Are you some kind of retard?

Why would "recovery" of your music collection ever be a problem? Just pull it back off of one of your mobile devices.

External storage is also a handy thing in this regard. Music remains small while external storage just gets larger and larger. Copies are easy to make and possibly even pretty cheap.

There are so many ways of having an entire music collection in your pocket that your Forrest Gump attitude is just sad.

> Many are upset because generally those services only work on OSX and Windows.

Who uses a PC for those services anyways?

The PC versions of those services are put together in such a way that you need unnecessarily overpriced hardware to deal with them versus a $200 HTPC or a $60 streamer.

>> MP3's being compressed, are pretty vulnerable to bitrot.
>
> wtf?

That was my reaction as well.

My notification tone on my Android phone is a 20 year old AU file I happened to have lying around my media horde.

It may be easier but it certainly isn't cheaper. HELL, the thing you are interested might not even be available. That is one key problem with all streaming services. They ALL have limited availability when compared to what's available on physical media.

Once something is available for sale as a physical product, it's in the market permanently. So even if something is discontinued, you will still have access to it. It may be hard to find. It may even be expensive. But it will still be available.

Also, a rental may not even be available.

They also aren't as cheap as you're claiming.

I don't think you even use it at all despite the fact that you are trying to lobby for it.

> MP3's being compressed, are pretty vulnerable to bitrot

They are also pretty trivial to back up to every device you own. Music is tiny compared to modern mobile devices. You can shove your entire collection into the underutilized space on most systems.

XBMC gives you all of the shiny shiny of something like iTunes but with the possibility that you can own and control your own content. You only have to pay for something once and it's yours forever and you never have to worry about some disguised cable TV company going out of business.

Of course it has to work against the framework that large corporations have lobbied for. Although that's not necessarily a show stopper.

I think you will find that most people realize that they have rights and object to the idea that individual liberties should be subservient to the rights of corporations.

Of course most non-enthusiasts won't realize what interesting things are being kept from them due to corporate lobbying.

Companies that have tried to market playback devices that allowed for such tie ins with user created content have been litigated off the market. If not for abusive content companies, these subtitle files likely would be perfectly usable with DVD players from the likes of Sony.

Of course with a general purpose machine (HTPC), you can pretty much do anything.

> You aren't allowed to muck with someone else's work without their permission. That's the whole point of copyright,

No it isn't.

The whole point of copyright is that we do have something to muck with. Copyright exists to foster what you would describe as piracy. It is not a virtual land grab. That's just corporate propaganda.

No. The whole point of copyright is piracy.

The corporations have just distorted things.

No. We don't all know.

You are just being a huge asshole and just declaring everyone to be thieves with nothing to back that up except your own stupidity and total lack of morals.

You are simply projecting. YOU are the dishonest scum and you are projecting that on the rest of us.

> I fail to see the relevance of your post.

Of course not. You're too much of a corporate toadie.

His post was an obvious prelude to a fair use defense. Fansubbing does not devalue the work. It is not piracy in any meaningful sense of the word. It's merely end users managing to find some way of making a particular creative work more useful.

This "derivative" also can't be used without the original.

Copyright related monopoly powers should be minimized rather than maximized as a matter of basic public policy and because that's what the copyright clause in the US Constitution indicates.

I was planning on waiting for it on Netflix anyways...

I had actually forgotten about this whole "Card is a bigot" drama. If anything, I think it is him stirring the pot in a desperate attempt to be visible. You know what they say... any publicity is good publicity.

He's just trying to go for the Ozzy Osbourne effect.

> What have you ever published, that you think you deserve to deny professional writers and musicians a chance to make a decent living? Don't tell me about sysadmin perl scripts.

No one else has the right to make a living in a particular manner.

Certainly no one else gets to sponge off of work they did 20 years ago.

Welcome to the reality the rest of us get to face.

I can't imagine it making much difference really.

Not that I would expect the overhead here to be a whole ms.

I can get results from an RDBMS in a ms.

What fiasco? Any insurance is a shared risk pool. That includes the careless jack*sses. It doesn't matter if this is a government imposed system or one from the allegedly free market. You still have to account for the people that make poor choices.

Piling on "consequences" completely defeats the entire point of government meddling to begin with.

We don't need to add yet another layer of inefficiency if the final result is going to be that some class of insured is told "tough luck". The free market can do that all by itself.

The fact that the system avoids punishing poor choices should be a surprise to NO ONE.

It's an obvious design requirement.