who the fuck cares if terrorists use the net to communicate? Its the year 2005 folks meeting the communication needs of a fortune 500 company is a challenge but communicating between a handful of people among millions there is just no way to prevent it or track it. These toolkits and restrictions wont work on terrorists...If your motivated enough to ram a plane into a building you sure as hell can figure out a way to send a message.
Lets face it anyone that reads this site daily could think of 100 ways to covertly send a message to someone without it ever being decoded or traced. I could easily manualy encode a text message that the CIA would never be able to decode and post it right here. This is not being created to peirce terrorist secrecy but our Privacy.
No ruling said he owned it they held a license...and a physical copy (which in copyright terms is the ownership of one copy...except in regards to music)
from the ruling... The court ruled that the programer OWNED the copyright but the company could modify it as FAIR USE because it owned a physical copy!!
This a Major ruling for fair use. and could very well be applied to using mod chips etc.
I think SGI's standing in the hollywood's post-production/FX area is enough to get Steve to write a check. and lets face it it wouldn't be a very big check (120 million) just a drop in the bucket for Apple.
now that just leaves Novell, Autodesk, Adobe and Sun to buy up and the great empire will be complete!!!
But They KNEW it was sending the spam. They intended it to be infected. If I purposely facilitated an illegal act I would go to jail. Honest judge I just left the loaded gun and crowbar on my neighbors porch to see who would break in so I could report them.
In theory it costs the same to keep a data room at 60 degrees as it does to keep it at 80. in both cases your just removing the heat your adding with the equipment. the only difference comes as you increase the difference between the outside temp and the room temp therefore increasing the rate heat will leak in. If your dataroom is well insulated there should be little difference.
To do this would cost around $50,000 with xRaids and xSan...$2000/TB is probably the best price your going to get. You could do this with generic hardware but the cost of assembling, the extra room, extra power consumption and the maintaince and enginnering costs will cetainly wipe out what you might save. The xRaid solution could be up in a day and fit in one (actually 1/2) rack.
I do remember some college buiding a nearline backup storage system using 1U servers with 2 or 3raid cards each connected to like 12 drives per machine in homemade brackets but it was hardly ideal. But It did work. Anybody remember where that was?
Every movie or TV show that has ever featured the president has used the seal. You'll see it ten times or more on every episode of the West Wing or Commander and Chief. The Law does not forbid that. The Law states you can't use it in a way that gives the impression that the President approved the product or document its on. No reasonable person would think the PARODY done by the Onion really came from the White House... end of discussion.
This cease and desist letter is just what most are... a scare tactic. The only difference here is that when the govenment trys to scare you is called a Civil Rights Violation and the person who sent it should be imprisioned.
This isn't a PS killer its a Bridge killer. Aperture is designed to import catalog and adjust your photos much like bridge. Photoshop is still the man as far as editing and modifing goes.
This could be considered a shot across the bow of Adobe as a warning that they could release a Photoshop killer and a foot in the door to warm Photoshop users up to the idea of leaving Adobe.
OK ignore that last paragraph exept for the VSDA part...I had a long night last night.
yes PPV are released AFTER the video rental release date and few movies are still released to the rental only market ($70 a copy) before release to sell though DVD ($15). (old days it was Rental-30-60 days...PPV few months...then sell though)
what they really want here it to be able to offer PPV (much sooner) when the movie releases to DVD by bundling them together. This is why the idea of offering the DVD after the show for $14 as some have suggested is impossible.
OK first off this isn't a free DVD when you buy a PPV its a free PPV when you buy a DVD.
Second its not a good buy as A. PPV + Discounted DVD on its release date may very well be less then $17.00 B. PPV plus used DVD out of bargin bin at video store is way cheaper by the time you actually want to see this movie again. C. The courts have said you can legally record a PPV. Infact several cable providers used to recomend it.
Third its Illegal as hell...can we say anti-trust laws boys and girls...the idea here is to sell DVDs that are NOT RELEASED yet to the general public (movies hit PPV 30-60 days before DVD). The VSDA would go balistic as would Blockbuster, Wal-mart, Amazon etc, etc.
"What you are doing violates the spirit of copyright. Time shifting a show and watching it once at your own convenience is different than archiving it and watching it multiple times. The latter is copyright infringement, and in my opinion, theft."
To bad your not on the supreme court they seem to think otherwise. As a matter of fact the cable companies used to promote this.
The is one simple and final solution to all this copyright BS.
Broad all inclusive compulsory liscencing. I'm talking about extending out to all forms media audio, video and text and all forms of distribution broadcast, downloads physical copies.
Just imagine if suddenly anyone could distibute anything in anyway by just paying a fair amount in royalties. Music services would compete based on service. cable TV would compete with direct downloads. This would seperate the content from the delivery system and prevent someone that controls one side from controlling the other.
People are already buying copies of movies copied off the screen in the movie theater complete with the comments of the filmer. Do you really think people wont just point there camcorders at there computer and/or tv screen and make a copy. Lets face it thats basicly how they make pan and scan conversions anyway. The only to reduce piracy is to make it easier to buy a movie then to pirate it.
the courts have ruled that first sale doctine defines you as recieving both the mylar and a license for one instance(not copy...copies are defined as "physical" and MP3s would not count) of the cd. you can make as many copies as you like as long as you only use on instance at a time.
Note that copyright law makes absolutely no distinction about how a copy is made... ripping a CD or downloading a MP3 is the same thing.
the reason the RIAA was never gone after downloaders is there is no way to establish that they don't already own a license for the music. As another poster said just show up in court with physical cds and the whole case is invalid. Even if they could the RIAA could no recieve more then actual damages ie the cost of the CDs...actually the profit from the cds.
FREESCALE focused on embedded market
IBM foucused on all three console makers
AMD Solid high end chips but lacking in low power mobile area-small company
INTEL Focus on the computer market - dominating the portable market - big company ie greater resources - fallen behind at high end but starting to catch up
Add to this that previously Apple has always had to make there own chipsets, being able to use Intel off the shelf chipsets will make a huge difference in Apples margins.
plus you gain better access to Wi-Max, USB, Xscale
First off these guys have never used the term Gmail only g-mail.
Its not really a web service of any kind just emailing a screenshot.
No one outside of the London financial circle would have ever heard of it. and in-fact probably only their customers.
The company never really promoted the term (or service) at all until immediately after Gmails appearance. (the next month the term appeared on the front of there homepage)(wayback-machine)
They obviously knew the term was generic and vague as the term was almost always listed with the companys name "Pronet g-mail"
You can only sue for YOUR damages ie lost business cost to reestablish your name etc. these guys are trying to get what they think its worth to google not what it was worth to them. They want around $50,000,000.
I really believe that Google offered them more than fair compensation for something that did not effect them adversely in the first place. This is just a case of greed (well they are a finanacial services company aren't they)
enough already with the iTunes bashing just because its the most popular. iTunes has by far the least restrictive DRM of any of the (drm) services. And lying about those who are fighting to keep as many rights available to the consumer as possible accomplish nothing.
how many of these articles come out and say iTunes is bad because it has DRM and DRM prevents you from burning CDs (but failing to mention that iTunes does not do this).
and adding misinformation such as this-
"Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers"
You can copy iTunes song to a billion computers if you want but you can only play them on 5 computers at a time. It should be noted that with a CD you can only legally use one copy at a time (first sale doctrine says you have a license for ONE COPY). In this instance iTunes actually expands the rights of its users.
PS changing the number of times IN A ROW one can burn a PLAYLIST is a nonissue - if your making more than 7 copys of a song your not backing up your pirating. and if you really need to have 60 copies just recreate the playlist and start over.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets face it anyone that reads this site daily could think of 100 ways to covertly send a message to someone without it ever being decoded or traced. I could easily manualy encode a text message that the CIA would never be able to decode and post it right here. This is not being created to peirce terrorist secrecy but our Privacy.
No ruling said he owned it they held a license ...and a physical copy (which in copyright terms is the ownership of one copy ...except in regards to music)
The court actually found him to hold the copyrights here. Company was negotiating for them when he left.
This a Major ruling for fair use. and could very well be applied to using mod chips etc.
now that just leaves Novell, Autodesk, Adobe and Sun to buy up and the great empire will be complete!!!
Sorta makes you wonder what kind of place they replaced it with.
But They KNEW it was sending the spam. They intended it to be infected. If I purposely facilitated an illegal act I would go to jail. Honest judge I just left the loaded gun and crowbar on my neighbors porch to see who would break in so I could report them.
So they admit to knowingly violating the law 18 Million times!!!!!
In theory it costs the same to keep a data room at 60 degrees as it does to keep it at 80. in both cases your just removing the heat your adding with the equipment. the only difference comes as you increase the difference between the outside temp and the room temp therefore increasing the rate heat will leak in. If your dataroom is well insulated there should be little difference.
I do remember some college buiding a nearline backup storage system using 1U servers with 2 or 3raid cards each connected to like 12 drives per machine in homemade brackets but it was hardly ideal. But It did work. Anybody remember where that was?
This cease and desist letter is just what most are... a scare tactic. The only difference here is that when the govenment trys to scare you is called a Civil Rights Violation and the person who sent it should be imprisioned.
This could be considered a shot across the bow of Adobe as a warning that they could release a Photoshop killer and a foot in the door to warm Photoshop users up to the idea of leaving Adobe.
I can just see Steve introducing the new 6G iPods and talking about how its made of stuff they use to armour tanks.
of course the next day some manufacturer of screen protectors will complain how Apple's putting them out of business and comparing them to M$.
Monty Python, Evil Dead, The Princess Bride, the A-Team, The Bush Administration...
You Keep Using That Word...
yes PPV are released AFTER the video rental release date and few movies are still released to the rental only market ($70 a copy) before release to sell though DVD ($15). (old days it was Rental-30-60 days...PPV few months ...then sell though)
what they really want here it to be able to offer PPV (much sooner) when the movie releases to DVD by bundling them together. This is why the idea of offering the DVD after the show for $14 as some have suggested is impossible.
Second its not a good buy as
A. PPV + Discounted DVD on its release date may very well be less then $17.00
B. PPV plus used DVD out of bargin bin at video store is way cheaper by the time you actually want to see this movie again.
C. The courts have said you can legally record a PPV. Infact several cable providers used to recomend it.
Third its Illegal as hell...can we say anti-trust laws boys and girls...the idea here is to sell DVDs that are NOT RELEASED yet to the general public (movies hit PPV 30-60 days before DVD). The VSDA would go balistic as would Blockbuster, Wal-mart, Amazon etc, etc.
Broad all inclusive compulsory liscencing. I'm talking about extending out to all forms media audio, video and text and all forms of distribution broadcast, downloads physical copies.
Just imagine if suddenly anyone could distibute anything in anyway by just paying a fair amount in royalties. Music services would compete based on service. cable TV would compete with direct downloads. This would seperate the content from the delivery system and prevent someone that controls one side from controlling the other.
People are already buying copies of movies copied off the screen in the movie theater complete with the comments of the filmer. Do you really think people wont just point there camcorders at there computer and/or tv screen and make a copy. Lets face it thats basicly how they make pan and scan conversions anyway. The only to reduce piracy is to make it easier to buy a movie then to pirate it.
Note that copyright law makes absolutely no distinction about how a copy is made... ripping a CD or downloading a MP3 is the same thing.
the reason the RIAA was never gone after downloaders is there is no way to establish that they don't already own a license for the music. As another poster said just show up in court with physical cds and the whole case is invalid. Even if they could the RIAA could no recieve more then actual damages ie the cost of the CDs ...actually the profit from the cds.
IBM foucused on all three console makers
AMD Solid high end chips but lacking in low power mobile area-small company
INTEL Focus on the computer market - dominating the portable market - big company ie greater resources - fallen behind at high end but starting to catch up
Add to this that previously Apple has always had to make there own chipsets, being able to use Intel off the shelf chipsets will make a huge difference in Apples margins.
plus you gain better access to Wi-Max, USB, Xscale
Its not really a web service of any kind just emailing a screenshot.
No one outside of the London financial circle would have ever heard of it. and in-fact probably only their customers.
The company never really promoted the term (or service) at all until immediately after Gmails appearance. (the next month the term appeared on the front of there homepage)(wayback-machine)
They obviously knew the term was generic and vague as the term was almost always listed with the companys name "Pronet g-mail"
You can only sue for YOUR damages ie lost business cost to reestablish your name etc. these guys are trying to get what they think its worth to google not what it was worth to them. They want around $50,000,000.
I really believe that Google offered them more than fair compensation for something that did not effect them adversely in the first place. This is just a case of greed (well they are a finanacial services company aren't they)
how many of these articles come out and say iTunes is bad because it has DRM and DRM prevents you from burning CDs (but failing to mention that iTunes does not do this).
and adding misinformation such as this-
"Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers"
You can copy iTunes song to a billion computers if you want but you can only play them on 5 computers at a time. It should be noted that with a CD you can only legally use one copy at a time (first sale doctrine says you have a license for ONE COPY). In this instance iTunes actually expands the rights of its users.
PS changing the number of times IN A ROW one can burn a PLAYLIST is a nonissue - if your making more than 7 copys of a song your not backing up your pirating. and if you really need to have 60 copies just recreate the playlist and start over.
to bad SoundJam came out in 1999 a full year before this. and as we all know SoundJam beget iTunes which beget the iPod.