So you finally quote the question I answered in my initial post. Yes. Yes, Apple could do that. It's simply touch screen technology that we've had for decades and secondary display technology that almost every consumer laptop has supported for at least as long.
Please. I asked you for one example where someone has done exactly as I described. Just ONE. Instead you are now claiming that every laptop does it GENERALLY. Not specifically. If I ask for an 8 door Volkswagen, are you going to list the VW Beetle by saying there are cars with 8 doors and VW makes cars.
And you think I'm the one with the cognitive deficit? Sorry, no.M
No you're not above lying and refusing to admit that you're wrong.
Actually, it is not whether the tech is unique; as you have repeatedly pointed-out, it is not. I believe what UnknowingFool is unsuccessfully trying to emphasize is that the APPLICATION of using a small touchscreen (force sensitive or not), in a laptop, in the classic "trackpad" location, and primarily for use like a trackpad; but also useful as a non-gorilla-arm-inducing alternative to making the main laptop display touch-sensitive, could possibly be, even if not unique, at least useful.
Hey it could be a terrible idea in terms of UI. My point is that no one seems to have done it yet.
But I see Bronscon's point that the actual technology is NOT unique. FAR from it!
To which I have never said that the underlying technology wasn't unique. Only if Apple chooses to implement as I described, it would be a first.
First of all, the distinction between primary and secondary display is a quibble at best. Second, as I've stated time and time again, capacitive touch interfaces are inherently force sensitive.
Please. You're just trying to make up excuses now that I caught you explicitly lying. None of your points matter.
I asked you for an example of another laptop with a force sensitive trackpad as a secondary display. You linked to a Dell Latitude 7275 which neither has a secondary screen nor uses force sensitive technology. So what would you call it when someone clearly represents something that is not true.
Actually, no. As I've quoted multiple times now (and as you can scroll up to read for your damned self if you don't want to trust my quoting abilities), you asked if they could. And I pointed out that "TouchBar technology" is, literally, touch display technology that we've had for decades, which should have rendered to you as an unequivocal "YES! THEY COULD!"
Please. You're just wrong and are willing to lie at every turn. I specially ask for a force sensitive secondary screen. FORCE SENSITIVE SECONDARY SCREEN. All those words mean something. You want to equate any touch screen as ample. That's not specifically what I asked
Primary vs secondary display really just comes off as you nitpicking to be "right", which ultimately falls flat when you can't even get the details of what you initially said right even when they're right there on the page in front of you
Those are details was what I was talking about in the very beginning. Again this was my original post: "Also there is the underlying assumption that the Touch Bar never changes. Could it become a force touch sensitive in the next iteration? Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?" It was there at the start. Many posts down the thread, you call those details which I mentioned at the start as "nitpicking."
Oh, wait, was that a weak attempt to insult me? Ah, got it. You see, that particular insult only works on drug addicts and those ignorant of the topic altogether. Neither of those describe me.
I would suggest whatever your requirements for the need of controlled substances, it has clearly affected your cognition as evidenced by your lack of understanding in your posts.
You asked it Apple might be able to implement a specific bit of tech which, as you described it, happens to be a touch screen. Since they've actually done so, the answer is yes, in case you weren't yet able to discern that from my previous comments. We'll get to the whole "first" thing, don't worry.
No I did not. Please read what I wrote. I wrote specifically that Apple could use the technology which is both a display and an input and merge it into their TrackPad which is also force sensitive. I never once Apple was the first to use capactive touch screen. Not once. Stop lying.
You did, just not in a single post
Stop lying when you are proven wrong.
Indeed, you did not. You asked if Apple would be able to implement it, as though nobody else had; the implication, then, is that they would be the first.
Again not what I said. You said everyone has had this for decades when it's clear no one has yet to implement this combination. Again, stop lying.
But, of course, they would not be, since the technology already exists and has existed for decades.
Wow you are not beneath lying are you? That's as idiotic as saying TFT has existed for decades. A 10K TFT display isn't new according to you. Again denials and lies. I asked you to show me one example of force sensitive trackpad that doubles as a display. You have yet to show me one.
didn't jump right into calling you a fanboi, I let you prove it out first. And you've continued to do so since. Further, I answered your initial question with an implicit "yes"; Apple could implement it just as everyone else has been doing for literal decades.
No you keep lying about what others say. You also are willing to deny facts. Pointing out no one had put together this combination (not even Apple), you went straight to calling people names.
They could (and have, even) utilize the innate (and inaccurate) pressure sensitivity of the typical capacitive touch interface to detect press-vs-tap; but, then, so did Synaptics in the 1990's. True, Synaptics didn't do so "on a display", but the capability isn't new, it's as old as capacitive touch screens. Seriously. Apple's just the first to actually use that because they're the first to think up a use for which it's (marginally) accurate enough; even they admit (through using an active stylus for actual accurate pressure input) that it's not accurate enough for anything more than detecting press-vs-tap.
So you admit that Synaptics didn't do/hasn't done a display and are unwilling to admit that Apple would be the first to do it if they did it. That's a lot of denial there.
Details like the fact that a touch pad over a display is a touch screen? Or like the fact that all capacitive touch interfaces are pressure sensitive? I repeat myself, yet again (and as I often have to do for you): every capacitive touch screen that exists is a pressure sensitive touch pad over a display. That's a hell of a detail, i'nn'it?
Again what are you smoking? You seemed focused on this one point which I have never made. I never claimed Apple was first to have a touch screen or use capacitive touch. NEVER. I said very specifically Apple could make their trackpad a secondary display using technology from the TouchBar. They would be the first laptop to have it as far as I know.
So, being a bit more direct this time, yes, Apple could implement just that; in fact, they have. Perhaps you've heard of the iPhone?
Please show me on an iPhone where the secondary display that also functions as a track pad is.
Again, what are you smoking? I said specifically with TouchBar technology, Apple could make their TrackPad into a force sensitive secondary display. I asked you for an example of another company doing this. You presented me with a laptop/tablet combination that has neither a secondary screen or force sensitivity. So I have to ask, what are you smoking? Or is your denial that extreme?
But, there you have it. There's your "one manufacturer with a touch-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen."
What are you smoking? That's a laptop/tablet combination. The trackpad doesn't function as a secondary display. It doesn't have a force sensitive trackpad. You don't have any idea of what I'm talking about do you? When I said "screen" in the context of an article about the TouchBar, I'm talking about a display because that's what a Touch Bar is: A display and a touch sensitive trackpad all in one.. Very specifically I said that Apple could use that technology and make their Trackpads also as a secondary display.
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
Please show me where I said "Apple would be the first to implement a capactive touch screen" I never said it. I didn't even say in that sentence that Apple would be first. Either you are imaging words that don't appear or you are lying.
And what I actually did was point out that what you describe is, in fact, a touch screen, which we've had for literal decades. So, no, Apple would not be the first.
Again, what is your point? Me: Apple could implement technology in this way. You: "It's been around for decades, you fanboi, and they aren't the first." It's like you arguing that if LG comes out with an 10K TFT monitor, but you start arguing that TFT displays have been around for decades. Details don't seem to matter to as you will deny basic facts.
You're acting as if you believe Apple to have invented this technology. It's literally the same capacitive touch screen technology we've had for decades, back when the Newton used a resistive stylus-based tap interface.
Show me once where I said any of this above. The problem is that you think that, but I never said it. All I said is that no one else has implemented this combination of features yet. That is factually true. Are you going to deny facts?
Second despite having this technology "for decades" as you claim, every other manufacturer for some reason never implemented certain features first and let Apple do that. Just like Apple was not the first to have a capacitive touch screen device either. But they were they first with a multi-touch capacitive screen.
OR
Apple like other companies sometimes is first to implement certain features. But it seems you're unwilling to admit that simple fact.
A capacitive touch screen is merely a capacitive trackpad overlaid onto a display. We've had that technology for literal decades. It's even been pressure sensitive for as long, but it's never been (and still is not, even Apple's implementation) reliably accurate, so nobody but Apple has ever put the pressure-sensitive aspect of it into wide use. I recall my circa-1999 laptop having a pressure-sensitive touchpad, useful only for making an icon in the taskbar change colors based on how hard you pressed -- because it was never accurate enough for much else. And, again, it really still isn't. Yes, even Apple's implementation, which is about as accurate as Samsung's current implementation and really only good fir discerning a tap from a press; and then about half the "presses" it registers seem to be false positives.
All which doesn't address my point. Please show me one laptop manufacturer that has a force-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen. Show me one.
At any rate, and I repeat myself, a capacitive (even pressure sensitive) touchscreen is merely that same 1980's technology overlaid onto a display of some sort. In other words, a touch pad that doubles as a display is... a... touchscreen. Which we've had since at least the late 80's.
Again. I have never said Apple was the first with a capacitive screen. NEVER. I said if Apple implements a force-sensitive touchpad that doubles as a screen, they would be the first.
It's fine if you want to be an ignorant fanboi, just please label yourself accordingly so we don't waste our time any further.
You seem to be arguing a point I NEVER MADE. What exactly is your point again?
Wait, you want the touchpad -- the flat part that advanced users don't even look at as they use it -- to become a secondary screen?
I dont' know about you but I look at my laptop keyboard all the time in in glancing. Unlike my desktop keyboard, I have to continually re-position my hands all the time while using a laptop.
Can you imagine the neck strain of having to look straight down to figure out what in the heck you are doing?
You do understand that a MacBook is a laptop, right? You are looking down all the time while using a laptop.
So my question again is who has uses a force sensitive track pad as a secondary screen? My reading of it is that the stylus is force sensitive not the pad.
[sarcasm]Yes because every single laptop beside Apple ones uses the track pad as a force-sensitive secondary screen/[/sarcasm]. Or are you going to deny that no one does this?
Something that Chuck acknowledges but is glossed over in the summary is that the Touch Bar is only in the MacBook Pro for now. If it gets added to the MacBook line, as he suggests, the Pro users aren't paying extra but all MacBook users might be. Also there is the underlying assumption that the Touch Bar never changes. Could it become a force touch sensitive in the next iteration? Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
Cutting the dialog about the 47 Ronin out of the movie Ronin has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Not a naughty word or thought in that. But if you don't know the story, the movie doesn't make sense. So there's a cut that the networks made and the studio presumably either signed off on (which I find hard to believe), or had no control over (much more likely) when they handed complete editorial control over to the network.
Listen, I'm sorry that the cut of Ronin was terrible, however, you have yet to demonstrate that the studio gave control to the network for the cut. It was horrific cut but that doesn't mean the studio didn't do it. After all the studio puts out terrible cuts of new movies in the theater.
So, yes. There is precedent for studios handing creative control over to a distribution channel. Just to reach their viewers. The difference here is that the studios don't consider VidAngel's market to be worth reaching. Not that there is some noble principal at work here.
No there is a precedent of the studio making terrible cuts to reach more viewers and get more money. You haven't shown that they've actually handed over creative control.
They weren't doing "it wrong according to someone". They never got permission or partnered up with anyone. Their service happened to work with some streaming services but not through any sort of agreement.
Sadly, ClearPlay has been a pretty poorly run company at times, but they are definitely the pioneers and they actually play by the rules instead of trying to play games to drum up public support for illegal business practices under the guise of this "oh noes, big bad Hollywood is trying to kill off filtering" nonsense.
My understanding is that ClearPlay works on top of streaming services but not necessarily partnered with them. Which means that at any time, these services can stop working if they change their APIs. I understand this is the reason ClearPlay no longer works with GooglePlay.
In any case, the fact that a competing service exists, hugely pre-dates VidAngel, and has been affirmed legal multiple times, provides further compelling evidence that the issue at hand is NOT the filtering at all (as VidAngel likes to pretend). The filtering itself is perfectly legal, it's the large scale unauthorized use, ripping, copying, and streaming for profit without securing any of the necessary rights and licenses that they're being racked across the coals for, and rightly so.
Filtering itself is not illegal but the method of how VidAngel chose to do so is. Also if you are talking about ClearPlay, the problem with them is that they are not officially partnered with any streaming service as far as I know. Their service works on top of others but not necessarily with them. In the case of Google Play, ClearPlay no longer works as they were relying on certain APIs that GooglePlay has blocked.
It's MPEG-2, not MPEG-1. And you're conflating two wildly different issues here:
No I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that what the OP said is technically and legally invalid. The OP said this: "The "you own the DVD" portion of their service basically renders the service a complicated DVD player with a really long connection to your monitor."
In what way is a company ripping a movie from DVD then re-encoding it to be streamed over the Internet the same as "a really long connection to your monitor". In no sense is it the same.
It would make sense for them to re-compress the DVD video into some other format, because it's true that MPEG-2 is comparatively old and inefficient. And re-compressing would seem to be an extremely minor issue, in copyright terms, compared to the other issues being discussed here.
Changing the physical dimensions and format of a movie could under copyright make it not the same copy. Just like a Bluray version is not a DVD version. That's not a minor issue that the two are different.
If they actually ripped the video from some other format (e.g. Blu-Ray), and are claiming they can show *that* version to a customer on the basis that the customer owns the *DVD*, that's a more serious accusation. It also seems impractical (they'd have to go out and *find* a higher-quality copy in addition to the DVD), not to mention they'd be skipping an opportunity to make more money for zero effort (pay $X to rent and stream the DVD, or $Y to rent and stream the BD.)
No they show that the customer owns A COPY. The problem is VidAngel didn't rip it from the customer's version. All of this is rather moot because VidAngel still has no rights to distribute ANY digital version.
If you claim the latter is "likely" do you have any evidence?
I don't need evidence to point out the ridiculousness of the claim. By your argument, any retailer of a physical movie format like Best Buy, Fry's, Target, local gas station automatically can stream that movie based on the number of copies it owns. So why the hell does Netflix, Hulu, etc. pay for the rights to stream? On it's face, your assertion is ludicrous.
Again, you are saying that any movie studio would gladly give control to a network studio to make any changes they wanted? Or a movie studio wants to broadcast a movie, they have to make it TV friendly to pass the censors. Some movies will probably never make it to broadcast TV like Deadpool because the amount of edits required changes the movie. They will make it to cable where the TV rules don't apply.
No it does not.. Wow you really are clueless when it comes to the term, "authorized copy". You are aware of the FBI Warning screens in EVERY single DVD and Bluray movie right?
These films are sold for home use only. Any duplication, reproduction, public performance or commercial use is strictly prohibited
As a private citizen you can rip the video for the purposes of format and space shifting. You cannot sell the ripped digital video in any way. You can publicly broadcast the video, etc. As a business, VidAngel has even less rights under Fair Use.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that VidAngelâ(TM)s copying infringed the plaintiffsâ(TM) exclusive reproduction right. Because
VidAngel did not filter authorized copies of movies, it was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its defense that the Family Movie Act of 2005 exempted it from liability for copyright infringement. VidAngel also was unlikely to
succeed on its fair use defense.
So either a panel of judges don't know about the Family Movie Act even though they cited it. OR you don't know what the term "authorized copy" means.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just BronsCon. He just lies all the time and refuses to admit he's wrong.
So you finally quote the question I answered in my initial post. Yes. Yes, Apple could do that. It's simply touch screen technology that we've had for decades and secondary display technology that almost every consumer laptop has supported for at least as long.
Please. I asked you for one example where someone has done exactly as I described. Just ONE. Instead you are now claiming that every laptop does it GENERALLY. Not specifically. If I ask for an 8 door Volkswagen, are you going to list the VW Beetle by saying there are cars with 8 doors and VW makes cars.
And you think I'm the one with the cognitive deficit? Sorry, no.M
No you're not above lying and refusing to admit that you're wrong.
Actually, it is not whether the tech is unique; as you have repeatedly pointed-out, it is not. I believe what UnknowingFool is unsuccessfully trying to emphasize is that the APPLICATION of using a small touchscreen (force sensitive or not), in a laptop, in the classic "trackpad" location, and primarily for use like a trackpad; but also useful as a non-gorilla-arm-inducing alternative to making the main laptop display touch-sensitive, could possibly be, even if not unique, at least useful.
Hey it could be a terrible idea in terms of UI. My point is that no one seems to have done it yet.
But I see Bronscon's point that the actual technology is NOT unique. FAR from it!
To which I have never said that the underlying technology wasn't unique. Only if Apple chooses to implement as I described, it would be a first.
First of all, the distinction between primary and secondary display is a quibble at best. Second, as I've stated time and time again, capacitive touch interfaces are inherently force sensitive.
Please. You're just trying to make up excuses now that I caught you explicitly lying. None of your points matter.
I asked you for an example of another laptop with a force sensitive trackpad as a secondary display. You linked to a Dell Latitude 7275 which neither has a secondary screen nor uses force sensitive technology. So what would you call it when someone clearly represents something that is not true.
Actually, no. As I've quoted multiple times now (and as you can scroll up to read for your damned self if you don't want to trust my quoting abilities), you asked if they could. And I pointed out that "TouchBar technology" is, literally, touch display technology that we've had for decades, which should have rendered to you as an unequivocal "YES! THEY COULD!"
Please. You're just wrong and are willing to lie at every turn. I specially ask for a force sensitive secondary screen. FORCE SENSITIVE SECONDARY SCREEN. All those words mean something. You want to equate any touch screen as ample. That's not specifically what I asked
Primary vs secondary display really just comes off as you nitpicking to be "right", which ultimately falls flat when you can't even get the details of what you initially said right even when they're right there on the page in front of you
Those are details was what I was talking about in the very beginning. Again this was my original post: "Also there is the underlying assumption that the Touch Bar never changes. Could it become a force touch sensitive in the next iteration? Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?" It was there at the start. Many posts down the thread, you call those details which I mentioned at the start as "nitpicking."
Oh, wait, was that a weak attempt to insult me? Ah, got it. You see, that particular insult only works on drug addicts and those ignorant of the topic altogether. Neither of those describe me.
I would suggest whatever your requirements for the need of controlled substances, it has clearly affected your cognition as evidenced by your lack of understanding in your posts.
You asked it Apple might be able to implement a specific bit of tech which, as you described it, happens to be a touch screen. Since they've actually done so, the answer is yes, in case you weren't yet able to discern that from my previous comments. We'll get to the whole "first" thing, don't worry.
No I did not. Please read what I wrote. I wrote specifically that Apple could use the technology which is both a display and an input and merge it into their TrackPad which is also force sensitive. I never once Apple was the first to use capactive touch screen. Not once. Stop lying.
You did, just not in a single post
Stop lying when you are proven wrong.
Indeed, you did not. You asked if Apple would be able to implement it, as though nobody else had; the implication, then, is that they would be the first.
Again not what I said. You said everyone has had this for decades when it's clear no one has yet to implement this combination. Again, stop lying.
But, of course, they would not be, since the technology already exists and has existed for decades.
Wow you are not beneath lying are you? That's as idiotic as saying TFT has existed for decades. A 10K TFT display isn't new according to you. Again denials and lies. I asked you to show me one example of force sensitive trackpad that doubles as a display. You have yet to show me one.
didn't jump right into calling you a fanboi, I let you prove it out first. And you've continued to do so since. Further, I answered your initial question with an implicit "yes"; Apple could implement it just as everyone else has been doing for literal decades.
No you keep lying about what others say. You also are willing to deny facts. Pointing out no one had put together this combination (not even Apple), you went straight to calling people names.
They could (and have, even) utilize the innate (and inaccurate) pressure sensitivity of the typical capacitive touch interface to detect press-vs-tap; but, then, so did Synaptics in the 1990's. True, Synaptics didn't do so "on a display", but the capability isn't new, it's as old as capacitive touch screens. Seriously. Apple's just the first to actually use that because they're the first to think up a use for which it's (marginally) accurate enough; even they admit (through using an active stylus for actual accurate pressure input) that it's not accurate enough for anything more than detecting press-vs-tap.
So you admit that Synaptics didn't do/hasn't done a display and are unwilling to admit that Apple would be the first to do it if they did it. That's a lot of denial there.
Details like the fact that a touch pad over a display is a touch screen? Or like the fact that all capacitive touch interfaces are pressure sensitive? I repeat myself, yet again (and as I often have to do for you): every capacitive touch screen that exists is a pressure sensitive touch pad over a display. That's a hell of a detail, i'nn'it?
Again what are you smoking? You seemed focused on this one point which I have never made. I never claimed Apple was first to have a touch screen or use capacitive touch. NEVER. I said very specifically Apple could make their trackpad a secondary display using technology from the TouchBar. They would be the first laptop to have it as far as I know.
So, being a bit more direct this time, yes, Apple could implement just that; in fact, they have. Perhaps you've heard of the iPhone?
Please show me on an iPhone where the secondary display that also functions as a track pad is.
Again, what are you smoking? I said specifically with TouchBar technology, Apple could make their TrackPad into a force sensitive secondary display. I asked you for an example of another company doing this. You presented me with a laptop/tablet combination that has neither a secondary screen or force sensitivity. So I have to ask, what are you smoking? Or is your denial that extreme?
Cheaper maybe but I'm not a fan of touch keyboards. They are not as responsive as I would like. Also they don't provide feedback. But that's just me.
But, there you have it. There's your "one manufacturer with a touch-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen."
What are you smoking? That's a laptop/tablet combination. The trackpad doesn't function as a secondary display. It doesn't have a force sensitive trackpad. You don't have any idea of what I'm talking about do you? When I said "screen" in the context of an article about the TouchBar, I'm talking about a display because that's what a Touch Bar is: A display and a touch sensitive trackpad all in one.. Very specifically I said that Apple could use that technology and make their Trackpads also as a secondary display.
Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
Please show me where I said "Apple would be the first to implement a capactive touch screen" I never said it. I didn't even say in that sentence that Apple would be first. Either you are imaging words that don't appear or you are lying.
And what I actually did was point out that what you describe is, in fact, a touch screen, which we've had for literal decades. So, no, Apple would not be the first.
Again, what is your point? Me: Apple could implement technology in this way. You: "It's been around for decades, you fanboi, and they aren't the first." It's like you arguing that if LG comes out with an 10K TFT monitor, but you start arguing that TFT displays have been around for decades. Details don't seem to matter to as you will deny basic facts.
Again. Where is the "force-sensitive" trackpad. I fail to see anywhere in the article that the trackpad is force sensitive.
You're acting as if you believe Apple to have invented this technology. It's literally the same capacitive touch screen technology we've had for decades, back when the Newton used a resistive stylus-based tap interface.
Show me once where I said any of this above. The problem is that you think that, but I never said it. All I said is that no one else has implemented this combination of features yet. That is factually true. Are you going to deny facts?
Second despite having this technology "for decades" as you claim, every other manufacturer for some reason never implemented certain features first and let Apple do that. Just like Apple was not the first to have a capacitive touch screen device either. But they were they first with a multi-touch capacitive screen.
OR
Apple like other companies sometimes is first to implement certain features. But it seems you're unwilling to admit that simple fact.
A capacitive touch screen is merely a capacitive trackpad overlaid onto a display. We've had that technology for literal decades. It's even been pressure sensitive for as long, but it's never been (and still is not, even Apple's implementation) reliably accurate, so nobody but Apple has ever put the pressure-sensitive aspect of it into wide use. I recall my circa-1999 laptop having a pressure-sensitive touchpad, useful only for making an icon in the taskbar change colors based on how hard you pressed -- because it was never accurate enough for much else. And, again, it really still isn't. Yes, even Apple's implementation, which is about as accurate as Samsung's current implementation and really only good fir discerning a tap from a press; and then about half the "presses" it registers seem to be false positives.
All which doesn't address my point. Please show me one laptop manufacturer that has a force-sensitive trackpad that doubles as a screen. Show me one.
At any rate, and I repeat myself, a capacitive (even pressure sensitive) touchscreen is merely that same 1980's technology overlaid onto a display of some sort. In other words, a touch pad that doubles as a display is... a... touchscreen. Which we've had since at least the late 80's.
Again. I have never said Apple was the first with a capacitive screen. NEVER. I said if Apple implements a force-sensitive touchpad that doubles as a screen, they would be the first.
It's fine if you want to be an ignorant fanboi, just please label yourself accordingly so we don't waste our time any further.
You seem to be arguing a point I NEVER MADE. What exactly is your point again?
Wait, you want the touchpad -- the flat part that advanced users don't even look at as they use it -- to become a secondary screen?
I dont' know about you but I look at my laptop keyboard all the time in in glancing. Unlike my desktop keyboard, I have to continually re-position my hands all the time while using a laptop.
Can you imagine the neck strain of having to look straight down to figure out what in the heck you are doing?
You do understand that a MacBook is a laptop, right? You are looking down all the time while using a laptop.
So my question again is who has uses a force sensitive track pad as a secondary screen? My reading of it is that the stylus is force sensitive not the pad.
[sarcasm]Yes because every single laptop beside Apple ones uses the track pad as a force-sensitive secondary screen/[/sarcasm]. Or are you going to deny that no one does this?
Something that Chuck acknowledges but is glossed over in the summary is that the Touch Bar is only in the MacBook Pro for now. If it gets added to the MacBook line, as he suggests, the Pro users aren't paying extra but all MacBook users might be. Also there is the underlying assumption that the Touch Bar never changes. Could it become a force touch sensitive in the next iteration? Could Apple use the same tech and make the entire Track Pad double as a screen?
Cutting the dialog about the 47 Ronin out of the movie Ronin has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Not a naughty word or thought in that. But if you don't know the story, the movie doesn't make sense. So there's a cut that the networks made and the studio presumably either signed off on (which I find hard to believe), or had no control over (much more likely) when they handed complete editorial control over to the network.
Listen, I'm sorry that the cut of Ronin was terrible, however, you have yet to demonstrate that the studio gave control to the network for the cut. It was horrific cut but that doesn't mean the studio didn't do it. After all the studio puts out terrible cuts of new movies in the theater.
So, yes. There is precedent for studios handing creative control over to a distribution channel. Just to reach their viewers. The difference here is that the studios don't consider VidAngel's market to be worth reaching. Not that there is some noble principal at work here.
No there is a precedent of the studio making terrible cuts to reach more viewers and get more money. You haven't shown that they've actually handed over creative control.
They weren't doing "it wrong according to someone". They never got permission or partnered up with anyone. Their service happened to work with some streaming services but not through any sort of agreement.
Sadly, ClearPlay has been a pretty poorly run company at times, but they are definitely the pioneers and they actually play by the rules instead of trying to play games to drum up public support for illegal business practices under the guise of this "oh noes, big bad Hollywood is trying to kill off filtering" nonsense.
My understanding is that ClearPlay works on top of streaming services but not necessarily partnered with them. Which means that at any time, these services can stop working if they change their APIs. I understand this is the reason ClearPlay no longer works with GooglePlay.
In any case, the fact that a competing service exists, hugely pre-dates VidAngel, and has been affirmed legal multiple times, provides further compelling evidence that the issue at hand is NOT the filtering at all (as VidAngel likes to pretend). The filtering itself is perfectly legal, it's the large scale unauthorized use, ripping, copying, and streaming for profit without securing any of the necessary rights and licenses that they're being racked across the coals for, and rightly so.
Filtering itself is not illegal but the method of how VidAngel chose to do so is. Also if you are talking about ClearPlay, the problem with them is that they are not officially partnered with any streaming service as far as I know. Their service works on top of others but not necessarily with them. In the case of Google Play, ClearPlay no longer works as they were relying on certain APIs that GooglePlay has blocked.
It's MPEG-2, not MPEG-1. And you're conflating two wildly different issues here:
No I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that what the OP said is technically and legally invalid. The OP said this: "The "you own the DVD" portion of their service basically renders the service a complicated DVD player with a really long connection to your monitor."
In what way is a company ripping a movie from DVD then re-encoding it to be streamed over the Internet the same as "a really long connection to your monitor". In no sense is it the same.
It would make sense for them to re-compress the DVD video into some other format, because it's true that MPEG-2 is comparatively old and inefficient. And re-compressing would seem to be an extremely minor issue, in copyright terms, compared to the other issues being discussed here.
Changing the physical dimensions and format of a movie could under copyright make it not the same copy. Just like a Bluray version is not a DVD version. That's not a minor issue that the two are different.
If they actually ripped the video from some other format (e.g. Blu-Ray), and are claiming they can show *that* version to a customer on the basis that the customer owns the *DVD*, that's a more serious accusation. It also seems impractical (they'd have to go out and *find* a higher-quality copy in addition to the DVD), not to mention they'd be skipping an opportunity to make more money for zero effort (pay $X to rent and stream the DVD, or $Y to rent and stream the BD.)
No they show that the customer owns A COPY. The problem is VidAngel didn't rip it from the customer's version. All of this is rather moot because VidAngel still has no rights to distribute ANY digital version.
If you claim the latter is "likely" do you have any evidence?
I don't need evidence to point out the ridiculousness of the claim. By your argument, any retailer of a physical movie format like Best Buy, Fry's, Target, local gas station automatically can stream that movie based on the number of copies it owns. So why the hell does Netflix, Hulu, etc. pay for the rights to stream? On it's face, your assertion is ludicrous.
Again, you are saying that any movie studio would gladly give control to a network studio to make any changes they wanted? Or a movie studio wants to broadcast a movie, they have to make it TV friendly to pass the censors. Some movies will probably never make it to broadcast TV like Deadpool because the amount of edits required changes the movie. They will make it to cable where the TV rules don't apply.
No it does not.. Wow you really are clueless when it comes to the term, "authorized copy". You are aware of the FBI Warning screens in EVERY single DVD and Bluray movie right?
These films are sold for home use only. Any duplication, reproduction, public performance or commercial use is strictly prohibited
As a private citizen you can rip the video for the purposes of format and space shifting. You cannot sell the ripped digital video in any way. You can publicly broadcast the video, etc. As a business, VidAngel has even less rights under Fair Use.
But don't take my word for it: The 9th Circuit decision says it all.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that VidAngelâ(TM)s copying infringed the plaintiffsâ(TM) exclusive reproduction right. Because VidAngel did not filter authorized copies of movies, it was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its defense that the Family Movie Act of 2005 exempted it from liability for copyright infringement. VidAngel also was unlikely to succeed on its fair use defense.
So either a panel of judges don't know about the Family Movie Act even though they cited it. OR you don't know what the term "authorized copy" means.
What part of "authorized copy" did you either ignore or not understand. Please tell which one of the two it was.