There is no such thing as "licensed for lending" and you don't have to be a public library to lend a book. You do if you're a commercial operation, and yes, there are separate licenses for multimedia works for renting out. They are not required for books and periodicals because there is a statutory license.
I can loan any of my books to anybody I want. Yes, you can. You are not a business, though, non-profit or otherwise.
Only they neglected to have a contract. Now people assume that there is a "license agreement" on their OS, word processor, book, or music CD. They neglected to do no such thing, and the assumption is usually unnecessary because there is indeed a license agreement on their OS and word processor. There is also a license agreement on the book and music CD--a statutory one called Title 17.
The Library has paid for one copy of the book No, usually libraries buy many copies, particularly for important or popular works. Those copies wear rapidly and will slowly be pulled from circulation. Eventually, the library's collection will stabilize at a lower number, lasting a long time. The kinds of books ordered individually are not ones that sell tremendously well to begin with. Multiplied across the thousands of libraries in the country, most specialty books are quite buoyed by library sales--sales they would not have otherwise made because the market for the book is limited, or the cost of the production run is more than most of the market would spend on it.
which does in the end withhold possible profits from authors and publishers as hundreds of people can read the book for free. No. Reading the book is always free. Possession of the copy is what costs money, and it's not free. Running even a small library system costs millions of dollars per year--it's more like social insurance, spreading cost instead of risk. And again, many of these books rely on libraries for a significant portion of their revenue in the first place--revenue that would not be replaced by customers if libraries were to vanish suddenly.
Libraries don't pay a special version of the book licensed for lending, publishers are not compensated any more for books going to libraries then to anyone else No kidding--that's because there's a statutory license for libraries. It's part of the negotiated copyright bargain. Furthermore, there was a time when libraries did pay more for the books. Not for licensing, but for library binding. Today, mass production and lower overall product quality just means that libraries just replace worn out copies more frequently instead of investing more in a longer-lasting copy to start (also because people are far more abusive with library materials than in past years).
There is rarely incentive for me to buy the book after I've read it at the library. If that's the case, then there isn't incentive to buy it, independent of the existence of a library. A library offers a large collection available to all at a lower cost, because everyone contributes a fixed amount. There's absolutely no reason to expect that net sales would increase without libraries. My city's library materials budget is approximately $7 million annually. I sincerely doubt that if that number dropped to zero, that people would offset that loss with increased spending. I think instead that people would just read less. The people who buy books might even buy less without a library, especially given the cost of investing in them--and they are an investment, except trade paperbacks.
laws have been passed that don't just allow it, but encourage and set up the system. Libraries predate the library exceptions to copyright law. We have decided as a society that libraries are a valuable resource, and we protect them in copyright law and other places because that's part of the social contract in granting copyrights. It's not accurate to say that publishers lose money to libraries, because copyright wouldn't exist without libraries to ensure that knowledge doesn't get bound up in copyright. It's explicit in the simple passage of the Copyright Act, and contrary to popular Slashdot belief, it is still a functional bargain.
Of course they paid for them. It's a public library, paid for through municipal taxes and whatever endowment scheme your local library uses to supplement that tax income.
The materials in the libraries are all duly licensed for lending, through a combination of statutory exceptions in the US Code, and, where applicable or gapped, through licensing with the copyright holders permitting such use.
The copyright holders have indeed been compensated, both through license payments from libraries (often on DVDs and CDs and similar materials by acquiring the more-expensive rental copies [which often include media replacement]) and through the inherent copyright law bargain.
Incidentally, many library collections include video and audio content licensed for commercial use, which is a great way for a community organization (say, a church or club) to put on such a performance without having to buy a license or negotiate one with the rightsholders. You just check out the video with the commercial license and you're good to go. Your tax dollars at work, literally.
What you see as a flaw, others view as a functional design.
The menu bar is on the main screen because you don't have to go hunting for it. It's called consistency and persistence of function. No matter how many monitors you're using or which display your cursor is on, the menu bar is always, always, always on Display 0 at the top.
Your complaint is a modified version of "Why isn't the menubar attached to the window I'm using?" and Apple UI designers have answered it time after time. They recognize the complaint from a section of the userbase, but as usual the true stroke of arrogance is with the detractor believing that their interpretation is the only way. Yes, Apple designers are guilty of the same, but the difference is that it's their product.
You are always welcome to switch to a more flexible OS if that's a higher priority to you. But each configuration option creating a UI variable is one more step away from global usability. That's why Linux will likely never be considered easy to use. It is wildly inconsistent in every aspect, and that's perfectly fine, because it caters to an audience that wants it that way. But true ease of use requires someone to be decisive and authoritative. Jobs and crew are definitely the people for that.
You are taking the perspective that commodification is driven by the perceptions of the market. Actually, that's your position: "I would say it's more reminiscent of the guild wars of the mercantile age."
You clearly think that the computing market is mature. The desktop computer market absolutely is mature. They're ubiquitous--in fact, the market for PC hardware of this variety will likely never expand, except to developing nations, but that's a global issue irrelevant to the single-society perspectives of commodity products. You're conflating a market and the products themselves.
You are too close to the idiosyncrasies of computers to view them in broader, economic terms. A computer is a tool to achieve an ends. It is an appliance, just like a DVD player or a lamp. It has been commoditized over time and is no longer an investment or a premium product. The manufacturers even realize this. This is good read, now about a decade old.
The basic problem you have failed to recognize throughout this discussion is that a commodity product is not the same thing as a physical commodity, and that the description of commodity hardware IS NOT a metaphor as you suggested, but rather a very real, valid description of the economic forces driving the mass marketplace. Hardware exists that is not commodity hardware, but it is relegated to an increasingly small niche of enthusiasts and other high-end customers.
The bulk of the market does not select a computer on anything more than price, and all computers are interchangeable for that segment. There's nothing more to it than that. The basic PC is a commodity product.
In the world of computing, those things are in a constant state of flux Substitute "computing" with just about anything else, and the statement remains valid. The manufacturing process for many commodity products has changed dramatically in the past half-century.
The "functionally equivalent" part is the only thing that makes it a commodity. Computers are functionally equivalent. You seem to be confusing that term with "identical".
Video cards, PCs, these are not commodities. Yes, they are. With the exception of upmarket goods, purchasers in the segment are selecting based on price alone.
You seem to be wholly ignorant with regard to the process of commoditization, which is simply a reflection of the loss of a premium-charging market and the spread of intellectual capital which facilitates it. Computers, like DVD players, alarm clocks, and printers, are commodified.
For some starter reading on the topic, consider this.
The cost of sugar is rising, but it is still a commodity. What does this have to do with anything?
The cost of gold and platinum are very high, but they are still commodities. They are physical hard commodities, as opposed to commodity products. They are, in fact, not products at all.
In order for a piece of computer hardware to be a commodity, it must be completely a black box, interchangeable with others of its type with absolutely zero consequence. It is. A PC is a PC, and a video card is a video card. Feature differentiation exists at every level, but they remain functionally equivalent. There are different varieties of wheat. They are functionally equivalent. Some toilet paper is quilted, some is triple-ply. They're all functionally equivalent with the basic variety. There are different cuts and flavorings of bacon--they're all functionally equivalent.
Where did you get the implication that commodities have a fixed worth? You didn't get it from me. Sure I did. You said, "Inasmuch as your hardware becomes worthless because it grows obsolete". That has absolutely no relevance, and so I pointed it out. The obsolescence of old computer hardware has exactly zero to do with whether or not computer hardware is a commodity.
What does "they get used up" or "they rot with improper storage" have to do with the conversation at hand? To illustrate that persistence of individual particles is not relevant, as a direct consequence of your off-point declaration that things that become obsolete or change are not commodities, implying fixed worth (your word, not mine)--even if you change to the more accurate fixed value, it's still not correct. Maturation of market has nothing to do with longevity of product.
The 17" panels don't appear to have ever been used in the desktop LCD application. What 17" panel that is WUXGA are you claiming to be 24-bit? The 24-bit 17" LCDs available in notebooks are 1440x900 WSXGA panels that you will indeed find for sale in desktop parts. There is absolutely no way that a 17" WUXGA panel at 1920x1200 has 8-bit pixel depth--the manufacturing process for 8-bit pixels at that size does not exist.
The only 8-bit WUXGA "notebook" panel I've ever seen is 20"--and if you can really call that a laptop display, you're stretching things.
Also, you could also get 24-bit displays in Dell's 15" e1505 Inspiron laptop and derivatives like the XPS of the corresponding size. Other manufacturers no doubt have similar choices. Dell uses LG and Samsung panels exclusively. LG does not manufacture 8-bit notebook panels (except 20"). They simply do not.
In fact, the e1505, if memory serves, uses a Samsung LTN154P1 panel. It is a quality display, and a 6-bit panel.
As Dell does not manufacture their displays and does not have access to some secret technology not made available to others, you can either supply a manufacturer and model number for this magical panel, or you can accept the simple reality that there are no 8-bit notebooks in production. Why on earth you'd trust Dell's specs, particularly without an explicit admission of bit depth, is a mystery. Not all manufacturers honor the 16M/16.2M/16.7M distinction with bit depths. I've also never seen Dell indicate 262K on any of their materials, though it's possible that they have done so with their newer models. Do you have a link?
Let's compare your manual link to Samsung's official mfr. specs. Dell e1505 WSXGA+ [Samsung LTN154P1] Diagonal size: 15.4" [15.4"] Dimensions: 222.5x344.5mm [222x344mm] Pixel Pitch: 0.197mm [0.1972mm] Resolution: 1680x1050 [1680x1050] Viewing angle: +/- 65 [+/- 65] Vertical angle: +/- 50 [+/-50] Color depth: "16.7M" [262K]
When people talk about "commodity computer hardware", they're using the word commodity as a metaphor, to illustrate a comparison to other, more specialized hardware. Computer hardware is not actually a commodity. It's not a metaphor. There's a difference between a physical commodity upon which there is a stable market exchange (wheat, sugar, etc. as you reference) and commoditized products. Commodity products are the result of a loss of market exclusivity, marked by mature and functionally equivalent goods competing, for the most part, solely on price.
This stage occurs with the loss of brand value (i.e. people no longer care whether they buy Dell or HP as long as it does what they want for the best price, with the obvious exception of brand loyalists, which are present in every market segment) and mass availability. The latter is usually marked by prices that fall under the average household's weekly disposable income. They become goods which do not require an investment. This magic barrier is in the $450 range. It also spells the end of premium margins for the entire class (but not necessarily for all participants--upmarket goods can still exist after commoditization, e.g. Apple, Starbucks).
When people refer to commodity hardware, they are not referring to the commodity exchange. They are referring instead to ubiquity and generic standing. Blu-ray players, for example, are on the cusp of commoditization. Desktop PCs commoditized several years ago. Notebook PCs are on their way.
Inasmuch as your hardware becomes worthless because it grows obsolete, it is not a commodity. Fixed worth is not a requirement for a commodity. Relatively stable worth is not even required. Goods with value retention are selected for commodity exchanges. They are not the only commodities. Paper towels are a commodity, but as far as I know, there is not an active market exchange for them.
when something is a commodity, it doesn't get obsolete This is simply not true. Commodities are persistent as a group, but individual goods are subject to consumption and decay. The computer market is not obsolete--individual computers can be. Even markets eventually fall into obsolescence. Whale oil, anyone?
Actually, infringement is one method of violation, so you do both. Infringement is more specific and usually the case with a patent claim, but violation is not incorrect.
It is a contrasting technology, far from being the freaking same... No. Temporal dithering is still dithering, and all notebook LCD panels are still 6-bit native. It's really quite simple.
Apple is reduced the bargin bin LCDs and only using dithering. No, they're not. They're the same panels used by other manufacturers. You're just making things up at this point, and not even making much sense, at that. A 6-bit panel, like all notebooks, is capable of 262K colors. Period. You're not going to get your foot out of your mouth by bald-faced laws and unfounded accusations, much less a haphazard technological analysis not founded in reality.
just trust me when I point out they are using straight dithered output on the 18bit panels, instead of light/dark signaling like 99% of other OEMs do. No, they aren't, and you've presented no source whatsoever.
No, they would not. The panels display 262,144 colors. Period. They are 6-bit panels like every other notebook panel in existence. No matter how angry or ridiculous you get or how hard you puff your cheeks and turn blue, they'll still be 6-bit panels with 262K native colors.
An 8-bit panel doesn't become a 10-bit display because it uses dithering (which INCLUDES what you refer to as signaling). A 6-bit LCD is still a 6-bit LCD, regardless of whatever dithering method, if any, is employed. Nothing changes the color depth of the panel, and given that Apple uses the same panels and the same hardware as other manufacturers, you're just a foaming-at-the-mouth troll and a total nimrod. End of story. Deal with it.
Yawn. All of those panels are 262K panels. They're the same damn ones that Apple uses. You're the one getting bent out of shape and stammering about.
It is you who fails to understand what's going on here, and your tirade gets you nowhere. They're all 6-bit panels in notebooks. Dithering or no dithering, they're the same. In order for Apple to do what your rabid and deranged mind is insisting, they'd have to dig through the bins to find different panels for their notebooks. Obviously this is not the case.
But please, do go on talking about 6-bit panels not being 6 bit panels until you turn blue. Fact is, they are all native 262K panels. Every last one of them. Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo.
Companies that are NOT Apple use, additional signal levels, so an 18bit display becomes a 36bit display, that can natively support 16million colors at the minimum. No, they don't. I don't know where you're getting this from, but all notebook LCD manufacturers are using 6bpp panels these days, and every one is spec'd to 262K colors.
Then you have to explain that apple is using LCD specifications that were outdated in the late 90s. (Sadly, the last 6bit pixel LCD I have even seen was a 1999 Pentium II Laptop.) But hey, Macs rule, right? So you haven't seen a laptop in eight or nine years? Where have you been? Haven't seen a typical consumer LCD from a no-name brand, or the budget version from a bigger label? You seem to have missed quite a bit in the near-decade you've been away from civilization!
There are no 8-bit notebook panels (with the sole exception of some 17" models), and most TN panels (which make up the lion's share of the market, because they're the cheapest) are 6bpp, too.
There are no true 8-bit notebook panels. Whether it's a "pro" machine or not, unless it is using a desktop or 17" panel (and some notebooks now do), it's a 6-bit panel, period.
Somewhere between $750 and $150,000 per copy, unless they want to prove actual damages in excess of that amount (unlikely). Not much of a thought exercise, there.
As to what a 92,000% markup has to do with anything, who knows. You're off by a factor of ten based on the amount in one example case, but moreover, it's not a markup, because it's not based on a retail price.
People have always shared music. No, I don't consider that it's acceptable that "sharing" on the scale of Bittorrent or Usenet happens and I have over 1200 original CDs in my collection that proves I'm more than happy to pay a fair price for a good piece of music. That's exactly the point. You can pay to buy the track for $1 just as it is now and share it with a few friends if you'd like--a reasonable personal use.
If everyone has access through their device to an unlimited library, there is no need to "share" your music with them--they can get it themselves.
I also reserve the right to format change that music in whatever way I please - what I do with that CD for myself is none of the music industry's / RIAA's / BPI's business and they know it; that's why nobody's ever been taken to court for ripping their own CDs.
DRM stops those rights I've reserved - I can't (practically) lend it to someone else to listen to and I can't format change it either. Plus I no longer own anything, I just "rent" it. And the problem is...?
DRM music is a different set of rights. It's unequivocally a lesser set of rights. But it's not the only game in town. If you have the option of a flat per-device fee to have unlimited access to a tremendous library, or to purchase a DRM-free track for ~$1, where is the problem?
Your rights are preserved in your choice of which product to buy.
Some of the reasons I buy music for are taken away with DRM. That's just it. You wouldn't be buying music per track anymore.
If you want to, you're free to do so. But if you just want to listen to music for your own use and don't care about mix tapes or critical excerpts, what's the problem? So long as the option to buy it in the DRM-free form exists, what is the downside to unlimited access to millions of songs for a one-time fee? There is exactly zero chance of a flat fee for lifetime, DRM-free, unlimited access. DRM is a fair trade for an unlimited listening library.
I still buy CDs because I want lossless music* in a format that I can do whatever I want with. If I want a copy in my car, on my portable music player (i.e. any music player, not just on an iPod), in my home stereo, on my laptop, on my phone... at the same time... I can because I have the music in a format that places zero restrictions on its use. I don't understand this line of argument.
Setting aside, for the moment, the problems of extracting excerpts from protected audio, if you have an end-to-end system, what restriction exists on your legal use of music?
Take your chosen device (we'll go with an iPod, since Apple is the topic, but any mp3 player would do). This iTunes music is available on all your devices (iPod, phone, computer). Playing it in your car is a simple matter of connecting your iPod/phone to your car. Your home stereo just needs to be connected to your computer or iPod. The technology is not yet ubiquitous, but you can bet it will be.
If you've got an iPod and unlimited access to the catalog, DRM seems like a fair trade given a lack of a subscription fee. There's no way a CD is price competitive at this scale, even if the price of an iPod goes up $100 for this. The remarkably lower price for acquisition solves the whole access situation, allowing everyone to enjoy all the music they care to for a price unimaginable even 20 years ago. Having to pay a one-off fee of ~$1 to get a DRM-free copy to exercise full fair use and personal use rights isn't really an evil.
Just look at the pure math. $100 for unlimited access to DRM music plus $1 per song to make fair use excerpts (hypothetical numbers). We'll assume that you will acquire a library expansion of 1000 tracks. Now, let's say you want to make commentary or engage in criticism or parody as guaranteed by your fair use rights on, say, 50 tracks per year. Your total cost to do this: $100 + 50($1)=$150, and that's just for the first year you own your iPod. The second year, the annual cost to do this drops to $50.
Under the current "purchase" system: 1000($1) = $1000. You pay for each track, even though you're probably never going to exercise fair use rights on 99% of that music, unless you're a reviewer or comic making parodies.
The DRM problem of making "backups" for your "legitimate" use is nonexistent if you have unlimited access to the library at any time to re-acquire your library following a hard drive crash or what have you. You could even save further money by not having to back up that content (just the library file so you could know what to download again).
Ultimately, having a flat-fee access to the library solves most of the problems of DRM, and correcting the others through "legacy" means (purchasing single, DRM-free tracks) would still be tremendously cheaper than our current system, where music prices are artificially high because of the need to balance distribution (the copyright holder's exclusive right) and fair use (the purchaser's exclusive right). DRM is problematic only because it prevents lawful backups (unneeded under the Apple plan), it prevents copying to multiple listening locations(unnecessary with synergistic devices), and it blocks fair use excerpts (attainable by paying $1 per track where you want to exercise this right, instead of what we have now: having to pay $1 per track because you might potentially want to do these things).
Free (after flat "admission" fee) music with no 'fair use' rights vs. costly music providing rights most people don't exercise. People who are fundamentally opposed to not having those rights can continue to purchase tracks/albums individually. Sounds fantastic to me. Like most customers, I just want to be able to listen to my music and want the lowest price. If I can get unlimited music for $100 in exchange for giving up fair use rights, I'm all for it, as long as there's a path to exercise those rights if I choose to (e.g. buying the DRM-free track for $1 or so).
The laws weren't changed; the penalties were changed. It was never legal to distributed copyrighted material, whether for monetary gain or not (note that the FBI warnings about monetary gain do not correspond to "non-profit copying").
It was never okay. It remains, as before, not a target of litigation.
'Not for monetary gain' doesn't mean non-profit or non-commercial. It just means that giving it away doesn't get you off the hook. The warning may have changed, but there was never any provision of the law permitting distribution of any kind. Copyright law as long as any of us have been alive has vested the exclusive right of distribution in the rightsholder and no one else.
"Non-profit piracy" basically doesn't exist. It is such a narrow and limited phenomenon, with almost no history of litigation, that it's not even worth talking about. "Non-profit piracy" isn't punished now, and any attempt to codify discretion would end up being a worse result for consumers.
"IP laws" are the only thing keeping the US' piss-poor excuse for an economy running. Media is a major export, and it would implode without copyright. Patents drive, protect, and propagate America's biggest economic resource: intellectual labor. The whole notion of a service economy is bound up in valuation of intangibles. It's the entire basis of your getting paid despite not producing any good of tangible value. We can't compete on menial labor; nobody wants to do it, and that labor pool is elsewhere in the world. We can't even compete on skilled labor; we're too expensive. Let's not even get started on what a mess taking trademarks away would cause. A market with no trade secret laws is not one of innovation, except in areas of concealing said secrets from competitors waiting to snipe the idea without financing its development. The stock market wouldn't work without IP, since stock issue is not based in terms of chairs and staplers, but rather in a finite and artificial set of papers dividing a corporation. Value derived from the existence of contracts would vanish, because that's secured only by IP (contracts themselves could stick around, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
The mind, it wanders.
Libraries often have content licensed for public performance, for churches, school teachers, and clubs to use.
Of course they paid for them. It's a public library, paid for through municipal taxes and whatever endowment scheme your local library uses to supplement that tax income.
The materials in the libraries are all duly licensed for lending, through a combination of statutory exceptions in the US Code, and, where applicable or gapped, through licensing with the copyright holders permitting such use.
The copyright holders have indeed been compensated, both through license payments from libraries (often on DVDs and CDs and similar materials by acquiring the more-expensive rental copies [which often include media replacement]) and through the inherent copyright law bargain.
Incidentally, many library collections include video and audio content licensed for commercial use, which is a great way for a community organization (say, a church or club) to put on such a performance without having to buy a license or negotiate one with the rightsholders. You just check out the video with the commercial license and you're good to go. Your tax dollars at work, literally.
What you see as a flaw, others view as a functional design.
The menu bar is on the main screen because you don't have to go hunting for it. It's called consistency and persistence of function. No matter how many monitors you're using or which display your cursor is on, the menu bar is always, always, always on Display 0 at the top.
Your complaint is a modified version of "Why isn't the menubar attached to the window I'm using?" and Apple UI designers have answered it time after time. They recognize the complaint from a section of the userbase, but as usual the true stroke of arrogance is with the detractor believing that their interpretation is the only way. Yes, Apple designers are guilty of the same, but the difference is that it's their product.
You are always welcome to switch to a more flexible OS if that's a higher priority to you. But each configuration option creating a UI variable is one more step away from global usability. That's why Linux will likely never be considered easy to use. It is wildly inconsistent in every aspect, and that's perfectly fine, because it caters to an audience that wants it that way. But true ease of use requires someone to be decisive and authoritative. Jobs and crew are definitely the people for that.
You are too close to the idiosyncrasies of computers to view them in broader, economic terms. A computer is a tool to achieve an ends. It is an appliance, just like a DVD player or a lamp. It has been commoditized over time and is no longer an investment or a premium product. The manufacturers even realize this. This is good read, now about a decade old.
The basic problem you have failed to recognize throughout this discussion is that a commodity product is not the same thing as a physical commodity, and that the description of commodity hardware IS NOT a metaphor as you suggested, but rather a very real, valid description of the economic forces driving the mass marketplace. Hardware exists that is not commodity hardware, but it is relegated to an increasingly small niche of enthusiasts and other high-end customers.
The bulk of the market does not select a computer on anything more than price, and all computers are interchangeable for that segment. There's nothing more to it than that. The basic PC is a commodity product. In the world of computing, those things are in a constant state of flux Substitute "computing" with just about anything else, and the statement remains valid. The manufacturing process for many commodity products has changed dramatically in the past half-century.
You seem to be wholly ignorant with regard to the process of commoditization, which is simply a reflection of the loss of a premium-charging market and the spread of intellectual capital which facilitates it. Computers, like DVD players, alarm clocks, and printers, are commodified.
For some starter reading on the topic, consider this. The cost of sugar is rising, but it is still a commodity. What does this have to do with anything? The cost of gold and platinum are very high, but they are still commodities. They are physical hard commodities, as opposed to commodity products. They are, in fact, not products at all. In order for a piece of computer hardware to be a commodity, it must be completely a black box, interchangeable with others of its type with absolutely zero consequence. It is. A PC is a PC, and a video card is a video card. Feature differentiation exists at every level, but they remain functionally equivalent. There are different varieties of wheat. They are functionally equivalent. Some toilet paper is quilted, some is triple-ply. They're all functionally equivalent with the basic variety. There are different cuts and flavorings of bacon--they're all functionally equivalent. Where did you get the implication that commodities have a fixed worth? You didn't get it from me. Sure I did. You said, "Inasmuch as your hardware becomes worthless because it grows obsolete". That has absolutely no relevance, and so I pointed it out. The obsolescence of old computer hardware has exactly zero to do with whether or not computer hardware is a commodity. What does "they get used up" or "they rot with improper storage" have to do with the conversation at hand? To illustrate that persistence of individual particles is not relevant, as a direct consequence of your off-point declaration that things that become obsolete or change are not commodities, implying fixed worth (your word, not mine)--even if you change to the more accurate fixed value, it's still not correct. Maturation of market has nothing to do with longevity of product.
The only 8-bit WUXGA "notebook" panel I've ever seen is 20"--and if you can really call that a laptop display, you're stretching things. Also, you could also get 24-bit displays in Dell's 15" e1505 Inspiron laptop and derivatives like the XPS of the corresponding size. Other manufacturers no doubt have similar choices. Dell uses LG and Samsung panels exclusively. LG does not manufacture 8-bit notebook panels (except 20"). They simply do not.
In fact, the e1505, if memory serves, uses a Samsung LTN154P1 panel. It is a quality display, and a 6-bit panel.
As Dell does not manufacture their displays and does not have access to some secret technology not made available to others, you can either supply a manufacturer and model number for this magical panel, or you can accept the simple reality that there are no 8-bit notebooks in production. Why on earth you'd trust Dell's specs, particularly without an explicit admission of bit depth, is a mystery. Not all manufacturers honor the 16M/16.2M/16.7M distinction with bit depths. I've also never seen Dell indicate 262K on any of their materials, though it's possible that they have done so with their newer models. Do you have a link?
Let's compare your manual link to Samsung's official mfr. specs.
Dell e1505 WSXGA+ [Samsung LTN154P1]
Diagonal size: 15.4" [15.4"]
Dimensions: 222.5x344.5mm [222x344mm]
Pixel Pitch: 0.197mm [0.1972mm]
Resolution: 1680x1050 [1680x1050]
Viewing angle: +/- 65 [+/- 65]
Vertical angle: +/- 50 [+/-50]
Color depth: "16.7M" [262K]
This stage occurs with the loss of brand value (i.e. people no longer care whether they buy Dell or HP as long as it does what they want for the best price, with the obvious exception of brand loyalists, which are present in every market segment) and mass availability. The latter is usually marked by prices that fall under the average household's weekly disposable income. They become goods which do not require an investment. This magic barrier is in the $450 range. It also spells the end of premium margins for the entire class (but not necessarily for all participants--upmarket goods can still exist after commoditization, e.g. Apple, Starbucks).
When people refer to commodity hardware, they are not referring to the commodity exchange. They are referring instead to ubiquity and generic standing. Blu-ray players, for example, are on the cusp of commoditization. Desktop PCs commoditized several years ago. Notebook PCs are on their way. Inasmuch as your hardware becomes worthless because it grows obsolete, it is not a commodity. Fixed worth is not a requirement for a commodity. Relatively stable worth is not even required. Goods with value retention are selected for commodity exchanges. They are not the only commodities. Paper towels are a commodity, but as far as I know, there is not an active market exchange for them. when something is a commodity, it doesn't get obsolete This is simply not true. Commodities are persistent as a group, but individual goods are subject to consumption and decay. The computer market is not obsolete--individual computers can be. Even markets eventually fall into obsolescence. Whale oil, anyone?
Nope. They're all 262K native screens, except for a few oddball 17 inch panels that started life as desktop LCDs.
A couple links to get you started:
Samsung - http://www.samsung.com/global/business/lcdpanel/productList.do?upper_fmly_id=601&fmly_id=611
LG - http://www.lgdisplay.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd300_j_e.jsp
Toshiba/Matsushita - http://tmd-product.tmdisplay.com/index_e.cfm#index_2
Those are the major suppliers, and as you can see, they're all 18-bit panels.
The T61 is 6 bits per pixel, too. There are no 8bpp notebook panels.
Actually, infringement is one method of violation, so you do both. Infringement is more specific and usually the case with a patent claim, but violation is not incorrect.
No, they would not. The panels display 262,144 colors. Period. They are 6-bit panels like every other notebook panel in existence. No matter how angry or ridiculous you get or how hard you puff your cheeks and turn blue, they'll still be 6-bit panels with 262K native colors.
An 8-bit panel doesn't become a 10-bit display because it uses dithering (which INCLUDES what you refer to as signaling). A 6-bit LCD is still a 6-bit LCD, regardless of whatever dithering method, if any, is employed. Nothing changes the color depth of the panel, and given that Apple uses the same panels and the same hardware as other manufacturers, you're just a foaming-at-the-mouth troll and a total nimrod. End of story. Deal with it.
Yawn. All of those panels are 262K panels. They're the same damn ones that Apple uses. You're the one getting bent out of shape and stammering about.
It is you who fails to understand what's going on here, and your tirade gets you nowhere. They're all 6-bit panels in notebooks. Dithering or no dithering, they're the same. In order for Apple to do what your rabid and deranged mind is insisting, they'd have to dig through the bins to find different panels for their notebooks. Obviously this is not the case.
But please, do go on talking about 6-bit panels not being 6 bit panels until you turn blue. Fact is, they are all native 262K panels. Every last one of them. Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo.
LG: http://www.lgdisplay.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd300_j_e.jsp
Samsung: http://www.samsung.com/global/business/lcdpanel/productList.do?upper_fmly_id=601&fmly_id=611
I can provide links to the remaining manufacturers as well if you're still somehow confused.
No 14" Dell notebook has ever had an 8-bit panel, ever. Give me the model number of the LCD and I'll point you in the right direction.
There are no 8-bit notebook panels (with the sole exception of some 17" models), and most TN panels (which make up the lion's share of the market, because they're the cheapest) are 6bpp, too.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way.
Notebook panels are universally 6-bit. They are *all* 262K panels, with the exception of some desktop replacements using 17" panels.
What you mean by "real screen" is not clear.
There are no true 8-bit notebook panels. Whether it's a "pro" machine or not, unless it is using a desktop or 17" panel (and some notebooks now do), it's a 6-bit panel, period.
Somewhere between $750 and $150,000 per copy, unless they want to prove actual damages in excess of that amount (unlikely). Not much of a thought exercise, there.
As to what a 92,000% markup has to do with anything, who knows. You're off by a factor of ten based on the amount in one example case, but moreover, it's not a markup, because it's not based on a retail price.
If everyone has access through their device to an unlimited library, there is no need to "share" your music with them--they can get it themselves. I also reserve the right to format change that music in whatever way I please - what I do with that CD for myself is none of the music industry's / RIAA's / BPI's business and they know it; that's why nobody's ever been taken to court for ripping their own CDs.
DRM stops those rights I've reserved - I can't (practically) lend it to someone else to listen to and I can't format change it either. Plus I no longer own anything, I just "rent" it. And the problem is...?
DRM music is a different set of rights. It's unequivocally a lesser set of rights. But it's not the only game in town. If you have the option of a flat per-device fee to have unlimited access to a tremendous library, or to purchase a DRM-free track for ~$1, where is the problem?
Your rights are preserved in your choice of which product to buy. Some of the reasons I buy music for are taken away with DRM. That's just it. You wouldn't be buying music per track anymore.
If you want to, you're free to do so. But if you just want to listen to music for your own use and don't care about mix tapes or critical excerpts, what's the problem? So long as the option to buy it in the DRM-free form exists, what is the downside to unlimited access to millions of songs for a one-time fee? There is exactly zero chance of a flat fee for lifetime, DRM-free, unlimited access. DRM is a fair trade for an unlimited listening library.
Setting aside, for the moment, the problems of extracting excerpts from protected audio, if you have an end-to-end system, what restriction exists on your legal use of music?
Take your chosen device (we'll go with an iPod, since Apple is the topic, but any mp3 player would do). This iTunes music is available on all your devices (iPod, phone, computer). Playing it in your car is a simple matter of connecting your iPod/phone to your car. Your home stereo just needs to be connected to your computer or iPod. The technology is not yet ubiquitous, but you can bet it will be.
If you've got an iPod and unlimited access to the catalog, DRM seems like a fair trade given a lack of a subscription fee. There's no way a CD is price competitive at this scale, even if the price of an iPod goes up $100 for this. The remarkably lower price for acquisition solves the whole access situation, allowing everyone to enjoy all the music they care to for a price unimaginable even 20 years ago. Having to pay a one-off fee of ~$1 to get a DRM-free copy to exercise full fair use and personal use rights isn't really an evil.
Just look at the pure math. $100 for unlimited access to DRM music plus $1 per song to make fair use excerpts (hypothetical numbers). We'll assume that you will acquire a library expansion of 1000 tracks. Now, let's say you want to make commentary or engage in criticism or parody as guaranteed by your fair use rights on, say, 50 tracks per year. Your total cost to do this: $100 + 50($1)=$150, and that's just for the first year you own your iPod. The second year, the annual cost to do this drops to $50.
Under the current "purchase" system: 1000($1) = $1000. You pay for each track, even though you're probably never going to exercise fair use rights on 99% of that music, unless you're a reviewer or comic making parodies.
The DRM problem of making "backups" for your "legitimate" use is nonexistent if you have unlimited access to the library at any time to re-acquire your library following a hard drive crash or what have you. You could even save further money by not having to back up that content (just the library file so you could know what to download again).
Ultimately, having a flat-fee access to the library solves most of the problems of DRM, and correcting the others through "legacy" means (purchasing single, DRM-free tracks) would still be tremendously cheaper than our current system, where music prices are artificially high because of the need to balance distribution (the copyright holder's exclusive right) and fair use (the purchaser's exclusive right). DRM is problematic only because it prevents lawful backups (unneeded under the Apple plan), it prevents copying to multiple listening locations(unnecessary with synergistic devices), and it blocks fair use excerpts (attainable by paying $1 per track where you want to exercise this right, instead of what we have now: having to pay $1 per track because you might potentially want to do these things).
Free (after flat "admission" fee) music with no 'fair use' rights vs. costly music providing rights most people don't exercise. People who are fundamentally opposed to not having those rights can continue to purchase tracks/albums individually. Sounds fantastic to me. Like most customers, I just want to be able to listen to my music and want the lowest price. If I can get unlimited music for $100 in exchange for giving up fair use rights, I'm all for it, as long as there's a path to exercise those rights if I choose to (e.g. buying the DRM-free track for $1 or so).
The laws weren't changed; the penalties were changed. It was never legal to distributed copyrighted material, whether for monetary gain or not (note that the FBI warnings about monetary gain do not correspond to "non-profit copying").
It was never okay. It remains, as before, not a target of litigation.
'Not for monetary gain' doesn't mean non-profit or non-commercial. It just means that giving it away doesn't get you off the hook. The warning may have changed, but there was never any provision of the law permitting distribution of any kind. Copyright law as long as any of us have been alive has vested the exclusive right of distribution in the rightsholder and no one else.
"Non-profit piracy" basically doesn't exist. It is such a narrow and limited phenomenon, with almost no history of litigation, that it's not even worth talking about. "Non-profit piracy" isn't punished now, and any attempt to codify discretion would end up being a worse result for consumers.
"IP laws" are the only thing keeping the US' piss-poor excuse for an economy running. Media is a major export, and it would implode without copyright. Patents drive, protect, and propagate America's biggest economic resource: intellectual labor. The whole notion of a service economy is bound up in valuation of intangibles. It's the entire basis of your getting paid despite not producing any good of tangible value. We can't compete on menial labor; nobody wants to do it, and that labor pool is elsewhere in the world. We can't even compete on skilled labor; we're too expensive. Let's not even get started on what a mess taking trademarks away would cause. A market with no trade secret laws is not one of innovation, except in areas of concealing said secrets from competitors waiting to snipe the idea without financing its development. The stock market wouldn't work without IP, since stock issue is not based in terms of chairs and staplers, but rather in a finite and artificial set of papers dividing a corporation. Value derived from the existence of contracts would vanish, because that's secured only by IP (contracts themselves could stick around, of course).
Talk about the cure being worse than the disease.