Re:Yep...and...
on
USB Batteries
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You can easily find rechargable AA cells with twice the capacity of what they offer, and if you're travelling, Sanyo and Maha both make fast rechargers that don't take up any more room than a pair of socks. I have a Sanyo NC-MQH01U, which I got from Costco, complete with 6 2500 mAH AA cells and 2 AA cells, for a bit over $20, less than the cost of two of those 1300 mAH USB batteries. And it will recharge those batteries in a bit over an hour (if charging two at a time), instead of 5.
Yep...and...
on
USB Batteries
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
in addition to having less capacity, and being very much more expensive, they recharge more slowly than regular rechargables do in a dedicated charger. If you're putting them into a USB port which is ultimately AC powered, well, why not just use a faster, cheaper, charger.
And if someone plans on charging off a notebook running under battery power, do they really intend (or are they even able) to run the notebook for the 5 hours needed to recharge these?
This makes no sense at all, and are certainly nothing to be "excited about." So much for "trusted reviews."
consider what happens if they were to win the suit.
The costs simply get passed on to the consumer, via higher future car costs. Since it's CA suing, and the automakers sell worldwide, the net result is that CA is asking consumers in the rest of the world to subsidize California problems.
For all practical purposes, all costs of automobile pollution in CA are due to CA consumers chosing to drive the cars which they do. It's awfully ego-centric for CA to ask the rest of the world to pay for problems that they themselves are responsible for.
Perhaps the rest of the world should get together, and sue California for the increased vehicle costs due to automakers having to meet their unique emissions regulations. (Which, by the way, is a perfect defense -where do they get off suing for emissions which meet the standards they themselves set? Hubris maximus.)
Would this then mean that Joe Average who downloads a single copy of "DRMbegone.exe" is classed as an importer?
No, of course not. The US Constitution limits our Federal Government's authority in such matters "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...," and downloading a freeware piece of software isn't commerce. But then again, our courts frequently ignore clear plain language, and define things to be whatever they want (which typically gives the Federal government more power - it's foxes guarding the henhouse). The courts have said that growing marijuana at home is "interstate commerce."
Except that DRM prevents access, not copying, so it falls into the category of technological measures that are illegal to circumvent.
No, if I have legitimately licensed DRM protected content, I can access it perfectly well - just ask millions of iPod/ITMS users. DRM is intended to provide access only to legitimate users, it wouldn't make sense at all if it didn't. DRM prevents an unlicensed user from accessing the legitimate content which I have. It also prevents me from copying the content to a different media and/or format, which is fair use.
Your claim, that "fair use" is not covered, has already been conclusively shown to be just plain wrong. Now you're thrashing, and trying to throw out red herrings to change the discussion to something entirely different. No matter, you continue to be wrong.
Since you are impaired in interpreting plain language English, by "unauthorized access," they are referring to getting content you have not licensed (paid for), NOT media shifting content which you have paid for.
Joe Schmoe can exercise fair use rights, provided he already owns the content. If he buys protected WMP or AAC files, he can remove the DRM to use them in an incompatible player. Just because it is illegal to create or distribute a tool in the US (it is, after all a US law, and despite parochial ideas otherwise, does not apply to the rest of the world), that does not make it illegal to receive such a tool from a foreign source. Such tools are, in fact, readily available. Even lacking such tools, Joe Schmo can legally make fair use of the content by taking the low tech route, and "hairpin" an analog signal to redigitize in the desired format.
In the case at hand, if someone has paid for PlaysForSure content, and uses FairUse4WM to make fair use of that content on a Zune, it is perfectly legal, according to the US Copyright Office.
The US Copyright Office has this to say about the matter (this document is, BTW, the very first hit which Google returns on a search for "DMCA", so your ignorance is not excused):
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that
are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain
circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying.
I didn't miss the "without hassle" part. I made the obviously incorrect assumption that since you post to/., you're competent and proficient in such things. Maybe you can have your mommy do it for you.
Use iTunes to make an audio CD, then rip that CD to whatever form of digitized audio you want. You'll also have created a backup in the process. If you don't want any quality loss, rip to PCM or lossless format. If you're willing to sacrifice a decrease in quality similar to when you rip standard CDs, then rip to MP3.
After all, photocopiers, VCRs, audio tape recorders, CD/DVD writers -- heck, the printing press -- mean that distribution is no longer controlled or private,
Those are examples of private distribution. By "controlled private distribution," I do not mean avoiding distribution to the public through regular sales channels, where there exists a definite relationship between buyer and seller. When you buy a CD, that is a private transaction between you and the seller. It is controlled (you get the CD after you're paid for it, and are agreeing that your use is bound by copyright).
However, when you publish a web page, it is open without restriction to anyone on the Internet to read. That is placing information into the public domain (literally, practically, but maybe not legally).
To another commenter: if you use some method to stop open access to some content on your web site, such as password protection, I would not consider that content to be "on the Internet" for purposes of this discussion, but merely accessible through it. I'm addressing content which is literally in the domain of the public - available for all to access without limitation.
If someone posts a handbill on a telephone pole, it is in the public domain, and a photographer should not have to be concerned with a picture he takes infringing some copyright. Same with archiving the web.
shouldn't be copyrightable - there is nowhere more "public domain" than the Internet. Same with radio/TV - anyone who makes use of the public airwaves should sacrifice any claim to copyright for that priviledge. If someone wants to control their works through copyright, they should use controlled, private distribution.
I'll no doubt have lawyer (and lawyer wannabees) protesting - but that only follows the literal and common sense meaning of "public domain," instead of the legal rationalization which has been brought about by those who want to have their cake, and eat it too.
Does music on an iPod fall under the definition of "digital musical recording?" There are other programs stored on an iPod (i.e. the calendar, games, etc.) which are not "incidental" (def. "related to and relatively minor by comparison") to playing music. Does that affect the Rio decision you mentioned?
The definition does not force the "digital musical recording" to exist only on an AHRA device/medium, so a computer dedicated to playing music could be covered, since the OS and other programs would be incidental to that role.
The 9th makes bad law. It defines the "active judiciary." It is consistently the most reviewed and reversed (relative to size) circuit (cf. the 5th).
Copying off an AHRA CD to a computer so you can at some indeterminate time make a "digital musical recording" is a "use" in much the same way that someone growing dope in their backyard or a butterfly flapping it's wings is regulatable interstate commerce, or that invoking eminent domain to transfer private property to a private corporation is "public use.":-)
Thanks for the discussion, it can be nice arguing with lawyers, since they usually don't go all "ad hominem" when presented with something with which they disagree.
the first sale statute (section 109) only applies to copies that are lawfully made. Since a 1008 copy isn't lawfully made
In what way is a copy made under Section 1008 unlawful? 1008 makes non-actionable " the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a...medium for making digital musical recordings." There is nothing which says it is only non-actionable to copy onto such a medium. It is also a "use" to copy off of the media. If I "use" the media to make a digital music recording onto my PC, that falls under 1008. Once the content has touched the media for which the consumer has paid indirect royalties, further "noncommercial use" is covered.
MAI vs. Peak is bad law (which isn't surprising, coming from the 9th Circuit), and ripe for overturning. The sole purpose of software on a disc is to load it into RAM and run it. That's fair use. To say otherwise is to say you can buy a book, but not have the right to read it. They must have had incompetent counsel. I'd like to see the RIAA try to claim people aren't allowed to rip CDs for playback on their iPods.
[with regard to downloading, then burning onto audio CD-R] Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed.
I would argue that as long as the download were only kept on the computer temporarily (being ancillary to the process of making legal "use" of an audio CD-R), it's legal. During ANY other forms of copying subject to the AHRA, multiple copies exist along the chain - copying from LP to cassette? A temporal copy (in the form of electrons) exists on every bit of copper and in every transistor along the path at some point in time. Copying from CD to DAT, or using an audio CD recorder - a copy exists at some point in the buffer memory of multiple devices.
Once having burned the CD-R (and it can be burned as a ISO9660 with MP3s, no need to make a Red Book CD - the law is agnostic toward format), you have a fully legal copy of the work, and fair use rights no different than you would with a purchased CD. At that point, copy it back to the computer (format shift) and use it on your iPod, too, as is accepted practice.
Oh, I don't see it as a problem that the AHRA doesn't apply to computers - I'm happy buying $0.50 audio CD-Rs and paying the tax in exchange for the legal right to copy copyrighted audio content.
where 1 or maybe 2 users are utilizing an AP, seldom simultaneously.
In a corporate environment, where many active users may be on an AP, more bandwidth is can be very useful, and "n" is, well, almost twice as good as what's available.
Remember, wireless is a shared medium, like old Ethernet hubs, and that won't change within the current RF bandwidth limitations. Moving from a wired, switched 100 mbps connection to shared 54 mbps (802.11a or g) is almost always a very significant step down in speed in an enterprise network.
802.11n will help, but organizations thinking of going all wireless for user access (and there are a few) are foolish if they have any mission critical applications which depend upon bandwith or speed.
You're wrong when you say it doesn't apply to computers.
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states: No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. - (emphasis added)
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be: any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals,
that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for
the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a
digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!) Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
what I believe is likely the real reason. Life was just plain a lot harder then. It's as simple as that. We've moved from an agrarian society to an industrial one to a service economy. Life is easier. No more scythes or plowing with a horse. No more mining coal with pick axes. No subsistance farming or clearing new fields by hand (unless you want to, I suppose). People are more educated about what's healthy and what's not, no more mercury based patent medicines, or blood letting with leaches. The article has it half right - modern medicine play a large part, but I believe the major effect is because it's able to recognize and address the true nature of ailments, not because it's making the human body more robust. That is, it's a remedial effect more than a prophylactic one.
if God was necessary to create Man, where did God come from? If God "just is," why can't Man "just be?" If God created the universe, and the universe was created from nothing, then God is nothing. QED.
That is, unless you're so insecure that you must have a creation mythos to explain your existence.
...and no, I don't think "string theory," or any of the esoteric physical theories represent any form of "reality." They're just mathematical constructions which strive to be part of a self-consistent mathematical system which is also used to measure observatons.
because "God" is not a universally understood concept, which anyone with even a modicum of knowledge knows. Hindu and Christian religions have quite different understandings of God, and that's just one example of very many.
Oh, here's a real definition of "1":
"1" is the symbol for the numeral which represents the number one.
Really, I'm done trying to discuss anything meaningful with someone who thinks mockery is a legitimate form of argument. buh-bye!
"1" is an axiom, and doesn't need definition, so your attempt at creating a fallacy of relevance fails. You can deny that "1" is what everyone understands it to be, but you're then forcing yourself into a world of non-standard logic and mathematics.
You skipped a turn, and still owe us a definition of "God."
Slashdot Mirror
You can easily find rechargable AA cells with twice the capacity of what they offer, and if you're travelling, Sanyo and Maha both make fast rechargers that don't take up any more room than a pair of socks. I have a Sanyo NC-MQH01U, which I got from Costco, complete with 6 2500 mAH AA cells and 2 AA cells, for a bit over $20, less than the cost of two of those 1300 mAH USB batteries. And it will recharge those batteries in a bit over an hour (if charging two at a time), instead of 5.
in addition to having less capacity, and being very much more expensive, they recharge more slowly than regular rechargables do in a dedicated charger. If you're putting them into a USB port which is ultimately AC powered, well, why not just use a faster, cheaper, charger.
And if someone plans on charging off a notebook running under battery power, do they really intend (or are they even able) to run the notebook for the 5 hours needed to recharge these?
This makes no sense at all, and are certainly nothing to be "excited about." So much for "trusted reviews."
consider what happens if they were to win the suit.
The costs simply get passed on to the consumer, via higher future car costs. Since it's CA suing, and the automakers sell worldwide, the net result is that CA is asking consumers in the rest of the world to subsidize California problems.
For all practical purposes, all costs of automobile pollution in CA are due to CA consumers chosing to drive the cars which they do. It's awfully ego-centric for CA to ask the rest of the world to pay for problems that they themselves are responsible for.
Perhaps the rest of the world should get together, and sue California for the increased vehicle costs due to automakers having to meet their unique emissions regulations. (Which, by the way, is a perfect defense -where do they get off suing for emissions which meet the standards they themselves set? Hubris maximus.)
Nothing stops you from copying DRM'd music, you just can't access it if you move it elsewhere.
DRM stops you from copying DRM'd music. It is the _content_ which is copyrighted, and also available for fair use, not the encrypted envelope.
Would this then mean that Joe Average who downloads a single copy of "DRMbegone.exe" is classed as an importer?
No, of course not. The US Constitution limits our Federal Government's authority in such matters "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...," and downloading a freeware piece of software isn't commerce. But then again, our courts frequently ignore clear plain language, and define things to be whatever they want (which typically gives the Federal government more power - it's foxes guarding the henhouse). The courts have said that growing marijuana at home is "interstate commerce."
Except that DRM prevents access, not copying, so it falls into the category of technological measures that are illegal to circumvent.
No, if I have legitimately licensed DRM protected content, I can access it perfectly well - just ask millions of iPod/ITMS users. DRM is intended to provide access only to legitimate users, it wouldn't make sense at all if it didn't. DRM prevents an unlicensed user from accessing the legitimate content which I have. It also prevents me from copying the content to a different media and/or format, which is fair use.
or are you just naturally ignorant?
Your claim, that "fair use" is not covered, has already been conclusively shown to be just plain wrong. Now you're thrashing, and trying to throw out red herrings to change the discussion to something entirely different. No matter, you continue to be wrong.
Since you are impaired in interpreting plain language English, by "unauthorized access," they are referring to getting content you have not licensed (paid for), NOT media shifting content which you have paid for.
Joe Schmoe can exercise fair use rights, provided he already owns the content. If he buys protected WMP or AAC files, he can remove the DRM to use them in an incompatible player. Just because it is illegal to create or distribute a tool in the US (it is, after all a US law, and despite parochial ideas otherwise, does not apply to the rest of the world), that does not make it illegal to receive such a tool from a foreign source. Such tools are, in fact, readily available. Even lacking such tools, Joe Schmo can legally make fair use of the content by taking the low tech route, and "hairpin" an analog signal to redigitize in the desired format.
In the case at hand, if someone has paid for PlaysForSure content, and uses FairUse4WM to make fair use of that content on a Zune, it is perfectly legal, according to the US Copyright Office.
So, Strike 2 to you, want to try again?
The US Copyright Office has this to say about the matter (this document is, BTW, the very first hit which Google returns on a search for "DMCA", so your ignorance is not excused)
I didn't miss the "without hassle" part. I made the obviously incorrect assumption that since you post to /., you're competent and proficient in such things. Maybe you can have your mommy do it for you.
Use iTunes to make an audio CD, then rip that CD to whatever form of digitized audio you want. You'll also have created a backup in the process. If you don't want any quality loss, rip to PCM or lossless format. If you're willing to sacrifice a decrease in quality similar to when you rip standard CDs, then rip to MP3.
After all, photocopiers, VCRs, audio tape recorders, CD/DVD writers -- heck, the printing press -- mean that distribution is no longer controlled or private,
Those are examples of private distribution. By "controlled private distribution," I do not mean avoiding distribution to the public through regular sales channels, where there exists a definite relationship between buyer and seller. When you buy a CD, that is a private transaction between you and the seller. It is controlled (you get the CD after you're paid for it, and are agreeing that your use is bound by copyright).
However, when you publish a web page, it is open without restriction to anyone on the Internet to read. That is placing information into the public domain (literally, practically, but maybe not legally).
To another commenter: if you use some method to stop open access to some content on your web site, such as password protection, I would not consider that content to be "on the Internet" for purposes of this discussion, but merely accessible through it. I'm addressing content which is literally in the domain of the public - available for all to access without limitation.
If someone posts a handbill on a telephone pole, it is in the public domain, and a photographer should not have to be concerned with a picture he takes infringing some copyright. Same with archiving the web.
shouldn't be copyrightable - there is nowhere more "public domain" than the Internet. Same with radio/TV - anyone who makes use of the public airwaves should sacrifice any claim to copyright for that priviledge. If someone wants to control their works through copyright, they should use controlled, private distribution.
I'll no doubt have lawyer (and lawyer wannabees) protesting - but that only follows the literal and common sense meaning of "public domain," instead of the legal rationalization which has been brought about by those who want to have their cake, and eat it too.
Animal 57.
Does music on an iPod fall under the definition of "digital musical recording?" There are other programs stored on an iPod (i.e. the calendar, games, etc.) which are not "incidental" (def. "related to and relatively minor by comparison") to playing music. Does that affect the Rio decision you mentioned?
:-)
The definition does not force the "digital musical recording" to exist only on an AHRA device/medium, so a computer dedicated to playing music could be covered, since the OS and other programs would be incidental to that role.
The 9th makes bad law. It defines the "active judiciary." It is consistently the most reviewed and reversed (relative to size) circuit (cf. the 5th).
Copying off an AHRA CD to a computer so you can at some indeterminate time make a "digital musical recording" is a "use" in much the same way that someone growing dope in their backyard or a butterfly flapping it's wings is regulatable interstate commerce, or that invoking eminent domain to transfer private property to a private corporation is "public use."
Thanks for the discussion, it can be nice arguing with lawyers, since they usually don't go all "ad hominem" when presented with something with which they disagree.
the first sale statute (section 109) only applies to copies that are lawfully made. Since a 1008 copy isn't lawfully made
In what way is a copy made under Section 1008 unlawful? 1008 makes non-actionable " the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a...medium for making digital musical recordings." There is nothing which says it is only non-actionable to copy onto such a medium. It is also a "use" to copy off of the media. If I "use" the media to make a digital music recording onto my PC, that falls under 1008. Once the content has touched the media for which the consumer has paid indirect royalties, further "noncommercial use" is covered.
MAI vs. Peak is bad law (which isn't surprising, coming from the 9th Circuit), and ripe for overturning. The sole purpose of software on a disc is to load it into RAM and run it. That's fair use. To say otherwise is to say you can buy a book, but not have the right to read it. They must have had incompetent counsel. I'd like to see the RIAA try to claim people aren't allowed to rip CDs for playback on their iPods.
[with regard to downloading, then burning onto audio CD-R] Of course, if the computer that the downloads go through has RAM or a hard drive that's involved with the downloading, you might still be screwed.
I would argue that as long as the download were only kept on the computer temporarily (being ancillary to the process of making legal "use" of an audio CD-R), it's legal. During ANY other forms of copying subject to the AHRA, multiple copies exist along the chain - copying from LP to cassette? A temporal copy (in the form of electrons) exists on every bit of copper and in every transistor along the path at some point in time. Copying from CD to DAT, or using an audio CD recorder - a copy exists at some point in the buffer memory of multiple devices.
Once having burned the CD-R (and it can be burned as a ISO9660 with MP3s, no need to make a Red Book CD - the law is agnostic toward format), you have a fully legal copy of the work, and fair use rights no different than you would with a purchased CD. At that point, copy it back to the computer (format shift) and use it on your iPod, too, as is accepted practice.
Oh, I don't see it as a problem that the AHRA doesn't apply to computers - I'm happy buying $0.50 audio CD-Rs and paying the tax in exchange for the legal right to copy copyrighted audio content.
where 1 or maybe 2 users are utilizing an AP, seldom simultaneously.
In a corporate environment, where many active users may be on an AP, more bandwidth is can be very useful, and "n" is, well, almost twice as good as what's available.
Remember, wireless is a shared medium, like old Ethernet hubs, and that won't change within the current RF bandwidth limitations. Moving from a wired, switched 100 mbps connection to shared 54 mbps (802.11a or g) is almost always a very significant step down in speed in an enterprise network.
802.11n will help, but organizations thinking of going all wireless for user access (and there are a few) are foolish if they have any mission critical applications which depend upon bandwith or speed.
You're wrong when you say it doesn't apply to computers.
17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. - (emphasis added)
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders. These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.50 each.
So go ahead, make copies onto music/audio CD-R discs, even give copies to your friends. You can do so legally and without any moral problems - you've paid for the right to do so. As a matter of fact, not copying CDs would be theft - the music industry stealing from you through these forced royalties. (And the RIAA fought for this law. Thanks, RIAA!)
Oh, and if you also use those audio CD-R discs for downloaded music, then that would be legal, too!
Let me guess. He used toothpaste.
what I believe is likely the real reason.
Life was just plain a lot harder then.
It's as simple as that. We've moved from an agrarian society to an industrial one to a service economy. Life is easier. No more scythes or plowing with a horse. No more mining coal with pick axes. No subsistance farming or clearing new fields by hand (unless you want to, I suppose). People are more educated about what's healthy and what's not, no more mercury based patent medicines, or blood letting with leaches.
The article has it half right - modern medicine play a large part, but I believe the major effect is because it's able to recognize and address the true nature of ailments, not because it's making the human body more robust. That is, it's a remedial effect more than a prophylactic one.
That is, unless you're so insecure that you must have a creation mythos to explain your existence.
...and no, I don't think "string theory," or any of the esoteric physical theories represent any form of "reality." They're just mathematical constructions which strive to be part of a self-consistent mathematical system which is also used to measure observatons.
"God is dead." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Oh, here's a real definition of "1":
"1" is the symbol for the numeral which represents the number one.
Really, I'm done trying to discuss anything meaningful with someone who thinks mockery is a legitimate form of argument. buh-bye!
You skipped a turn, and still owe us a definition of "God."
"Honestly, it's pointless to try to "define" personhood in any way that does not directly involve God.
Then define "God" without using circular logic or blind faith.