What about the fact that torrents can't be "infringing" If I make a torrent of "The Matrix", while I may not own The Matrix, I still own the torrent. BREIN or whatever has no right to claim that my torrent is "infringing" as they are not the copyright holders of the torrent, I am. couldn't someone sue BREIN for unlawfully sending a false DMCA equivalent notice for my work.
Not to mention how poorly the results were considered. TFA states that over 1/3 of participants thought 48Kbps sounded better than 160 Kbps, but automatically assumed that meant 1/3 of participants couldn't tell the difference.
I'd be more willing to believe that 2/3 of participants can't tell the difference, and half of the 2/3rds just guessed wrong...
Uh, wtf? Buy a sanza, copy and paste your music from wherever itunes has it, and you're golden. Or, you can use the XML data itunes provides to sync your media from now on.
Who forced you to use iTunes? Because I'm sure nobody held a gun to your head. Don't like iTMS? Use Amazon or the like, or hell, buy a cd. Don't wanna sync your iPod with iTunes? there's plenty of alternative, open source solutions available. You have no reason to complain about iTunes. Don't like it, don't use it.
How is it anti-competitive to stop a competitive product from using your software to help their sales? If I follow your logic, I can buy a few freight trains and put them on CSX rails without paying CSX right? It would be anti-competitive for them to prevent me from using something they own to benefit my own bottom line. it boils down to the fact that they don't have to provide sync capabilities. Since they provide ways of using iTMS purchased music with other players, they're still not being anti-competitive.
Wait wait wait, let me get your argument clear...Apple uses its monopoly position with the itunes music store to enforce the use of iTunes software.
So Apple should allow other software to purchase from their media servers? That's a good one. Nobody is forcing anyone to use iTMS. If it was the piece of shit you seem to think it is, then don't use it. People use it because it is easy.
Why in the hell should Apple allow another company to benefit from the time and money it spent making itunes. The nice sync capabilities are provided by Apple as an incentive to buy an iPod.
The iTMS and iTunes, while the same program, are truly two separate programs. One allows you to buy digital media, which can be synced using the XML data. The other allows an elegant syncing experience for iPod owners.
So, my friend. You're only angry because you've been taught to hate everything Apple. Palm refuses to write their own software to sync their device with music purchased via iTMS.
#1: How do you expect to "make" a parent sign a consent to confiscate document?
#2 Good idea
#3, That just isnt economically feasible. As for part B, you cant say that the student loses all privacy by going to a MANDATORY class. That suggetion means the parent either goes to jail and the child into foster care because the child cannot attend school because they do not consent to the terms, or the kid loses rights that the school has no right to take away.
Heres a radical idea. Maybe the schools should STFU about phones, and let the students use em. If the student doesnt pay attention because of phone use and fail, lesson learned.
What in the world are you smoking, and where can I get some?
You're trying to say that the "iPod/iTunes/iPhone lock-in" is a problem for the vast majority of users? People use iPods because they're great looking with a great interface. iTunes is simple and easy: Buy your songs through the program for convenience, or load your own on. What, do you think people are trying to load.ogg files onto their iPods? Those who are know better than to get an iPod.
As for the chinese knockoffs, wtf? No support, quality control, or expectation of reliability. If I wanted to gamble, I'd go down to the race track, not throw my money at shoddy electronics.
Its only more cost effective from a tax perspective. You'd be paying the same no matter what car you drive in terms of taxes, but you'd be buying 2x or more gas than the fuel efficient cars
Was there something in the syllabus about it? Usually the teacher puts all that stuff in there to prevent liability in the event that something happens.
If there's nothing in the syllabus, I'd say your professor cannot require your notes back.
However, your professor had no right to go through your personal property. Your professor sounds like that asshole receipt checker at Wal-mart that gets all pissy when you refuse to show your receipt...
No, they are not. They are selling a copy of the software. They are using a perversion of copyright law to claim that you are subject to the license.
Or, maybe you're agreeing to a contract that says you're buying a license of this software, and not the software itself? Yeah, that is what that EULA is.
An upgrade copy is a discount to those who are upgrading from an older version of a software to a newer version. AV makers do this, DVD burning software makers do this..they all do this as a reward to their returning customers, not so someone trying to undercut their profit can benefit. Its like shooting yourself in the foot!
How is Psystar right? Apple only lets you use the software because you've agreed to their terms. Don't like em? Return the product. It says it right there in the EULA, which is a CONTRACT.
For your other examples, they're ridiculous. See, if Ford, Sony, Rowling, whoever did this, they would LOSE money. This license makes things easier for Apple and makes them money. By only allowing THEIR software on THEIR hardware, they are insuring that the machine you buy will be supported. Apple recoups their loss on software sales by selling it with their hardware. Think Apple hardware sucks and is overpriced, so be it, don't but their product. Like OSX but still don't want their hardware; I guess you have quite the dilemma then.
If Psystar wins this one, Apple will simply stop selling "upgrades" and charge $1000 for a copy of OSX. Then, they will give a $900 discount to those who buy macs. Then they will offer free OS X support to people who buy Apple branded hardware, but not to those who just bought the software. That sounds like a great world to me
Apple isn't making it impossible for anyone to sell a computer compatible with OSX. That is a lie my friend. The trick here is that it can't legally have OSX installed, but it can be compatible.
Apple isn't selling you OSX and saying "here you go, do as you please, it is all yours now". Apple sells a license of OSX. By installing the software, you agree to the terms in the EULA, and if you do not agree, then you do not install and return the product. The EULA is a contract, plain and simple. If the contract says "You may only install on 'Apple' branded computers" then you either agree, or return the product. Psystar would have gotten away with it if they would have built the clone and sold it with a copy of OSX, but not install it themselves. The user would be the ones to disregard the EULA then, not Psystar. Not to mention the upgrade version Apple sells is just that, an upgrade, and the EULA states that. You may be able to use an upgrade version as a full copy, but does that make it legal?
Finally, Apple makes its money from hardware sales (when it comes to the computer division, that is) The R&D cost for OSX has to be millions upon millons. Apple recoups this cost from hardware sales. Psystar taking advantage of the $129 upgrade OSX is stripping Apple from their R&D money. Its like how phone companies can give you a $550 phone for $150 when you sign up for a new contract, because they know they'll recoup the cost of the phone because you have a voice plan. Psystar is like some third party, selling you the $550 phone for $150 without selling you the contract, and leaving Verizon to foot the $400 difference.
Stop with the crap-ass car analogy, its the dead horse. A car is 1 product, whereas ASUS's computer and Microsoft's XP are each 1 separate product. You're right, I don't have a right to choose what products a company sells, but I should have the right as to which I want to buy! If ASUS made the OS and sold it with the computer as 1 product, then yes, you're SOL. Nobody should have to pay the microsoft tax just to buy the computer they want
Uh, why not? ASUS makes computers, Microsoft makes OSes. You shouldn't have to buy shitty product from another company that you dont want to get the product that you do want. End of story
If I wanted an ASUS Computer, I should be able to buy JUST THAT. Most manufacturers still dont have a "No OS" option for their configured systems, and I'm damn sure that there isn't a single computer sold in a retail store that has "No OS" as an optional package(at least in the US).
Look, if the guy doesn't want to pay the Microsoft Tax, then he shouldn't have to. Last time I checked, they were 2 completely seperate companies, ASUS and Microsoft. Imagine that if every manufacturer pre-installed a $1000 copy of Adobe CS3 and you couldn't opt out of it, wouldn't you be a little pissed off? Wouldn't you feel that you'd have the right to get your money back for something you didn't want in the first place? This isn't the slightest bit different.
Not to mention the whole EULA problem. If you can't see the EULA before you purchase something, you can't just say "Oh, well, I won't buy this then". If he didn't agree with the EULA upon starting his computer (which it may not have even appeared, if ASUS preinstalled XP, which would create a whole new problem in itself) then he has every right to tell ASUS to kiss his ass and give him his money back.
I was going to comment...but my AOL hours are almost up...
The ISPs need to suck it up and invest in a new network. I download around 30-40 GB per month. This was never a problem when I had Adelphia as my ISP. Once the Comcast takeover was completely finished, the throttling began. So why was it that Adelphia could support my downloading habits, but Comcast couldn't? I have no idea.
A pay-per-GB model would kill the future uses of the internet. For example, I predict in the next 3 years, the downloading of HD content will be extremely popular. a Blu-Ray disc holds, say 50 GBs. Therefore to download 1 movie would take 50 GB of bandwidth. Assumming a base prise of $30 plus $3 for every GB used, it would cost $180 to transfer that movie (plus the rental cost)
These ISPs dont want to upgrade their networks because they've blown all of their money. In my area, GE communications laid all this fibre during the dotcom boom, and then went bellie up, and was bought out by pennies on the dollar by Adelphia. Adelphia screwed with their money, not investing it or saving any for the future, and also went bankrupt, and bought by Comcast. Comcast is broke too, but they're gonna bitch and moan to the very end that its too expensive to lay more fibre and that their customers are criminals and all this BS.
I just wish we could have another, small dotcom boom, Comcast would lay fresh fibre with the outlook of emmense future profits, and get bought out by some new company for pennies on the dollar. I get awesome bandwidth, Goliath dies, and It'll be cheap since it was bought out so cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the fact that torrents can't be "infringing" If I make a torrent of "The Matrix", while I may not own The Matrix, I still own the torrent. BREIN or whatever has no right to claim that my torrent is "infringing" as they are not the copyright holders of the torrent, I am. couldn't someone sue BREIN for unlawfully sending a false DMCA equivalent notice for my work.
Not to mention how poorly the results were considered. TFA states that over 1/3 of participants thought 48Kbps sounded better than 160 Kbps, but automatically assumed that meant 1/3 of participants couldn't tell the difference.
I'd be more willing to believe that 2/3 of participants can't tell the difference, and half of the 2/3rds just guessed wrong...
That is a sad state of affairs....
Woooooooooosh
Uh, wtf? Buy a sanza, copy and paste your music from wherever itunes has it, and you're golden. Or, you can use the XML data itunes provides to sync your media from now on.
Who forced you to use iTunes? Because I'm sure nobody held a gun to your head. Don't like iTMS? Use Amazon or the like, or hell, buy a cd. Don't wanna sync your iPod with iTunes? there's plenty of alternative, open source solutions available. You have no reason to complain about iTunes. Don't like it, don't use it.
How is it anti-competitive to stop a competitive product from using your software to help their sales? If I follow your logic, I can buy a few freight trains and put them on CSX rails without paying CSX right? It would be anti-competitive for them to prevent me from using something they own to benefit my own bottom line. it boils down to the fact that they don't have to provide sync capabilities. Since they provide ways of using iTMS purchased music with other players, they're still not being anti-competitive.
Wait wait wait, let me get your argument clear...Apple uses its monopoly position with the itunes music store to enforce the use of iTunes software.
So Apple should allow other software to purchase from their media servers? That's a good one. Nobody is forcing anyone to use iTMS. If it was the piece of shit you seem to think it is, then don't use it. People use it because it is easy.
Why in the hell should Apple allow another company to benefit from the time and money it spent making itunes. The nice sync capabilities are provided by Apple as an incentive to buy an iPod.
The iTMS and iTunes, while the same program, are truly two separate programs. One allows you to buy digital media, which can be synced using the XML data. The other allows an elegant syncing experience for iPod owners. So, my friend. You're only angry because you've been taught to hate everything Apple. Palm refuses to write their own software to sync their device with music purchased via iTMS.
#1: How do you expect to "make" a parent sign a consent to confiscate document?
#2 Good idea
#3, That just isnt economically feasible. As for part B, you cant say that the student loses all privacy by going to a MANDATORY class. That suggetion means the parent either goes to jail and the child into foster care because the child cannot attend school because they do not consent to the terms, or the kid loses rights that the school has no right to take away.
Heres a radical idea. Maybe the schools should STFU about phones, and let the students use em. If the student doesnt pay attention because of phone use and fail, lesson learned.
What in the world are you smoking, and where can I get some?
.ogg files onto their iPods? Those who are know better than to get an iPod.
You're trying to say that the "iPod/iTunes/iPhone lock-in" is a problem for the vast majority of users? People use iPods because they're great looking with a great interface. iTunes is simple and easy: Buy your songs through the program for convenience, or load your own on. What, do you think people are trying to load
As for the chinese knockoffs, wtf? No support, quality control, or expectation of reliability. If I wanted to gamble, I'd go down to the race track, not throw my money at shoddy electronics.
Phase 1 human trials will check the safety of the vaccine on HIV positive volunteers
Well, at least they're not doing drug trials on animals anymore, better to use those damn AIDS people. Finally good for something
/Sarcasm
Its only more cost effective from a tax perspective. You'd be paying the same no matter what car you drive in terms of taxes, but you'd be buying 2x or more gas than the fuel efficient cars
WRONG. I think you meant to do cents per mile, not mile per cents. 18.5/30 = .61666 cents.
Anybody who is getting better than 18.5 miles per gallon will LOSE money if this happens.
How'd you get up to 88mph?
Was there something in the syllabus about it? Usually the teacher puts all that stuff in there to prevent liability in the event that something happens.
If there's nothing in the syllabus, I'd say your professor cannot require your notes back.
However, your professor had no right to go through your personal property. Your professor sounds like that asshole receipt checker at Wal-mart that gets all pissy when you refuse to show your receipt...
('about $60 on 4-5 games is about $7 a game)
Where did you learn math?
then why is my "750 GB" hard drive only registering 698 GB?
No, they are not. They are selling a copy of the software. They are using a perversion of copyright law to claim that you are subject to the license.
Or, maybe you're agreeing to a contract that says you're buying a license of this software, and not the software itself? Yeah, that is what that EULA is.
An upgrade copy is a discount to those who are upgrading from an older version of a software to a newer version. AV makers do this, DVD burning software makers do this..they all do this as a reward to their returning customers, not so someone trying to undercut their profit can benefit. Its like shooting yourself in the foot!
How is Psystar right? Apple only lets you use the software because you've agreed to their terms. Don't like em? Return the product. It says it right there in the EULA, which is a CONTRACT.
For your other examples, they're ridiculous. See, if Ford, Sony, Rowling, whoever did this, they would LOSE money. This license makes things easier for Apple and makes them money. By only allowing THEIR software on THEIR hardware, they are insuring that the machine you buy will be supported. Apple recoups their loss on software sales by selling it with their hardware. Think Apple hardware sucks and is overpriced, so be it, don't but their product. Like OSX but still don't want their hardware; I guess you have quite the dilemma then.
If Psystar wins this one, Apple will simply stop selling "upgrades" and charge $1000 for a copy of OSX. Then, they will give a $900 discount to those who buy macs. Then they will offer free OS X support to people who buy Apple branded hardware, but not to those who just bought the software. That sounds like a great world to me
Apple isn't making it impossible for anyone to sell a computer compatible with OSX. That is a lie my friend. The trick here is that it can't legally have OSX installed, but it can be compatible.
Apple isn't selling you OSX and saying "here you go, do as you please, it is all yours now". Apple sells a license of OSX. By installing the software, you agree to the terms in the EULA, and if you do not agree, then you do not install and return the product. The EULA is a contract, plain and simple. If the contract says "You may only install on 'Apple' branded computers" then you either agree, or return the product. Psystar would have gotten away with it if they would have built the clone and sold it with a copy of OSX, but not install it themselves. The user would be the ones to disregard the EULA then, not Psystar. Not to mention the upgrade version Apple sells is just that, an upgrade, and the EULA states that. You may be able to use an upgrade version as a full copy, but does that make it legal?
Finally, Apple makes its money from hardware sales (when it comes to the computer division, that is) The R&D cost for OSX has to be millions upon millons. Apple recoups this cost from hardware sales. Psystar taking advantage of the $129 upgrade OSX is stripping Apple from their R&D money. Its like how phone companies can give you a $550 phone for $150 when you sign up for a new contract, because they know they'll recoup the cost of the phone because you have a voice plan. Psystar is like some third party, selling you the $550 phone for $150 without selling you the contract, and leaving Verizon to foot the $400 difference.
Well I hope you share your hard work
Uh, this shit doesn't need to happen any more. i couldn't get my damn email when they did that crap
Until iTunes can be used as a media player AND a bittorrent client, I don't think it'll happen (at least not for me)
Hell, think of the marketing! "You have two options of getting your media; via iTMS, or for free via BitTorrent" I'd buy that shit in a heartbeat
That's what she said
Stop with the crap-ass car analogy, its the dead horse. A car is 1 product, whereas ASUS's computer and Microsoft's XP are each 1 separate product. You're right, I don't have a right to choose what products a company sells, but I should have the right as to which I want to buy! If ASUS made the OS and sold it with the computer as 1 product, then yes, you're SOL. Nobody should have to pay the microsoft tax just to buy the computer they want
Uh, why not? ASUS makes computers, Microsoft makes OSes. You shouldn't have to buy shitty product from another company that you dont want to get the product that you do want. End of story
Thats complete and utter BS.
If I wanted an ASUS Computer, I should be able to buy JUST THAT. Most manufacturers still dont have a "No OS" option for their configured systems, and I'm damn sure that there isn't a single computer sold in a retail store that has "No OS" as an optional package(at least in the US).
Look, if the guy doesn't want to pay the Microsoft Tax, then he shouldn't have to. Last time I checked, they were 2 completely seperate companies, ASUS and Microsoft. Imagine that if every manufacturer pre-installed a $1000 copy of Adobe CS3 and you couldn't opt out of it, wouldn't you be a little pissed off? Wouldn't you feel that you'd have the right to get your money back for something you didn't want in the first place? This isn't the slightest bit different. Not to mention the whole EULA problem. If you can't see the EULA before you purchase something, you can't just say "Oh, well, I won't buy this then". If he didn't agree with the EULA upon starting his computer (which it may not have even appeared, if ASUS preinstalled XP, which would create a whole new problem in itself) then he has every right to tell ASUS to kiss his ass and give him his money back.
I was going to comment...but my AOL hours are almost up...
The ISPs need to suck it up and invest in a new network. I download around 30-40 GB per month. This was never a problem when I had Adelphia as my ISP. Once the Comcast takeover was completely finished, the throttling began. So why was it that Adelphia could support my downloading habits, but Comcast couldn't? I have no idea.
A pay-per-GB model would kill the future uses of the internet. For example, I predict in the next 3 years, the downloading of HD content will be extremely popular. a Blu-Ray disc holds, say 50 GBs. Therefore to download 1 movie would take 50 GB of bandwidth. Assumming a base prise of $30 plus $3 for every GB used, it would cost $180 to transfer that movie (plus the rental cost)
These ISPs dont want to upgrade their networks because they've blown all of their money. In my area, GE communications laid all this fibre during the dotcom boom, and then went bellie up, and was bought out by pennies on the dollar by Adelphia. Adelphia screwed with their money, not investing it or saving any for the future, and also went bankrupt, and bought by Comcast. Comcast is broke too, but they're gonna bitch and moan to the very end that its too expensive to lay more fibre and that their customers are criminals and all this BS.
I just wish we could have another, small dotcom boom, Comcast would lay fresh fibre with the outlook of emmense future profits, and get bought out by some new company for pennies on the dollar. I get awesome bandwidth, Goliath dies, and It'll be cheap since it was bought out so cheap.