I thought of Apple, the manufacturer as the "first party", or maybe "second party" if MS is the first party already.
The computer OS would be the first party since the iPod would be seen as a peripheral to it (and without it, the concept of copying songs from the iPod is a mute point). So, from an OS perspective, with the exception of Apple OS X, iTunes is an add-on or third party product. I think the original poster was trying to be even more specific in that he/she was wanting to be able to copy to/from the iPod to any computer, something the iTunes doesn't let you do without wiping out an existing database. That is one advantage Linux has over Windows or OS X in that it sees the iPod as an external hard drive, so you can copy to your heart's content. That said, most people will probably still want to use some front end for it, in which case, they would be using a third party program to access it, just not iTunes, unless they run it under Wine.
Hmmmm, as there is no official iPod software for Linux users at all, I'd say all Linux software to use iPods would fall under "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks", no?
The fact that something is "official" software or not doesn't keep it from being third party (one can argue whether it is stupid or weird). By your definition, all Windows software to use iPods would fall under "third party addons and hacks," too, since they aren't Microsoft products.
Re:Or go even further back
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
I like the idea of having the RIAA lawyers go over to Iraq personally and inspect each and every soldier they suspect of being in violation. Let the RIAA put themself in harms way over a few magnetic bits on a hard drive if they think it is so damaging. Otherwise, if they aren't willing to go, then they are in fact consenting to the use and should shut up.
In recent times, the US soldier has always taken then current technology with him to war. Sure, it may have been a phonograph in Korea or a tape recorder in Viet Nam, but that's all there was back then.
As for video games and the stuff this article describes, well, these guys (and gals) are on a military base, you know. If they were stationed in Germany, or the US, nobody would bat an eye. Just because their base in the the Middle East and isn't meant to be permanent doesn't mean they shouldn't have some pleasures.
I would imagine that while they are on patrol, they are pretty aware of their surroundings. Besides, I'm pretty sure if a mortar round went off next to them, it wouldn't matter if they were listening to an mp3 or not.
I guess we should do it like the good old days...
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I guess we should do it like the good old days, no electronics, no games or toys, just beer and pot.
Darn, should have previewed! That post should have read:
Is it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner?
Wouldn't the moral choice, given the way you phrased the question be to loan your friend the copy of the CD you purchased? In that way, your friend is not denied the ability to hear the music, nor is the copyright owner denied their legal rights, either.
Of course then the real question becomes one of personal morality. Assuming your premise is that your friend does indeed need to listen to the CD, the question really is whether it is alright for "you" to deprive the copyright owner by making an additional copy, not for personal use, but for other use, so that you are not denied the ability to listen to the CD because "you" chose to lend your legal copy to someone else.
Using a different example than a CD, if your friend needs a car to get somewhere, is it alright to take someone elses car to give to him (thus depriving the legal owner of his right to use it) instead of lending your friend your car, so you don't have to do without? Following your logic, both examples should yield the same result, but I would imagine for most people, they would not.
Anyway, I am not saying this is what the article is about, nor do I agree with it. I only point out that it is the argument you have formulated whether it was your intention or not.
s it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner?
Wouldn't the moral choice, given the way you phrased the question be to loan your friend the copy of the CD you purchased? In that way, your friend is not denied the ability to hear the music, nor is the copyright owner denied their legal rights, either.
Of course then the real question becomes one of personal morality. Assuming your premise is that your friend does indeed need to listen to the CD, the question really is whether it is alright for "you" to deprive the copyright owner by making an additional copy, not for personal use, but for other use, so that you are not denied the ability to listen to the CD because "you" chose to lend your legal copy to someone else.
Using a different example than a CD, if your friend needs a car to get somewhere, is it alright to take someone elses car to give to him (thus depriving the legal owner of his right to use it) instead of lending your friend your car, so you don't have to do without? Following your logic, both examples should yield the same result, but I would imagine for most people, they would not.
Anyway, I am not saying this is what the article is about, nor do I agree with it. I only point out that it is the argument you have formulated whether it was your intention or not.
But why even copy the DVD? Most DVDs are released around $19.95 - $29.95 now. If you wait and buy them used, you can get them for $10 to $15. By the time you figure the cost of the blank dual layer DVD media plus a case plus the cost of the rental (assuming that is what you are burning from) and the cost of your time, why bother? It's even worse if you are going to have to shrink it to fit on a single layer DVD. Although the media is cheaper, you are either going to lose quality, or spend more time packing it to make it fit or both.
Again, why bother? Sure, when DVDs were $49 when first released ($79 for VHS) there was a large savings to be made, but today, what, at most you are going to save a few bucks. Other than the notion of saving a few dollars, what's the lure?
Copyright infringement statutes occur under a different code section than larceny (theft), therefore, by definition, it is not theft.
I never made any statement about money. However, if you purchase the CD in question and copy it to your mp3 player, have you infringed or stolen anything? No, of course not. The financial damage that occurs to the copyright owner only occurs once you distribute your copies, thus depriving them of sales. With theft, on the otherhand, the damage occurs to the owner the moment you take the item in question.
Since the actual damage doesn't occur until the distirubion of the copies occurs, it can't be theft, but instead, is an infringement on the copyright owner's rights to distribute and garner income from his property.
The question of dishonesty from copying or downloading is an entirely different subject matter.
While infringing on someone's copyright is, by definition, not theft, but infringement! What you describe by sneaking into the movie without paying or riding the subway without paying or riding the bus with paying, etc., etc., is the theft of a service being provided.
The difference between what you describe and copying the CD you purchased is that the act of purchasing the CD has paid for the service of producing that CD. Now, if you turn around and distribute that copy to others, again, you are not stealing anything tangilble or a service, you are instead infringing on the copyright owner's rights. If the copyright owner gives you permission to make and distribute copies, then you can do so. If not, you cannot. Again, this isn't stealing. Copyright law allows you to make copies for your own personal use. Where it becomes infringement is when you distribute those copies to other people.
So, back to your scenario, you are indeed stealing. You obtained the service being provided for free. Assuming you didn't steal the CD, then what you are doing is listening to music without the copyright owner's permission. This would be similar to taking a short cut home from school by cutting through somebody's back yard. Both are infringements (of course, if you are the original purchaser of the CD and make the copy, there is no infringement, this is like cutting across your own back yard).
What's the penalty for a school kid who infringes on the owner's right and cuts across a yard? Not much, usually just a reprimand, at most, it's a very, very small fine. Why should it be any different just because the RIAA has expensive lawyers?
Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft.
Actually, you would be wrong. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it is ----- infringement. To have theft, you need something tangible to steal. Copyrights, by definition, are intangible property. So, in effect, you aren't stealing anything, you are infringing on the copyright owner's right to say how their intangible personal property is to be used, but in the end, it is still their intangilbe personal property.
By definition, you cannot steal something that is intangible. You can steal the medium it is recorded on or the documentation of what the intangible item is, but, you cannot actual steal what you cannot physically posses.
The simple solution, if you want to legally copy a CD is to do so via analog through a wireless speaker connection. That way, you can use the broadcast exemption already allowed. Of course, I should add IANAL and your mileage may vary.
It should if they are using the software drivers that have the vulnerabilities. However, if they are using open source drivers, then there is a good chance that the vunerability wasn't duplicated. All that said, without knowing the specific details of the card and drivers, it's hard to tell. However, Intel recently released new drivers for their card to fix a bug that sounds similar to the one described.
Therein lies the problem. If they were doing this for free, it *might* fall under fair use. They aren't. They are making a profit. This comes down to selling a copy in adifferent format without protections, and without any royalties.....
If they did it for free, it would be a value-added service. No royalties to be paid. Instead, they've turned it into a money-making operation with no compensation to the copyright owners.
I hate to disagree, but you are simply wrong. First, the consumer must already ownd the DVD that is going to be ripped to the digital device that the consumer must also already own. As such, there is no need to pay royaltees as no ownership is being transferred. Also, what difference does it make if they are paid for this service or not as to whether it is considered to be a value-added service?
If I have a digital device that allows me to copy a dvd that I have purchased onto it for viewing and that isn't a violation of copyright (much like an mp3 player letting me put my CDs on it), then why is it a problem if I choose to pay somebody to do the copying for me? They are providing a legitimate service.
In short, if there is a copyright issue, it's not because Circuit City is involved, but the player is being used to view the DVD. Assuming it is legal to watch movies on my portable devices (if not, why have them in the first place), then Circuit City or anybody else I choose should be able to copy the the movies onto the device for me and allowed to charge me for it, too.
Now, whether the RIAA or MPAA will be upset by all of this, is a different story, but then again, that is really between them and the purchaser/owner of the DVD.
Maybe the switch to Intel wasn't such a good idea. It seems that while it has allowed me to run Windows on my Mac, it has exposed this abilitly to every Tom, Dick and Harry, too. And Apple scrapped Airport for the Intel wireless chipset why?
This whole discussion about whether Redhat will be unseated or not seems pretty US-centric. Is Redhat the most dominate linux server world-wide? Maybe it is, I don't know. However, I would expect, that in Germany, for instance, it wouldn't be, but I could be wrong.
I have no doubt that Redhat is the dominate linux server in the US and will be so for a very long time. However, that is also Microsoft's most secure installed base. What about all of the second-world and third-world countries that are now just joining the computer age? You hear a lot of news about linux being used on desktops in those countries, but it's other distros besides Redhat. It would seem logical, then, that the server distro would be different from Redhat, too.
We keep hearing how the linux market needs to consolidate from all these many distros. Well, in the business, world, it pretty much has. There are only a handful of distros that are considered business class, with Redhat, Suse and Ubuntu being in the top five (not that others can't/aren't usuable). The top business class distros need first and foremost a support infrastructure, either internally provided or through external partners (and not just from a user community). Redhat has IBM, Suse has Novell and Ubuntu has Canonical all of which are tier 1 support providers.
Anyway, my point is that if you are talking about the top of the heap of business class linux distros, there are really only a handful to choose from. As such, it wouldn't take much for Redhat to be replaced as the leader. Will that replacement be Ubuntu? Maybe, maybe not. Will it happen in the next year or two, probably not. Does it even matter? Definately not.
I can guarantee this. If any of the contenders of being the leader are focussed on unseating Redhat as their goal, instead of meeting their customer's needs and improving their distro, then they are sure to fail. Redhat got where they are by being the first one to really define and shape their distro to who they saw as their customer base. That's a sound business practice, open source or not.
Ubuntu seems to be doing the same thing, even if their view of their customer base is somewhat different than Redhat. If they are correct, then they will be successful, too, maybe even more so. Only time will tell.
It amazes me that you have such a grasp of the use of "affect" and "effect" but don't seem to grasp that the word "fucking" should only be used as a verb or adverb and not an adjective. Unless your really meant to express that Jesus is copulating with God, which to answer your question, would seem to be pretty hard to do.
At some point, LOOONG before HD-DVD/BluRay penetration reaches 50% of the market, the studios will STOP MAKING new releases in DVD, or, at the very lease, Blockbuster will stop stocking DVDs of new releases.
But the studios quit making VHS because Blockbuster quit stocking them. Blockbuster quick stocking them, because people quit renting them. People quit renting them, years after DVDs were introduced, because the price of DVD players finally was cheap enough for the average person to afford.
Until that happens with HD-DVD/BluRay, people will continue buying/renting DVDs, which means Blockbuster will continue stocking them, which means studios will continue making them. Why? Because the studios are interested in making the most money they can and that means the largest audience which currently, and for the foreseeable future is DVD. Sure, they will release on other media formats, but at a premium price to cover the extra cost.
Even with all of that, long before HD-DVD/BluRay gets close to the 50% saturation point, the consumer market will already have determined which format is going to be the one that is the standard. There is a good chance the PS3 will make that determination, since if it is succeeds, it will but BluRay in a bunch of households at no additional cost. Then again, if the BluRay implementation is poor on the PS3, it could push everyone to the HD-DVD.
Either way, long before people decide HD-DVD/BluRay, they are going to need a TV that can benefit from the new technology. For the average consumer, it's not just the high cost of the player, but the TV, too. Until all of that comes down to current price levels, DVD is going to be the main format.
But it's not going to be the early adopters/videophiles/technophiles (AVTs) who determine which format succeeds. It is the consumer or mass market that will determine the final format. The AVTs evaluate things based on esoteric technical issues that the average person can't distinguish or doesn't really cares about. The consumer market evaluates things based on price, ease of use, incremental quality improvements, etc., which all translate into a perceived value. If the perceived value outweighs the actual cost, they'll purchase it, if not, they won't.
Case in point - with the death of regular TV just around the corner, why are people still buying them? Because, the cost has dropped dramatically (27" TVs are not $125). Even though HDTV promises better picture, sound, etc. It comes at a significantly greater cost. Therefore, the perceived value doesn't outweigh the actual cost. (Yes, many people do buy HDTV, and they price has come down, but there are still a large number of traditional TVs being sold). The mass market won't switch to HDTV until a) the price comes way down or b) they are forced to switch. Congress recognized this and mandated that broadcast channels be switched over by a certain date, however, as long as cable can continue with non-HD formats, the forced switch isn't going to occur.
My point in all of this is that AVTs, like programmers and computer geeks, etc. are great at pushing the envelope, but by themself, they can't create/control the market. Therefore, the real test needs to be based on what the market will choose as that will be what we will end up with (ie VHS not Betamax, even though Betamax was a better technology).
In reality, though, as long as Walmart keeps selling $29 dvd players and the HD players are in the hundreds of dollars, and as long as HD movies cost a premium over their DVD counterpart, and as long as the majority of the market is still viewing all of this on regular TVs, DVDs are going to stay the predominate format, whether people have HDTV or not.
No, you're doing the wrong test. You need a typical crt based 27 inch television in a room with average lighting and a group of normal people. Then you let them watch the movies, but don't tell them if they are watching HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or plain DVD. Then you ask them for their opinion on which was best. Of course, since these are supposed to be HD formats, you would probably want to use an HD TV instead of that 27 inch TV, but you get the idea.
What is important is not which is technically the best, but what is perceived the best to the viewer. Also, not what is best under the optimum viewing conditions, but under the normal viewing conditions (since most people don't have the optimum viewing conditions).
Then the final question to ask the viewers, assuming if they can tell the difference between the formarts and the plain DVD, is give them the cost of the players and movies for the HD formatted movies compared with the plain DVD and ask them if, in their opinion, if they feel the improved quality is worth the extra price?
I don't know about you, but screw the "OS community", quite frankly, I'd think global health, education, and global development to be much more worthwhile causes. But then again, who cares about the helping people in need, who cares about starvation desiese and illiteracy, as long as your OS is free and open, and spiffy, right?
It is commendable that Gates is making all of those charitable donations to alleviate hunger and poverty and disease. Nobody can fault him and his foundation on that. However, it will never solve the real problem keeping those people and countries in poverty.
What the third-world really needs is investment in infrastructure, industry, educational institutions, etc., so that they can become self-sufficient. As long as they are dependent on subsidies from the U.N. or other countries or the Gates foundation, they will always be in poverty. What's the old adage? Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Unless there is real investment, whether through Gate's foundation or other sources in business that can provide jobs, and a market for their output, there will always be poverty and disease in those countries. If you want to alleviate world suffering, ultimately, you are going to have to give people in the rest of the world the means to support themself, not just a handout.
IMHO, the problem with Linux for the desktop is users have no loyalty. Once something better comes along they drop thier old distro like a bad habbit. This ultimately makes it impossible for a distro company to be profitable more than a few years.
That may be very true for the home desktop, but probably not the business desktop. Ubuntu is targeting the business desktop with it's feature list, paid support options and now longer support guarantee. A business is much less likely to start switching distros based on the flavor-of-the-week mentality.
Redhat recognized this by targeting the server market first. Then they made in-roads on the business desktop. Ubuntu, likewise has server offerings and business desktops.
It's not that either one of them can't be used for home or hobby use, it's just that their default setup is not that. What is the biggest complaint for new users to either Ubuntu or Redhat? They can't play mp3s or watch videos. Those aren't normally high priorities in a business setting, but are for home use. Both distros have pretty simple instructions to add that capability, too, but neither include it out of the box (or ISO, so to speak). Why not? Because, ultimately, it's not their target audience.
So, unless Ubuntu does something really dumb, it's going to be a major player. Will it always be number one on distrowatch? Probably not, but it's here to stay.
Yes, his ban was for public morality reasons, actually, not even that, it had to do with their belief in the body had to be intact bececause of the resurrection of the body at the second judgement or something like that. However, even in countries were the church didn't have influence and prior to the church's influence, there were taboos on dead bodies. The fact that he "rubber-stamped" the process, as you say, shows that it was already in the public that it was wrong to do. All he did, as a political leader of the time was to legislate what society had already dictated.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought of Apple, the manufacturer as the "first party", or maybe "second party" if MS is the first party already.
The computer OS would be the first party since the iPod would be seen as a peripheral to it (and without it, the concept of copying songs from the iPod is a mute point). So, from an OS perspective, with the exception of Apple OS X, iTunes is an add-on or third party product. I think the original poster was trying to be even more specific in that he/she was wanting to be able to copy to/from the iPod to any computer, something the iTunes doesn't let you do without wiping out an existing database. That is one advantage Linux has over Windows or OS X in that it sees the iPod as an external hard drive, so you can copy to your heart's content. That said, most people will probably still want to use some front end for it, in which case, they would be using a third party program to access it, just not iTunes, unless they run it under Wine.
Hmmmm, as there is no official iPod software for Linux users at all, I'd say all Linux software to use iPods would fall under "stupid third party addons" and "weird hacks", no?
The fact that something is "official" software or not doesn't keep it from being third party (one can argue whether it is stupid or weird). By your definition, all Windows software to use iPods would fall under "third party addons and hacks," too, since they aren't Microsoft products.
I like the idea of having the RIAA lawyers go over to Iraq personally and inspect each and every soldier they suspect of being in violation. Let the RIAA put themself in harms way over a few magnetic bits on a hard drive if they think it is so damaging. Otherwise, if they aren't willing to go, then they are in fact consenting to the use and should shut up.
In recent times, the US soldier has always taken then current technology with him to war. Sure, it may have been a phonograph in Korea or a tape recorder in Viet Nam, but that's all there was back then.
As for video games and the stuff this article describes, well, these guys (and gals) are on a military base, you know. If they were stationed in Germany, or the US, nobody would bat an eye. Just because their base in the the Middle East and isn't meant to be permanent doesn't mean they shouldn't have some pleasures.
I would imagine that while they are on patrol, they are pretty aware of their surroundings. Besides, I'm pretty sure if a mortar round went off next to them, it wouldn't matter if they were listening to an mp3 or not.
I guess we should do it like the good old days, no electronics, no games or toys, just beer and pot.
Darn, should have previewed! That post should have read:
Is it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner?
Wouldn't the moral choice, given the way you phrased the question be to loan your friend the copy of the CD you purchased? In that way, your friend is not denied the ability to hear the music, nor is the copyright owner denied their legal rights, either.
Of course then the real question becomes one of personal morality. Assuming your premise is that your friend does indeed need to listen to the CD, the question really is whether it is alright for "you" to deprive the copyright owner by making an additional copy, not for personal use, but for other use, so that you are not denied the ability to listen to the CD because "you" chose to lend your legal copy to someone else.
Using a different example than a CD, if your friend needs a car to get somewhere, is it alright to take someone elses car to give to him (thus depriving the legal owner of his right to use it) instead of lending your friend your car, so you don't have to do without? Following your logic, both examples should yield the same result, but I would imagine for most people, they would not.
Anyway, I am not saying this is what the article is about, nor do I agree with it. I only point out that it is the argument you have formulated whether it was your intention or not.
s it right to deny your friend a copy of your CD because some company claims to own the right to make copies of it? It's a stark moral choice: do you help your friend or do you defend the rights of the owner?
Wouldn't the moral choice, given the way you phrased the question be to loan your friend the copy of the CD you purchased? In that way, your friend is not denied the ability to hear the music, nor is the copyright owner denied their legal rights, either.
Of course then the real question becomes one of personal morality. Assuming your premise is that your friend does indeed need to listen to the CD, the question really is whether it is alright for "you" to deprive the copyright owner by making an additional copy, not for personal use, but for other use, so that you are not denied the ability to listen to the CD because "you" chose to lend your legal copy to someone else.
Using a different example than a CD, if your friend needs a car to get somewhere, is it alright to take someone elses car to give to him (thus depriving the legal owner of his right to use it) instead of lending your friend your car, so you don't have to do without? Following your logic, both examples should yield the same result, but I would imagine for most people, they would not.
Anyway, I am not saying this is what the article is about, nor do I agree with it. I only point out that it is the argument you have formulated whether it was your intention or not.
But why even copy the DVD? Most DVDs are released around $19.95 - $29.95 now. If you wait and buy them used, you can get them for $10 to $15. By the time you figure the cost of the blank dual layer DVD media plus a case plus the cost of the rental (assuming that is what you are burning from) and the cost of your time, why bother? It's even worse if you are going to have to shrink it to fit on a single layer DVD. Although the media is cheaper, you are either going to lose quality, or spend more time packing it to make it fit or both.
Again, why bother? Sure, when DVDs were $49 when first released ($79 for VHS) there was a large savings to be made, but today, what, at most you are going to save a few bucks. Other than the notion of saving a few dollars, what's the lure?
Copyright infringement statutes occur under a different code section than larceny (theft), therefore, by definition, it is not theft.
I never made any statement about money. However, if you purchase the CD in question and copy it to your mp3 player, have you infringed or stolen anything? No, of course not. The financial damage that occurs to the copyright owner only occurs once you distribute your copies, thus depriving them of sales. With theft, on the otherhand, the damage occurs to the owner the moment you take the item in question.
Since the actual damage doesn't occur until the distirubion of the copies occurs, it can't be theft, but instead, is an infringement on the copyright owner's rights to distribute and garner income from his property.
The question of dishonesty from copying or downloading is an entirely different subject matter.
While infringing on someone's copyright is, by definition, not theft, but infringement! What you describe by sneaking into the movie without paying or riding the subway without paying or riding the bus with paying, etc., etc., is the theft of a service being provided.
The difference between what you describe and copying the CD you purchased is that the act of purchasing the CD has paid for the service of producing that CD. Now, if you turn around and distribute that copy to others, again, you are not stealing anything tangilble or a service, you are instead infringing on the copyright owner's rights. If the copyright owner gives you permission to make and distribute copies, then you can do so. If not, you cannot. Again, this isn't stealing. Copyright law allows you to make copies for your own personal use. Where it becomes infringement is when you distribute those copies to other people.
So, back to your scenario, you are indeed stealing. You obtained the service being provided for free. Assuming you didn't steal the CD, then what you are doing is listening to music without the copyright owner's permission. This would be similar to taking a short cut home from school by cutting through somebody's back yard. Both are infringements (of course, if you are the original purchaser of the CD and make the copy, there is no infringement, this is like cutting across your own back yard).
What's the penalty for a school kid who infringes on the owner's right and cuts across a yard? Not much, usually just a reprimand, at most, it's a very, very small fine. Why should it be any different just because the RIAA has expensive lawyers?
Except then you'd' be full of shit, since copyright infringement is theft.
Actually, you would be wrong. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it is ----- infringement. To have theft, you need something tangible to steal. Copyrights, by definition, are intangible property. So, in effect, you aren't stealing anything, you are infringing on the copyright owner's right to say how their intangible personal property is to be used, but in the end, it is still their intangilbe personal property.
By definition, you cannot steal something that is intangible. You can steal the medium it is recorded on or the documentation of what the intangible item is, but, you cannot actual steal what you cannot physically posses.
The simple solution, if you want to legally copy a CD is to do so via analog through a wireless speaker connection. That way, you can use the broadcast exemption already allowed. Of course, I should add IANAL and your mileage may vary.
It should if they are using the software drivers that have the vulnerabilities. However, if they are using open source drivers, then there is a good chance that the vunerability wasn't duplicated. All that said, without knowing the specific details of the card and drivers, it's hard to tell. However, Intel recently released new drivers for their card to fix a bug that sounds similar to the one described.
Therein lies the problem. If they were doing this for free, it *might* fall under fair use. They aren't. They are making a profit. This comes down to selling a copy in adifferent format without protections, and without any royalties. ....
If they did it for free, it would be a value-added service. No royalties to be paid. Instead, they've turned it into a money-making operation with no compensation to the copyright owners.
I hate to disagree, but you are simply wrong. First, the consumer must already ownd the DVD that is going to be ripped to the digital device that the consumer must also already own. As such, there is no need to pay royaltees as no ownership is being transferred. Also, what difference does it make if they are paid for this service or not as to whether it is considered to be a value-added service?
If I have a digital device that allows me to copy a dvd that I have purchased onto it for viewing and that isn't a violation of copyright (much like an mp3 player letting me put my CDs on it), then why is it a problem if I choose to pay somebody to do the copying for me? They are providing a legitimate service.
In short, if there is a copyright issue, it's not because Circuit City is involved, but the player is being used to view the DVD. Assuming it is legal to watch movies on my portable devices (if not, why have them in the first place), then Circuit City or anybody else I choose should be able to copy the the movies onto the device for me and allowed to charge me for it, too.
Now, whether the RIAA or MPAA will be upset by all of this, is a different story, but then again, that is really between them and the purchaser/owner of the DVD.
Well that's good to know! I wonder why it's not a problem with other airport cards, then?
Maybe the switch to Intel wasn't such a good idea. It seems that while it has allowed me to run Windows on my Mac, it has exposed this abilitly to every Tom, Dick and Harry, too. And Apple scrapped Airport for the Intel wireless chipset why?
This whole discussion about whether Redhat will be unseated or not seems pretty US-centric. Is Redhat the most dominate linux server world-wide? Maybe it is, I don't know. However, I would expect, that in Germany, for instance, it wouldn't be, but I could be wrong.
I have no doubt that Redhat is the dominate linux server in the US and will be so for a very long time. However, that is also Microsoft's most secure installed base. What about all of the second-world and third-world countries that are now just joining the computer age? You hear a lot of news about linux being used on desktops in those countries, but it's other distros besides Redhat. It would seem logical, then, that the server distro would be different from Redhat, too.
We keep hearing how the linux market needs to consolidate from all these many distros. Well, in the business, world, it pretty much has. There are only a handful of distros that are considered business class, with Redhat, Suse and Ubuntu being in the top five (not that others can't/aren't usuable). The top business class distros need first and foremost a support infrastructure, either internally provided or through external partners (and not just from a user community). Redhat has IBM, Suse has Novell and Ubuntu has Canonical all of which are tier 1 support providers.
Anyway, my point is that if you are talking about the top of the heap of business class linux distros, there are really only a handful to choose from. As such, it wouldn't take much for Redhat to be replaced as the leader. Will that replacement be Ubuntu? Maybe, maybe not. Will it happen in the next year or two, probably not. Does it even matter? Definately not.
I can guarantee this. If any of the contenders of being the leader are focussed on unseating Redhat as their goal, instead of meeting their customer's needs and improving their distro, then they are sure to fail. Redhat got where they are by being the first one to really define and shape their distro to who they saw as their customer base. That's a sound business practice, open source or not.
Ubuntu seems to be doing the same thing, even if their view of their customer base is somewhat different than Redhat. If they are correct, then they will be successful, too, maybe even more so. Only time will tell.
1) Create Linux Distribution ...
2) Gather Community
3) Create Server Version
4) Slashvertise with 'Other Distros Will Die' Prophecy
5)
6) Profit!
Of course, isn't that the process Redhat used in the beginning, too, particularly after Mandrake spun off of them?
Jesus fucking GOD how hard is it?
It amazes me that you have such a grasp of the use of "affect" and "effect" but don't seem to grasp that the word "fucking" should only be used as a verb or adverb and not an adjective. Unless your really meant to express that Jesus is copulating with God, which to answer your question, would seem to be pretty hard to do.
At some point, LOOONG before HD-DVD/BluRay penetration reaches 50% of the market, the studios will STOP MAKING new releases in DVD, or, at the very lease, Blockbuster will stop stocking DVDs of new releases.
But the studios quit making VHS because Blockbuster quit stocking them. Blockbuster quick stocking them, because people quit renting them. People quit renting them, years after DVDs were introduced, because the price of DVD players finally was cheap enough for the average person to afford.
Until that happens with HD-DVD/BluRay, people will continue buying/renting DVDs, which means Blockbuster will continue stocking them, which means studios will continue making them. Why? Because the studios are interested in making the most money they can and that means the largest audience which currently, and for the foreseeable future is DVD. Sure, they will release on other media formats, but at a premium price to cover the extra cost.
Even with all of that, long before HD-DVD/BluRay gets close to the 50% saturation point, the consumer market will already have determined which format is going to be the one that is the standard. There is a good chance the PS3 will make that determination, since if it is succeeds, it will but BluRay in a bunch of households at no additional cost. Then again, if the BluRay implementation is poor on the PS3, it could push everyone to the HD-DVD.
Either way, long before people decide HD-DVD/BluRay, they are going to need a TV that can benefit from the new technology. For the average consumer, it's not just the high cost of the player, but the TV, too. Until all of that comes down to current price levels, DVD is going to be the main format.
But it's not going to be the early adopters/videophiles/technophiles (AVTs) who determine which format succeeds. It is the consumer or mass market that will determine the final format. The AVTs evaluate things based on esoteric technical issues that the average person can't distinguish or doesn't really cares about. The consumer market evaluates things based on price, ease of use, incremental quality improvements, etc., which all translate into a perceived value. If the perceived value outweighs the actual cost, they'll purchase it, if not, they won't.
Case in point - with the death of regular TV just around the corner, why are people still buying them? Because, the cost has dropped dramatically (27" TVs are not $125). Even though HDTV promises better picture, sound, etc. It comes at a significantly greater cost. Therefore, the perceived value doesn't outweigh the actual cost. (Yes, many people do buy HDTV, and they price has come down, but there are still a large number of traditional TVs being sold). The mass market won't switch to HDTV until a) the price comes way down or b) they are forced to switch. Congress recognized this and mandated that broadcast channels be switched over by a certain date, however, as long as cable can continue with non-HD formats, the forced switch isn't going to occur.
My point in all of this is that AVTs, like programmers and computer geeks, etc. are great at pushing the envelope, but by themself, they can't create/control the market. Therefore, the real test needs to be based on what the market will choose as that will be what we will end up with (ie VHS not Betamax, even though Betamax was a better technology).
In reality, though, as long as Walmart keeps selling $29 dvd players and the HD players are in the hundreds of dollars, and as long as HD movies cost a premium over their DVD counterpart, and as long as the majority of the market is still viewing all of this on regular TVs, DVDs are going to stay the predominate format, whether people have HDTV or not.
No, you're doing the wrong test. You need a typical crt based 27 inch television in a room with average lighting and a group of normal people. Then you let them watch the movies, but don't tell them if they are watching HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or plain DVD. Then you ask them for their opinion on which was best. Of course, since these are supposed to be HD formats, you would probably want to use an HD TV instead of that 27 inch TV, but you get the idea.
What is important is not which is technically the best, but what is perceived the best to the viewer. Also, not what is best under the optimum viewing conditions, but under the normal viewing conditions (since most people don't have the optimum viewing conditions).
Then the final question to ask the viewers, assuming if they can tell the difference between the formarts and the plain DVD, is give them the cost of the players and movies for the HD formatted movies compared with the plain DVD and ask them if, in their opinion, if they feel the improved quality is worth the extra price?
I don't know about you, but screw the "OS community", quite frankly, I'd think global health, education, and global development to be much more worthwhile causes. But then again, who cares about the helping people in need, who cares about starvation desiese and illiteracy, as long as your OS is free and open, and spiffy, right?
It is commendable that Gates is making all of those charitable donations to alleviate hunger and poverty and disease. Nobody can fault him and his foundation on that. However, it will never solve the real problem keeping those people and countries in poverty.
What the third-world really needs is investment in infrastructure, industry, educational institutions, etc., so that they can become self-sufficient. As long as they are dependent on subsidies from the U.N. or other countries or the Gates foundation, they will always be in poverty. What's the old adage? Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Unless there is real investment, whether through Gate's foundation or other sources in business that can provide jobs, and a market for their output, there will always be poverty and disease in those countries. If you want to alleviate world suffering, ultimately, you are going to have to give people in the rest of the world the means to support themself, not just a handout.
I wonder of Gates knows what giving feels like.
For $1.50 he'll give you the opportunity to download and beta test Microsoft Office.
IMHO, the problem with Linux for the desktop is users have no loyalty. Once something better comes along they drop thier old distro like a bad habbit. This ultimately makes it impossible for a distro company to be profitable more than a few years.
That may be very true for the home desktop, but probably not the business desktop. Ubuntu is targeting the business desktop with it's feature list, paid support options and now longer support guarantee. A business is much less likely to start switching distros based on the flavor-of-the-week mentality.
Redhat recognized this by targeting the server market first. Then they made in-roads on the business desktop. Ubuntu, likewise has server offerings and business desktops.
It's not that either one of them can't be used for home or hobby use, it's just that their default setup is not that. What is the biggest complaint for new users to either Ubuntu or Redhat? They can't play mp3s or watch videos. Those aren't normally high priorities in a business setting, but are for home use. Both distros have pretty simple instructions to add that capability, too, but neither include it out of the box (or ISO, so to speak). Why not? Because, ultimately, it's not their target audience.
So, unless Ubuntu does something really dumb, it's going to be a major player. Will it always be number one on distrowatch? Probably not, but it's here to stay.
Yes, his ban was for public morality reasons, actually, not even that, it had to do with their belief in the body had to be intact bececause of the resurrection of the body at the second judgement or something like that. However, even in countries were the church didn't have influence and prior to the church's influence, there were taboos on dead bodies. The fact that he "rubber-stamped" the process, as you say, shows that it was already in the public that it was wrong to do. All he did, as a political leader of the time was to legislate what society had already dictated.