ghost187
Apr 20, 07:06 PM
Darn, I am sooooo mad right now. NO LTE iPhone this year! I have to put up with HTC Thunderbolt for a year till iPhone 6. So what tha hell will iPhone 5 have besides dual core? Here is what I think we will get.
1.) A5 dual core (they won't mention speed cuz it will be underclocked)
2.) 8MP (if it fits in Galaxy S II it will fit in iPhone 5) + 1080p Video Recording
3.) HD Facetime (720p, same camera as iPod Touch rear camera) I am really betting this will happen because they put 720p cameras on MBP and promoted as HD Face Time.
4.) NFC Chip (if there is one company that can introduce a new standard, it's Apple)
That's it. You won't see 1gb ram, because you don't need it. Not on iOS, multitasking is very memory efficient. No LTE, as confirmed by this article. Screen size will remain the same, and it will come out June. Why isn't there a leak? Well because iPhone 5 will look identical to iPhone 4. I bet even workers who are assembling it can't tell the difference.
1.) A5 dual core (they won't mention speed cuz it will be underclocked)
2.) 8MP (if it fits in Galaxy S II it will fit in iPhone 5) + 1080p Video Recording
3.) HD Facetime (720p, same camera as iPod Touch rear camera) I am really betting this will happen because they put 720p cameras on MBP and promoted as HD Face Time.
4.) NFC Chip (if there is one company that can introduce a new standard, it's Apple)
That's it. You won't see 1gb ram, because you don't need it. Not on iOS, multitasking is very memory efficient. No LTE, as confirmed by this article. Screen size will remain the same, and it will come out June. Why isn't there a leak? Well because iPhone 5 will look identical to iPhone 4. I bet even workers who are assembling it can't tell the difference.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 21, 07:14 AM
I disagree with the comment put forth that the programmers are the ones that are breaking the law and the users aren't. Actually, it's the users who are.
Although, I'd asume the programmers also are users, so they too broke contract when they used it.
There might be something illegal about it's distribution, but I don't know enough about the law there.
Although, I'd asume the programmers also are users, so they too broke contract when they used it.
There might be something illegal about it's distribution, but I don't know enough about the law there.
MacsAttack
Sep 29, 05:15 AM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Yes. Latency on memory access can be slightly longer because the memory is organised in serial and not parallel for slots 5-8.
Think the numbers are in the region of 3-4% longer on memory benchmarks.
Real world impact is minimal as other elemiments like the large cache on the Core 2 Duo and improved fetch and pre-fetch logic that intel has been refining in the Core processors goes a long way to offset it in "real life"
Evangelion
Jul 12, 04:13 AM
Considering I mostly watch hdtv from satellite, neither platform is of any use. And who cares, I have a hdtivo that works like a champ. Let me know when mce can record Deadwood in HD. And let me know how I can hook up an xbox 360 to my hdtv via dvi/hdmi.
And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.
Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).
And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.
Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).
And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 11:04 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:19 PM
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
Sorry. That was rude of me.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
Sorry. That was rude of me.
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
CaoCao, just admit you lost this argument and move on.
AppliedVisual
Oct 12, 11:11 AM
Did you just get the 2007 model? If so how do you like it? Can't you lobby sales to give you the credit? You bought while the coupon was in effect - just overlooked it. It's another $96 off man. Worth asking about. Get one first then call sales.
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.
The one I ordered the other day shipped yesterday and I'm expecting delivery on monday. I requested the forum coupon and will see if they will credit me. But I don't know. i'm not planning on going through the brain damage of ordering another monitor with the coupon and sending one back just to save ~$100.
I currently have a 30" Dell that I bought last year when Dell first introduced them. I love the thing... My only gripe is 1 stuck pixel, but Dell requires like 7 or more to replace and I didn't swap the monitor within my 30-day window because the pixel didn't show up until after nearly 3 months. :(
I have an Apple 30" on my other G5 quad and I've never had the two side by side, but I think I like the Dell one better. I use a Gefen 4x1 DVI-DL switcher and have the G5 and two PC systems connected to the Dell with an extra cable for my MBP or whatnot if I want to connect that. I ordered the second 30" because I'm going to expand my desktop to dual 30" displays. :D I had to order another Gefen switcher for the second monitor too since the G5 and one of my PC boxes both support dual-link DVI out of both DVI ports as will the Mac Pro I'm planning to buy in the near future.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 05:46 PM
Terminology is different migrating from Windows to Mac. They pretty much have the same features, but they are worded differently. So, there is a learning curve, but it is not troublesome. I am still learning OS X and so far it has been a breeze. I think your attitude while making the switch is important. Be openminded and remember why you chose to buy a Mac: you want to learn a new operating system. Among other reasons. :)
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
If I think of more discrepancies, I will follow up with another post. Switchers Rule! :D
Also, iWork and Office are two different animals, but they do the same thing: create documents and slide shows etc.. I have and use both, but honestly, I prefer Office, as it has extra features when writing research papers. One of my current tasks at hand. Remember, I am still new and I plan to use one-to-one in order to learn all of the features of iWork.
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
If I think of more discrepancies, I will follow up with another post. Switchers Rule! :D
Also, iWork and Office are two different animals, but they do the same thing: create documents and slide shows etc.. I have and use both, but honestly, I prefer Office, as it has extra features when writing research papers. One of my current tasks at hand. Remember, I am still new and I plan to use one-to-one in order to learn all of the features of iWork.
Speedy2
Oct 8, 03:46 PM
ya that's why I said "generally", however, Googles main source of revenue is advertising. So all google wants is more and more people with smart phones.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
..and of course more people using Google's services. I think their major issue was that smartphone makers like Apple and Microsoft have a decided interest in leading users to their own, non-Google services, while "old school" mobile phone companies like Nokia or Motorola don't even have many Web services to speak of. Apple may still be using quite a few Google services, but haven't they just bought a Google Maps competitor? And Google, MS and Apple are all competing in the "Docs" department.
Still, I'm not convinced that the Android investment was really necessary. Microsoft, their biggest enemy, is failing in the mobile OS market, whereas Apple isn't really showing any signs they might target Google's core business, the search engine and Web ads, in the future.
I wonder in which way Google sees its "auxiliary" services (Mail, Docs, Maps, Voice, Wave, et bloody cetera) as a future money maker. They must play a key role for the Android stretgy. However, quite a few people (including me) have my doubts about them. Even the highly successful YouTube isn't making any money.
and Google does have better margins than Apple.. look up their quarterly reports..
I never doubted that Google as a pure software company may have a better margin, but you would need to compare Apple's iPhone business to Google Android business and see who is making more money in total.
TheUndertow
Apr 9, 07:49 PM
I 'm waiting for Apple to BUY Nintendo.
I'm hoping/expecting they're the next to get into the ring from a console standpoint and they've come out of nowhere to be sneaky good with the portable gaming.
I'm a gamer and my original iPad had kept me surprisingly content since my Asus G71G-Q gaming notebook died (and I waited until it was out of warranty to finally send).
I'm hoping/expecting they're the next to get into the ring from a console standpoint and they've come out of nowhere to be sneaky good with the portable gaming.
I'm a gamer and my original iPad had kept me surprisingly content since my Asus G71G-Q gaming notebook died (and I waited until it was out of warranty to finally send).
mac jones
Mar 12, 10:35 PM
Well it appears thing have gotten worse. I guess now all we can do is wait and see what can be done. I have the greatest confidence in the Japanese ability to deal with this, and the international communities contributions.
yg17
Mar 24, 07:20 PM
Awww....boo ****ing hoo.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:39 PM
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
haha. One thing we agree on :):apple:
haha. One thing we agree on :):apple:
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.
ideal.dreams
May 2, 09:08 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox. Safari is bloated in my opinion anyways.
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
DanielCoffey
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
What's LGBT?
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
Black94TSi
May 5, 03:01 PM
I live in an area where there are 4 towers within 3 miles. I have usually 2 bars in my house and 5 bars outside.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 04:10 PM
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
"Blame the user." It's the Microsoft way.
.Andy
Apr 23, 03:58 PM
Yay! It's .Andy! G'dday!
G'day skunk and PRSI friends! Apologies been busy down here :).
G'day skunk and PRSI friends! Apologies been busy down here :).
pdjudd
Oct 8, 09:19 AM
...but who has the market share?
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 10:02 AM
What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.
I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.
So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience. :)Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.
We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge. :p
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 06:38 PM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment