G58
Oct 18, 07:56 AM
If I thought it was Relevant to mention the people, I would have.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
29point97
Apr 12, 11:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Marx55
Sep 26, 03:17 AM
So, first it was the number of transistors per processor, then they coupled that with higher clock speeds (MHz) and now with multi-cores inside multi-processors.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
Is there a limit to such growth with the current technology?
Anything after that? The optical computer that works with light instead of electricity and thus does not heat soo much? Any roadmap?
Thanks.
gwangung
Apr 20, 07:05 PM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
There are quite a lot of people in this thread who sound like AT&T employees trying to add to the scare tactics.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
Anonymous Freak
Oct 7, 10:28 AM
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
ChazUK
Feb 23, 02:02 PM
<snip>
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
What could Apple possibly add to the iPhone which would equal the tech jump which nullified the Zune?
I can't see any phone manufacturer adding much more than is out there now. Faster CPU's, better radio tech, better network tech, better features (cam/storage etc) & updated software is about as far as it can go from here (from my limited vision).
If Apple ever did create such a generational leap as the Zune to iPhone leap this late in the game I would be heartily impressed with them! :cool:
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
What could Apple possibly add to the iPhone which would equal the tech jump which nullified the Zune?
I can't see any phone manufacturer adding much more than is out there now. Faster CPU's, better radio tech, better network tech, better features (cam/storage etc) & updated software is about as far as it can go from here (from my limited vision).
If Apple ever did create such a generational leap as the Zune to iPhone leap this late in the game I would be heartily impressed with them! :cool:
Cabbit
Apr 15, 12:47 PM
Not if you believe HBO! All Roman women were raging lesbians (or at least bi-sexual).
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
A married woman of high standing was not allowed, but lower classes were. A man or woman could have a man, woman, child or animal if they wished.
The hunky men, not so much� *sigh*
:p
A married woman of high standing was not allowed, but lower classes were. A man or woman could have a man, woman, child or animal if they wished.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 25, 11:46 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
mac jones
Mar 12, 05:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
Also FTR the 60 km radius is old news on Japanese TV, and telling us they are detecting Cesium and outright telling that it may indicate a meltdown doesn't sound like covering things up to me.
Good. Perhaps we can depend on being kept up to date. The media does it's job, but is a loose cannon.
Chundles
Apr 8, 10:22 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
bokdol
Sep 26, 02:18 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
not mac book pro...
mac pro
not mac book pro...
mac pro
benixau
Oct 10, 11:29 AM
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
PDubNYC
Sep 20, 10:05 AM
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...
From the linked article:
"He said: "It can also stream it live through the box to the TV or it has a small hard drive on it so they can download what you put on the device on your computer, on your iTunes, through the television set."
Sounds to me like he is very much indeed indicating that it has a hard drive. And iTV is a temporary name. Damn, you've got all of those computers, yet you are still so misinformed.
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...
From the linked article:
"He said: "It can also stream it live through the box to the TV or it has a small hard drive on it so they can download what you put on the device on your computer, on your iTunes, through the television set."
Sounds to me like he is very much indeed indicating that it has a hard drive. And iTV is a temporary name. Damn, you've got all of those computers, yet you are still so misinformed.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 03:03 PM
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
Memorable Osama bin Laden
osama bin laden quotes.
osama bin laden quotes.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
ChrisA
Apr 14, 06:47 PM
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
The shell that interprets your typing into the command line is just another program. There are several different shells and you can install many of them and switch between them if you like. If you see difference between Linux and Mac OS X it is likely because on one system the default shell is /bin/sh and the other it is /bin/csh or /bin/tcsh or whatever. The defaults on both Mac and Linux at set on a per user basis so each user gets his favorite shell. Difference in syntax are subtle and mostly are noticed only if you write shell scripts. It's not a BSD vs. Linux issue, either OS can run either shell or even run different shells in different windows on the same machine
Multimedia
Jul 12, 06:46 PM
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.I'm thinking Paris may be the time for the new Merom MacBook Pro intro. :)
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.I'm thinking Paris may be the time for the new Merom MacBook Pro intro. :)
luci216
Apr 28, 08:34 AM
The top 3 also have much cheaper models than Apple.. which can contribute to their higher sale spots. Not many people are willing to sell out $1k for a computer, especially internationally. In Brazil, a MBP costs about $3k. DOLLARS. Not many people can afford that..
Daveoc64
Apr 15, 11:32 AM
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
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.
superfula
Apr 11, 04:02 PM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
JackAxe
Apr 8, 10:58 PM
I hope they poach someone that likes BUTTONS.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar