Shouldn't you actually research the product and read licensing and other specs before you pay for said product? It's called smart shopping. Geez, doesn't anybody look into what they buy anymore? I guess there is a sucker born every minute.
What? Did you even read the article? This is about people making OS X available for download. Of course Apple's copyright was violated. The OSx86 people do not have the right to redistribute the product to others.
Here's the problem. They are giving users who need it (poor students and schools) a generous price-cut out of good faith. They don't have to do that. They also don't have to give you a fully-functional application for the educational price. It relies on trust and honour, respect between people.
When you start saying things like "I have a right to find a way to work around it" - that may be true on a legal level, but it is certainly not ethical. It may be legally wrong, too - because you have lied when you said it was for academic purposes, possibly nullifying your license/contract.
However, the really annoying thing about this attitude, is that it encourages companies to stop offering educational discounts. It encourages them to raise prices, or to cripple the educational product, to avoid abuse of their educational sales. It just screws over everybody - schools, students, software developers. All because you lied, or wanted to "push the limits." If you are really broke, sure go ahead - pretend you are a student. But if you are making money from using the software - you don't get a free pass on getting the educational version. When you use it this way, it is also unfair on your honest business competitors. For example, I have always paid for Photoshop, because it makes me money. I make sure everyone gets paid well. But some rip-off artist will start a competing business, with lower overheads because he doesn't pay for the Photoshop our industry depends on.
It runs deep, to many levels. This kind of gaming the system has a real effect on innovation, prices and copy protection in the market. It's not worth it. I would rather have a strong and honest industry with a relationship of trust between vendor and customer. We all get more done that way. People who want profit for nothing are just a drain on society.
Ask the salesperson to show you the license, or use one of the online Macs in the Apple Store to check it out online. If you are going to make a major investment in hardware and software, and you are concerned about legal rights - wouldn't you do the research first? Unless you like being an uninformed consumer, of course.
The actual article continues the sentence with "or else explain the legal basis under which the records cannot be released."
I assume (hope) that he means in relation to specific cases. Like, if there is not a good (and hopefully specific) reason not to release a particular record, that record should be released.
They probably just keep the rips they dont have and build up a database over time.
Which would be illegal.
And if people want to nitpick over a slightly different version of 'thriller' by Michael Jackson, then they can burn in hell and deserve to get ripped off.
Again, the RIAA would complain, because giving away a different version of the song would also be illegal.
Plus if the customers CD is scratched, they still own the music, so they deserve a backup and a way to get to it. Getting a backup from an alternate source is not illegal AFAIK.
I think the courts decided otherwise in the case of some (can't remember the name) online "backup" service.
Once again, I ask if anyone has evidence if these ripping services actually do maintain a database, or if it is just baseless speculation. The claim that it makes operations more efficient also doesn't hold a lot of water. Looking for the correct matches in the database, and managing that database is still going to require some work. Easier just to load the customer's discs into a robotic loader - and avoids legal liability, too.
iTunes has some nice PDF digital booklets and lyrics booklets with some albums. Better than tiny CD format, IMO. Entirely printable. I wish more artists would do this - they are in the minority at the moment. But the potential (and some existing booklets) is amazing, more like a vinyl LP gatefold than a tiny CD liner.
Apple would likely play the "okay, we're not going to sell you ipods k thx bye" card.
No, they wouldn't. It would not only be stupid, it would be a real anti-trust violation - not like the wanky false accusation of anti-trust in the "iPod-iTunes lock-in" whine.
Are you saying that you can burn an album of music and have be recognizable by an IMBD and you can then rip it with song title etc... I don't think you are.
You can do exactly that with iTunes.
How do you know that every CD you burn doesn't have a hash that can be used to identify the account that made it?
What the hell? We are talking ripping files to a format like WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless, MP3, AAC from a CD you own. You don't need an "account" to do that, and an audio CD you burn in iTunes is standard redbook. I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. Why would Apple add a hash to standard audio rips? Do you have any evidence to indicate this is true? You could easily analyze lossless rips from iTunes and compare them against the data on the CD.
iTunes sells "digital booklets" in PDF with some albums, and they beat the pants off any CD liner notes or illustration. One booklet I bought included around adozen hi-res photographs that look perfectly beautiful printed in Super A3 size, without any compression artifacts noticeable in normal viewing. Some artists also include lyric booklets with their songs on iTunes.
Why would a CDR have lower audio quality than a pressed CD? It's a digital copy. Some players have problems reading the surface, but if it can read it, there is no reason why it would not provide the same quality. Higher fail rates, yes. But the media is cheap. And you can also use other backup methods - HDD, tape, punchcard etc.
That still does not give them the right to copy the music from their database and give it to other people. It might be a slightly different version of the CD (released in a different country, has bonus tracks, etc.) - or the customer's CD may be scratched - meaning you are really giving them something other than a rip of that CD, but rather illegally distributing their copies.
Do you actually have any evidence that they keep a library of ripped files and the original CDs? That seems very stupid, and very expensive. How are they supposed to have a copy of every possible customer's CD, and how would they make money if they had to pay for a copy of the original CDs? Doesn't make any sense. Sounds like a rumour, or an illegal operation.
Yes, you can use the lenses without a camera. They are still very useful optical device in their own right.
And iTMS and the iPod are not "artifically" tied to one another. You can easily use on ewithout another. I guess facts don't matter when you want to bash.
Re:Conditional product, conditional money.
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
It's not that simple. You know what the restrictions are before you buy it, you can choose not to buy it.
Nonsense. If I buy a Nikon camera, and then 5 years later, Canon comes out with a better camera, I have to re-buy all my lenses again. Does this make Nikon a monopoly?
Just like my penis is the new, trendy lollipop for young women.
Re:HDDVD is better than bluray, because it's simpl
on
The Great HDCP Fiasco
·
· Score: 1
Is there anything to prevent HD-DVD from adding this firmware-disabling feature? If Blu-Ray has it, and HD-DVD does not, I can imagine that content producers would boycott HD-DVD until it did. In short, I don't think anything is truly final about how these formats will work. Personally, I hope they both fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Violets are blue Roses are red Touch my stuff You'll get a chair in the head
Shouldn't you actually research the product and read licensing and other specs before you pay for said product? It's called smart shopping. Geez, doesn't anybody look into what they buy anymore? I guess there is a sucker born every minute.
What? Did you even read the article? This is about people making OS X available for download. Of course Apple's copyright was violated. The OSx86 people do not have the right to redistribute the product to others.
When you start saying things like "I have a right to find a way to work around it" - that may be true on a legal level, but it is certainly not ethical. It may be legally wrong, too - because you have lied when you said it was for academic purposes, possibly nullifying your license/contract.
However, the really annoying thing about this attitude, is that it encourages companies to stop offering educational discounts. It encourages them to raise prices, or to cripple the educational product, to avoid abuse of their educational sales. It just screws over everybody - schools, students, software developers. All because you lied, or wanted to "push the limits." If you are really broke, sure go ahead - pretend you are a student. But if you are making money from using the software - you don't get a free pass on getting the educational version. When you use it this way, it is also unfair on your honest business competitors. For example, I have always paid for Photoshop, because it makes me money. I make sure everyone gets paid well. But some rip-off artist will start a competing business, with lower overheads because he doesn't pay for the Photoshop our industry depends on.
It runs deep, to many levels. This kind of gaming the system has a real effect on innovation, prices and copy protection in the market. It's not worth it. I would rather have a strong and honest industry with a relationship of trust between vendor and customer. We all get more done that way. People who want profit for nothing are just a drain on society.
Ask the salesperson to show you the license, or use one of the online Macs in the Apple Store to check it out online. If you are going to make a major investment in hardware and software, and you are concerned about legal rights - wouldn't you do the research first? Unless you like being an uninformed consumer, of course.
It's just a fucking poem. It doesn't have any legal implications, nor is it relevant to the DMCA in any way. It's just a request.
I assume (hope) that he means in relation to specific cases. Like, if there is not a good (and hopefully specific) reason not to release a particular record, that record should be released.
Mmmmm ... whale blubber ... fuel (and lunch) choice of the Gods. Got blubber?
Which would be illegal.
And if people want to nitpick over a slightly different version of 'thriller' by Michael Jackson, then they can burn in hell and deserve to get ripped off.
Again, the RIAA would complain, because giving away a different version of the song would also be illegal.
Plus if the customers CD is scratched, they still own the music, so they deserve a backup and a way to get to it. Getting a backup from an alternate source is not illegal AFAIK.
I think the courts decided otherwise in the case of some (can't remember the name) online "backup" service.
Once again, I ask if anyone has evidence if these ripping services actually do maintain a database, or if it is just baseless speculation. The claim that it makes operations more efficient also doesn't hold a lot of water. Looking for the correct matches in the database, and managing that database is still going to require some work. Easier just to load the customer's discs into a robotic loader - and avoids legal liability, too.
iTunes has some nice PDF digital booklets and lyrics booklets with some albums. Better than tiny CD format, IMO. Entirely printable. I wish more artists would do this - they are in the minority at the moment. But the potential (and some existing booklets) is amazing, more like a vinyl LP gatefold than a tiny CD liner.
Shit, that sounds like the original DIVX. Screw cable TV.
No, they wouldn't. It would not only be stupid, it would be a real anti-trust violation - not like the wanky false accusation of anti-trust in the "iPod-iTunes lock-in" whine.
Ummm, you can buy a genuine iPod Shuffle for $69.
You can do exactly that with iTunes.
How do you know that every CD you burn doesn't have a hash that can be used to identify the account that made it?
What the hell? We are talking ripping files to a format like WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless, MP3, AAC from a CD you own. You don't need an "account" to do that, and an audio CD you burn in iTunes is standard redbook. I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. Why would Apple add a hash to standard audio rips? Do you have any evidence to indicate this is true? You could easily analyze lossless rips from iTunes and compare them against the data on the CD.
iTunes sells "digital booklets" in PDF with some albums, and they beat the pants off any CD liner notes or illustration. One booklet I bought included around adozen hi-res photographs that look perfectly beautiful printed in Super A3 size, without any compression artifacts noticeable in normal viewing. Some artists also include lyric booklets with their songs on iTunes.
Why would a CDR have lower audio quality than a pressed CD? It's a digital copy. Some players have problems reading the surface, but if it can read it, there is no reason why it would not provide the same quality. Higher fail rates, yes. But the media is cheap. And you can also use other backup methods - HDD, tape, punchcard etc.
Do you actually have any evidence that they keep a library of ripped files and the original CDs? That seems very stupid, and very expensive. How are they supposed to have a copy of every possible customer's CD, and how would they make money if they had to pay for a copy of the original CDs? Doesn't make any sense. Sounds like a rumour, or an illegal operation.
And iTMS and the iPod are not "artifically" tied to one another. You can easily use on ewithout another. I guess facts don't matter when you want to bash.
It's not that simple. You know what the restrictions are before you buy it, you can choose not to buy it.
Nonsense. If I buy a Nikon camera, and then 5 years later, Canon comes out with a better camera, I have to re-buy all my lenses again. Does this make Nikon a monopoly?
But if you argued that, you would be wrong, because you can download Quicktime without downloading iTunes.
Actually, there is plenty of non-iTunes software that works with the iPod.
Have an iPod? Better get your music from iTunes, 'cause PlaysForSure files won't play on it.
Why not just buy a CD and rip it? or download from MP3.com or something? There is no need to go to the iTMS.
Suckers and Patriots. I hear there's one born every minute.
Just like my penis is the new, trendy lollipop for young women.
Is there anything to prevent HD-DVD from adding this firmware-disabling feature? If Blu-Ray has it, and HD-DVD does not, I can imagine that content producers would boycott HD-DVD until it did. In short, I don't think anything is truly final about how these formats will work. Personally, I hope they both fail.