Irony Defined
This bitch is an ex-head of the RIAA
In her new blog (well actually, not hers, it's a group effort, but she posts in it) she's all upset.
Why? Because the DRM that her organisations has fought so long and hard for is *gasp* not actually that friendly (or even fair) for consumers.
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD’s. But those other music sites have lots of music that you can’t get at the iTunes store.
Dumb bitch. You helped push through the policies that forced this situation onto consumers. *Now* you realise maybe it wasn't such a good idea? No sympathy from me.
If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod. But then you have also degraded the sound quality. How cruel.
This bitch was part of the cartel that created this situation. This bitch was part of the cartel that has been sueing its customers for doing things that their business model hadn't allowed for. This bitch was part of the cartel behind the DMCA. The DMCA, amongst other things, makes it illegal to even attempt to circumvent *any* copy protection scheme - even if it's as simple as simply XORing the content with a string of "010101" bits. This bitch was part of the cartel that forced these laws through the American parliament.
Now this bitch is wanting to do circumvent DRM schemes just so she can have a bit more music on her iPod. She doesn't particularly want to do this though. Why? Not because of any of the "This is illegal", "This disadvantages the artists", or any of the other high-falutin ideals she may have parrotted during her time at the RIAA. No, her grievance is that the music won't sound as good if she does that.
Dumb bitch. Reap what ye sow.
In her new blog (well actually, not hers, it's a group effort, but she posts in it) she's all upset.
Why? Because the DRM that her organisations has fought so long and hard for is *gasp* not actually that friendly (or even fair) for consumers.
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD’s. But those other music sites have lots of music that you can’t get at the iTunes store.
Dumb bitch. You helped push through the policies that forced this situation onto consumers. *Now* you realise maybe it wasn't such a good idea? No sympathy from me.
If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod. But then you have also degraded the sound quality. How cruel.
This bitch was part of the cartel that created this situation. This bitch was part of the cartel that has been sueing its customers for doing things that their business model hadn't allowed for. This bitch was part of the cartel behind the DMCA. The DMCA, amongst other things, makes it illegal to even attempt to circumvent *any* copy protection scheme - even if it's as simple as simply XORing the content with a string of "010101" bits. This bitch was part of the cartel that forced these laws through the American parliament.
Now this bitch is wanting to do circumvent DRM schemes just so she can have a bit more music on her iPod. She doesn't particularly want to do this though. Why? Not because of any of the "This is illegal", "This disadvantages the artists", or any of the other high-falutin ideals she may have parrotted during her time at the RIAA. No, her grievance is that the music won't sound as good if she does that.
Dumb bitch. Reap what ye sow.