Apple OC
Apr 22, 11:37 PM
It depends on what you mean by 'know' I guess.
I cannot even know that my mind is perceiving reality as it actually is. Yet I still have to trust that this perception is valid at least on some levels. In the same way that I know gravity pulls me to the ground, gnostic theists know there is a god.
It's easy to demonstrate, too. Would an insurgent give up the only life he knew for something about which he was uncertain? I certainly wouldn't.
as for suicide bombers knowing that there is a God or Allah ... they are just strong believers ... IMO they "know" nothing and soon find themselves blown into complete silence
I cannot even know that my mind is perceiving reality as it actually is. Yet I still have to trust that this perception is valid at least on some levels. In the same way that I know gravity pulls me to the ground, gnostic theists know there is a god.
It's easy to demonstrate, too. Would an insurgent give up the only life he knew for something about which he was uncertain? I certainly wouldn't.
as for suicide bombers knowing that there is a God or Allah ... they are just strong believers ... IMO they "know" nothing and soon find themselves blown into complete silence
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:06 PM
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
bruinsrme
Apr 23, 12:46 PM
Blue..... Thank you for the taking the time to share those tips.....
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:39 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math. :rolleyes:
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
bid2ask77
Dec 3, 11:29 AM
I havent reall had any problems with droped calls since 4.0 came out. I guess i am one of the lucky ones.
Stridder44
Apr 13, 01:44 AM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Please, be more dramatic. :rolleyes:
This is an amazing update. It's everything FCP has needed for a long time. And you're upset because it looks like iMovie? I swear, it doesn't matter what Apple does, whenever there's an update by Apple there will always be people like you who will NEVER be happy. I'm surprised you aren't complaining that it's not a free download. Stop acting like a victim. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Please, be more dramatic. :rolleyes:
This is an amazing update. It's everything FCP has needed for a long time. And you're upset because it looks like iMovie? I swear, it doesn't matter what Apple does, whenever there's an update by Apple there will always be people like you who will NEVER be happy. I'm surprised you aren't complaining that it's not a free download. Stop acting like a victim. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it.
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 10:37 PM
All fine and well if YOU LIVE IN AMERICA but what about the other 99% of the world ????????
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
Not to be a total ass... but it's more like 95.071% ;)
Anyway, Apple doesn't *HAVE* to do anything about the rest of the world. I mean I don't doubt they'd like to, but conent overseas is different and so are some of the lables. It's not as easy and Apple flipping a switch and, viola, there's the content for the UK and the rest of the world. There are some severe negotiations that need to take place first and that takes a lot of time.
-Clive
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
Bernard SG
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Q2 figures will tell a different story, I would bet.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:23 PM
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
mrkramer
Mar 13, 11:49 AM
The only change to my opinion is thinking that Nuclear energy may not be the best for areas that are at high risk of earthquakes unless they have some sort of cooling system that can survive with no power. But Nuclear is still the best viable option we have for most places.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Little Endian
Mar 18, 10:32 AM
Meh... I use MyWi occasionally, meaning only once or twice every TWO months.
I love tethering but it is not worth it for me to spend an extra $25+ a MONTH or more for a feature that I rarely use. I will stick to my unlimited plan on a jailbroken phone using mywi for now. I have not received any texts or emails yet about my activity and doubt I will.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
I love tethering but it is not worth it for me to spend an extra $25+ a MONTH or more for a feature that I rarely use. I will stick to my unlimited plan on a jailbroken phone using mywi for now. I have not received any texts or emails yet about my activity and doubt I will.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
pyramid6
Sep 12, 03:57 PM
You want me to pay the same amount for the content another $300 for a new VCR, and it is almost as good as what I have? Plus I'm going to have to wait 2+ hours for it to download, plus nothing extra. Granted I probably will buy it. What is it with this Cult called Mac?
bryanc
Aug 29, 01:55 PM
...
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.
Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.
Cheers
The other 90%+ of the greenhouse effect (the REAL reason the Earth's climate is warming) is caused by....drum roll....naturally occuring water vapor!
...
Let's also not forget that 30 years ago (when manmade pollution was FAR worse than it is today) these same people were warning us of a coming Ice Age.
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
But, to get back on topic, I do think Apple should release well-documented information regarding what they are doing to reduce their environmental impact, and how they're going to change in the face of these criticisms.
Apple is supposed to be 'Different', and these challenges regarding the treatment of their labour force, and their environmental policies, should be viewed as opportunities to be a good example (and thereby earn more customer loyalty), rather than something to be spun and handled with PR.
Cheers
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 04:34 PM
In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p
robbieduncan
Mar 13, 03:50 PM
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
Indeed. Some existing solar arrays are built on grazing land that is still productive grazing once the array is in place.
Indeed. Some existing solar arrays are built on grazing land that is still productive grazing once the array is in place.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:59 AM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base....People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
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.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
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.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
brepublican
Sep 12, 04:06 PM
I think this is a great product from Apple and shows great foresight. SJ and Apple recognise that they can't surplant the TV from the living room.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment