It's completely optional. What I'm more concerned about than bandwidth (I have unlimited) is battery usage. They also give you the option to have it postpone uploading until you have plugged the phone into a charger. I do it that way. I think you can also have it only do it when you are connected to Wifi, but I don't remember.
It's pretty funny how they are ranting and raving about their feature in iOS 5 that allows you to use the volume button as a shutter button. This has been the case on iPhone for some time with 3rd party apps, although Apple kicked them out of the store because it would confuse customers.
I got an email from them indicating my shipment would be delayed and I would be credited. However, it did arrive on time. I have noticed no lapse in service.
I'm not sure about Time Warner, but I have a Motorola DVR from Cox and mine DOES have a hard drive and stores all of the recordings locally. You can see it through the grille in the top of the box, it is a Western Digital Caviar 80 GB.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Last time I checked, we had something called the fourth amendment.
However, I guess it is possible that the fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable searches only by government officials.
You may actually be required to submit yourself to searches by any other civilian that demands it.
I just looked out my windows to see the mail carrier leaving. Since he just opened my mailbox, should I be able to flag him down and demand a search of his truck so that I can verify that he didn't steal anything from my property?
FACT: I did see him leaving my property.
FACT: His truck was filled with a lot of stuff.
Reasonable cause to search his truck? I think so......
I'll be back.
However, though the items may now be his property, he's still standing on their property
This is true. However, suppose they had asked you to show them the contents of your wallet simply because you were on their property? Should you feel obligated to do so? I doubt it.
Let's say you drive through the McDonald's window and order a really nasty triple-thick dripping milkshake. At the window, the girl demands to see your identification and orders you to empty your pockets and let her inspect the contents of your glove box.
Do you allow her to do this? If not, why not? You are, in fact, on McDonald's property, right?
Does Wal-mart at least label their CDs in retail stores and disclose in their online store that the songs are edited versions? The politics of it aside, as long as they are upfront about selling edited versions of songs, then I have no problem with it. However, if they are not being honest about selling songs that aren't the "real" ones, then that is plain deceptive.
Yes, they are upfront about it. They've always been open about this.
Either way, the songs don't have the advisory label on them. They are selling the same copy of it that the record companies send them.
This has ALWAYS been the case with movies. Only nowadays are you seeing UNEDITED ones released.
Coming from a radio background myself, let's talk about the Nickelback song, Rockstar.
I have not personally heard the version with "drug dealer" cut out. However, I know for a fact that there are SEVERAL version of this song circulated by the record company itself. Some stations will not play the song unless specific changes are made. For example, I have heard many stations play the song as-is. There is also a station in my home town, Roanoke, VA, that plays a version with both "Assholes" and "Ass" muted out. "Drug dealer" is still there, though.
WFLZ here in Tampa, FL (where I am today) plays a version with "Drug Dealer" but "Assholes" is blurred a little bit but "Ass" is still intact.
It's not necessarily always a matter of what the government says to do, but also a matter of what is right and wrong to broadcast over the air. It's a matter of preference and what the station itself feels is acceptable.
Croddy,
Good comment. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I used to edit music for a living. Well, part of a living. Really, anything in radio is "part" of a living for most.
There are a few popular methods for editing songs for content. There are other reasons for editing songs, but we'll focus on editing for clean radio versions (content).
As you mentioned, recording alternate lyrics is one. This requires extra time in the studio, obviously. Lots of hip-hop artists do this nowadays. Eminem is very good at doing it in such a way that you don't even realize that the lyrics were changed until you finally hear a filthy version. This is the preferred method by most listeners, because the song doesn't sound like it was messed with too much, as long as the substitute lyrics work well.
The Live/Lightning Crashes example uses this method.
Another method is to reverse the offending lyric. Sometimes they get lazy and reverse the instrumental part of the track, too. This sounds awful. The preferred method here is to reverse only the vocal, and leave the music alone. If you have a track at home where they do this, rip it in and play that part backwards. You'll hear your word.
This method doesn't require much post-production work at all, and zero extra time in the studio for the artist. Same as the next method... muting, or drop-outs.
Real simple here... just mute the offensive lyrics on the acapella track. Song sounds edited, but doesn't require time from artist and very little post-production time. I think the longest it ever took me to do this on even the worst offending song was about 20 minutes.
Last major method is to replace the offending lyric with another sound... sound effect, whatever. Requires muting and then selecting a new sound to put into its place. No extra time from artist, but a little extra post-production effort. Hip-hop songs like to do this a lot.
That particular edit (Live - Lightning Crashes) was done by the record company for the radio edit, which is also shorter in length. Very rarely do stations edit the songs themselves for purposes of censorship.
I used to work in radio (in IT these days) and one of my responsibilities was editing music.
I've never used Tivo, but my Cox DVR can distinguish new episodes from reruns (i.e. record only NEW episodes of Lost, House, etc. do NOT record reruns). A friend of mine who has a Tivo said that the Tivo cannot do that.
Actually I was on their site the other day looking for a way to contact them. I had no luck finding such information.
Anyways, my interest was in purchasing music that I hear on Top 40 radio. Every song nowadays seems to be a different version than the one you end up getting on the CD when you buy it... whether it be the language, or the entire song is a different mix.
The RIAA wants us to hear their songs on the radio and then go out and buy them... if we do that, we end up finding that 9 times out of 10 we get a different freaking song!
The only way to get the song you hear on the radio is to download it illegally... I don't get it.
Aren't most websites copyrighted, too? Could we not copy a website to our computer and then zip it up and send it around to everyone? Is the website at fault for making their COPYRIGHTED site available to the public?
Isn't putting a COPYRIGHTED TV show on TV a crime, then, too? I mean, it makes it available for us to make copies of it.
I'm confused... I guess radio stations are guilty as sin (well, more guilty than they were after the payola thing), too.
If I can't copy the music between iPods, can't move the music to a new computer, and now can't sell the iPod with the music on it, what exactly am I buying? Do I even get to LISTEN to the music, or do I need to first sign a form somewhere that clearly states my intent to do so with no other persons within earshot? Good grief.
i thought about leaving my 2000+ songs on there and addign that as a selling point. with what little common sense i DO have, i figured it would be illegal and i didnt want to get sued.
You just need to delete the files and re-word your selling point.
15GB iPod with 2,000+ deleted files on it! Great bargain!
What if he didn't have the CDs? What if all the ~11k songs were downloads from iTunes?
In this case they are all protected by Apple's DRM and he can't be doing anything illegal anyways, because that's not allowed.
I saw a guy run a red light this morning. I was thinking about reporting it to the police, but the MPAA has thankfully showed me the err of my ways.
I think I'm going to go steal the dude's car before I report it.. that way, the car will be locked away safely in case the police need it as evidence.
Thanks MPAA.
They are saying that they didn't do it for financial gain? But didn't they also say that it may be evidence in a potential lawsuit? If they plan to seek a monetary award in the lawsuit, than technically, they copied the DVD for financial gain.
Second, if they claim that it's okay that they copied the movie in case of a potential future lawsuit, then that's all I need to claim if I copy a movie, right? I may have a reason to sue the producer at some point in the future, and I need to hold on to a copy of this movie just in case.
Slashdot Mirror
It's completely optional. What I'm more concerned about than bandwidth (I have unlimited) is battery usage. They also give you the option to have it postpone uploading until you have plugged the phone into a charger. I do it that way. I think you can also have it only do it when you are connected to Wifi, but I don't remember.
It's pretty funny how they are ranting and raving about their feature in iOS 5 that allows you to use the volume button as a shutter button. This has been the case on iPhone for some time with 3rd party apps, although Apple kicked them out of the store because it would confuse customers.
iPhone people are waiting for Steve Jobs to say that Google+ is suitable for his followers.
How do they guarantee that when you report a movie lost in the mail that it's not really lost?
I got an email from them indicating my shipment would be delayed and I would be credited. However, it did arrive on time. I have noticed no lapse in service.
I'm not sure about Time Warner, but I have a Motorola DVR from Cox and mine DOES have a hard drive and stores all of the recordings locally. You can see it through the grille in the top of the box, it is a Western Digital Caviar 80 GB.
It'll take three days. You're a fool if you think it will take a minute less. Only fully-qualified-convicted celebrities spend less time than that.
Does Wal-mart at least label their CDs in retail stores and disclose in their online store that the songs are edited versions? The politics of it aside, as long as they are upfront about selling edited versions of songs, then I have no problem with it. However, if they are not being honest about selling songs that aren't the "real" ones, then that is plain deceptive. Yes, they are upfront about it. They've always been open about this. Either way, the songs don't have the advisory label on them. They are selling the same copy of it that the record companies send them. This has ALWAYS been the case with movies. Only nowadays are you seeing UNEDITED ones released.
Coming from a radio background myself, let's talk about the Nickelback song, Rockstar. I have not personally heard the version with "drug dealer" cut out. However, I know for a fact that there are SEVERAL version of this song circulated by the record company itself. Some stations will not play the song unless specific changes are made. For example, I have heard many stations play the song as-is. There is also a station in my home town, Roanoke, VA, that plays a version with both "Assholes" and "Ass" muted out. "Drug dealer" is still there, though. WFLZ here in Tampa, FL (where I am today) plays a version with "Drug Dealer" but "Assholes" is blurred a little bit but "Ass" is still intact. It's not necessarily always a matter of what the government says to do, but also a matter of what is right and wrong to broadcast over the air. It's a matter of preference and what the station itself feels is acceptable.
Croddy, Good comment. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I used to edit music for a living. Well, part of a living. Really, anything in radio is "part" of a living for most. There are a few popular methods for editing songs for content. There are other reasons for editing songs, but we'll focus on editing for clean radio versions (content). As you mentioned, recording alternate lyrics is one. This requires extra time in the studio, obviously. Lots of hip-hop artists do this nowadays. Eminem is very good at doing it in such a way that you don't even realize that the lyrics were changed until you finally hear a filthy version. This is the preferred method by most listeners, because the song doesn't sound like it was messed with too much, as long as the substitute lyrics work well. The Live/Lightning Crashes example uses this method. Another method is to reverse the offending lyric. Sometimes they get lazy and reverse the instrumental part of the track, too. This sounds awful. The preferred method here is to reverse only the vocal, and leave the music alone. If you have a track at home where they do this, rip it in and play that part backwards. You'll hear your word. This method doesn't require much post-production work at all, and zero extra time in the studio for the artist. Same as the next method... muting, or drop-outs. Real simple here... just mute the offensive lyrics on the acapella track. Song sounds edited, but doesn't require time from artist and very little post-production time. I think the longest it ever took me to do this on even the worst offending song was about 20 minutes. Last major method is to replace the offending lyric with another sound... sound effect, whatever. Requires muting and then selecting a new sound to put into its place. No extra time from artist, but a little extra post-production effort. Hip-hop songs like to do this a lot.
That particular edit (Live - Lightning Crashes) was done by the record company for the radio edit, which is also shorter in length. Very rarely do stations edit the songs themselves for purposes of censorship.
I used to work in radio (in IT these days) and one of my responsibilities was editing music.
I've never used Tivo, but my Cox DVR can distinguish new episodes from reruns (i.e. record only NEW episodes of Lost, House, etc. do NOT record reruns). A friend of mine who has a Tivo said that the Tivo cannot do that.
Pardon me if I am incorrect.
I already do this to every MP3 (ripped and encoded or whatever...). It's called normalizing.
I don't get it. Are you saying that if I buy a CD at the store I have to register it?
Actually I was on their site the other day looking for a way to contact them. I had no luck finding such information. Anyways, my interest was in purchasing music that I hear on Top 40 radio. Every song nowadays seems to be a different version than the one you end up getting on the CD when you buy it... whether it be the language, or the entire song is a different mix. The RIAA wants us to hear their songs on the radio and then go out and buy them... if we do that, we end up finding that 9 times out of 10 we get a different freaking song! The only way to get the song you hear on the radio is to download it illegally... I don't get it.
Aren't most websites copyrighted, too? Could we not copy a website to our computer and then zip it up and send it around to everyone? Is the website at fault for making their COPYRIGHTED site available to the public? Isn't putting a COPYRIGHTED TV show on TV a crime, then, too? I mean, it makes it available for us to make copies of it. I'm confused... I guess radio stations are guilty as sin (well, more guilty than they were after the payola thing), too.
You just need to delete the files and re-word your selling point.
15GB iPod with 2,000+ deleted files on it! Great bargain!
Maybe they bought the songs off of allofmp3.com when they were only a penny/megabyte.
Maybe the guy is a big Pepsi drinker and the songs were just a byproduct.
What if he didn't have the CDs? What if all the ~11k songs were downloads from iTunes? In this case they are all protected by Apple's DRM and he can't be doing anything illegal anyways, because that's not allowed.
I saw a guy run a red light this morning. I was thinking about reporting it to the police, but the MPAA has thankfully showed me the err of my ways. I think I'm going to go steal the dude's car before I report it.. that way, the car will be locked away safely in case the police need it as evidence. Thanks MPAA.
They are saying that they didn't do it for financial gain? But didn't they also say that it may be evidence in a potential lawsuit? If they plan to seek a monetary award in the lawsuit, than technically, they copied the DVD for financial gain. Second, if they claim that it's okay that they copied the movie in case of a potential future lawsuit, then that's all I need to claim if I copy a movie, right? I may have a reason to sue the producer at some point in the future, and I need to hold on to a copy of this movie just in case.