Ask them how it's possible to exercise fair use with a law preventing distribution of the tools allowing fair use, citing the RealDVD case. Ask for suggestions on how to legally time shift a DVD for watching on a netbook, or how to make a backup of a $30 DVD so you can still enjoy what you paid for when it gets dropped/scratched/eaten/rolled over by an office chair.
That wouldn't be very compelling, as it's trivial to copy a DVD to your hard drive or create a backup without circumventing CSS.
My computer can copy bits from a CD, making it a device or tool that permits me (a customer) to copy copyrighted stuff. Does that make my computer illegal as well (if I ever hauled it to America)?
No. It's not illegal to copy a CD or DVD. What's illegal is circumventing the copy protection mechanism. You can easily make a copy without removing CSS, perfectly legally.
Also, as the case with vide recorders went, it's not illegal to supply or use tools that can be used to violate copyright, as long as said device has significant non-infringing uses. Which clearly your computer does.
So it's perfectly legal for customers to make their own backup copies of media, just as long as it's impossible for them to do. God, I love modern IP law!
Except, of course, that it isn't. It's perfectly feasible to create backups of your discs, you just aren't allowed to remove the CSS.
If I go on a business trip- I want to be able to watch movies I PAID for on my laptop, without having to use the costly (battery-wise) DVD drive or carry bulky DVDs. I also now want to watch movies on my netbook- which doesn't have a DVD drive at all. In any case- I am talking about DVDs that I PAID for!
Why do you have to decrypt the CSS to do that? Just create a disk image on your hard drive without removing the CSS. It will work fine.
No, the net effect is that there is no possible way to exercise your right to a single backup of a DVD for your personal use.
Say what? Of course there is. Simply create a disk image of the DVD on your hard drive, without decrypting the CSS. It will play back fine with many desktop DVD player applications.
Yeah, but they're still supporting energy consumption by saying "drive your (electric) car to work" rather than encouraging, say, cycling or public transport.
Why would a company wanting to reduce its carbon footprint discourage electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? I realize from an absolute sense they are reducing "their" carbon footprint, but image is important to companies.
Because image is important to companies, and this reduces their carbon footprint, so they can call their business green. If they increased their carbon footprint by charging employees' cars, they would look bad.
Further, from a global perspective even a coal plant + electric motor is better than an ICE for power/carbon output.
But the company was never paying for the employees' gas in the first place - that was the responsibility of the employee and their own conscience. Now the company's environmental image is largely in the hand of how much their employees drive. And the more people who switch to electric cars to take advantage of this free offer, the worse the company's carbon footprint looks.
Fill the car up with all the electricity/gas that it can handle and run it until it is dry (or at least dry enough for your MTBF numbers to be correct). Then look at how far you went and give us those numbers.
That's a fucking retarded way to measure mileage, because that's not how people use their cars unless traveling cross-country. The typical use is short commutes, with stop-start driving.
Perhaps that wasn't their intention, but iTunes doesn't run on an iPod, it runs on Windows (not exclusively of course). And like you mentioned, Windows is designed to work with everything. So why can't "Windows" (iTunes) sync with my Pre or my Sansa or any other player?
That's quite a bizarre argument. Because it runs on Windows, it should work with everything? Then Blizzard should be compelled to make World of Warcraft work with a competing games' servers, I guess. AutoCAD should sync with my iPod!
Apple just won't let you do it. It's vendor lock-in.
Well, that's Apple's perogative. They developed iTunes, and they give it away for free. There is no obligation to support competing products. Microsoft nor Palm had anything to do with developing the product.
The claim of lock-in is bullshit, because Apple does provide a documented method for accessing the iTunes database. Palm could have worked with that by making their own syncing utility that reads the iTunes database. But they didn't. They decided to use a silly hack, instead of taking a little extra effort to make a supported solution.
I still think that fundamentally there is no difference between what Apple is doing and what Microsoft has done in the past. But somehow Apple gets a pass.
Where's the similarity? Apple is doing this with products that Apple developed. That's nothing like Microsoft's relationship with OEMs, where they were intimidated not to offer any other OSes or deploy other browsers. Apple has no third-party OEMs, so there is no similarity. Microsoft's success stems from its monopoly with OEMs, which is why that is problematic. Apple has its own ecosystem that is not reliant on other companies.
But somehow Apple gets a pass.
Since when? The tech press is full of strident criticism of Apple about these very things. Not a slashdot story gets published without an Apple hate-fest. Where is the free pass?
If your bank requires Silverlight while 98% of Planet has Flash installed, they are desperate for MS money or donation of servers which is not a good thing for banks.
It could also mean that you took a wrong turn and accidently went to a movie theater instead of a bank. Seriously, why the hell does a bank need a video player?
Thats a fairly recent development and even then only because they were rapidly loosing market share to non-DRM stores like AmazonMP3.
Horseshit. Apple had DRM-free music for sale before the Amazon MP3 store ever opened. Steve Jobs was pleading with the labels to get rid of the DRM. In fact, without Apple's pressure on the labels for DRM-free music, it is unlikely that Amazon or anyone elsewould be selling DRM-free music today.
If you look at what actually happened, some of the labels were witholding DRM-free tracks from Apple and giving them to Amazon, as a form of punishment/coercion to get variable pricing on the music.
It's astounding how much revisionist history and FUD is spouted around this topic.
Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in. How is Apple blocking {not-an-iPod} from syncing with iTunes any different than if Microsoft blocked {not-IE} from running under Windows?
It's very different - Windows is designed to have third-party application software written for it. And it is as successful as it is, because of that software. iTunes was never intended to a platform for other music players than the iPod/iPhone (since the release of the iPod, that is).
So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.
But you're not a "customer" when you're using the Palm Pre rather than an iPhone. Also, a customer might blame Apple for a problem that is actually caused by Palm, if they allow syncing and it doesn't work properly. Safer not to allow it at all, than do Palm's user support for them, and get the bad image anyway.
Apple might not be doing the nicest thing in the world here, but it's really Palm that should take the blame. It was Palm that decided to build their system around a competing company's software product, without permission. Of course Palm knew that Apple was going to do this - they basically sold their customers a product based on a lie.
Oh, let me guess, it's a crappy TN panel, right? If you want a decent screen you want an S-IPS or H-IPS. "Everyone knows Viewsonic displays are the best"? WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
Ask them how it's possible to exercise fair use with a law preventing distribution of the tools allowing fair use, citing the RealDVD case. Ask for suggestions on how to legally time shift a DVD for watching on a netbook, or how to make a backup of a $30 DVD so you can still enjoy what you paid for when it gets dropped/scratched/eaten/rolled over by an office chair.
That wouldn't be very compelling, as it's trivial to copy a DVD to your hard drive or create a backup without circumventing CSS.
My computer can copy bits from a CD, making it a device or tool that permits me (a customer) to copy copyrighted stuff. Does that make my computer illegal as well (if I ever hauled it to America)?
No. It's not illegal to copy a CD or DVD. What's illegal is circumventing the copy protection mechanism. You can easily make a copy without removing CSS, perfectly legally.
Also, as the case with vide recorders went, it's not illegal to supply or use tools that can be used to violate copyright, as long as said device has significant non-infringing uses. Which clearly your computer does.
Come back to me in 1-5 years. I guarantee other countries will have their own DMCA.
Why wait? Australia has had a version for years.
So it's perfectly legal for customers to make their own backup copies of media, just as long as it's impossible for them to do. God, I love modern IP law!
Except, of course, that it isn't. It's perfectly feasible to create backups of your discs, you just aren't allowed to remove the CSS.
If I go on a business trip- I want to be able to watch movies I PAID for on my laptop, without having to use the costly (battery-wise) DVD drive or carry bulky DVDs. I also now want to watch movies on my netbook- which doesn't have a DVD drive at all. In any case- I am talking about DVDs that I PAID for!
Why do you have to decrypt the CSS to do that? Just create a disk image on your hard drive without removing the CSS. It will work fine.
No, the net effect is that there is no possible way to exercise your right to a single backup of a DVD for your personal use.
Say what? Of course there is. Simply create a disk image of the DVD on your hard drive, without decrypting the CSS. It will play back fine with many desktop DVD player applications.
Yeah, but they're still supporting energy consumption by saying "drive your (electric) car to work" rather than encouraging, say, cycling or public transport.
Why would a company wanting to reduce its carbon footprint discourage electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles? I realize from an absolute sense they are reducing "their" carbon footprint, but image is important to companies.
Because image is important to companies, and this reduces their carbon footprint, so they can call their business green. If they increased their carbon footprint by charging employees' cars, they would look bad.
Further, from a global perspective even a coal plant + electric motor is better than an ICE for power/carbon output.
But the company was never paying for the employees' gas in the first place - that was the responsibility of the employee and their own conscience. Now the company's environmental image is largely in the hand of how much their employees drive. And the more people who switch to electric cars to take advantage of this free offer, the worse the company's carbon footprint looks.
Fill the car up with all the electricity/gas that it can handle and run it until it is dry (or at least dry enough for your MTBF numbers to be correct). Then look at how far you went and give us those numbers.
That's a fucking retarded way to measure mileage, because that's not how people use their cars unless traveling cross-country. The typical use is short commutes, with stop-start driving.
RTFA. HTH.
RTFA.
Does anyone in the civilized world actually measure fuel economy in those units?
Yes.
Why try to hide it with nonsense units like km/L?
Because it's widely used. Since when were metric units nonsense?
My RT commute is ~24 miles. I can charge at work. Free gas anyone? Not having to charge at home means just a little more in my pocket each month.
That won't last long. Inevitably, your company will decide to reduce its carbon footprint, and that won't be allowed.
I found 10' and 11'6 netbook.
10 feet? That's a fucking enormous netbook! You could probably fit the entire internet on it.
PIN code and ATM dispenser are perfect examples.
Your proposed alternatives make no sense:
"PIN code": Personal Identification Number Code: It's a code that I use to access my personal identification number?
"ATM dispenser": Automatic Teller Machine Dispenser: It's a machine that dispenses automatic teller machines?
They could just say "it would scan their card information and record the PINs they entered" but I don't think it is very
Why not simply rephrase the sentence? For example: "It would scan the card and record the PIN."
It's not very difficult. One would think that the basics of writing should be important qualities in a job that primarily consists of writing.
You would like a factually incorrect post to be modded up? WTF?
Perhaps that wasn't their intention, but iTunes doesn't run on an iPod, it runs on Windows (not exclusively of course). And like you mentioned, Windows is designed to work with everything. So why can't "Windows" (iTunes) sync with my Pre or my Sansa or any other player?
That's quite a bizarre argument. Because it runs on Windows, it should work with everything? Then Blizzard should be compelled to make World of Warcraft work with a competing games' servers, I guess. AutoCAD should sync with my iPod!
Apple just won't let you do it. It's vendor lock-in.
Well, that's Apple's perogative. They developed iTunes, and they give it away for free. There is no obligation to support competing products. Microsoft nor Palm had anything to do with developing the product.
The claim of lock-in is bullshit, because Apple does provide a documented method for accessing the iTunes database. Palm could have worked with that by making their own syncing utility that reads the iTunes database. But they didn't. They decided to use a silly hack, instead of taking a little extra effort to make a supported solution.
I still think that fundamentally there is no difference between what Apple is doing and what Microsoft has done in the past. But somehow Apple gets a pass.
Where's the similarity? Apple is doing this with products that Apple developed. That's nothing like Microsoft's relationship with OEMs, where they were intimidated not to offer any other OSes or deploy other browsers. Apple has no third-party OEMs, so there is no similarity. Microsoft's success stems from its monopoly with OEMs, which is why that is problematic. Apple has its own ecosystem that is not reliant on other companies.
But somehow Apple gets a pass.
Since when? The tech press is full of strident criticism of Apple about these very things. Not a slashdot story gets published without an Apple hate-fest. Where is the free pass?
If your bank requires Silverlight while 98% of Planet has Flash installed, they are desperate for MS money or donation of servers which is not a good thing for banks.
It could also mean that you took a wrong turn and accidently went to a movie theater instead of a bank. Seriously, why the hell does a bank need a video player?
Thats a fairly recent development and even then only because they were rapidly loosing market share to non-DRM stores like AmazonMP3.
Horseshit. Apple had DRM-free music for sale before the Amazon MP3 store ever opened. Steve Jobs was pleading with the labels to get rid of the DRM. In fact, without Apple's pressure on the labels for DRM-free music, it is unlikely that Amazon or anyone elsewould be selling DRM-free music today.
If you look at what actually happened, some of the labels were witholding DRM-free tracks from Apple and giving them to Amazon, as a form of punishment/coercion to get variable pricing on the music.
It's astounding how much revisionist history and FUD is spouted around this topic.
Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in. How is Apple blocking {not-an-iPod} from syncing with iTunes any different than if Microsoft blocked {not-IE} from running under Windows?
It's very different - Windows is designed to have third-party application software written for it. And it is as successful as it is, because of that software. iTunes was never intended to a platform for other music players than the iPod/iPhone (since the release of the iPod, that is).
So I find it ironic that, as a MacBook Pro user, Apple has explicitly done something to make my experience *worse*. They went much further than simply failing to "provide support for, or test for compatibility with, non-Apple digital media players." They went out of their way to harm users.
But you're not a "customer" when you're using the Palm Pre rather than an iPhone. Also, a customer might blame Apple for a problem that is actually caused by Palm, if they allow syncing and it doesn't work properly. Safer not to allow it at all, than do Palm's user support for them, and get the bad image anyway.
Apple might not be doing the nicest thing in the world here, but it's really Palm that should take the blame. It was Palm that decided to build their system around a competing company's software product, without permission. Of course Palm knew that Apple was going to do this - they basically sold their customers a product based on a lie.
Yes, that's an eminently practical and ergonomic solution in so many ways.
Oh, let me guess, it's a crappy TN panel, right? If you want a decent screen you want an S-IPS or H-IPS. "Everyone knows Viewsonic displays are the best"? WTF?
This might just be the next revolution in the netbook industry.
There's an entire "netbook industry" now? I thought netbooks were just a product put out by the computer industry.