mac windows gmail pic

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:58:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

nonsense.

In article , Jonathan N. Little
wrote:
ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

car interiors, no matter what make, are an oddly shaped mix of
reflective glass and absorbent fabric, with speakers typically pointing
at the driver's feet or chest, the driver sitting off-center, and along
with engine noise (for ice), road noise and traffic noise, makes for a
very bad listening environment.

high quality audio content is wasted.


Hmmm I find it amazing that *you* can be the arbiter of *his*
aesthetics. Are you next going to tell him what music he must like, what
color should be his favorite, etc.?

i'm not arbitrating anything nor does it have anything to do with
aesthetics or choice of music.

the interior of a car is one of the worst places to listen to audio for
the reasons i listed.

So typical for Apple fanboys of a company that originally tried to buck
conformity, (think 1984 campaign), now compels conformity...

it has nothing to do with apple either.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

nonsense.

if you think it's wrong, explain *why*, with references.

otherwise, my point stands.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:38:02 -0400, nospam
wrote:

the interior of a car is one of the worst places to listen to audio for
the reasons i listed.

Have you ever been in a car? If yes, you know your position is complete
nonsense. Try rolling up the windows. I have more tips, but if you've
never been in a car they won't make much sense to you.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:38:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

nonsense.

if you think it's wrong, explain *why*, with references.

otherwise, my point stands.

You don't have a point. All you have is a nonsense opinion. One of the
worst places to listen to music? You've never been in a car.

In article ,
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote:

nospam wrote:

....

high quality audio content is wasted.


Hmmm I find it amazing that *you* can be the arbiter of *his*
aesthetics.

Jonathan, please meet nospam,

nospam, Jonathan.

--
dorayme

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

nonsense.

if you think it's wrong, explain *why*, with references.

otherwise, my point stands.

You don't have a point. All you have is a nonsense opinion. One of the
worst places to listen to music? You've never been in a car.

nothing nonsense about it.

as i said, if you disagree, explain why and back it up. until then, my
point stands.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

the interior of a car is one of the worst places to listen to audio for
the reasons i listed.

Have you ever been in a car? If yes, you know your position is complete
nonsense. Try rolling up the windows. I have more tips, but if you've
never been in a car they won't make much sense to you.

insults means you have nothing.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so high
quality audio files are not needed.

That says more about your car than about cars in general.

absolutely wrong.

nonsense.

if you think it's wrong, explain *why*, with references.

otherwise, my point stands.

You don't have a point. All you have is a nonsense opinion. One of the
worst places to listen to music? You've never been in a car.

nothing nonsense about it.

as i said, if you disagree, explain why and back it up. until then, my
point stands.
Depends on the car and the sound system. One of our cars, a '91 Taurus,
with stock system, was one of the best places ever to listen to music.

Our 2006 Ford Escape however was terrible. Barely adequate for news.

i'm talking about vehicle acoustics, not individual sound systems which
may have been tuned to overcome the problems.

as i said, a vehicle is an odd shaped mix of reflective glass and
absorbent fabric, the speakers are small and not in good places
(usually aimed at the driver's feet instead of their ears), the driver
is off-center and there's lots of engine & road noise.

that's far from ideal. very far.

compare that to a typical home, where it's normally quiet and the
speakers, which are usually much bigger than is practical in a vehicle,
can be placed wherever they need to be and aimed as needed.

it's certainly possible to design a sound system to overcome the
problems inherent in a vehicle, and some systems do that, but that only
masks the problems, not eliminate it. it also is not all that cheap to
do that.

dorayme

Tue, 11 Jul 2017 23:40:32 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In article ,
"David B." wrote:

Sadly, Dustin J. Cook (aka Diesel) *I* know that what you do *IS*
illegal and - as I've told you many times - as you will not stop
your illegal activity, you WILL be going to prison to pay for
your crimes.

You mean like with Hillary as promised by that beautiful
personality, Donald?


ROFLMFAO!


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

'We are Microsoft. Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated.'

Char Jackson
Wed, 12 Jul 2017
14:14:12 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 05:13:50 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

While Winamp doesn't keep a favorites/rating system, times tracks
been played, how often, when it was last played, other software
players do. Amarok is one such player. It even goes so far as to
try and bring up the song lyrics, if you want to read them as it
plays the track.

Winamp also has a lyrics plugin that brings up lyrics when a song
plays. That's one of its features I like best.




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Q: Why can't you have a Jewish Morris dancer?
A: Because you have to be a complete prick to be a Morris dancer.

nospam
Wed, 12 Jul 2017
16:38:08 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In article
IpP01lgp.8r6YbE23
yhg1T Ln05, Diesel wrote:

Actually, I don't. And, neither do you. Not only can I not
read anothers mind, I have no access to their
hardware/software to confirm/deny your assumption. Which as I
wrote previously, is what you're doing.

it's very obvious what he is doing.

So you're a mind reader? I'm not.

what you're not is observant.

Actually, I am. Unlike you thought, I don't assume things without
evidence.

there's no point in using an ipod to share data files when a
usb stick would be easier, or just connect directly.

Who said anything about them being data files? They could be
copyleft files for all you or I knows. IE: he has permission
to share them and/or make all the copies he wants.

copyleft files are data files.

Technically speaking, everything is a 'data' file as it relates
to a PC. Some also contain executable code mind you, but, why
confuse things further for you.

i'm not confused at all and knock off the attitude.

You certainly do appear to be confused, and, there's no attitude
present with my post. Perhaps you don't appreciate being written to
in the manner in which you choose to write? If that's the case,
changing your writing 'style' might yield the results you seem to
think you have the right to demand of me.

claiming that a song or app is a data file doesn't get you off the
hook for pirating it.

I didn't say it did...

you're arguing just to argue.

That's what you've been doing for awhile now. You're free to stop
whenever you like.

nope. what i've been doing is correcting your nonsensical babble.

ROFL. If that line of thinking helps you to justify your own
attitude, feel free to continue then.

Without knowing what's on those ipods, it's hard to say whether
he has permission or not. For all either of us knows, they're
public domain recordings.

if they're public domain, then there's no need to share it from an
ipod. just download it directly.

Perhaps he finds it easier/quicker to pull them from an ipod that
already has the material vs having to go hunt it down for himself?

he has also admitted he goes to the library to steal music, and
using *their* computers too.

You're using the wrong terminology, again. Stealing isn't the
same thing as Copyright infringement. If that's what he's
actually doing when he goes to the library.

i'm *well* aware of the difference.

So you'll be using the proper terminology, when?

what he does is illegal. end of story.

I don't know that, and, neither do you.

you're trying to justify piracy. you are a scumbag.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. And, your personal attacks have no
value to me. By having to resort to them, it indicates you've
already lost the 'debate'; not that one was under way.

that's not a personal attack. it's a statement of fact.

scumbag is a personal attack. It seems that manners wasn't taught to
you at an early age.

someone who does not respect other's ip, particularly one who
plays word games to make excuses for doing, it is a scumbag.

I'm not the one who's playing word games. That would be you. And,
amusingly, you actually think you're good at it. You aren't.

meanwhile, your posts are overflowing with attacks, such as:
why confuse things further for you.
You do know how to find MIDs right?

which means *you* lost the debate.

That's an observation, not a personal attack. You do know the
difference, right?

Cite MID where I actually wrote that. I suspect you won't be
able to do so. I wrote that my mp3 player was non audio file
friendly, but, I said nothing of the ipod concerning that.

yes you did. stop lying.

Provide MID of my stating that and I'll eat my words. You do know
how to find MIDs right?

knock off the attitude.

You accused me of lying about what I wrote. I asked you to provide an
MID proving your claim is accurate. No attitude was implied,
intended, or provided by doing so. Do you understand the question I
asked of you? If you do, post the MID supporting your accusation.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Of all the people I've met you're certainly one of them

Lewis
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:13:24 GMT
in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

Your own personal opinion. One I do not share.

It is not opinion, it is demonstrable fact. If linux on the
desktop was usable, billions of people would be using it, not a
few linux apologists claiming that "Next year is the year of Linux
on the Desktop" for he last 20 years.

I'm not a linux apologist, and, it's quite usable for not only
myself, but many others I know online and in person. We aren't your
average end user though, so that may have something to do with it.

If you want a Unix with a usable GUI the only option is macOS
(neé OS X) because only Apple had the resources to make a
really usable UI over the top of a Unix foundation. Course, it's
not Linux, it's BSD, but BSD is better than Linux anyway since
it has less GPL3 pollution.

I don't agree with you concerning Apples idea of a GUI.

It doesn't matter if you do or not. It is a usable GUI (unlike any
desktop linux which is only usable by someone well-versed in
Linux). It is Unix. I can do *ANYTHING* on my Mac that you can do
on your linux machine, and anything[*] you can do on your wintendo
machine, and many many more things.

[*] except play some high-end games.

It's a usable gui to you and those who enjoy apple products. As far
as anything goes, that depends on if you're a coder, AND, how good of
a coder you are. I have full access to the hardware on these
machines, right down to the firmware and some microcode. Does your
mac allow you that level of access, or is it denied to you, because
Apple doesn't think you'd ever need or want it?

The gaming market is a bit more than a niche market, and, I don't see
too many people flocking to Apple to play video games.




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.

nospam
Tue, 11 Jul 2017
15:47:18 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:

Yes it is. For initial setup, firmware updates, etc.


As of iOS 5, you don't need iTunes to update or activate your
iOS device.

If it works for you, great. It just doesn't work for me. Perhaps
it was the funky battery that wasn't so friendly to replace that
turned me off, or the proprietary nature of the hardware. Hard to
say.

bull****.

Nothing I wrote is bull****. Apples non friendly battery replacement
issues with media players isn't a secret.

it's actually very easy to say, because you hate apple and never
even considered an ipod or ios device.

You continue to claim I hate Apple, but, provide no actual evidence
to support the claim. While I wouldn't purchase any of their
products, I do have friends/family who have, so I have had the
pleasure/misfortune of having to deal with those devices; which is
what I base my personal opinions of them on.

plus, the battery will outlast the device anyway. non-issue.

I'm glad you think batteries are perfect and when it won't charge
anymore, the rest of the device must be useless, but, that's not
necessarily the case.




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

If at first we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.

nospam
Wed, 12 Jul 2017
16:38:10 GMT in alt.comp.os.windows-10, wrote:

ok, but a car is one of the worst places to listen to music, so
high quality audio files are not needed.

That depends on your sound system and interior...

And, on occasion, depending on the jobsite I'm working at, the
portable dewalt stereo I use also has aux ports. Commercial free
tunes, provided via my portable player. No headphones necessary.

no need for high quality audio there either.

Personal choice. I like high quality.

At night time, I might also want to drift off and snooze to some
good music. I have external speakers for that too, or, I could
fire up a laptop and tie that in, instead. But, it's quicker just
to tie the player into it.

no need for high quality audio there either.

Again, personal choice. I like being able to hear each instrument.
Especially acoustic works.

google, microsoft, adobe and many others are all moving beyond the
limits of the file system. it's long overdue. direct file system
access is primitive, restrictive and is eventually going away.
it's no longer needed because much better options exist, except in
very specific cases, such as those who are developing the
operating system itself.

Well, some of us like to know exactly where our files are located and
what's actually inside of them. I can't help that others do not.
That's their own personal choice. I realize that some people would
like to see a computer dumbed down to the point of resembling a small
appliance, but, that's not what a desktop/tower is. I'd like to see
those people forced to take some IT classes, instead.

either you've very confused or it's just another one of your
diversions to make it look like you know more than you actually
do.

*yawn* You seem to have great difficulty accepting the fact that you
aren't the smartest one here concerning IT...

I said nothing of the sort. I've stated numerous times that I
don't use Itunes and why. It might work perfectly most of the
time when used on Apple devices, but Windows is a different
story.

nonsense.

itunes works perfectly fine on windows.

Except when it doesn't.

My player isn't internet/network aware on it's own, unlike your
Apple products. It's actually another reason I purchased the one
I did. I didn't *want* to use those features as I have no real
use for them. I'm not so lazy that I can't do what itunes offers
aside from music playback/downloading myself. OTH, I'm not saying
that those of you who use the wifi/sync features are lazy in and
of itself.

you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of all things apple.

ipods are *not* internet aware and *cannot* connect to the
internet. period.

the lone exception is the ipod touch, which is an ipod only by
name.

Do you contradict yourself often, or, just when having to answer
posts written by me? Do I make you that nervous? Worried you're going
to be caught for being the bull****ter I suspect many already know
you to be? I'm not here to do that to you.

I really don't care about the extra fluff itunes offers to do.
It's not necessary for me.

that's fine, but the vast majority wants more than winamp.

I'm glad I have your permission to not care. It was super important
to me.

Winamp has a kickass equalizer and supports
3rd party code for most of the features it has, you can do more
than 'skin' it if you can write code capable of calling APIs.
Most HLL languages will do that, and, win32 asm certainly will.

big deal. itunes supports plugins and there are a whole slew of
them available.

most people *listen* to their music, not fuss with their player.

They'd rather fuss with itunes instead of the player, right?

Like I wrote previously, Itunes tries to be everything including
the kitchen sink, and I don't need that and don't like programs
that are written like that, generally speaking. I prefer programs
that do a few things and do them well, without interfering with
other programs and/or installing a pile of modules that i'll
never use. A complete itunes install on Windows makes tons of
registry entries and tosses files all over the place. It's hardly
what you'd call a portable app.

big deal. although the registry is a stupid idea, there's nothing
inherently wrong with registry entries when done properly.

yet it's perfectly okay to load modules (without my explicit
permission) and toss what amounts to junk all over my machine?

what matters is what the app can *do* for the user.

It serves no useful purpose for this user.

I'm old school. Back when I learned to code, everything was a
'portable' app. You didn't make messes and/or create dependency
hell issues for yourself or the system administrator. Your
program could easily be transferred to another machine simply by
copying your directory (folder these days) contents over, if you
actually required your own directory/folder. For many of my
console apps, they all reside in a central location that's in the
path environment variable. If they do have any .cfg files
associated, they know to look in the directory their being
executed from first, unless one was specified on the command
line.

portable apps have their place but they're also very limiting.

How is a portable app limiting? Do you even understand what I wrote?

Windows turned things around and suggested (in fact encouraged)
programmers to use installers and toss dlls specific to their
software into the Windows folders, potentially overwriting an
'older' common dll that other programs might infact rely on. Most
uncool.

windows is not an example of how to write an os and what windows
does is not something to use as an example, other than what *not*
to do.

On that, We agree.

i do, but what you're missing is that portable apps are not the
solution to everything.

Although I didn't say they were, there's really no need to aside from
poor OS design choices to require 'installation', either.

It doesn't offend me.

apparently it does because you keep trolling with anti-apple
garbage.

I'm not trolling with anything. I'm not an Apple hater nor a
fanboy. My dislike for them dates back to the original Apple
computers with the green screen. I didn't much care for them
then, nor do I really care much for them now. The imagewriter
(remember those?) wasn't impressive to me when it came on the
market either. Imo, I had a better printer on my coco at home.
Which was at the time, comparable to the Apple machine connected
to the Imagewriter.

nonsense. if you think a coco computer with some mystery unnamed
printer was somehow comparable, then you're a lost cause.

I think the coco3 was more than comparable to an equ Apple of the
same genre. As for the printer, it was a 24pin dot matrix. Vastly
superior in print quality as well as speed to the image writer.

you probably were using text mode.

I was printing in graphics mode, actually.

in other words, to get basic functionality you have to have
multiple players and then keep everything in sync. even worse.

I have a LAN, so, technically any device on it can play the music. I
suppose each computer if you want to dumb it down that far is a
'player'

I don't know if Itunes does much for lyrics, I haven't installed
it intentionally in years. And, the last time I did was to help a
friend who bought a used ipod that wasn't independent of PC. It
required itunes to initialize it and load tracks to play. I
didn't appreciate having to wait several minutes for itunes to
create a library with the collection of music available in one
share, let alone this entire network and/or the 'remote' shares
that actually point to other LANs run by friends and associates.
Drag and drop and/or copy and paste would have been faster in
that case. I could have already started loading his ipod in the
time Itunes was still 'creating' a database for me.

user error.

Not according to the instructions found at apple.com. I didn't design
the ****ty player device, Apple did.

On an apple, that might work quite nicely for
some. For Windows/*nix (that isn't running on Apple native
hardware and doesn't have the closed source Apple tweaks applied)
, not so well in some cases.

absolutely wrong. there are no 'apple tweaks applied'

Umm, your apple isn't running a native UNIX OS. It's using a heavily
modified and closed source varient.

do you just make this **** up as you go along or what?

I was about to ask you the same question, but, I already know the
answer...

Although Apple's OS is based on BSD, Apples
version itself is closed source and proprietary, despite being
based on a well known MONSTER of an Operating system. Much like
Apples own hardware.

users don't give a **** whether it's open source or not. they're
not going to be modifying anything.

Correction: Some? apple users don't give a **** and have no idea what
we're discussing.

Apple makes 'great' code for use on their own hardware, but, they
seem to take a different view for QC checks when the software is
ported for use on Windows. It's almost as if they'd prefer you
use their stuff on their own, overpriced (imo) closed proprietary
hardware instead of the PC platform which is not, and, has never
really been, closed source. PC is an open architecture
environment. It's always been friendly in that respect. Unlike
Apple. Even the Apple II wasn't 'geek' friendly if you wanted to
have a peek under the hood and/or make changes to it's hardware
without Apples blessing.

complete utter nonsense.

Nope.

you really do make this **** up as you go along.

Nope.

The law is a bit more specific than that. A certain percentage of
material must be present for it to even technically be a 'copy'
of anothers work.

absolutely false.

Absolutely true. Go ahead, check it out for yourself.

there is *no* minimum percentage or amount for something to be
infringing.

Yes, actually, there is.

By technical people on both sides of the fence
as well as a judge who's uptodate on technology and all three
parties understand the law as it relates and exactly how the
compression codec used works. IE: what isn't present in the so
called copy vs what is still present. It could be an interesting
result.

complete nonsense.

I disagree.

claiming that a compressed copy of a song is different enough from
an original such that it's not a true copy and therefore
non-infringing is utterly ludicrous.

It can't very well be a true copy if only (on average with mp3) 10%
of the original material is even present. Do you understand what a
true copy even is?

It still boggles my mind that Apple in all it's genius (sarcasm)
forgoed a valid and useful option that's been present on PC
optical drives for years. A phsyically manual way of opening the
tray without having to teardown the drive and/or computer the
drive is installed in.

once again, you demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are about all
things apple.

Nope. I remember when the Sony copy protection crap was 'new' and
what happened to some mac computers that had the misfortune of a user
inserting one of those audio cds into it.

apple switched to slot drives long ago so there's no tray, but
regardless, it's trivial to eject a stuck disc. there is no need
to disassemble the computer to do so.

If you can't boot the machine, you can't ask the OS to eject the
disc. You have no manual override option. PC optical drives have for
a long long time.

i'm only concerned with usa law, which is where i live and where
you live and where most people reading this thread live (but not
all).

You shouldn't be pleased with Disneys lobbying efforts, then. It
harms us all.

IE: copyright
infringement isn't the same thing as stealing. Stealing deprives
you of the material I stole from you. You don't have it anymore.
The terms are different and have different meanings for a very
specific reason. If I copy a cd, but, you still have the
original, I can't very well have stolen it from you. You STILL
HAVE IT.

i'm *well* aware of the difference.

Based on your post, that doesn't seem to have been the case.

it does not matter nor does it change anything. it's just another
one of your silly little diversions to justify your illicit
activities.

It does matter. You accused me of stealing when infact, I do not.

I don't steal and I've made no efforts to justify stealing from
anyone. You're using the wrong terminology to describe what I
might do from time to time.

again, this isn't a courtroom.

Nobody said it was.

it's commonly called stealing

Only by those ignorant of the difference.

both are illegal and you just admitted you break the law, exactly
as i thought.

I've admitted nothing of the sort. You seem to be more than confused
and a bit off on your trolling game jumping to conclusions so
quickly.

after a couple of years, the record companies realized that apple
was correct about not needing drm, so they relaxed their stance
and allowed apple (and others) to sell drm-free music.

Others were already selling drm free music (and giving it away,
legally) long before Apples itunes store.

had there never been an itunes store, they'd still be thinking drm
was required.

You give apple far too much credit.

and, even though you seem to love Apple and
worship the ground their people walk on, it makes no difference.

i don't worship anything.

You seem to.

you, on the other hand, hate apple so much that you make up ****
just to bash.

More unfounded assumptions. I don't hate apple, as I've told you,
before. Dislike is not the same as hate.

Only certain editions of Windows suffer from MS
version of drm, in a manner of speaking.

'in a manner of speaking' ??

Yep. Win2k and down have no DRM. Windows XP has a vlk edition
which negates product activation, outright. So no DRM on vlk
edition either. You don't seem to know much about Windows...
Perhaps you're confused on what DRM actually is?

i'm not confused at all and knock off the attitude.

I'd have to disagree with you. Your question clearly indicates you
had no idea. You'd do well to take your own advice concerning
attitude. You've had one with me since we began discussions.

win2k and certainly xp are useless in 2017 and actually are very
risky to use at all.

Do you think that no longer supported automatically makes it
insecure? It doesn't. Neither are useless in 2017, as they are still
used for dedicated machines doing specific tasks with software that
wasn't intended to be ran on later editions of Windows.

you obviously pirate windows and no doubt pirated the apps you
use as well.

No, and, no. It's hard to pirate freeware.

that depends on the end user agreement.

Do you actually understand what freeware means?

clearly you don't give a **** about that either.

Sure I do. I'm a freeware author myself.

It's also very difficult
to pirate a vlk key you paid MS for and are still within the
licensing terms to make use of.

it's unlikely that you're still within the terms while not at
whatever company who paid for it, but the bigger question is why
anyone would be using win2k in 2017. it's not secure and no recent
apps will run in it.

You seem to be confused again. XP used VLK keys. Win2k had no
product activation routines, non VLK editions of XP did. And, *I*
paid for it, thanks.

the music industry *forced* apple to use drm for music that
was sold on the itunes music store because the music
industry was terrified of rampant piracy.

Which is why I have my own private collection of music.

most, if not all of which, is pirated.

Nope. It's all from original RETAIL cds that were bought and paid
for. My originals are opened and read a single time. Then, I put
them up for safe keeping. I've done that since I was a kid with
ALL media I purchased and I see no reason to use originals and
risk damaging them when that's what backups are for. Run off the
backups, never the originals.

And, Copyright law does infact give me the right to make a legal
backup of said disc.

only audio, and for personal use.

Not only audio. Yes for personal use. So you can stop with the
stealing line, anytime.

The only exception is that I cannot legally get
around DRM protections present on a disc to acquire that LEGALLY
allowed copy. (Which wasn't always the case), that's due to
another change in copyright law. Not intended to benefit John Q
Public, but entirely designed to benefit the mega corporations
(such as Disney), instead. Which was never the original point of
Copyright laws in the first place.

it doesn't matter what the original point was. the law is what it
is.

You don't have any idea the history or original intent of the law eh?
It's been changed for mega corporation interests via lobbyists.

work to change it if you disagree, but don't expect to get very
far, especially with your absurd reasoning.

Can you take on lobbyists funded by multi million dollar
corporations? I don't know of many private citizens who could do
that. I doubt you're one of the exceptions.

a 3 minute video is in no way a detailed background on anything,
certainly not copyright law, which is *incredibly* complex and
can't be explained in 3 minutes even by a lawyer who understands
it.

Actually, you can fact check everything discussed in the video. It's
all factual information. Going from the beginning of copyright laws
intent to where it is today, AND, why. The individual in the video
takes great pride in being on point and factual.

for a very detailed background on copyright law, talk to an actual
lawyer, not watch videos on youtube.

Funny thing about lawyers. Ask two the same question, get two
different answers. They aren't much different than politicians,
actually. Both paid to be professional liars.

apple's drm was the least restrictive of what existed at the time,
something which is an indisputable fact.

It's a disputable fact. You may feel differently, but, that doesn't
make your feelings accurate.

i know quite well what it's called, its history and most
importantly, how it actually works.

So how did you miss the max five authorized devices at one time,
then? Especially considering it's common knowledge, even to us non
Apple fans.

Apple changed things later,

no they didn't.

Yes, they did. Maximum of five authorized devices at one time. To
authorize another required deauthorizing one of the first five.

Oh sure, Apple did the work for you and it's instant
gratification, but you're still paying more for an inferior
sounding file.

nonsense.

the itunes store offers 256k aac audio which is indistinguishable
from the original.

They do, now, you mean. They originally offered a paultry 128k sample
rate. With DRM, no less.

--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle.