Yet, here we all are, arguing (discussing) the merits of the latest Apple TV ad. I wonder how much it would cost to get this kind of "engagement" for the rest of the Apple line of products. Remember, "there is no such thing as "bad publicity").
Anything Apple does gets discussed on Apple rumor sites.
At this level of their advertising campaign, it would seem that the objective is generating publicity rather than getting someone to buy. I give them credit for finding a credible basis for plastering a huge, colorful, attention-grabbing picture on billboards. Regardless of interpretation or contention, it's getting attention, and that's what they want.
At this level of their advertising campaign, it would seem that the objective is generating publicity rather than getting someone to buy.
I would tend to agree. Do you have any idea how many ?TVs Apple would have to sell to pay for just one of those huge building-sized advertisements? Not to mention the leasing costs of the space. If Apple wrote the entire cost of that ad campaign off to the ?TV alone it'd likely be in the red pretty quickly.
Yet, here we all are, arguing (discussing) the merits of the latest Apple TV ad. I wonder how much it would cost to get this kind of "engagement" for the rest of the Apple line of products. Remember, "there is no such thing as "bad publicity").
Sorry, the argument you just made is bullshit, and always has been. No, not all publicity is good publicity, especially with a company with the polished brand equity of Apple. And believe it or not, Apple doesn't give a shit about nerds arguing about an Apple ad campaign on an Apple fan site. The "engagement" here is completely meaningless. It's the opinions of the masses that matter. Enough with this "we're discussing it, so it must be good" BS. No, sorry.
Sorry, the argument you just made is bullshit, and always has been. No, not all publicity is good publicity, especially with a company with the polished brand equity of Apple. And believe it or not, Apple doesn't give a shit about nerds arguing about an Apple ad campaign on an Apple fan site. The "engagement" here is completely meaningless. It's the opinions of the masses that matter. Enough with this "we're discussing it, so it must be good" BS. No, sorry.
I agree that not all publicity is good publicity (see example in my previous post), but this ad is not bad publicity. At its worst, the cost of the ads are more than the commulative profits from people who decided to look into and eventually buy an Apple TV. This sort of advertising is about making your presence known. That's really it! This is no different than the plethora of basic, teaser ads Apple has used for most, if not all, of those their products over the years.
Typing in passwords on AppleTV is a crappy experience. Setting up an iOS device and constantly having to enter your Apple ID password is a crappy experience. Apple really needs to do something to make this a more seamless and less painful process.
One way they could do this is to have a Keychain-type sync so on a Mac, iPad or iPhone, they can have a single page (possibly web page but an app wouldn't be susceptible to phishing) where you just type in all your details for every service and label them yourself. It can be setup a bit like Notes and app providers can have credential templates if you need more than username and password. Then they'd get synced to the ?TV and when you needed to enter details, you'd be able to just select one of the Keychain fields that you'd typed in elsewhere and it would copy/paste the field in.
To unlock the Keychain, they can have a pincode entry and one way they can do that quickly is like the way a safe works where you turn one way a certain amount and then back but do it in a single line so you swipe right to hit the number then left, right etc. That should be quite fast to unlock. They probably don't want to have people storing their Apple ID on the TV box in case they sell it on and the password is in there but if it's behind a pin code then that helps protect it and they can always detect if a device has been sold by checking location and sending an email. If someone forgets their pin code, it's no big deal, they just reset the pin code and the Keychains would have to be synced again requiring the Apple ID to be entered once.
Maybe they could even do the old 'my voice is my password' via Siri. You could set a passphrase to unlock and Siri can check the phrase and voice recognition for age restricted content.
On the subject of the ads, using imagery to align the TV box with TV content is an important thing to do and the test pattern is quite iconic. TV streaming boxes are still for gadget-oriented people. This makes it all about redefining the way people watch television, which is ultimately what they expect the box to do. It's not just an addon box, it's a platform that the entire world's content distributors can take advantage of. If they'd used images of apps and games, it would at first glance look a lot like just another streaming box, console or smart TV.
Also paying Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Turtles in time on the SNES.
Got Golden Axe on Genesis.
Zelda and Metroid on NES.
Friken crazy awesome.
Then I got the new games like Geometry wars3, Does not commute, and even Sing Karoke is fun. Added Storehouse photo app, weather App, NBA App......The potential of this AppleTV is nuts.
The games I'm running on the emulator are games I've owned. Most of the games are over 20 years old. Their copywrite has expired. Big difference between playing a 20-30 year old game that has close to zero value today to a LIVE TV BROADCAST of an NBA game.
The games I'm playing on my emulator are ANCIENT. NO one sells them anymore. They have very little value. Its like someone saying you can't make a Chess game because someone owns the rights to Chess. Give me a break.
copyright exists for only 20 years in the US now? I thought it was 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
Also dont you have to sideload to get the emulator onto the AppleTV?
copyright exists for only 20 years in the US now? I thought it was 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
Also dont you have to sideload to get the emulator onto the AppleTV?
No. No idea where that poster got that idea from.
From Nintendo's website:
Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?
U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.
U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.
It's actually worse than that, because there is something called droit d'auteur in France, which is becoming increasingly acknowledged worldwide. So basically when that copyright eventually expires on Nintendo's games, the copyright protection may continue for up to another 75 years after the death of the last surviving "auteur", which in the case of collaborative media like software, would be the developers. So even if they fall into the PD in the US, they would likely still be protected worldwide. 11 US States currently recognize moral rights of authors, and I would expect this to be the norm by the time these Nintendo copyrights expire. Currently in the US, copyrights are secured for 70 years after the death of the author. And a work for hire covers retroactively any copyright registered after 1978 for 95 years in this case. However, it's likely that if moral rights becomes the norm, you'll see one last extension of copyrights that revert to the authors estates for a period following the authors death in the event it's greater than 95 years after publication, if work for hire lobbyists don't manage to secure the extension of their own rights.
Bottom line, anybody who doesn't pay for a copyrighted video game published in the 1980s is stealing until at least the year 2075, by which time I would suspect most if not all of us participating in these forums will be dead.
Personally, I’m a fan of “30 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes last.” The family of an 80 year old with a great idea should be able to get some residuals after he dies. But a youngster shouldn’t be able to ride a single success into retirement.
The family of an 80 year old with a great idea should be able to get some residuals after he dies. But a youngster shouldn’t be able to ride a single success into retirement.
How is it arbitrary? It’s arbitrary because I only chose two ages; I can’t give every possible scenario. Copyrights can be renewed (let’s make it a significant fee), but they have to expire. They’re infinite now. Nothing will EVER enter the public domain ever again.
How is it arbitrary? It’s arbitrary because I only chose two ages; I can’t give every possible scenario. Copyrights can be renewed (let’s make it a significant fee), but they have to expire. They’re infinite now. Nothing will EVER enter the public domain ever again.
Its arbitrary that you think that the family of an 80 year old should get residuals after he dies, but not for too long. Who decides that and why? Where can one objectively draw a line as to why IP should expire due to financial gain of an ancestor if one must be drawn?\
And where are you getting the information that copyright does not expire? In Canada that is patently false. I don't know the American system well enough to be so definitive, but I don't believe it.
edit: from Duke University Centre for the Study of Public Domain: "In fact, in the United States, no publication will enter the public domain until 2019. Even more shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress can take back works from the public domain. Could Shakespeare, Plato or Mozart be pulled back into copyright?
Where can one objectively draw a line as to why IP should expire due to financial gain of an ancestor if one must be drawn?
Like I said, 30 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes last.
I don't know the American system well enough to be so definitive, but I don't believe it.
Believe it.
...no publication will enter the public domain until 2019.
Expect Disney to pay off Congress in 2018, just like they’ve done in the past. That’s it. That’s literally the beginning and the end of the story for copyright.
Even more shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress can take back works from the public domain. Could Shakespeare, Plato or Mozart be pulled back into copyright?
Comments
Anything Apple does gets discussed on Apple rumor sites.
Anything Apple does gets attention.
At this level of their advertising campaign, it would seem that the objective is generating publicity rather than getting someone to buy.
I would tend to agree. Do you have any idea how many ?TVs Apple would have to sell to pay for just one of those huge building-sized advertisements? Not to mention the leasing costs of the space. If Apple wrote the entire cost of that ad campaign off to the ?TV alone it'd likely be in the red pretty quickly.
Yet, here we all are, arguing (discussing) the merits of the latest Apple TV ad. I wonder how much it would cost to get this kind of "engagement" for the rest of the Apple line of products. Remember, "there is no such thing as "bad publicity").
Sorry, the argument you just made is bullshit, and always has been. No, not all publicity is good publicity, especially with a company with the polished brand equity of Apple. And believe it or not, Apple doesn't give a shit about nerds arguing about an Apple ad campaign on an Apple fan site. The "engagement" here is completely meaningless. It's the opinions of the masses that matter. Enough with this "we're discussing it, so it must be good" BS. No, sorry.
I agree that not all publicity is good publicity (see example in my previous post), but this ad is not bad publicity. At its worst, the cost of the ads are more than the commulative profits from people who decided to look into and eventually buy an Apple TV. This sort of advertising is about making your presence known. That's really it! This is no different than the plethora of basic, teaser ads Apple has used for most, if not all, of those their products over the years.
One way they could do this is to have a Keychain-type sync so on a Mac, iPad or iPhone, they can have a single page (possibly web page but an app wouldn't be susceptible to phishing) where you just type in all your details for every service and label them yourself. It can be setup a bit like Notes and app providers can have credential templates if you need more than username and password. Then they'd get synced to the ?TV and when you needed to enter details, you'd be able to just select one of the Keychain fields that you'd typed in elsewhere and it would copy/paste the field in.
To unlock the Keychain, they can have a pincode entry and one way they can do that quickly is like the way a safe works where you turn one way a certain amount and then back but do it in a single line so you swipe right to hit the number then left, right etc. That should be quite fast to unlock. They probably don't want to have people storing their Apple ID on the TV box in case they sell it on and the password is in there but if it's behind a pin code then that helps protect it and they can always detect if a device has been sold by checking location and sending an email. If someone forgets their pin code, it's no big deal, they just reset the pin code and the Keychains would have to be synced again requiring the Apple ID to be entered once.
Maybe they could even do the old 'my voice is my password' via Siri. You could set a passphrase to unlock and Siri can check the phrase and voice recognition for age restricted content.
On the subject of the ads, using imagery to align the TV box with TV content is an important thing to do and the test pattern is quite iconic. TV streaming boxes are still for gadget-oriented people. This makes it all about redefining the way people watch television, which is ultimately what they expect the box to do. It's not just an addon box, it's a platform that the entire world's content distributors can take advantage of. If they'd used images of apps and games, it would at first glance look a lot like just another streaming box, console or smart TV.
Street Fight 2 is also a great game on the SNES.
Also paying Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Turtles in time on the SNES.
Got Golden Axe on Genesis.
Zelda and Metroid on NES.
Friken crazy awesome.
Then I got the new games like Geometry wars3, Does not commute, and even Sing Karoke is fun. Added Storehouse photo app, weather App, NBA App......The potential of this AppleTV is nuts.
The games I'm running on the emulator are games I've owned. Most of the games are over 20 years old. Their copywrite has expired. Big difference between playing a 20-30 year old game that has close to zero value today to a LIVE TV BROADCAST of an NBA game.
The games I'm playing on my emulator are ANCIENT. NO one sells them anymore. They have very little value. Its like someone saying you can't make a Chess game because someone owns the rights to Chess. Give me a break.
copyright exists for only 20 years in the US now? I thought it was 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
Also dont you have to sideload to get the emulator onto the AppleTV?
copyright exists for only 20 years in the US now? I thought it was 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
Also dont you have to sideload to get the emulator onto the AppleTV?
No. No idea where that poster got that idea from.
From Nintendo's website:
Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?
U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.
No. No idea where that poster got that idea from.
From Nintendo's website:
Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?
U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.
It's actually worse than that, because there is something called droit d'auteur in France, which is becoming increasingly acknowledged worldwide. So basically when that copyright eventually expires on Nintendo's games, the copyright protection may continue for up to another 75 years after the death of the last surviving "auteur", which in the case of collaborative media like software, would be the developers. So even if they fall into the PD in the US, they would likely still be protected worldwide. 11 US States currently recognize moral rights of authors, and I would expect this to be the norm by the time these Nintendo copyrights expire. Currently in the US, copyrights are secured for 70 years after the death of the author. And a work for hire covers retroactively any copyright registered after 1978 for 95 years in this case. However, it's likely that if moral rights becomes the norm, you'll see one last extension of copyrights that revert to the authors estates for a period following the authors death in the event it's greater than 95 years after publication, if work for hire lobbyists don't manage to secure the extension of their own rights.
Bottom line, anybody who doesn't pay for a copyrighted video game published in the 1980s is stealing until at least the year 2075, by which time I would suspect most if not all of us participating in these forums will be dead.
Personally, I’m a fan of “30 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes last.” The family of an 80 year old with a great idea should be able to get some residuals after he dies. But a youngster shouldn’t be able to ride a single success into retirement.
The family of an 80 year old with a great idea should be able to get some residuals after he dies. But a youngster shouldn’t be able to ride a single success into retirement.
why? This is totally arbitrary.
(This is a serious question)
(This is a serious question)
How is it arbitrary? It’s arbitrary because I only chose two ages; I can’t give every possible scenario. Copyrights can be renewed (let’s make it a significant fee), but they have to expire. They’re infinite now. Nothing will EVER enter the public domain ever again.
How is it arbitrary? It’s arbitrary because I only chose two ages; I can’t give every possible scenario. Copyrights can be renewed (let’s make it a significant fee), but they have to expire. They’re infinite now. Nothing will EVER enter the public domain ever again.
Its arbitrary that you think that the family of an 80 year old should get residuals after he dies, but not for too long. Who decides that and why? Where can one objectively draw a line as to why IP should expire due to financial gain of an ancestor if one must be drawn?\
And where are you getting the information that copyright does not expire? In Canada that is patently false. I don't know the American system well enough to be so definitive, but I don't believe it.
edit: from Duke University Centre for the Study of Public Domain: "In fact, in the United States, no publication will enter the public domain until 2019. Even more shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Congress can take back works from the public domain. Could Shakespeare, Plato or Mozart be pulled back into copyright?
Read more at http://national.deseretnews.com/article/544/Mickey-Mouse-copyright-laws-may-last-forever.html#FQEpLA2rlLm1Z3JZ.99"
Yikes! That's from a 2013 article.
Like I said, 30 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes last.
Believe it.
Expect Disney to pay off Congress in 2018, just like they’ve done in the past. That’s it. That’s literally the beginning and the end of the story for copyright.
It’s pretty unconscionable.
Like I said, 30 years or the death of the artist, whichever comes last.
Right. But that by definition is arbitrary and subjective (And close to the original law, which i think was 28 years).
Why 30 years? Why not 50? or 10? (of note, John Lennon died almost 30 years ago. Imagine there's no copyright...)
Sure, but no more than any other.
Why 30 years? Why not 50? or 10?
Anything is better than infinity. Or, “infinity minus one”, as it’s often stated.
I wonder if Yoko Ono was paid when the French citizens sang it at the vigil after the attacks.
Get a grip.