They are peaking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand saying DRM is bad for consumers (music) but clinging tooth and nail to it for their broader ambitions of winning the race for the living room and online video distribution.
Not a sworn statement. Unless it gets put in an affidavit or elicited at deposition (or trial) it's irrelevant. Many public statements have been made, but there's no accounting for the veracity of them unless they're sworn according to the legal standard. The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals specifically said this at the AT&T (EFF) class action hearing on the Govts. motion to dismiss a couple of weeks ago.
Transcript here www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A675 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.wma?openelement
Video here http://www.archive.org/details/gov.courts.ca9.20 07.08.16
Actually, this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. These are civil lawsuits, not criminal, and as such the only thing to be determined is liability.
Of course Jobs recognizes the problems that "Fairplay" is causing his company. He is worried about the antitrust implications and consumer backlash. He also realizes that DRM on audio is a loser that doesn't advance his interests anymore, and his arguments about CDs being DRM free are right on.
However, his primary objective is to save "Fairplay" for the burgeoning video market. There is NO sign that DRM is going anywhere for video, and STiVo needs to protect his interests. That is why he is blaming the music industry for the DRM and finding a reason that supports dropping it rather than opening up "Fairplay."
It's about protecting Apple's foothold in online video distribution, which shows no sign of becoming DRM free anytime in the foreseeable future.
Always take a look at what they're NOT saying to find out what they really mean.
the quality of downloadable material pales in comparison to the quality of either hd-dvd or blu-ray.
even actual mpeg2 or h264 high definition transport streams captured from hdtv broadcasts are well below the quality of either format in both video and audio.
that plus the whole ease of use issue and corporate sponsorship will keep one or both of these two formats alive and well for the foreseeable future.
with the continued proliferation of all the different wireless technologies, does anyone else out there wonder about the health implications such technologies pose?
personally, i don't use a bluetooth head set for my cell phone, because i don't want that energy constantly near my head! and in general, as the devices become more powerful, i assume that the energy intensity increases.
we've all heard of the correlation between power lines and cancer clusters from a few years back, and the brief attention the media paid to the potential of cell phone dangers, but has anyone seen any more recent studies about all of these radio signals and the harmful physical potential they pose?
i'm all in favor of technology, but not at the expense of basic health. i'd hate to have my system all tricked out w/ the latest super-wireless protocalls only to find out that in ten years i'll be developing toumors on my hands!
apple loses money on the content they sell, and the content providers are hugely disappointed about the minimal amount of money they make from it. this has been widely reported for a LONG time.
apple uses drm to lock people into using their system. their business model is based around selling hardware--not distributing content. content distribution is mostly a means to drive the sale of apple hardware (i.e. ipods).
apple may tweak their drm scheme from firmware update to update, but it has always been compatable with the content they've already sold. to change that would create a rift among their core users, and likely scare people away from buying a new or additional ipod--clearly not in apple's interest.
Slashdot Mirror
Mostly because of video--just like Apple.
They are peaking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand saying DRM is bad for consumers (music) but clinging tooth and nail to it for their broader ambitions of winning the race for the living room and online video distribution.
Wait until you get "the call."
Then you'll really have something to be giddy about...
This sounds strikingly familar to Apple's recent obnoxious attempt to charge people for ringtones from music they alreay purchased.
DRM=bad for consumers
DMCA=really bad for consumers
Blu-Ray/Sony/Fox/Apple=super-duper bad for consumers
California has not blocked anything yet. The Governator has signed nothing and there is no new law.
"California legislature approves..." or something similar would have been much more appropriate.
Come on people, you can do better than this.
Not a sworn statement. Unless it gets put in an affidavit or elicited at deposition (or trial) it's irrelevant. Many public statements have been made, but there's no accounting for the veracity of them unless they're sworn according to the legal standard. The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals specifically said this at the AT&T (EFF) class action hearing on the Govts. motion to dismiss a couple of weeks ago.
5 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.wma?openelement
0 07.08.16
Transcript here
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A67
Video here
http://www.archive.org/details/gov.courts.ca9.2
EFF here.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005408.php
Well, if you had read the story, you would have discovered that virtual kiddie pr0n is punnishable in Germany by up to 3 years in prison.
I disagree w/ that law, and in the US virtual kiddie pr0n is lawful (I believe it was upheld under a first amendment argument).
The recent Sony debochle is here: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005208.php
The latest is that Sony has "fixed" the problem discs and will replace them if you ask.
As for GooTube, Viacom recently announced new policies and a commitment to fair use. Here is what the EFF had to say: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005213.php
EngadgetHD reported this yesterday, but added an update stating that the translation was unclear on whether this was HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.
- 299-hd-dvd-player-on-the-way/
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/04/20/the-wal-mart
From what I have read here, this point is no more clear. So, if anyone has the REAL story, we're all ears...
Not to be too rude, but where the hell else is online advertising?! *** This PSA has been brought to you by the Department Of Redundancy Department.
Actually, this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. These are civil lawsuits, not criminal, and as such the only thing to be determined is liability.
Of course Jobs recognizes the problems that "Fairplay" is causing his company. He is worried about the antitrust implications and consumer backlash. He also realizes that DRM on audio is a loser that doesn't advance his interests anymore, and his arguments about CDs being DRM free are right on.
However, his primary objective is to save "Fairplay" for the burgeoning video market. There is NO sign that DRM is going anywhere for video, and STiVo needs to protect his interests. That is why he is blaming the music industry for the DRM and finding a reason that supports dropping it rather than opening up "Fairplay."
It's about protecting Apple's foothold in online video distribution, which shows no sign of becoming DRM free anytime in the foreseeable future.
Always take a look at what they're NOT saying to find out what they really mean.
or she
I believe the max audio output on brd is higher than for hd-dvd. Whether all movies use the max audio capacity is another question alltogether.
from the source: http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/030902.html
the quality of downloadable material pales in comparison to the quality of either hd-dvd or blu-ray.
even actual mpeg2 or h264 high definition transport streams captured from hdtv broadcasts are well below the quality of either format in both video and audio.
that plus the whole ease of use issue and corporate sponsorship will keep one or both of these two formats alive and well for the foreseeable future.
with the continued proliferation of all the different wireless technologies, does anyone else out there wonder about the health implications such technologies pose?
personally, i don't use a bluetooth head set for my cell phone, because i don't want that energy constantly near my head! and in general, as the devices become more powerful, i assume that the energy intensity increases.
we've all heard of the correlation between power lines and cancer clusters from a few years back, and the brief attention the media paid to the potential of cell phone dangers, but has anyone seen any more recent studies about all of these radio signals and the harmful physical potential they pose?
i'm all in favor of technology, but not at the expense of basic health. i'd hate to have my system all tricked out w/ the latest super-wireless protocalls only to find out that in ten years i'll be developing toumors on my hands!
adblock is your friend...
you couldn't be more wrong.
apple loses money on the content they sell, and the content providers are hugely disappointed about the minimal amount of money they make from it. this has been widely reported for a LONG time.
apple uses drm to lock people into using their system. their business model is based around selling hardware--not distributing content. content distribution is mostly a means to drive the sale of apple hardware (i.e. ipods).
apple may tweak their drm scheme from firmware update to update, but it has always been compatable with the content they've already sold. to change that would create a rift among their core users, and likely scare people away from buying a new or additional ipod--clearly not in apple's interest.