If they were to violate the court order preventing them from presenting their findings, the contempt of court charge would pretty clearly be a criminal matter, though.
Then they've clearly hired the wrong people for the job. But since when is news like this anything new?
But they were the ones who bought enough congressmen and senators to get the job...surely you're not suggesting there's a better way to choose government contractors?
Here in Spain what you call piracy is LEGAL if you don't earn money with it. And so it was on your countries not so long ago. We just preserved our rights.
I don't think copying films or other media and redistributing them--even for free--has every been legal in the US. It's still legal to make personal copies, or make copies in an educational setting, but I think it would be pretty hard to argue that you have a "right" to copy and redistribute films for free.
FTA: "it was enough time to keep bootleg DVDs off the streets as the film racked up a record-breaking $158.4 million on opening weekend. The movie has now taken in more than $300 million."
So, they credit those 38 hours for the record-breaking $158.4 million they made on opening weekend, but they've made another $150 million since the pirated copies have been available (according to the article). So, the pirated copies becoming available didn't seem to have much of an affect, did it?
Look, your initial comment was "if you can play the file format, you have both a working codec and a codec that the player knows about, so the player isn't going to tell you that you need to download another one.". If you had just left out the word format, I would have had no complaints.
How so? I thought all I needed to play DivX was an MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile video codec that answers to DivX's FourCCs, such as ffdshow or Xvid.
Okay, I guess if you want to be pedantic, you need either the DivX codec, or a multi-codec that can play DivX files. Or a hardware DivX player, or a friend with the DivX codec who doesn't mind transcoding the file into something else, or a monkey that's been trained to decode DivX files with a pencil and paper.
If you can open the file and see the video, you've got the right codec, which is exactly what the GP poster was getting at.
That's true. What I'm saying is that just because I can play a given file format, like.avi or.mov, doesn't mean I have the right codec to play any given file that I download in that format.
Well, DUH! That's why it was important to notice that what I replied to said "a file format you can already play." That's why I wrote "if you can play the file..."
You're confusing "file format" and "codec". AVI is a file format. DivX is a codec. I can be able to play a file format, but still not be able to play a file with a specific encoding in that format.
It means you have A codec that works, and all the player cares is that you have A codec that claims to work. If you can play the file format, you have both a working codec and a codec that the player knows about, so the player isn't going to tell you that you need to download another one.
That's actually not true. It's less of an issue with audio file formats, but video file formats can contain video compressed with any number of codecs, and you need the correct codec to play them. For instance, if I can play raw.avi files, but don't have the DivX codec, I can't play DivX encoded.avi files at all. I need the DivX codec.
Any WEBSITE that tells you that you need to download a codec when you already have one for that format is screaming MALWARE,
You are correct that many malware websites use fake codecs to install their malware, but it's just not true that any codec will work for any given file format. Just because you can open the file doesn't mean you have the right codec to view the content. It has nothing to do with the "fastest" or "best" codec. If you don't have the right codec, the video won't play back at all.
Yes, there was a quote from a Psystar representative in the New York Times yesterday that said something similar. It might have been Toyota or some other car company, but the argument was the same.
...but Honda DOES state that you can only use Honda Approved parts, or void your warranty
That's not true, by law, an aftermarket part can only void your warranty if it is responsible for the warranty claim. Back to Apple, this comes into play with jailbreaking iPhones, for instance. If you brick your phone, you've likely voided your warranty, but if the power button falls off or something, that's still covered under warranty, even if you've jailbroken your phone.
(including upgrading/replacing the radio or adding aftermarket DVD systems)
Upgrading your radio will not void your warranty unless the radio causes something else to fail. If you upgrade your radio, and blow your speakers, they're probably not going to be covered, but if you upgrade your radio and your wheel falls off, that's still covered.
You also can't exactly install a Honda computer from one car into another Honda and expect it to work...
That's a technological limitation, not a legal one.
Apple has a lot of proprietary technologies in their systems
If you're talking about hardware, that's not even close to true. At one time their systems were significantly different from Windows machines, but now they're built with the exact same hardware. The only difference is Apple motherboards have a chip that OSX looks for. It could be argued that circumventing this security measure is a violation of the DMCA, I suppose...
Because the thing is that Psystar is installing altering the software, copying it, and then distributing the copies. Hence, this isn't an issue of EULAs, but blatant copyright infringement unless they have a license.
I think altering it may be illegal, but I don't think just installing software on a computer and selling it is copyright infringement, as long as each installed copy of the OS is accompanied by a license from Apple. For instance, I could start a small computer business where I will build a computer for you and install Windows on it. As long as I buy a new copy of Windows from Microsoft for every computer that I install it on, there's no copyright infringement.
Since Apple's entire legal argument hinges on the fact that their EULA states that OSX can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware, it will be interesting to see if the courts uphold such restrictions in EULA's, or the existence of EULA's at all. Psystar makes an interesting argument that Honda can't make you sign a EULA telling you that you can only drive on Honda-approved roads, so why should Apple be able to control what systems OSX is installed on? Is there any precedent here? Has the legality of EULA's ever been put to the test in court?
I'm still trying to figure out what the heck "scientists at the Space Nanotechnology Laboratory at MIT " is?? Are they like...A small lab on the space station??? Huh?
er, MIT is a school in Massachusettes. They have a laboratory called the Space Nanotechnology Lab.
Can't any diesel engine run biodisel unmodified? That was my understanding.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure you have to swap out your fuel lines and injectors. The engine is the same, though. All told, it's supposedly a very easy conversion to biodiesel.
Call me pessimistic, but it seems like an easy way to meet this goal, especially for a company that already sells a lot of diesel cars, is to offer every car as a biodiesel...It's basically the same as a regular diesel, and they don't have to worry about the missing infrastructure because, hey, it can run on diesel too...
What, because a site's policy states something you think it's ok to not pay any attention to it? To blow-by the sign-up form with false data that just meets the field validation?
This would be a perfectly valid reason for a company to delete an account. It's not a good reason to charge somebody with a felony.
This sounds kind of scary and kind of cool. If somebody offered to give me a demo, I'm not sure weather I would recoil in horror at the thought of microwave radiation being directed at my head, or jump at the opportunity to hear it...
Can't argue with that. I think the best thing about long tones no matter how you do them is that it helps build endurance and improves your tone quality. But yeah, it's always better to use your ear, even when just learning new music. I can read music quite well, but I will often try to learn new pieces by ear, just because it helps me to internalize them better. On the saxophone, it's not too hard. Where it gets really hard (for me, anyway) is when I'm trying to learn a piano piece completely by ear.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it constitutes prior restraint, and a lot of people would consider that a violation of the 1st amendment?
If they were to violate the court order preventing them from presenting their findings, the contempt of court charge would pretty clearly be a criminal matter, though.
Then they've clearly hired the wrong people for the job. But since when is news like this anything new?
But they were the ones who bought enough congressmen and senators to get the job...surely you're not suggesting there's a better way to choose government contractors?
Here in Spain what you call piracy is LEGAL if you don't earn money with it. And so it was on your countries not so long ago. We just preserved our rights.
I don't think copying films or other media and redistributing them--even for free--has every been legal in the US. It's still legal to make personal copies, or make copies in an educational setting, but I think it would be pretty hard to argue that you have a "right" to copy and redistribute films for free.
FTA: "it was enough time to keep bootleg DVDs off the streets as the film racked up a record-breaking $158.4 million on opening weekend. The movie has now taken in more than $300 million."
So, they credit those 38 hours for the record-breaking $158.4 million they made on opening weekend, but they've made another $150 million since the pirated copies have been available (according to the article). So, the pirated copies becoming available didn't seem to have much of an affect, did it?
Look, your initial comment was "if you can play the file format, you have both a working codec and a codec that the player knows about, so the player isn't going to tell you that you need to download another one.". If you had just left out the word format, I would have had no complaints.
How so? I thought all I needed to play DivX was an MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile video codec that answers to DivX's FourCCs, such as ffdshow or Xvid.
Okay, I guess if you want to be pedantic, you need either the DivX codec, or a multi-codec that can play DivX files. Or a hardware DivX player, or a friend with the DivX codec who doesn't mind transcoding the file into something else, or a monkey that's been trained to decode DivX files with a pencil and paper.
If you can open the file and see the video, you've got the right codec, which is exactly what the GP poster was getting at.
.avi or .mov, doesn't mean I have the right codec to play any given file that I download in that format.
That's true. What I'm saying is that just because I can play a given file format, like
Well, DUH! That's why it was important to notice that what I replied to said "a file format you can already play." That's why I wrote "if you can play the file..."
You're confusing "file format" and "codec". AVI is a file format. DivX is a codec. I can be able to play a file format, but still not be able to play a file with a specific encoding in that format.
It means you have A codec that works, and all the player cares is that you have A codec that claims to work. If you can play the file format, you have both a working codec and a codec that the player knows about, so the player isn't going to tell you that you need to download another one.
.avi files, but don't have the DivX codec, I can't play DivX encoded .avi files at all. I need the DivX codec.
That's actually not true. It's less of an issue with audio file formats, but video file formats can contain video compressed with any number of codecs, and you need the correct codec to play them. For instance, if I can play raw
Any WEBSITE that tells you that you need to download a codec when you already have one for that format is screaming MALWARE,
You are correct that many malware websites use fake codecs to install their malware, but it's just not true that any codec will work for any given file format. Just because you can open the file doesn't mean you have the right codec to view the content. It has nothing to do with the "fastest" or "best" codec. If you don't have the right codec, the video won't play back at all.
Any site you don't 100% trust that asks you to install a codec for a file format you can play already screams 'malware' in a loud shrill voice.
That's good advice, but just because you can play the file format doesn't mean you have the right codec...
Well, Kapersky labs tells us that the MP3 files are in fact turned into WMA format and not ASF format
The summary already says that: "It searches for MP3s, transcodes them to WMA format, wraps them in an ASF container"
This bug really doesn't affect me as my email address is my real name.
Your real name is qg@biodome.org? Parents were hippies?
They're actually saying that?
Yes, there was a quote from a Psystar representative in the New York Times yesterday that said something similar. It might have been Toyota or some other car company, but the argument was the same.
I wasn't aware that Honda made roads as well.
I did say "Honda Approved"...
...but Honda DOES state that you can only use Honda Approved parts, or void your warranty
That's not true, by law, an aftermarket part can only void your warranty if it is responsible for the warranty claim. Back to Apple, this comes into play with jailbreaking iPhones, for instance. If you brick your phone, you've likely voided your warranty, but if the power button falls off or something, that's still covered under warranty, even if you've jailbroken your phone.
(including upgrading/replacing the radio or adding aftermarket DVD systems)
Upgrading your radio will not void your warranty unless the radio causes something else to fail. If you upgrade your radio, and blow your speakers, they're probably not going to be covered, but if you upgrade your radio and your wheel falls off, that's still covered.
You also can't exactly install a Honda computer from one car into another Honda and expect it to work...
That's a technological limitation, not a legal one.
Apple has a lot of proprietary technologies in their systems
If you're talking about hardware, that's not even close to true. At one time their systems were significantly different from Windows machines, but now they're built with the exact same hardware. The only difference is Apple motherboards have a chip that OSX looks for. It could be argued that circumventing this security measure is a violation of the DMCA, I suppose...
Because the thing is that Psystar is installing altering the software, copying it, and then distributing the copies. Hence, this isn't an issue of EULAs, but blatant copyright infringement unless they have a license.
I think altering it may be illegal, but I don't think just installing software on a computer and selling it is copyright infringement, as long as each installed copy of the OS is accompanied by a license from Apple. For instance, I could start a small computer business where I will build a computer for you and install Windows on it. As long as I buy a new copy of Windows from Microsoft for every computer that I install it on, there's no copyright infringement.
Since Apple's entire legal argument hinges on the fact that their EULA states that OSX can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware, it will be interesting to see if the courts uphold such restrictions in EULA's, or the existence of EULA's at all. Psystar makes an interesting argument that Honda can't make you sign a EULA telling you that you can only drive on Honda-approved roads, so why should Apple be able to control what systems OSX is installed on? Is there any precedent here? Has the legality of EULA's ever been put to the test in court?
I'm still trying to figure out what the heck "scientists at the Space Nanotechnology Laboratory at MIT " is?? Are they like...A small lab on the space station??? Huh?
er, MIT is a school in Massachusettes. They have a laboratory called the Space Nanotechnology Lab.
Pfft. Anybody who's anybody is using Web 3.0rc3
Can't any diesel engine run biodisel unmodified? That was my understanding.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure you have to swap out your fuel lines and injectors. The engine is the same, though. All told, it's supposedly a very easy conversion to biodiesel.
Call me pessimistic, but it seems like an easy way to meet this goal, especially for a company that already sells a lot of diesel cars, is to offer every car as a biodiesel...It's basically the same as a regular diesel, and they don't have to worry about the missing infrastructure because, hey, it can run on diesel too...
What, because a site's policy states something you think it's ok to not pay any attention to it? To blow-by the sign-up form with false data that just meets the field validation?
This would be a perfectly valid reason for a company to delete an account. It's not a good reason to charge somebody with a felony.
s/weather/whether/g
This sounds kind of scary and kind of cool. If somebody offered to give me a demo, I'm not sure weather I would recoil in horror at the thought of microwave radiation being directed at my head, or jump at the opportunity to hear it...
Can't argue with that. I think the best thing about long tones no matter how you do them is that it helps build endurance and improves your tone quality. But yeah, it's always better to use your ear, even when just learning new music. I can read music quite well, but I will often try to learn new pieces by ear, just because it helps me to internalize them better. On the saxophone, it's not too hard. Where it gets really hard (for me, anyway) is when I'm trying to learn a piano piece completely by ear.