> Please don't assume that because our software is open source > that we oppose non-free-anything - our software roadmap has always > indicated plans to support more formats and more music sources > including DRM ones.
Let's just say that a big part of my decision to buy a sb1 and then a sb2 was that I, personally, oppose non-free-anything. Well, maybe oppose is to strong a word ... dislike, maybe. That squeezenetwork would be used for content tie-ins was clear from the beginning, and I was very much looking forward to that. Only now I must admit I'm a little bit disappointed as I was hoping for something more - global. At the moment this seems to be US only. - open Why use a binary / DRM component at all? An username + password combination should be enough to make sure everyone has paid up. Yes, people could share passwords but only on a very small scale before it raises alarms. Works well enough for: MMORPGs and adult sites. And yes, people might download some content and save it, but after all this is like a radio and that I can legally tape all I want. Nobody is gonna "pirate" content at playback speed. - high quality 128kbit/s mp3 is just not the state of the art - less mainstream People keep saying that you can't dictate the interface protocols to music services. True, for existing ones. I was still kind of hoping that you would string together a much more open delivery platform for indie labels and artists. Someone else said : > it's the beginning of the end of the open-source, open-format idea. It doesn't have to be, let's hope it is not. I'd like openness at a grander scale that between living room and slimserver. C.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
