I am a parent and it never ceases to amaze me how quickly someone with absolutely no experience in an area suddenly wants to be perceived as knowledgable. Bottom line: unless you have done a thing you can't truly know a thing.
Here's an idea: Go raise a kid or two, then come back in 15-20 years and tell us what you would do differently.
. ..of pharmaceutical ads. Before the FDA allowed ads on TV in the US, the only way most people became aware of a drugs side effects or dangers was if enough people started exibiting symptoms to cause a newsworthy event. Now that the drug companies are required to give full disclosure, everyone has a knee-jerk reaction to the cautionary statements on pharmaceutical drugs, even to the point of arguing with their doctor on the merits of the drug in question.
Every time Firefox vulnerabilities are found, it seems people are falling prey to this same mentality. "It's got an exploitable security bug! OMFG! F'ing programmers! Firefox is a piece of shit!" The bottom line is: Everything made that is made has defect(s). FF is no exception. For my part, I would much rather be informed of possible pitfalls, however remote, than be kept in the dark until the horse is already out of the barn. I feel much safer surfing with FF and noscript than IE any day. When was the last time MS took a reported IE exploit that didn't come from their own camp seriously? Kudo's to Mr. Zalewski for his efforts. Kudo's to the Mozilla team for their efforts in tightening up security on the best browser that has ever been written.
We should have an "irrelevant" mod for the parent in this case. Arguments like this make the community come off as sounding like a bunch of pirates who are pissed that someone stole their flagship.
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.
If the artists mentioned here had a choice in their pre-DRM era, the parent post might have had some merit. But since digital didn't even exist during most of these artists careers (and in the case of Chaplin, not at all), the parent comment comes off as nothing more than sour grapes. The real problem is not DRM, but competition of DRM companies creating incompatible standards. Imagine if, at the inception of the CD format, there were no standard agreed upon beforehand (lack of DRM aside) the confusion it would have created. You would have had some discs only playable in one brand and other discs only playable in another. If companies want to stick with DRM in their content, then so be it. The masses will determine whether the copy protection survives by its portability or transparency. **AA, if you must do this thing, give us a standard that preserves fair use while curbing piracy. This means a robust system impervious to reverse engineering or attack by those wanting to bootleg for profit while making the technology invisible to users. If I want to make 100 copies for my own use like I have been able to do with reel-reel, 8-track, cassette, and CDR in the past, then this is not harming your bottom line, because I wouldn't have paid for 99 of those copies anyway if the technology was unavailable to duplicate them. If you can't give us a consumer-friendly DRM that allows us the rights granted by the MPAA vs. Sony case, then don't DRM at all.
As it stands with the current systems in place, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Jobs (even though his motives could be called to question) that media companies should abandon DRM. IMHO, schemes like this promote piracy. In the case of software, I have, on occasion had to resort to cracks or keygens because the purchased software wouldn't work as advertised and the company refused to do anything about it, nor would the store take it back because the package had been opened (case in point: a copy of PowerDVD that was incompatible with WinXP bundled with my DVD burner with the "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on the box). When you inconvenience your customers like this, is it any wonder they search for other alternatives to get the value they paid for?
Sure, Macrovision is going to take a stance against dumping DRM. Would you expect any different? Remember, the so called "bottom feeders" as the parent puts it exist for only one reason: to protect content. But remember also that they exist because the **AAs feel a need for them. They have no other purpose. Of course they will fight to maintain their status quo. Wouldn't you? They are in essence, the "middle man", not "bottom feeders". They (Macrovision) are not in existence to profit off of others' misfortune. They exist solely at the behest of the **AAs.
"What we needed, at least in the United States, was every Jill and Joe American speaking out against having their rights "managed"."
I think you misunderstand. Your rights are not the ones being managed here. It is the right of me, you, and any one else to prevent illegal copying of my (our, their) copyrighted work that DRM is meant to address. It is the implementation that is flawed. Corporate greed and paranoia have fueled the technology into a hodge podge of incompatible systems. If there had been a standard agreed upon as soon as record companies started demanding copy protection, perhaps we could have had a transparent system. Now, it's a major inconvenience that should be eliminated. A failed experiment. As well as standardization for playability on any digital playback device you choose, DRM should have allowed unlimited copying for the buyer to preserve fair use while curbing piracy. Now I am not referring to the industrys definition of "piracy", but rather illegal copying for sale/profit. I should have a reasonable expectation as an artist that some Joe Schmoe out there isn't making money off my derived work. I could care less how many copies people make for their own use.
Now, if your argument is based on the misconception that you somehow "own" music that you purchase for your listening pleasure, then, I can't help you there.
. . . is not as much one of destruction as it is to disorient, confuse, and otherwise cause paranoia. In this respect (IMHO), Mr. Samples and all of the paranoids in Boston handed would-be terrorists a victory by their overreaction and Mr. Samples resignation. While it may seem noble that Mr. Samples would take the fall for those that worked under him, I think the situation would have been better served by using this incident as an example of just how ludicrous our reactions to perceived threats have become. The only interests served by knee-jerk reactions like these are those of terrorism.
That being said, I believe Cartoon Network dropped the ball by not facing this issue head on and giving this outrageous reaction to mere flashing lights the ridicule it deserves.
"If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant. .."
My understanding is that we gave up "reasonable cause" not to mention privacy when GWB signed the Patriot Act and drove a nail in the Bill of Rights by suspending habeus corpus. AFAIK, anyone can be pulled over and searched and/or detained indefinately without a warrant. All in the interests of homeland "security". GPS bugging is just more erosion of our rights.
The only good news is that we only have about a year left of Bush's dictatorship. Maybe it's not too late to undo his damage, but I'm not real hopeful.
"Of course I'm not one to drop ~$600 for a new piece of frivolous hardware every 6 months, and even if I were, I wouldn't expect the first coming together of new hardware, new OS and new drivers to be perfect."
And why shouldn't you expect perfection, or at least the advertised functionality? By god if I drop $600 on hardware, the damn thing better work WITHOUT having to resort to a search for drivers on the company web site! And if the thing says "Made for Vista", or "Vista Ready", then pardon me for assuming that means I won't have problems with Vista and said product. For too long we have been brainwashed in to the notion that we should accept problems with 1st gen product as just the way things are. The mantras, "Wait 'til the first driver patch comes out. You never buy 1st gen. Too many bugs." and "After all, you can log on to the company's website and download the driver when they get it fixed, right?" have worn thin. WTF? This is the only industry I am aware of that tolerates second rate in their first gen products. Products are rushed to market before thorough testing with the intent that any problems can be fixed with a service patch or driver release. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick of being a beta tester AND having to pay for the inconvenience. Manufacturers: Relearn the meaning of "upgrade". A bug fix is NOT and upgrade. How about making "works out of the box" a rule rather than an exception.
. . . they sent three big Eagle Scouts over to beat me into submission. Now I have to walk with a cane. Pay your license fees, people. It's not worth it!!
. . . the only incentive one needs to complete a task is the knowledge that it has been, and can be done. It doesn't much matter if he releases his code. TFA has enough info for anyone savvy enough to duplicate his work. Once it's out of the bottle, it'll be like WGA all over again. Another cat . . . another mouse . . . another cat . . . But perhaps the knowledge that Windows ultimate "security" DRM is, indeed, insecure will turn out to be the mouse that roared.
Slashdot Mirror
. . .welcome our scalpel-wielding remote controlled robotic surgeon overlords. . .er. . .sumpin'. . .
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?
Yeah, but I couldn't keep the damned bong lit.
. . .a Beowulf cluster of these?
I am a parent and it never ceases to amaze me how quickly someone with absolutely no experience in an area suddenly wants to be perceived as knowledgable. Bottom line: unless you have done a thing you can't truly know a thing.
Here's an idea: Go raise a kid or two, then come back in 15-20 years and tell us what you would do differently.
why? OK: In Soviet Russia, anonymous coward have REASON to hide. What's your excuse?
Go away.
. . .of pharmaceutical ads. Before the FDA allowed ads on TV in the US, the only way most people became aware of a drugs side effects or dangers was if enough people started exibiting symptoms to cause a newsworthy event. Now that the drug companies are required to give full disclosure, everyone has a knee-jerk reaction to the cautionary statements on pharmaceutical drugs, even to the point of arguing with their doctor on the merits of the drug in question.
Every time Firefox vulnerabilities are found, it seems people are falling prey to this same mentality. "It's got an exploitable security bug! OMFG! F'ing programmers! Firefox is a piece of shit!" The bottom line is: Everything made that is made has defect(s). FF is no exception. For my part, I would much rather be informed of possible pitfalls, however remote, than be kept in the dark until the horse is already out of the barn. I feel much safer surfing with FF and noscript than IE any day. When was the last time MS took a reported IE exploit that didn't come from their own camp seriously? Kudo's to Mr. Zalewski for his efforts. Kudo's to the Mozilla team for their efforts in tightening up security on the best browser that has ever been written.
In Soviet Russia, files delete YOU!
Citizen's arrayest. .
</Gomer>
We should have an "irrelevant" mod for the parent in this case. Arguments like this make the community come off as sounding like a bunch of pirates who are pissed that someone stole their flagship.
The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Charlie Chaplin, B.B King, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick, even Steven Spielberg created their work in a pre-DRM era and somehow managed to sell their work.If the artists mentioned here had a choice in their pre-DRM era, the parent post might have had some merit. But since digital didn't even exist during most of these artists careers (and in the case of Chaplin, not at all), the parent comment comes off as nothing more than sour grapes. The real problem is not DRM, but competition of DRM companies creating incompatible standards. Imagine if, at the inception of the CD format, there were no standard agreed upon beforehand (lack of DRM aside) the confusion it would have created. You would have had some discs only playable in one brand and other discs only playable in another. If companies want to stick with DRM in their content, then so be it. The masses will determine whether the copy protection survives by its portability or transparency. **AA, if you must do this thing, give us a standard that preserves fair use while curbing piracy. This means a robust system impervious to reverse engineering or attack by those wanting to bootleg for profit while making the technology invisible to users. If I want to make 100 copies for my own use like I have been able to do with reel-reel, 8-track, cassette, and CDR in the past, then this is not harming your bottom line, because I wouldn't have paid for 99 of those copies anyway if the technology was unavailable to duplicate them. If you can't give us a consumer-friendly DRM that allows us the rights granted by the MPAA vs. Sony case, then don't DRM at all.
As it stands with the current systems in place, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Jobs (even though his motives could be called to question) that media companies should abandon DRM. IMHO, schemes like this promote piracy. In the case of software, I have, on occasion had to resort to cracks or keygens because the purchased software wouldn't work as advertised and the company refused to do anything about it, nor would the store take it back because the package had been opened (case in point: a copy of PowerDVD that was incompatible with WinXP bundled with my DVD burner with the "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on the box). When you inconvenience your customers like this, is it any wonder they search for other alternatives to get the value they paid for?
Sure, Macrovision is going to take a stance against dumping DRM. Would you expect any different? Remember, the so called "bottom feeders" as the parent puts it exist for only one reason: to protect content. But remember also that they exist because the **AAs feel a need for them. They have no other purpose. Of course they will fight to maintain their status quo. Wouldn't you? They are in essence, the "middle man", not "bottom feeders". They (Macrovision) are not in existence to profit off of others' misfortune. They exist solely at the behest of the **AAs.
Waiting for Haiku
Seems like an eternity
So much anxiety
There's no place like localhost? I don't get it.
Butterflies.
"What we needed, at least in the United States, was every Jill and Joe American speaking out against having their rights "managed"."
I think you misunderstand. Your rights are not the ones being managed here. It is the right of me, you, and any one else to prevent illegal copying of my (our, their) copyrighted work that DRM is meant to address. It is the implementation that is flawed. Corporate greed and paranoia have fueled the technology into a hodge podge of incompatible systems. If there had been a standard agreed upon as soon as record companies started demanding copy protection, perhaps we could have had a transparent system. Now, it's a major inconvenience that should be eliminated. A failed experiment. As well as standardization for playability on any digital playback device you choose, DRM should have allowed unlimited copying for the buyer to preserve fair use while curbing piracy. Now I am not referring to the industrys definition of "piracy", but rather illegal copying for sale/profit. I should have a reasonable expectation as an artist that some Joe Schmoe out there isn't making money off my derived work. I could care less how many copies people make for their own use.
Now, if your argument is based on the misconception that you somehow "own" music that you purchase for your listening pleasure, then, I can't help you there.
. . . is not as much one of destruction as it is to disorient, confuse, and otherwise cause paranoia. In this respect (IMHO), Mr. Samples and all of the paranoids in Boston handed would-be terrorists a victory by their overreaction and Mr. Samples resignation. While it may seem noble that Mr. Samples would take the fall for those that worked under him, I think the situation would have been better served by using this incident as an example of just how ludicrous our reactions to perceived threats have become. The only interests served by knee-jerk reactions like these are those of terrorism.
That being said, I believe Cartoon Network dropped the ball by not facing this issue head on and giving this outrageous reaction to mere flashing lights the ridicule it deserves.
. . . I, for one will gladly welcome our new evil Cupertino overlords.
/usr/home/hax0r/My\ Super\ Secret\ Incriminating\ Documents\ Conveniently\ Zipped\ For\ You.MP5-R12.1.0.2.3.1.1-ALPHA.tar.gz
There. Fixed it for you.
"If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant. . ."
My understanding is that we gave up "reasonable cause" not to mention privacy when GWB signed the Patriot Act and drove a nail in the Bill of Rights by suspending habeus corpus. AFAIK, anyone can be pulled over and searched and/or detained indefinately without a warrant. All in the interests of homeland "security". GPS bugging is just more erosion of our rights.
The only good news is that we only have about a year left of Bush's dictatorship. Maybe it's not too late to undo his damage, but I'm not real hopeful.
Any security system that doesn't take human nature into account is flawed. Period.
. . . paint a big sign on your roof that says, "This is not my house."
As do my ears. C'mon Richard, where's the stop button? Oh, I see it. The big red "X" in the upper right.
"Of course I'm not one to drop ~$600 for a new piece of frivolous hardware every 6 months, and even if I were, I wouldn't expect the first coming together of new hardware, new OS and new drivers to be perfect."
And why shouldn't you expect perfection, or at least the advertised functionality? By god if I drop $600 on hardware, the damn thing better work WITHOUT having to resort to a search for drivers on the company web site! And if the thing says "Made for Vista", or "Vista Ready", then pardon me for assuming that means I won't have problems with Vista and said product. For too long we have been brainwashed in to the notion that we should accept problems with 1st gen product as just the way things are. The mantras, "Wait 'til the first driver patch comes out. You never buy 1st gen. Too many bugs." and "After all, you can log on to the company's website and download the driver when they get it fixed, right?" have worn thin. WTF? This is the only industry I am aware of that tolerates second rate in their first gen products. Products are rushed to market before thorough testing with the intent that any problems can be fixed with a service patch or driver release. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick of being a beta tester AND having to pay for the inconvenience. Manufacturers: Relearn the meaning of "upgrade". A bug fix is NOT and upgrade. How about making "works out of the box" a rule rather than an exception.. . . the iPod HAL.
. . . they sent three big Eagle Scouts over to beat me into submission. Now I have to walk with a cane. Pay your license fees, people. It's not worth it!!
. . . the only incentive one needs to complete a task is the knowledge that it has been, and can be done. It doesn't much matter if he releases his code. TFA has enough info for anyone savvy enough to duplicate his work. Once it's out of the bottle, it'll be like WGA all over again. Another cat . . . another mouse . . . another cat . . . But perhaps the knowledge that Windows ultimate "security" DRM is, indeed, insecure will turn out to be the mouse that roared.