Limewire
Comments
-
-
Fair enough point DEANVW!!Heaven kicked me out and Hell was too afraid I'd take over!!!
Fighting back since 1975!!
Happy riding
Denny0 -
-
Which I would have to do if I'd bought it, too.yeehaamcgee wrote:
No, you do not. You still have to adhere to Copyright laws.Big Red S wrote:In a library, for the duration of the loan, you, for all intents and purposes, own the book.
You cannot copy a book in a library word for word, and then distribute it for free.
No. Because if you break into his house and steal something, he loses something for which he has paid, and for which he must pay to replace.yeehaamcgee wrote:So, if I was to break into your house, steal all your stuff, and got away with it, you'd think that was "fair play" as long as I'd accepted the risks of being caught?
Bullshit.
If he downloads a song of yours, you do not lose the original copy, and have not paid for the production of the copy he has. You do not neccesarily lose anything, since he might not have otherwise bought the song.
I download stuff I don't have the right to because it's the easiest way to ensure I get all my rights as a consumer. If the artist is, through choice of recording contract, going to limit what rights I would have if I'd bought the song, then I'd be a fool to pay for it.I find that in general, the consensus of people who'll freely download stuff they have no legal right to, as long as they're getting away with it, is "who cares?"
Stick the boot on the other foot, and your opinions would soon change.
I don't think there's a legal term of 'copyright theft', since nothing is stolen. I think it's referred to as 'copyright infringement'. But I might well be wrong.yeehaamcgee wrote:Get off my high horse? Get stuffed. This is something about which I believe quite strongly.
It IS theft.
As I said above, through music piracy, you do not lose anything but the potential to gain. And the fact that someone's downloaded and listened to your songs would make them more likely to, say, go and see you play live, or buy merchandise, than if they'd never obtained a copy.
I don't think that's entirely accurate.Denny69 wrote:If you saw a CD/FILM you really, really wanted, didn't have the money for it but a friend said
" I can get you that for a fraction of the price" you would say NO....just to take the MORAL HIGH GROUND????
I don't think so....you're human and human's will do anything to save a few quid!!!
If I see a game that looks like it'd be good, I'll download it and have a go on it. If it really is good, I'll buy a copy and play that. I cannot complain about how crap games are if I never contribute to their development, since game sales are the only means of income for game devs. I know a number of people who do that.
It's not the companies, it's the community. The people who want to share the files write the programs that do it. If it looks worthwhile, companies will jump on the bandwagon.As long as companies like Limewire and E-mule let you have software/music/films etc for free then copyright theft will be a problem. Did you never copy friends tapes when you were younger? Same thing really, so why is this any different?
It's not theft in the traditional sense of the word, though - no-one loses anything.You do make a good argument against P2P and I see your point that it is theft, pure and simple, but look back and I bet you've done it (copyright theft) yourself...even a little bit!!!
The artist loses out no more than the postcard printer does by people taking their own photos of Trafalagar Square.0 -
Fair comments BIG RED S I stand corrected in my points!!!!Heaven kicked me out and Hell was too afraid I'd take over!!!
Fighting back since 1975!!
Happy riding
Denny0 -
hey, where did my other reply go?0
-
anyone heard about trent reznor?
If I could give money straight to the artist rather than the others who sponge off them it'd be great. they won't gain any sales from me by banning p2p or anything. what about the legal side of p2p though? I've downloaded many linux iso's and large files via p2p saving the company bandwidth costs.0 -
Oh good, now i sponge off artists because I work in a studio?
So spending upwards of 60 hours a week in a studio, to make a living, is "sponging" off the artists?
nice. I never knew that.0 -
Big Red S wrote:[In the same way as owning a crowbar is perfectly legal, but breaking into a house with it is illegal. And even then, it's not the use of the crowbar that is illegal, but the breaking in.
It's called "Going equipped to Steal" and is section 25 of the Theft act.
Downloading copywrited stuff is wrong. Sorry, but it just is.
Andy0 -
Morally, limiting how I use music I purchase is wrong too.
For example, if I go and spend £12 on a CD, I'm not technically allowed to rip the tracks to put them onto my MP3 player. So, I can either carry the 350 CDs I have on said MP3 player with me in a huge bag, or I can do it illegally.
I am also not allowed to make a backup of the CD. CDs get damaged quite easily, they can actually degrade to the point of being unusable over time. So if I'm not allowed to make a backup, if the disc gets scratched in a way that makes in unusable, I have to pay for the CD again. Or I could copy it illegally...
If I buy a song from iTunes, I'm limited in what I can do with it. Can I transfer it to my MP3 player which isn't an iPod? No. Can I have it in my choice of file format? No.
The alternative, of course, is to get around all the restrictions and just download the music. If I like an album, I'll buy the CD. This is, for example, why I have virtually the entire Faithless discography in both downloaded electronic form and physical CD form. I rarely get the CDs out of their boxes though. They cost too much to replace if they get damaged.0 -
whyamihere wrote:Morally, limiting how I use music I purchase is wrong too.
...er.. no it's not. If someone makes a CD, they have the choice of who they want to sell to and with what restrictions. Then you have the choice of whether you buy it under those conditions or not.For example, if I go and spend £12 on a CD, I'm not technically allowed to rip the tracks to put them onto my MP3 .......Blah blah blah
You really can't see the difference between buying a CD and copying it for your own use, and downloading it fom a person who doesn't have the right to send it to you?
If you do it, It's wrong, you can try to justify it to yourself and to other people, and you can argue about how wrong, but it's wrong.
Andy0 -
Yeah, of course I can see the difference.
If I pay for the CD, there's technical limitations in the way of me making a copy. No technical limitations if I download. So, in order to get the rights I should have, the easiest way is to download.
My main gripe is that I don't actually own the music I buy, in that I can't actually do what I like with it. It's more of a rental system, but it costs a lot more than actually renting a CD, yet I get no more rights than if I do rent it. If I actually buy music, I want to be able to play it, copy it, modify it as I please, for personal use. I can't do that with the licensing placed on commercial CDs. This is exactly the same reason I refuse to use proprietary software whenever I can avoid it. If I have to agree to using software on someone else's terms, then I don't have the freedom that I should have as a consumer. Until I can purchase music which gives me the same level of freedom as the music I can download, I'll keep downloading it.0 -
you have to love vinyl."Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
If owning a crowbar is, automatically, a breach of the Theft act (as you imply), why is it legal to sell them?Magibob wrote:Big Red S wrote:[In the same way as owning a crowbar is perfectly legal, but breaking into a house with it is illegal. And even then, it's not the use of the crowbar that is illegal, but the breaking in.
It's called "Going equipped to Steal" and is section 25 of the Theft act.0 -
Yes, morally, there is no reason for an artist to, say, decide that I can only play their CD's on players made by a company who's name begins with G. And it would be wrong for me to go against that.Magibob wrote:
...er.. no it's not. If someone makes a CD, they have the choice of who they want to sell to and with what restrictions. Then you have the choice of whether you buy it under those conditions or not.whyamihere wrote:Morally, limiting how I use music I purchase is wrong too.
But, in a market where it is expected that all CDs are compatible with all CD players, I would suggest that it is unfair if the artist decides not to make it overtly clear, without me having to specifically check, that they've purposefully, for no apparent good reason, limited the chances of their music playing on my player.
Of course, legally, I currently have as much right to download anything I want as the artists do to limit my rights.
But, in general, the consumers are stupid and the artists are loud.
Morality and legality aside, I know that as long as there is a movement to limit the compatability of music files, there will be a movement to extend it, so I'm not overly concerned about what the former does.0 -
mtblambley wrote:When I download limewire onto my laptop it works for the 1st few times I use it and then un-installs itself. Has anyone else had this problem or know a solution to it? I use windows xp if thats any help.
thanks
Back on topic perhaps?0 -
The OP's not responded to people asking for more info, so there's not a lot we can do.
Unless you can suggest a fix on the scant information provided?0 -
Bittorrent is better (but unlike Schmako said it can still contain viruses) and I would not recomend using peerguardian
Why would you not recomend using Peer Guardian? I use it, but only cause someone "recomended" I should!
Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, Today is a Gift. That is why it is known as the present.0 -
As an alternative to Limewire, you could try Frostwire, it's an open source (free) client app that works like Limewire using the same file sharing resources, and its got a very similar interface, albeit different. It might just work for you mtblambley?mtblambley wrote:When I download limewire onto my laptop it works for the 1st few times I use it and then un-installs itself. Has anyone else had this problem or know a solution to it? I use windows xp if thats any help.
thanks0 -
Actually, you are now allowed to copy a CD to an MP3 player that you own, or to a computer that you own. This was changed about 2 years ago.whyamihere wrote:For example, if I go and spend £12 on a CD, I'm not technically allowed to rip the tracks to put them onto my MP3 player. So, I can either carry the 350 CDs I have on said MP3 player with me in a huge bag, or I can do it illegally.
I am also not allowed to make a backup of the CD. CDs get damaged quite easily, they can actually degrade to the point of being unusable over time. So if I'm not allowed to make a backup, if the disc gets scratched in a way that makes in unusable, I have to pay for the CD again. Or I could copy it illegally...
Also, as far as I know, you are allowed to make a backup copy of any purchased data unless the owner of that data has explicitly denied you the right. It is a part of your statutory rights.0 -
Big Red S wrote:Morality and legality aside, I know that as long as there is a movement to limit the compatability of music files, there will be a movement to extend it, so I'm not overly concerned about what the former does.
I totally agree with you that any and all purchased digital music should play on any and all digital music playback devices.
The locking down of formats seems to exist in order to make more money for the distributors.
Apple have long suggested that they are forced to add DRM protection, by the music companies.
However, I know that some independent labels have, in the past asked to have their music on I-tunes without DRM, and were refused.
This surely indicates that apple themselves were choosing to aply this DRM?
Anyway, it's a slightly moot point now that non-DRM music is finally becoming available legally.
Oh, and remember that there is also a russian-based site that sells digital music LEGALLY at astonishing prices, with no DRM, in virtually any format you could imagine, even as uncompressed WAV files.
The RIAA tried to take them down, but it was found that they were acting totally above board.0 -
They're still putting copy protection on the CDs though, especially companies like Sony (remember the rootkits from a few months ago?). If I have to get around some technical limitation to do something which I have the right to (as you agree I do), then something's going wrong.yeehaamcgee wrote:
Actually, you are now allowed to copy a CD to an MP3 player that you own, or to a computer that you own. This was changed about 2 years ago.whyamihere wrote:For example, if I go and spend £12 on a CD, I'm not technically allowed to rip the tracks to put them onto my MP3 player. So, I can either carry the 350 CDs I have on said MP3 player with me in a huge bag, or I can do it illegally.
I am also not allowed to make a backup of the CD. CDs get damaged quite easily, they can actually degrade to the point of being unusable over time. So if I'm not allowed to make a backup, if the disc gets scratched in a way that makes in unusable, I have to pay for the CD again. Or I could copy it illegally...
Also, as far as I know, you are allowed to make a backup copy of any purchased data unless the owner of that data has explicitly denied you the right. It is a part of your statutory rights.0 -
Also, on the subject of DRM free music, I believe Apple now offer songs without DRM on iTunes. However, if I remember correctly, they charge more for these songs than for the DRM ones, and quite significantly more (when I checked, I think it was about 30p on a song costing less than £1). The DRM songs are at the right price for me, the non-DRM ones aren't. However, I won't buy the DRM songs because they won't play on my MP3 player.
If the non-DRM songs were at the same price as the DRM ones, I would buy them. Except that even if the price was the same, I can't buy them. iTunes needs to be installed on your computer. As I said in a previous post, I don't use proprietary software unless I can really avoid it. I would use iTunes as a way of getting music, but there's no Linux client. Meaning I'd have to install Windows on my PC, and agree to the license and lack of freedom that comes with it. This, I refuse to do.0 -
Only if the artist hasn't decided that I can't though.yeehaamcgee wrote:
Actually, you are now allowed to copy a CD to an MP3 player that you own, or to a computer that you own. This was changed about 2 years ago.whyamihere wrote:For example, if I go and spend £12 on a CD, I'm not technically allowed to rip the tracks to put them onto my MP3 player. So, I can either carry the 350 CDs I have on said MP3 player with me in a huge bag, or I can do it illegally.
I am also not allowed to make a backup of the CD. CDs get damaged quite easily, they can actually degrade to the point of being unusable over time. So if I'm not allowed to make a backup, if the disc gets scratched in a way that makes in unusable, I have to pay for the CD again. Or I could copy it illegally...
Also, as far as I know, you are allowed to make a backup copy of any purchased data unless the owner of that data has explicitly denied you the right. It is a part of your statutory rights.
While I agree that it's impossible to stop people doing this, it's easy to make it rather difficult. And as long as I need to check that _every_ CD I buy will let me just do a straight copy, and will play on my computer without checking it's got a valid windows install, I'm not going to bother. I'm going to download the music.
Personally, I see the apparently quite acceptable enroachment onto my rights by the artists/distributors as something infinitely more damaging than my downloading of their music. I _am_ losing out through the general acceptance that I don't own things I've bought.
So long as an artist is using a distributor who imposes technological restrictions on what I can do with my music, I'll not be buying their music.yeehaamcgee wrote:Big Red S wrote:Morality and legality aside, I know that as long as there is a movement to limit the compatability of music files, there will be a movement to extend it, so I'm not overly concerned about what the former does.
I totally agree with you that any and all purchased digital music should play on any and all digital music playback devices.
The locking down of formats seems to exist in order to make more money for the distributors.
In fact, I'll not be buying anyone's, for fear of any of them not working on my computer. Right now, in order to get me to buy music, it would have to be accompanied by an explicit notice telling me that it is guaranteed to be completely compatible with all my hardware and software. This isn't because I'm using particularly odd hardware, but because the music industry has spent so long imposing stupid measures to stop it being compatible.
Which, incidentally, the film industry hasn't. And they're also not claiming to be dying out due to P2P. Coincidence?
But, frankly, you'd be a fool to believe them.Apple have long suggested that they are forced to add DRM protection, by the music companies.
Not really.Anyway, it's a slightly moot point now that non-DRM music is finally becoming available legally.
When non-DRM, universally compatible, standardised, useful music is _ubiquitous_, then I'll be happy. A token gesture by one of the worlds leading implementors of DRM towards compatible music is not something I find particularly celebratory.
So there's a single shop that sells music in the form it should be sold? And the music industry is blaming P2P for a drop in revenue?Oh, and remember that there is also a russian-based site that sells digital music LEGALLY at astonishing prices, with no DRM, in virtually any format you could imagine, even as uncompressed WAV files.
That's not stopped them in the past...The RIAA tried to take them down, but it was found that they were acting totally above board.0 -
You seem to be intent on missing my point. I do not believe that apple were forced to use DRM, and I have never claimed that. I have known for some time that they have forced DRM on their clients. I even mentioned this.
That the apple fanatics will state that Steve Jobs' "open letter" about abolishing DRM was proof that apple are on the consumer's side, is insane.
non-DRM music IS coming. I-tunes are among the first. The aforementioned Russian site was the first one that I was aware of, which has more content than i-tunes, at a MUCH higher quality. It has been selling DRM free MP3s and WAVs for years.
In the states, Amazon are selling DRM-free music, as are Wallmart.
It won't be lkong before we see amazon UK, and possibly Tesco doing the same.
Also, MSN music has announced that it will be joining the DRM-free brigade (though obviously, being microsoft, slightly later than everyone else!)
Haven't heard anything from Napster yet, but I can't see them being left out.
You seem to be insiting (or willing) that there is a problem in this regard. You remind me of a linux fanboy in so many ways.So there's a single shop that sells music in the form it should be sold? And the music industry is blaming P2P for a drop in revenue?
Now you're just being ignorant.music industry has spent so long imposing stupid measures to stop it being compatible.
Which, incidentally, the film industry hasn't. And they're also not claiming to be dying out due to P2P. Coincidence?
DVD films have DRM built into them, and always have. This makes it very hard to rip a DVD to hard disk. It can be done, but to the casual user, it is impossible/too dificult.
The film industry are happy, because the number of people who can copy DVDs is very low.
Films also tend to be massive files. They are not as readily shared as music. Sure, you'll find them on P2P sites, but downloading 4 gigs just isn't worth it (again, to most people).
To download an MP3, you'll need, what, 5 minutes of your time? A film could possibly require days on end.
And to say that the film industry os not complaining about losing out to pirates is just idiocy.
When was the last time you rented a DVD, and DIDN'T see the whole "piracy is theft" stuff? Or in the Cinema?
As for the matter of P2P being a valid technological advancement, well yeah, the idea is sound, but in my own experiences, it just doesn't work.
Whenever I've had to download something large, (BSD ISOs, Linux distros, BeOS images etc) from P2P, it always takes days and days, and seems to top out at an average download rate of around 26KB/s (on a 512Kb/s connection).
In contrast, downloading the Server 2008 Beta, or the Vista Beta, by HTTP, through a web browser, I got a steady 57KB/s.
that's more than twice as fast.
So where's the real advantage to torrents again?0 -
No, I wasn't implying that you did believe it. Just that anyone who did is/was a fool.yeehaamcgee wrote:You seem to be intent on missing my point. I do not believe that apple were forced to use DRM, and I have never claimed that. I have known for some time that they have forced DRM on their clients. I even mentioned this.
That the apple fanatics will state that Steve Jobs' "open letter" about abolishing DRM was proof that apple are on the consumer's side, is insane.
I'd be interested to see how this is going to work.non-DRM music IS coming. I-tunes are among the first. The aforementioned Russian site was the first one that I was aware of, which has more content than i-tunes, at a MUCH higher quality. It has been selling DRM free MP3s and WAVs for years.
In the states, Amazon are selling DRM-free music, as are Wallmart.
It won't be lkong before we see amazon UK, and possibly Tesco doing the same.
Also, MSN music has announced that it will be joining the DRM-free brigade (though obviously, being microsoft, slightly later than everyone else!)
If anywhere starts selling non-DRM music at a reasonable (competative) price, I'd be more than happy to pay for it. Obviously on the proviso that it will work on my computer - I've got enough music currently that works for me to see no reason why anything I buy shouldn't. Especially if it genuinely is non-DRM.
I don't believe for a second that MS are going to do anything that involves a license which entitles their customers to keep all their rights. Especially given the abomination that is Vista's anti-piracy measures. But If they did, I'd be incredibly happy.
I've noticed that the music industry is claiming, and has been since the heyday of the Free Napster, that P2P is destroying their livelihood. Which is, on the face of it, understandable. At least, it's easy to point out a connection.
You seem to be insiting (or willing) that there is a problem in this regard. You remind me of a linux fanboy in so many ways.So there's a single shop that sells music in the form it should be sold? And the music industry is blaming P2P for a drop in revenue?
But, even with the mass adoption of broadband connections and torrents, the film industry seems to be suffering no ill-effects.
And the music industry seems to be as strong as ever.
Personally, I think the music industry has far more problems than P2P filesharing. I think the popularity of P2P is a symptom of some of these (like an unwillingness to embrace the internet as a marketplace), but really don't see how it can genuinely be a problem when they've spent at least the past ten years avoiding doing anything to stop it.
Go to a torrent site. Any torrent site. Search for a film. Any film. It'll be on there.
Now you're just being ignorant.music industry has spent so long imposing stupid measures to stop it being compatible.
Which, incidentally, the film industry hasn't. And they're also not claiming to be dying out due to P2P. Coincidence?
DVD films have DRM built into them, and always have. This makes it very hard to rip a DVD to hard disk. It can be done, but to the casual user, it is impossible/too dificult.
The film industry are happy, because the number of people who can copy DVDs is very low.
So, er, much like music was to the average user back when the music industry first started complaining?Films also tend to be massive files. They are not as readily shared as music. Sure, you'll find them on P2P sites, but downloading 4 gigs just isn't worth it (again, to most people).
To download an MP3, you'll need, what, 5 minutes of your time? A film could possibly require days on end.
That's fine. I see those warnings all the time. But they've done nothing to stop me playing my DVDs anywhere I want to. Except make a very token gesture towards encryption which was practically a piece of IT coursework for someone to crack.And to say that the film industry os not complaining about losing out to pirates is just idiocy.
When was the last time you rented a DVD, and DIDN'T see the whole "piracy is theft" stuff? Or in the Cinema?
And here we go again - assuming P2P is entirely for downloading large files.As for the matter of P2P being a valid technological advancement, well yeah, the idea is sound, but in my own experiences, it just doesn't work.
Whenever I've had to download something large, (BSD ISOs, Linux distros, BeOS images etc) from P2P, it always takes days and days, and seems to top out at an average download rate of around 26KB/s (on a 512Kb/s connection).
The concept of P2P predates the idea of anyone downloading 600M ISOs. You'd download floppies, small binaries, source packages.
Usenet's P2P. So's DNS.
The advantage of torrents is more for the server than the client. In that it removes the server.In contrast, downloading the Server 2008 Beta, or the Vista Beta, by HTTP, through a web browser, I got a steady 57KB/s.
that's more than twice as fast.
So where's the real advantage to torrents again?
Let's say you're running a project to distribute a free OS on a DVD. It's a 4Gb DVD, and you've got 100 downloads a day. That's a steady 400 Gb of bandwidth every day.
If you offer it as a torrent, your first day will be 400Gb, but your second might well be 200. And your fourth 50. And after a while, you need not have anyone downloading anything but a small tracker file.
Or, if you don't want to pay for a server, you send a CD to a few of your friends, and get them to share it. Then you post up the tracker, and people download from you and your friends and a rate far higher than you could have done on your own.
You do remember why torrents were invented, don't you?0 -
I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. pretty much every single PC i have to fix (for friends, family, co-workers, neighbours, neighbour's kids etc etc) has some illegal music on it. It's usually obvious becuase it's in a U-torrent, bitlord, azereus folder, etc.I've noticed that the music industry is claiming, and has been since the heyday of the Free Napster, that P2P is destroying their livelihood. Which is, on the face of it, understandable. At least, it's easy to point out a connection.
But, even with the mass adoption of broadband connections and torrents, the film industry seems to be suffering no ill-effects.
However, there's only two people I know who will bother downloading films.
But then again, I live in an area where 512 connections are the standard, and 8Mb - although theoretically attainable, is virtually unheard of.
Maybe people in developed countries (I live in Wales!!) are more likely to download films?
I can assure you it isn't. Some are profits that are down by as much as 30% - for the major players.And the music industry seems to be as strong as ever.
As I've said before, the CEOs and so forth won't starve, but the staff lower-down the food chain, who can be replaced by contractors, will suffer.
AH, but they HAVE!That's fine. I see those warnings all the time. But they've done nothing to stop me playing my DVDs anywhere I want to. Except make a very token gesture towards encryption which was practically a piece of IT coursework for someone to crack.
as far as I know, there is still no legal way to play DVDs in Linux/Unix. The neccessary software is hacked.
It is required by the film companies. Either they implemented these measures, or hi-def video content would not play - WHEN it starts rolling out with DRM. (sadly)Especially given the abomination that is Vista's anti-piracy measures.
That "token gesture" of protection of DVDs has actually worked really well.
You have to remember that the main type of piracy being targetted is casual piracy.
This is when the general public copy things to share.
Because of the "token gesture" copy protection, most tom dicks and harries can't copy DVDs. They have no real incentive to find out how it's done, all they know is that they can't just copy it in nero.
It won't stop professional pirates, or tech-savvy users, but it was never meant to.0 -
I know plenty of people (London) who, rather than plan to rent a film, start a torrent downloading a couple of nights before they want to stay in and watch it. And there are some masochists I know who are willing to just stream it off alluc or similar.yeehaamcgee wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. pretty much every single PC i have to fix (for friends, family, co-workers, neighbours, neighbour's kids etc etc) has some illegal music on it. It's usually obvious becuase it's in a U-torrent, bitlord, azereus folder, etc.I've noticed that the music industry is claiming, and has been since the heyday of the Free Napster, that P2P is destroying their livelihood. Which is, on the face of it, understandable. At least, it's easy to point out a connection.
But, even with the mass adoption of broadband connections and torrents, the film industry seems to be suffering no ill-effects.
However, there's only two people I know who will bother downloading films.
But then again, I live in an area where 512 connections are the standard, and 8Mb - although theoretically attainable, is virtually unheard of.
Maybe people in developed countries (I live in Wales!!) are more likely to download films?
Any chance of a link to somewhere impartial that supports this? I'm not doubting you so much as interested.
I can assure you it isn't. Some are profits that are down by as much as 30% - for the major players.And the music industry seems to be as strong as ever.
As I've said before, the CEOs and so forth won't starve, but the staff lower-down the food chain, who can be replaced by contractors, will suffer.
No, it's not legal. But it's easily practicable.
AH, but they HAVE!That's fine. I see those warnings all the time. But they've done nothing to stop me playing my DVDs anywhere I want to. Except make a very token gesture towards encryption which was practically a piece of IT coursework for someone to crack.
as far as I know, there is still no legal way to play DVDs in Linux/Unix. The neccessary software is hacked.
But it's easier for me to illegaly play films on *nix than to legally play music.
Not sure what's wrong with it being hacked, though. Hacking has produced some of the best and most popular software available. Unix and Linux, Bind, Apache, Vim, Sendmail...
Ah, that'd be why it's in OSX, wouldn't it....
It is required by the film companies. Either they implemented these measures, or hi-def video content would not play - WHEN it starts rolling out with DRM. (sadly)Especially given the abomination that is Vista's anti-piracy measures.
So you're not so irritated by the 500 people downloading the file as you are the one person who ripped it and uploaded it?That "token gesture" of protection of DVDs has actually worked really well.
You have to remember that the main type of piracy being targetted is casual piracy.
This is when the general public copy things to share.
But they can download it.Because of the "token gesture" copy protection, most tom dicks and harries can't copy DVDs. They have no real incentive to find out how it's done, all they know is that they can't just copy it in nero.
Or use Fair Use Wizard...
Well, no, I know. Fortunately people are stupid. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry has noticed.It won't stop professional pirates, or tech-savvy users, but it was never meant to.
It was never meant to last long, either. DRM in it's current form, if not by definition then by implementation, is a temporary measure that can only really hope to prevent copying for a short period of time before it is cracked. Anything that requires there to be a key somewhere can be cracked by someone finding that key.0 -
Well, unless the forthcoming "leopard" has the same DRM, it won't be able to play back encrypted HD content.Ah, that'd be why it's in OSX, wouldn't it....
But then, apple may not care, they do seem intent on pushing poor quality content at premium prices. HD may well go against their entire ethos :-p
Unfortunately, no, I can't give you a link for practical reasons. I didn't hear of it on the net. (ironic or not, you decideAny chance of a link to somewhere impartial that supports this? I'm not doubting you so much as interested.
) 0 -
Bollox to the record comanies, the artist only gets a tiny proportion of the monies from sales for all their hard work whilst the greedy fat cats at the top are creaming the profits.
So called legal sites are a scam aswell cos if im payin my own money to DL a song/album i want i want it in CD quality not some 128/160kbs cut down version, if im gonna get crappy bitrate music of course im gonna DL it elsewhere, atleast with torrents we get proper bitrate music.
The recors companies only have themselves to blame and i for one will not stop until im treated with some respect and not palmed off with low quality drivvle.0
