That isn't what this legislation is about. It's about letting people use DRM protected music on any device they want, without removing those restrictions. It is also not being proposed in the hope that a new AAC+Fairplay store will spring up with fewer restrictions. The bill is actually heavily in favour of restrictive DRM and provides stiff penalties for any company or individual who tries to circumvent it.
Correct. But, it's impossible to implement without device manufacturers implementing all forms of DRM on all other devices. It's totally flawed unless you either have an industry standard FREE DRM scheme or you remove DRM.
The only way I can see this working is if France implements it's own DRM standard to which device manufacturers MUST comply. And of course every device manufacturer would have to support AAC as you can't add DRM around an MP3 file.
Although that is exactly the option used by Apple's Airport Express/AirTunes combo and that works quite well.
Yes, if you want to send one stream to one Airport Express. But try 5 airport expresses at once and moving data around your network at the same time and you may start to have problems.
Correct. But, it's impossible to implement without device manufacturers implementing all forms of DRM on all other devices. It's totally flawed unless you either have an industry standard FREE DRM scheme or you remove DRM.
The only way I can see this working is if France implements it's own DRM standard to which device manufacturers MUST comply. And of course every device manufacturer would have to support AAC as you can't add DRM around an MP3 file.
I don't see why this is the inevitable scenario. The bill states that companies who develop DRM schemes must licence that scheme to anyone who wants it; nothing more. I don't see how that is a problem, or how that is unworkable. Sure, if I want to make a music player capable of playing back anything, I have to implement an AAC decoder, WMA decoder, ATRAC decoder, MP3 decoder, etc. etc., and a FairPlay decrypter, PlaysForSure decrypter and Sony DRM decrypter. There is no technological reason why I couldn't do that. But at the moment, there are plenty of legal reasons why I couldn't do that. This bill would remove the legal obstacles, that is all.
No, not wrong. You misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in more detail.
Me too.
I have designed and implemented a digital 44.1 kHz to 352.8 kHz upsampling crossover filter* with less than 10^-4 dB pk-pk passband ripple (less ripple than is encodable in CDDA linear 16 bit PCM), 98 dB stopband attenuation, >90 dB/octave cut-off and linear phase, in real-time on a TMS320C6711 DSP.
Yes, I know that.
Presumably by this you mean that we will be able to get 40 GB iPod Nanos in 2007 for around the same price as a 4 GB Nano today. Two things:
1. this is irrelevant to my argument as, for the billionth time I am not talking about portable music players. There are things such as the Roku and Sonos for which it would be useful to be able to play AAC+Fairplay tracks. Transcoding to Apple Lossless increases network bandwidth requirements almost by an order of magnitude and therefore is not always a viable option.
2. In any case, I'd need a lot more than 40 GB to store all my music uncompressed.
Now, on to explaining what I was talking about.
Originally, someone said that you can circumvent DRM by burning AAC+Fairplay to CD, then re-ripping in mp3 format.
Yes, this will remove the DRM, but the mp3 will have significantly lower quality than the original AAC+Fairplay track. That is what I was referring to.
When I said AAC+Fairplay = no quality loss, I was talking about using a third-party AAC+Fairplay decoder, relative to Apple's.
i.e., if I wanted to play AAC+Fairplay on a non-Apple device, transcoding it to AAC or mp3 would result in quality loss relative to the original AAC+Fairplay track, but using a third-party AAC+Fairplay decoder would not result in any additional quality loss.
Really, which industry is that?
All those French hardware manufacturers? Oh wait, there aren't any.
All those French-owned online music stores? As I understand it, there is one. It currently uses PlaysForSure. So this bill would mean that it could start selling AAC+Fairplay. So this would take away sales from iTunes, which isn't really profitable anyway, and possibly result in more iPod sales. Hmm, Apple doesn't seem to lose out there.
All those French Music labels? Apparently Vivendi is French. But I fail to see how this legislation (the forced licensing of DRM part) makes any difference to them.
Additionally, I fail to see how this bill would provide any unfair advantage to French companies. It is not introducing one set of rules for French companies and another set for everyone else.
* Filter 1: 44.1 kHz to 352.8 kHz up-sample filter with approx 1.5 kHz break frequency
Filter 2: 44.1 kHz to 352.8 kHz up-sample filter with approx 19 kHz break frequency
Filter 1 gives bass/lower midrange, both filters are linear phase with same group delay, so filter 2 - filter 1 gives upper midrange/treble.
Hi.
I didn't imply you didn't know what you were talking about.
Sorry if any of my short statements lead you to that conclusion.
If DRM is the only issue here, than I disagree with you on the following:
- DRM is only made to one goal. To protect the seller, conveyor and buyer of music.
I don't really care if it's MP3 + Fairplay or Apple Lossless + Fairplay or even FLAC + Fairplay.
The fact is that whatever technical solution for encoding music has , at present day, the following goals.
- To reduce byte-size of the music piece.
- To allow acceptable bit-rate on streaming it.
- To provide "acceptable" listening quality.
These 3 components are the base and directly related to the internet availability and therefore business model of ITMS.
Sure it's enforced by the media companies. That's what they sell.
I think Apple has struck an incredible balanced solution with AAC + Fairplay.
Now on the other hand we have the media players. These are still part of the conveyor mechanism. Whatever mechanism they implement works well with whatever Store, encoding or DRM.
If we have the "open solution" every player would have to be able to decode and de-DRM all available codes. This is not feasible.
Every store would implement different DRM "policies" and different codecs
I don't see why this is the inevitable scenario. The bill states that companies who develop DRM schemes must licence that scheme to anyone who wants it; nothing more. I don't see how that is a problem, or how that is unworkable.
Try this.
I'm an open source developer who writes a music player like iTunes. I need to be able to play files downloaded from iTMS or Napster. How on earth can I add DRM to my player and release the source still?
Look, I don't wan to continue this but I would like to say that I don't think you were making a "rational statement" as it wasn't based on fact, it's just your personal opinion and I happen to disagree with it. I don't see what is ignorant or prissy about it.
Plus you were the one that brought up the subject of France stance on the Iraq war in reference to this matter and as I remember it, the french wanted the UN to spend more time looking WMD's before invading - the same WMDs that never actually turned up.
By linking the two subjects, I came to the conclusion that you're paranoid about the french and therefore xenophobic and I'm basing my opinions on what you say - not on what my stereotypical view of americans are - where do cliches come into it?
No, I have made no mention of the war in Iraq, nor the French position on the subject. I did make a reference to the "joke" of freedom fries.
You were the one who decided to toss around the term xenophobic because I expressed an idea that is fairly obvious to anyone with any sort of political/economic undersanding of the way things work in the U.S. and Europe. If you can't handle a suggestion on the political relevance of the subject, fine, don't join in on the discussion, but you really shouldnt toss around words like xenophobic at your leisure just because the idea presented frames a E.U. partner in a negative light.
I'm an open source developer who writes a music player like iTunes. I need to be able to play files downloaded from iTMS or Napster. How on earth can I add DRM to my player and release the source still?
See?
The decoding algoritm can be kept seperate from the rest of the code. No problem there. Code seperation is done everywhere. Darvin and Mac OS X is a stellar example of this.
The decoding algoritm can be kept seperate from the rest of the code. No problem there. Code seperation is done everywhere. Darvin and Mac OS X is a stellar example of this.
That really presumes the licence of both my app and the DRM code allows it. Darwin allows linking to closed code because of it's licence.
Anyway, can you see Apple or Microsoft giving away the code to open source developers and it remaining closed for long?
That really presumes the licence of both my app and the DRM code allows it.
If you chose to use code that is licensed in a way that make it impossible to use Apples DRM then it is your own fault. This is quite different than the discussion about Apple keeping their DRM iPod and iTunes only. If you think it would be a practical issue then please sent emails to the members of the French Parliament so they remember it in the finer print of the bill.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Anyway, can you see Apple or Microsoft giving away the code to open source developers and it remaining closed for long?
Do the French law say anything about giving the DRM code to anyone who sends you a stamped return envelope? I don´t think so. MS is not giving away the code for playforsure to everybody either but you are still able to find players supporting it made by a number of producers.
Besides Apples DRM has been reverse engineered before, it will happen again with the purpose of stripping the files from DRM. Implementing Apples DRM into other players is not what is going to break it, especially because code delivered by Apple can be tagged. Its much safer to avoid the code altogether and work it out for yourself, thus minimising your risk of going to jail.
* in the current version of the text, the DRM vendors _have_ to give away the "information necessary for interoperability" (defined as "the technical documentation and the programming API needed to obtain the works in the form of a file defined by open standards")
* the cost for obtaining this information may not exceed the logistical costs incurred in transmitting them (no complicated NDA/whatever licensing by Microsoft!)
* if the publisher doesn't comply, the court can order him to do so, and fine him unless he does
* whatever happens, you are allowed to reverse-engineer the code in order to obtain interoperability
* one element is that "one cannot forbid publishing the source code and the technical documentation of an independent piece of software interoperating for lawful uses with a technical protection measure."
I was wrong about not being compatible with open source.
If the above is how it passes into law in France, nobody will offer anything with DRM in France because it'll mean anyone can get hold of the docs/API or reverse engineer it and publish the source code provided it's a legitimate use. An open source music player would be legit. Software to strip DRM wouldn't but hey, why bother stripping it if you can just implement it anyway.
* one element is that "one cannot forbid publishing the source code and the technical documentation of an independent piece of software interoperating for lawful uses with a technical protection measure."
If they expect the law to be workable, they are going to have to remove that clause.
They are hoping that the stiff penalties for introducing code that circumvents DRM will prevent such code from appearing. The only problem is that the law will only have effect in France. So if some French company licenses FairPlay, and then makes their player open-source, someone not in France can download the source, and use it to make a DRM stripping program. As long as they don't ever visit France, and do not fear being extradited there (or go to extensive efforts to prevent anyone in France obtaining the software), no problem for them.
The problem would then be that record companies would have a panic attack because their precious DRM wouldn't work any more. Hopefully they wouldn't immediately remove their tracks from the market, and they'd notice that the lack of DRM wouldn't impact sales negatively. On the contrary, sales would probably increase.
That isn't what this legislation is about. It's about letting people use DRM protected music on any device they want, without removing those restrictions. It is also not being proposed in the hope that a new AAC+Fairplay store will spring up with fewer restrictions. The bill is actually heavily in favour of restrictive DRM and provides stiff penalties for any company or individual who tries to circumvent it.
I don't agree. Just like the apple statement said it's not about changing the ipod, it's about letting anyone create the content ie: french music companies(the option for anyone to create itunes type content is what will allow pirates to run free). So what if there is only one french music store, more will come, or the one that is there will rise up.
I really doubt this came about because the government felt sympathetic to people that bought other players but couldn't use itunes or what have you.
You don't need to agree with me but once it's proven that that's the way it's going, remember I said it.
-----------
On another note if this happened full scale and record companies and studio noticed the drop in sales because of piracy, they will once again blast apple for having a device that plays pirated music/videos (this won't happen right away but probably would happen eventually) and will call for the death of ipod.
What the french have got right is the couple of euros they charge for downloaded pirate stuff. Much better than trying to sue a child for thousands of dollars.
Ditto.. F the French. They can get their scrawny butts up and go to a store to buy music.
Do you bash the niggers too?
I bet you don't. At least in public. You know it's not appropriate.
I have complained about all the french bashing here.
By the way it's always done by ignorant people that don't even know that ultra reactionnaries are in charge in france! And they draw very abusive conclusions.
I SUGGEST THAT ALL DECENT AMERICANS HERE DON'T ALLOW FRENCH BASHING!
Any kind of bashing based on ethnic particularity is disgusting (and I thought it was prohibited in the states!)
frog (that don't appreciate his own country but has the RIGHT to do so!)
(the option for anyone to create itunes type content is what will allow pirates to run free).
?? Anyone can already create "iTunes type content" without any DRM at all. It's called AAC, MP3, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless. So pirates are already "allowed to run free".
?? Anyone can already create "iTunes type content" without any DRM at all. It's called AAC, MP3, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless. So pirates are already "allowed to run free".
Tell that to Steve Jobs.
The rest of what I said is still going to be true.
I bet you don't. At least in public. You know it's not appropriate.
I have complained about all the french bashing here.
By the way it's always done by ignorant people that don't even know that ultra reactionnaries are in charge in france! And they draw very abusive conclusions.
I SUGGEST THAT ALL DECENT AMERICANS HERE DON'T ALLOW FRENCH BASHING!
Any kind of bashing based on ethnic particularity is disgusting (and I thought it was prohibited in the states!)
frog (that don't appreciate his own country but has the RIGHT to do so!)
As soon as you said "the niggers" you killed your own arguement.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
That isn't what this legislation is about. It's about letting people use DRM protected music on any device they want, without removing those restrictions. It is also not being proposed in the hope that a new AAC+Fairplay store will spring up with fewer restrictions. The bill is actually heavily in favour of restrictive DRM and provides stiff penalties for any company or individual who tries to circumvent it.
Correct. But, it's impossible to implement without device manufacturers implementing all forms of DRM on all other devices. It's totally flawed unless you either have an industry standard FREE DRM scheme or you remove DRM.
The only way I can see this working is if France implements it's own DRM standard to which device manufacturers MUST comply. And of course every device manufacturer would have to support AAC as you can't add DRM around an MP3 file.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Transcoding to Apple Lossless increases network bandwidth requirements almost by an order of magnitude and therefore is not always a viable option.
Although that is exactly the option used by Apple's Airport Express/AirTunes combo and that works quite well.
Originally posted by Zubba
Nobody is serious about changing the name of french fries here in the states.
You'd think the French, with their elitist ideas about cookery would be quite pleased with NOT having France associated with McD's idea of 'food'.
I'll stick with my British chips thanks.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Although that is exactly the option used by Apple's Airport Express/AirTunes combo and that works quite well.
Yes, if you want to send one stream to one Airport Express. But try 5 airport expresses at once and moving data around your network at the same time and you may start to have problems.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Correct. But, it's impossible to implement without device manufacturers implementing all forms of DRM on all other devices. It's totally flawed unless you either have an industry standard FREE DRM scheme or you remove DRM.
The only way I can see this working is if France implements it's own DRM standard to which device manufacturers MUST comply. And of course every device manufacturer would have to support AAC as you can't add DRM around an MP3 file.
I don't see why this is the inevitable scenario. The bill states that companies who develop DRM schemes must licence that scheme to anyone who wants it; nothing more. I don't see how that is a problem, or how that is unworkable. Sure, if I want to make a music player capable of playing back anything, I have to implement an AAC decoder, WMA decoder, ATRAC decoder, MP3 decoder, etc. etc., and a FairPlay decrypter, PlaysForSure decrypter and Sony DRM decrypter. There is no technological reason why I couldn't do that. But at the moment, there are plenty of legal reasons why I couldn't do that. This bill would remove the legal obstacles, that is all.
Originally posted by Mr. H
No, not wrong. You misunderstood my post. I will explain what I meant in more detail.
Me too.
I have designed and implemented a digital 44.1 kHz to 352.8 kHz upsampling crossover filter* with less than 10^-4 dB pk-pk passband ripple (less ripple than is encodable in CDDA linear 16 bit PCM), 98 dB stopband attenuation, >90 dB/octave cut-off and linear phase, in real-time on a TMS320C6711 DSP.
Yes, I know that.
Presumably by this you mean that we will be able to get 40 GB iPod Nanos in 2007 for around the same price as a 4 GB Nano today. Two things:
1. this is irrelevant to my argument as, for the billionth time I am not talking about portable music players. There are things such as the Roku and Sonos for which it would be useful to be able to play AAC+Fairplay tracks. Transcoding to Apple Lossless increases network bandwidth requirements almost by an order of magnitude and therefore is not always a viable option.
2. In any case, I'd need a lot more than 40 GB to store all my music uncompressed.
Now, on to explaining what I was talking about.
Originally, someone said that you can circumvent DRM by burning AAC+Fairplay to CD, then re-ripping in mp3 format.
Yes, this will remove the DRM, but the mp3 will have significantly lower quality than the original AAC+Fairplay track. That is what I was referring to.
When I said AAC+Fairplay = no quality loss, I was talking about using a third-party AAC+Fairplay decoder, relative to Apple's.
i.e., if I wanted to play AAC+Fairplay on a non-Apple device, transcoding it to AAC or mp3 would result in quality loss relative to the original AAC+Fairplay track, but using a third-party AAC+Fairplay decoder would not result in any additional quality loss.
Really, which industry is that?
All those French hardware manufacturers? Oh wait, there aren't any.
All those French-owned online music stores? As I understand it, there is one. It currently uses PlaysForSure. So this bill would mean that it could start selling AAC+Fairplay. So this would take away sales from iTunes, which isn't really profitable anyway, and possibly result in more iPod sales. Hmm, Apple doesn't seem to lose out there.
All those French Music labels? Apparently Vivendi is French. But I fail to see how this legislation (the forced licensing of DRM part) makes any difference to them.
Additionally, I fail to see how this bill would provide any unfair advantage to French companies. It is not introducing one set of rules for French companies and another set for everyone else.
* Filter 1: 44.1 kHz to 352.8 kHz up-sample filter with approx 1.5 kHz break frequency
Filter 2: 44.1 kHz to 352.8 kHz up-sample filter with approx 19 kHz break frequency
Filter 1 gives bass/lower midrange, both filters are linear phase with same group delay, so filter 2 - filter 1 gives upper midrange/treble.
Hi.
I didn't imply you didn't know what you were talking about.
Sorry if any of my short statements lead you to that conclusion.
If DRM is the only issue here, than I disagree with you on the following:
- DRM is only made to one goal. To protect the seller, conveyor and buyer of music.
I don't really care if it's MP3 + Fairplay or Apple Lossless + Fairplay or even FLAC + Fairplay.
The fact is that whatever technical solution for encoding music has , at present day, the following goals.
- To reduce byte-size of the music piece.
- To allow acceptable bit-rate on streaming it.
- To provide "acceptable" listening quality.
These 3 components are the base and directly related to the internet availability and therefore business model of ITMS.
Sure it's enforced by the media companies. That's what they sell.
I think Apple has struck an incredible balanced solution with AAC + Fairplay.
Now on the other hand we have the media players. These are still part of the conveyor mechanism. Whatever mechanism they implement works well with whatever Store, encoding or DRM.
If we have the "open solution" every player would have to be able to decode and de-DRM all available codes. This is not feasible.
Every store would implement different DRM "policies" and different codecs
Originally posted by Mr. H
I don't see why this is the inevitable scenario. The bill states that companies who develop DRM schemes must licence that scheme to anyone who wants it; nothing more. I don't see how that is a problem, or how that is unworkable.
Try this.
I'm an open source developer who writes a music player like iTunes. I need to be able to play files downloaded from iTMS or Napster. How on earth can I add DRM to my player and release the source still?
See?
Originally posted by VF208
Look, I don't wan to continue this but I would like to say that I don't think you were making a "rational statement" as it wasn't based on fact, it's just your personal opinion and I happen to disagree with it. I don't see what is ignorant or prissy about it.
Plus you were the one that brought up the subject of France stance on the Iraq war in reference to this matter and as I remember it, the french wanted the UN to spend more time looking WMD's before invading - the same WMDs that never actually turned up.
By linking the two subjects, I came to the conclusion that you're paranoid about the french and therefore xenophobic and I'm basing my opinions on what you say - not on what my stereotypical view of americans are - where do cliches come into it?
No, I have made no mention of the war in Iraq, nor the French position on the subject. I did make a reference to the "joke" of freedom fries.
You were the one who decided to toss around the term xenophobic because I expressed an idea that is fairly obvious to anyone with any sort of political/economic undersanding of the way things work in the U.S. and Europe. If you can't handle a suggestion on the political relevance of the subject, fine, don't join in on the discussion, but you really shouldnt toss around words like xenophobic at your leisure just because the idea presented frames a E.U. partner in a negative light.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Try this.
I'm an open source developer who writes a music player like iTunes. I need to be able to play files downloaded from iTMS or Napster. How on earth can I add DRM to my player and release the source still?
See?
The decoding algoritm can be kept seperate from the rest of the code. No problem there. Code seperation is done everywhere. Darvin and Mac OS X is a stellar example of this.
Originally posted by Anders
The decoding algoritm can be kept seperate from the rest of the code. No problem there. Code seperation is done everywhere. Darvin and Mac OS X is a stellar example of this.
That really presumes the licence of both my app and the DRM code allows it. Darwin allows linking to closed code because of it's licence.
Anyway, can you see Apple or Microsoft giving away the code to open source developers and it remaining closed for long?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That really presumes the licence of both my app and the DRM code allows it.
If you chose to use code that is licensed in a way that make it impossible to use Apples DRM then it is your own fault. This is quite different than the discussion about Apple keeping their DRM iPod and iTunes only. If you think it would be a practical issue then please sent emails to the members of the French Parliament so they remember it in the finer print of the bill.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Anyway, can you see Apple or Microsoft giving away the code to open source developers and it remaining closed for long?
Do the French law say anything about giving the DRM code to anyone who sends you a stamped return envelope? I don´t think so. MS is not giving away the code for playforsure to everybody either but you are still able to find players supporting it made by a number of producers.
Besides Apples DRM has been reverse engineered before, it will happen again with the purpose of stripping the files from DRM. Implementing Apples DRM into other players is not what is going to break it, especially because code delivered by Apple can be tagged. Its much safer to avoid the code altogether and work it out for yourself, thus minimising your risk of going to jail.
Originally posted by Anders
Do the French law say anything about giving the DRM code to anyone who sends you a stamped return envelope?
Apparently, it does!
See http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/21..._let_msft.html
* in the current version of the text, the DRM vendors _have_ to give away the "information necessary for interoperability" (defined as "the technical documentation and the programming API needed to obtain the works in the form of a file defined by open standards")
* the cost for obtaining this information may not exceed the logistical costs incurred in transmitting them (no complicated NDA/whatever licensing by Microsoft!)
* if the publisher doesn't comply, the court can order him to do so, and fine him unless he does
* whatever happens, you are allowed to reverse-engineer the code in order to obtain interoperability
* one element is that "one cannot forbid publishing the source code and the technical documentation of an independent piece of software interoperating for lawful uses with a technical protection measure."
I was wrong about not being compatible with open source.
If the above is how it passes into law in France, nobody will offer anything with DRM in France because it'll mean anyone can get hold of the docs/API or reverse engineer it and publish the source code provided it's a legitimate use. An open source music player would be legit. Software to strip DRM wouldn't but hey, why bother stripping it if you can just implement it anyway.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
* one element is that "one cannot forbid publishing the source code and the technical documentation of an independent piece of software interoperating for lawful uses with a technical protection measure."
If they expect the law to be workable, they are going to have to remove that clause.
They are hoping that the stiff penalties for introducing code that circumvents DRM will prevent such code from appearing. The only problem is that the law will only have effect in France. So if some French company licenses FairPlay, and then makes their player open-source, someone not in France can download the source, and use it to make a DRM stripping program. As long as they don't ever visit France, and do not fear being extradited there (or go to extensive efforts to prevent anyone in France obtaining the software), no problem for them.
The problem would then be that record companies would have a panic attack because their precious DRM wouldn't work any more. Hopefully they wouldn't immediately remove their tracks from the market, and they'd notice that the lack of DRM wouldn't impact sales negatively. On the contrary, sales would probably increase.
Originally posted by Mr. H
If they expect the law to be workable, they are going to have to remove that clause.
Yup. And Apple's 'state-sponsored piracy' quote makes more sense now.
Originally posted by Mr. H
That isn't what this legislation is about. It's about letting people use DRM protected music on any device they want, without removing those restrictions. It is also not being proposed in the hope that a new AAC+Fairplay store will spring up with fewer restrictions. The bill is actually heavily in favour of restrictive DRM and provides stiff penalties for any company or individual who tries to circumvent it.
I don't agree. Just like the apple statement said it's not about changing the ipod, it's about letting anyone create the content ie: french music companies(the option for anyone to create itunes type content is what will allow pirates to run free). So what if there is only one french music store, more will come, or the one that is there will rise up.
I really doubt this came about because the government felt sympathetic to people that bought other players but couldn't use itunes or what have you.
You don't need to agree with me but once it's proven that that's the way it's going, remember I said it.
-----------
On another note if this happened full scale and record companies and studio noticed the drop in sales because of piracy, they will once again blast apple for having a device that plays pirated music/videos (this won't happen right away but probably would happen eventually) and will call for the death of ipod.
What the french have got right is the couple of euros they charge for downloaded pirate stuff. Much better than trying to sue a child for thousands of dollars.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Apple could, if they wanted to, licence PlaysForSure from Microsoft, and then the iPod could play said content.
That would leave the Mac users in the cold, because you can only buy WMA music using a Windows PC.
The problem is that WMA DRM management only runs on Windows, and Microsoft does not license that part of their DRM system.
Originally posted by crees!
Ditto.. F the French. They can get their scrawny butts up and go to a store to buy music.
Do you bash the niggers too?
I bet you don't. At least in public. You know it's not appropriate.
I have complained about all the french bashing here.
By the way it's always done by ignorant people that don't even know that ultra reactionnaries are in charge in france! And they draw very abusive conclusions.
I SUGGEST THAT ALL DECENT AMERICANS HERE DON'T ALLOW FRENCH BASHING!
Any kind of bashing based on ethnic particularity is disgusting (and I thought it was prohibited in the states!)
frog (that don't appreciate his own country but has the RIGHT to do so!)
Originally posted by ecking
(the option for anyone to create itunes type content is what will allow pirates to run free).
?? Anyone can already create "iTunes type content" without any DRM at all. It's called AAC, MP3, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless. So pirates are already "allowed to run free".
Originally posted by Mr. H
?? Anyone can already create "iTunes type content" without any DRM at all. It's called AAC, MP3, AIFF, WAV, Apple Lossless. So pirates are already "allowed to run free".
Tell that to Steve Jobs.
The rest of what I said is still going to be true.
Originally posted by frogggy
Do you bash the niggers too?
I bet you don't. At least in public. You know it's not appropriate.
I have complained about all the french bashing here.
By the way it's always done by ignorant people that don't even know that ultra reactionnaries are in charge in france! And they draw very abusive conclusions.
I SUGGEST THAT ALL DECENT AMERICANS HERE DON'T ALLOW FRENCH BASHING!
Any kind of bashing based on ethnic particularity is disgusting (and I thought it was prohibited in the states!)
frog (that don't appreciate his own country but has the RIGHT to do so!)
As soon as you said "the niggers" you killed your own arguement.