Internet Explorer

You quoted selectively from the link you provided to the definition of "spyware "; the full text is as follows:-

IE does not relay information either to MS or to any other third party. It is NOT spyware!

You wrote:

In the context of this thread, the meaning is, methinks, actually quite important. People may well be influenced by what they read in threads such as these and it should, therefore, be made clear to them that your interpretation of the word (which would appear to be that any application which stores information locally in (what you consider to be) an obscure location is "spyware" irrespective of whether or not that information is relayed to any third party) is very much non-standard.

Neither. I was referring to those people (such as the original artist) who have economic or moral rights over a piece of work.

DRM protects the interests of anybody who has rights in relation to a piece of work; not just "huge mega rich companys (sic) ". DRM is simply a form of encryption intended to protect those rights; it's not a mechanism to "keep a tab on whatever we do ".

No? So what exactly did you do with Napster and AudioGalaxy? If it was the case that you were using these applications to infringe copy, then you were indeed committing an offence and could, upon summary conviction, have been given a hefty fine or sentenced to a spell of up to two years in the chokey (subject, of course, to the jurisdication in which you live) or both.

 

Are you sure? Truth is, nobody outside Redmond knows what they do with this data. Do you think they make the files for fun. I can't prove that they do send them back home. They certainly do have the ability to. But this type of behavior is more suspicious that I would like anything on my computer to be.

According to the definitions of spyware on whatis.techtarget.com, inews.webopedia.com, and www.netlingo.com, IE is spyware. If this is all about who is right who is wrong, maybe it is urgent that we have a perfect definition of the word 'spyware'. And then we could look up its meaning in every dictionary that listed it, jjot down all the meanings and then compute out what percentage of them IE falls under and so on. But *nobody* wants to read thet, especially not me.

The original artist has no say whatsoever in what happens to the content. They get paid their incredibly small royalties by the record labels and thats all. The artists themselves are, in general, not the copyright holders. The record labels are. The record labels have a history of scamming the artists. They are the ones who work with Microsoft in getting this DRM put into the WMP. And they will control it.

I have never used the services on either of these sites. These companys were both shut down by the RIAA. They were doing nothing at all illegal, but their services did make it easy for people to exchange copyrighted materials. Both Napster and Audiogalaxy did what they could to prevent this, but the RIAA never really gave them a chance to do so. They use civil suits, not criminal, to sue them out of existance. Also, the RIAA set up royalty rates for audio webcasters that are more than 100% of revenues. This kind of dirty business is supported by WMP. Its not supposed to be a mechanism to keep a tab on whatever we do, but that is what it ends up doing. Check out WMP's new privacy policy if you don't believe me. Either way, I simply don't like the idea of my software telling me what I can and can't see. I think I should be the one to make that decision. I don't gain anything from WMPs rights management. Neither do you and neither do the artists. Only the copyright holders who happen to be record label owners who are already multi billionairs. I don't think they need any more of my money. An amount of copyright enforcement is necessary, its just how draconian and strictly enforced it is that bugs me. People are guilty until proven innocent.

There is a bill being pushed through congress as we speak making it even harsher. A hefty fine of up to 50000$ and 5 years in prison for sending an MP3 illegally. Check this link if you don't believe me. This puts people who give non copyrighted MP3s away in the same category as convicted rapists, and armed robbers. Check this link for more info (and remember MS is the driving force behine TCPA)

BDBD

 

My last post in this thread

Internet Explorer

IE does not relay information to MS and there is no reliable body which asserts that it does! As I have stated previously in this thread, network analysis tools can be used to prove (conclusively) that IE does not behave in the manner which you suggest.

DRM

Turn back the clock to when Daizy had pigtails, telnet was more popular than WWW, there were less than one thousand web sites, Nutscrape (Mosaic) was the best browser and data flowed along telephone lines at a snail’s pace and you have arrived at a time when, for obvious reasons, there was no need for DRM.

Things have, however, changed and there is now a clear need for mechanisms to enhance rights protection. In fact, as more people switch to high speed connections and more companies seek make a greater range of media available online, it is likely that rights protection shall become an ever more integral part of future developments. The internet used to be a playground for a few; it’s now a market-place for many. DRM is simply a part of the inevitable trend towards commercialisation and provides for online media to be protected from copy infringement in the same way that static media is currently protected.

Of course, DRM (and similar technologies) will eventually result in people having to pay for what they were previously able to (illegally) obtain free of charge. The technologies are not, therefore, popular with all!

Napster et al provided a mechanism which enabled "online shoplifting" and to try to justify their use as being a part of some Robin Hood style battle against the big bad media industry is laughable. It’s akin to suggesting that it’s OK to steal a CD from a shop if you think the price is too high.

DRM obviously requires that a degree of personal information is revealed. So does using a credit card to buy a CD from a shop. It’s not exactly what most people would call an invasion of their privacy.