Jack Coates wrote:
> The fact that they're trying to shut down mashup artists and samplers
> clarifies the real goal of DRM and the DMCA, which is what others in this
> thread have pointed out -- controlling the new music marketplace the same
> way that they controlled the old one.
Except it is no
>
> stinkingpig Wrote:
>> "every copy of the product represents a lost sale."
>>
>> In actuality, every copy represents a marketing opportunity, in which
>> the
>> recipient discovers something that they didn't have before.
>
> Agreed, to a point. Now there are numerous copies which do not lead to
stinkingpig Wrote:
> "every copy of the product represents a lost sale."
>
> In actuality, every copy represents a marketing opportunity, in which
> the
> recipient discovers something that they didn't have before.
Agreed, to a point. Now there are numerous copies which do not lead to
discovery
...
> This is the risk that record companies see. They may not be the
> smartest marketing or technology cookies, but there is no denying my
> alternate scenario is a very common and likely one. Just got a friend
> on the phone that said "I just got this DVD recorder so now I can copy
> DVDs. Will
I think one possible outcome is that the internet, with it's larger
fanout, will in the music world allow more direct contact between
musicians and listeners, cutting out labels.
Already in manufacturing we see similar things happening. Dells
distribution model is manufacturer to consumer. In my
> > He says "neat, I gotta go pick that up for my house". (sale)
>
> I don't know about your buddies, but most of mine would say: "neat, I
> gotta go pick that up for my house. Can you put this on a CD for me?".
> (theft)
Thank god the US lobbyists in Brussels haven't managed to outlaw that
here y
Fred Wrote:
> Also, you're considering a frat house with some millions of "brothers".
Well, I'm talking about my own collection and in my house. I'm popular
but I'm not *that* popular.
Fred Wrote:
> I don't know about your buddies, but most of mine would say: "neat, I
> gotta go pick that up fo
funkstar Wrote:
> or there is an anti trust or class action suit against Apple
coincidentaly i just read this a few minutes ago ...
"Northern California Judge Gives Green Light to Monopolization Suit
Against Apple"
http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2095/northern_california_judge
--
iar
-
Michaelwagner Wrote:
> Isn't Slimserver kinda like the playboy in the frat house?
Sure. Except the playboy is not a physical object. A physical object
cannot be shared by a lot of people at the same time. A physical object
becomes worn as it is used.
Also, you're considering a frat house with so
rudholm Wrote:
> I think Slimdevices gets their customers so well because they basically
> are their customers.
What a great ad:
Hi I'm Sean. I'm not just the CEO of Slim Devices ... I'm also a
customer.
--
Michaelwagner
That sounds like my.mp3.com. It's absolutely ridiculous. You try to
add value to an organization's product by making it more useful *and*
you drive sales directly and they sue you?
Completely wrongheaded, it's just amazing how badly RIAA constituents
understand their market. They understand it
Michaelwagner wrote:
> Isn't Slimserver kinda like the playboy in the frat house?
SlimNetwork, and most radio stations, yes, I would agree.
SlimServer is my collection of CDs that I paid dearly for.
> I'm playing some music on the slim when my buddy comes to visit. He
> says "hey, what is that,
Pat:
Isn't Slimserver kinda like the playboy in the frat house?
I'm playing some music on the slim when my buddy comes to visit. He
says "hey, what is that, I like it". I look at the display (or he
does), and say "it's the new Madonna (or Springstein, or whatever)
album". (advertising).
He say
Fred wrote:
> Technically of course you are right, it could be done.
The licensing can clearly be done, But I'm not sure
that the needs can be met.
> But DRM is different in that it needs to grant access in what is
> essentially a hostile environment (the user's home). In PGP or even
> banking
fairyliquidizer Wrote:
> A little off topic but...
>
> DRM could be done in an Open Source model. The problem is that most
> DRM models involve closed source licence agreements. So the
> combination of having to occlude methods and the viral nature of the
> GPL mean that the commercial DRM sc
Millwood Wrote:
> As I understand the GPL, a GPL program can load and run a non-GPL
> program as long as it is packaged seperately.
>
> The SlimServer is certainly loading and using Windows DLL's, for
> example.
>
> So a DRM add on would not, IMHO, violate GPL.
Indeed - a GPL app can link to a
As I understand the GPL, a GPL program can load and run a non-GPL
program as long as it is packaged seperately.
The SlimServer is certainly loading and using Windows DLL's, for
example.
So a DRM add on would not, IMHO, violate GPL.
--
Millwood
-
kdf Wrote:
> I'll stick with what it says in the roadmap: "whatever it takes"
> In this latest case, its a SqueezeNetwork plugin. I expect other cases
>
> may be similar, others different.
> -k
That just what i was going to find and quote. PlayForSure could
concevably by handled in the SBs fir
A little off topic but...
DRM could be done in an Open Source model. The problem is that most
DRM models involve closed source licence agreements. So the
combination of having to occlude methods and the viral nature of the
GPL mean that the commercial DRM schemes (i.e. the big ones) are
unlike
19 matches
Mail list logo
