balamw
Sep 21, 08:22 AM
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
Salacion
Apr 20, 07:14 PM
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
After hearing some parts of your mind, you definitely correlate well with your Android device.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
After hearing some parts of your mind, you definitely correlate well with your Android device.
miles01110
May 2, 10:08 AM
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
SLR2009
Jun 19, 10:08 PM
I've been getting dropped calls on my Iphone 3GS as well but it's gotten much worse over the last few months. It's gotten so bad that I'm hesitating in purchasing an Iphone 4G and was considering very strongly in switching over to a droid phone. AT&T's dropped calls are unacceptable.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
It's not just with me either, I was talking to a guy in an electronic store where they have Verizon phones on display. He said that he used to have an Iphone but kept getting dropped calls so he switched to a droid phone.
I suggest that you guys do the same until AT&T gets there act together and fixes the issue. We shouldn't be paying for a service that's not working properly and is frustrating to use.
1macker1
Mar 19, 09:51 AM
I'm wondering what's the big deal with this program. If i buy a CD from Best Buy, it doesn't have DRM, so why do they even bother doing it with Internet downloads.
Apple will find a way to block this non-DRM downloading...and in turn DVD Jon will another way to get around this. It will go back and forward.
Apple will find a way to block this non-DRM downloading...and in turn DVD Jon will another way to get around this. It will go back and forward.
Macky-Mac
Apr 24, 11:15 AM
..... If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
not at all......God is perfectly aware that people make mistakes. Indeed, they can't be trusted to get anything perfectly right, so if God wanted the Bible to have been taken literally, he have written it out himself and wouldn't have involved people in the project in the first place
furqan8421
Apr 9, 10:58 AM
Why are people being defensive and bringing up a few examples like final fantasy 3? These games are not the norm. Look at the top downloads list in the app store to get a good idea of what most games are.
iOS games are fine, but the majority of them really are time wasters. The only real advantage most iOS games have is that they are much cheaper than on portable systems or console games.
For most popular games though the experience isn't nearly good enough. The most popular games on consoles are FPS, Racing games, and Sports. Without physical buttons iOS can't compete with the same genres of games. iOS is better at puzzle games where touching is preferable to moving a mouse/controller, and can be fine on RPG games especially if they are turn based.
Real racing can be fun, but enthusiasts buy steering wheels to play gran turismo and forza. It's just not the same.
iOS games are fine, but the majority of them really are time wasters. The only real advantage most iOS games have is that they are much cheaper than on portable systems or console games.
For most popular games though the experience isn't nearly good enough. The most popular games on consoles are FPS, Racing games, and Sports. Without physical buttons iOS can't compete with the same genres of games. iOS is better at puzzle games where touching is preferable to moving a mouse/controller, and can be fine on RPG games especially if they are turn based.
Real racing can be fun, but enthusiasts buy steering wheels to play gran turismo and forza. It's just not the same.
Machead III
Aug 29, 12:39 PM
Yep, just another wasteful American. Same sad story.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
The number of people like him in the world is analogous to a cancer cell count for life on Earth. If they aren't pretty much non-existant within the next 50 years, Game Over.
dejo
Oct 8, 10:45 AM
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
iPhone: And by ALL you mean everything except sites that use Silverlight, or Active-X, or ...
Fixed that for ya! ;)
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:
Young Spade
Apr 5, 10:23 PM
I just switched Friday afternoon so some of these things still aggrivate me a little lol.
I can't maximize a screen without dragging the one corner that lets me resize. This irritated me at first but now I don't mind having a moderate sized box, it allows me to see my wallpaper :) Plus with spaces, I never really need to fill up my screen with windows.
The whole folder/file tree thing in Finder is a little... simple? And it's going to take some getting used to for me. Also the whole not being able to simply cut and paste a file bothers me as well. I love organization and not being able to just cut and move something is a little iffy... unless there is a simple way and I just don't know how...
The keyboard commands will allow you do do a lot of things faster so I would highly suggest you learn them as quick as you can. Right now I'm pretty fluent with them and I'm doing a lot more in a shorter amount of time than I could do with a PC.
I can't maximize a screen without dragging the one corner that lets me resize. This irritated me at first but now I don't mind having a moderate sized box, it allows me to see my wallpaper :) Plus with spaces, I never really need to fill up my screen with windows.
The whole folder/file tree thing in Finder is a little... simple? And it's going to take some getting used to for me. Also the whole not being able to simply cut and paste a file bothers me as well. I love organization and not being able to just cut and move something is a little iffy... unless there is a simple way and I just don't know how...
The keyboard commands will allow you do do a lot of things faster so I would highly suggest you learn them as quick as you can. Right now I'm pretty fluent with them and I'm doing a lot more in a shorter amount of time than I could do with a PC.
leekohler
Mar 26, 02:41 AM
I just love the :cool: expression on this :rolleyes: guy's sarcastic face. Thanks. :D
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
rxse7en
Oct 12, 06:19 PM
I went ahead and ordered the 24" LCD from Dell. Pretty cool that they use PayPal--I try to pay with everything with cash. Anyway, I have that coupon code for the 30", if anyone wants it just PM me.
B
B
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 04:00 PM
The problem with your view is that Nintendo is a JAPANESE corporation and they are still the boss over the USA counterpart. Apple has to kiss Japan's ass first to do that. I heard a very old story from the 1990s that Microsoft tried to buy them out which Nintendo of Japan's CEO, at the time, discussed and revealed in an interview.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
Guess what? Nintendo of Japan gave Ballmer the finger. Secondly, Nintendo and Apple could partner up in a deal, theoretically, but a buyout will never happen. And no, the Daimler/Chrysler situation is not a good comparison for this industry.
there was also talk that both would share platform specs but market to different audiences too - it was never meant to be
Ninty have always made serious money from their hardware and no other gaming company can say that - usually they make a loss with the consoles and make the cash back up with licensing further down the road. No other platform (game wise) can say that. Ninty has enough money now from the wii and the ds/dsi to endure they are around for at least another few generations - they won't 'do a sega' and end up software (crappy at that) only.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
rickdollar
Apr 13, 12:57 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
alex_ant
Oct 10, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
Do you have any pics of your closest attempt at an 8 lb turd?
Yes actually!
callme
Apr 28, 07:35 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
Stuck record! Same old comment, still not true.
They can sell as many as they can make, production is the limiting factor at the moment NOT lack of demand.
Stuck record! Same old comment, still not true.
They can sell as many as they can make, production is the limiting factor at the moment NOT lack of demand.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
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.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
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.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
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.
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.
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.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
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.
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?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:01 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.