jragosta
Mar 18, 04:43 PM
Obviously, Apple will freak (what else is new...), but all this does is provide a shortcut around the burn-to-CD-and-rerip shortcut that's built into iTunes. You still need to buy the music. So, at best, this makes it easier to share music, but it doesn't provide a new capability.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
I disagree. What he's doing is illegal and unethical.
If you burn a CD and rip it back, you're losing quality. The owners of the music (mostly RIAA, but anyone who licenses it to Apple) apparently decided that they can live with that. They did NOT agree to what this guy is doing.
It's theft, pure and simple.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
There's a big difference. This is not a system security flaw. It's simply a matter of someone reverse engineering a file format. AFAIK, there isn't a single file format which has not been reverse engineered. That's actually a trivial task.
iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
Yes, they could do that.
They will also easily obtain a court injunction to stop this. What he's doing is illegal from two perspectives. First, it's a violation of the iTMS terms of service (which allows only iTunes access). Second, it's a violation of DCMA.
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I happen to disagree - but that's because my company depends on the ability to protect our intellectual property in order to stay in business.
The music owners have the right to do whatever they want with the music. You can legally (and morally) do what they request or live without their music.
Your position is the same as a person who steals a BMW because he doesn't like the purchase terms.
This is great news - by removing the DRM I can play my music on any device I like. It is my music after all. .
No, it's not your music. The music belongs to whoever the artist sold it to (usually a member of the RIAA). They sell you a license to use the music under a given set of terms. If you violate the terms that you paid for, you're stealing.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
If BMW would sell cheaper 5 series cars, no one would steal them.
The music industry owns the music - and they're free to price it however they want. If you think the price is too high, your only legal and moral response is to not buy it. Not liking the price is not justification for theft.
more...
Mord
Jul 12, 01:54 PM
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
more...
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
I'd like to see the RIAA, or in my case BPI, try to revoke the license on the 200 CDs I own simply because I've ripped them to my HDD to load onto my iPod. Removing the DRM to load songs I have purchased onto my phone, media streamer or Panasonic digital music player seems very similar to me, as does buying them without DRM.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
Kalmia
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
TV show recording would be REALLY nice, but it's probably wishful thinking, considering it could potentially cut into profits from iTunes. Still, one can dream...
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
gb3651
Mar 19, 07:46 PM
You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn
more...
awmazz
Mar 14, 02:01 PM
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
more...
brap
Mar 20, 07:35 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
more...
mattroberts
Mar 18, 11:16 AM
This sucks.... its interesting but still sucks.
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
more...
CaoCao
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
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.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
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.
more...
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
more...
68164
Sep 25, 12:37 AM
After viewing the ShowTime presentation, it is clear as clear can be that iTV will require either a Mac or PC to function - the whole focus of Steve's talk and demo on iTV was about how to get the stuff from your computer to your TV.
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
Of course the practicalities of doing that in a seamless interface for the consumer will undoubtly involve some form of buffering by the iTV unit - leading bob to talk about 'storage' i believe.
I'm already running a mac mini hooked up to my Sharp LCD TV - I really enjoy being able to sit on the couch with my bluetooth mouse and surf the net, surf google earth, check my widgets and watch TV with eyeTv - all on the big screen - so I probably won't get too excited about iTV intially - then again, if iTV could pull your desktop through to the TV and had a bluetooth receiver so your bluetooth mouse and keyboard could remotely control the desktop...that would be awesome...and I'd be turfing the mac mini and twin eyeTVs to the spare room and sliding the compact iTV under the Sharp without a moments hesitation.
I'm sure Apple's got some more surprises to pull out of the bag...can't wait for MWSF keynote!
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:24 AM
If you are currently on an unlimited plan, sorry - you can't complain about this new development. You agreed to TOS which stated clearly what you could and could not do with your data. Unlimited data is for PHONE use - not for other devices you can hook up to. ATT and other carrier's bandwidth isn't meant to support as many devices as you want on your unlimited plan.
Now... that being said...
Those who are on a 2gb, or whatever LIMITED plan - should be able to do whatever you want with your data. You've paid for a set allotment - and whether you use that on your phone or elsewhere doesn't matter.
There's a clear distinction between unlimited and capped in terms of what you are ENTITLED to or not.
Now... that being said...
Those who are on a 2gb, or whatever LIMITED plan - should be able to do whatever you want with your data. You've paid for a set allotment - and whether you use that on your phone or elsewhere doesn't matter.
There's a clear distinction between unlimited and capped in terms of what you are ENTITLED to or not.
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 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)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 02:27 PM
All Christians are not Catholics.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
more...
DTphonehome
Mar 18, 02:39 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
more...
javajedi
Oct 11, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
Outdoor Wedding Theme
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
your outdoor wedding.
more...
more...
more...
more...
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:26 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
more...
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Watch for EyeTV and Apple coming together over the next 3 months!!
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
more...
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:45 PM
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
more...
johnnowak
Mar 20, 07:01 AM
The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.
more...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий