Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:22 AM
well i must say i'd be kinda suprized to see an update this early with apple. especially since i just bought a mac pro. i'd be mad if the prices of the one i just bought goes downIt is not early. You should have known about this since August. I did.
bedifferent
May 2, 12:22 PM
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Agreed. I charge about $125-150/hour working on Windows systems. Initially issues weren't virus/malware related, but I always do a full system scan and find at least a dozen or so on the majority of them. Whether it's PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) errors, or viruses and malware (most do not update their anti-virus data and it's increasingly difficult to catch new viruses as so many new ones appear), I make most of my money working part-time in Communications and IT on Windows systems.
People complain about the bill that they could have purchased a new machine to which I iterate if it's a Window based system they will still have these issues.
However, I do not like this news one bit. It's not serious to us as were not the Joe the Mac user, but it's demonstrating that OS X isn't 100% secure (but much more difficult to crack).
No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof.
Unlike Windows based .exe's, the user either has to open the dmg and drop the malware app in their App folder and run it or run the package installer. Unlike Windows the user needs to run it, and it is difficult to fully remove Windows malware/viruses as it propagates in the OS much more so than OS X (system registry, etc.). So in OS X the user has to engage the malware, in Windows much of it can be done without the user's knowledge.
As OS X is predominately a consumer product most hackers are focused on Windows based OS's that are traditionally businesses oriented. This is not to state that OS X is 100% secure, far from it, but currently it's the more secure consumer/business OS on the market.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Agreed. I charge about $125-150/hour working on Windows systems. Initially issues weren't virus/malware related, but I always do a full system scan and find at least a dozen or so on the majority of them. Whether it's PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) errors, or viruses and malware (most do not update their anti-virus data and it's increasingly difficult to catch new viruses as so many new ones appear), I make most of my money working part-time in Communications and IT on Windows systems.
People complain about the bill that they could have purchased a new machine to which I iterate if it's a Window based system they will still have these issues.
However, I do not like this news one bit. It's not serious to us as were not the Joe the Mac user, but it's demonstrating that OS X isn't 100% secure (but much more difficult to crack).
No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof.
Unlike Windows based .exe's, the user either has to open the dmg and drop the malware app in their App folder and run it or run the package installer. Unlike Windows the user needs to run it, and it is difficult to fully remove Windows malware/viruses as it propagates in the OS much more so than OS X (system registry, etc.). So in OS X the user has to engage the malware, in Windows much of it can be done without the user's knowledge.
As OS X is predominately a consumer product most hackers are focused on Windows based OS's that are traditionally businesses oriented. This is not to state that OS X is 100% secure, far from it, but currently it's the more secure consumer/business OS on the market.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:15 PM
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated.The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
ratzzo
Apr 20, 08:45 PM
I guess, the "learning curve." While the OS can perform the same functions as say, Windows, things may not be where you'd normally look for them as, granted, you're on another platform now. But Apple does great in this sense, by adding a search function to most OS options (System Preferences).
I guess the other thing you might not like might be the fact that, after switching, you will want (or try) to keep up with Apple yearly hardware updates :p
I guess the other thing you might not like might be the fact that, after switching, you will want (or try) to keep up with Apple yearly hardware updates :p
Multimedia
Sep 26, 05:04 PM
You're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. Glad to hear you also use a Quad. You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.
I'm just trying to explain how my workflow keeps me from enjoying a DC or DP PMs any more. Maybe that will change when I go C2D Intel someday on a 2.33GHz Merom MBP for example. But meanwhile I need more cores more than I need mobility.What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...My bad. I misunderstood your meaning. Sorry for jumping to that conclusion.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.This multicore stuff is very individualized experience. I think it depends on the unique set of applications and the way you use those applications in what order that can determine if you will benefit from a lot of cores or not. I also think a lot of younger people will learn to take advantage of a lot of cores through the clever planning of multitasking that older people may never imagine.
While I agree many may never feel the need for more than two, I also think it will be a seriously large minority that will feel the need for at least four and a smaller but still large group that will need 8 or more.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
Nicky G
Apr 15, 01:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Excellent, moving, admirable video. Adobe just released a fantastic one as well.
Let's get real for a second -- LGBT individuals are still the primary group in our country that in many circles it's still totally alright to **** on, openly. Half the population is fat, I don't think your average fat kid takes as much **** as your average gay or transexual kid. Studies show suicide rates for LGBT teens are much higher than for other groups.
I literally tear up when I watch these It Hets Better videos. I think it's very, very honorable that so many corporations support their staff with these projects.
Oh, and to folks saying Apple should ne careful because they might alienate some bigoted customers? I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap, nor should they.
Excellent, moving, admirable video. Adobe just released a fantastic one as well.
Let's get real for a second -- LGBT individuals are still the primary group in our country that in many circles it's still totally alright to **** on, openly. Half the population is fat, I don't think your average fat kid takes as much **** as your average gay or transexual kid. Studies show suicide rates for LGBT teens are much higher than for other groups.
I literally tear up when I watch these It Hets Better videos. I think it's very, very honorable that so many corporations support their staff with these projects.
Oh, and to folks saying Apple should ne careful because they might alienate some bigoted customers? I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap, nor should they.
Hisdem
Mar 15, 01:39 PM
Are you drunk?
Looks like it. And BTW, I don't think the Japanese people would think leaving their homeland and going to the USA is a good idea. Not saying they don't like the US, but generally, just generally, people tend to care more about their own countries and cultures than about the American ones. Just saying.
Looks like it. And BTW, I don't think the Japanese people would think leaving their homeland and going to the USA is a good idea. Not saying they don't like the US, but generally, just generally, people tend to care more about their own countries and cultures than about the American ones. Just saying.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 05:28 PM
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
luminosity
Mar 15, 01:39 AM
Seems very serious to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
�It�s way past Three Mile Island already,� said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. �The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.�
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
�It�s way past Three Mile Island already,� said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. �The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.�
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 09:31 PM
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
I probably have met too few atheists. Each of my philosophy professors at the State University of New York was an atheist. But only one seemed hostile to theism. Other atheists, J.L. Mackie and Roger Scruton, say, were made some excellent points in their books. Mackie even discovered a way to go through the horns of the Euthypro dilemma, a philosophical dilemma that you can sum up with a question: Is murder morally wrong because God says so, or does he say so because it's morally wrong? Unfortunately, I forget Mackie's reply. But I'm sue that had someone proved that God existed, Mackie would have become a theist just as Antony Flew did. I've spent years studying theism and too little time to studying atheism.
I probably have met too few atheists. Each of my philosophy professors at the State University of New York was an atheist. But only one seemed hostile to theism. Other atheists, J.L. Mackie and Roger Scruton, say, were made some excellent points in their books. Mackie even discovered a way to go through the horns of the Euthypro dilemma, a philosophical dilemma that you can sum up with a question: Is murder morally wrong because God says so, or does he say so because it's morally wrong? Unfortunately, I forget Mackie's reply. But I'm sue that had someone proved that God existed, Mackie would have become a theist just as Antony Flew did. I've spent years studying theism and too little time to studying atheism.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 09:52 AM
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body.
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
cactusjackatu
Mar 18, 11:13 AM
To everyone that is running jailbroken and tethering (against your AT&T TOS) via MyWi. Did you purchase the app or are you pirating that as well?
LagunaSol
Apr 9, 09:24 PM
Real StarCraft for iPad, Blizzard. Make it happen.
�algiris
May 2, 09:15 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
winmacguy
Mar 18, 02:17 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Maybe some big company should tell the greedy money grubbing RIAA to "go jump in the Lake" and just leave things how they are instead of trying to change Apples DRM and create even more restrictions to what you can do with legally purchased music. Maybe if the greedy money grubbing RIAA looked at changeing its business model to bring it inline with the newer digital age it might find some better way of doing things. After all there is NO evidence that file sharing kills music and CD sales.
What the evidence actually tells us is file sharers are downloading singles which the music industry doesnt cater for so they get the impression that they are losing sales.
Hmmmm methinks that maybe the RIAA needs to adjust its buiness model to meet the changing music environment rather than change the business environment to keep with its outdated business model.
Cheers Winmacguy
PS I was aware as mentioned in the article that in Apple's case you still have to purchase the music before you can strip the DRM from it unlike Napsters music which you onliy have to pay $15 for as much as you can eat!
ddtlm
Oct 7, 11:14 AM
I'd be more impressed with these "tests" if the pro-Mac cowards had used a top-of-the-line Athlon system (1.8ghz is available for duals, 2.13ghz is pretty much available for singles) or a top-of-the-line P4 (2.0ghz? haha!). The 2.0ghz P4 runs on the old 400mhz FSB whereas there is a 533mhz FSB P4 clocking at 2.8ghz available. They also make no mention of memory type used on any platform. For the P4, PC1066 RDRAM is tops, for the Athlon the new nForce2 with 2 channels of 333mhz DDR is tops (although I will admit that chipset still has a one-month ETA). OK, so maybe use the VIA KT400 for the Athlon, it's pretty good.
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Backtothemac:
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
all pcs are is snot... he is right.. now leave... cease and desist you s.o.b. PROPAGANDA STARTED THE HOLOCAUST, AND YOU ARE GIVING PROPOGANDA... arn this is a personal attack and is totally fair... let me speak my peace!
Backtothemac:
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
all pcs are is snot... he is right.. now leave... cease and desist you s.o.b. PROPAGANDA STARTED THE HOLOCAUST, AND YOU ARE GIVING PROPOGANDA... arn this is a personal attack and is totally fair... let me speak my peace!
BladesOfSteel
May 5, 10:51 AM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Multimedia
Oct 19, 10:53 AM
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(I wonder if one of the Leopard "Top Secrets" is Core Control so we may assign how many cores for each applicaiton we know can use more than one.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and honestly needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able. Retiring my 27" Sony KV-27XBR45 CRT made in July 1997 from the office today. One less tube down. Can see the end of CRTs in the distance now. Only one 20" SONY CRT TV left in the office. Using EyeTV Hybrids to replace all TVs in the house.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and honestly needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able. Retiring my 27" Sony KV-27XBR45 CRT made in July 1997 from the office today. One less tube down. Can see the end of CRTs in the distance now. Only one 20" SONY CRT TV left in the office. Using EyeTV Hybrids to replace all TVs in the house.
Stella
Feb 20, 09:22 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
Reacent Post
definitive
Apr 13, 11:25 AM
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
0 comments:
Post a Comment