Speedy2
Oct 7, 11:10 AM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
combatcolin
Oct 28, 10:57 AM
Bugger only 8 Cores.
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
bokdol
Sep 26, 02:18 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
not mac book pro...
mac pro
not mac book pro...
mac pro
iSee
Apr 15, 07:50 AM
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
I know this one: Use Command-Delete
I know this one: Use Command-Delete
aswitcher
Jul 12, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.
Pilgrim1099
Apr 9, 09:42 PM
I 'm waiting for Apple to BUY Nintendo.
Will never, ever happen. Do some research. Nintendo is based off from Japan, not the USA originally.
And guess who's come back from the dead?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/08/commodore-64-welcome-back-old-friend/?mod=google_news_blog
What goes around, comes around. Apple can stay on for so long and sooner or later, they're bound to fall. They're human and they can't keep it up forever.
EDIT: I meant this http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_TronVideo.aspx
Will never, ever happen. Do some research. Nintendo is based off from Japan, not the USA originally.
And guess who's come back from the dead?
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/08/commodore-64-welcome-back-old-friend/?mod=google_news_blog
What goes around, comes around. Apple can stay on for so long and sooner or later, they're bound to fall. They're human and they can't keep it up forever.
EDIT: I meant this http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_TronVideo.aspx
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
EricNau
Sep 20, 07:30 PM
Steve Jobs claimed the iTV "completed the picture," but it does nothing of the sort (based on already revealed features). In reality there is still a hole large enough to fly a 747 through.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:44 AM
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
Probably not, I just felt the need to rant...
Sorry.
thogs_cave
Jul 12, 11:53 AM
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
KingYaba
Aug 29, 06:27 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
NT1440
Apr 24, 06:37 PM
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
You and I have a terribly different definition of ruins I suppose. I consider a place ruins when its not even inhabitable.
Well if you were to look at world history, rather than just look at the world through a religious lens, you'd know the reasons for ongoing conflicts in much of that section of the world. Hint: it tends to do with imperialists powers tamperings.
Also, where is the biggest muslim population in the world? ;)
appleguy123
Mar 24, 08:35 PM
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 18, 11:04 AM
I've never once tethered or hotspotted yet my usage for last month was over 9GB....this is just normal iPhone usage for me, they better not automatically change me to the tiered plan. :mad:
Well did u get the text/email?
Wait hold on.... Sharing food is illegal?
Really?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but he didn't say it was illegal necessarily, but it is stealing and wrong, and the restaurant certainly would stop you if they caught you. Did you read the context? Like if you went with a group of friends to a buffet, but only one person paid then that person kept going back through the line getting food for everyone else.
But back to the original topic, I really hope that at&t won't be able to spot a 4.3 tether. I've kept my unlimited all year, and never once tethered. In fact usually I'm under 1gb (but one month I did netflix like crazy and I was over 4gb). But I have been hanging on to this because one day I might need it. And now that day has come, with my wifi iPad 2. That would really suck that now that I finally want to tether, I won't be able to. Now I'll just have been paying at&t tons of cash for no reason...
Well did u get the text/email?
Wait hold on.... Sharing food is illegal?
Really?
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but he didn't say it was illegal necessarily, but it is stealing and wrong, and the restaurant certainly would stop you if they caught you. Did you read the context? Like if you went with a group of friends to a buffet, but only one person paid then that person kept going back through the line getting food for everyone else.
But back to the original topic, I really hope that at&t won't be able to spot a 4.3 tether. I've kept my unlimited all year, and never once tethered. In fact usually I'm under 1gb (but one month I did netflix like crazy and I was over 4gb). But I have been hanging on to this because one day I might need it. And now that day has come, with my wifi iPad 2. That would really suck that now that I finally want to tether, I won't be able to. Now I'll just have been paying at&t tons of cash for no reason...
Multimedia
Nov 3, 05:50 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
solafide
Sep 12, 07:48 PM
I think this will be a great first step for Apple. Long term, I'd like to be able archive all my DVDs and play them through iTunes, just as I have done with my CDs. In the mid to long term, this would mean that Apple would have to work out a deal with a DRM solution with the content owners that would allow for a DVD (obviously this would not work with my currently owned DVDs) to be stored on a computer - authenticating back to the content owner's server, for example.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
It may not be worth it, as everything will likely go to digital delivery anyway, in time.
I also would like a DVR, but in the long run, the traditional delivery model of TV will likely change. iTunes is a small foretaste. This would be huge, as it would necessarily change where, who, and how advertising dollars would be made. I betcha this will be keeping the cable, network, and movie execs up at night thinking through how they can control this potential shift in power and revenue to their own benefit.
All I know is I want to get rid of all the boxes surrounding my TV and speaker system, and be able to control all my TV, video, and audio assets through the TV - in the kind of eloquent way that it seems only Apple is capable of (I am sure this is not true - but I believe they have the best shot at providing an end-to-end user-friendly system).
The next few years are going to be very interesting.
r1ch4rd
Apr 23, 05:09 PM
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
RickyB
Apr 16, 11:30 AM
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
peharri
Sep 21, 08:34 AM
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
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.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by nixd2001
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
You could add the argument --funroll-loops to gcc to `unroll' the loops and make it faster by predicting it more accurately at compile-time.
I was thinking of the x86 and PPC assembler produced for the core loops. I could bung the C through GCC and get some assembler on my windy tunnels, true, but I'm not geared up to do the Windows side of things.
You could add the argument --funroll-loops to gcc to `unroll' the loops and make it faster by predicting it more accurately at compile-time.
slu
Sep 12, 03:31 PM
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
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.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
I agree it's a bit early to be speculating.However as shown by investigations into Chernobyl and Seven Mile Island in these situations small errors in design and human mistakes can all add up to unknown territory.It looks like a hydrogen explosion,super heated water = hydrogen and oxygen + ignitor = big bang.The presence of Caesium indicates some core damage.I hope those in Japan get through this with the least amount of pain possible.
