DRM 'Too Complicated' Says Gates 196
arbirk writes "BBC News is reporting on comments made by Bill Gates concerning DRM.. It seems he has got the point (DRM is bad for consumers), but that opinion differs widely from the approach taken by Microsoft on Zune and their other music related products. The comments were originally posted on Micro Persuasion. The article also has a take on Apple's DRM." From the BBC article: "Microsoft is one of the biggest exponents of DRM, which is used to protect music and video files on lots of different online services, including Napster and the Zune store. Blogger Michael Arrington, of Techcrunch.com, said Bill Gates' short-term advice for people wanting to transfer songs from one system to another was to 'buy a CD and rip it'. Most CDs do not have any copy protection and can be copied to a PC and to an MP3 player easily and, in the United States at least, legally."
Windows too? (Score:3, Interesting)
"You should buy the media [Windows] and rip it to BitTorrent for others..."
Re: (Score:2)
WGA is abusive DRM for your OS: unreasonably stacked in the vendor's favor, subject to change unilaterally, and priced by a monopoly power, not the market.
--
The Danger of DRM [roughlydrafted.com]
Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no contradiction between Gates saying DRM is bad for consumers and Microsoft espousing DRM - since when did Gates do anything that benefited consumers without first being dragged through a courtroom?
Re:Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there is a choice. The iPod requires no DRM. The use of DRM FairPlay content from the iTunes Store is entirely up to the consumer, who can choose to use their own MP3s, buy CDs and rip, or even just use iTunes to access free Podcast content through iTunes and other sources.
There are no features on the iPod that demand DRM. Zero.
Microsoft's PlaysForSure and the competing Zune are based on DRM. The centerpiece of PFS is subscription music, which requires complex DRM on the player. The iPod intentionally *can't* delete your content or prevent you from listening to it past the end of the month. The highly touted feature of Zune is wireless sharing, which is similarly encrusted with DRM restrictions. Even if the device does not re-encode the files, it does quarantine them to prevent second hand sharing and terminates them before others can use them. It's DRM.
So you are lying: Microsoft is not at all forthcoming about DRM, it's lying and hiding its unfair DRM manifesto. Windows and Office are now both crippled by invasive and draconian DRM "activation" that is unfair and abusive, as is their Janus / WMA media player technology and products based upon it. Microsoft invented Palladium, remember?
WMA and WGA are abusive DRM for your media and OS: unreasonably stacked in the vendor's favor, subject to change unilaterally, and priced by a monopoly power, not the market.
For you to ignore all that and turn around and try to vilify the iPod--which provides the least offensive DRM system as an optional side dish--makes it clear who the "fanboi" really is.
The Danger of DRM [roughlydrafted.com]
The Two Faced Monster Inside Zune [roughlydrafted.com]
The Register's Collapsing iTunes Store Myth [roughlydrafted.com]
Re:Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say it's a realisation at all. I suspect he has, like many of us, known this to be the case pretty much from the outset. Whatever many may say about Bill, dumb he most certainly is not, so you can bet that most of the arguments swarming around about DRM will be ones he not only aware of, but has mentally rehearsed many times in his own head before talking about it to meetings.
However, he is at the head of an enormous corporation, with assets to protect and the need to maintain revenues. The decisions are clear: with the MS market model and lock-ins to their software and systems, DRM is a desirable (and possibly even necessary) by-product. It may not be ultimately best for consumers (at least in our eyes), but it is useful for his company. That's his business, you can't blame him for that. His reponsibility is to his shareholders (that's a whole other issue).
That we have a mass marketplace that accepts all of this is more of a worry, but that is the thing that is in our hands. A single dominant vendor or platform is bad for innovation and growth, whether that would be Microsoft, Apple or any other (like a dominant Linux distro). The modern computing world is necessarily heterogeneous and those who accept and evolve in that way will find themselves equipped to deal with the future. And I think Bill Gates is keenly aware of that fact, whatever we may think and however we think Micsrosoft are behaving.
I rather suspect DRM is struggling, but that people like Gates have a great deal invested in preserving at least some of that structure. He may be sitting on the fence just a little to see how things shake out. Not a stupid move in his position, it has to be said.
Re:Interesting stance (Score:5, Insightful)
he is at the head of an enormous corporation, with assets to protect and the need to maintain revenues
Those assests obviously include the partnerships with the media that provides the content MS so obviously needs (as does, of course Apple and, growingly, cellphone provides.) So short of MS, Apple and all the others collectively saying, "You know what RIAA, MPAA, etc. Bite me. Our consumers drive our success, and the artists successes drive your warchests and we're not going to play anymore," I just don't see there being an end to increasingly complex, PITA DRM."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if Bill even considers WGA to be DRM in his mind. After all, you can copy a Windows XP install disk (I imagine it is the same for Vista) all you want, so the Windows disk is not, in his mind, copy protected. WGA and activation are required to use Windows, but it is not required to install it. In most people's minds, this is DRM, but I could see where Bill Gates might really believe that this is not the case when it comes to Microsoft products since there is no "copy protection" on the actual med
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
DRM is good fror Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There is one nice feature of RMS (if I understand it correctly, have never used it before)...
The idea of being able to time-bomb documents appeals to me! :)
However, I'm betting there is probably a domain-admin key of some sort that can override that, otherwise employees would be time-bombing loads of docs they do.
btw, I wonder what Stallman thinks of Microsoft co-opting his initials for their "rights management server" :)
Re:DRM is good fror Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-nb
Re: (Score:2)
excellent security for PDF's
How do you know? I haven't looked specifically at Authentica's products, but I have had the opportunity to attempt to analyze the security of a couple of similar products, with very disappointing results.
The bottom line with these sorts of products is that they cannot be truly secure. All they can do is add layers of obfuscation that make it difficult for non-technical people to bypass their restrictions (well other than by, say, taking digital photos of the screen). Done right, they can make it obsc
erm to be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright holder's blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were up to MS or Apple.. there would probably not be any DRM protection in their products.
Really? You mean like how I can install OS X on any hardware I choose, or how I can easily install and uninstall Windows from PC to PC? Don't kid yourself -- Apple and Microsoft own billions in IP and already control how and where you can use their products. If that's not Digital Rights Management, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
You can say that's DRM, but it's more their lack of wanting you to use their products on other machines, they don't go out of their way by having special DRM chips in their hardware that ensure their OS can only be run on a mac..
The real DRM is WGA and windows serial numbers, something OSX doesn't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not DRM anymore than compiling a binary for PPC and saying it's DRM because it won't run on x86.
Re: (Score:2)
When Bill says "DRM is too complicated", he doesn't mean he wants to get rid of it. He means he wants Microsoft to make it "simpler for you".
DRM is a wet dream for Microsoft and Apple. It lets them lock up your data in perpetuity, while making it illegal and/or technically impossible for the competition to access that data at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So... Microsoft has not qualms with it. In reality, if MS didn't want to implement DRM for the content industry, they simple could say "no" and what can the media industry do about it? I few tiny iffy DRM pro
Re: (Score:2)
Or any other source if it is a non DRM MP3 - like ripping it yourself, or downloading a ripped version. Not sure if that's what you meant, but it sounded like you were saying that ONLY songs purchased from ITMS would play on the iPod.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However I think MS is also pushing DRM as a method for businesses to control the distribution and usage of their internal documents which would have happened regardless of the media corporations simply because it helps lock people in to the MS product line so for Bill to say he is against DRM is somewhat disingenous to say the least.
I think there's a difference there though. (Score:3, Interesting)
Music DRM is different. You want to listen to a track from one of the big labels, you have to buy the music with DRM ins
Putting together podcasts, I cant use M4Ps. (Score:2)
There are times when I'm glad I RIPed my entire collection of MP3s (over 1,200 CDs and disks) but when I'm putting together a show, I'm glad that my iTunes music library's on a different drive.
The RIAA can't claim anything regarding copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Microsoft might be able to win that one if they tried. Instead, they went the path of least resistance (or so they believe).
That's exacly what they 'd do. (Score:2)
Without DRM, the RIAA would sue your computer manufacturer for putting in any audio component, apart from a radio.
They don't care how much the world saves in the efficiencies of integration, it threatens their business models, damn it, and they are lawyers (not mus
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is powerful enough that they might be able to get away with refusing to implement DRM. What could the music and film industry do? Not release on PC-compatible media at all??
I think Microsoft might be able to win that one if they tried. Instead, they went the path of least resistance (or so they believe).
The only way that Microsoft could do what you are saying is if they were to buy all the record companies. They may have the money to do that. I'm not sure if the FTC would approve it, though. Just being "powerful" isn't enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM is Microsoft's problem - not their fault.The fault rests solely with the music industry and their failure to recognize this media-less thing might catch one and their failure to create their own unified DRM standard from the start.
You might be right with respect to movies & music - leading to the Windows Media Player DRM. However, I dont think the **AA had any influence for Windows Genuine (dis)Advantge, or Windows Activation schemes, only Microsoft themselves could have had any input into those schemes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I also like it because it keeps people honest. Nobody has the right to pirate anything -- be it 14 year old kid who wipe
Re: (Score:2)
WGA like all forms of DRM is a bad thing, it punishes legitimate customers, while pirates are unaffected.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not DRM though. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I buy a copy of XP and install it. Then buy a copy of Office and install it. The two pieces of software aren't locked together. I can legally and easily take my copy of Office off one machine and put onto another one.
Evil DRM ridden future will be where my Office validates and locks against my copy of XP. Maybe the argument would be between windows and OSX versions of software. I can't just buy 'office
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh really, because when I move my copy of office, or even reinstall it on the same box, I have to phone Microsoft and defend myself to the person at the other end of the line, in order to get them to activate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain that one to me...
Not legal in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
So if he's in favour of fair use, isn't installing software also fair use (and not copying) and so trying to force people to accept an EULA when installing software (by claiming it's necessary to obtain a copyright license for the copying made during installation) is baseless.
They're exercising their fair use by installing software they bought, hence they don't need a license to do that, hence you can't force an EULA on them under guise of copyright license, because they don't need one.
The saddest thing about this, is that it's not legal in the UK to rip CDs to MP3.
It was in the past, when it was a civil offense and since it had no damages (no lost sales), there were no damages to sue for. Hence they had fair use in the UK, well sort of anyway. That was lost when copyright infringement was moved to criminal law. That was done due to a treaty in the EU lobbied by the BSA, in which they decided it didn't need a fair use clause.
Who's BSA's main client? Begins with M? ends in $?
Re:Not legal in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
This at least may well change quite soon, if the government acts on the Gowers Review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214108.
Microsof$ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Steve Job$???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You raised two separate issues here:
No. In the U.S., "fair use" is not a right but a defense to infringement. Infringement is performing an act exclusively reserved to the copyright holder without permission — namely, copying, distributing, preparing a derivative, or publicly performing the work (17 U.S.C. 106). Normally these acts make you liable. "Fair use" says "Yes I did one of these things wi
Pot meet the kettle (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows Media DRM can vary based on any number of factors but is what the RIAA wants. They want to limit how some songs are played. Some songs can be burned to cd 5 times others never at all. MSFT bowed to the pressure of the RIAA to try and undercut Apple and instead got bitten by consumers who only got confused.
While I don't care for DRM I do see the point. Of course the rights granted by the DRM must follow fair use guidelines. So far no one has done that.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of Apple's system doesn't? It allows five computers and an unlimited number of iPods. It's easy to write to an audio CD, up to seven CDs of a particular playlist. If you change the playlist by a minute (add a one minute track at the end), or make a new playlist with same tracks, you can get seven more burns. You can even use their program to rip that CD to get an unencrypted (albiet slightly lo
Re: (Score:2)
You can take a cd or dvd with you, drop it into any player and it will work.
That doesn't hold true for digital media. Apple shouldn't be specifying file formats, neither should MSFT. Fairplay at least uses AAC. So with better than WMA in that regard.
It should matter what company I choose to play the media on. That's the lim
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't care for DRM I do see the point. Of course the rights granted by the DRM must follow fair use guidelines. So far no one has done that.
Fair use simply gives a set of uses for which a content provider cannot sue you. They are not required to provide you with a method to exercise fair use.
Imagine the content holder as a huge orange grove owner. The local government sees it as 'fair use' if you pick an orange or two per day to eat (you can't resell them though). You bring in a bucket to fill up and they can sue. That doesn't mean however, that they're not free to put a big electric fence with barbed wire at the top around their grove. Y
Gates is right, but has an ulterior motive (Score:5, Insightful)
"DRM is not where it should be" (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be fooled... (Score:4, Informative)
For example, a DRM'ed file may appear to "copy" when the user issues the command to do so. But after the operation is completed, the user will simply get a rude awakening in the form of a message on whatever device or program their using saying that the original file was copy protected with a link to a webpage on Microsoft's website claiming that the copy didn't work because they were either trying to pirate the content or because they failed to use an approved piece of software to handle the copy operation for them.
In short, it will probably be some method that passively harrasses the user into relinquishing control of their computer to Microsoft or some other "approved" company.
Re: (Score:2)
My kid with an RCA Lyra MP3 player just had that can of worms. He was over at a friends house and copied a directory of WMA files to his player. They were protected and wouldn't play. To add insult to injury, he tried to de
He's just saying that it is too complicated... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure Gates has a fabulous scheme to make DRM simpler in the long term. But he's not going to reveal to a bunch of bloggers in a room.
This is not a mea culpa or a reversal by Gates or Microsoft. He's merely acknowledging that it's a pain in the ass for consumers... in the short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent speaks the truth.
From Micro Persuasion:
Q) Is digital rights management (DRM) sustainable over the next 10 years?
A) DRM is not where it should be. In the end of the day incentive systems (for artists) make a difference. But we don't have the right thing here in terms of simplicity or interoperability.
I agree with the interpretation that Gates is saying that there's nothing wrong with DRM per se, but that it's just that it could be implemented better and made simpler for consumers.
Perfectly in character... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing else he said was against DRM in any way. All the anti-DRM talk was by other people. If you can't read "We're going to shove it down your throats eventually", then you're not paying attention.
DRM is not too complicated (Score:2)
It doesn't get much easier than that.
CD > rip yes
Itunes/online music services NO
DVD > rip yes
Online movie crippleware NO
HD/DVD Blueray NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Vista for improved software and Dx10 gaming yes
Vista for DRM'ed media content delivery NO
Illegal downloading NO (I prefer mailing 500gb harddrives back and forth with friends)
Re:DRM is not too complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
HD/DVD Blueray NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Wasn't DVD unrippable (hey, I might just have made up a word!) at first until an encryption key leaked? Just give hackers some time!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you have to justify your next-get gaming addiction this way... What makes you think Dx10 games won't have even more DRM than media content currently does? SafeDisc, SecuROM and the like seem about as evil and rootkit-ish as anything the music industry has done.
Just don't buy Vista. Buy good, OpenGL games, and when XP starts to show its age, use Linux or OS X. And yes, there are good OpenGL games out ther
testing the market (Score:3, Interesting)
There's only one thing about DRM that I actually liked. You were, finally, buying RIGHTS for something. That means, if you ever lose your files, you could download the songs again at no charge (that was possible on some systems, IIRC). That's not the case with vinyls, tapes and CDs. You lost the vinyl, tape or CD, and you must buy a new one, and pay for the songs again. So there was no clear line of what you were buying: either the physical media, or the songs contained in it. Apparently, it was a Christian approach, kind of "body+soul", there were indivisible. You couldn't even take your scratched CD to the store and pay the price of the CD (the media alone) to get a new one. Also, this meant that you couldn't "upgrade" formats for a small sum (take your tape and pay a few bucks, and go home with a CD).
Re: (Score:2)
In a non-DRM world with appropriate fair use rights protected by law, it wouldn't be a crime just to re-download the data that you lost. DRM is just an over-complexification of the problem at hand.
-b.
No, no, NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
An all-too familiar example: I have the right to take free software code and do whatever I like with it for my own use. That's a right because I don't have to pay anyone, ask anyone or even let anyone know I'm doing it. It is a pre-established fact that p
what he is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is being characteristically vague, but you can bet that he is either implying that Microsoft's DRM is already better than everybody else, or he is laying the groundwork for announcing some new Microsoft DRM scheme somewhere down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe what he wanted us to understant is "you bought DRMed music, be prepared to buy it again and again".
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did "what we want" have anything to do with what Microsoft is selling us?
That's rich (Score:2)
Coming from BG, that's a good one...
Not complicated at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft DirectPlay is a misnomer (Score:5, Interesting)
As for DRM in general, I've had my share of nightmares. I put a newish CD into my computer the other day and it tried to install a proprietary music player. My girlfriend put a DVD movie (Warner Brothers) into her computer and a similar player began installing without even a prompt. I played Trackmania Nations [trackmanianations.com] a while back and, even though it is a completely free game, it installed the infamous and dangerous StarForce copy protection software without prompting me.
I can't trust anyone but pirates anymore, so that's who I'll patronize (for content post-2004). Sorry, big media, you've failed me too many times. Companies are too greedy and DRM is too iffy to chance putting on my computer. My PC is heftier than my television or stereo will ever be and I'm not risking infection so that the MAFIAA can snoop on my private information.
Historically, no one has better understood the needs and frustrations of digital media consumers than pirates. They provide easy-to-install cracks with detailed documentation. Pirate organizations like Razor 1911 and Reloaded provide a free "service" to the public and their only competition is other similar release groups. Why do non-profit organizations provide vastly better service than legitimate for-profit companies?
Look inward, Billy Gates. Your company is guilty of all the things you point your finger at in TFA. It's cute that you urge us to rip CDs instead of buying songs online, but it's patently obvious that you're just taking a pot shot at iTunes. Put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold down the Shift key while inserting the CD. Better yet, permanently turn off Autoplay (I think it's under Folder Options in Windows Exploder).
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does use Windows Media DRM, though, so you're about right.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they good people? The pirate groups, I don't know. Sony Music? Definitely not.
Re: (Score:2)
But if Sony screws you over, at least you can sue them
I could also pay a lawyer $50,000 to plant a sign on my forehead, "Sony, please pay your lawyers lots of money to ruin my life!"
With DRM, there is certainly a bigger risk that I'll lose access to the content I've legitimately purchased. If I download an MP3 and that pirating group decides to disappear off of the face of the e
So.... (Score:2)
Too complicated? No, too useless! (Score:2)
What the industry fails to see is that DRM does indeed reduce the value of the good. They still try to sell DRMed content at the same price as DRM free content.
Slavery 'Too Complicated' (Score:2, Informative)
One of the biggest lies is that DRM is somehow neutral, say the way that knives are neutral. It's a lie because it ignores the overwhelming pressure upon groups that naturally have an interest in controlling others others such as corporations and governments, the kind of pressure that creates laws eroding civil liberties such as DMCA, etc. Control by DRM is in principle much more efficient than control by other means and thus all the more appealing to control freaks such as Gates.
I've seen projections fo
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a surveillance camera. A random person in the room with the camera is starting to watch a movie on a portable DVD player or a TV enabled mobile phone or whatever. How should the camera react? According to DR
Complication is not the issue. (Score:2)
That's What I've Been Saying (Score:2)
Profit Motive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tech companies have everything to gain from free downloadable music on the internet. The people who make the music players, the people who make the PCs, the service providers and the people who provide bandwidth. DRM is only desirable to the people who sell music.
Microsoft has to make an effort with DRM, because the RIAA and media companies are standing by ready to sue. But that is a far cry from imagining that Microsoft is on the forefront of promoting DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh i dunno.. DRM'ed text files that dont open in linux or macos?
DRM = vendor lockin. Microsofts weapon of choice.
He didn't say "DRM is too complex" or bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't at odds with Microsoft's position, which is that making DRM an integral part of the OS is the best way to implement it. If you trust Microsoft, they will make DRM simple. And that will make it good.
Not simplicity, EXISTENCE of DRM is the problem! (Score:2)
This is part of the reason I bought a Gigabeat (Score:2)
I liked the Video, but I really missed having an FM tuner. I tried really hard talking myself into ignoring it, but the others had FM and controls I liked better. When my MP3 player is in my pocket, I hate having to reach in and pull it out to do anything. I usually ride my motorcycle with tunes playing, so I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it was an MP3? I've heard of problems with DRM and wma files, but not with MP3. Was it ripped with Media Player, or a real MP3 ripper such as CDEX.
You brought it on yourselves (Score:3, Interesting)
It was acknowledged by game developers in the 1980s that you would sell two copies of a game for the Apple platform, one on the East Coast of the US and one on the West Coast. Everyone else would get theirs from BBS systems. This virtually stopped game development for that platform.
While it was "sharing" cassette tapes between friends, there was no problem with "music sharing" and it was all treated as either fair use or just a cost of doing business. Today, I can buy some recording and post it on the Internet for the world to download. I can do this in some cases before mass distribution by the content owner, thereby "beating" them to the sale.
Whatever you think of content ownership and copyright, this isn't going to stand. You cannot have a situation where one group quashes the revenue and business of another group. When this happens between rival criminal gangs, the result is a gang war. When this happens between countries, the result is a war. When this happens between companies or companies and individuals, one of them is going down - and the individuals have all the advantage here.
Yes, if this situation continues the individuals will win out in the end. But it will be rather strange victory - most of what we consider today to be "commercial" and "professional" recorded entertainment will disappear. Will traveling minstrels replace them? Maybe, for the folks that can't do anything else. But no commercial entity will put up money to make a recording again.
We, the Internet using people of the world, have a choice. We can continue to "share" everything possible or we can contain our greed and selfishness and pay for entertainment. Sure, you get to choose what you pay for and you have a right to be angry when you are ripped off. But, you do not get to decide not to pay. At least not if we like the current arrangement. While patronage by the rich and powerful worked for a long time, it was an awful system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought the third copy, I guess... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's more due to the fact that the Macintosh in the 1980s was a marginal game platform at best, and the Apple II was dying a terrible death as the Apple
Compact Disc = no copy protection (Score:2)
Even simpler: all Compact Discs do not have any copy protection [wikipedia.org]. Look for the logo and don't accept anything else!
Re: (Score:2)
He's going to be shocked to find out that Vista is a DRM hell hole. Maybe Steve never told him.
Vista's "DRM" isn't any different to XP's (or even 2000's) "DRM". It won't magically DRM-encumber to your currently unencumbered media (unless you tell it to of course).
If you don't want to be restricted by DRM, don't buy DRMed content. Follow that rule, and Vista is no more "DRMed" than any other platform.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they just don't sit down together and talk the way they used to...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do what I do. Look for the Philips "Compact Disc tm." Logo. Get the staff to help you find it. Without a logo, it might not be a compact disk.
Due to the lack of Compact Disks for sale in the local music shop, I gave up looking about 5 years ago. Good luck.
Unfrozen Caveman (Score:5, Funny)
Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. G-rock.
G-rock: It's just 'G-rock', Mr. Chairman... Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes when I'm playing a song on my Zune, I wonder "Are little demons inside playing the music? " I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there's one thing I do know - when someone builds a computer without paying for a Windows license, that's piracy, and my company is entitled to no less than two hundred dollars in compensatory damages, and eight hundred in punitive damages. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
exponent noun 1 someone able to perform some art or activity, especially skilfully. 2 someone who explains and promotes (a theory or belief, etc). 3 math a number that indicates how many times a given quantity, called the base, is to be multiplied by itself, usually denoted by a superscript number or symbol immediately after t
Re: (Score:2)