Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Fri 8th Jun 2007 03:44 UTC
"In "Windows Vista: more than just a pretty face," we began our extensive assessment of Windows Vista with a focus on the changes to the graphical framework of Windows. We also talked about improvements to the general Windows API, the media foundation, and improvements in sound. In what follows, we look at three remaining areas of major improvement for Vista: security, networking, and storage. At the end, we present the first round of our criticisms of the new OS. In the coming weeks, we will unveil our performance-oriented examination of the OS."
Thread beginning with comment 246488
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Sony's rootkit is a specific implementation of DRM. It does not invalidate the idea. That is like saying that because software patents are retarded, there should be no patents.
Haven you heard the opinions by the RIAA (spokes person(s) for the large music record company's) who deride the very idea of allowing people to rip music, to back up their music collection?
What it seems to be is that there are a few in the entertainment industry who want everything to stand still; home based recording equipment is cheaper, distribution facilities by online vendors are now removing the middleman - their industry, the music industry, is on its death bed. Rather than embracing those changes, they expect people to pay huge amounts for music.
For example, I have a look at music per-track through itunes in New Zealand - what do I gain by purchasing music via download if I am not going to save money than I would have if I bought the actual cd? I pay the same amount for an inferiror product? the whole of online music was the *REDUCED* costs, which then should allow *CHEAPER* music - the fact there is no physical media, no need to market, no need to do have the things that the physical world needs.
Agreed. However, when you walk into a department store, are you offended by the cameras? The (sometimes undercover) security guards? The metal detectors? The turnstiles that force you through the checkout? These are all measures the store has implemented because, like it or not, people can't be trusted to be honest. Now, if the security guard was breathing down your neck from the moment you walked in the store, that would be another story. You tolerate these measures because they are reasonable, and they don't effect honest consumers. The same needs to happen with DRM, and the only way that will happen is by boycotting media formats that use excessive force in their DRM.
But there is a difference, once you purchase it through the check out, you actually own it! I mean, lets translate this into the real world; if the recording industry worked on the basis of the supermarket/department store they wouldn't use DRM.
DRM by the music company is the equivilance of going into a department store, purchasing a product, then having someone follow you home to make sure that you use the products in only the ways they want you to use it in.
Sorry, once I purchase the music, what I do with it, within the confines of my own house is none of their business; now, if I started to create 'copies' or 'clones' if it, then sure, prosecute me using normal channels of investigation rather than castrating all users because of the actions of a few.
Member since:2006-02-05
What it seems to be is that there are a few in the entertainment industry who want everything to stand still; home based recording equipment is cheaper, distribution facilities by online vendors are now removing the middleman - their industry, the music industry, is on its death bed. Rather than embracing those changes, they expect people to pay huge amounts for music.
I agree 100%. However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there are reasonable measures put in place to limit widespread copying of digital media. And as soon as you put that on the table, you are talking DRM. DRM can be used to enforce the current paradigm, but just because the paradigm needs to shift doesnt nessicarily mean a complete abandonment of expectations of reimbursment.
For example, I have a look at music per-track through itunes in New Zealand - what do I gain by purchasing music via download if I am not going to save money than I would have if I bought the actual cd? I pay the same amount for an inferiror product? the whole of online music was the *REDUCED* costs, which then should allow *CHEAPER* music - the fact there is no physical media, no need to market, no need to do have the things that the physical world needs.
Again, this is an arguement about an implementation rather then the idea. They are not using DRM to keep people honest, they are using it to fix prices.
But there is a difference, once you purchase it through the check out, you actually own it! I mean, lets translate this into the real world; if the recording industry worked on the basis of the supermarket/department store they wouldn't use DRM.
There is no difference if you buy a book, a cd, or software. You liscence these products, you don't own them in the same way you do, say, a car. There are many restrictions in place with any piece of intellectual property. There are two differences in the digital sense, the first is that it is easier to break any terms due to its nature, and the second is that we have the ability to develop technologies capable of enforcing them.
You have to understand the distinction I am making. I agree 100% with how the big label have to die, as they are doing nothing productive, and alot to hurt the music industry. I agree that we are entering a whole new world when it comes to online distrobution, and corporate lobbys have been robbing the world of exploring new possibilities of media distrobution. I have read Free Culture more then once, and agree with almost everything in it.
However, there is a huge jump from saying that what the current industry is doing is wrong, to saying that any enforcement is wrong. It is just like how the RIAA says "Downloading = Stealing" It is nowhere NEAR that simple or one dimensional. They are doing that to push an agenda, and the same thing is happening with "DRM = Evil"
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-05
Sony's rootkit is a specific implementation of DRM. It does not invalidate the idea. That is like saying that because software patents are retarded, there should be no patents.
Agreed. However, when you walk into a department store, are you offended by the cameras? The (sometimes undercover) security guards? The metal detectors? The turnstiles that force you through the checkout? These are all measures the store has implemented because, like it or not, people can't be trusted to be honest. Now, if the security guard was breathing down your neck from the moment you walked in the store, that would be another story. You tolerate these measures because they are reasonable, and they don't effect honest consumers. The same needs to happen with DRM, and the only way that will happen is by boycotting media formats that use excessive force in their DRM.