robeddie
Apr 13, 08:48 AM
Not having seen FCPX first hand I will completely withhold judgement on the app until I do.
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
You seem to be forgetting, that before there was the FINAL CUT STUDIO suite that cost $999 ... final cut pro was sold separately for years, at the low low upgrade price of ... $299 - $399!!!
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 04:41 PM
There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real.
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 08:12 AM
The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D
Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>
:D
Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:
I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....
Or are you spying on hippy communes? <shifty eyes>
:D
Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:
I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....
tbrinkma
Apr 28, 08:27 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:08 PM
...you sound computer savvy!
I am with Windows! :) But on a Mac I'm a bumbling idiot. No joke.
I am with Windows! :) But on a Mac I'm a bumbling idiot. No joke.
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 06:46 PM
When your moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature are bigoted and wrong, yes, we will attack you. Get used to it because that is the direction the world is moving, like it or not.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Gosh
Sep 12, 06:09 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:45 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
Yes sound advice.
But the problem is, I read that there was a minor explosion, so I thought "Fine ok, no biggie". Then I see the video, and it looks like 9-11. So then, there's now a credibility problem. Fear sets in, and doubt.
You see the pattern.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 08:34 PM
how can they NOT design for the possibility of coolant failure in the holding basin and put it also within a containment vessel? especially if, as you imply, there are some spent rods in it pretty much at any time.
They just did not predict a tsunami of this scale causing the situation we are now faced with.
Unfortunately it takes something like this to correct mistakes moving forward. That being said ... this will get fixed.
This Nuclear Disaster has now been confirmed as the worst since Chernobyl and is far from being resolved.
I wish the heros working on this all the best.
They just did not predict a tsunami of this scale causing the situation we are now faced with.
Unfortunately it takes something like this to correct mistakes moving forward. That being said ... this will get fixed.
This Nuclear Disaster has now been confirmed as the worst since Chernobyl and is far from being resolved.
I wish the heros working on this all the best.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 11:27 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
thejoshu
Mar 21, 01:41 AM
Bullpucky. The RIAA, and recording artists, and Apple, and any other corporate entity, owe you exactly nothing. If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy it -- it's that simple. If enough people don't buy it, then the companies will change -- that's capitalism in action.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Bullpucky -- I'm going to steal that one for future use, if that's OK - I presume it's CC licensed? I agree with your points about the way capitalism functions; of course, a good uproar always works better than sitting quietly.
And I want a pony, but neither is going to happen. In the case of music, the person(s) who actually writes and performs the music owns it (unless they sell those rights to someone else, as is often the case). What you get when you buy a CD, or download a song, or for that matter buy a paperback or a poster, is a license for certain legally defined rights. In some cases (like a Creative Commons license) you may have substantial freedom to do what you like with the material, but in most cases, your rights are constrained. That's the way it's always been, and this is nothing new -- copyright has been around for a long time. There isn't anything really special about the digital era with regards to the principle of copyright -- the Internet just makes it easier to violate.
Funny, I don't remember signing a EULA when I bought my last Allman Brothers CD. But I respect what you're saying: "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," you'll find everywhere. I care not for piracy, I care more about Apple not being my only service provider when it comes to listening to purchased tracks. But they provide a good service, and I'll continue to use it.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism. I despair that the only thing that seems to get geeks politically active is the threat that they won't be able to use their music illegally. It's sad, really.
You don't know me. Shame on you for treating everyone with an opinion as a troll. I can spread my critiques and indignation far and wide, that I assure you. Please apologize.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 09:09 PM
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
gugy
Sep 12, 03:18 PM
I love it! Great job Apple
thejadedmonkey
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
gohanmzt
Apr 20, 06:47 PM
Once you use Windows, you are doing something stupid :D
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
Well not really, I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
(facepalm)
leshkanyc
Nov 10, 03:01 PM
Yes, i did! And it's a BIG difference vs ****** AT&T
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
Read about it here:
Why I dumped AT&T, sold my iPhone 4 and got Droid X with Verizon (http://www.webandblog.com/general/why-dumped-att-sold-my-iphone-4-and-got-myself-droid-x-on-verizon/)
Sell your iPhone 4, call AT&T and tell em they suck and get away with your number!
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
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.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
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.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Jo-Kun
Sep 20, 04:52 AM
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams media from your mac/pc trough wifi or ethernet... so if you buy an episode on iTunes... it will be stored in your iTunes library on the content-hosting mac/pc in your house and thus be available for iTV to play on your TV...
since it has a USB port I guess it will be possible to attach a USB HD... and store files locally instead of on a remote mac/pc...
actually... he doesn't indicate a HD... why? well the iTV (sorry, not really impressed with this name) streams media from your mac/pc trough wifi or ethernet... so if you buy an episode on iTunes... it will be stored in your iTunes library on the content-hosting mac/pc in your house and thus be available for iTV to play on your TV...
since it has a USB port I guess it will be possible to attach a USB HD... and store files locally instead of on a remote mac/pc...
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:57 PM
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
No ones rights are trampled for being promiscuous, unless you're a woman, then you're a slut and deserve what you get. (I wish this was sarcastic, but that's pretty much how women with multiple partners are viewed).
jeremyb66
Apr 13, 02:02 AM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
M87
Apr 12, 11:28 PM
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
+1
So ready to move up from Express.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
+1
So ready to move up from Express.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:55 PM
If you're suggesting that Front Row's remote would be suitable for a DVR, I think you're dead wrong.
I never said that. I said a USB device would control the PVR recording software from any TV in your house.
The Front Row remote manages all content easily just like it does now, today.
I never said that. I said a USB device would control the PVR recording software from any TV in your house.
The Front Row remote manages all content easily just like it does now, today.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar