You can check here for a summar of the criticisms of the deal. Notice that the critics include librarians, the EFF, the Internet Archive, some authors, and at least one major copyright expert that you woudln't normally expect to be on the same side of a copyright issue.
If you look at the patent, it's more complex. Apple's talking about having the way the games work change based on things like what music is in your library, what you listen to more frequently, and so on - and having the games potentially change the way your media collection works. I suspect they're talking about something a lot more extensive than simply substituting a music track.
But then, Apple's also supposed to be buying Twitter and who knows what else? I don't think they'd want to get that close to a business so tied to PCs.
>> > We get concerned when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when >> > others are encouraged to cut and paste.
>> Fair use. Learn to live with it.
That's not fair use. The copyright statutes are pretty clear that fair use is quoting in the context of doing something like criticism, comment, or teaching. Simply copying without adding something is called republishing, and that isn't covered by fair use.
>> > That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the >> link-based >> > culture of the Internet that you and others have cultivated so well
>> Whereas AP articles, of course, are just chockfull of links.
Of course they're not - they are putting online their own original reporting and work. If someone doesn't do that, there isn't going to be anything worth quoting in the first place.
I'm on the side of thiking that there's something basically wrong when you can't even replace a battery. But if you read farther into the online Apple documents, there are even more potential problems that I just noticed and blogged about:
Add tax to the $85.95 if you're in a place where Apple has to charge sales tax (pretty much any state with either a store or office).
If Apple decides that there has been "accident or abuse," they don't have to make the repair - and they can charge you $100 for not doing anything.
Hope you don't have any critical data that you didn't back up before the battery went, because the replacment process wipes the machine clean.
I also just heard from someone whose kid had an iPod that had to go back shortly after purchase because the battery wouldn't hold a charge and who knew people whose iPods had battery problems starting a year after purchase. No, an iPod owner might not have a problem - or might.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now - oh, sorry, can't get into my computer because I haven't shaved for a few days.
You can check here for a summar of the criticisms of the deal. Notice that the critics include librarians, the EFF, the Internet Archive, some authors, and at least one major copyright expert that you woudln't normally expect to be on the same side of a copyright issue.
If you look at the patent, it's more complex. Apple's talking about having the way the games work change based on things like what music is in your library, what you listen to more frequently, and so on - and having the games potentially change the way your media collection works. I suspect they're talking about something a lot more extensive than simply substituting a music track.
I agree. But it could siphon off enough more casual gaming sales to hurt Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
But then, Apple's also supposed to be buying Twitter and who knows what else? I don't think they'd want to get that close to a business so tied to PCs.
>> > We get concerned when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when
>> > others are encouraged to cut and paste.
>> Fair use. Learn to live with it.
That's not fair use. The copyright statutes are pretty clear that fair use is quoting in the context of doing something like criticism, comment, or teaching. Simply copying without adding something is called republishing, and that isn't covered by fair use.
>> > That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the >> link-based
>> > culture of the Internet that you and others have cultivated so well
>> Whereas AP articles, of course, are just chockfull of links.
Of course they're not - they are putting online their own original reporting and work. If someone doesn't do that, there isn't going to be anything worth quoting in the first place.
- Add tax to the $85.95 if you're in a place where Apple has to charge sales tax (pretty much any state with either a store or office).
- If Apple decides that there has been "accident or abuse," they don't have to make the repair - and they can charge you $100 for not doing anything.
- Hope you don't have any critical data that you didn't back up before the battery went, because the replacment process wipes the machine clean.
I also just heard from someone whose kid had an iPod that had to go back shortly after purchase because the battery wouldn't hold a charge and who knew people whose iPods had battery problems starting a year after purchase. No, an iPod owner might not have a problem - or might.