Apple is screwing over anybody who doesn't want to use their hardware. Why are they forcing fans of their software to have to install, learn, use, and manage an entirely different application for the sole reason that they don't own an iPod. If Microsoft's Zune software was top dog like iTunes, people would be screaming about it (and please, don't try and lie and say you'd backup Microsoft. Microsoft has used their leverage all the time and get kicked for it. Here, Apple is using theirs and you're defending them.)
Personally, I think they should drop iTunes support. If iTunes isn't going to play nice, why should they? If the iTunes application isn't going to work with anything else then why should anyone go out of their way to work with iTunes. Its frankly hypocritical of you.
No one is asking Apple to make sure its software works with anyone else's hardware. Folks are asking that they stop *crippling* their own software so that it won't work with anyone else's hardware. There's a vastly huge difference. Just as they use hardware DRM to force OS X to only run on Mac hardware, its not a matter of incompatibility as to why other devices can't sync with iTunes.
You never actually answered the question. When you break down your argument, you still just say, "It's wrong because what they're doing is wrong." Why is it wrong? How is Palm "abusing" Apple's labor? Apple isn't putting any extra effort in here. In fact, they're making more for themselves. In the end, Apple is abusing their own labor.
Plus, you realize in this fight, the consumer should technically side with Palm. There's really no reason to side with Apple. They're hindering consumers. Apple: "Oh, you use iTunes because you like it? Oh wait, but you don't have an iPod or iPhone. We're sorry, you'll have to learn to use another application if you actually want to sync your library with anything. Its not that we hate it but... oh wait... I guess we kind of do."
I'm all for you defending him and saying he isn't a crybaby, thats fine. But seriously... his show is completely devoid of intelligence. He contradicts himself all the time. "He has a deep seated hatred for the white man." "I never said he didn't like white men." Seriously? (while I used quotes, I'm not quite sure if those are the *exact* words, but its extremely close and not taken out of context either.)
you try to use big words, but none of them back up your position. there's absolutely nothing wrong with using reductio ad absurdum as a formal argument. your entire post is laced with opinion, but absolutely no reasoning behind it. its as if you want everyone to overlook the lack of actual content by justifying all that money you spent on an english degree.
Mike's point isn't that the artist's ideas should have any weight. Its that the RIAA said they're doing this for the artists, so Mike is saying, why not talk to the artists if this is being done for their benefit? You seem to be ENTIRELY missing the point.
I'll admit, Amanda Palmer & Neil Gaiman were the main reasons I purchased the Music Club. I'm not upset about the purchase, but I have to say that I may have purchased only this if it were available at the time. Just goes to show how much I was willing to spend to get something of that nature. Fans really will go above and beyond retail prices for something that they consider valuable. When NIN had its ultra deluxe limited edition release of Ghosts I-IV, I jumped on that as well. Whilst there are few folks I'd dish out that much money for something, those few I'd spend quite a bit on.
I have to admit, I am looking forward to the other artists' offerings in the group as I'm not extremely familiar with any of them.
They're not trying to fight any problem. They're just trying to strengthen copyrights so that the newspapers have to do less work for more money. They know that is the current situation. Right now, they assume its more economical to try and change the law as opposed to changing the business model though. However, they obviously can't use that as their line of reasoning so they have to come up with something that's not false, but sounds like a problem. Their answer to that dilemma is Newser.
Seriously? That blog is your source that Apple admits AT&T is the one that pulled Google Voice? A screenshot? A lowly tech talking about things he probably doesn't even have access to?
I find it intriguing that any time more than one ad thats even remotely bad about Apple shows up, people assume its a conspiracy. Get a grip, maybe the company you so thoroughly love and try to protect is actually just like any other company.
Every little thing, good or bad, is all over the blogosphere. If people are going to post articles every other second about how awesome the iPhone is, you can expect the same thing when the company does something stupid. Yea, it may be standard legalese for some companies, but nonetheless, its still stupid and people finally brought it to the world's attention that companies are doing this.
Apple got more coverage on the week leading up to AND on the day the Pre was released. I didn't hear you complaining about it then.
Re: But, there are two kinds of automatic transmissions
For the most part, the way people drive negate the actual fuel savings over automatics. Its like people saying getting the diet coke with their super-sized mcdonalds meal saves them calories. Yea, technically it does, but you're defeating its purpose by not eating properly in general.
I'm fairly certain most online stores have various agreements you must agree to in order to purchase the music. If you're talking about re-selling digital copies of a CD you've purchased, well, thats already illegal, therefore no agreements are required.
So, theoretically, you can't resell music you've purchased (unless its the actual CD and we're all aware that you can resell those anyway).
I also enjoy how if anybody ever says something bad about Apple, that entire entity is somehow seen as always bashing Apple and anti-Apple. Wired is historically an Apple supporter and its generally the exception when you see an anti-Apple article in Wired. I guess Apple fans really did find a way to justify Apple's position in this.
His take is blown out of proportion in the complete opposite direction. If jailbreaking an iPhone somehow gives you more access to the phone as opposed to jailbreaking any other phone, then thats problem with the design and needs to be fixed. Security holes should not be plugged by laws, they should be plugged by software fixes. And no, commercial interests can't distribute malicious software and claim protection. If its malicious, they'll still get in trouble.
Dan's take is actually pretty ridiculous once you stop and think about it. Most of his stuff is sensationalist and he does little to hide his biased against Apple competitors.
I'm fairly certain all patents currently in existence and in process will probably be grandfathered in and I'm sure lawyers would try and make sure renewals on those patents get grandfathered as well. So, we probably wouldn't see the benefits from this for quite awhile if it did in fact ever get enacted.
If it were cheap or free, I feel too many people make try and take that option. Personally, I think at this price, its still really cheap and wish I could do the lunch option, but however, I'm in NJ and really can't travel across the country for lunch. But it'd be neat as an experience.
Your private facebook profile is not school property. Your locker is school property. There is a world of difference between the two. Students have zero privacy *in* school. For all intents and purposes, Facebook is off school property and is considered the student's private life outside of school. The school's reach only goes so far.
EULAs need to be tested in court and hopefully thrown out
EULAs started off with at least decent intentions. Things along the likes of, "We're not responsible if you hurt yourself with this by not following the rules" etc. They used to just be about covering their asses. Now they're trying to take various rights away. Now they're commanding you to do things. No longer is it just saying "if you use it the wrong way, you're on your own." Its now "if you use it the wrong way, we'll try and sue you." I really wish I was paying closer attention to see where that gradual shift took place and what possibly got it to go forward.
Re: If Viacom wins it's going to be downhill from there.
I highly doubt the internet would get as bad you predict. You still have to remember that the internet isn't only in America. The US has some legislative influence, but its more in the arena of net neutrality type ideas. The laws they pass will only affect companies in the US. If an out-of-country site is popular enough and has a dedicated management staff, it seems it will always find a way to stay around (example: pirate bay).
In terms of streaming embedded videos, I believe a different section of the Safe Harbor provision applies to YouTube
17 U.S.C. § 512 (a) states:
Transitory Digital Network Communications. -
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
If this section *does* apply to YouTube in terms of embedded videos, they may have enough wiggle room to get by. They pass (1) because the user initiates the stream by clicking play OR the web designer initiates it if they write the code to automatically play (if thats possible). They obviously pass (2). They also clearly pass (3). They *technically* pass (4), but this is where it requires wordplay. One might say they keep a copy of the material on their servers BUT the actual provision says they're not allowed to keep any copies made during the transmission beyond what's reasonable. Technically, they don't keep any newly created copies (that I know of). The original copy is all they keep and that was already stored on their servers. So no copy is made during transmission. (5) I really can't comment on. I believe the form that they transmit it is the same that they store on their servers. I really don't know though. If thats not the case, then they might have a problem.
I'm no lawyer. I'm just reading this stuff and going on what I think it means. I could be wrong. This may not apply to YouTube at all. In any case, no matter what kind of copyright infringement Viacom claims, YouTube is protected as long as they abide by all the applicable rules of The Safe Harbor Provision.