Huh. I thought where they were going with this was to ask a SERIES of questions, with the default answers being variously Right or Wrong. Just to see if you're paying attention.
This is much less interesting. Penalizing a user for choosing more secure? WTF?
Therefore, it can't be apple's fault. Lets blame the users - it's really their fault.
That's not what I'm saying. There are clearly areas where Apple could make improvements, localization (localisation?) being one, although I don't expect much of that until after the SDK is released. My point is that this is a brand new interface, and by definition a large percentage of the users are brand new to it. It'd be something similar to a must-have Blackberry that only had a Dvorak keyboard. I'd expect adopters to make mistakes, at least in the beginning.
Time will tell if a combination of (a) more users becoming more used to the keyboard, and (b) Apple fine-tuning (or not-so-fine-tuning) the spellchecking brings down the error rate. Personally, I don't think it'll get down to full-keyboard blackberry efficiency, but it may end up doing better than the two-letter keyboard in the cheaper blackberries.
Also, they only mention not going after downloaders. I dont think the RIAA has begun to target downloaders yet, they seem content going after uploaders (for now) & those running the file-sharing websites & networks.
Instead of sugared-up theories about why this happened, it's possible that the model simply won't work.
How can it not work? If anybody pays (or rather, if enough people pay to cover hosting costs) it's a win for the band. The model isn't about selling music, it's about using music as promotion. Smaller bands (some, like the Crimea, only a bit smaller) have been doing this for years. Even the 'name your price' angle isn't new.
The real model is to make your nut off the other stuff--concerts, merch, etc. That's why you hear the studios talking about getting a bigger piece of that business.
I mean, I get that the feature is great, and I'd love to have it myself. But it seems to me that it'd be pretty easy for any network to offer it to almost ANY phone, or at least a pretty close facsimile to a large majority.
Of course. But it seems to take a company like Apple to actually do it. C.f. the iPod.
I make ferrari looking cars for me and my friends. Ferrari hires thugs that put bananas in the tailpipe and deflates the tyres of my cars. Then I sue them for this.
Almost. More like Ferrari hires thugs that come after me, because I tell people how to find you if they want a Ferrari-looking car.
LMAO. OK, you probably actually know this, but a 'rack focus' is just shifting the the depth of field from a point in the foregound (e.g.) to one in the background, or the other way 'round.
Now, one of those points *could* be an actual rack...
Isn't there an infobox you can fill out about clips you're uploading? Place a link to your blog entry in that infobox and sate the educational purpose of the video. That way the context doesn't just disappear for people that just happen to be browsing YouTube.
Yeah, you can do that, but you're not required to. Maybe a site like Photobucket would be a better example. Regardless, "Fair use" is often about context, so if the context is removed (say, somebody embeds the same video in a post without the additional component) how is it adjudicated? Is the embedder liable, or am I?
My original point was that since these things aren't anywhere near certain (I've never heard of a case based on this) it's generally wiser to allow the DMCA takedown to stand.
(BTW, when I hear "Christopher Knight", I'm no longer going to think "Brady Bunch." That's quite a feat.)
I don't think it's so much that nobody knows counter notices exist, it's that most people infringing are truly infringing.
Well, *I* think that most people are just reluctant to open themselves up to the possibility of having to defend that assertion in court. Easier to just let it be taken down (and email it to the people you really want to see it.)
There's also the amorphous nature of fair use and youtube's defacto 'place to post vids' status. If I'm writing a blog entry on a cinematic technique, say the use of a rack focus, I can absolutely put up a clip that shows that technique. But someone trolling youtube might not realize that's why it's there. And indeed, absent that educational component it might indeed be infringing. So how sure am I that the clip will be found non-infringing? Which context will be judged?
That said, it'd be amusing if joeuser@aol.com submits a counter notice about his upload (some awesome video he "found") and then gets sued to high hell since it's "under penalty of perjury" that he asserts there's been a mistake.
That said, I'd love to see someone actually sued over issuing a take-down notice on what is clearly fair use.
Personally, I think the means of restoring the balance would be to repeal the DMCA and even scale back copyright law, rather than creating yet more laws.
Even better, just do it. (sorry Nike, track my ass down.)
Seriously, the current copyright regime has twenty years tops before people realize that it's counter-productive. More significantly, the (jargon alert) MAFIAA will have reduced itself to a shadow of its former might by its heavy-handed tactics.
There's a beautiful symmetry to all of this. The copyright holding companies wanted to make sure a fluke like "Night of the Living Dead" never happened again. So they made everything copyrighted. Problem solved? No, since everything is copyrighted, everything was potentially infringing. The achillies' heel in all this is that if everything is sacred, nothing is sacred. You've debased the term to a meaningless point.
Now, they're trying to deal with the fact that they're a victim of their own success.
There are command-line and GUI tools to edit ID3s in a meaningful way, making it possible to batch-change the ID3s before you import them into iTunes.
Those can be handy, but you can easily do the same in iTunes. Just select the songs you want to change info for en masse hit info (command-I) and change the relevant info. (I'm sure you know that, this is really for the GP.)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're into nerdcore and other nerdy music, you need to read the blog Hipster, Please! and its accompanying podcast Radio Free Hipster.
This harkens back to the days of the late 90's, when anyone who knew the acronym HTML could get a paying gig.
In the late nineties, pretty much anyone who knew the acronym HTML could design a functional web page.
Huh. I thought where they were going with this was to ask a SERIES of questions, with the default answers being variously Right or Wrong. Just to see if you're paying attention. This is much less interesting. Penalizing a user for choosing more secure? WTF?
None were taken by MS, and they all work find...
Are you sure about that?
(Yeah, yeah, but it was low-hanging fruit.)
Therefore, it can't be apple's fault. Lets blame the users - it's really their fault.
That's not what I'm saying. There are clearly areas where Apple could make improvements, localization (localisation?) being one, although I don't expect much of that until after the SDK is released. My point is that this is a brand new interface, and by definition a large percentage of the users are brand new to it. It'd be something similar to a must-have Blackberry that only had a Dvorak keyboard. I'd expect adopters to make mistakes, at least in the beginning.
Time will tell if a combination of (a) more users becoming more used to the keyboard, and (b) Apple fine-tuning (or not-so-fine-tuning) the spellchecking brings down the error rate. Personally, I don't think it'll get down to full-keyboard blackberry efficiency, but it may end up doing better than the two-letter keyboard in the cheaper blackberries.
I have hell with my initials.. the iphone thinks I mean something completely different and keeps changing them, and I have to back up and put it back.
Try putting initials all in caps, then (as they should be.) The iPhone doesn't try to correct that.
Personally, I'm not in the least suprised that people have more trouble with a brand new interface.
The thing is, the Guardian of Forever that appeared in Harlan Ellison's scripts was very, very different than what appeared in the episode.
And he HATED the version that was ultimately produced. But now it's all his.
See also this interesting account.
Also, they only mention not going after downloaders. I dont think the RIAA has begun to target downloaders yet, they seem content going after uploaders (for now) & those running the file-sharing websites & networks.
But with bittorent, every D/Ler is also an U/Ler.
True, but the question becomes, what experience? Working at Microsoft, or being a child? I know which one I'd value more. YMMV.
Instead of sugared-up theories about why this happened, it's possible that the model simply won't work.
How can it not work? If anybody pays (or rather, if enough people pay to cover hosting costs) it's a win for the band. The model isn't about selling music, it's about using music as promotion. Smaller bands (some, like the Crimea, only a bit smaller) have been doing this for years. Even the 'name your price' angle isn't new.
The real model is to make your nut off the other stuff--concerts, merch, etc. That's why you hear the studios talking about getting a bigger piece of that business.
Wow, the second 1m+ UID I've friended for quality commenting today.
So at least some of these kids today are doing something right.
Finally! A bridge I can't burn!
5318008
I mean, I get that the feature is great, and I'd love to have it myself. But it seems to me that it'd be pretty easy for any network to offer it to almost ANY phone, or at least a pretty close facsimile to a large majority.
Of course. But it seems to take a company like Apple to actually do it. C.f. the iPod.
Almost. More like Ferrari hires thugs that come after me, because I tell people how to find you if they want a Ferrari-looking car.
LMAO. OK, you probably actually know this, but a 'rack focus' is just shifting the the depth of field from a point in the foregound (e.g.) to one in the background, or the other way 'round. Now, one of those points *could* be an actual rack...
Isn't there an infobox you can fill out about clips you're uploading? Place a link to your blog entry in that infobox and sate the educational purpose of the video. That way the context doesn't just disappear for people that just happen to be browsing YouTube.
Yeah, you can do that, but you're not required to. Maybe a site like Photobucket would be a better example. Regardless, "Fair use" is often about context, so if the context is removed (say, somebody embeds the same video in a post without the additional component) how is it adjudicated? Is the embedder liable, or am I?
My original point was that since these things aren't anywhere near certain (I've never heard of a case based on this) it's generally wiser to allow the DMCA takedown to stand.
(BTW, when I hear "Christopher Knight", I'm no longer going to think "Brady Bunch." That's quite a feat.)
I don't think it's so much that nobody knows counter notices exist, it's that most people infringing are truly infringing.
Well, *I* think that most people are just reluctant to open themselves up to the possibility of having to defend that assertion in court. Easier to just let it be taken down (and email it to the people you really want to see it.)
There's also the amorphous nature of fair use and youtube's defacto 'place to post vids' status. If I'm writing a blog entry on a cinematic technique, say the use of a rack focus, I can absolutely put up a clip that shows that technique. But someone trolling youtube might not realize that's why it's there. And indeed, absent that educational component it might indeed be infringing. So how sure am I that the clip will be found non-infringing? Which context will be judged?
That said, it'd be amusing if joeuser@aol.com submits a counter notice about his upload (some awesome video he "found") and then gets sued to high hell since it's "under penalty of perjury" that he asserts there's been a mistake.
That said, I'd love to see someone actually sued over issuing a take-down notice on what is clearly fair use.
As central governments print more and more strings, the strings currently in circulation are devalued.
Ah, that's where advertising comes in.
Dang. I was going to comment to the effect that someone would do something like this, and here it is already...
I do not really think that a "no copyright" world is the right way to go...
I'm not quite there (yet,) but the thing that I can't figure is:
The Founding Fathers (if I ever do a superhero spoof, that's the one) figured that fourteen years was enough.
In the interim, We figured out how to do printing much faster (that's my industry, so trust me on this one)
On top of that we figured out how to get copies out to potentially unlimited individuals (c.f., SPAM.)
So, why is copyright now longer (and more inclusive) than it was when the country was founded?
Personally, I think the means of restoring the balance would be to repeal the DMCA and even scale back copyright law, rather than creating yet more laws.
Even better, just do it. (sorry Nike, track my ass down.)
Seriously, the current copyright regime has twenty years tops before people realize that it's counter-productive. More significantly, the (jargon alert) MAFIAA will have reduced itself to a shadow of its former might by its heavy-handed tactics.
There's a beautiful symmetry to all of this. The copyright holding companies wanted to make sure a fluke like "Night of the Living Dead" never happened again. So they made everything copyrighted. Problem solved? No, since everything is copyrighted, everything was potentially infringing. The achillies' heel in all this is that if everything is sacred, nothing is sacred. You've debased the term to a meaningless point.
Now, they're trying to deal with the fact that they're a victim of their own success.
An opinion is subjective, but it's not necessarily biased. A disinterested observer could have an unbiased opinion.
There are command-line and GUI tools to edit ID3s in a meaningful way, making it possible to batch-change the ID3s before you import them into iTunes.
Those can be handy, but you can easily do the same in iTunes. Just select the songs you want to change info for en masse hit info (command-I) and change the relevant info. (I'm sure you know that, this is really for the GP.)
Digg caved to their users. Oh, wait..