Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Anti-WMA bias? (Read 6552 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti-WMA bias?

Quote
Read this here.


Hmm...  Dibrom said:

Quote
4. WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this


Somehow I'm a little disapointed by Dibrom for that particular one...

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #1 –
Quote
That would imply how clueless he was at first, and I doubt these "ExtremeTech" reviewers want to admit that.. 
Even more, I'm suspicious how can a reviewer of a site like ExtremeTech be _that_ uninformed, unless the review was made like that purposely for one reason or another..

Well....

No reputable site would deliberately make a review extremely uninformed, misleading, etc.

Not even to generate lots of feedback etc.

There would simply be far too many readers who would just read the article and not the comments and actually believe the review.

Be kind of like you saying that Blade mp3 encoder is the absolute best audio encoder you could possibly use.

I've read a number of audio reviews over the past few years... Yes, a lot of magazine & web reviewers are pretty dumb when it come to audio.

You (or somebody else reputable) might want to contact the author, the editor, and leave feedback.

I know the end of the article basically invited people to flame him, so there is indeed a chance he knew people would disagree with him....  But if he did that deliberately, knowing full well he was screwing the casual readers who were looking for 'reputable' advice, then he's got no business being a reviewer.

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #2 –
Quote
Quote
4. WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this


Somehow I'm a little disapointed by Dibrom for that particular one...

I like chocolate ice cream, btw.

...

Oh wait!  While we're simply airing opinions, maybe it'd be more interesting or useful to actually say something substantive about them instead?

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #3 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
4. WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this


Somehow I'm a little disapointed by Dibrom for that particular one...

I like chocolate ice cream, btw.

...

Oh wait!  While we're simply airing opinions, maybe it'd be more interesting or useful to actually say something substantive about them instead?

Touchy, aren't we...

I just thought it was rather hypocritical of you.

There's a lot of talk about AAC / MP4 with its DRM, and especially iTunes (player & store) and it's DRM (which is tied to solely Apple), (and even a little Ogg with its DRM) but yet with WMA you reject it outright regardless of whether drm is actually used with it.  Just the fact that it has Microsoft's DRM is apparently enough to make you reject it automatically.

Although HA people do tend to have strong opinions, I kind of expected better from the upper brass.

HA strongly promotes rational thought, testing of codecs, rejecting pre-conceptions and basing opinions of facts, etc. and then to discover that the HA founder himself doesn't share that point of view and is willing to reject WMA outright because it has Microsoft DRM...  That's disapointing.

I expected better.

I tend to feel the same way about WMA (and Microsoft in general), but I'm not the founder of HA, either.

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #4 –
The rebuttal is coming. 

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Touchy, aren't we...

Not really.  I just don't have much sympathy for a response that looks so similar in effect to ad hominem.  Likewise, if you're going to cast doubt on what I say, I expect you to provide some sort of reason to back this up.  "I expected better", or something along those, is unacceptable.

Quote
I just thought it was rather hypocritical of you.

There's a lot of talk about AAC / MP4 with its DRM, and especially iTunes (player & store) and it's DRM (which is tied to solely Apple), (and even a little Ogg with its DRM) but yet with WMA you reject it outright regardless of whether drm is actually used with it.  Just the fact that it has Microsoft's DRM is apparently enough to make you reject it automatically.

Although HA people do tend to have strong opinions, I kind of expected better from the upper brass.


Well, let's think about this for a minute.  How long has HA been around? Answer: quite awhile.  From the start, HA has had an AAC section, and this was around long before AAC/iTunes became a "big thing."  Do you expect me to simply remove the AAC section once Apple has decided to popularize a form of AAC with DRM?  Wouldn't you complain even more about that?

And did you just happen to miss every other single point I made about WMA that wasn't DRM related?  It surely seems that you did because you appear not to be factoring any of that (the 5 other points in that post, let alone everything else I've said on the matter here in the past) into what you're thinking.  You've only quoted that one section, and to cast me as a hypocrit without responding to the rest of my points is not only unfair as a method of argumentation (let's think straw man for one) but is grounds for me to dismiss your response almost outright.

Quote
HA strongly promotes rational thought, testing of codecs, rejecting pre-conceptions and basing opinions of facts, etc. and then to discover that the HA founder himself doesn't share that point of view and is willing to reject WMA outright because it has Microsoft DRM...  That's disapointing.

I expected better.

I tend to feel the same way about WMA (and Microsoft in general), but I'm not the founder of HA, either.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're quite wrong.  You see, in my posts, I did happen to demonstrate rational thought, something that I can't say I saw in your response.  You'll notice that I laid out my points and discussed some of them at a decent amount of length, which surely demonstrates these qualities more than simply responding with "this is disappointing" or "I expected better", etc., without bothering to make a single argument.

And again, representing me as rejecting WMA simply because of DRM is so wrong that it's not even worth bothering to entertain that.  In fact, I don't even need to explain myself more clearly on this matter because the text is already written -- you've just failed to read it or understand it properly.

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #6 –
Quote
The rebuttal is coming. 

And in this corner, weighing in at the weight of LAME 3.90.2(3):  DIBROM
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #7 –
Well my original intention was to stimulate debate here, amongst people who know what they're on about, then point the ExtremeTech reviewer to the thread and let them make up their own mind on how bad their article was.

Unfortunately with the noise/signal ratio here i'll send him an email instead. 

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #8 –
Quote
Not really.  I just don't have much sympathy for a response that looks so similar in effect to ad hominem.  Likewise, if you're going to cast doubt on what I say, I expect you to provide some sort of reason to back this up.  "I expected better", or something along those, is unacceptable.


I figured your own words were enough for any regular HA reader.  It seemed so obviously absurd that I didn't feel there was any need to get into a long post about it.

That particular statement (#4) was so absurd and biased that if any other HA poster had done it, the moderators would have jumped all over them for it.

Quote
Do you expect me to simply remove the AAC section once Apple has decided to popularize a form of AAC with DRM? Wouldn't you complain even more about that?


Don't be absurd.  I didn't ask or suggest that.

The post was about your WMA bias.

Quote
And did you just happen to miss every other single point I made about WMA that wasn't DRM related?


Of course I didn't miss them.  I *did* read the post.

But none of them were absurd and rejected WMA solely because of its DRM.  The rest were actually some what rational, in stark contrast to that one statement.  That's why #4 stood out so clearly.

In that one statement, you admit you are willing to reject WMA because of the DRM *regardless* of any other point you (or anyone else) might make.  So those other points are just rationalizations.  They may be valid, but they aren't the real reason.  Point #4 was the main reason.

Even if those other points hadn't existed, your own bias in #4 would still cause you to reject it.

That's hypocritical of you and what HA has stood for.

That's why I said I was disapointed in you.

Quote
And again, representing me as rejecting WMA simply because of DRM is so wrong that it's not even worth bothering to entertain that.


*I* didn't represent you as doing that.  Your own words in statement #4 did.

It said

Quote
WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this


So even if the user isn't using WMA's DRM, and isn't effected by the DRM in any way, it's enough of a "problem" that makes it unsuitable for HA...?  You could say the same kind of thing about any DRM for AAC/mp4, OGG, etc.

There are so many other reasons to dislike Microsoft and WMA that the above statement just does not make rational sense.

Quote
In fact, I don't even need to explain myself more clearly on this matter because the text is already written -- you've just failed to read it or understand it properly


I obviously did read it.  Or I wouldn't have noticed how #4 stood out so strongly above all the other points.  It was so different from the other points that it might as well had flashing neon lights around it.

And no, I didn't ask you to explain yourself.
 

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #9 –
Quote
Even if those other points hadn't existed, your own bias in #4 would still cause you to reject it.

Stop this already.

1. Dibrom isn't by himself rejecting or approving things like this here. It's done in co-operation in HA management.
2. If you'd actually read Dibrom's post, you'd see that the main reason there's no WMA-forum is totally different than any of the #-points. Any of the separate points wouldn't be a reason by itself to "reject" a WMA-forum and Dibrom in no way even implied this either, so I don't know where you get your idea here that "#4 would still cause you to reject it." which is totally incorrect.

What comes to DRM and MS, you may need to take some more issues into account. This is because it could be possible for MS to start driving DRM to Windows OS-level, meaning that some common services/APIs would be available only when MS DRM is in use, which might create certain surprising issues (who hasn't heard about this possibility?). But this is anyway still not a reason which by itself would cause HA not to create a WMA-forum, though this might have something to do with Dibrom's point#4 opinion. The simple fact is that there just isn't so much discussion and demand for it to justify the creation of yet another new separate forum section.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Cey,Feb 13 2004, 08:39 AM
Quote from: Dibrom,Feb 12 2004, 10:59 PM
Not really.  I just don't have much sympathy for a response that looks so similar in effect to ad hominem.  Likewise, if you're going to cast doubt on what I say, I expect you to provide some sort of reason to back this up.  "I expected better", or something along those, is unacceptable.


I figured your own words were enough for any regular HA reader.  It seemed so obviously absurd that I didn't feel there was any need to get into a long post about it.

That particular statement (#4) was so absurd and biased that if any other HA poster had done it, the moderators would have jumped all over them for it.


That could be one way of interpreting it.  Another way of interpreting it would be that you simply didn't have an argument to respond with, yet were still "bothered" somehow by the statement, so you decided it'd be easy to say you were "disappointed" and then later imply that somehow I'm a hypocrite.

You continue to talk about my bias in this regard but, like with all of the rest of your points, you haven't actually explained this.

What, exactly, makes me biased in my statement in that point (the one that you're obsessed with to the exclusion of the others which comprise the rest of the lengthy post)?  Is someone biased if they have good reason to not to choose something?  Is it not possible that this is the case here, and that I have explained that? (For the sake of argument, if you are really having problems understanding it in the contexts of that post, there are others).

And trying to predict HA policy in hypothetical situations when you so clearly misunderstand the founder of HA seems quite ridiculous.  I'd refrain from that in the future.

Quote
Quote
Do you expect me to simply remove the AAC section once Apple has decided to popularize a form of AAC with DRM? Wouldn't you complain even more about that?


Don't be absurd.  I didn't ask or suggest that.

The post was about your WMA bias.


Correction. This was about my mistaken bias, and a bias which you are claiming rests on a factor of DRM.  You called me a hypocrite, but, as usual, did not give any reason for this classification.  I assumed (given your mention of AAC/iTunes... perhaps you were confused about what you meant?) that you were trying to make that point on the grounds that there is an AAC forum, and AAC has DRM, while there is no WMA forum.

I'm not being absurd here, but I'm trying to respond reasonably to a rather absurd assertion..

Quote
Quote
And did you just happen to miss every other single point I made about WMA that wasn't DRM related?


Of course I didn't miss them.  I *did* read the post.

But none of them were absurd and rejected WMA solely because of its DRM.


Wrong again.  None of them rejected WMA at all.  They only rejected WMA together.

Quote
The rest were actually some what rational, in stark contrast to that one statement.  That's why #4 stood out so clearly.


I'm curious then, how do you define rational?  Is rational "anything that's not DRM related in this world"?  Or maybe you actually do have a more discriminating criteria, you just have seen fit not to voice it?  Or maybe you don't really know, and you're just using this terminology because it bothers you that I feel DRM is problematic, but you can't seem to find any other grounds to approach this on, so you'll call me irrational and hypocritical?  Is that it?

Quote
In that one statement, you admit you are willing to reject WMA because of the DRM *regardless* of any other point you (or anyone else) might make.  So those other points are just rationalizations.  They may be valid, but they aren't the real reason.  Point #4 was the main reason.


wtf?

Now you're not only misinterpreting what I wrote, but what you're implying here is tantamount to calling me a liar.  You're saying that everything else I said there about my reasons are basically not true, and that the real reason was my bias for #4.

This is simply bullshit.

If there were any primary reason in that post, it would have been with the following:

Quote from: Dibrom
The [span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%']primary[/span][/i] reason why there is no WMA section because there has never been a significant amount of WMA discussion on this board. Even a recent (and relatively small in the grand scheme of things) increase in discussion because of WMA Pro test results does not justify the creation of a couple entirely new forums.


Do you see the added emphasis there?  Are you going to continue to respond, telling me with a straight face, that I'm simply a liar and didn't mean what I wrote, and that it was all just WMA DRM bias?

Quote
Even if those other points hadn't existed, your own bias in #4 would still cause you to reject it.


First, it's not bias.  You haven't demonstrated why it's bias rather than good reason.  If anything, the benefit of the doubt lies on my side here given that I've gone to lengths to explain myself, which is more than you've done in your calling people liars and hypocrites.

Second, unless you know something that I don't, I'm not quite sure how you seem to be able to either peer into my mind and know exactly what I would do or think aside from what I have written, or alternatively, how you would be able to predict exactly what I would do with the certainty you seem to claim.

Quote
That's hypocritical of you and what HA has stood for.


This conclusion doesn't follow because your premises are complete nonsense.  Sorry.  You haven't explained what you mean for one, and in other places, you're claiming something you can't prove (that you know what I think), and which there seems to be good reason to disbelieve (I did write something contrary to what you are claiming that I think).

Quote
That's why I said I was disapointed in you.


If I were you, I'd be more disappointed in myself for choosing to question people like this on such shaky grounds, and would be especially disappointed in calling people liars and hypocrites without good reason, but then.. that's just me.

Quote
Quote
And again, representing me as rejecting WMA simply because of DRM is so wrong that it's not even worth bothering to entertain that.


*I* didn't represent you as doing that.  Your own words in statement #4 did.


Umm, no.  See, you're doing it again.  Having problems misinterpreting what I'm saying.  If you weren't saying I was rejecting WMA simply because of DRM, then you would have responded to all of the rest of the points, because collectively they are the reason that I do so.  DRM is only a small part of it.  Yet, this very small part you continue to take out of context.

Quote
It said

Quote
WMA is rather entangled in the whole DRM issue. Regardless of whether this affects users in all cases or not, this is enough of a problem to make it unsuitable for widespread support in a community forum like this


So even if the user isn't using WMA's DRM, and isn't effected by the DRM in any way, it's enough of a "problem" that makes it unsuitable for HA...?  You could say the same kind of thing about any DRM for AAC/mp4, OGG, etc.


First of all, the AAC technology that was available to the end user when HA was founded did not feature DRM in any way (unless Ivan and crew simply had it hidden or I otherwise didn't know about it).  Second, Vorbis (not OGG) doesn't feature any DRM out of the box, at least unless something has changed in the specs that I am unaware.  A 3rd party implementation of DRM in Vorbis doesn't count, especially if it's an implementation that I've never even heard of anyone using.  Third, WMA DRM is more problematic for many of the reasons listed elsewhere, and because of it's nature, many people are led into using it without realizing the negative effects it can have on them.  A search of this forum will turn up a few of these cases where people have lost access to all of their files because of DRM.  JohnV hit a few other points, and there are many more (I'm not going to get dragged into an argument about DRM here because that's not really the point).  Fourth, contrary to your obsession with that particular group of text, DRM is not the only reason why there is no WMA forum.

Quote
There are so many other reasons to dislike Microsoft and WMA that the above statement just does not make rational sense.


Oh, I get it.  I should share your other reasons (oops, "biases".. heh) for disliking MS, and since DRM is not one of them, then I'm some hypocritical liar?  Ok, now I think I understand where you're coming from.....

Quote
Quote
In fact, I don't even need to explain myself more clearly on this matter because the text is already written -- you've just failed to read it or understand it properly


I obviously did read it.  Or I wouldn't have noticed how #4 stood out so strongly above all the other points.  It was so different from the other points that it might as well had flashing neon lights around it.


Oh?  How's that.  Just telling me that "it stood out" without telling me why it stood out, or without making a convincing argument as to why it's different than the others is rather hollow and meaningless.

You've really not explained anything else, so I don't expect you to explain this either, but it might be worth noting for your own personal edification.

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #11 –
I'm sure I'm going to be reprimanded for this.  Okay.  I was a lurker here long before I started posting.  I'll live.  (Doing my Tom Hanks / Forest Gump impression... "Mamma always said, don't argue with somebody who can cancel your account.")


Quote
2. If you'd actually read Dibrom's post, you'd see that the main reason there's no WMA-forum is totally different than any of the #-points. Any of the separate points wouldn't be a reason by itself to "reject" a WMA-forum and Dibrom in no way even implied this either, so I don't know where you get your idea here that "#4 would still cause you to reject it." which is totally incorrect


My comment was *NOT* about whether there should be a WMA forum.  And at absolutely *NO* time did I say or suggest or imply that there should be a WMA forum.  I don't want a WMA forum.  I don't like WMA.  I don't use WMA.  I wouldn't read a WMA forum.

My comment was solely about Dibrom's own bias and that for a forum that prides itself on proof, openness, etc. biases like that in the 'top brass' is disapointing.

Quote
What comes to DRM and MS, you may need to take some more issues into account. This is because it could be possible for MS to start driving DRM to Windows OS-level, meaning that some common services/APIs would be available only when MS DRM is in use, which might create certain surprising issues (who hasn't heard about this possibility?).


It's also possible for Apple to do the same thing with the Mac.

It's even somewhat possible to do that in Linux.  A drm'ed file could require a certain player and the required drm module could check to make sure that a special drm kernal module is available that would protect the unencrypted stream, etc. etc.  Just because Linux is opensource doesn't mean you can't play some nasty tricks if you want to.

However, you are still rejecting current WMA (which, if I'm not mistaken has been submitted to become an official standard, so it's not really "closed" anymore) on what Microsoft may or may not do in 5 years when LongHorn finally ships.

And yes, I too am aware of the things that Microsoft can force onto others, including the DRM and Microsoft's desire to have hardware DRM built into every computer, and the license in the WMP that says they can force a DRM upgrade onto you at any time.  No I don't like that.  That's why I hope my existing Microsoft OS will be my last.  Hopefully Linux will become more useful to me in a few years.

But flatly rejecting WMA solely because of DRM which does not have to be used does not make sense.  A statement like #4 can only be bias.  Which goes against the concepts of HA.  Dirbrom gave rational reasons for the others, and then made that very unusal #4 statement.


There was nothing in my message that said a WMA forum should be created. I don't want a WMA forum.  I don't like WMA.  I don't use WMA.  I wouldn't read a WMA forum.

A previous message had talked about how HA is biased against WMA.  The link got posted.  I replied that even Dibrom was indeed biased.

My original very brief message was about Dibrom's #4 statement was clearly very biased against WMA and that I was disapointed in him for that.

Both you and Dibrom are trying to read more into this than there is.  Apparently, it is indeed true that the upper brass is biased against WMA.


Maybe there was a misunderstanding because you thought I was talking about wanting a WMA forum.

I wasn't.

I was just commenting that there does indeed seem to be some bias against WMA in HA's upper management.  And that I was disapointed in that because I expected better.  I expected more objectivity and rational thought.

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #12 –
Quote
It's also possible for Apple to do the same thing with the Mac.

Not likely - Apple doesn't own the Fairplay DRM system it uses with the iTunes music store.

Veridisc

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #13 –
Quote
But flatly rejecting WMA solely because of DRM which does not have to be used does not make sense.

Uhm, did you actually read Dibrom's reply?

In particular, did you notice this quote: "The primary reason why there is no WMA section because there has never been a significant amount of WMA discussion on this board. Even a recent (and relatively small in the grand scheme of things) increase in discussion because of WMA Pro test results does not justify the creation of a couple entirely new forums."

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #14 –
Quote
I'm sure I'm going to be reprimanded for this.  Okay.  I was a lurker here long before I started posting.  I'll live.  (Doing my Tom Hanks / Forest Gump impression... "Mamma always said, don't argue with somebody who can cancel your account.")

You're right, you will.

The reason for this is that now you're simply trolling.  You've ignored every single point I've raised, called me a liar and a hypocrite, put words in my mouth that I never said, and are now questioning the integrity of the entire HA management without once offering a legitimate reason for concern or even engaging in proper debate.

I'm not even going to respond to the your horribly mistaken and confused post, because it's clear that you won't bother to read or understand my comments.

Anti-WMA bias?

Reply #15 –
Quote
But flatly rejecting WMA solely because of DRM which does not have to be used does not make sense.

Maybe time for some reading comprehension courses? 

Obviously this thread isn't going anywhere anymore. Closed.
Juha Laaksonheimo