Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   I don't see the problem..

   

   whosawhat?, Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 12:38pm

   
   

   All they are doing is selling an IPOD and DVDs and then for people that can't do it or have trouble, they load the DVDs for them.
   
   How is this different then dell pre-loading microsoft office?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: I don't see the problem..

   

   Mike (profile), Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 12:42pm

   
   

   Well, Dell gets a license from Microosft which lets them preload the software.
   
   And, yes, while you would think that there shouldn't be anything wrong with selling and loading the content onto an iPod, we've already seen that the industry doesn't see things that way. To them, when you buy a DVD, you're buying a DVD -- not the right to transfer that content anywhere else.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: I don't see the problem..

   

   whosawhat?, Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 12:52pm

   
   

   That is a good point. What about a 3rd party consultant that installs office for you?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: I don't see the problem..

   

   Happy user, Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 1:01pm

   
   

   DVDs are useless without a means to "play" them. To make them useful, the content needs to be transferred to a "player" -- whether that be a Video player attached to a television, or a portable player with a built-in screen.
   
   The issue is that they want to control which player is used to play the content with.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: I don't see the problem..

   

   Clifford VanMeter, Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 1:06pm

   
   

   The problem is that its not rally about the law, its really about extorting money either from companies like these that want to use the content, or from the public. The MPAA and TV execs would like to be able to charge us separately for each use of the content we buy -- that makes good business for them, but its bad for consumers.
   Its also about lawyers, and having them in abundance and at your beck and call. Sony sued Conectix over the Playstation emulator that allowed the use of Playstation games on PCs. By the time the case was settled, Connectix had to pull the product or face bankruptcy. Sony didn't win, but a competing product was still eliminated. Lawsuits are cheaper than innovating and competing fairly in the marketplace.
   They don't have to win -- they just have to hold out the longest.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Haggie, Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 1:20pm

   
   

   When I buy a DVD, aren't I buying a "license" to play that DVD? And part of that "license" allows me to use it within the limitations of fair use which would include ripping the DVD and copying it to my video iPod. As long as the seller has bought a legitimate copy of the DVD and that is sold along with the iPod, how can Apple or the MPAA claim that they are being harmed? Apple was paid for the iPod and the studio got paid for the DVD.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   No Subject Given

   

   fuzzmanmatt, Nov 22nd, 2005 @ 8:49pm

   
   

   Apple Computer cannot sell an iPod with content on it as part of their agreement with Apple Records. The iTMS just barely keeps the agreement in mind. iPods, from Apple Computer, with content on them would be a blatant disregard for the agreement. Any other company selling iPods and content is a different thing altogether, and doesn't bother me at all.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment