jealousguy86
Apr 20, 10:13 PM
buying an iphone 4 tomorrow after reading the news today and just saying "screw it."
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
it seems that all the discussion lately from these "sources" is saying that the iphone 5 will basically come out in september/fall, have an 8mp camera, and have the A5 chip. and after what Cook said today, it's obvious there won't be 4G with this new phone, which i didn't really care about in the first place.
so it seems like what most are saying is that this next iphone will be a modest update from the incredible iphone 4, which i think is awesome already. so i figure, get it now, then iphone 6 next year maybe around june/july 2012, i'll just upgrade then to that.
instead of waiting another 5 or 6 months, then getting iphone 5, i could just have the iphone already for those months, then it wouldn't be bad waiting for the 6th iteration. oh well, anything's better than the phone i have now.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Sheesh, where does the OSX 10.2 developer tools CD install gcc to, or under what name? The older dev tools gave me a compiler. Grumble.
MacBoobsPro
Sep 20, 04:09 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
Im hoping Apple bring out a HDTV of there own, with iTV built in. Basically a 50" iMac :D Seriously though that would be cool and I would buy it straight away. Eventually i think thats where Apple will end up.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
Im hoping Apple bring out a HDTV of there own, with iTV built in. Basically a 50" iMac :D Seriously though that would be cool and I would buy it straight away. Eventually i think thats where Apple will end up.
cadillaccactus
Aug 29, 12:54 PM
I have been a devout mac user for a while now. I get wrapped up in the apple-is-always-right mindset plenty of the time. But greenpeace is a neutral third party evaluating a number of tech companies. While GP may hold companies to a high standard, and judge critically, there is no reason for us to assume that they rated one company in a spearate fashion.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
I would like to see a more formal reponse from apple.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 06:19 AM
It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Option A (Legal Participation): Buy the music and abide by the laws
Option B (Legal Non-Participation): Don't buy the music and not be subject to any laws
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself. Even if I end up the same place as you, the journey I took to get there will make all the difference.
ACED
Mar 18, 04:15 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the irony
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
jimbobb24
Apr 9, 07:51 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
"real games"? What does that mean?
Don't you guys get paid whether or not it all gets shut down? Its crazy - why didn't Obama make a budget last year when they had the House and Senate? All very weird/incompetent.
"real games"? What does that mean?
Don't you guys get paid whether or not it all gets shut down? Its crazy - why didn't Obama make a budget last year when they had the House and Senate? All very weird/incompetent.
JediZenMaster
May 5, 03:38 PM
Woah i've never had excessive dropped calls with ATT mobility. The Service here in NC is pretty flawless well for me anyway.
The only time i ever experienced excessive calls was with verizon when i was attempting to use the phone underground in a mall parking deck.
Funny thing is AT&T mobility in that same parking deck works fine. :cool:
The only time i ever experienced excessive calls was with verizon when i was attempting to use the phone underground in a mall parking deck.
Funny thing is AT&T mobility in that same parking deck works fine. :cool:
MacFly123
Oct 7, 01:12 PM
All I have to say is EAT IT MICROSOFT! Windows Mobile SUCKS lol :D :p
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
oakejs
Apr 13, 11:09 AM
Pretty good quality video of the event:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ
Aduntu
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:32 AM
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Speedy2
Oct 7, 12:50 PM
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
Depends on what you're selling. How much money is Google really making with those Android licenses and the market place? How much are the handset makers making with Android?
Google MAY have a better margin, but Apple has a much bigger market for sure since they add most of the value.
Depends on what you're selling. How much money is Google really making with those Android licenses and the market place? How much are the handset makers making with Android?
Google MAY have a better margin, but Apple has a much bigger market for sure since they add most of the value.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:27 AM
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
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.
gauriemma
Sep 20, 01:48 PM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
drsmithy
Sep 26, 12:23 AM
So say I�m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary �re-wire� applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
You can typically bind processes to specific cores. Some OSes have a concept of processor "pools" where you can group, say, 3 CPUs together and assign a certain group of processes to them, another 2 CPUs get a different set of processes, etc.
Most of the time though (outside of benchmarks and corner cases) you're generally better off letting the OS's scheduler shuffle tasks around CPUs as it sees fit.
OS X still has a ways to go with its multiprocessor support, however, so it might not do it as well as other platforms do yet.
technicolor
Sep 21, 05:52 AM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
Basically.
I have no plans on purchasing this, unless its magically has DVR ability
appleguy123
Apr 24, 10:03 AM
There could be many other reasons as well, for example the average age of posters on here is likely to be less than in the population at large.
I polled that, too. You're right. Here are the results. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=758819&highlight=
I polled that, too. You're right. Here are the results. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=758819&highlight=
torbjoern
Apr 24, 12:23 PM
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that. Most mainstream religions still cling to this notion.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
bigwig
Oct 27, 06:01 PM
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
gweedo
Sep 12, 04:51 PM
Does anyone know if Apple will be providing some kind of developer toolkit for this "iTV" device? I sure hope so, I can think of a number of neat ways to put this device to work, not the least of which is a Tivo-like module. :cool:
All in all it sounds like a neat little unit, with an fairly good price. I'll have to buy me a XServe with some XRaid's so I can put my entire DVD library into it. ;)
All in all it sounds like a neat little unit, with an fairly good price. I'll have to buy me a XServe with some XRaid's so I can put my entire DVD library into it. ;)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment