Hopefully this idiot will be stuck with a very, very painful fine that will be sufficient to dissuade him or anybody who hears his story from trafficking in stolen goods.
A "very, very painful fine" could financially cripple him for the rest of his life, for a mistake of comparable magnitude to mistakes made by pretty much every young person (excepting your own perfect self, I'm sure). I'm not saying Apple should just blow it off altogether, but a little mercy isn't going to kill them, either, and he's already going to think twice before redistributing copyrighted material. What actual good will come out of punishing him to the maximum extent possible?
> You know in all those movies where some guy, sometimes just an amateur scientist, sees something in his telescope/seismograph/thermometer/disease-modeling -software that all the high-up professionals miss, and rushes in to warn the government?
> That doesn't happen.
You're with the agency that makes those guys disappear, aren't you.
Actually, I think Faust just meant the current administration of the particular government in question doesn't listen to scientists.
Oh, and technically, it wasnt John Barry's version of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it was the Propellerheads' mix, which combines the title theme from OHMSS with a musical bridge from You Only Live Twice.
I don't think I knew about the Propellerheads' version; thanks for the heads-up. However, when talking about film music, I generally talk about it as the creation of the composer, not the (performing) artist. I was referring here to Barry as the composer, so I'd have still referred to it as Barry's music even if I'd thought it was the Propellerheads' rendition thereof.
FWIW, though, according to writer-director-actor Brad Bird in this AICN interview, it's not actually their version, but a new recording:
Moriarty: In terms of the score, you cut that original teaser to the Propellerheads version of the "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" theme...
BRAD: Actually, that was a live performance than we recorded, because we messed with it a little bit. We got the rights to that piece of music and kind of reorchestrated it.
The whole interview has a little more about the score, as well as the movie in general.
No kidding. He did a better '60s John Barry here than John Barry himself has done in a while. It's so dead-on perfect for the film, especially for Syndrome's hidden island lair; it's just what you'd expect to hear when watching one of the Connery-era 007 flicks, only more so. I loved it.
John Barry was actually supposed to score this film at one point, but wound up off the project for some reason (some of Barry's music from On Her Majesty's Secret Service was used in the first The Incredibles teaser, in fact - the one with Bob trying to get his Mr. Incredible belt on). Replacing him with Giacchino certainly paid off beautifully, though.
Oh? I've certainly seen plenty of Apple criticism here that was modded up, and I've never heard of anyone in Slashdot history being IP banned for repeatedly criticizing Apple. Do you have some helpful examples?
From everything I've read, the margins in the paid music downloads business are razor-thin, since the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the record labels, and most of what little is left apparently just pays for costs (Apple's major motivation in offering the iTMS is reportedly simply as a way to promote iPod sales). Is all this true? If not, what is a more accurate breakdown, and if so, why bother? Obviously there are lots of companies offering downloadable songs for small amounts of money, but hardly anyone seems to be making anything from it. Real in particular has gone to fairly considerable lengths to attempt to offer DRM'd downloads that'll play on the iPod, and to sweet-talk or arm-twist Apple into allowing it. Why? What's the attraction, if there's so little money to be had from song downloads in the first place?
Another reason for creating the Ewoks (besides having established Wookies as tech-savvy) was that it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to find dozens or hundreds of people the size of Kenny Baker and devise furry costumes for them than it is to find dozens or hundreds of people the size of Peter Mayhew and make costumes for them (at least, outside the NBA, and then it'd be way more expensive...).
The idea of the rebels allying themselves with a group of low-tech aliens and defeating the technologically advanced Empire was such a core idea of George Lucas' Star Wars concepts that when he couldn't realize it on film the first time around, in '77, it still found its way into Star Wars lore very quickly, well before Return of the Jedi was released - the same idea is used in the Alan Dean Foster novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye, the first-ever Star Wars-based original novel, released in February of 1978. Foster had ghostwritten the novelization of the original movie (published under Lucas' name in late 1976, six months before the film was released), and Lucas had talked with Foster about some of his other Star Wars concepts and ideas that didn't make it into that original movie. Foster incorporated a couple of them (the "primitives"-vs.-Imperials battle, plus the novel's central concept of a Force-connected crystal, the "Mind's Eye" of the title) into his spinoff novel.
The article talks about Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
The article is wrong, then, of course. The iPod predates the iTMS by well over a year; does the article writer think the iPod's first buyers got them and then let them sit unused in drawers for a year?? The iPod has always played ordinary MP3s, WAVs, and AIFFs, and still does. One can buy an iPod and fill it with thousands of songs without ever using the iTMS.
Aside from the fact all iPods in general are already selling like hotcakes (as several others have pointed out), they're also selling the iPod mini, a 4 GB iPod that costs $249. What are they supposed to do, sell a full-size iPod with a higher capacity for $50 less??
The "atrocious battery life that should have been dealt with years ago" wasn't atrocious years ago; it was actually considered quite good, in fact (though those first- and second-gen iPods did have longer battery life than the third gen).
What's with your apparent assumption earphone color affects their quality?
The cover story isn't actually about the new iPod; it's about the iPod phenomenon in general, and it's merely timed to coincide with the release of the latest model. The actual story doesn't even talk about the specs or features of the new model; it only mentions in one place buried deep in the article that there even are new models coming out, and it spends less than a sentence on that. The rest of the article discusses how Apple came to dominate this market, how it came up with the iPod in the first place, how the iPod has transcended the boundaries of a mere consumer product to become a fashion statement, way of life, etc., and so on. This article could just as easily have been written if there weren't new models coming out at all; the only things different would be a couple photos and one sentence.
Not to mention they already do just fine selling them at the prices they sell them at now; hell, they're selling the minis about as quickly as they can make them, and they're backordered up the wazoo. At the current "overpricing," demand still exceeds supply. Apple has no incentive whatsoever to lower the price to what Flyboy and the AC want to pay.
Apple claim "up to 8 hours" with the iPod, but I did a test about amonth ago with my 18 month old iPod. Overnight charge to empty on continuous play of all tracks lasted 10 hours 25 minutes.
This fits with what I remember reading about the iPod when it first came out. I recall seeing a number of reviews that cited charges lasting about an hour more than Apple was claiming (something like eleven hours instead of ten) under fairly normal use. That was pretty amazing a couple years ago, when the iPod was new.
Probably, but the iTMS works with both. It also happens to be the only (legitimate) download service that currently works with Windows and Mac OS.
The only one of the DRM'ed services, anyway. There are a few outfits like eMusic that offer DRM-free MP3s and the like, which of course work with any platform, though of course they don't offer as much of the most popular music as the iTMS and the various DRM WMA outfits, and don't have anywhere near the iTMS' marketshare.
Or maybe they should just remember that there's no shortage of English-language sites already. Really, what's the problem? I don't know how orkut is organized, but is it really so hard to find areas where English is spoken? Why can't different linguistic groups all find their own niches there, and not worry about what other people are doing?
My point is this, you want to be able to make a copy of it 25 years from now without coming back to me and paying for me to make you a copy, we can work that out, legally I own the copyright so in 10 years or so if I want to make a coffee table book of some of my favorite wedding photos, I want to display some of my prints in a gallery, I want to have them published in a magazine, I want to just make it for myself because I love the image so much, I want to keep the rights to that.
And what if the couple doesn't want photos of their private gathering published in a book or magazine? When you're presenting your contract and tell the couple you retain the copyright to the images, do you also get them to sign a release granting you permission to use their likenesses? If so, what do they get for that? Do you give them a discount on the print costs?
That's an excellent, informative response and you deserve to be modded up for it. Thanks.
That said, if I've bought the copy in Russia, where it's legal, can I not bring it into the US? I do realize that certain things are illegal here, but I think it's different from the hash example. With illegal drugs, they're just plain illegal here, period, regardless of where they come from. With creative works, it's not flat-out illegal to possess any such work; it's just not permitted to copy / distribute them without the permission of the copyright holder. That raises interesting questions.
For example, there are record labels in Europe that specialize in releasing rare film scores that aren't legally available here, because the studios (or whoever owns the rights) haven't authorized their release. However, because of differences in, say, German law vs. US law, they aren't necessarily illegal over there, although those labels can't operate over here (at least, they can't release some of the same scores). Now, US laws prevent those labels from releasing those scores here, which means they can't operate commercially here; that doesn't mean a private individual can't go over to Germany, buy some of those borderline bootleg soundtrack CDs that are technically legal there, and bring them back here, does it? They aren't being "released" or "distributed" here, after all, so copyright laws that govern how things can be copied, distributed, etc. here don't apply, as far as I can tell.
If that's the case, then what I'm wondering about something like allofmp3 is whether the fact they operate outside the US (as opposed to merely outside US law) has any effect. As far as I can tell, the "copy" of a work is created the instant their server sends it to you, not when it arrives in your computer, and while it's in transit it's already your property. Legally, what distinction is there between downloading something from allofmp3, and actually travelling to Russia (or Germany, or whatever) and buying a copy of something that couldn't be legally distributed here and bringing it back?
Actually, what I really should do is ask my brother, who is a lawyer...
Slashdot Mirror
A "very, very painful fine" could financially cripple him for the rest of his life, for a mistake of comparable magnitude to mistakes made by pretty much every young person (excepting your own perfect self, I'm sure). I'm not saying Apple should just blow it off altogether, but a little mercy isn't going to kill them, either, and he's already going to think twice before redistributing copyrighted material. What actual good will come out of punishing him to the maximum extent possible?
Right, because you read his mind while he was doing it, and you know with 100% certainty that he thought he was in fact doing wrong. Um, yeah.
Whether he should have known he was doing something wrong is a different matter than whether he did in fact know he was doing something wrong.
Actually, I think Faust just meant the current administration of the particular government in question doesn't listen to scientists.
It's always sounded like "hey!" to me.
I don't think I knew about the Propellerheads' version; thanks for the heads-up. However, when talking about film music, I generally talk about it as the creation of the composer, not the (performing) artist. I was referring here to Barry as the composer, so I'd have still referred to it as Barry's music even if I'd thought it was the Propellerheads' rendition thereof.
FWIW, though, according to writer-director-actor Brad Bird in this AICN interview, it's not actually their version, but a new recording:
The whole interview has a little more about the score, as well as the movie in general.
John Barry was actually supposed to score this film at one point, but wound up off the project for some reason (some of Barry's music from On Her Majesty's Secret Service was used in the first The Incredibles teaser, in fact - the one with Bob trying to get his Mr. Incredible belt on). Replacing him with Giacchino certainly paid off beautifully, though.
Oh? I've certainly seen plenty of Apple criticism here that was modded up, and I've never heard of anyone in Slashdot history being IP banned for repeatedly criticizing Apple. Do you have some helpful examples?
From everything I've read, the margins in the paid music downloads business are razor-thin, since the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the record labels, and most of what little is left apparently just pays for costs (Apple's major motivation in offering the iTMS is reportedly simply as a way to promote iPod sales). Is all this true? If not, what is a more accurate breakdown, and if so, why bother? Obviously there are lots of companies offering downloadable songs for small amounts of money, but hardly anyone seems to be making anything from it. Real in particular has gone to fairly considerable lengths to attempt to offer DRM'd downloads that'll play on the iPod, and to sweet-talk or arm-twist Apple into allowing it. Why? What's the attraction, if there's so little money to be had from song downloads in the first place?
The idea of the rebels allying themselves with a group of low-tech aliens and defeating the technologically advanced Empire was such a core idea of George Lucas' Star Wars concepts that when he couldn't realize it on film the first time around, in '77, it still found its way into Star Wars lore very quickly, well before Return of the Jedi was released - the same idea is used in the Alan Dean Foster novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye, the first-ever Star Wars-based original novel, released in February of 1978. Foster had ghostwritten the novelization of the original movie (published under Lucas' name in late 1976, six months before the film was released), and Lucas had talked with Foster about some of his other Star Wars concepts and ideas that didn't make it into that original movie. Foster incorporated a couple of them (the "primitives"-vs.-Imperials battle, plus the novel's central concept of a Force-connected crystal, the "Mind's Eye" of the title) into his spinoff novel.
IIRC, Mystery Science Theater 3000's Mike Nelson once opined that Batman & Robin was a serious contender for the title of "Worst Thing Ever." :D
The article is wrong, then, of course. The iPod predates the iTMS by well over a year; does the article writer think the iPod's first buyers got them and then let them sit unused in drawers for a year?? The iPod has always played ordinary MP3s, WAVs, and AIFFs, and still does. One can buy an iPod and fill it with thousands of songs without ever using the iTMS.
No, stuff sold in the iTMS is still 128kbps AAC.
Ah... hmmm.
Is it too late to defect to Soviet Russia??
Cut that price in half, and it'll be below Apple's cost to make it, so don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen anytime soon.
Aside from the fact all iPods in general are already selling like hotcakes (as several others have pointed out), they're also selling the iPod mini, a 4 GB iPod that costs $249. What are they supposed to do, sell a full-size iPod with a higher capacity for $50 less??
What's with your apparent assumption earphone color affects their quality?
The cover story isn't actually about the new iPod; it's about the iPod phenomenon in general, and it's merely timed to coincide with the release of the latest model. The actual story doesn't even talk about the specs or features of the new model; it only mentions in one place buried deep in the article that there even are new models coming out, and it spends less than a sentence on that. The rest of the article discusses how Apple came to dominate this market, how it came up with the iPod in the first place, how the iPod has transcended the boundaries of a mere consumer product to become a fashion statement, way of life, etc., and so on. This article could just as easily have been written if there weren't new models coming out at all; the only things different would be a couple photos and one sentence.
Not to mention they already do just fine selling them at the prices they sell them at now; hell, they're selling the minis about as quickly as they can make them, and they're backordered up the wazoo. At the current "overpricing," demand still exceeds supply. Apple has no incentive whatsoever to lower the price to what Flyboy and the AC want to pay.
This fits with what I remember reading about the iPod when it first came out. I recall seeing a number of reviews that cited charges lasting about an hour more than Apple was claiming (something like eleven hours instead of ten) under fairly normal use. That was pretty amazing a couple years ago, when the iPod was new.
I'm sure they'll have the 60 GB iPod out shortly after the 60 GB drives become available in quantity.
The only one of the DRM'ed services, anyway. There are a few outfits like eMusic that offer DRM-free MP3s and the like, which of course work with any platform, though of course they don't offer as much of the most popular music as the iTMS and the various DRM WMA outfits, and don't have anywhere near the iTMS' marketshare.
Or maybe they should just remember that there's no shortage of English-language sites already. Really, what's the problem? I don't know how orkut is organized, but is it really so hard to find areas where English is spoken? Why can't different linguistic groups all find their own niches there, and not worry about what other people are doing?
And what if the couple doesn't want photos of their private gathering published in a book or magazine? When you're presenting your contract and tell the couple you retain the copyright to the images, do you also get them to sign a release granting you permission to use their likenesses? If so, what do they get for that? Do you give them a discount on the print costs?
Thanks for the information. A lot of that sucks, but it's good to know.
That said, if I've bought the copy in Russia, where it's legal, can I not bring it into the US? I do realize that certain things are illegal here, but I think it's different from the hash example. With illegal drugs, they're just plain illegal here, period, regardless of where they come from. With creative works, it's not flat-out illegal to possess any such work; it's just not permitted to copy / distribute them without the permission of the copyright holder. That raises interesting questions.
For example, there are record labels in Europe that specialize in releasing rare film scores that aren't legally available here, because the studios (or whoever owns the rights) haven't authorized their release. However, because of differences in, say, German law vs. US law, they aren't necessarily illegal over there, although those labels can't operate over here (at least, they can't release some of the same scores). Now, US laws prevent those labels from releasing those scores here, which means they can't operate commercially here; that doesn't mean a private individual can't go over to Germany, buy some of those borderline bootleg soundtrack CDs that are technically legal there, and bring them back here, does it? They aren't being "released" or "distributed" here, after all, so copyright laws that govern how things can be copied, distributed, etc. here don't apply, as far as I can tell.
If that's the case, then what I'm wondering about something like allofmp3 is whether the fact they operate outside the US (as opposed to merely outside US law) has any effect. As far as I can tell, the "copy" of a work is created the instant their server sends it to you, not when it arrives in your computer, and while it's in transit it's already your property. Legally, what distinction is there between downloading something from allofmp3, and actually travelling to Russia (or Germany, or whatever) and buying a copy of something that couldn't be legally distributed here and bringing it back?
Actually, what I really should do is ask my brother, who is a lawyer...