ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

WMP users 'wish' for better DRM, wider takeup of WMA

Time: 14:27 EST/19:27 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson

In ExtremeTech, the redoubtable Mark Hachman has unearthed Microsoft's "Windows Media Wish," where apparently users' wishes for future versions of Windows Media Player come true. But seeing the list of successful wishes has been around since March 25th,* and anyway we think Mark either missed something or was too deeply ironic for us, we're doing it too.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 26 through 50 of 241
Prev | Last | Next

The time now is 8:17:55 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#26 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/2/2002 7:17:39 PM

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more press:

http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2002/09/30/daily8.html

#27 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 7:24:46 PM

Sodajerk (#33), this isn't just People vs. The Industry. I'm an artist, too (am I part of "The Industry"?)--I don't want to have to try on my own to protect the ability to sell my "product." Why don't you see that it's about someone else's freedom, not just yours? DRM is about protecting the freedom of artists to sell their product. That is just as much a freedom. You think that the fellow that copied the CD of our group should have that "freedom"? What about protecting my freedom, too???

The quality argument is obviously a side one, but I didn't want to ignore that you blanketly accused the entire "music industry" of a "complete lack of quality," and then implied that was the reason for poor sales. If you don't like the artists, fine--you're entitled to your opinion... but I don't think that quality has ever been a huge factor on sales. Remember the 80s?

#28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 7:37:57 PM

Yeah, enforcer, it was pretty noteworthy, but at the same time it doesn't address the issue, has no measures to lower the costs, and no one had to admit to anything. And the settlement/result is a mere pittance.

Bluvg, no offense but the industry does more to rape the artists than the consumers. And the more you sign into the industry to protect your rights the more of a target you are bound to be. Don't you find that an interesting paradox: the independet and rebellious artists who are supporting their fans are still making money without towing the line, but the pop, commercial bands are gettign hurt the most? Come on, they wouldn't be anywhere without the industry. That's not protecting the artist; that's fabricating the artist. The people who can really make it and really have an audience will do fine if they aren't complete idiots. And it sounds like as an artist, you are more in a position where youd be better off getting your content out rather than selling one more CD.

Yes, I do remember the 80s; they will be an endearing and seminal part of music history for whatever anyone's opinion is of the music; I don't think the same will be tru for late 90s, early 21th century make a franchise-on-a-15-yr-old-Mouseketeer-whore crap in ten years.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 20:32.

#29 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 8:02:00 PM

I don't see how you can't see the difference between content and a product but a lot of the differences are here already. Do I buy a book for the moment of reading? (no, you go to the library for that)is it consumed and if you want more you need to buy more? (certainly no); do you buy it just for the content, or do you buy it for ownership of the content--since in most cases, there is a free alternative? (libraries, radios, free concerts, clubs, TV, going over friends, etc, etc); what you buy is the ability to enjoy it over and over, the ability to recommend it, to share it with others, to say, "I own this great book/album/movie that we should read/listen to/watch."--i.e to create your own audience around your tastes. Producers of content always need to understand the complexities of a trade that has to be inherently altruistic and free to its audience.

"What about protecting my freedom, too???" Freedom? What freedom are you talking about? The freedom to make sure that any bit of enjoyment an audience member may receive from your work is correlated to a dollar value? No, you don't have that freedom. You actually have no control over your product... you can't control when people are humming a song in their head, or singing it to their girlfriend, or using a line from your great novel or winning screenplay, to hit it off with friends... All of this stuff is free--in and of itself... And I'm not talking about without cost (I'm not going to repeat that saying); I mean you can't exercise control over it, its inpact, or the value that whatever freedom or control there is will affect it's profitability. You have copyrights, sure. But that's the rights to distribute copies for profit, not the right to control how another free being may enjoy or not enjoy your "product."

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 20:26.

#30 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 11:59:45 PM

Sodajerk, do you really buy into every conspiracy theory and disestablishment thought? Not every artist has an amicable relationship with a record label, but just about every one of them that is doing well financially as an artist has the record label to thank for that. Independent artists still making money? That's the exception, not the rule, at least when it comes to a livable income. I know what you mean about fabricating the artist in the case of the Brittney Spears, N'Syncs, etc., but there is some great talent out there on the big labels, too.

It was a bit of a facetious remark, but as far as the 80s go, the mainstream (that's what I meant... comparing the current mainstream--which I thought was the group in question--to the 80s mainstream) was pretty disappointing--just like now--but you always had groups just outside that which offered something worthwhile... Sting/Police, Genesis, Rush, etc. But, the 80s mainstream was pretty ugly. You can't compare it to the mainstream of the 60s. However, that's my opinion. I don't think it will be remembered for the music, though... maybe the culture and hype surrounding it, but I doubt the music.

Anyways, that's besides the point. When it comes to freedom, we're not on the same page. It's analogous to me talking about the painting and you talking about the vision of the painting in someone's head. Obviously, no one can charge for a vision, but you can certainly charge for the painting. I can't copyright the particular way the air vibrates over a time period when I play my instrument, but if I capture it on a medium and sell that, I can copyright that. That is my product, and I have freedom to distribute the product. When did I ever say anything about attaching a dollar value to the mere enjoyment of the product? Where are you getting that from?

In my group's case, we never had any aim of "making it big" or anything like that. We played for fun and had a good time, and our trademark was that we were laid back and all about trying to make sure that everyone coming to see us had a good time as well. They never paid a cover charge to see us. BUT, if they wanted a CD, they should pay for it. It cost us quite a bit of $$$$$ to make it. Our "product" (if you will) at the club was a very different "product" than our CD. We were not trying to control how people enjoy our music or trying to get money from anyone that heard our tunes. We were, however, expecting that our CD would not be freely copied and freely distributed. It wasn't free to make it (that's for darn sure), and we have every right to charge for the sale of it. The customer agrees when they buy it as a copyrighted work that they are not going to copy it and redistribute those copies to every friend they know, unless they ask for and receive permission. If there are no laws to protect such free enterprise, then the capitalism that is a foundation of our country is in disrepair.

#31 By 143 (204.32.182.78) at 10/3/2002 12:08:52 AM

I Burn CD�s�
I can buy a book and read it to my friends but, music has to kept to myself?

#32 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/3/2002 12:12:23 AM

sodajerk, I think the first paragraph of section 107 is more applicable than the points following it.

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

As I understand it, fair use should generally be considered in this context. I'd argue that section 108 would also limit the reproduction of copyrightten works to personal use only. If it is distributed to anyone other than yourself, it seems to me to be a violation of section 108.

#33 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/3/2002 12:14:32 AM

don, you can listen to a CD (that you purchased) and listen to it with your friends.

Do you scan and OCR the books into an eBook format and send them to your friends?

#34 By 143 (199.35.150.9) at 10/3/2002 12:45:32 AM

The Music Mafia (RIAA) has a better lobbyist than we do.

darn.

#35 By 3339 (67.116.252.17) at 10/3/2002 2:09:33 AM

Oh, Jesus, I don't want to talk about conspiracy theories (which I didn't think I was, I was just speaking generally about the larger establishment... oh, and I was talking about whether you could sell 6 CDs or have 30 fans, but whatever... And I definitely don't wanna talk eighties... but Jeez, maybe I should say something here... YOU NAME THE MAINSTREAM!!!"Sting/Police, Genesis, Rush" Oh my! Jeez, when I think eighties I think birth of Punk, the birth of HipHop/Rap, the Peak and Fall of Disco, GlamRock, Hair Bands, did I say Punk?, the MTV/Visual/Dance generation of music (I call it) and so much other music that it actually is an amazing decade of music, even though it's not really my cup of tea most the time. Did I mention it was the birth of hip hop?

Anyway, that's my eighties music digression.

"If there are no laws to protect such free enterprise, then the capitalism that is a foundation of our country is in disrepair."

And I thought it was our bad taste in music that was responsible for our country's desrepair.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 03:04.

#36 By 3339 (67.116.252.17) at 10/3/2002 2:29:48 AM

Oh, and Bob, the 4 statements are in brief the four standards by which fair use is to be determined in all circumstances.

whether that be in academic, public, private/individual or whatever...

That's why I posted them. I don't know why people think the first paragraph of a legal ruling would be the thrust of a sweeping legal precedent... Bob, have you read the stuff we've posted about blank cassette sales, royalties, CD burning, private use, non-commercial (and still non-commercial does not = academic settings), Bob? Do you realize that their are other applications of fair use?

These are the principles of FAIR USE... That stuff in the first paragraph, the lawyers have no problem tossing around what has already been argued in court, and they want to protect. This is the important part: "... for purposes such as..."

God, in academic settings is where copyright law really gets viscious and hardcore--whether it be protection, violation, infringement, theft, etc... And lot's a fees and even royalties there too.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 02:35.

#37 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/3/2002 3:56:03 AM

Sodajerk, silly that I'm still up, but I can't let a response like yours slip through.... :)

As much as I really don't care to drag on the 80s tangent... The Police started as a punk group, fwiw, although maybe not "as punk" as a group like the Clash, but punk nonetheless. Rush only had glimpses of mainstream airplay, and Genesis, at least for the early part of the 80s, wasn't aiming for the mainstream. Unless we're talking about a different mainstream... but these groups aren't Flock of Seagulls or Poison or that type of thing. The 80s didn't give birth to either rap or hip hop... rap actually took flight in the Bronx during the mid to late 70s, and hip hop evolved from that. Most of the what the 80s contributed was started in the 70s, so I'm not sure if they qualify as 80s contributions... at any rate, maybe I have a more negative attitude towards the 80s because I tend to separate the sociological implications of the music scene from the music itself. Personally, I don't think that Flock of Seagulls, Poison, and even punk for the most part offered anything new in the 80s in music terms... most of what they did was about attitude and the culture, not the music.

We have a penchant for getting off tangent together (and I take blame for a good portion), but my point remains this--we need to protect the ability to sell CDs, somehow. There is no question that the ease of file sharing, CD burners, and compression formats such as mp3 have made it a reality that some have obtained copyrighted material illegally, and at the expense of would-be CD sales. The power of today's technology is fantastic, but if it is used to harm the well-being of another, even if unintentional, something needs to be done to minimize that potential of harm or remove it if possible and reasonable.

#38 By 1124 (165.170.128.68) at 10/3/2002 9:43:20 AM

Their are a couple of new bills in congress that would help in clearing up the fairuse issue.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4193841.htm

#39 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 9:58:15 PM