or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple among tech leaders developing next PC to HDTV interface
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple among tech leaders developing next PC to HDTV interface - Page 2

post #41 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by ctachme
\\Not only does HDMI do that just fine, so does DVI!! \\

DVI doesn't have the bandwidth moving forward.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #42 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by ctachme
Wait a second, did you say 16Gb/s?

Let's see. If each pixel has 32 bits of data... that's 512Mpixels/s.

At a rate of 60 screens per second, that's 8.533Mpixels/screen

If the screen was 4:3 that would be like 3454 by 2590.

Wait a second, that isn't very large.

Keep in mind it is 16Gb/s for the first iteration with plans to develop it going forward.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #43 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by ctachme
Wait a second, did you say 16Gb/s?

Let's see. If each pixel has 32 bits of data... that's 512Mpixels/s.

At a rate of 60 screens per second, that's 8.533Mpixels/screen

If the screen was 4:3 that would be like 3454 by 2590.

Wait a second, that isn't very large.

There already are displays with a higher resolution than that. VGA has been around for what? 15 years? How long can UDI last if it can't even support the best of today's displays, much less displays in 15 years? Heck, VGA supports, what? 2048 by 1536? A standard that's not even 3 times better than that is supposed to last how long?

And yes, I know that this is just "First Generation", but will the next generation be backward compatible? Will I have to buy yet another adaptor to add to the enormous collection I already have?

That IBM display (also sold by Viewsonic) has been discontinued a while ago.

Right now, Apple's 30" is the higest rez monitor sold for anything other than for scientific use.

VGA is analog. Analog is disappearing. It won't be around much longer. Then what do you do? As CRT's leave the scene, and digital displays take their place, a digital standard is required. VGA at 2048 x 1536 is really pushing it. It's also only used on small monitors. Once you get beyond 22" inches, it becomes really difficult.

VGA inputs to LCD, and other internally digital displays, increases the cost of the entire system, as well as resulting in the lower quality that we are all familiar with from those VGA LCD's that are still on the market. So something new is necessary. DVI has pretty much shot its load with the dual link output model. That just barely gets us to Apple's 30" at 2560 x 1600. After that; poof!

How much do you think a 50" display with 4,000 x 2,250 rez would cost?

As they say, this will be good for the next ten years.
post #44 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Somynona
Haha, the backlash begins. Actually the HDMI article of Wikipedia is superb.

But you never know. Until they implement the new standards they say they will, it's subject to the problems it's been having.
post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Somynona
Bullshit. It's profit driven executives who created the "need" for DRM. It's the other way round, people like me are considered pirates because we do things we otherwise wouldn't do if DRM didn't exist. If I can't purchase music online for instance, that I can use fairly, then I will download it for free. There are of course many artists and producers who provide me with a way to purchase their music without DRM, and I do so, as do many others.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/

BS yourself. Pirate's always blame those they are stealing from. Pickpockets always blame their victums as well. "If it wasn't so easy!".

fine. As long as it's legal, I have no problem. Just remember that YOU don't own the content.
post #46 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
HDMI needs replacement because physically the connection isn't secure. Folks with HDMI runs to projectors sometimes report poor connections because the physical connector works itself loose.

DVI isn't as good as HDMI as the most common implementation is 8 bit RGB but HDMI can be 8 bit RGB or 8, 10 or 12 YCbCr. DVDs start as YCbCr then converted to RGB for DVI output so that's one less conversion. In the case of 8 bit RGB, below black information is truncated.

HDCP is on both and not really a new issue for UDI.

So if UDI gives HDMI performance with a better physical connection/package its a win.

But will it have thumbscrews? Those things drive me insane, and I LOVE that the mini-VGA cable on my iBook doesn't have any thumbscrews. I plug my monitor in and out of the iBook 2x a day, I really don't want something that relies on thumbscrews.

That said, I wouldn't mind something like RJ-45 connectors. Those are nice a secure, but aren't a pain either.
post #47 of 72
Quote:
As they say, this will be good for the next ten years.

That means UHD hopefully

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video

anyone wanna buy me one of these?

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/4864
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #48 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That IBM display (also sold by Viewsonic) has been discontinued a while ago.

Right now, Apple's 30" is the higest rez monitor sold for anything other than for scientific use.

VGA is analog. Analog is disappearing. It won't be around much longer. Then what do you do? As CRT's leave the scene, and digital displays take their place, a digital standard is required. VGA at 2048 x 1536 is really pushing it. It's also only used on small monitors. Once you get beyond 22" inches, it becomes really difficult.

VGA inputs to LCD, and other internally digital displays, increases the cost of the entire system, as well as resulting in the lower quality that we are all familiar with from those VGA LCD's that are still on the market. So something new is necessary. DVI has pretty much shot its load with the dual link output model. That just barely gets us to Apple's 30" at 2560 x 1600. After that; poof!

How much do you think a 50" display with 4,000 x 2,250 rez would cost?

As they say, this will be good for the next ten years.

Wowoa, I'm NOT saying that we should stick with VGA, that would be horrible. I'm saying we shouldn't rush into a standard that isn't entirely future-proof because of a perceived current need. I would much rather stick with VGA for 2 more years and get a standard that lasts 15, than have a standard established now that will only last for 8.

And, I don't think that a 50" inch display is the future, displays with much higher ppi is. Imagine a 12" iBook with a 4092 by 3072 screen. Do you think Mac OS X is becoming resolution independent just because Vista is too?

Also, I just thought of a another thing. What if people want it push multiple monitors with one connection?
post #49 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
What standard HD format do you suggest? HD-SDI? HD component? Recording those formats costs thousands of dollars. There is no cheap way to record uncompressed HD, which is why concerns about HDMI recording are pointless.

None of that matters.

You are talking about professional formats. None of them have anything to do with this. The reason why they are so expensive is BECAUSE the equipment is professional.

It's as I mentioned before, you can buy a Miranda or Laird professional Firewire to S-Video converter for $2,000 and higher, or you can buy one of the many cheap ones designed for home use, for under $200.

As long as we aren't talking about professional recorders, with their high reliability and features, the price is not high. There doesn't have to be much in the box at all. Just buffering circuitry to get the signal to your computer. Then software will do the conversion to MEPG 4 or H.264, and you're off.

This is pretty simple stuff.

The HDCP prevents that from happening. It isn't just a simple form of DRM. No doubt, a box could be designed to get around that; if it could be figured out how to get around it.

Those who think this is easy are simply wrong.

People like to think that this kid in Europe broke the DRM for DVD's. But he didn't.

What happened was that the manufacturer of those disks made a mistake and left the public key that's found in the file used UP TO the point of pressing. That key is supposed to be removed. It wasn't! He was poking around and found that key, and he was in. A simple software program he wrote would allow anyone get that key if he had the disks that had that key left in. That's all.

It might be noticed that no one has broken the copy protection since then, and he didn't really break it. Any disks that have that key can be gotten into though.

The same thing is true of Apple's DRM. It was broken into, fixed, broken into again, fixed again, and hasn't been broken into since. There were a couple of bugs that were exploited. Once they were fixed, nothing else has happened.

These new DRM schemes are far more difficult to break.
post #50 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by ctachme
Wowoa, I'm NOT saying that we should stick with VGA, that would be horrible. I'm saying we shouldn't rush into a standard that isn't entirely future-proof because of a perceived current need. I would much rather stick with VGA for 2 more years and get a standard that lasts 15, than have a standard established now that will only last for 8.

And, I don't think that a 50" inch display is the future, displays with much higher ppi is. Imagine a 12" iBook with a 4092 by 3072 screen. Do you think Mac OS X is becoming resolution independent just because Vista is too?

Also, I just thought of a another thing. What if people want it push multiple monitors with one connection?

It doesn't work like that. Nothing is future proof. Even if the next standard did last 15 years, people would be complaining when something new was proposed. If they tried to keep it for 15 years then many would complain the it wasn't good enough.

Everything is a compromise. Whatever standard they come up with can only be realized by the technology of the day. After that, it's just guesses. they try to understand what will be coming down the poke in the future, but they never quite get it right.

The Japanese came out with an analog hi def standard 15 years ago. I saw a number of those sets in technology demos. They looked pretty good, but you could see all of the analog problems, just on a finer scale. They planned for that standard for 10 tears, and it died in one day when congress here decided to go digital!

I think that 10 years for a standard nowadays is about as good as we can hope for. Developments are happening too fast to make any predictions last for more than a few years. This standard starts well above any reasonable resolution expectations.

We will not see a 4,000 x 3,000 portable screen any time soon. There is simply no need for it. 1,900 x 1,200 17" screens are already more than enough, even with a rez- independent OS.

Multiple monitors are something different.
post #51 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Since when does DVI have HDCP? One of the reasons for HDMI's existence is the HDCP. DVI has no specs in place for it. I'd like to see those adapters you are talking about. It sounds like a scam.

False. Google for "DVI HDCP".

The adapters I talked of are not a failure of the protection system (some small company apparently bought a shipment of legitimate decoder chips under false pretenses), but there are also significant papers out on HDCP. If I understand correctly, there can only be 39 different keys for devices until cryptanalysis breaks the whole thing wide open, enabling the generation of endless valid keys, masquerading as existing legitimate devices and so on. So if we assume they would only use 39 keys, and that there are 390 million devices with HDCP, there are at least 10 million devices out with any given key. As soon as a single key leaks for some reason or other, to avoid a "new DeCSS", they have to disable 10 million legitimate devices *best case*. 10-million device recall? There's very secure DRM in our near future but it seems HDCP isn't it.
post #52 of 72
Guess what Apple, I already bought a kick-ass projector and have a great home theater setup. The high-def ports I can use are Component, VGA, and DVI. You include a adapter to convert UDI to one of these and I'll be moderately happy. If you don't, I'll support the first person/company who can and I'll show you where you can stick your IU... I mean UID.

Cheers
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #53 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
BS yourself. Pirate's always blame those they are stealing from. Pickpockets always blame their victums as well. "If it wasn't so easy!".

Victims, eh?

The reasoning for copyright, like patents, is that a creator of an idea is given a limited term monopoly to control the use and distribute their work, as an incentive for creating it in the first place and releasing it to the public. If not for this collective "agreement", any data or idea would be public domain, free to use by anybody.

The monopoly has grown to a normal human lifetime and is continuously extended further with no end in sight. It is not a limited monopoly anymore.

Further, it is possible to encrypt the work so it can only be viewed and used on authorized devices. The creation of a compatible authorized device is prevented by law. Without such a device, the work is only a bunch of useless data. Obviously, the actual content cannot then be said to be in the public domain even if the monopoly afforded by copyright actually ended some day.

Please explain why would it either be in the public's interest or be their moral responsibility to continue handing out this endless monopoly to the creators when it's entirely up to the creator if he gives anything in return.
Quote:
fine. As long as it's legal, I have no problem. Just remember that YOU don't own the content.

... and neither does anyone else. Copyright places restrictions on use. It does not and can not create ownership.
post #54 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
False. Google for "DVI HDCP".

The adapters I talked of are not a failure of the protection system (some small company apparently bought a shipment of legitimate decoder chips under false pretenses), but there are also significant papers out on HDCP. If I understand correctly, there can only be 39 different keys for devices until cryptanalysis breaks the whole thing wide open, enabling the generation of endless valid keys, masquerading as existing legitimate devices and so on. So if we assume they would only use 39 keys, and that there are 390 million devices with HDCP, there are at least 10 million devices out with any given key. As soon as a single key leaks for some reason or other, to avoid a "new DeCSS", they have to disable 10 million legitimate devices *best case*. 10-million device recall? There's very secure DRM in our near future but it seems HDCP isn't it.

I stand corrected! I haven't seen a sucessful installation with that system in place. It seemed cobbled together to me, so I assumed it wasn't standardized.

Apparently it is, just not very well.

This PDF has the full spec.

It's far more complex than you think.

I just finished reading the entire document. It isn't just a matter of finding out what the 40 keys are. That's just the very beginning of a very complex constantly changing relationship between the upstream device and the downstream device.

All content contains 40 keys. there is not 39 keys in it's entirity for all disks being pressed. Each disk, or cable show, or whatever it is, contains 40 different keys.

These keys are selected one at a time by another key. This then causes a new key to be generated which is then sent downstream in response to another code that comes from the downstream device.

This process is continuing throughout the entire time the content is being played. The continual exchange of updated codes makes it pretty much impossible to break.

You will really have to read this to get an idea of what is actually happening.

http://www.digital-cp.com/home/HDCPS...tionRev1_1.pdf
post #55 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
[B]Victims, eh?

The reasoning for copyright, like patents, is that a creator of an idea is given a limited term monopoly to control the use and distribute their work, as an incentive for creating it in the first place and releasing it to the public. If not for this collective "agreement", any data or idea would be public domain, free to use by anybody.

The monopoly has grown to a normal human lifetime and is continuously extended further with no end in sight. It is not a limited monopoly anymore.

Further, it is possible to encrypt the work so it can only be viewed and used on authorized devices. The creation of a compatible authorized device is prevented by law. Without such a device, the work is only a bunch of useless data. Obviously, the actual content cannot then be said to be in the public domain even if the monopoly afforded by copyright actually ended some day.

Please explain why would it either be in the public's interest or be their moral responsibility to continue handing out this endless monopoly to the creators when it's entirely up to the creator if he gives anything in return.... and neither does anyone else. Copyright places restrictions on use. It does not and can not create ownership.

I agree with you on one thing. The length of copyrights has grown too much.

But the constitution allows Congress to set these times.

I do think that some companies have a problem. Is it really fair to take protection from Disney and others for their characters? That's a tough decision to make. They aren't a one off. The companies depend up them.

I think that movies, music, tv shows, books, and other content such as that should have a shorter protection time.

The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material.
post #56 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
You can't really record HDMI anyway, so it doesn't really matter if it's protected or not.

Why would you think that matters? If it isn't encrypted, then any EE student would be able to make a recorder. It doesn't matter if recording isn't practical now, it will eventually be. All this is a large set of exercises to help media producers control what they make, to prevent as many people from making unauthorized copies as they can, both individuals as well as large organizations.
post #57 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
DVI doesn't have the bandwidth moving forward.

DVI has dual link capability. HDMI has the same video bandwidth as a single link DVI.
post #58 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I do think that some companies have a problem. Is it really fair to take protection from Disney and others for their characters? That's a tough decision to make. They aren't a one off. The companies depend up them.

I think that movies, music, tv shows, books, and other content such as that should have a shorter protection time.

From a legal perspective, copyrights and trademarks are different things. I agree that the Mickey Mouse character should remain trademarked, but the Steamboat Mickey video should be in the public domain now.
post #59 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I agree with you on one thing. The length of copyrights has grown too much.

But the constitution allows Congress to set these times.

What's legal and what is right or acceptable is not the same thing.
Quote:
I do think that some companies have a problem. Is it really fair to take protection from Disney and others for their characters? That's a tough decision to make. They aren't a one off. The companies depend up them.

An analogy:
A person buys a car 100% on credit.
Due to a computer error, the credit company never asks for payments.
After five years, the man notices he hasn't been asked to pay anything. He doesn't react to this or worry about it in any way.
Ten years after, the company notices and wonders if they should take back the car since the person hasn't paid a cent for it. (let's assume asking for money at this point is not a legal option for some reason, while taking the car is)
They note the person needs the car to get to work.

Need is just a red herring. It's clear as day the man was originally intended to get the car, but after five years had no business keeping it.

Same applies to the content industry, which (I'm being generous here) has at least passively been aware they are getting something for nothing. If they haven't prepared for the backlash of "losing" what is not theirs in the first place, boo hoo.
Quote:
I think that movies, music, tv shows, books, and other content such as that should have a shorter protection time.

The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material.

I'd venture a guess at any given time Mariah Carey only owns a couple of her own recordings, and her fans own millions of them combined. The meaning of the data on the recordings on the millions of discs, or the sound stereo systems make out of it, does not belong to Mariah. Even if she was the writer, vocalist and keyboardist, she would not own the song, because the song is an idea. The only thing afforded to her by the copyright is a limited monopoly to dictate how the song is to be used.
post #60 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
From a legal perspective, copyrights and trademarks are different things. I agree that the Mickey Mouse character should remain trademarked, but the Steamboat Mickey video should be in the public domain now.

Trademark is about giving you tools to protect your customers from being fooled into accidentally buying a product that appears extremely similar to your product.

But how does this work in practice? Once the copyright period is over, it would seem okay for someone to draw a comic book with Mickey stories and refer to him by name, label the cover "Detective Stories" and sell this.
What would surely get you in trouble would be to make the cover closely resemble Disney product by using a big "Mickey Mouse" logo, using a Mickey picture, and aping the style of the graphic design off Disney's product.

I am not a lawyer. Maybe someone with a better grasp of trademarks and the law could confirm or deny this and provide specifics? I wonder how plush Mickeys or Mickey posters, where the product is virtually nothing but the character, would get treated.
post #61 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
What's legal and what is right or acceptable is not the same thing.An analogy:
A person buys a car 100% on credit.
Due to a computer error, the credit company never asks for payments.
After five years, the man notices he hasn't been asked to pay anything. He doesn't react to this or worry about it in any way.
Ten years after, the company notices and wonders if they should take back the car since the person hasn't paid a cent for it. (let's assume asking for money at this point is not a legal option for some reason, while taking the car is)
They note the person needs the car to get to work.

Need is just a red herring. It's clear as day the man was originally intended to get the car, but after five years had no business keeping it.

Same applies to the content industry, which (I'm being generous here) has at least passively been aware they are getting something for nothing. If they haven't prepared for the backlash of "losing" what is not theirs in the first place, boo hoo. I'd venture a guess at any given time Mariah Carey only owns a couple of her own recordings, and her fans own millions of them combined. The meaning of the data on the recordings on the millions of discs, or the sound stereo systems make out of it, does not belong to Mariah. Even if she was the writer, vocalist and keyboardist, she would not own the song, because the song is an idea. The only thing afforded to her by the copyright is a limited monopoly to dictate how the song is to be used.

That's an extremely tortured analogy.

The person never owned the car in the first place. The error in billing didn't end his obligation to pay. It's also rather difficult to believe that it took him 5 years to notice that he never had to pay for it. He would have known after the very first payment came due, and wasn't billed for it on time.

Of course he had no business keeping it.

What you are doing by trying to extend this to the industry is absurd. The industry isn't in the position of that man, but rather in the position of the credit company.

It doesn't matter one whit that you don't like the music companies. If they own the content, then that's that.

Your understanding of ownership, or copyright, is incorrect from the beginning. Carey would get royalties for every copy of the song that was sold. She also gets royalties every time it is played on the air.

The song is not an "ideal". I don't know where you got that from. It is a work of art that is also a product. The words, the music, and the performance are all parts of that product for which royalties are paid. The writer of the lyrics gets paid, the writer of the music gets paid, and the performer gets paid. If one person does all of that, then that one person gets paid for all the parts. If the musicians are studio musicians then they get paid for their time spent making the recording. If they are part of her band, then they also get performer royalties.

Copyrights are often assigned to the record company because they pay all of the money up front, do all of the promotion, pay for all of the expenses, etc.

It isn't the way you make it out to be.

When you "buy" a recording, you are not buying the content. You are buying the physical media, and are being granted a license to play the music in a non commercial setting. If you play it in a commercial setting, you are supposed to apply for permission, and when it is granted, pay all royalties to the organization that is empowered to collect it and distribute it.

Of course, no one will be expected to do that for a wedding or other such event.

But a bar is expected to do that for certain material such as sporting events when they come from pay for view.
post #62 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Trademark is about giving you tools to protect your customers from being fooled into accidentally buying a product that appears extremely similar to your product.

But how does this work in practice? Once the copyright period is over, it would seem okay for someone to draw a comic book with Mickey stories and refer to him by name, label the cover "Detective Stories" and sell this.
What would surely get you in trouble would be to make the cover closely resemble Disney product by using a big "Mickey Mouse" logo, using a Mickey picture, and aping the style of the graphic design off Disney's product.

I am not a lawyer. Maybe someone with a better grasp of trademarks and the law could confirm or deny this and provide specifics? I wonder how plush Mickeys or Mickey posters, where the product is virtually nothing but the character, would get treated.

If the character is trademarked, then that character can't be used for anything. The same thing is true of the name.

The old, now no longer copyrighted comic, can be duplicated and sold by third parties. But, even if it's out of copyright, the courts might side with the original owner if the comic was emasculated to have a completely different meaning. That has happened.

Satires are legal even during the copyright period.
post #63 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's an extremely tortured analogy.

The person never owned the car in the first place. The error in billing didn't end his obligation to pay. It's also rather difficult to believe that it took him 5 years to notice that he never had to pay for it. He would have known after the very first payment came due, and wasn't billed for it on time.

Of course he had no business keeping it.

What you are doing by trying to extend this to the industry is absurd. The industry isn't in the position of that man, but rather in the position of the credit company.

The car is the monopoly privilege. They have no business keeping possession the monopoly when they no longer provide anything in return. In short, their copyright should be fully revoked.
Quote:
It doesn't matter one whit that you don't like the music companies. If they own the content, then that's that.

The point is no one can own an idea. Not music companies, not artists, not song writers, not music listeners. No one. I don't care about the music companies, I am protesting the pointless special privilege given to all copyright holders in general and to those that use a legal loophole to shut off fair use in particular.
Quote:
Your understanding of ownership, or copyright, is incorrect from the beginning. Carey would get royalties for every copy of the song that was sold. She also gets royalties every time it is played on the air.

... because she has limited monopoly for using the song. Exactly like I said.
Quote:
The song is not an "ideal". I don't know where you got that from.

It is an idea, an intangible bunch of information. This is obvious. You can't destroy a song. You can't steal a song. You can't give a song. You can not own a song. You could do all that and more to tangible property.
Quote:
It is a work of art that is also a product. The words, the music, and the performance are all parts of that product for which royalties are paid. The writer of the lyrics gets paid, the writer of the music gets paid, and the performer gets paid. If one person does all of that, then that one person gets paid for all the parts. If the musicians are studio musicians then they get paid for their time spent making the recording. If they are part of her band, then they also get performer royalties.

All part of the limited usage monopoly.
Quote:
Copyrights are often assigned to the record company because they pay all of the money up front, do all of the promotion, pay for all of the expenses, etc.

... so?
Quote:
It isn't the way you make it out to be.

When you "buy" a recording, you are not buying the content. You are buying the physical media, and are being granted a license to play the music in a non commercial setting. If you play it in a commercial setting, you are supposed to apply for permission, and when it is granted, pay all royalties to the organization that is empowered to collect it and distribute it.

Yes, but I don't see how I would have said anything to contradict that. I was replying to your last post, in which you said "The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material..."
The items being sold are the physical media, and after sale the buyers own them. The copyright holder owns nothing except his cut from the sales.
post #64 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
The car is the monopoly privilege. They have no business keeping possession the monopoly when they no longer provide anything in return. In short, their copyright should be fully revoked.The point is no one can own an idea. Not music companies, not artists, not song writers, not music listeners. No one. I don't care about the music companies, I am protesting the pointless special privilege given to all copyright holders.... because she has limited monopoly for using the song. Exactly like I said.It is an idea, an intangible bunch of information. This is obvious. You can't destroy a song. You can't steal a song. You can't give a song. You can not own a song. You could do all that and more to tangible property.All part of the limited usage monopoly.... so?Yes, but I don't see how I would have said anything to contradict that. I was replying to your last post, in which you said "The copyright does not CREATE ownership. It restricts the decision about how the distribution and payments for those items is to be made to the copyright holder, who almost always owns the material..."
The items being sold are the physical media, and after sale the buyers own them. The copyright holder owns nothing except his cut from the sales. [/B]

You're making this up as you go.

Read the relevant law.
post #65 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You're making this up as you go.

Read the relevant law.

Actually, it feels you are replying to imaginary posts which I never wrote.

The crux of the matter is that I read your post as claiming that information is property. This is absurd. There is no such thing as theft of a song. There is no transfer of ownership of a novel. You won't find these things in law, either.

But I have no interest in digging lawbooks. I'm not a lawyer. I'm talking of the principles that are supposed to form the basis of the law. Can you explain on what moral principle men should recognize and respect copyrights at this time and hour when the only thing we ever got in return from that deal is gone?
post #66 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Actually, it feels you are replying to imaginary posts which I never wrote.

The crux of the matter is that I read your post as claiming that information is property. This is absurd. There is no such thing as theft of a song. There is no transfer of ownership of a novel. You won't find these things in law, either.

But I have no interest in digging lawbooks. I'm not a lawyer. I'm talking of the principles that are supposed to form the basis of the law. Can you explain on what moral principle men should recognize and respect copyrights at this time and hour when the only thing we ever got in return from that deal is gone?

Without the lawbooks anything said is just imaginary.

The rights to a song are indeed "owned". As are the string of words that make up a book.
post #67 of 72
Instead of beating around the bush, here are the boxes that supposedly strip HDCP:

http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_hdcp.htm
http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_magic.htm

melgross, I think recording HD is going to be fundamentally expensive, no matter whether the equipment is "consumer" or "professional". Where are the TiVos with HD component input? Where are the DVHS decks with HD component input?
post #68 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Everything will have DRM in some form or another.

Unless you plan to pirate all cable, satellite, video, music, and digital radio, you won't have anything to watch or listen to. It's that simple.

If it weren't for pirates in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE DRM.

It's the chicken and the egg. [/B]


That's why I'm going back to a hand-cranked stereophone, kinescopes and an abacus from now on.

8)

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It doesn't matter one whit that you don't like the music companies. If they own the content, then that's that.
[/B]

That's why I love sites like www.icompositions.com and www.garageband.com

Free music and plenty of it. There ARE gems among the many available songs for download.

I haven't bought anything from iTunes for months. Mostly I use it for the podcasting subscriptions.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #70 of 72
Think Interfaces and Objects.

If the IT Industry has different goals for their components they have designed interfaces compatible with Consumer Electronics and maintain autonomy over their own goals and solutions while retaining compatible information exchange with Consumer Electronics, as long as CE adheres to their own standards.

If Apple wants to manage their own Digital Rights they only have to satisfy interface compatibility while retaining their own approach to managing their solutions.
post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by Somynona
Bullshit. It's profit driven executives who created the "need" for DRM. It's the other way round, people like me are considered pirates because we do things we otherwise wouldn't do if DRM didn't exist. If I can't purchase music online for instance, that I can use fairly, then I will download it for free. There are of course many artists and producers who provide me with a way to purchase their music without DRM, and I do so, as do many others.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/

Hey, that is a good site that you linked in there. DRM is a lot about protecting the big music/film companies. For the companies to say that they are about protecting the artists is a crock.
post #72 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
Instead of beating around the bush, here are the boxes that supposedly strip HDCP:

http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_hdcp.htm
http://www.spatz-tech.de/spatz/dvi_magic.htm

melgross, I think recording HD is going to be fundamentally expensive, no matter whether the equipment is "consumer" or "professional". Where are the TiVos with HD component input? Where are the DVHS decks with HD component input?

There were D-VHS decks. I don't know if they are still around. But this was years ago, and D-VHS didn't catch on for the consumer. The first D-VHS deck cost $1,000. The second cost $7000. But, due to lack of interest, they were discontinued.

Recording to a computers HD costs no more than it does for anything else. Those boxes cost what they do because they have to have chips for the HDCP.

When I mentioned what it would cost to intercept the HD signal, I was clearly talking about what the cost would be if there was NO HDCP. That was the point to the discussion we were having.

Right now broadcast, cable, and satellite send either 720p or 1080i. That is very easy. 1080p is more difficult. But even that isn't a show stopper.

If HDCP weren't involved, every small periferal maker would have one out. If I were still in the business, I would have one out.

Right now HD is being recorded onto DVR's from Scientific Atlanta. I have one myself. It's the 8300 HD model.

Stop thinking that this is a big deal. It's not!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple among tech leaders developing next PC to HDTV interface