I almost never buy monitors and PC's together. Back when I worked for Dell a long time ago, the claim was that businesses replaced monitors every other buying cycle on average. It may be the case that economics or compelling new features alter that cycle temporarily, but the fact is that businesses view monitors and boxes separately.
If every PC were purchased with a monitor there would be no market for KVM switches.
"In three years, monitors will be larger with higher resolutions for the same price we're paying today."
Maybe, but businesses don't consider higher resolution at the same price a compelling reason to switch out the display on the secratary's desk.
"Plus, if we want to re-use the old machines (either as work-from-home or donating) they'll be next to worthless without a monitor.
The machines are depreciated on a cycle and are "worthless". At my old job old machines were not reused as home machines for employees so I can't comment on that. I would rather buy my own that use a 3+ year old company box though. A machine is a machine and it has value separate from a monitor.
"I've built my own machines in the past, but stopped when I realized I could save money by buying a Dell, especially since I never once upgraded anything on my machine. Typically by the time I knew I needed something, the technology passed me by (AGP2x-4x-8x-PCIe) and I couldn't upgrade even if I wanted."
I've upgraded monitors, hard drives and memory. I never upgrade a CPU and occasionally reuse a chassis.
"So, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, I think the all-in-one, for most people and business is a great investment and aligns with their current replacement actions, even if they may not think so (i.e. I thought I would upgrade but never did)."
That's good for you and YOUR EXPERIENCE, but the PC market is very large and diverse and your experience isn't automatically the experience of every user or even a typical one. It's clear that there's a market for all-in-one style machines and the iMac is certainly best-of-breed there. The iMac is useless as a HTPC though. HTPC's don't use a conventional monitor at all and Apple doesn't offer a compelling product for that application.
The first PC to support dual displays was the IBM PC in 1981. The first PC OS to support it was IBM PC-DOS 1.0. Yes, PC's were text mode at that time, but dual monitor support was part of the original PC architecture and why the option ROMs and I/O mappings were distinct. DOS itself could do little with two monitors other than switch back and forth via the mode command, but applications could, and did, take advantage when they could. I ran dual-head CodeView before your precious Mac II in 1986.
OS/2 1.0 also had dual monitor support but that was officially dropped prior to release (mainly because MS was too stupid to figure out how to test and support it). I personally used dual-head OS/2 1.0 back in the day.
Frankly, it doesn't matter since multiple monitors didn't have significant adoption til long after, but to suggest that Apple came up with multiple monitors before PCs is absurd. Neither Macs nor PCs came up with the idea originally. I worked briefly on a dual 21" SGI workstation around 1985 or so while in college.
Thanks for the putting the burden on me to try to figure out just what you are trying to argue. If you are well-versed in copyright law, surely you can form an argument on your own or answer a simple question.
17 USC 512(c) is for "Information residing on systems or networks at direction of users." My feeling is that YouTube is not providing that kind of service. What YouTube does is create derivative works of user-provided content and profit by making them available to the entire internet community. The resultant works are not the user's original content and their use is not under the user's direct control. A user can restrict availability and delete the derivative works only. 17 USC 512(c) is meant for internet file storage IMO.
No doubt YouTube wants to consider itself not liable for the posting of infringing content by its users. Just wishing doesn't make it so, though. YouTube is not offering an ISP-like service nor is it offering neutral internet storage for a user's content. Instead, YouTube is a service that takes user-contributed content, provides a means for other users to view it, and ultimately profit from the (potentially infringing) content provided.
I see no parallel to an ISP service AT ALL and that was the original question---one which you've made no attempt to address yourself. Just why is it that an ISP cannot be held liable while YouTube can? Can you answer that or explain why YouTube also can't, please? I would be delighted to learn that YouTube qualifies for safe harbor and would love to hear a compelling argument to that effect.
"So if I write and record a song, copyright it and then release it my friends who then share it with a Zune, does that mean I can sue Microsoft for Creating a derivitive work based on my copyrighted materials?"
I think it would be for unauthorized distribution, not for derivative work. That's assuming it's possible at all.
"Perhaps I could then send a legal blackmail letter to microsoft offering to settle for $3700..."
Such a paltry sum would be reserved for each Zune owner. You would extort MS for far more.
Saying the Zune's DRM is viral is like saying the GPL is necessary to protect code freedom. In both cases, the derivative work has no impact on the freedom on the original so both are lies. The Zune DRM prevents further distribution of the shared work and timebombs it. It is not viral because the resultant work is a time-limited deadend. The GPL, on the other hand, imposes itself on derivative works and is therefore viral. The GPL spreads through its mechanism while the Zune DRM is used to assure its own death.
I find it curious that people argue that a license containing restrictions SPECIFICALLY meant to prevent restrictions on distribution would be used as a weapon to restrict distribution. Truly ironic.
If you don't like the resultant file Zune leaves on another device, just wait three days and it will be gone:-)
I understand your argument and I understand the parent's argument. It's a fact that the Zune mechanism is a new means of distribution that didn't exist before. It provides greater exposure to content, not less, and doesn't add restrictions to what already exists (only restrictions on the temporary, shared content). It's pretty much like making a photocopy using disappearing ink. If you like what you see and want a permanent version, the CC license says you can have that too for free. Frankly, this is tempest in a teapot (the RMS teapot at that).
MS needs to worry that it's proper for them to do this with copyrighted works, not CC-licensed works. Any CC-licensing content creator that feels harmed by what Zune is doing needs to have his head examined.
It is also not viral since it does not modify the original file; unencumbered files remain so. Zune simply enables a new, convenient means of exposing new people to content and that seems entirely compatible with a CC license even if the temporary file is not. If that particular means of distribution isn't compatible with the license then the user shouldn't use it. MS must do it this way since there is so much unencumbered content that is copyrighted and can't be legally distributed.
I think it's far more interesting that Zune enables limited distribution of copyrighted works and any lawsuit is more likely to come from there than any problem with a CC-licensed file.
"Your average computer buyer (c.f., Slashdot poster) buys a whole package when they upgrade: CPU, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and often printer."
Sources? Your average PC buyer isn't just a home user. Businesses don't buy like you claim they do. Home users don't always buy like you say either, though some do.
I'd be curious to see evidence that macs were doing multiple displays before PC's were. I was doing multiple displays with my PC at work in the late 80's and it was supported since the original IBM PC was introduced. I seriously doubt any mac was doing it at that time. Multiple heads became more common on PC's when Intel pushed the manufacturers to introduce workstation lines. Prior to that, dual displays were used for software development even in the DOS days and the very first version of Codeview supported it.
People like to replace their monitors and machines separately. The discussion isn't about slots and hard drive upgrades. The fact is that people upgrade monitors less often than computers.
"A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof.""
YouTube clearly does not qualify. How would you address ""...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"? YouTube creates their own modified versions of the content you upload; it is not simply a neutral conduit for it's users' data.
"...because they have failed to adequately use the 512 safe harbor.."
So where is it documented that artists are trying to collect royalties from lipsyncing home videos? The concern is with the uploading of entire copyrighted works. Should an artist be concerned when all his videos are uploaded to YouTube? Should he be concerned when all his music is made available for free? Is it fair when only 5% of his work is taken without compensation? 10%?
"...if I were an artist I hope I wouldnt be so money hungry that I was trying to literally grasp every penny out of every outlet possible."
Professional artists are in the business of selling their work. Why should they be held to a different standard as professionals in other businesses? Should the cashier at the grocery store not bother to ring up every tenth item because they shouldn't be so "money hungry"? Why do you think that some professionals, by virtue of their professions, should allow a portion of their work to go uncompensated? Why don't you come over and cut my grass this weekend for free then? I guess it's because you're too money hungry.
"Statistically, it is inevitable that eventually a breakout new band or director will arrive through You Tube without any member of the big corporations having their claws in them."
No it's not inevitable. Not even likely.
"For the RIAA this is about the fact that they want to retain control over every note of music you hear."
Last time I checked, music video stations where playing videos in order to sell advertising. Why shouldn't they pay for the content that ultimately nets them a profit?
They sell parts and list what goes in their systems.
I ordered two LX100 systems and upgraded the hard drives myself. I had much better luck (though not perfect) with the ATI video than nVidia when driving my HDTV sets, but otherwise I've been very happy with my units. They are quiet, well made and perform well. They aren't inexpensive though I'm sure you could do better pricewise.
MCE itself is pretty frustrating. It offers a plugin architecture and there's a good plugin called "My Movies" that you will probably want to install. Okoro does that for you when you buy from them. With my setup, my MCE usage is mostly limited to the "My Movies" and "My Videos" features. Otherwise, people generally prefer switching back to Windows for iTunes, browsing, P2P, etc.
"For example while my Quad G5 (PPC970) 2500 Mhz is fine for pro HD work if necessary upgrades (SCSI,HDI etc) done, a "real" Power5 AIX workstation used in petrol industry, military etc. would show it as a toy. It has near mainframe features packed to a workstation."
What features are those? Name some that make it not "a toy" compared to your PowerMac.
Keep in mind that, in the US, pornography involving those under 18 years old is illegal. I think that it's safe to say that there are a whole lot of people that have "sexual thoughts about kids" in that context. The US needs bring its age of consent definition in line with the rest of the first world.
"Does a psychologist here know the numbers on what portion of society is affected by that sickness?"
None that would care to comment I would guess. There's nothing more taboo than speaking frankly and objectively on that subject. It would certainly help if we could REALLY distiguish between children and young adults who are sexually active.
A common claim is that viewing child porn is a gateway to child molestation and that all adults drawn to that eventually become predators. Anyone with common sense knows the stupidity of such a claim but that the environment of hysteria that we have. There's no reward for the government in being objective on the matter. On the contrary, it's a great tool in instilling fear in the population.
You'd just better hope the one you killed isn't a cop.
If you have to make a decision to take such extreme measures, you should expect to have a difficult time defending yourself afterward regardless of the circumstances. The best solution is always avoidance if at all possible.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost never buy monitors and PC's together. Back when I worked for Dell a long time ago, the claim was that businesses replaced monitors every other buying cycle on average. It may be the case that economics or compelling new features alter that cycle temporarily, but the fact is that businesses view monitors and boxes separately.
If every PC were purchased with a monitor there would be no market for KVM switches.
"In three years, monitors will be larger with higher resolutions for the same price we're paying today."
Maybe, but businesses don't consider higher resolution at the same price a compelling reason to switch out the display on the secratary's desk.
"Plus, if we want to re-use the old machines (either as work-from-home or donating) they'll be next to worthless without a monitor.
The machines are depreciated on a cycle and are "worthless". At my old job old machines were not reused as home machines for employees so I can't comment on that. I would rather buy my own that use a 3+ year old company box though.
A machine is a machine and it has value separate from a monitor.
"I've built my own machines in the past, but stopped when I realized I could save money by buying a Dell, especially since I never once upgraded anything on my machine. Typically by the time I knew I needed something, the technology passed me by (AGP2x-4x-8x-PCIe) and I couldn't upgrade even if I wanted."
I've upgraded monitors, hard drives and memory. I never upgrade a CPU and occasionally reuse a chassis.
"So, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, I think the all-in-one, for most people and business is a great investment and aligns with their current replacement actions, even if they may not think so (i.e. I thought I would upgrade but never did)."
That's good for you and YOUR EXPERIENCE, but the PC market is very large and diverse and your experience isn't automatically the experience of every user or even a typical one. It's clear that there's a market for all-in-one style machines and the iMac is certainly best-of-breed there. The iMac is useless as a HTPC though. HTPC's don't use a conventional monitor at all and Apple doesn't offer a compelling product for that application.
The first PC to support dual displays was the IBM PC in 1981. The first PC OS to support it was IBM PC-DOS 1.0. Yes, PC's were text mode at that time, but dual monitor support was part of the original PC architecture and why the option ROMs and I/O mappings were distinct. DOS itself could do little with two monitors other than switch back and forth via the mode command, but applications could, and did, take advantage when they could. I ran dual-head CodeView before your precious Mac II in 1986.
OS/2 1.0 also had dual monitor support but that was officially dropped prior to release (mainly because MS was too stupid to figure out how to test and support it). I personally used dual-head OS/2 1.0 back in the day.
Frankly, it doesn't matter since multiple monitors didn't have significant adoption til long after, but to suggest that Apple came up with multiple monitors before PCs is absurd. Neither Macs nor PCs came up with the idea originally. I worked briefly on a dual 21" SGI workstation around 1985 or so while in college.
Thanks for the putting the burden on me to try to figure out just what you are trying to argue. If you are well-versed in copyright law, surely you can form an argument on your own or answer a simple question.
17 USC 512(c) is for "Information residing on systems or networks at direction of users." My feeling is that YouTube is not providing that kind of service. What YouTube does is create derivative works of user-provided content and profit by making them available to the entire internet community. The resultant works are not the user's original content and their use is not under the user's direct control. A user can restrict availability and delete the derivative works only. 17 USC 512(c) is meant for internet file storage IMO.
No doubt YouTube wants to consider itself not liable for the posting of infringing content by its users. Just wishing doesn't make it so, though. YouTube is not offering an ISP-like service nor is it offering neutral internet storage for a user's content. Instead, YouTube is a service that takes user-contributed content, provides a means for other users to view it, and ultimately profit from the (potentially infringing) content provided.
I see no parallel to an ISP service AT ALL and that was the original question---one which you've made no attempt to address yourself. Just why is it that an ISP cannot be held liable while YouTube can? Can you answer that or explain why YouTube also can't, please? I would be delighted to learn that YouTube qualifies for safe harbor and would love to hear a compelling argument to that effect.
"So if I write and record a song, copyright it and then release it my friends who then share it with a Zune, does that mean I can sue Microsoft for Creating a derivitive work based on my copyrighted materials?"
I think it would be for unauthorized distribution, not for derivative work. That's assuming it's possible at all.
"Perhaps I could then send a legal blackmail letter to microsoft offering to settle for $3700..."
Such a paltry sum would be reserved for each Zune owner. You would extort MS for far more.
Saying the Zune's DRM is viral is like saying the GPL is necessary to protect code freedom. In both cases, the derivative work has no impact on the freedom on the original so both are lies. The Zune DRM prevents further distribution of the shared work and timebombs it. It is not viral because the resultant work is a time-limited deadend. The GPL, on the other hand, imposes itself on derivative works and is therefore viral. The GPL spreads through its mechanism while the Zune DRM is used to assure its own death.
I find it curious that people argue that a license containing restrictions SPECIFICALLY meant to prevent restrictions on distribution would be used as a weapon to restrict distribution. Truly ironic.
:-)
If you don't like the resultant file Zune leaves on another device, just wait three days and it will be gone
I understand your argument and I understand the parent's argument. It's a fact that the Zune mechanism is a new means of distribution that didn't exist before. It provides greater exposure to content, not less, and doesn't add restrictions to what already exists (only restrictions on the temporary, shared content). It's pretty much like making a photocopy using disappearing ink. If you like what you see and want a permanent version, the CC license says you can have that too for free. Frankly, this is tempest in a teapot (the RMS teapot at that).
MS needs to worry that it's proper for them to do this with copyrighted works, not CC-licensed works. Any CC-licensing content creator that feels harmed by what Zune is doing needs to have his head examined.
It is also not viral since it does not modify the original file; unencumbered files remain so. Zune simply enables a new, convenient means of exposing new people to content and that seems entirely compatible with a CC license even if the temporary file is not. If that particular means of distribution isn't compatible with the license then the user shouldn't use it. MS must do it this way since there is so much unencumbered content that is copyrighted and can't be legally distributed.
I think it's far more interesting that Zune enables limited distribution of copyrighted works and any lawsuit is more likely to come from there than any problem with a CC-licensed file.
"Your average computer buyer (c.f., Slashdot poster) buys a whole package when they upgrade: CPU, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and often printer."
Sources? Your average PC buyer isn't just a home user. Businesses don't buy like you claim they do. Home users don't always buy like you say either, though some do.
I'd be curious to see evidence that macs were doing multiple displays before PC's were. I was doing multiple displays with my PC at work in the late 80's and it was supported since the original IBM PC was introduced. I seriously doubt any mac was doing it at that time. Multiple heads became more common on PC's when Intel pushed the manufacturers to introduce workstation lines. Prior to that, dual displays were used for software development even in the DOS days and the very first version of Codeview supported it.
People like to replace their monitors and machines separately. The discussion isn't about slots and hard drive upgrades. The fact is that people upgrade monitors less often than computers.
"...the industry hasn't followed suit yet?"
The industry had done it already, but many customers want their monitors and computers to be separate (particularly the business ones).
I'm curious to know why you chose to respond to my post rather than the parent. Specifically, why didn't you respond to the question:
g i?QuestionID=127
"What allows an ISP to ignore copyright violation, via transmissions through the network, while a website can't?"
Are you claiming that YouTube qualifies as a service provider under 512?
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.c
"A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof.""
YouTube clearly does not qualify. How would you address ""...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"? YouTube creates their own modified versions of the content you upload; it is not simply a neutral conduit for it's users' data.
"...because they have failed to adequately use the 512 safe harbor.."
Yes, it's this one.
So where is it documented that artists are trying to collect royalties from lipsyncing home videos? The concern is with the uploading of entire copyrighted works. Should an artist be concerned when all his videos are uploaded to YouTube? Should he be concerned when all his music is made available for free? Is it fair when only 5% of his work is taken without compensation? 10%?
"...if I were an artist I hope I wouldnt be so money hungry that I was trying to literally grasp every penny out of every outlet possible."
Professional artists are in the business of selling their work. Why should they be held to a different standard as professionals in other businesses? Should the cashier at the grocery store not bother to ring up every tenth item because they shouldn't be so "money hungry"? Why do you think that some professionals, by virtue of their professions, should allow a portion of their work to go uncompensated? Why don't you come over and cut my grass this weekend for free then? I guess it's because you're too money hungry.
So you are saying that YouTube is in a similar position?
It's not about lipsyncing videos, although anyone song that gets the lipsync treatment is popular enough to matter.
It would be interesting to see your change in perspective if you ever produced anything worthy of being lipsynced on youtube.
"What allows an ISP to ignore copyright violation, via transmissions through the network, while a website can't?"
No one said a website couldn't, but ISP's can as long as they are a common carrier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
I'd love to see YouTube argue that it's a common carrier.
"Statistically, it is inevitable that eventually a breakout new band or director will arrive through You Tube without any member of the big corporations having their claws in them."
No it's not inevitable. Not even likely.
"For the RIAA this is about the fact that they want to retain control over every note of music you hear."
That has never been the case.
Last time I checked, music video stations where playing videos in order to sell advertising. Why shouldn't they pay for the content that ultimately nets them a profit?
Perhaps because you see value in it and you aren't associated with businesses that feel harmed by it?
There are more potential buyers for youtube than just the RIAA/MPAA.
I chose to purchase prebuilt systems from here: http://www.okoromedia.com/
They sell parts and list what goes in their systems.
I ordered two LX100 systems and upgraded the hard drives myself. I had much better luck (though not perfect) with the ATI video than nVidia when driving my HDTV sets, but otherwise I've been very happy with my units. They are quiet, well made and perform well. They aren't inexpensive though I'm sure you could do better pricewise.
MCE itself is pretty frustrating. It offers a plugin architecture and there's a good plugin called "My Movies" that you will probably want to install. Okoro does that for you when you buy from them. With my setup, my MCE usage is mostly limited to the "My Movies" and "My Videos" features. Otherwise, people generally prefer switching back to Windows for iTunes, browsing, P2P, etc.
"For example while my Quad G5 (PPC970) 2500 Mhz is fine for pro HD work if necessary upgrades (SCSI,HDI etc) done, a "real" Power5 AIX workstation used in petrol industry, military etc. would show it as a toy. It has near mainframe features packed to a workstation."
What features are those? Name some that make it not "a toy" compared to your PowerMac.
The 970 is a Power4 derivative. Power5 is newer.
Hmmm, didn't stop IBM from doing the 970/G5.
Please explain (aside from the few more MHz part).
Keep in mind that, in the US, pornography involving those under 18 years old is illegal. I think that it's safe to say that there are a whole lot of people that have "sexual thoughts about kids" in that context. The US needs bring its age of consent definition in line with the rest of the first world.
"Does a psychologist here know the numbers on what portion of society is affected by that sickness?"
None that would care to comment I would guess. There's nothing more taboo than speaking frankly and objectively on that subject. It would certainly help if we could REALLY distiguish between children and young adults who are sexually active.
A common claim is that viewing child porn is a gateway to child molestation and that all adults drawn to that eventually become predators. Anyone with common sense knows the stupidity of such a claim but that the environment of hysteria that we have. There's no reward for the government in being objective on the matter. On the contrary, it's a great tool in instilling fear in the population.
You'd just better hope the one you killed isn't a cop.
If you have to make a decision to take such extreme measures, you should expect to have a difficult time defending yourself afterward regardless of the circumstances. The best solution is always avoidance if at all possible.