Apple TV now available for preorder, first deliveries arrive Friday

12345679»

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    sdbryan wrote: »

    This gets close to the crux of the matter. The Constitution provides for a mechanism for a limited period monopoly to encourage the production of works that eventually enrich the public domain. Using encryption to lock up copyrighted products and then pass laws to make decryption illegal is just a way to make a mockery of the intent of the Constitution. I know that they have sued some companies out of existence and create ongoing legal expenses for companies like Kaleidescape. As a result, their schemes deserve no respect and I offer none. It is all just too corrupt.

    We have to remember the history. When the Constitution was written, it was almost impossible to copy anything long. Even making a number of copies of something short was a real pain.. It wasn't really done. The only people who did that were rival printers. Essentially, it was impossible for the general public to make copies. People didn't make "backups" of books, newspapers or pamphlets.

    Now, it's way too easy. So the laws are rewritten to reflect that. So using DRM is pretty much giving us what we had way back then. Effectively, they couldn't copy then, and effectively, we can't copy now.

    The only thing that bothers me is the extension of the copyright period.
  • Reply 162 of 173

    Can't decide on if I want the 32 or 64... also that SteelSeries Nimbus is tempting but it seems like these still really lack on compatibility plus they're ugly af so I'll probably skip it.  In addition there's a good chance I'll pick up a Magic Trackpad 2... dammit Apple stop making things I want.  I've even considered purchasing the Pencil even though I don't plan on getting an iPad Pro just because it's so sleek.

  • Reply 163 of 173
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Just to be clear: I don't give a good goddamn what Congress or the Supreme Court say I can or cannot do with physical media or digital data that I am in possession of.

     

    If I'm not profiting off it, I am not committing a measurable crime. Any suggestion otherwise is invalid.

  • Reply 164 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    pmz wrote: »
    Just to be clear: I don't give a good goddamn what Congress or the Supreme Court say I can or cannot do with physical media or digital data that I am in possession of.

    If I'm not profiting off it, I am not committing a measurable crime. Any suggestion otherwise is invalid.

    So you don't understand the concept, and you believe in anarchy, wonderful.
  • Reply 165 of 173
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Has an individual ever been charged with unlawful decryption of copyrighted works when the purpose has been entirely personal use?

    Of course they haven't. Hardly anarchy.
  • Reply 166 of 173
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,009member
    melgross wrote: »
    So you don't understand the concept, and you believe in anarchy, wonderful.

    I get that individual interpretation of the applicability of law theoretically can lead to anarchy.

    But really the much larger issue is that government at all levels has become so insanely invasive in the lives of citizens far beyond the original intent of limited government, that reasonable people begin to ignore things that don't make sense.

    The governments' hand is manifested through massive layers of uncessary, overlapping, or contradictory laws, incredibly complex and unneeded regulations, and oppressed total tax burdens.

    So when a reasonable person (i.e., not a politician or lawyer) looks at a law such as this, it becomes clear that the law exists to reduce your freedoms and not protect a greater good. What do I mean? As in individual, if I buy the disc, I am paying the copyright owner. Breaking copy protection purely for the convenience of playing back the movie from a hard drive inn my home, the same place I'd play the disc, does not affect or harm the copyright owner. They received their money from me.

    I would be harming them if I rented a movie to copy it (I don't), downloaded ripped movies from others via some internet site (I don't), or share ripped copies with others (I don't).

    Ironically, I can buy a disc and loan it to ten people, who will now not buy the movie and the cause the copyright owner material harm. Yet this is legal.

    The law should simply state it is illegal 1) to take possession of copyrighted material unless legally purchased and 2) sharing of copyrighted material is illegal. I'm sure these underlying laws already exists, and frankly that's all you need to go after the large rings that share copyrighted material.
  • Reply 167 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    crowley wrote: »
    Has an individual ever been charged with unlawful decryption of copyrighted works when the purpose has been entirely personal use?

    Of course they haven't. Hardly anarchy.

    They haven't been, because who is going to take the resources to sue someone for making one copy?

    But PMZ is talking about doing whatever he wants with it. That's anarchy. He says that as long as he's not maki g a profit off it, it's ok. So he can make a million copies and give them away, according to that philosophy.
  • Reply 168 of 173
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    melgross wrote: »
    They haven't been, because who is going to take the resources to sue someone for make g one copy?
    Precisely, so why are people talking about anarchy and illegality as if it's a major issue for thrang to put all of his digital media on a server? It 's a niche use case for sure, focus on that, not legal nonsense.
  • Reply 169 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    thrang wrote: »
    I get that individual interpretation of the applicability of law theoretically can lead to anarchy.

    But really the much larger issue is that government at all levels has become so insanely invasive in the lives of citizens far beyond the original intent of limited government, that reasonable people begin to ignore things that don't make sense.

    The governments' hand is manifested through massive layers of uncessary, overlapping, or contradictory laws, incredibly complex and unneeded regulations, and oppressed total tax burdens.

    So when a reasonable person (i.e., not a politician or lawyer) looks at a law such as this, it becomes clear that the law exists to reduce your freedoms and not protect a greater good. What do I mean? As in individual, if I buy the disc, I am paying the copyright owner. Breaking copy protection purely for the convenience of playing back the movie from a hard drive inn my home, the same place I'd play the disc, does not affect or harm the copyright owner. They received their money from me.

    I would be harming them if I rented a movie to copy it (I don't), downloaded ripped movies from others via some internet site (I don't), or share ripped copies with others (I don't).

    Ironically, I can buy a disc and loan it to ten people, who will now not buy the movie and the cause the copyright owner material harm. Yet this is legal.

    The law should simply state it is illegal 1) to take possession of copyrighted material unless legally purchased and 2) sharing of copyrighted material is illegal. I'm sure these underlying laws already exists, and frankly that's all you need to go after the large rings that share copyrighted material.

    I'm not saying that I agree that the rulings are good ones. I think that breaking DRM for the purpose of enabling the content you have to run on another device you own should be ok. The point I'm making is that it's not all one sided. If it becomes legal to break DRM for your own copy, then people are going to take the opportunity of getting software to break if for improper purposes as well, and that's what the copyright holder is concerned about. The companies I've spoken to about this don't really care if you make a copy for yourself, they just don't want it on torrents.

    I read a lot of threads with numerous people talking about why they want a NAS, and too often it's to use for torrents. Too many people just want content for free, and that's it. All the legitimate users are penalized because of that, and so we get DRM. It's not because of us, it's because of those who do pirate content.
  • Reply 170 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    crowley wrote: »
    Precisely, so why are people talking about anarchy and illegality as if it's a major issue for thrang to put all of his digital media on a server? It 's a niche use case for sure, focus on that, not legal nonsense.

    Because as I've just said in my post right above this one, it's the Pirates this is aimed at, and we get caught in the middle.
  • Reply 171 of 173
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,009member
    melgross wrote: »
    I'm not saying that I agree that the rulings are good ones. I think that breaking DRM for the purpose of enabling the content you have to run on another device you own should be ok. The point I'm making is that it's not all one sided. If it becomes legal to break DRM for your own copy, then people are going to take the opportunity of getting software to break if for improper purposes as well, and that's what the copyright holder is concerned about. The companies I've spoken to about this don't really care if you make a copy for yourself, they just don't want it on torrents.

    I read a lot of threads with numerous people talking about why they want a NAS, and too often it's to use for torrents. Too many people just want content for free, and that's it. All the legitimate users are penalized because of that, and so we get DRM. It's not because of us, it's because of those who do pirate content.

    This is exactly why the laws are wrong...innocent people (i.e. people who are dong no harm to others) are being unfairly equated to pirates.

    The laws should simply target the users of illegally distributed content, especially since technically, the encryption will not impede the criminals
  • Reply 172 of 173
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    Because as I've just said in my post right above this one, it's the Pirates this is aimed at, and we get caught in the middle.



    I'm sure we do, but (again) I fail to see how this redundant legal talk has anything to do with the Apple TV and thrang's set up.  Or your claim that someone who rips media for their own personal use is a believer in anarchy, which was weird.

Sign In or Register to comment.