...except the problem with Flash has been that Apple has neglected to provided access to features.
The necessary acceleration framework for Flash was released for the Mac just last week.
So yes, Adobe was right and Apple was wrong. The problem is not that Adobe is lazy
but that Apple is a control freak and doesn't want to be upstaged by 3rd parties.
Apple should start performing before it whines about how anyone else isn't doing
their part.
Oh fuck you, don't pretend it's the hardware acceleration for video that makes every Flash app in existence much slower on a Mac (and on Linux) than under Windows.
And of course, he knows [that Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone]. Which is why he spends one paragraph railing against Adobe and the next paragraph justifying Apple as distinctively different products...
So he's a hypocrite, but at least he knows he's a hypocrite. How lovely.
Unlike those who attacked Flash for not being open until it wasn't supported on the iPhone?
... which is the real reason Apple wants to kill flash - it won't let Apple fully exploit their h264 patents via, among other things, html5 video codecs.
One patent. Out of over a thousand. But sure, lets all cheer for the great support of Ogg Theora in Flash.
He is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard when he is the biggest pusher of closed standards on the planet.
No, he is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard on the web when he is the biggest pusher of open standards on the web on the planet. But thanks for putting your hate towards Apple above that towards Flash.
H.264 is not supported by Firefox so you do need to encode videos again in Ogg Theora if you want to support HTML5 video in Firefox.
Looking at it the other way around, Safari doesn't support the open codec so you need to use H.264 to support Safari (and IE9, when that comes out).
Gee, I wonder why I can watch this on my Mac with Safari without a problem then. Must be doing something wrong. Ahh, the miracles of Quicktime with the right codec http://xiph.org/quicktime/
Are you telling me your company has a tick-box on the tech support form for "someone found our top-secret prototype that nobody in tech support is supposed to know about" that doesn't actually say "the usual nutcase"?
I think they way that Gizmodo and the guy that found it acted was certainly a bit stupid and shortsighted, but unless the guy that "found it" picked Gray Powell's pocket for the thing, calling it "theft" seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Too bad (for them) that the law has a different view:
California Code - Section 485
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
In either case, I'd say, political speech should be exempt from even the copyright rules. Otherwise we may, eventually, find that it is impossible to quote any of your opponents and their supporters.
And I think politicalspeech should not contain music.
And if one reads the Wikipedia article (first hit), you'll find that Chucky has no chance in hell in this case:
The most commonly known compulsory license is for nondramatic musical compositions.[...] This does not allow the artist to change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work.
In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty.[...] Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement. In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.
Though the compulsory license allows one to make and distribute physical copies of a song for a set royalty, the owner of the copyright in the underlying musical composition can still control public performance of the work or transmission over the radio.
Sorry, but clearly every single requirement for "compulsory licensing" has been broken (at least) in this case. Most notably the one that it only "allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work"
But, you have no right at all to copy the book and sell the material (which is what the copyright covers).
Where did I say otherwise? Remember, you said "if you make a work and copyright it, then nobody should profit off of it without your permission." So I countered with a way to profit off of someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. Basically, your earlier statement was too broad.
No, you countered with a way to profit on a copy, not off the work. It's not his fault you don't get the difference.
Um, you're the one who said "copyright trumps free speech". Trumping kinda sorta is infringing. Doncha think?
What I don't like is the chilling effect that use of copyright can have on political speech. If Obama want's to say "I'm lovin' it" or "It's a good thing", I don't want McDonalds or Martha Stewart going after him for it.
You are confusing copyright and trademark. Among other things.
The exact same people who have attacked Apple for their "publicity stunt" of "losing" an "alleged iPhone prototype" "on purpose" now attack Apple for supposedly "trying to silence" the only source who publicized this?
It's okay to justify it, if you drink the Apple-Aid. Ironically if this had been Microsoft or the MAFIAA arresting somebody who downloaded the latest Windows or Star Trek, people would be tearing those corporations to shreds.
"Gizmodo knowingly brought stolen goods, which is also a crime under the California penal code."
Until they opened it up, they only bought "a story". They didn't know it was a genuine apple iphone prototype vs a chinese knockoff when they bought it.
I've seen chinese knockoffs. Right down to the apple logo.
So? It doesn't matter what the guy "found", it still didn't belong to him. And do you actually believe they bought the story of a guy finding a Chinese knockoff for $5000 in the faint hope the story would be false?
The story existed without Gizmodo paying for it. They didn't pay the guy to lose his phone -- they just paid for exclusive information *about* the phone (and how it was lost).
All stories on this are based on the original story by Gizmodo - so no, there would be no story without Gizmodo.
To the guy who dabbled with the phone for hours. Yeah, sure, absolutely no sign who had used that phone - like the information in Mail, you know, the fucking email address. "Gee, your honour, I found that passport, but I couldn't tell who was the owner, so I sold it."
Schneier makes no mention of this being an Apple publicity stunt. Gee, I guess that makes him an Apple-Fanboi, that's what those are who don't believe this.
Wasn't there a story here a couple of years ago that MS and some other large companies were charging a fee for all items sold, whether in a country which recognises the patent in question or not, as a condition of licensing it in any country which does recognise the patent.
Sure - if the manufacturer actually agrees. I doubt that those (like Chinese no-names) who instead try to get around paying even where the patent is valid will pay where it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
...except the problem with Flash has been that Apple has neglected to provided access to features.
The necessary acceleration framework for Flash was released for the Mac just last week.
So yes, Adobe was right and Apple was wrong. The problem is not that Adobe is lazy but that Apple is a control freak and doesn't want to be upstaged by 3rd parties. Apple should start performing before it whines about how anyone else isn't doing their part.
Oh fuck you, don't pretend it's the hardware acceleration for video that makes every Flash app in existence much slower on a Mac (and on Linux) than under Windows.
Which are nothing more than different GUI for WebKit. And Opera Mini isn't a web browser at all.
So if Google ported Chrome, that also wouldn't count? The Android browser?
So he's a hypocrite, but at least he knows he's a hypocrite. How lovely.
Unlike those who attacked Flash for not being open until it wasn't supported on the iPhone?
Or, you know, they could just use wheels like other, very successful robotic explorers....Legs are complicated.
Yeah, just send a Dalek up there. No stairways, no problems.
... which is the real reason Apple wants to kill flash - it won't let Apple fully exploit their h264 patents via, among other things, html5 video codecs.
One patent. Out of over a thousand. But sure, lets all cheer for the great support of Ogg Theora in Flash.
He is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard when he is the biggest pusher of closed standards on the planet.
No, he is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard on the web when he is the biggest pusher of open standards on the web on the planet. But thanks for putting your hate towards Apple above that towards Flash.
That fact that Apple tries to lock you out of much of the web, or lock your content to it's platform is nothing to be trivially glossed over.
The part that uses Flash? Gee, I always wondered if your hatred for Apple was stronger than that for Flash - not any more.
H.264 is not supported by Firefox so you do need to encode videos again in Ogg Theora if you want to support HTML5 video in Firefox.
Looking at it the other way around, Safari doesn't support the open codec so you need to use H.264 to support Safari (and IE9, when that comes out).
Gee, I wonder why I can watch this on my Mac with Safari without a problem then. Must be doing something wrong. Ahh, the miracles of Quicktime with the right codec http://xiph.org/quicktime/
Are you telling me your company has a tick-box on the tech support form for "someone found our top-secret prototype that nobody in tech support is supposed to know about" that doesn't actually say "the usual nutcase"?
I think they way that Gizmodo and the guy that found it acted was certainly a bit stupid and shortsighted, but unless the guy that "found it" picked Gray Powell's pocket for the thing, calling it "theft" seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Too bad (for them) that the law has a different view:
California Code - Section 485
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
In either case, I'd say, political speech should be exempt from even the copyright rules. Otherwise we may, eventually, find that it is impossible to quote any of your opponents and their supporters.
And I think political speech should not contain music.
Let me Google that for you.
And if one reads the Wikipedia article (first hit), you'll find that Chucky has no chance in hell in this case:
The most commonly known compulsory license is for nondramatic musical compositions.[...] This does not allow the artist to change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work.
In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty.[...] Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement. In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.
Though the compulsory license allows one to make and distribute physical copies of a song for a set royalty, the owner of the copyright in the underlying musical composition can still control public performance of the work or transmission over the radio.
Sorry, but clearly every single requirement for "compulsory licensing" has been broken (at least) in this case. Most notably the one that it only "allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work"
But, you have no right at all to copy the book and sell the material (which is what the copyright covers).
Where did I say otherwise? Remember, you said "if you make a work and copyright it, then nobody should profit off of it without your permission." So I countered with a way to profit off of someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. Basically, your earlier statement was too broad.
No, you countered with a way to profit on a copy, not off the work. It's not his fault you don't get the difference.
Um, you're the one who said "copyright trumps free speech". Trumping kinda sorta is infringing. Doncha think?
What I don't like is the chilling effect that use of copyright can have on political speech. If Obama want's to say "I'm lovin' it" or "It's a good thing", I don't want McDonalds or Martha Stewart going after him for it.
You are confusing copyright and trademark. Among other things.
The exact same people who have attacked Apple for their "publicity stunt" of "losing" an "alleged iPhone prototype" "on purpose" now attack Apple for supposedly "trying to silence" the only source who publicized this?
What do you say, hyperbole? There's a post in this very discussion basically claiming both is a fact.
It's okay to justify it, if you drink the Apple-Aid. Ironically if this had been Microsoft or the MAFIAA arresting somebody who downloaded the latest Windows or Star Trek, people would be tearing those corporations to shreds.
As opposed to the witch-hunt found here?
http://cbs2chicago.com/watercooler/Water.Cooler.eBay.2.268257.html http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I'll+be+blowed!+That's+my+stolen+sax+on+ebaY%3B+Cops+swoop+to+get...-a0166698791 http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2005/04/stolen-goods-on-ebay.php etc.
"Gizmodo knowingly brought stolen goods, which is also a crime under the California penal code."
Until they opened it up, they only bought "a story". They didn't know it was a genuine apple iphone prototype vs a chinese knockoff when they bought it.
I've seen chinese knockoffs. Right down to the apple logo.
So? It doesn't matter what the guy "found", it still didn't belong to him. And do you actually believe they bought the story of a guy finding a Chinese knockoff for $5000 in the faint hope the story would be false?
And again, how is this theft?
So this guy finds a phone that looks strange, and might be an Apple prototype.
If by "strange" you mean "just like an ordinary iPhone 3GS", sure.
They paid $5K for the STORY, as registered journalists
I can see a surge of registered fence bloggers.
The story existed without Gizmodo paying for it. They didn't pay the guy to lose his phone -- they just paid for exclusive information *about* the phone (and how it was lost).
All stories on this are based on the original story by Gizmodo - so no, there would be no story without Gizmodo.
He'll say:
1) The owner was unknown
To the guy who dabbled with the phone for hours. Yeah, sure, absolutely no sign who had used that phone - like the information in Mail, you know, the fucking email address. "Gee, your honour, I found that passport, but I couldn't tell who was the owner, so I sold it."
Schneier makes no mention of this being an Apple publicity stunt. Gee, I guess that makes him an Apple-Fanboi, that's what those are who don't believe this.
Wasn't there a story here a couple of years ago that MS and some other large companies were charging a fee for all items sold, whether in a country which recognises the patent in question or not, as a condition of licensing it in any country which does recognise the patent.
Sure - if the manufacturer actually agrees. I doubt that those (like Chinese no-names) who instead try to get around paying even where the patent is valid will pay where it isn't.
Completely different issue. CDROMs don't use the FAT filesystem.
Which BTW is exactly why the old decision was overturned - isn't it amazing what you can find out when you RTFA?