peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
Man4allsea
Feb 17, 12:17 AM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
Lau
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a tough one. I'd like to think that we could vote with our wallets over something like this, but unfortunately I need a computer, and there's no way I'm not using OSX.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
I'd like to think we could still complain about it, but "Apple's annual shareholder meetings have seen frequent protests from environmental groups" makes me think that they don't really give a toss, which is bad, mmkay.
I don't really see why if Dell can do it, Apple can't.
jeffgarden
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
wekes
Aug 29, 04:47 PM
I remember getting my old Power Mac 7500 in an ugly brown box with a message on it saying that apple wasn't using dyed boxes in order to help the environment. That's fine with me. However, I retrospect, I promptly dumped that box in the trash and acutally still use my newer and prettier dyed Apple boxes as storage containers in my storage room--something I never would have done with the ugly, wimpier brown one. So much for the borwn box helping the environment.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
MattInOz
Apr 21, 09:57 AM
So you can't watch the Wizard of OZ and listen to Dark Side of the Moon at the same time? Get a real phone. :D
No but I can listen to Radiohead and read the wizard of id. :cool:
No but I can listen to Radiohead and read the wizard of id. :cool:
Multimedia
Oct 30, 09:27 AM
Im definitely ready to upgrade to a new Mac Pro, top of the line..
The fact that the OctoMac could be released anytime between Black Friday and MWSF is really making me anxious..
I fear that they hold it till MW.. and I jump the gun and buy a Quad. I mean Im using a Powerbook 1.67.. and multi-tasking like crazy.. The upgrade is a must.. sometimes Im running Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Itunes, Azureus, After Effects all at the same time.. Obviously as soon as I render, coffee break!
The quad would still kick ass.. Octo would pave the road ahead.
Keeping my eyes peeled on any indication of the TBA Octo. :cool: Post 163 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2994404&postcount=163)
Running a bunch of apps simultaneously and switching around is not a multi-threaded workload but is multi-tasking. The Multi-Threaded Workload is like when you start rendering in one, then switch to another and start rendering there, then switch to another and start crushing video, then switch to another and start crushing another video with the second application of two needed to get it down to high quality mp4 like for example how I use Toast followed by Handbrake to first create high quality DVD Images then crush those further to high quality mp4 with Handbrake's 2-pass FFmpeg encoder. Toast can use up to all 4 Quad Mac Pro cores and Handbrake can use almost 3. I hope to God they still function properly on the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.
This would not resemble the workflow you exercise with a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. You would be doing things in quite a different way with 8-cores at your disposal. But it does depend on how much you want to use multi-threaded applications simultaneously and as warned above, that what you use will not fold in the face of reports to them that there are more than 4 cores on board due to software authoring mistakes.
The fact that the OctoMac could be released anytime between Black Friday and MWSF is really making me anxious..
I fear that they hold it till MW.. and I jump the gun and buy a Quad. I mean Im using a Powerbook 1.67.. and multi-tasking like crazy.. The upgrade is a must.. sometimes Im running Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator, Itunes, Azureus, After Effects all at the same time.. Obviously as soon as I render, coffee break!
The quad would still kick ass.. Octo would pave the road ahead.
Keeping my eyes peeled on any indication of the TBA Octo. :cool: Post 163 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2994404&postcount=163)
Running a bunch of apps simultaneously and switching around is not a multi-threaded workload but is multi-tasking. The Multi-Threaded Workload is like when you start rendering in one, then switch to another and start rendering there, then switch to another and start crushing video, then switch to another and start crushing another video with the second application of two needed to get it down to high quality mp4 like for example how I use Toast followed by Handbrake to first create high quality DVD Images then crush those further to high quality mp4 with Handbrake's 2-pass FFmpeg encoder. Toast can use up to all 4 Quad Mac Pro cores and Handbrake can use almost 3. I hope to God they still function properly on the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.
This would not resemble the workflow you exercise with a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. You would be doing things in quite a different way with 8-cores at your disposal. But it does depend on how much you want to use multi-threaded applications simultaneously and as warned above, that what you use will not fold in the face of reports to them that there are more than 4 cores on board due to software authoring mistakes.
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 03:56 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
The main purpose of iTMS is to sell iPods. iPods are the only players at this time that can play iTMS purchased music, due to the DRM. Tell me how the DRM has nothing to do with iTMS's business model.
TheFink
Oct 10, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:58 AM
Sir what is being stolen?
Data=Data
At&t adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t)
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Data=Data
At&t adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t)
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
who thinks it will be 802.11g or will it be 802.11n?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
will that mean that all new macs Q1 07 also come with 802.11n as well?
or will the streaming from a 802.11g mac to the iTV just be crap?
if that's the case what will everyone with a current mac do, dongle it?
Steve should have been more explicit about the 802.11 or at least assured us that 802.11g macs will stream to it just fine.
Does anyone know if 802.11g can handle streaming video at that resolution?
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
arn
Oct 25, 10:27 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
arn
seems unlikely that Clovertown would replace the current Mac Pros... just add another high end config.
arn
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:33 PM
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
I can see where you're coming from regarding linear programming. However, commercials aren't going away and any effort to subvert advertising will be met with strong resistance from the content providers.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:21 AM
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.I don't believe you. I use applications that want 3-4 cores EACH. And I need to run 2-4 of them simultaneously. No way is Apple going to ship dual Clovertowns if they provide no benefit. I think AppliedVisual also does not believe you. In other words:
You may be mistaken.
You may be mistaken.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:19 AM
exctly what i have been saying this last year.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:10 AM
Compared to the alternative, it certainly seems to be.
[source: human history]
Compared to what alternative?
[source: human history]
Compared to what alternative?
ArcaneDevice
Apr 6, 03:09 PM
Navigation on a Mac is far faster.
If you know what you are doing.
Every folder can be moved to any visible location in the finder even if it's just in the file path.
Keyboard commands and shortcuts from OS 9 still apply. Everything can be navigated by CMD and cursors, dragging folders into dialog boxes opens the location in other apps, panel navigation is infinitely superior to the Explorer tree, CMD and clicking on a window title gives you instant path hierarchy, double-click still minimizes, you can drop any folder into the dock to provide access to anything you want to put in there, files can be viewed without opening the application, option and clicking on a folder arrow in list view opens all folder contents in list view, option and close closes all windows on screen ...
there are hundreds of tricks and shortcuts that can be found to navigate the Finder that Windows 7 still hasn't come around to yet. Switchers need to pick up a book otherwise the flexibility of the Finder will not be unlocked.
One of the basic failings of Windows is that even if you can see the location that doesn't mean you can interact with it.
If you know what you are doing.
Every folder can be moved to any visible location in the finder even if it's just in the file path.
Keyboard commands and shortcuts from OS 9 still apply. Everything can be navigated by CMD and cursors, dragging folders into dialog boxes opens the location in other apps, panel navigation is infinitely superior to the Explorer tree, CMD and clicking on a window title gives you instant path hierarchy, double-click still minimizes, you can drop any folder into the dock to provide access to anything you want to put in there, files can be viewed without opening the application, option and clicking on a folder arrow in list view opens all folder contents in list view, option and close closes all windows on screen ...
there are hundreds of tricks and shortcuts that can be found to navigate the Finder that Windows 7 still hasn't come around to yet. Switchers need to pick up a book otherwise the flexibility of the Finder will not be unlocked.
One of the basic failings of Windows is that even if you can see the location that doesn't mean you can interact with it.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 28, 11:17 AM
Q1 is usually the worst time to launch a high-price consumer product. Most people are broke and trying to recover from Christmas. The iPad 2 did very well for a Q1 launch.
I believe Mac Q1 sales were low because everyone is waiting for the refreshed models, due anytime now.
So let's see how Apple does in Q2... :D
I believe Mac Q1 sales were low because everyone is waiting for the refreshed models, due anytime now.
So let's see how Apple does in Q2... :D
rdowns
Mar 15, 07:53 AM
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
wtf?
http://pic.phyrefile.com/n/na/narf/2010/06/14/facepalm.jpg
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
wtf?
http://pic.phyrefile.com/n/na/narf/2010/06/14/facepalm.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment