You might find this thread on 5C copyright protection interesting. Basically, anything other than OTA content is encrypted and set to "copy once" or "copy never" per FCC mandate. Since your Windows or Mac video and MPEG drivers don't support decrypting 5C content, your HTPC can't play back the encrypted premium content. A DVHS deck can, however. And it's likely that new versions of MacOS X and Windows Vista, with DRM enabled HDMI cables out to the display device, will be able to record and playback this content in the near future. But for now, you're shit out of luck. --M
I dunno. Easy decision for you, wrong decision for him. Or, at least, his decision to make. Me, I won't be buying an XBox 360 because I don't want one. OTOH: I probably won't buy the PS3 either. My PS2 has languished unused for the last two years, and my PSP sits unused too. I'm just too damn busy. But if this guy wants to buy a bunch of XBox 360s to control his HDTVs - his money - more power to him. JMO. --M
Yeah. Except he has an application for which the Xbox 360 suits his purpose. Not buying the product just to spite MS seems counterproductive. If it does what he needs, at a price point he likes, should he boycott due to your concerns? IMO: to boycott is a personal choice, like voting or party affiliation. --M
Yeah. I got the locals over cable unencrypted, but everything else (including the HD basic stuff like INHD and TNTHD) was all encrypted and set to copy once. The JVC DVHS deck is the only solution I've found to archiving High Definition content.
Is all of your cable content coming across unencrypted? When I tried to connect my mac to a motorola 6412 I was only able to record material broadcast OTA. Cable programming like TNTHD, INHD, and the premium channels were all encrypted. The DVHS deck can handle encrypted content - which is why I use it. Reencoding the Mpeg2 stream to WM9 on a PC and then dumping to DVD would be a better solution... you're doing that right now? --M
record the HD content to a PVR and stream it to a disc for archival and later viewing? 'Cause if not, then I'll stick with my Motorola 6412 PVR and JVC DVHS deck. Which, BTW, works perfectly well today and has the benefit of being pretty cheap too. --M
Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.
The OP asserted that DDT is safe and effective by using an ad hominem attack against environmentalists - not a rational argument. That was my point. As for your link, it's interesting and worth reading. I'd be curious to see a the results of an interdisciplinary cost-benefit analysis with physicians and biologists. The physicians you site may be right that it is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce malaria deaths in the developing world - but they aren't considering long term consequences of DDT use (either to the ecosystem, or to human health). OTOH: it may turn out that DDT (or something similar that's less toxic) is worth the environmental damage. I'm not qualified to judge, but IMO I doubt widespread use of DDT is worth the risk. --M
You source nothing to back up your assertion that DDT is environmentally safe, and then claim that the hundreds of millions of dollars would be better spent buying and spraying DDT instead of conducting research. I'll let a few organic chemists respond to your assertion of its safety. Instead, I'll simply note that spraying DDT is a recurring cost, that Malaria prone zones throughout the world which would require spraying quite large, and that (IMO) DDT is an old technology ready to be supplanted by something new. As one example of where modern research might go, I point you to this article (I'm sure a search would show plenty of others):
Researchers have identified a gene in mosquitoes that helps the insects to fight off infection by the Plasmodium parasite, which causes malaria in humans. Anopheles mosquitoes transmit the malaria parasite to nearly 550 million people worldwide each year with these cases resulting in more than 2 million deaths annually. The protective gene was identified in a study conducted by a team of investigators from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Malaria Research Institute, the Imperial College of London and the University of Texas Medical Branch. It will be published in the Online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of October 24.
Oh, I remember the time. I remember the Atari pong system and all the clones. And I remember the first time I saw the VCS, playing Space Invaders at a friend's house sometime in '78 or so. I must have been ten. And yeah, I wanted one within seconds of seeing it.:) As for the game market crash in '82, I don't remember the experience of it as it happened - but I do remember the fallout: lots of cheap games and consoles. Fun! Fun! Fun!
Rotton 2600 games lived somewhere between ET and Custer's Revenge in the plane between unplayable and outright obnoxiousness. The system just didn't have enough oomph for Pac Man, Defender, or Star Raiders, but the 2600 version of Asteroids rocked.
You mean I can't use another service to legally download mp3s, and then use another program to install them on my iPod? Really? Sure, I need iTunes to download and register songs from the iTunes music store... but that doesn't prevent me from purchasing or ripping any other music legally and then moving them to an iPod without iTunes software. --M
OK. So at this point the debate can be broken down to these two points:
a) Does the current iPod marketshare constitute a Monopoly?
b) If so, do Apple's actions in this case constitute abuse of that monopoly?
I've argued that due to the continued survival of Apple's various competitors, they do not have a monopoly - therefore b) is irrelevant. But we're at an impasse because we now have to resolve the factual point of whether Apple's marketshare constitutes a monopoly. That's DOJ turf. I wish more lawyers hung out at/. and could actually answer questions like this in detail. My guess is that they don't - but that's just a layperson's guess. *sigh*
Assuming Apple *does* have a monopoly in the "portable digital music player" market - is what they're doing really wrong? It's a strong arming tactic for sure. But it seems less obnoxious than what Sony and MS do to their partners - and for sure, Sony and MS are much larger with much greater impact on the general market than Apple. ???? (it's a point - if one not based on a consistent application of principle *shrug*) --M
OK. So cpt kangarooski (a lawyer) commented on the trademark issue here, arguing that even with a trademark this type of use should fit within trademark fair use. It would appear that I'm wrong. Perhaps Apple is using access to technical specs, logo placement, etc as an inducement to third party developer royalty payments.
I still don't see a moral problem with their action, JMO. And it appears that there's no legal problem with their action either, if I read kangarooski's posts in this forum correctly.
Actually, no I don't. I live in Boston and either walk/bike or use public transportaion. But I have owned cars in the past. Actually, the more I think about the trademark issue, the more I realize that this assertion relies on a lay understanding of trademark law. It's problematic. We really need a lawyer to factually resolve the finer details of this point. I defer. --M
But by your own admission, Sony makes a mp3 player (along with many others in the market). As such, Apple is constrained by plenty of competition in the "portable digital music player" market. They can only force agreements with manufacturers who wish to market third party add-on products for an Apple product line. They cannot constrain manufacturers from entering the "portable digital music player" market (or any other market) due simply to already having monopoly marketshare. Thus they aren't a monopoly. Thus they aren't abusing a monopoly with agreements of this sort. Further, since there are competing products in the market, they don't have the power to extract monopoly price-gouging from consumers.
WRT: Sony - are you arguing that Sony doesn't use similar agreements with third party manufacturers and software developers in their Playstation product line? --M
AC: Nonsense. Do you think generic inkjet cartridge manufacturers get HP's or Epson's permission before telling consumers exactly which make and model printer a specific generic inkjet cartridge works in?
That is a great counterpoint. This gets into legalisms details that I'm not qualified to comment upon. Isn't Cpt Kangarooski a lawyer? Maybe if he notices this thread he (or another lawyer) will comment upon the legalities of Apple's actions with better expertise. --M
I don't want to defend the policy, because there are plenty of reasons why it might be a mistake for Apple to try to extract revenue with partnering manufacturers like this. However, just to respond to your Ford analogy, if a third party manufacturer wanted to include the line "Made specifically for Ford Bronco" on the packaging of their product, Ford would certainly demand a contractual agreement with the manufacturer in order to deal with trademark issues. They might even demand a payment for use of those terms.
The situation with Apple is no different. Apple demands payment for allowing third party manufacturers to use the term "Designed for iPod", almost certainly a trademarked term. With this agreement they also provide some technical specs to properly interface with their product. There is nothing improper with Apple's demands here. Maybe it's bad business sense - or maybe not. *shrug* --M
I just wanted to link an example with Microsoft Windows in order to add to the snark value of my comment.
However, let's examine Apple's leveraging potential with the iPod in the "portable digital music player" market. Could Apple force a manufacturer like Sony to drop their competing music players in order to allow them to manufacture accessories for the iPod? I don't think so. Hence: no monopoly. --M
Look, one might disagree with Apple's policy for any number of valid reasons. For example: it's a poor long term policy if one believes in the importance of business relationships; it stifles Apple's secondary manufacturing market and thus impacts the utility of their product line the consumers; the short term gains aren't worth the potential long term losses... blah blah blah. But then you'd be forced to argue the profit potential and long term effects of their policy instead of simply claiming a negative gut reaction. So you don't like it. If it pisses you off enough, buy a competitor's product. But don't claim it is proof of a monopoly. There are plenty of third party portable mp3 and digital music players on the market. Apple can neither force their competitors out of that market, nor can they use the iPod to leverage their other market (computers, Operating Systems, and application software). Deal. --M
You will know when Apple has gained monopoly marketshare when they leverage MacOS X on Intel by forcing iPod users to drop Windows. Somehow, I think Apple demanding certain manufacturing agreements with industry players doesn't quite measure up to a "portable mp3 music player" monopoly. --M
Slashdot Mirror
You might find this thread on 5C copyright protection interesting. Basically, anything other than OTA content is encrypted and set to "copy once" or "copy never" per FCC mandate. Since your Windows or Mac video and MPEG drivers don't support decrypting 5C content, your HTPC can't play back the encrypted premium content. A DVHS deck can, however. And it's likely that new versions of MacOS X and Windows Vista, with DRM enabled HDMI cables out to the display device, will be able to record and playback this content in the near future. But for now, you're shit out of luck. --M
I dunno. Easy decision for you, wrong decision for him. Or, at least, his decision to make. Me, I won't be buying an XBox 360 because I don't want one. OTOH: I probably won't buy the PS3 either. My PS2 has languished unused for the last two years, and my PSP sits unused too. I'm just too damn busy. But if this guy wants to buy a bunch of XBox 360s to control his HDTVs - his money - more power to him. JMO. --M
Yeah. Except he has an application for which the Xbox 360 suits his purpose. Not buying the product just to spite MS seems counterproductive. If it does what he needs, at a price point he likes, should he boycott due to your concerns? IMO: to boycott is a personal choice, like voting or party affiliation. --M
Yeah. I got the locals over cable unencrypted, but everything else (including the HD basic stuff like INHD and TNTHD) was all encrypted and set to copy once. The JVC DVHS deck is the only solution I've found to archiving High Definition content.
Is all of your cable content coming across unencrypted? When I tried to connect my mac to a motorola 6412 I was only able to record material broadcast OTA. Cable programming like TNTHD, INHD, and the premium channels were all encrypted. The DVHS deck can handle encrypted content - which is why I use it. Reencoding the Mpeg2 stream to WM9 on a PC and then dumping to DVD would be a better solution... you're doing that right now? --M
record the HD content to a PVR and stream it to a disc for archival and later viewing? 'Cause if not, then I'll stick with my Motorola 6412 PVR and JVC DVHS deck. Which, BTW, works perfectly well today and has the benefit of being pretty cheap too. --M
They Live!!!
See: Hummingbird.
Although you are putting words in his mouth by trying to make him say that DDT is environmentally safe, what you fail to note is that when used to combat malaria the side-effects of DDT plus the harm of any remaining malaria is significantly less than any other current solution.
The OP asserted that DDT is safe and effective by using an ad hominem attack against environmentalists - not a rational argument. That was my point. As for your link, it's interesting and worth reading. I'd be curious to see a the results of an interdisciplinary cost-benefit analysis with physicians and biologists. The physicians you site may be right that it is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce malaria deaths in the developing world - but they aren't considering long term consequences of DDT use (either to the ecosystem, or to human health). OTOH: it may turn out that DDT (or something similar that's less toxic) is worth the environmental damage. I'm not qualified to judge, but IMO I doubt widespread use of DDT is worth the risk. --M
Oh, I remember the time. I remember the Atari pong system and all the clones. And I remember the first time I saw the VCS, playing Space Invaders at a friend's house sometime in '78 or so. I must have been ten. And yeah, I wanted one within seconds of seeing it. :) As for the game market crash in '82, I don't remember the experience of it as it happened - but I do remember the fallout: lots of cheap games and consoles. Fun! Fun! Fun!
Rotton 2600 games lived somewhere between ET and Custer's Revenge in the plane between unplayable and outright obnoxiousness. The system just didn't have enough oomph for Pac Man, Defender, or Star Raiders, but the 2600 version of Asteroids rocked.
You mean I can't use another service to legally download mp3s, and then use another program to install them on my iPod? Really? Sure, I need iTunes to download and register songs from the iTunes music store... but that doesn't prevent me from purchasing or ripping any other music legally and then moving them to an iPod without iTunes software. --M
OK. So at this point the debate can be broken down to these two points:
/. and could actually answer questions like this in detail. My guess is that they don't - but that's just a layperson's guess. *sigh*
a) Does the current iPod marketshare constitute a Monopoly?
b) If so, do Apple's actions in this case constitute abuse of that monopoly?
I've argued that due to the continued survival of Apple's various competitors, they do not have a monopoly - therefore b) is irrelevant. But we're at an impasse because we now have to resolve the factual point of whether Apple's marketshare constitutes a monopoly. That's DOJ turf. I wish more lawyers hung out at
Assuming Apple *does* have a monopoly in the "portable digital music player" market - is what they're doing really wrong? It's a strong arming tactic for sure. But it seems less obnoxious than what Sony and MS do to their partners - and for sure, Sony and MS are much larger with much greater impact on the general market than Apple. ???? (it's a point - if one not based on a consistent application of principle *shrug*) --M
OK. So cpt kangarooski (a lawyer) commented on the trademark issue here, arguing that even with a trademark this type of use should fit within trademark fair use. It would appear that I'm wrong. Perhaps Apple is using access to technical specs, logo placement, etc as an inducement to third party developer royalty payments.
I still don't see a moral problem with their action, JMO. And it appears that there's no legal problem with their action either, if I read kangarooski's posts in this forum correctly.
Actually, no I don't. I live in Boston and either walk/bike or use public transportaion. But I have owned cars in the past. Actually, the more I think about the trademark issue, the more I realize that this assertion relies on a lay understanding of trademark law. It's problematic. We really need a lawyer to factually resolve the finer details of this point. I defer. --M
But by your own admission, Sony makes a mp3 player (along with many others in the market). As such, Apple is constrained by plenty of competition in the "portable digital music player" market. They can only force agreements with manufacturers who wish to market third party add-on products for an Apple product line. They cannot constrain manufacturers from entering the "portable digital music player" market (or any other market) due simply to already having monopoly marketshare. Thus they aren't a monopoly. Thus they aren't abusing a monopoly with agreements of this sort. Further, since there are competing products in the market, they don't have the power to extract monopoly price-gouging from consumers.
WRT: Sony - are you arguing that Sony doesn't use similar agreements with third party manufacturers and software developers in their Playstation product line? --M
AC: Nonsense. Do you think generic inkjet cartridge manufacturers get HP's or Epson's permission before telling consumers exactly which make and model printer a specific generic inkjet cartridge works in?
That is a great counterpoint. This gets into legalisms details that I'm not qualified to comment upon. Isn't Cpt Kangarooski a lawyer? Maybe if he notices this thread he (or another lawyer) will comment upon the legalities of Apple's actions with better expertise. --M
You mean I have to use iTunes to get music on my iPod? Really!?!? News to me... --M
I don't want to defend the policy, because there are plenty of reasons why it might be a mistake for Apple to try to extract revenue with partnering manufacturers like this. However, just to respond to your Ford analogy, if a third party manufacturer wanted to include the line "Made specifically for Ford Bronco" on the packaging of their product, Ford would certainly demand a contractual agreement with the manufacturer in order to deal with trademark issues. They might even demand a payment for use of those terms.
The situation with Apple is no different. Apple demands payment for allowing third party manufacturers to use the term "Designed for iPod", almost certainly a trademarked term. With this agreement they also provide some technical specs to properly interface with their product. There is nothing improper with Apple's demands here. Maybe it's bad business sense - or maybe not. *shrug* --M
I just wanted to link an example with Microsoft Windows in order to add to the snark value of my comment.
However, let's examine Apple's leveraging potential with the iPod in the "portable digital music player" market. Could Apple force a manufacturer like Sony to drop their competing music players in order to allow them to manufacture accessories for the iPod? I don't think so. Hence: no monopoly. --M
That's an oxymoron.
Look, one might disagree with Apple's policy for any number of valid reasons. For example: it's a poor long term policy if one believes in the importance of business relationships; it stifles Apple's secondary manufacturing market and thus impacts the utility of their product line the consumers; the short term gains aren't worth the potential long term losses... blah blah blah. But then you'd be forced to argue the profit potential and long term effects of their policy instead of simply claiming a negative gut reaction. So you don't like it. If it pisses you off enough, buy a competitor's product. But don't claim it is proof of a monopoly. There are plenty of third party portable mp3 and digital music players on the market. Apple can neither force their competitors out of that market, nor can they use the iPod to leverage their other market (computers, Operating Systems, and application software). Deal. --M
You will know when Apple has gained monopoly marketshare when they leverage MacOS X on Intel by forcing iPod users to drop Windows. Somehow, I think Apple demanding certain manufacturing agreements with industry players doesn't quite measure up to a "portable mp3 music player" monopoly. --M
You mean I'm not going to get my reward after all!?!? *smacks forehead*
Do you even want to see this thing in a bikini?!?!? Best the aliens be covered, if you ask me...