Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
mhar4
Oct 26, 01:40 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
macintel4me
Sep 20, 05:31 AM
I think the HD is using just for caching the streamed content. My prediction is that Apple will come out with a SAN with iTV/FrontRow streaming smarts in it. This way we don't have to run into our office to turn on our computer so we can watch TV in our living room.
Multimedia
Oct 30, 04:40 PM
That kind of bug is the reason why a programmer would be very hesitant to use more processors than are available on any machine the code has been tested on. It is not unlikely that for example Handbrake has a built-in limit of four processors, because the developers never had a machine with eight processors.I'm not worried about that at all. Only worry about crashes due to not knowing what to do when 8 are reported. I want to run 4 things at once so I am not concerned each can't use all 8 at once. That's a feature not a bug. ;)
takao
Mar 13, 10:19 AM
Well, this is still playing out.
a japanese meterology institute estimates the chances of 7.0+ earthquake within the next 3 days at 70% so we will see how well they hold up
(even in europe some nuclear power plants are build rather close to minor seismic fault lines: for example in switzerland and germany)
a japanese meterology institute estimates the chances of 7.0+ earthquake within the next 3 days at 70% so we will see how well they hold up
(even in europe some nuclear power plants are build rather close to minor seismic fault lines: for example in switzerland and germany)
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
ciTiger
Apr 28, 07:57 AM
Growth 187.9 %... LOL
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
They sure need big vaults too keep all that money...
theheyes
May 2, 05:10 PM
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:18 AM
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
I hardly think he is being attacked. He entered this thread willingly and joined the discussion. Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions and those of the people like him are directly resulting in my civil rights being violated. We are cretins because we want things changed?
gorgeousninja
Apr 13, 07:53 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.
don't have kids... ever ...
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.
don't have kids... ever ...
D4F
Apr 28, 09:28 AM
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Apparently this is what they call"productivity' these days so no wonder you get such a vast of "interesting" replies on obvious topics :D
Apparently this is what they call"productivity' these days so no wonder you get such a vast of "interesting" replies on obvious topics :D
justflie
Mar 18, 07:29 AM
What exactly about "unlimited" don't people understand? Without limits.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 08:52 PM
So sorry if I missed any thread on DVD Jon's involvement in this.
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
takao
Mar 15, 05:07 PM
according to current reports the roof of reactor 4 broke apart/collapsed and two workers are considered missing
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
also the fire which was put out earlier seems to have started again
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:51 PM
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
CalBoy
Mar 25, 02:50 PM
Got a source for that?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public,
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
Legacy. SAN DIEGO - JULY
garrett hedlund tron legacy.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public,
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
rstansby
Mar 18, 05:01 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
Man4allsea
Feb 17, 12:17 AM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
r0k
Apr 20, 08:57 AM
as said before...
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
skunk
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo (unless of course he was looking up "sign" and found the word for to sign beneath or subscribe(!)), or of, or a as an indefinite article, for that matter. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican. Actually, the id is optional. Hence dog Latin, frater.
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:26 AM
How come Dells last half as long? Because they're "better made"? Do they not actually function any more? Or is it that you don't throw and Apple out because of sentimentality?
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
The only reason we\ve dumped computers at work is because they're not worth upgrading. In the last six months that's included one dell, two PowerMac G4s (although I claimed them) and six iMac G3s. They simply weren't up to (business) task anymore. The oldest computer we have in the office is actually a Dell that we use for one program.
Not out of sentimentality. The other pcs are so cheap, sometimes it is easier to just buy a new one.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 09:41 AM
Ehh...I agree with you that bullying period, causes alot of pain. The only difference is, you can do situps to "fit in"...these kids are who they are. Kinda Apples and Oranges
It's not that easy to fit in. Sophomore year I lost a lot of weight and kept it off for about a year. Looking at pictures now, I wasn't fat during that time. But I still got picked on for being fat. I got called fat by guys who actually WERE fat.
The calculus isn't so simple to figure out. Why were there big fat popular bullies that didn't get picked on? Probably something to do with a degree of violence and intimidation or perhaps some sort of charm or leadership quality they expressed. Who knows.
But trust me, if you get made fun of for your clothes, then go out and get some cool clothes to "fit in", you will be laughed at even more for trying, and they will not relent until you stop wearing those new clothes and go back to your old ways so the kids can go back to bullying you the way they wanted to.
It's not that easy to fit in. Sophomore year I lost a lot of weight and kept it off for about a year. Looking at pictures now, I wasn't fat during that time. But I still got picked on for being fat. I got called fat by guys who actually WERE fat.
The calculus isn't so simple to figure out. Why were there big fat popular bullies that didn't get picked on? Probably something to do with a degree of violence and intimidation or perhaps some sort of charm or leadership quality they expressed. Who knows.
But trust me, if you get made fun of for your clothes, then go out and get some cool clothes to "fit in", you will be laughed at even more for trying, and they will not relent until you stop wearing those new clothes and go back to your old ways so the kids can go back to bullying you the way they wanted to.
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