Wal-Mart Online Music Store -- WMA, $0.88 for every song

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
First they put the chip in it. They slowly increase its power. In the spawn of, maybe, 8, 13, 19 years, it becomes related to the Internet, and it's fine because everyone has been used to it.

Of course, the ultimate goal of any DRM is to report activity on anything with a copyright to a central server. Who with a buck to make would settle for less?

My point from the beginning has been: they will someday, unless we prevent them.

My point from the beginning is this is a hideously stupid conspiracy theory. You're finding Microsoft guilty on the suspicion in 19 years they might do something, and we must punish them now for it.

Get real.

If Microsoft ever somehow uses TCPA in 2023 to monitor and log all user behavior, people would know about it. I'd imagine even regular people would be upset by that, wouldn't you think? They would lobby their politicians to make that illegal (if it isn't already, I'm no legal guru), and they would switch to a platform without TCPA -- or turn it off in the BIOS (which is a mandatory requirement for TCPA, by the way).

You have no case and no real argument, just a silly little conspiracy theory and what-ifs, which is why you've been ripped to shreds here.

You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what DRM is and what it's supposed to do if you think the "goal" is to monitor all activity and report it.

You're so misguided and wrong on so many issues it's hard to find a place to start.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
here's a thought:

price wars have begun for internet music purchases. who wins? the consumer.

discuss.

Here's a thought: bandwidth does not cost 88 cents per 3 megs.

[Q Classic]

QCubed, I see the very nature of your idiocy. Obviously my point is government will monitor with the help of consumer products. That's what the FBI wants to do.

if that's your point, i don't see why you're arguing with me: my point is that the government will seek to monitor the populace, whether or not consumer products go along with it willingly. my point is that the government, which you say will monitor people, is not to be trusted--indeed, trusted even less than the corporate world, which has a vested interest in not having the strongly limited information flow that the government would prefer--indeed, prurient material sells a lot better, but that same material poses as troublesome media for the government.

So before you lecture me about ECHELON, tell me: would there be anything like this if the people had stood up against it in the first place?

in the us? yes. in russia, east asia, and other parts of the world? yes.
governments generally do whatever they want, whether or not people like the idea or not. particularly when such government agencies are not elected--as in the case of the nsa, cia, and fbi.

Stop OS monopolies, stop the alliance between corporations and neocons to monitor the world. Both are LINKED.

neocons are the world greatest enemy? please, its people who refuse to look at the facts and go off on idiotic rages using clearly incorrect definitions about DRM. unfortunately, there are plenty of neocons who fit into that category too, so don't worry, DRM-phobic TCPA-phobic tinfoilers aren't alone in the world after all.

So instead of lecturing me on dictatorships, tell, me, why should you be opposed to a regulation that would forbid the exact opposite of what you denounce?

well, let's see. us government--and most world governments, in fact--have thus far had a horrid time passing good laws about the digital frontier. one needs to look no further than germany and france's efforts to ban anything nazi-like from websites, or the us's dmca, or china's great firewall, the proposed internet sales tax, or those damned stupid IP and copyright laws which expire 90 years after the material ceases to prove interesting in any fasion... i'm opposed to government regulation of anything to do with the internet precisely because all laws up to this point that the government has made wrt the internet have HARMED it rather than helped it.

Because, of course, when a government passes a regulation it means the opposite in the law books? Why don't you encourage that the rest of the free world, which for the most part doesn't have anything like the NSA and Echelon, take the steps RIGHT NOW to avoid it, and moreover avoid electronic surveillance?

clearly, you don't even read my posts in other threads. it's no wonder you think i'm some corporate microsoft shill, but let's get one thing straight: asher and i have very different viewpoints regarding microsoft. he sees it as the ultimate good, while i simply see it as a huge behemoth that is a neutral force. you, on the other hand, are extremely hard to reason with because you think that microsoft is T3H UL+1M4+3 3V1L, which it isn't. that distinction, my friend, goes to these litigious bastards.
if you knew as much about me as you clearly think you do, you'd know that i've consistently been one of the strongest supporters of open source and the linux os on these forums, but not to the point where i'm blind to its flaws.
you also clearly missed the small note i made detailing that asher's fud about the gpl isn't quite true, and that there are numerous sources which detail otherwise.

BTW, didn't you know that the US authorities are interested in the Google bar spyware to get info about the population? If there's a buck to be made, or some backdoor political reward with it, why should Google refuse?

more terrified squealing. the google toolbar doesn't send any personally identifiable information at all, merely one one browses from page to page. and if you're really that scared of the google toolbar, there are plenty of alternatives.

No. That would be to turn OSes into a non-dangerous monopoly. Like an open source one or something. The least thing would be to enforce OSes with much stricter laws.

here you are, *****ing about the evil monopolies, and yet you support a "non-dangerous" government-driven monopoly.
here's why i'm against this silly and stupid notion:
1. variation is healthy. you think security issues with idiot users in windows is bad? with all the spambots and what not? a good fraction of that is due to microsoft being the largest OS in the world... and you want to make one os standard? great idea! let's make everybody a target!
2. open-source and closed-source have their uses. closed-source software often comes out with certain innovations--the good ones which then propagate into the open-source world, where a low-cost good alternative sprouts up. the same for the other way--microsoft probably wouldn't have incorporated a stateful firewall if it weren't for the clearly demonstrated success of iptables; apple could have gone with mozilla, but then chose khtml for its safari browser.
3. competition is healthy. one standard os monopoly would be harmful to the computing world as a whole. much of what makes the internet so beautiful to browse these days was the cutthroat competition between microsoft and netscape browsers, which forced pages to look better and better and finally conform to w3c standards--which, alas, would never have reached that point without such competition because the w3c is a mind-numbingly sclerotic body.
or, in other words: if linux had not sprouted up as an alternative to the windows desktop, do you think microsoft would be devoting as much effort into longhorn as it is now? microsoft wants to make longhorn a compelling upgrade, and it doesn't want to lose its customers to the low-cost alternative, linux.
why are servers getting better and better with uptime? because all of them are trying to outdo each other in terms of security and stability. microsoft's nt servers used to suck total ass, but now with server 2003, it isn't godawful. linux has lit a fire under the unix distros, making them start to work harder on making sure that their *nix has lots of value-added material: one needs to look no further than solaris 10 to see this.
and yet you want to standardize all of these OSes into one single monopoly? unbelievable.
there's nothing wrong with standards: POSIX standards are good, as are the ACLs. but these are not run by monopolies, nor should they be. when a monopoly becomes a standard, government operated or not, the only person hurt is the consumer and end user.

No. That would be to turn OSes into a non-dangerous monopoly. Like an open source one or something. The least thing would be to enforce OSes with much stricter laws.

that doesn't mean open source, if the code is merely public. oss means much more than just saying, "here's my code". again, seems like you don't have much grasp of the digital world, making you no different from the imbeciles in political office who try to pass laws without understanding their repercussions.

so, uncle boris, before you call me an idiot, you'd best make sure your positions themselves aren't completely, ah, what's the word...

[Q Classic]

Here's a thought: bandwidth does not cost 88 cents per 3 megs.

so wal-mart won't last long. doesn't matter--while it does, the consumer wins.

[Asher]

asher and i have very different viewpoints regarding microsoft. he sees it as the ultimate good, while i simply see it as a huge behemoth that is a neutral force.

I don't see MS as the ultimate good, I don't see them as the bad guy and I see their products as frequently (but not always) being better than the alternatives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neocon government=corporation

My lord are you clueless (and not just on this ). Neo-conservatism has no domestic or really economic component whatsoever. That happens when the movement was founded by ex-Trotskyists.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Neocon government=corporation

My lord are you clueless (and not just on this ). Neo-conservatism has no domestic or really economic component whatsoever. That happens when the movement was founded by ex-Trotskyists.

Neo-liberal was the better term. That is, I think undebatable.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
if that's your point, i don't see why you're arguing with me: my point is that the government will seek to monitor the populace, whether or not consumer products go along with it willingly. my point is that the government, which you say will monitor people, is not to be trusted--indeed, trusted even less than the corporate world, which has a vested interest in not having the strongly limited information flow that the government would prefer--indeed, prurient material sells a lot better, but that same material poses as troublesome media for the government.

It's going to be much harder if the consumer good aren't tailored for it in the first place.

in the us? yes. in russia, east asia, and other parts of the world? yes.
governments generally do whatever they want, whether or not people like the idea or not. particularly when such government agencies are not elected--as in the case of the nsa, cia, and fbi.

That would be because people vote for tax and jobs. Of course the American people could still kick Bush out of office, if they really cared about the NSA and the "Patriot" Act. And I do think I said "in the rest of the free world", which pretty much means Canada and Western Europe.

neocons are the world greatest enemy? please, its people who refuse to look at the facts and go off on idiotic rages using clearly incorrect definitions about DRM. unfortunately, there are plenty of neocons who fit into that category too, so don't worry, DRM-phobic TCPA-phobic tinfoilers aren't alone in the world after all.

Don't worry, I know the difference between TCPA and DRM. And do you know what? both tend towards the same goal. There are more than 200 companies in the TCPA, and many of them would have an interest in a chip that remotely monitors DRM. Why would the RIAA be part of it, do you think?

well, let's see. us government--and most world governments, in fact--have thus far had a horrid time passing good laws about the digital frontier. one needs to look no further than germany and france's efforts to ban anything nazi-like from websites, or the us's dmca, or china's great firewall, the proposed internet sales tax, or those damned stupid IP and copyright laws which expire 90 years after the material ceases to prove interesting in any fasion... i'm opposed to government regulation of anything to do with the internet precisely because all laws up to this point that the government has made wrt the internet have HARMED it rather than helped it.

There is still some hope. Most laws regarding the Internet in France, for instance, have been done on behalf of some political donators at the detriment of emerging companies with no political friends at all. If the ISPs can stand in an unified lobby (and one that is distinct from the "content" providers), the government could fear them too. It is in the ISPs and Netizens interests that information flows the most freely possible.

Because, of course, when a government passes a regulation it means the opposite in the law books? Why don't you encourage that the rest of the free world, which for the most part doesn't have anything like the NSA and Echelon, take the steps RIGHT NOW to avoid it, and moreover avoid electronic surveillance?

clearly, you don't even read my posts in other threads. it's no wonder you think i'm some corporate microsoft shill, but let's get one thing straight: asher and i have very different viewpoints regarding microsoft. he sees it as the ultimate good, while i simply see it as a huge behemoth that is a neutral force. you, on the other hand, are extremely hard to reason with because you think that microsoft is T3H UL+1M4+3 3V1L, which it isn't. that distinction, my friend, goes to these litigious bastards.
if you knew as much about me as you clearly think you do, you'd know that i've consistently been one of the strongest supporters of open source and the linux os on these forums, but not to the point where i'm blind to its flaws.
you also clearly missed the small note i made detailing that asher's fud about the gpl isn't quite true, and that there are numerous sources which detail otherwise.

I think I understand that you don't like Microsoft much. But you've not answered my question: why should you fear a law that is transparent and perfectly accessible for anyone to know? Most western countries have 'civil charters' of some sort. Add Internet privacy in these charters as a fundamental right.

I don't understand why you fear governments that much. In Canada, for instance, a great deal of civil advancement (including gay marriage, which is now fully legal) were made by the Court, ruling out some laws that didn't respect the 'human rights charter' adopted by the federal government.

You are wary of governments? Fine, I am too, but I can acknowledge that they've done some good since 1945 and that we could as well try to rely on laws instead of corporations with absolutely no duty except profit for our rights. Market laws don't work much when it comes to rights: or else, no one would buy slave-labor products.

more terrified squealing. the google toolbar doesn't send any personally identifiable information at all, merely one one browses from page to page. and if you're really that scared of the google toolbar, there are plenty of alternatives.

Again you miss the point. I acknowledge that the toolbar is still insignificant, and that no one has to install it. However, it clearly shows that cooperation between homeland security and corporations is perfectly feasible, and well underway. That's why I say: vigilance, RIGHT NOW, before Palladium becomes a reality - it has been ditched, AFAIK, but isn't the single fact that M$ entertained its tought frightening?

here you are, *****ing about the evil monopolies, and yet you support a "non-dangerous" government-driven monopoly.

Government regulated, I meant.

here's why i'm against this silly and stupid notion:
1. variation is healthy. you think security issues with idiot users in windows is bad? with all the spambots and what not? a good fraction of that is due to microsoft being the largest OS in the world... and you want to make one os standard? great idea! let's make everybody a target!
2. open-source and closed-source have their uses. closed-source software often comes out with certain innovations--the good ones which then propagate into the open-source world, where a low-cost good alternative sprouts up. the same for the other way--microsoft probably wouldn't have incorporated a stateful firewall if it weren't for the clearly demonstrated success of iptables; apple could have gone with mozilla, but then chose khtml for its safari browser.
3. competition is healthy. one standard os monopoly would be harmful to the computing world as a whole. much of what makes the internet so beautiful to browse these days was the cutthroat competition between microsoft and netscape browsers, which forced pages to look better and better and finally conform to w3c standards--which, alas, would never have reached that point without such competition because the w3c is a mind-numbingly sclerotic body.
or, in other words: if linux had not sprouted up as an alternative to the windows desktop, do you think microsoft would be devoting as much effort into longhorn as it is now? microsoft wants to make longhorn a compelling upgrade, and it doesn't want to lose its customers to the low-cost alternative, linux.
why are servers getting better and better with uptime? because all of them are trying to outdo each other in terms of security and stability. microsoft's nt servers used to suck total ass, but now with server 2003, it isn't godawful. linux has lit a fire under the unix distros, making them start to work harder on making sure that their *nix has lots of value-added material: one needs to look no further than solaris 10 to see this.
and yet you want to standardize all of these OSes into one single monopoly? unbelievable.
there's nothing wrong with standards: POSIX standards are good, as are the ACLs. but these are not run by monopolies, nor should they be. when a monopoly becomes a standard, government operated or not, the only person hurt is the consumer and end user.

Thanks for the essay, but I never said such a thing.

My point would be that M$ monopoly can make it more easier for a government/corporation monitoring program, because of the consolidated market. Fighting against this would involve seriously restricting M$ power (applying existing laws seems sufficient as things are) and asking right now that internet privacy be embedded in civil charters.

that doesn't mean open source, if the code is merely public. oss means much more than just saying, "here's my code". again, seems like you don't have much grasp of the digital world, making you no different from the imbeciles in political office who try to pass laws without understanding their repercussions.

So, you can make a code public and still reasonably ask that no one use it? Yeah, I don't know the exact difference between a public code, an open source one, a GPL, etc. So what? just read my words and think for yourself to what term they refer, if it suits you.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris So, you can make a code public and still reasonably ask that no one use it? Yeah, I don't know the exact difference between a public code, an open source one, a GPL, etc. So what? just read my words and think for yourself to what term they refer, if it suits you.

Oncle Boris, that's what copyright boils down to. You can demand any form of copying you want.

GPL is a very legalistic way of saying that if you:
- use the code directly
- link to a library with that code
you have to distribute your software under the GPL too. However, if you use GPLed tools during development, it does not affect the software in any way.

Also, since the authority rests ultimately in copyright laws, it's possible to dual-license things if you have the agreement of all the programmers.

In other words, it's possible to release a free GPLed version and to sell a non-free non-GPL version at the same time. A few GUI toolkits out there do just that.

[Q Classic]

It's going to be much harder if the consumer good aren't tailored for it in the first place.

who says it is now? did you not hear the bloody noise screamed out by the telecom companies, the software development companies--including microsoft, mind you--the academic community, and the open source community in regards to ashcroft's stupid little wish list?

That would be because people vote for tax and jobs. Of course the American people could still kick Bush out of office, if they really cared about the NSA and the "Patriot" Act. And I do think I said "in the rest of the free world", which pretty much means Canada and Western Europe.

and your bias towards western civilization thereby creeps in.
canada regulates its health industry well. so well, in fact, that although everybody gets health care, if you're prescribed grass, it's the ****tiest around. if that's the gold standard of government regulation, i sure as hell don't want them regulating my operating system.

Don't worry, I know the difference between TCPA and DRM. And do you know what? both tend towards the same goal. There are more than 200 companies in the TCPA, and many of them would have an interest in a chip that remotely monitors DRM. Why would the RIAA be part of it, do you think?

the goals are not the same. try again.

There is still some hope. Most laws regarding the Internet in France, for instance, have been done on behalf of some political donators at the detriment of emerging companies with no political friends at all. If the ISPs can stand in an unified lobby (and one that is distinct from the "content" providers), the government could fear them too. It is in the ISPs and Netizens interests that information flows the most freely possible.

do you see that the argument i am putting forth is that the government is not something that should be granted the power to regulate the operating system? if you don't trust them with keeping the information flow as free as possible, how can you trust them to keep the gateway as open as possible?

I don't understand why you fear governments that much. In Canada, for instance, a great deal of civil advancement (including gay marriage, which is now fully legal) were made by the Court, ruling out some laws that didn't respect the 'human rights charter' adopted by the federal government.

You are wary of governments? Fine, I am too, but I can acknowledge that they've done some good since 1945 and that we could as well try to rely on laws instead of corporations with absolutely no duty except profit for our rights. Market laws don't work much when it comes to rights: or else, no one would buy slave-labor products.

i am wary of governments, and you should be too, because their concept of the world is still very much stuck in the industrialist, second-wave mindset. nobody in power, nobody in government, nobody who can effect any real change has any real concept of how this new informational world works. they still seek to control this medium using old methods which do more harm than good. the government is not the answer here.
anarchy is the only way the internet can work, where the free flow of information can work. regulation is bad for it, plain and simple.

Again you miss the point. I acknowledge that the toolbar is still insignificant, and that no one has to install it. However, it clearly shows that cooperation between homeland security and corporations is perfectly feasible, and well underway. That's why I say: vigilance, RIGHT NOW, before Palladium becomes a reality - it has been ditched, AFAIK, but isn't the single fact that M$ entertained its tought frightening?

again, paranoid squealing. don't worry, oss will be around if you're that terrified. most of the people who migrate to it aren't actually tin-foil wearing paranoiacs perpetually afeared of microsoft, the MAN, or what not, but people who merely like using it as an alternative.

Government regulated, I meant.

government regulated utilities are not always the best way to go. if the government wants to regulate an os, i won't use that particular one. why? i don't trust the government with doing much right, and i surely don't trust the government to design standards for software right at all. goes back to my aforementioned belief that the only way true information freedom can occur is in a state of anarchy for the internet.

one note: anarchy is not chaos.

Thanks for the essay, but I never said such a thing.

certainly sounded like you did:

No. That would be to turn OSes into a non-dangerous monopoly. Like an open source one or something. The least thing would be to enforce OSes with much stricter laws.

My point would be that M$ monopoly can make it more easier for a government/corporation monitoring program, because of the consolidated market. Fighting against this would involve seriously restricting M$ power (applying existing laws seems sufficient as things are) and asking right now that internet privacy be embedded in civil charters.

and my point is that government regulation of the os would be the easiest way for the government monitoring program because of its very nature. fighting against this would entail not so much restricting ms's power (which is less than you might imagine) but against stupid, half-assed government regulation.

i see there's very little reason to continue to point out where you're just flat-out wrong.
the enemy isn't microsoft. it's the government which does not understand the very nature of what they seek to reign in.

[Agathon]

Great, what happened to the topic?

[Asher]

It's still related.

Your little apprentice here is following in your footsteps, wading into tech arguments and looking like a complete dunce.

[Q Classic]

to be fair, at least agathon's positions make sense when looking at agathon's beliefs.

i don't understand how uncle boris can say that we should let the government control the os when the government itself is untrustworthy, because the government might want to regulate microsoft.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i don't understand how uncle boris can say that we should let the government control the os when the government itself is untrustworthy, because the government might want to regulate microsoft.

Well, you can get a copy of American laws, can't you? If you are unfairly treated by the government, you still can, AFAIK, ask for compensation in court? So what wrong would there be in modifying the law to make some forms of monitoring illegal?

Again, you are mistaking regulation and control. Obviously, that the government regulates what private companies can do with your personal information (like in the financial sector), doesn't mean they have been nationalized or that they are controlled by the government.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon
Great, what happened to the topic?

I said that OS monopolies are a threat to the free flow of information. Asher argued that Microsoft wasn't exactly one, and provided some evidence for it. To what I replied "fine, then, let's remain vigilant so that their power doesn't increase".

To what Q-Cubed answered that government have been monitoring and slaughtering people since the beginning of history, and that therefore we should be against any law that forbids some sort of Palladium-like monitoring and that we should put our trust into Microsoft.

Isn't that great?