has been a financial failure.
They can advertise whatever they want, but as long as their contracts have that little clause in them, it really doesn't matter WHAT they advertise.
Uuuh? You serious?
Say verizon advertises an ADSL2 24 / 1 Mbps unlimited service, but the fine print actually says "we'll send a kitten to pick up any packets you print out on wedensday afternnon". Would that be cool?
It does matter what they're advertising. If the service isn't unlimited, they should advertise it as "up to unlimited" (similar to "up to 256kbps" claims, where you may get as little as 35kbps if you've got crap copper/etc).
False advertising is false advertising, clause or no clause.
I said nothing of the sort. I said they *may have* been sold infringing code and used it without being aware of its legal standing,
Incorrect. You said
So if you buy stolen goods, even though you thought they were completely legitimate, you'd be happy to take the punishment for their theft ?
No "*may have*" in that assertion at all. To me, it read like you believe MS was a blameless third party.
How unsurprising that a biased, dishonest, deceitful individual like you ultimately resorts to the ad hominem. Still, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
How unsurprising that a little one-eyed MS fanboy would accuse me of an ad hominem attack, while using one themselves in the same sentence.
1. the name given to articles from zonk where the summary makes no sense whatsoever.
Serious question now - is the author of the article worried that the ensuing slashdot discussion will mention all his other nonsense words? I've no doubt slashdotters will find & mention the other words here, polluting google's index....
It may be selfish, but I kind of wish people wouldn't mention those too often. If they get too widely used, it will just mean more annoying, unavoidable ads.
I don't know, I think that if it comes to an arms race between the ad makers & the ad blockers, the ad blockers would win. For example, the TV stations had to do deals with tivo et al to stop ad-skipping tech.
It's easier for people to control what's displayed on their computer than most think.
There is no such thing as "x64." Please quit butchering the use of computer terminology.
Are you retarded? x64 is the extremely important architecture from the early-mid sixties. It wasn't replaced until the x86 architecture in the mid to late 80s.
Besides, I think we live in a three-party system nowadays anyways. We've got the Dems, the old-school balance the budget Republicans, and the neo-con Republicans
Interesting. Can you tell the rest of the house how you can possibly vote for the fiscal conservative Repubs? Looks to me like you're still on a two party system, but the neocons have taken over the formerly sensible GOP.
Left / Right leanings are utterly irrelevant to Free software - reasons for choosing free software vary enormously from person to person & are frequently based on traits shared by individuals with widely varying political leanings.
As a leftie, and a free software advocate, I find this pretty puzzling.
As a person, and a free software advocate, I'd be wary of anyone labelling something as left or right. Debate issues for what they are, instead of trying to categorise them as left or right.
than not to be proprietary software users, albeit with a big bias towards Apple.
Interesting. I wrote recently in my journal about Apple's support for the democrats. The funny thing is, from where I'm sitting, the Dems look right (it's just that the repubs look righter).
Slashdot Mirror
for the comparatively very small number of artists with legal standing to request this.
It doesn't really matter how many artists if you want to lead by example.
(e.g., why do some tracks I bought play on my Zune and others won't?). I know that a lot of people don't buy that argument, but frankly, it's perfectly legitimate.
This argument would be legitimate, but sorry. Apple haven't minded confusing ITMS customers in the past.
Why are you getting mad at Steve when the most likely reason this is happening is a contractual obligation?
If he's under contractual obligation, tell us about it.
He just looks like a hypocrite otherwise.
This way there is no question, all songs work with iPods and only iPods. If they drop DRM, then they work with ALL players.
So you believe Apple sells DRMd music to tie the consumer to the iPod?
I agree with you, I don't think it's the only reason, but it certainly helps.
EU based companies *cough* Philips *cough* LG *cough*
LG is not European [You've made some Korean's very happy thinking so tho']
Why just fight against DRM for iTunes, and not DRM for everything? If the EU commisioner was really fighting for consumer rights here, it should be all DRM'ed anything, music, movies, electronic books
They are looking at DRM on all music - its just Apple's the biggest DRM dealer/pusher around at the moment.
Or perhaps this is a pre-canned comment you keep ready to drop on someone who says something anti-ITMS?
Anyway, I'll reply to the bit that did seem to intersect my comment:
Summary: it is nowhere near as technically, legally, and procedurally as simple as people seem to think it is, and the fact Apple isn't doing it now doesn't mean Jobs' DRM statement was just PR fluff that they floated out because they "knew" they'd "never have to do it":
Artists have been asking for DRM free ITMS music for months. If Jobs was as concerned about DRM being imposed on him as his little blog makes out, don't you think Apple should lead by example and become the first label (let's face it, that's what they are now) to offer DRM free tunes.
Even an announcement stating they're going to offer DRM-free tunes as soon as technically feasible would be enough for me.
Without that, Jobs' calling on the rest of the music industry to drop DRM when he appears unwilling to drop it himself smacks of hypocrisy.
Apple talking the talk, not walking the walk again.
(PS, what did you think of my diary?).
Consistency?
You're kidding right? Please read about this experience of consistency in DRM in itunes. If Apple were going for consistency and attempts to not confuse the customer, they failed utterly.
Because if she has, she would know that Jobs himself opposes the DRM scheme.
Aaaah right, I've read Jobs' little blog - and he's it's entirely correct.
However. Why doesn't Jobs' allow the artists who want to sell DRM free music on itunes? There's DRM encumbered music on itunes that's available elsewhere in DRM free formats.
I find the disconnect between Steve Jobs essay & the reality of iTunes.... well, lets just say that perhaps interoperability pressure from the EU was a bigger motivation for Jobs to write that essay then a desire to help remove DRM from the marketplace.
I have no doubt that someone is going to reply to this post saying that consumer 'confusion' is what prevents Apple from having DRM on some music, but not on others. To those people, please read this link.
For the lazy, the link is about four Dylan songs (virtually indistinguishable via the ITMS interface to other songs). These songs have more restrictive DRM on them and cannot be burnt to CD at all. Apple didn't seem to mind confusing their customers in that case.
From TFA:Thanks Steve - why not offer DRM free music from artists and labels that you already have granted you permission?
Dell's servers being overwhelmed doesn't mean there's an actual overwhelming demand for Linux, just that there's a lot of Linux users with time on their hands who wish to try and give that impression, at least until they lose interest and move on to something else.
Hmmmmmmmn, on the one hand we've got a whole bunch of people saying 'we want Dell to pre-install linux', on the other hand, we've got just you saying 'its a bunch of zealots trying to game Dell to make linux look good'.
I know which I'd believe.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I do not think that joke means what you think it means.
(Dell's servers seem pretty overwhelmed at the moment)
I do believe you meant page 43. Page 48 is the last slide.
Weird, you're right that 48 is the last slide, but I see the pic of two car interfaces on page 40....
Check out (on page 48), the picture entitled Do Interface Standards Compress Pricing?
Very funny....
Yeah right Sherlock. They've been very successful in the game console market and may actually beat out
Please reread my comment. I said financial failure. Maybe the xbox360 will beat out the PS3, but MS's games division hasn't made any money yet.
Its a bit of a stretch from thier core business model.
MS's core business is undergoing a process of commoditization & attacks from all directions. In case you haven't noticed, they're wildly flailing about in all directions (MSN, xbox, phones, etc) trying to find new markets to expand into.
Unfortunately for them, (but fortunately for consumer choice), everything they've tried that they can't leverage their monopoly in productivity software & operating systems to expand into has been a financial failure.
And there's not much to be found, but tv technology website has a little more info in this article.
They can advertise whatever they want, but as long as their contracts have that little clause in them, it really doesn't matter WHAT they advertise.
Uuuh? You serious?
Say verizon advertises an ADSL2 24 / 1 Mbps unlimited service, but the fine print actually says "we'll send a kitten to pick up any packets you print out on wedensday afternnon". Would that be cool?
It does matter what they're advertising. If the service isn't unlimited, they should advertise it as "up to unlimited" (similar to "up to 256kbps" claims, where you may get as little as 35kbps if you've got crap copper/etc).
False advertising is false advertising, clause or no clause.
Incorrect. You saidNo "*may have*" in that assertion at all. To me, it read like you believe MS was a blameless third party.
How unsurprising that a biased, dishonest, deceitful individual like you ultimately resorts to the ad hominem. Still, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
How unsurprising that a little one-eyed MS fanboy would accuse me of an ad hominem attack, while using one themselves in the same sentence.
zonkdogfology is a real word:Serious question now - is the author of the article worried that the ensuing slashdot discussion will mention all his other nonsense words? I've no doubt slashdotters will find & mention the other words here, polluting google's index....
It may be selfish, but I kind of wish people wouldn't mention those too often. If they get too widely used, it will just mean more annoying, unavoidable ads.
I don't know, I think that if it comes to an arms race between the ad makers & the ad blockers, the ad blockers would win. For example, the TV stations had to do deals with tivo et al to stop ad-skipping tech.
It's easier for people to control what's displayed on their computer than most think.
Why isn't adblock mentioned?
*fires up internet explorer, browses tfa*
Oh.
Two flash ads & an animated gif (along with the pop-up). Not surprised they didn't mention ad block plus and filterset g.
Install them & never see another ad again. Ever. (without any sort of configuration).
There is no such thing as "x64." Please quit butchering the use of computer terminology.
Are you retarded? x64 is the extremely important architecture from the early-mid sixties. It wasn't replaced until the x86 architecture in the mid to late 80s.
Besides, I think we live in a three-party system nowadays anyways. We've got the Dems, the old-school balance the budget Republicans, and the neo-con Republicans
Interesting. Can you tell the rest of the house how you can possibly vote for the fiscal conservative Repubs? Looks to me like you're still on a two party system, but the neocons have taken over the formerly sensible GOP.
Left / Right leanings are utterly irrelevant to Free software - reasons for choosing free software vary enormously from person to person & are frequently based on traits shared by individuals with widely varying political leanings.
As a leftie, and a free software advocate, I find this pretty puzzling.
As a person, and a free software advocate, I'd be wary of anyone labelling something as left or right. Debate issues for what they are, instead of trying to categorise them as left or right.
than not to be proprietary software users, albeit with a big bias towards Apple.
Interesting. I wrote recently in my journal about Apple's support for the democrats. The funny thing is, from where I'm sitting, the Dems look right (it's just that the repubs look righter).
Thankfully patents only last ten years. Feel better?
Uh, where do you live where patents only last ten years?
I don't feel better no.