There are two ways to sell games: Increase the userbase (which always has an upper limit) and increase the user consumption rate (which also has a realistic upper limit, free time and free cash).
Pshaw. Not that they won't exist, but at what prices?
Unless they are *severely* stripped G5s, I wouldn't expect much past 2.5GHz in these things.
Why? Because price, because complexity, because benefits! Now if these aren't 64bit CPUs, but 3 32bit PPC+VMX from IBM... okay, and that would be perfect for IBM to pop into iBooks as well:D
I think an Olympus Infinity Stylus placed inside a plastic ziplock bag would work great. The reason I suggest film over digital is, in such a condition, any trace moisture will be hazardous to a laptop (necessary to download photos), memory cards, or battery chargers. With the Stylus, you just need a sealed package of AAs and sealed canisters of film.
Re:Saviour for people in need in of transplants?
on
Synthetic Life In The Lab
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Look up some population statistics sometime. All the educated nations are already below replacement level (Europe, United States, Australia, China, etc) and after the current parent generation dies out (50 years?) we might see a population crash.
So actually, we need to be having more children (though less developed nations don't have this problem, they do have a problem with AIDS and SARS and other deadly diseases).
But this contract *isn't* turning you into a slave. This contract only says that you can't decrypt the song without going through Apple's hardware/software tools; but Apple does provide you the tools through which you can decrypt it.
All Apple is stopping anyone from doing is doing a flawless translation. Does this fall into copyright? I don't know. At some point I know I will probably do it myself, just for convenience, law be damned. If a law is bad, I'm under no obligation to follow it, right? On the other hand, Apple has the right to not sell me songs either; it's a mutual relationship here. Apple wants my money, I want those songs, and somewhere we have to come to an agreement, right?
The kind where you give Apple your credit card number and personal info! It's not some 'casual' click wrap, but serious legal tender here... they have all your data, and you wouldn't want them to misuse it, right?
The user totally has a right to decrypt their AAC file, I believe. All I am saying is Apple's stance (for better or worse, right or wrong) isn't without some justification.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How about violating contract law? You would be upset if Apple sold your private info or misused your credit card, right? Pulled from another post I made about Apple's terms of sale and service:
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions: Terms of sale: You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service: b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
I wrote this in another post, regarding their terms of sale and terms of service, and it's relevant to your point:
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions: Terms of sale: You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service: b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not at all. I only bring it up to say the user expects Apple to maintain their end of the contract, here. Likewise then I suspect Apple would like the users to maintain their end:)
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not at all. That isn't my logic.
My logic is: If you signed/agreed to a contract with the stipulation you would *only* run Windows, then yes, installing Linux violates your contract. In some situations I can see how doing so might even violate the warranty, much like installing third party 'unauthorized' components can do the same thing. Not saying it's right, but saying that's my logic.
I also don't think you understand my logic if you think system restore tools should be illegal. It would only be illegal, according to my logic, if you sign a contract/agreement that you would only use the Windows system restore.
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions: Terms of sale: You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service: b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
I agree that this isn't *sufficient*, but on the other hand, the way this contract works, is you trust Apple with your credit card number and they trust you with their AAC files. It's not an empty promise here. Apple has your credit card number! That they hold up their side of the contract is very important. That you hold your side... a little less, but I can see why they do this. This is, I think, mostly a paper defense against the RIAA. Apple doesn't care what you do, because as I said earlier, more AAC is more better for Apple.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It all depends on whether you signed a contract when you bought the Sony drive that you would only use Sony blanks, doesn't it? Then it wouldn't be illegal to use the non Sony blanks, only that you would have violated your contract with Sony, and Sony then has the right to not honor any warranty with you (there is some wiggle of course, since you used a fairly extreme example).
All sales of Apple's music have implicit contracts, which you should have read before purchasing. There is authorized copying, which is streaming to three machines, converting m4p->CD->MP3 or m4a, and then there is unauthorized copying, which is streaming to unlimited machines and converting from m4p->m4a.
You can argue Fair Use, but they can argue that you willingly agreed to their contract, and all they are doing is enforcing it through vague laws.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The term 'unauthorized copying' implies a contract wherein the purchaser and the seller have some kind of agreement about what is authorized and unauthorized. I very carefully wrote that; my first draft had illegal copying, but the copying isn't implicitly illegal, it is only illegal because it isn't authorized.
So making a m4p -> CD -> MP3 is authorized, but making an m4p -> m4a is unauthorized. The law this tool violates is contract law, I think.
Re:Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to it at 100% quality.
However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
Not agreeing with Apple here
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Since more AAC is more better, but there's a quote in the linked article I think is relevant:
Apple has stated that PlayFair contravenes the Indian Copyright
Act. 1957 and the IT Act, 2002, but have not specified how these acts are violated. While these acts make the unauthorized copying of music illegal, they nowhere bar the creation of tools that could potentially be used to illegally copy music. Trying to stop dissemination of a tool that permits legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play them on non Apple-authorized hardware is purely a business loss prevention strategy from Apple and must be deplored.
So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal? Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it? Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.
So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
Rip as you get CDs It organizes everything on your hard drive As you want to back it up, just select the smart library 'all music', hit burn, and insert DVDs Connect iPod to maintain a copy on the iPod Drag and drop your Music folder onto your iPod to back it up a fourth time
Technology is fine, as long as you get the right tools for the job.
I think you have it backwards. Too many songs is like too much toilet paper, too much money, or too much sex.
Having more space is like having a bathroom 20' wide between the toilet paper and toilet: Too much space. Or not enough money in the bank because it's *empty*. Too much space and not enough to fill it with means it's wasted. A person who spends $299 for 15gb and only uses 2gb has just *wasted* $49. Buying an iPod mini *saves* them $49, something they can instead spend on better earphones or sunglasses, or something else.
Right. Mac users have customer loyalty; they suffer through bad software because they love the hardware, or bad hardware because they love the software.
Windows users, more often than not, do it out of ignorance that there are alternatives, even *better*, or at least sufficient, than their existing solution.
Slashdot Mirror
How about PS2 *games*?
There are two ways to sell games: Increase the userbase (which always has an upper limit) and increase the user consumption rate (which also has a realistic upper limit, free time and free cash).
Hehe, another thought springs to mind though.
They could release a desktop workstation with three of these dual core 65nm PPC 976s with VirtualPC and make a killing!
Pshaw. Not that they won't exist, but at what prices?
:D
Unless they are *severely* stripped G5s, I wouldn't expect much past 2.5GHz in these things.
Why? Because price, because complexity, because benefits! Now if these aren't 64bit CPUs, but 3 32bit PPC+VMX from IBM... okay, and that would be perfect for IBM to pop into iBooks as well
I think an Olympus Infinity Stylus placed inside a plastic ziplock bag would work great. The reason I suggest film over digital is, in such a condition, any trace moisture will be hazardous to a laptop (necessary to download photos), memory cards, or battery chargers. With the Stylus, you just need a sealed package of AAs and sealed canisters of film.
Look up some population statistics sometime. All the educated nations are already below replacement level (Europe, United States, Australia, China, etc) and after the current parent generation dies out (50 years?) we might see a population crash.
So actually, we need to be having more children (though less developed nations don't have this problem, they do have a problem with AIDS and SARS and other deadly diseases).
I use it because it saves me money :)
It's cheaper than a CD!
But this contract *isn't* turning you into a slave. This contract only says that you can't decrypt the song without going through Apple's hardware/software tools; but Apple does provide you the tools through which you can decrypt it.
All Apple is stopping anyone from doing is doing a flawless translation. Does this fall into copyright? I don't know. At some point I know I will probably do it myself, just for convenience, law be damned. If a law is bad, I'm under no obligation to follow it, right? On the other hand, Apple has the right to not sell me songs either; it's a mutual relationship here. Apple wants my money, I want those songs, and somewhere we have to come to an agreement, right?
The kind where you give Apple your credit card number and personal info! It's not some 'casual' click wrap, but serious legal tender here... they have all your data, and you wouldn't want them to misuse it, right?
You need Apple authorised (hard|soft)ware to purchase the AAC in the first place. How is that a setback?
Do you believe the contract is unconsciousable?
The user totally has a right to decrypt their AAC file, I believe. All I am saying is Apple's stance (for better or worse, right or wrong) isn't without some justification.
How about violating contract law? You would be upset if Apple sold your private info or misused your credit card, right? Pulled from another post I made about Apple's terms of sale and service:
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions:
Terms of sale:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service:
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
I wrote this in another post, regarding their terms of sale and terms of service, and it's relevant to your point:
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions:
Terms of sale:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service:
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
Not at all. I only bring it up to say the user expects Apple to maintain their end of the contract, here. Likewise then I suspect Apple would like the users to maintain their end :)
Not at all. That isn't my logic.
My logic is: If you signed/agreed to a contract with the stipulation you would *only* run Windows, then yes, installing Linux violates your contract. In some situations I can see how doing so might even violate the warranty, much like installing third party 'unauthorized' components can do the same thing. Not saying it's right, but saying that's my logic.
I also don't think you understand my logic if you think system restore tools should be illegal. It would only be illegal, according to my logic, if you sign a contract/agreement that you would only use the Windows system restore.
In this case users of Apple's iTunes signed an agreement; signed it with their credit card number, actually, when they first opened their accounts on iTunes! Terms of Sale and Terms of Service.
Specific relevant portions:
Terms of sale:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
Terms of service:
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products purchased through the Service, such as sound recordings and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules"). You agree to comply with such Usage Rules, as further outlined below, and you agree not to violate or attempt to violate any security components. You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever. Usage Rules may be controlled and monitored by Apple for compliance purposes, and Apple reserves the right to enforce the Usage Rules with or without notice to you. You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service. You shall not access or attempt to access an Account that you are not authorized to access. You agree not to modify the software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the software, for any purposes including obtaining unauthorized access to the Service. Violations of system or network security may result in civil or criminal liability.
and
c. You agree that your purchase of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules, and that any other use of the Products may constitute a copyright infringement. The security technology is an inseparable part of the Products. The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time.
I'm not saying it's right, only that it is clearly outlined when you gave then your buck.
Isn't this proof it is enforceable?
I agree that this isn't *sufficient*, but on the other hand, the way this contract works, is you trust Apple with your credit card number and they trust you with their AAC files. It's not an empty promise here. Apple has your credit card number! That they hold up their side of the contract is very important. That you hold your side... a little less, but I can see why they do this. This is, I think, mostly a paper defense against the RIAA. Apple doesn't care what you do, because as I said earlier, more AAC is more better for Apple.
It all depends on whether you signed a contract when you bought the Sony drive that you would only use Sony blanks, doesn't it? Then it wouldn't be illegal to use the non Sony blanks, only that you would have violated your contract with Sony, and Sony then has the right to not honor any warranty with you (there is some wiggle of course, since you used a fairly extreme example).
All sales of Apple's music have implicit contracts, which you should have read before purchasing. There is authorized copying, which is streaming to three machines, converting m4p->CD->MP3 or m4a, and then there is unauthorized copying, which is streaming to unlimited machines and converting from m4p->m4a.
You can argue Fair Use, but they can argue that you willingly agreed to their contract, and all they are doing is enforcing it through vague laws.
The term 'unauthorized copying' implies a contract wherein the purchaser and the seller have some kind of agreement about what is authorized and unauthorized. I very carefully wrote that; my first draft had illegal copying, but the copying isn't implicitly illegal, it is only illegal because it isn't authorized.
So making a m4p -> CD -> MP3 is authorized, but making an m4p -> m4a is unauthorized. The law this tool violates is contract law, I think.
You've still made ONE copy in that process, even if you delete the original.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, since I believe it's perfectly within Fair Use to make a decrypted copy. What happens if Apple goes out of business? What happens if I don't have a suitable network connection to authorize my Macs? I paid for the music, and do have some right to listen to it at 100% quality.
However, all I am stating is the strict legality of the situation. Owning this tool isn't illegal, but using it is. I don't know, however, that is enough under Indian law to get them knocked off the servers.
So they acknowledge that the unauthorized copying of music is illegal, and believe a tool that makes an unauthorized copy of the music is not illegal? Because as the author states, Apple already provides a means to permit legal licensees of songs from iTunes to play on non Apple authorized hardware via CD burning (and subsequent re-ripping). This is *authorized* copying. Anything else, then, is unauthorized copying isn't it? Doing a clean decryption of the AAC file would certainly fall into unauthorized copying, according to the terms of use, I think.
So FairPlay's only legal defense is that it isn't illegal to write such a tool, only illegal to use such a tool...
My 2nd Gen iPod does; as the other poster asked, do you have the latest firmware and iTunes?
It's called iTunes (for Mac or Windows)
Rip as you get CDs
It organizes everything on your hard drive
As you want to back it up, just select the smart library 'all music', hit burn, and insert DVDs
Connect iPod to maintain a copy on the iPod
Drag and drop your Music folder onto your iPod to back it up a fourth time
Technology is fine, as long as you get the right tools for the job.
Don't you mean they'll upgrade to the new pink/blue/green/silver/gold 20gb iPod maxi?
Where's the backlash when someone finds out their video card isn't fast enough to play the latest game, and they buy a new system/card/CPU for it?
Hmm, you don't seem to realize that the mini is $49 cheaper.
Smaller drive
Smaller device
Cheaper price
Consumers get a choice now: Pay more for 3x the space, or save $49 and 3 oz?
I think you have it backwards. Too many songs is like too much toilet paper, too much money, or too much sex.
Having more space is like having a bathroom 20' wide between the toilet paper and toilet: Too much space. Or not enough money in the bank because it's *empty*. Too much space and not enough to fill it with means it's wasted. A person who spends $299 for 15gb and only uses 2gb has just *wasted* $49. Buying an iPod mini *saves* them $49, something they can instead spend on better earphones or sunglasses, or something else.
Right. Mac users have customer loyalty; they suffer through bad software because they love the hardware, or bad hardware because they love the software.
Windows users, more often than not, do it out of ignorance that there are alternatives, even *better*, or at least sufficient, than their existing solution.