Lionel Chollet's Profile

  • May 09, 2006
  • 23
  • 0

Latest comments made by: Lionel Chollet

  • Gotta get used to it.
    Lionel Chollet had this to say on Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 23
    Take the No Windows-Booting Pledge
  • And even less so if it's kool-aid. (Beeblebrox approved.) ;-)
    Lionel Chollet had this to say on Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 23
    Take the No Windows-Booting Pledge
  • Lionel Chollet had this to say on Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 23
    Boot Camp: Apple's Insanely Bad Idea
  • Taking a pick would be sort of a basic instinct.
    Lionel Chollet had this to say on Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 23
    Inside Boot Camp
  • Now you don't really want Hell to freeze over, do you? ;-)
    Lionel Chollet had this to say on Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 23
    Inside Boot Camp
  • Mobile > WWDC = Worldwide Developers' Conference. It's an annual gathering of Mac developers.
  • «I’d file this one under “karma.”» --- Good one, Beeblebrox. :-)
  • What would be great is to get rid of those DRM systems altogether. But i fear that, for some reasons, it won't happen. What we may hope is that we'll be allowed to chose the DRM system that's the least detrimental to the authors and copyright holders as well as to the users. I personnally think that, for the time being, FairPlay is the most sensible DRM system out there. Your mileage may vary. But not that much. I'm afraid that demanding that all DRM systems be compatible with one another will lead to enforce the "lowest proprietary denominator"... and a better DRM system (i.e. which give users more respect and more flexibility) will be prevented to emerge until a new law is passed, or until all the DRM vendors agree to interoperate with the newcomer. (Besides, FairPlay already permits compatibility, since its terms allow you to burn your iTMS tracks on an audio-CD, so you can play your music on your device of choice. So this French bill about compatibility was not absolutely necessary, in my opinion.) Moreover, i fear that once the existing DRM systems will be compatible, the DRM exception will become the rule -- "What? You want DRM-free audio, you say? But why would you want that, since all systems are now compatible? Unless you're a pirate?"... You see what i mean. But consumers don't like their DRM too tight... And once the DRM lock-in will be standardized, people might try to avoid it, resorting to either P2P networks or those "gray market" stores, such as allofmp3. This risk is, emphatically, dubbed "state-sponsored piracy" by some Apple spokesperson... As for competition, well... It would be nice to have some, indeed. But competition demands more than a new law -- it would take some smart competitors, for a change, and not the dumbasses we see crying in agony now. As i said, if they wanted a bigger slice of the pie, why didn't they think of making a deal with the record labels? Why didn't they think of making some nifty music players, that people want to use -- and to show? Why didn't they think of building a nice store from which people actually want to buy stuff? Why didn't they think of using sensible DRM terms? Why didn't they think of using a worthy audio format? And shortly after they began to realize the power of Apple's offering, why didn't they try again, better? Why didn't they stand up and fight? Actually, these whiners came into that business because they thought there would be no real competition. It had to be an easy ride: they used the Microsoft solutions, they could count on the huge Windows user-base, and the only opposition they were facing was that tiny-market-share snobbish over-priced-computer maker from California that everybody laughed at... Well, tough luck. When all is said and done, either Apple will comply with the new law, and they'll still completely dominate both the online-store and PMP markets, no matter how "compatible" they will be -- or they'll leave... The situation would then reverse back to normality: crap for everyone -- just kidding...
  • The best things in life are seldom free, except for love and iPod Shuffles -- but it's as they both are likely to be discontinued any time.
  • — Beeblebrox (insisting on calling circumvention what is not): "That’s semantics." It's not semantics -- i think you know it's just dialectics.   — Beeblebrox: "The point is that you are removing Apple’s DRM." FairPlay files remain unchanged. The ability to make a limited number of copies of them, in an open audio format, and for non-copyright-infringing personal use, is absolutely compliant with the terms of Apple's DRM, which have been agreed to by the copyright holders -- and you may think these people are not stupid when it comes to protecting their own interest. — Beeblebrox: "It’s easy to do technically and then play your music on other devices or rip it to a new device." Yes, it's actually easy to do. And --as of now, anyway-- it is legitimate, too. — Beeblebrox: "And you’re rather conspicuously avoiding my main question. Why would Apple make the argument that forcing them to share DRM would lead to piracy when they KNOW it’s not true?" I'm not an Apple spokesman. And i don't think the people at Apple know anything very accurate about what the future will actually be. They are as clueless as you and i are, for that matter. — Beeblebrox: "Why would they refuse to license their DRM ...?" Why would they heartily accept to do so at once? You know, sometimes it almost seems like Apple is a for-profit organization --how shocking!-- trying to promote their own products and their own views about business. But in the end, should a law uncomplacent to Apple be passed --and enforced-- on the subject of interoperability, either they'll comply, or they'll take their marbles and go. — Beeblebrox: "... when it’s so easy for the consumer to remove it anyway?" Yes, it's easy, and legitimate for personal use. Don't fear to do it. It's not like you didn't pay for the songs. — Beeblebrox: "There is only one answer to this question and it paints an ugly picture of Apple." Hehe. It is always been hard to elaborate about conceptual art... — Beeblebrox: " to elaborate?  Is any Apple-drone apologist actually capable of making any kind of argument about anything at all?" You talkin' to me?... You talkin' to me!?! ;-) — Beeblebrox: "You yourself claim that Apple’s DRM is easy to remove." Well, yes, it's not like i'd have to circumvent something, you know. — Beeblebrox: "Just burn a CD then play it on anything you want." I'm glad that you eventually got to know something about the iTMS and FairPlay. — Beeblebrox: "It’s then a relatively simple matter of ripping it to another player ..." I guess it could be considered a convenient --and already existent-- mean of interoperability. — Beeblebrox: "... or sharing it online." As for that, don't!!! You'd go to freakin' jail! — Beeblebrox: "Fairplay does NOTHING to prevent piracy. Nothing whatsoever." I agree that's kind of sad. That may be the reason why the record labels did not sign a distribution contract with Apple, did they? And more than a billion songs never were purchased online at the iTMS. Or were they? — Beeblebrox: "And forcing them to license it would not even remotely enable piracy. In fact, one could argue that it would reduce it." Time will tell. In a true democracy, anyone is always able to argue anything. No one even has to actually know something about it. — Beeblebrox: "So when Apple claims that forcing them to share Fairplay would result in state-sponsored piracy, they are LYING, and they know they are LYING." Apple is being bad, bad, BAD! — Beeblebrox: "Piracy has gone down because of the ease of use and relative low cost of songs on iTMS." To that i'll respond NOTHING. Nothing whatsoever. — Beeblebrox: "What WOULD cause more piracy is Apple pulling out of the French market altogether, which is what Apple is most likely to do." Beeblebrox knows, because he's been there before --the croissants were nice. — Beeblebrox: "So again, why would Apple fight to hard to keep from having to licence Fairplay?" Confined in obscurity, one is reduced to make the darkest conjectures. — Beeblebrox: "And why use DRM at all if it’s so easy to defeat? The answer to the second question is easy.  They are forced to include DRM in order to make deals with the record labels.  But if including DRM is a simple matter of capitulation to the labels, why the refusal to license it?  If Apple is a reluctant participant in DRM and only does so to satisfy the RIAA so that Apple can bring music listening pleasure to millions of fans, why not share Fairplay and let others do the same?" Why eat your cake instead of giving it away?! I'll tell you why... wait, you already know why. I can recognize a human being when i see one. — Beeblebrox: "It doens’t prevent piracy and doesn’t actually protect the music." At least it doesn't protect people from buying music and listening to it. By the way, have you tried that "burn to disc" feature that comes with FairPlay's DRM? Sure, you'd better not use it to share your music on P2P networks, as you'd go into big trouble, but if you only wanted to be able to listen to the songs you've bought, on a device of yours, it certainly is a kind and sensible attention. — Beeblebrox: "The reason why is because Apple knows that the other online stores have to have DRM too.  Like Apple, they can’t make deals with the labels unless they protect them.  And if they can’t use Fairplay, they have to come up with their own incompatible system.  Most of them use Microsoft’s PFS DRM.  And while MS might be a big player in the OS market, it has neither a player or a store to compete with Apple." That's a shame. Let's hope they'll come up with something better next time. — Beeblebrox: "The bottom line is that Apple has a monopoly on the market and likes it that way." This is amazing, indeed. — Beeblebrox: "As Oskar points out, they will use whatever means necessary, including their market share, to keep other companies from competing." What's funny is that, so far, it hasn't prevented other companies to keep trying to "compete", but with rows after rows of ever inferior products, services, and DRM terms. Talk about a seamless experience in mediocrity... — Beeblebrox: "It’s not about quality. It’s not about being the best." In the end, i myself wonder what all this fuss is about... — Beeblebrox: "It’s about getting to the top and staying there, even if you have to lie, cheat, and bully." Wait, up until now, to achieve supreme dominance, realize that Apple only had to lie--er, i mean, use marketing speech--, and has not yet resorted to the nastier behaviors you mention... It tells a lot about the quality (or lack thereof) of their competitors. Why should such a bunch of corporate losers have to be governmentally protected from the unbuying wrath of the market? Besides, what are they poor souls sobbing about? Can't they manage to be alive and well with a mere 5% marketshare? It's certainly feasible: look at Apple in the computer industry. If you are concerned about DRM lock-in, and it is an understandable concern, buy DRM-free music (AIFF, WAVE, MP3, or unprotected AAC--iTunes and the iPod can play them too, by the way). If you are not so concerned about the DRM issue, but you prefer to buy your DRM-laden music from an online store other thant the iTMS, you are free to do so--in many cases, you'll have to use a computer running Windows, though--which, arguably, is not a real problem for the computing majority. If you want to use a portable music player other than an iPod, you are free to do so--but beware you'll seem kind of strange to most people in the streets. If you want to play your iTMS tunes on one of these alternative PMPs (yes, you can still find some of them in some places, if you look carefully), well, do you remember that legitimate procedure in iTunes involving a "burn to disc" button?... If you want to build a business comparable in power to that of Apple: first, make a good-looking player, with a good interface, that supports a lot of audio formats; then make a good-looking store, with a good interface, and get the support and agreement of a majority of record labels, to sell a wide variety of tunes, protected with sensible DRM, at a sensible price; above all, be sure to make the process a seamless and enjoyable experience; then advertize a bit about the whole thing, and you're set to success. It's easy. It's not like it's never been done before.
  • You are wrong on so many levels...
  • And btw, I don't know why you persist calling it circumvention when it is absolutely not. It is just plain exercise of the rights granted to us users.
  • They are --for the moment-- saying that if you can, you can. DRM systems are just that: systems to digitally manage rights. The rights may vary, according to the DRM system.
  • They are talking about the copying and backing-up of "physical" music CDs, the ones you may purchase in "physical stores". They stated that some legal --and agreed-to by the copyright holders-- DRM systems, such as the Apple FairPlay technolology, allow you to make copies of your legally acquired digital music. So backing up your iTMS music to CDs is perfectly legal. I'm neither defending nor attacking this state of fact. It may change in the future --who knows?--, but as of now, this is how it is: You Americans still have the right to select FairPlay tracks in iTunes and click "Burn to disk". Enjoy !
  • From what i have read in this Ars Technica article, the "content-related industry" is saying that making copies of CDs should not be considered fair use, but it is not saying that backing up one's legally purchased digital music onto audio-CDs should be deemed illegal. Quote from the "content-related industry" joint-reply to the triennal review of the effectiveness of the DMCA (emphasis mine): "Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying."