MacMan86
Apr 12, 06:21 AM
Unless, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that 3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware. In that case, all customers will be required to install a mandatory "security" bug fix which installs support for a new private key, and everything proceeds as normal.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.
3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.
The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.
tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.
3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.
The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.
tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
MrFirework
Oct 27, 10:56 AM
So all Greenpeace did was hand out leaflets in areas other than their stand? So they didn't smash up the Apple stand or invade Adobe chanting and shouting.
They handed out leaflets and were ejected because no one's ever allowed to talk about the downsides of our throwaway consumer-trinket technojunk culture without being told to shut up.
Heck, every trade show I ever go to has girls with their tits half hanging out wondering the halls handing out leaflets nowhere near their particular stand.
Sad to see so many people now happy to have people's free speech stamped all over. No wonder Bush can dismantle the Bill of Rights and his lapdog Blair can swiftly remove centruries-old liberties with barely a whisper...
You're joking, right?
(A) It was in their contract that they had to stay in their booth. It was up to them... if they didn't like the contract, they could have stayed at home, or on their fishing-boat-ramming ships. They violated something THEY AGREED TO and were kicked out for it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
(B) It's a private trade show. A PRIVATE trade show. If the organizers of it dictate that you have to chant a seven-paragraph-"all hail Apple" chant and hop on one foot to get in the doors... then that's what you have to do to get in. If the rules are unfair, no one goes, they lose money. This isn't a government-organized event. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Now, if Apple went after them for distributing fliers on the public streets, or for saying any of this on their website or any other PUBLIC arena, that would indeed be infringement of freedom of speech, so long as what Greenpace was saying wasn't false or defamatory.
People don't understand what freedoms truly are. It doesn't mean you get to say and do whatever you want wherever you want - that's anarchy, and anarchy is bad... unless you're the biggest, strongest and most brutal. Freedom of speech really means you can't be jailed or otherwise punished by the government for saying what you want in a pulic arena.
I'm done. Continue your whining.
They handed out leaflets and were ejected because no one's ever allowed to talk about the downsides of our throwaway consumer-trinket technojunk culture without being told to shut up.
Heck, every trade show I ever go to has girls with their tits half hanging out wondering the halls handing out leaflets nowhere near their particular stand.
Sad to see so many people now happy to have people's free speech stamped all over. No wonder Bush can dismantle the Bill of Rights and his lapdog Blair can swiftly remove centruries-old liberties with barely a whisper...
You're joking, right?
(A) It was in their contract that they had to stay in their booth. It was up to them... if they didn't like the contract, they could have stayed at home, or on their fishing-boat-ramming ships. They violated something THEY AGREED TO and were kicked out for it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
(B) It's a private trade show. A PRIVATE trade show. If the organizers of it dictate that you have to chant a seven-paragraph-"all hail Apple" chant and hop on one foot to get in the doors... then that's what you have to do to get in. If the rules are unfair, no one goes, they lose money. This isn't a government-organized event. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Now, if Apple went after them for distributing fliers on the public streets, or for saying any of this on their website or any other PUBLIC arena, that would indeed be infringement of freedom of speech, so long as what Greenpace was saying wasn't false or defamatory.
People don't understand what freedoms truly are. It doesn't mean you get to say and do whatever you want wherever you want - that's anarchy, and anarchy is bad... unless you're the biggest, strongest and most brutal. Freedom of speech really means you can't be jailed or otherwise punished by the government for saying what you want in a pulic arena.
I'm done. Continue your whining.
eawmp1
Apr 25, 07:56 AM
Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. The decision of the Nobel Committee mentions:[135]
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (Burma) for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights.
...Suu Kyi's struggle is one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent decades. She has become an important symbol in the struggle against oppression...
...In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to honour this woman for her unflagging efforts and to show its support for the many people throughout the world who are striving to attain democracy, human rights and ethnic conciliation by peaceful means.
�Oslo, 14 October 1991
OP - the ignorance with which you post, while having an avatar you obviously know little about shows your extreme immaturity. Please keep all the transcrips from your rants, and in 20 or so years re-read them. I don't think your older self will like your current self.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (Burma) for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights.
...Suu Kyi's struggle is one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent decades. She has become an important symbol in the struggle against oppression...
...In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to honour this woman for her unflagging efforts and to show its support for the many people throughout the world who are striving to attain democracy, human rights and ethnic conciliation by peaceful means.
�Oslo, 14 October 1991
OP - the ignorance with which you post, while having an avatar you obviously know little about shows your extreme immaturity. Please keep all the transcrips from your rants, and in 20 or so years re-read them. I don't think your older self will like your current self.
alust2013
Apr 25, 12:15 AM
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
-Don
Gotta love corrupt governments.
-Don
Gotta love corrupt governments.
Kufat
Sep 12, 03:07 PM
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
No, you don't. I just didn't have Quadrophenia loaded on that iPod before.
No, you don't. I just didn't have Quadrophenia loaded on that iPod before.
SPUY767
Sep 10, 08:16 AM
The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
The current 900$ dells don't even come with a Core based processor, so I doubt that a "Core-Quadro" is in the future for any 900$ dell. Bottom line will always be, most of the time, you get exactly what you pay for.
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
The current 900$ dells don't even come with a Core based processor, so I doubt that a "Core-Quadro" is in the future for any 900$ dell. Bottom line will always be, most of the time, you get exactly what you pay for.
dolph0291
Mar 30, 01:18 PM
They are bothered because they want to be able to describe their app store. They want to be able to say:
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
QCassidy352
Sep 13, 09:14 PM
I am quoting myself! arn went ahead and added to question mark to the title.
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
QCassidy352, you can deposit your savings in my escrow account and we will see if this thing happens.
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
milo
Jul 17, 11:54 AM
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.
And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.
SeaFox
Sep 16, 12:38 PM
I don't like the sound of "off the shelf" parts. That sounds like Apple is going to rebrand an existing phone or place the guts of another company's phone in their casing.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
I'm don't want a piece-of-@#$% Motorola handset inside a nice brushed steel Apple form. Which is who I imagine they would partner with.
If you're listening Apple, I'm interested in the iPhone. I buy my phones outright and I'm not interested in changing carriers (currently on T-Mobile). So you better sell it yourself and hardware unlocked.
asdf542
Apr 14, 04:24 PM
No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.LOL, and yet you still haven't given any examples.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either. I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english. Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either. I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english. Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
kdarling
Mar 23, 04:33 PM
This is why it's a really bad idea to set yourself up as an application gatekeeper.
And who watches the gatekeeper? Yep, politicians and special interest groups looking for easy publicity.
And who watches the gatekeeper? Yep, politicians and special interest groups looking for easy publicity.
freeny
Sep 5, 12:39 PM
I believe Apple has been waiting for all the planets to align. If there is going to be a movie service there will be a true "video iPod".
They were whipped in the ass last time for the boom box release, they will be looking to gain back face this time around.
They were whipped in the ass last time for the boom box release, they will be looking to gain back face this time around.
snakelda
Mar 22, 02:55 PM
Finally some Mac rumors.. :D
Lol yeah true
Lol yeah true
WillEH
Apr 19, 05:19 PM
What do Apple want out of this? more money?
Homy
Sep 9, 10:13 AM
I'm just not sure why everyone is so impressed with these imacs.
Faster processor, double the RAM, cheaper AND 21-37% better game performance:
New 17" C2D is 37% faster in UT 2004 than old 17" CD.
New 17" C2D is 21% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
New 20" C2D is 37.5% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
and I don't even play UT 2004 ;).
Faster processor, double the RAM, cheaper AND 21-37% better game performance:
New 17" C2D is 37% faster in UT 2004 than old 17" CD.
New 17" C2D is 21% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
New 20" C2D is 37.5% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
and I don't even play UT 2004 ;).
Daghis
May 3, 12:52 PM
Did you log into store.apple.com and show them? :D
One of the two guys there did immediately go to a computer and check the web site while the other went into the back to find out what information he could. He came back and reported that the old iMacs were due to be sent back to Apple today and that new iMacs were going to be arriving imminently, but he couldn't say whether that'd be today, tomorrow, or any particular day.
Using the Apple Store app on my iPhone, it shows that I can reserve the old iMacs at the regular prices at this store. At a store on the other side of Pittsburgh, it also shows the old iMacs, but the prices are reduced $100-300.
Ah, it's just been updated. It's now showing the reduced prices for the old iMacs at my local store as well. Still no sign of the new iMacs in the app for reserved pickup yet.
One of the two guys there did immediately go to a computer and check the web site while the other went into the back to find out what information he could. He came back and reported that the old iMacs were due to be sent back to Apple today and that new iMacs were going to be arriving imminently, but he couldn't say whether that'd be today, tomorrow, or any particular day.
Using the Apple Store app on my iPhone, it shows that I can reserve the old iMacs at the regular prices at this store. At a store on the other side of Pittsburgh, it also shows the old iMacs, but the prices are reduced $100-300.
Ah, it's just been updated. It's now showing the reduced prices for the old iMacs at my local store as well. Still no sign of the new iMacs in the app for reserved pickup yet.
roadbloc
Apr 4, 04:54 PM
I stand corrected.
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
It seems that App on its own is generic, but the combination with another word to define a particular thing is not... see
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
Manic Mouse
Sep 9, 10:01 AM
With the decent graphics and these C2D's they make the iMac a formiddable machine. Alot of PowerMac's are going to be replaced by these new iMac's i feel. Probably Apple's most impressive, solid and reliable machine at the moment
Unless Leopard is designed to make full use of the extra threads/cores available on the quad-core Mac Pro. Like that OS someone mentioned earlier in the thread that saw 60-70% performance gains when the cores were doubled.
I think the Mac Pro is fairly safe as a workstation, but fewer people will use it as a simple desktop now that iMacs are so competitive.
Unless Leopard is designed to make full use of the extra threads/cores available on the quad-core Mac Pro. Like that OS someone mentioned earlier in the thread that saw 60-70% performance gains when the cores were doubled.
I think the Mac Pro is fairly safe as a workstation, but fewer people will use it as a simple desktop now that iMacs are so competitive.
munkery
Apr 12, 07:15 PM
Can anybody running Leopard confirm what users/groups have write privileges to Safari, Mail, & etc.
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
BRLawyer
Oct 12, 06:02 PM
This site is so wierd - 10 people actually clicked on the negative rating to this story like there is anything negative about it.
Actually there is...the RED iPod is FUGLY...sorry about that.
Actually there is...the RED iPod is FUGLY...sorry about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment