Winamp 3

**juxtaman** · 11-10-2002, 05:32 PM

winamp 3 is crap, the skins are terrible with is multi portion images.

Also its full of adware... bastards.

**johnie** · 11-10-2002, 10:58 PM

How exactly is it adware?

Its parent company, AOL, places its links on your desktop. They can be easily deleted.

Read section 3 of the MS WMP EULA and then tell me who the bastards are.

**clifgriffin** · 11-11-2002, 12:16 AM

Section 3 of the EULA is harmless.

It basically says, content owners can contact Microsoft and have them revoke playing priviliges of their content. It isn't targeted...it isn't invading anyone's privacy...it is a blanket list that is controlled by the content owners.

"The law is not a tyranny to the righteous"...to quote the Bible.

I can't believe you're making such a big deal out of this. It isn't like Microsoft is allowing companies to scan your computer and individually revoke licenses... It is quite far from that...it is just giving the owners the ability to control whether their content can be played. Simple as that.

So...no they aren't bastards, you're just a tad paranoid.

**dpvtank** · 11-11-2002, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by ]v[orpheus
Don't bother with W3, I went back to the latest 2.x version.
It took over everything (well most things) on my machine.

i had the same problem..
winamp 3 opened all my programs like it was a music file or somethin'

so, i could reboot (since it took that as a music file) or uninstall it..

i ended up with a reformat....

winamp 2 rocks!

**condorcet** · 11-11-2002, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by ]v[orpheus
Don't bother with W3, I went back to the latest 2.x version.
It took over everything (well most things) on my machine.

why 2.x?
and is there any truth to the fact that winamp keeps opening thins and tying up your memory with each new track/thing you open?

**johnie** · 11-11-2002, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by clifgriffin
Section 3 of the EULA is harmless.

It basically says, content owners can contact Microsoft and have them revoke playing priviliges of their content. It isn't targeted...it isn't invading anyone's privacy...it is a blanket list that is controlled by the content owners.

"The law is not a tyranny to the righteous"...to quote the Bible.

I can't believe you're making such a big deal out of this. It isn't like Microsoft is allowing companies to scan your computer and individually revoke licenses... It is quite far from that...it is just giving the owners the ability to control whether their content can be played. Simple as that.

So...no they aren't bastards, you're just a tad paranoid.

It allows them to turn off files and restrict files on their whim. It also turns fair use from a right into a grant by the media companies.

"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither" - Ben Franklin.

Imagine if this was in place when 2LiveCrew came out with their version of Pretty Woman. The content companies could have shut them all off even though they won their case.

I also don't see poorer copyright holders benifiting from this.

Likewise I see it being used to silence un-popular speech.

So yes, I see Section 3 of that EULA as being a threat to freedom and and the basic principles that the US was founded on. The MS EULA in my eyes is Anti-American and anti freedom.

I am not alone in this. You can see how a rights are being whittled away here http://www.digitalconsumer.org/

**condorcet** · 11-11-2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by johnie

Likewise I see it being used to silence un-popular speech.

So yes, I see Section 3 of that EULA as being a threat to freedom and and the basic principles that the US was founded on. The MS EULA in my eyes is Anti-American and anti freedom.

I am not alone in this. You can see how a rights are being whittled away here http://www.digitalconsumer.org/

I agree with your points totally but why do you have to add your typical amero-centric crap? Anti-American, bollocks, it's anti-freedom and leave it at that. America did not invent freedom, nor is it free, try burning an american flag! and enjoy your prison time.

**teow** · 11-12-2002, 12:11 AM

Winamp 3 sucks.

The auto cross fader is a nice perk, but as everyone else said, it eats memory like a horse, takes forever to load, and when I first installed it, it crashed. So I had to reinstall several times it because it wouldn't stop crashing after a few loads.

I definitely preferred the older versions, which loaded like a dream.

**clifgriffin** · 11-12-2002, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by johnie
It allows them to turn off files and restrict files on their whim. It also turns fair use from a right into a grant by the media companies.

"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither" - Ben Franklin.

Imagine if this was in place when 2LiveCrew came out with their version of Pretty Woman. The content companies could have shut them all off even though they won their case.

I also don't see poorer copyright holders benifiting from this.

Likewise I see it being used to silence un-popular speech.

So yes, I see Section 3 of that EULA as being a threat to freedom and and the basic principles that the US was founded on. The MS EULA in my eyes is Anti-American and anti freedom.

I am not alone in this. You can see how a rights are being whittled away here http://www.digitalconsumer.org/

Who's them? The owners. Gee wouldn't that be neat...the owners of intellectual property getting to control their content for once.

The content companies could not shut them down. Besides the obvious fact that they LOST the court case, this only applies to media with content protection built in. THIS ONLY APPLIES TO LICENSED CONTENT. My mp3's and wma's are safe from ingringment because I don't have a license to use them...they aren't protected content...DRM doesn't even apply.

Second: JoeCompany can't tell microsoft to yank SmithCompany's content. It doesn't work like that.

Like I've said before....if it weren't for idiot kids stealing music with Kazza and other alteritives, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Clif

P.S. Sorry for the typos...I'm writing this over pcanywhere.

**gerbick** · 11-12-2002, 02:49 AM

ah. ports 5631 and 5632, easy hack for the inexperienced. gotta love PC AnyWhere

got a scenario. what if MS decides that they don't want a certain type of filetype to play any longer in media player via a 3rd party's plugin, say Ogg Vorbis.

they could possibly stop it due to citing it "makes things unstable" - read: fake justification - and disable it.

on your computer.

or... if the FCC decides that Rush Limbaugh's evil twin, Lush Limbaugh, and his incessant rants on OpenSource via media streams, were against some unheard of policy due to broadcasting without some obscure license.

they could limit your reception of this "free speech" on your computer.

don't say it can happen?

remember when divx first came out? Microsoft would blow it the custom mp4 *.dll's if you allowed the default setting of "allow the software to find a better suited version"... wait.

that still happens today.

yet, when you paid that money, you own the software, no? read the EULA. with the updates via SP3, you allow MS to update your OS as they see fit due to "security concerns"... well, what if your Winamp 4.2 is considered a security hazard due to it reusing the windows32.ocx and directx.dll in a fashion that MS decides is unstable... well, they could change those dll's, and disallow Winamp 4.2 access to those dll's...

back to content.

shame... even if you own it, if something like the SSSCA is passed, MS may beat them to the punch by not allowing you to play your own material. even if you own it.

just the opposite scenario that you propose. if you limit your thinking to one way, there's always another way of thinking. and limiting your thought may end up limiting your freedoms... think.

**clifgriffin** · 11-12-2002, 09:17 AM

I was doing it over my internal network...I still haven't figured out how to configure my router to allow remote access.

I respect that the fact that all this is possible. There is no evidence that MS will use it this way.

With them just getting out of the woods in regard to this anti-trust case, I don't think they'll be pulling any stunts.

I believe the whole point of these madatory updates is to comply with law...regarding copyrights. (Maybe I'm thinking of something else?)

**gerbick** · 11-12-2002, 02:48 PM

flip side of the coin... there's no evidence that they won't do that either.

if the updates were to comply with copyrights, then it would state so in the EULA.

it doesn't.

**johnie** · 11-14-2002, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by clifgriffin
Who's them? The owners. Gee wouldn't that be neat...the owners of intellectual property getting to control their content for once.

Like I've said before....if it weren't for idiot kids stealing music with Kazza and other alteritives, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Clif

P.S. Sorry for the typos...I'm writing this over pcanywhere.

They [The Media Companies] want to do away with Fair use period. We already have the right to make copies of digital music we own for archival and personal use and they want to take it away. Did you know that an E-Book version of Alice and Wonderland is ilegal to read out load? This is ridicoulous and as I said I am 100% against this.

This ranks right up there with the MS idea of the home entertainment PC that records onto DVD, TV Shows that only plays
in the computer it was recorded on only.

They [MS] didn't remove that uhm.. "Feature" but rather just made a switch so Media companies can turn it on at will.

This is about Treacherous computing and what you will be allowed to do with your legaly obtained property.

**Vitalstatistix** · 11-14-2002, 10:38 PM

What do you reckon is the best skin for Winamp3?

I would have to say: MMD3

**johnie** · 11-14-2002, 10:45 PM

The Dita_Lively Skin

Its very original.

Thread: Winamp 3

Thread Tools

Display

why 2.x

Posting Permissions