ugp
Jun 11, 09:23 AM
I'm on a conf call and just got word about the early openings. As soon as i get to work in a minute ill post all the info i have. :)
Please let me know ASAP! :D
Please let me know ASAP! :D
KPOM
Apr 6, 02:25 PM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Uh, megahertz myth, anyone? Based on the 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the MacBook Pro, I'd expect the 1.4GHz Core i5 with hyperthreading to be significantly faster than the 1.86 or 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo. Plus, it can turbo boost to 2.3GHz.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
That is a legitimate concern. That said, if you aren't a gamer, the CPU may more than make up for it. Plus, we all know Apple can't use the Core 2 Duo forever, and is taking some heat for still using it now.
capabilities!
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Uh, megahertz myth, anyone? Based on the 2.3Ghz Core i5 in the MacBook Pro, I'd expect the 1.4GHz Core i5 with hyperthreading to be significantly faster than the 1.86 or 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo. Plus, it can turbo boost to 2.3GHz.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
That is a legitimate concern. That said, if you aren't a gamer, the CPU may more than make up for it. Plus, we all know Apple can't use the Core 2 Duo forever, and is taking some heat for still using it now.
capabilities!
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 03:56 PM
I'm talking PHONE. Wait 2 years or so on the tablets and it'll be the same thing. Apple just got too big of a head start on tablets.
Tony
Uh huh, sure Tony. Of course this time around Google doesn't have the benefit of complete carrier penetration and the ability to highly subsidize the products from long-term wireless contracts. Trying to apply the Android growth curve from smartphones to tablets will be an exercise in futility.
Good luck with your dream though.
Nope. But a 50" 1080p is better than a 42" 1080p.
It depends on if you have to put it in your pocket. ;)
i'm talking about a user experience as a smartphone, and the iPhone does not deliver, where as Android OS does.
Perhaps solely in the phone part of the equation. Here's the newsflash: the "smart" part of "smartphone" encompasses much more than a voice-driven contact list and actual phone calls.
The iOS ecosystem completely destroys Android, no matter how many widgets you're able to install.
Tony
Uh huh, sure Tony. Of course this time around Google doesn't have the benefit of complete carrier penetration and the ability to highly subsidize the products from long-term wireless contracts. Trying to apply the Android growth curve from smartphones to tablets will be an exercise in futility.
Good luck with your dream though.
Nope. But a 50" 1080p is better than a 42" 1080p.
It depends on if you have to put it in your pocket. ;)
i'm talking about a user experience as a smartphone, and the iPhone does not deliver, where as Android OS does.
Perhaps solely in the phone part of the equation. Here's the newsflash: the "smart" part of "smartphone" encompasses much more than a voice-driven contact list and actual phone calls.
The iOS ecosystem completely destroys Android, no matter how many widgets you're able to install.
kdarling
Apr 20, 11:08 AM
Okay, Knight, you're right. Even the Verizon Galaxy S has more buttons and a patterned back, with a rectangular lens and flash area. Not to mention a WVGA AMOLED screen.
But it does have a chrome trim ring and the back is curved for comfort!
Yeah, Apple is reaching a bit here.
But it does have a chrome trim ring and the back is curved for comfort!
Yeah, Apple is reaching a bit here.
shamino
Jul 20, 09:32 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 03:31 PM
Over the years I have bought a lot of computers for my business from a lot of different venders. To be honest Apple hardware support has never impressed me! :mad: I have actually had much better support from Dell than from Apple.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 02:09 PM
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
Soonerpet
Mar 25, 11:10 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 1, 05:11 PM
The IC-10 test is giving me hell. I've not had much of a challenge until now, but i just can not get gold on IC-10. I have silver, which is cool, but i keep wanting to go back and get gold because i've gotten gold on everything else so far.
Any IC-10 test pointers? It seems to be all about the first two turns, but i always end up tapping another car and getting disqualified.
Any IC-10 test pointers? It seems to be all about the first two turns, but i always end up tapping another car and getting disqualified.
tipt
Apr 10, 06:47 PM
This is simple, folks. I predict the introduction of AirEdit, to go with AirPlay and AirPrint.
What do we currently have in place?
Q Master
Logic Nodes
AirPlay
OS X server (now bundled in lion)
iPad multitouch UI tablet with the power to stream A/V over a network
AppleTV to stream media over a mac network to an HDTV
iTunes as a hub for media
Now, how could FCP utilize all of that? How could all these little pieces add up to one large, powerful network for editing and distributing media throughout a home or office?
I'll bet the iPad will be able to control the FCP UI and take advantage of a cluster of Mac Pro's (or a single mac) to do a lot of the editing, compressing, etc, and then use the iPad to stream that footage to any HDTV with an AppleTV or mac connected to it.
I'm sure there will be a new UI and we can always sit at the workstation if we please, but imagine being able to make edits, compress, and stream rough drafts across the country/world. You can be editing on your xserve cluster from the airport while your waiting for your flight. With in air wifi, you could probably even work from the plane...without the bulk of a laptop.
The guy in the video mentioned thunderbolt and that Apple knew what the competition was up to. Something to that effect. Must be a reason for point that out specifically.
What do we currently have in place?
Q Master
Logic Nodes
AirPlay
OS X server (now bundled in lion)
iPad multitouch UI tablet with the power to stream A/V over a network
AppleTV to stream media over a mac network to an HDTV
iTunes as a hub for media
Now, how could FCP utilize all of that? How could all these little pieces add up to one large, powerful network for editing and distributing media throughout a home or office?
I'll bet the iPad will be able to control the FCP UI and take advantage of a cluster of Mac Pro's (or a single mac) to do a lot of the editing, compressing, etc, and then use the iPad to stream that footage to any HDTV with an AppleTV or mac connected to it.
I'm sure there will be a new UI and we can always sit at the workstation if we please, but imagine being able to make edits, compress, and stream rough drafts across the country/world. You can be editing on your xserve cluster from the airport while your waiting for your flight. With in air wifi, you could probably even work from the plane...without the bulk of a laptop.
The guy in the video mentioned thunderbolt and that Apple knew what the competition was up to. Something to that effect. Must be a reason for point that out specifically.
shartypants
Mar 22, 03:35 PM
copy cats. Same price for a piece of crap, no thanks.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 11:35 AM
I pointed out the Grid layout many times in the other thread and was told that wasn't part of the lawsuit. If it is than Apple isn't just stretching... they are being idiotic.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:35 AM
Thank you for your constructive reply but I have a feeling it will all fall on deaf ears given that most have never actually gone on Google and researched what has been added/changed/enhanced to Mac OS X Lion. For example SAMBA has been removed and completely replaced with a ground up clean room implementation of SMB2 which will translate into better support for Windows Vista and 7 clients as well as the latest versions of Windows. Why hasn't that been mentioned by the nay sayers here?
OpenGL 3.2 has been added and funny enough not a single thing has been said about the fact that it lays the foundation for future updates that will be more prompt.
Then there is Webkit2 based web browser whose knock on effects go well beyond Safari and into applications wishing to utilise web based technologies with framework that provides said functionality but handles all the mundane security/process isolation/etc behind the scenes.
The merging of AV Foundation that serves as the foundation for future development for media products that will span iOS and Mac OS X; that you can have the same media core on iOS and Mac OS X then build upon it to differentiate between the desktop and tablet version by having a different interface, more features on the desktop version etc.
Sandboxing is being enhanced further and more system components are being put into it as to reduce the security exposure when a bug is found.
I'm sure others can note even more enhancements but it is frustrating when I hear the same nauseating ignorance over and over again from the cheap seats screaming there are no new features and yet they've done zero in the way of researching and reading on the matter.
You can't hear me .. but i'm cheering for you.
OpenGL 3.2 has been added and funny enough not a single thing has been said about the fact that it lays the foundation for future updates that will be more prompt.
Then there is Webkit2 based web browser whose knock on effects go well beyond Safari and into applications wishing to utilise web based technologies with framework that provides said functionality but handles all the mundane security/process isolation/etc behind the scenes.
The merging of AV Foundation that serves as the foundation for future development for media products that will span iOS and Mac OS X; that you can have the same media core on iOS and Mac OS X then build upon it to differentiate between the desktop and tablet version by having a different interface, more features on the desktop version etc.
Sandboxing is being enhanced further and more system components are being put into it as to reduce the security exposure when a bug is found.
I'm sure others can note even more enhancements but it is frustrating when I hear the same nauseating ignorance over and over again from the cheap seats screaming there are no new features and yet they've done zero in the way of researching and reading on the matter.
You can't hear me .. but i'm cheering for you.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:28 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....
ergle2
Sep 15, 01:08 PM
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 08:11 AM
5. Can Apple locate me based on my geo-tagged Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
No. This data is sent to Apple in an anonymous and encrypted form. Apple cannot identify the source of this data.
So while it is true that the iPhone does note Wi-Fi locations in your general area, and thus it does "track" you in that sense, it is only on your Mac that this information can actually track you. The information sent to Apple is anonymized, and thus not trackable to you.
Apple is NOT tracking you. Your phone creates a database that could track you IF SOMEONE HAS ACCESS TO YOUR MAC. But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The only reason to slam Apple is for not culling this local database. Now they will. But Apple was NEVER tracking you. Apple is not lying when they say that.
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:27 AM
Somehow I doubt that Intel would change thier roadmap for/because of Apple. They are probably one of their smallest customers :P
I did say that it was WILD speculation. Maybe I should get a job at ThinkSecret?! :rolleyes:
I did say that it was WILD speculation. Maybe I should get a job at ThinkSecret?! :rolleyes:
bushido
Mar 22, 08:24 PM
love that UI, iOS looks like windows 95 compared to the latest offers on the market, some things need to change. getting kinda tired of it after 3 iPhones
Nuvi
Apr 11, 02:35 AM
Except he rewrote iMovie all my himself before showing it to Apple. Jobs then chose to adopt the new interface.
So if anything, what you find crap in iMovie was Ubilos' ideas.
Things I don't like to hear... In all honesty I just hope he wanted to separate iMovie from Pro products even more... I have bad feeling about all of this. Rumors about FCP being FC (literally not going for pro anymore) and aiming for online consumer delivery like YouTube makes me sick. If they have killed tape input / output you know that moment Apple really made iCut"Pro".
So if anything, what you find crap in iMovie was Ubilos' ideas.
Things I don't like to hear... In all honesty I just hope he wanted to separate iMovie from Pro products even more... I have bad feeling about all of this. Rumors about FCP being FC (literally not going for pro anymore) and aiming for online consumer delivery like YouTube makes me sick. If they have killed tape input / output you know that moment Apple really made iCut"Pro".
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 20, 10:51 AM
Depends on which model. The AT&T/Rogers Galaxy S Captivate hardly ressembles the iPhone :
http://www.droiddog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/att-samsung-captivate-photo-1.jpg
I'm also hard-pressed to see how the Nexus S comes even close :
http://blog.eches.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/samsung-nexus-s.jpg
Let's not even go there with the Epic 4G :
http://handies.phandroid.com/media/samsung-epic-4g-1288875927-196.jpg
Yet they are all included in the complaint...
Of course. Apple invented the phone, the computer, the GUI, the mouse, etc etc etc. :rolleyes:
http://www.droiddog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/att-samsung-captivate-photo-1.jpg
I'm also hard-pressed to see how the Nexus S comes even close :
http://blog.eches.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/samsung-nexus-s.jpg
Let's not even go there with the Epic 4G :
http://handies.phandroid.com/media/samsung-epic-4g-1288875927-196.jpg
Yet they are all included in the complaint...
Of course. Apple invented the phone, the computer, the GUI, the mouse, etc etc etc. :rolleyes:
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:43 PM
My phone just happens to work in europe, but I wouldn't care if it didn't.
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance?
A phone that works in most of the world is better for many of us. Who wants a phone that won't work in Europe for instance?
cmaier
Apr 20, 01:42 PM
Which tells me somebody botched it. Does it impact damage claims if Samsung decides to present one model that doesn't bear any ressemblance to the iPhone like the ones depicted above ?
Or can Apple amend to add specifity to the claim.
They don't need to amend. This is a federal pleading so the standard is whether it puts Samsung on notice. This is a different standard than state courts, where they would have to be much more specific. Eventually they will have to prove which models are accused. Looks to me like the complaint is fine.
Or can Apple amend to add specifity to the claim.
They don't need to amend. This is a federal pleading so the standard is whether it puts Samsung on notice. This is a different standard than state courts, where they would have to be much more specific. Eventually they will have to prove which models are accused. Looks to me like the complaint is fine.
skunk
Mar 22, 07:03 PM
Whether it turns out to be justified depends on subsequent events.Sticking your neck out there, I see. :)
matticus008
Nov 29, 06:13 AM
One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
Not really, though. There are countless ways of maneuvering around any such royalties, from framing it as an access toll to a deposit or anything in between. This added cost doesn't actually get you anywhere in litigation, most importantly because it in no way stipulates between you, the customer, and the label.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music.
Far from it. Each tax payer contributes to fund their local DMV, and yet their services aren't free. The state collects a tax on car sales, which goes in most cases to road improvement, police departments, and the DMV (along with a truly bizarre array of other causes), but it's only part of the cost. You also pay taxes to a general fund, which is distributed to agencies and services you may never use (or even be aware of). Contributing some money cannot be construed as contributing sufficient money here.
You also pay for car insurance which protects you in the event of an accident; intentionally putting yourself in an accident is insurance fraud. There's no such thing as "music fraud" (at least in this construction), but the result is a sort of piracy insurance policy for the label. Naturally, though, the labels claim such exorbitant losses and damages from piracy that even $1 per iPod would hardly dent that figure.
If this went into effect, I would have a defense in court when I downloaded the entire Universal Label Catalog (All Their Music) off the net.
If only it worked that way...
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
No comments:
Post a Comment