Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 346member
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial. 
    I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement.  And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube.  There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.  
    Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

    Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

    Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work.  The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.  

    Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

    Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value).  You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there.  It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy.  Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work.  The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible.  There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

    So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    That's not how it works.  For instance, I can take pictures or videos out in public, on the streets.  They are still subject to my copyright, because I took them.  If someone else photographs the same scene, they get the copyright for their pictures.  If someone had videoed the Apple presentations themselves, the images would be copyrighted by that individual.  There would still be the issue of having recorded a copyrighted speech, but we can leave that for another time.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 22 of 35
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 168member
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    ...
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    The Superbowl is a public event.  I think the broadcast networks would disagree with your assessment that copyright does not apply to a video of public event that is broadcast.

    In terms of journalistic purposes, he might be able to get by claiming fair use for small excerpts used as part of a critique.  However, if your critique/review includes a copy of the entirety of Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope, I suspect that Disney will disagree with you.

    Copyright exists the moment a creative work is fixed in tangible form.  If a copyright owner chooses to freely broadcast something, that doesn't place it in the public domain.  Consider a folk duo having a free concert in central park,  A recording of that concert would be covered by copyright, even though the event was free, and songs from the recording were broadcast over the radio.

    The bottom line is that Apple owns the copyright to their recordings and videos.  It is a copyright infringement to upload complete recordings to a public web site (including YouTube), without permission from the copyright holder.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 23 of 35
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,930member
    Alrescha said:
    The irony here is that if it were discovered that Apple had inappropriately used a single line of GPL'd code, there would be torches and pitchforks as far as the eye could see.  But the wholesale copying and redistribution of Apple's WWDC videos?  That's fine.

    When it comes to Apple, the tech community is all about "Rules for thee but not for me".
    That’s ridiculous. Wholesale copying and distribution? It’s a YouTube archive of previous public product announcements.  Give me a break.
  • Reply 24 of 35
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,930member
    bonobob said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial. 
    I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement.  And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube.  There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.  
    Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

    Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

    Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work.  The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.  

    Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

    Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value).  You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there.  It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy.  Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work.  The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible.  There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

    So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    That's not how it works.  For instance, I can take pictures or videos out in public, on the streets.  They are still subject to my copyright, because I took them.  If someone else photographs the same scene, they get the copyright for their pictures.  If someone had videoed the Apple presentations themselves, the images would be copyrighted by that individual.  There would still be the issue of having recorded a copyrighted speech, but we can leave that for another time.
    You’re really dealing with a different situation there. You’re talking about a public event like a product announcement.  It’s really not something that can be reused.  
  • Reply 25 of 35
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,930member
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    ...
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    The Superbowl is a public event.  I think the broadcast networks would disagree with your assessment that copyright does not apply to a video of public event that is broadcast.

    In terms of journalistic purposes, he might be able to get by claiming fair use for small excerpts used as part of a critique.  However, if your critique/review includes a copy of the entirety of Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope, I suspect that Disney will disagree with you.

    Copyright exists the moment a creative work is fixed in tangible form.  If a copyright owner chooses to freely broadcast something, that doesn't place it in the public domain.  Consider a folk duo having a free concert in central park,  A recording of that concert would be covered by copyright, even though the event was free, and songs from the recording were broadcast over the radio.

    The bottom line is that Apple owns the copyright to their recordings and videos.  It is a copyright infringement to upload complete recordings to a public web site (including YouTube), without permission from the copyright holder.
    I hope you realize you’re talking to someone who has an extensive background in copyright.  I’m not a lawyer, but I am well-versed.  It’s a major part of my profession.  The Super Bowl and feature films are completely different animals as compared to an archived product announcement event.  The entire purpose of the event is to give a speech with announcements in front of the media. Taking that event that Apple self broadcast and having an archive of it on YouTube is not exactly the same as rebroadcasting the Super Bowl.  Apple can send all the legal notices and YouTube requests it wants. What I’m saying is that proving infringement in court on this would be extremely difficult based on the exact nature of the material and circumstances.  
  • Reply 26 of 35
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 168member
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    ...
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    The Superbowl is a public event.  I think the broadcast networks would disagree with your assessment that copyright does not apply to a video of public event that is broadcast.

    In terms of journalistic purposes, he might be able to get by claiming fair use for small excerpts used as part of a critique.  However, if your critique/review includes a copy of the entirety of Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope, I suspect that Disney will disagree with you.

    Copyright exists the moment a creative work is fixed in tangible form.  If a copyright owner chooses to freely broadcast something, that doesn't place it in the public domain.  Consider a folk duo having a free concert in central park,  A recording of that concert would be covered by copyright, even though the event was free, and songs from the recording were broadcast over the radio.

    The bottom line is that Apple owns the copyright to their recordings and videos.  It is a copyright infringement to upload complete recordings to a public web site (including YouTube), without permission from the copyright holder.
    I hope you realize you’re talking to someone who has an extensive background in copyright.  I’m not a lawyer, but I am well-versed.  It’s a major part of my profession.  The Super Bowl and feature films are completely different animals as compared to an archived product announcement event.  The entire purpose of the event is to give a speech with announcements in front of the media. Taking that event that Apple self broadcast and having an archive of it on YouTube is not exactly the same as rebroadcasting the Super Bowl.  Apple can send all the legal notices and YouTube requests it wants. What I’m saying is that proving infringement in court on this would be extremely difficult based on the exact nature of the material and circumstances.  

    Putting a copyrighted video on YouTube does require permission of the copyright owner.  That's true whether it is a SuperBowl broadcast, a product announcement video, a major motion picture, or even a video you took of your child's birthday party.

    The difference between the SuperBowl and a product announcement lies in what the copyright holder is willing to allow.

    Typically, with a product announcement, the copyright holder may be generous with allowing others to reproduce the material, unaltered, and for a limited time period.

    I do a lot a work for major televised events.   We have in-house photographers create images to promote the event.  The images are made available on the web so that others can promote the event.  However, the images are covered by copyright, and the license granted is very specific as to the allowed uses for the images. For instance, you may be authorized for a single use in your publication, but may not be authorized to redistribute the images.

    The fact that something is easily available on the Internet does not mean that it is public domain.  Nor does it mean that you are free to reuse or republish it.

    Alex1NJanNL
  • Reply 27 of 35
    sdw2001 said:
    Alrescha said:
    The irony here is that if it were discovered that Apple had inappropriately used a single line of GPL'd code, there would be torches and pitchforks as far as the eye could see.  But the wholesale copying and redistribution of Apple's WWDC videos?  That's fine.

    When it comes to Apple, the tech community is all about "Rules for thee but not for me".
    That’s ridiculous. Wholesale copying and distribution? It’s a YouTube archive of previous public product announcements.  Give me a break.
    "my YouTube channel containing hundreds of 20-year old WWDC videos"
  • Reply 28 of 35
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,742member
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    ...
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    The Superbowl is a public event.  I think the broadcast networks would disagree with your assessment that copyright does not apply to a video of public event that is broadcast.

    In terms of journalistic purposes, he might be able to get by claiming fair use for small excerpts used as part of a critique.  However, if your critique/review includes a copy of the entirety of Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope, I suspect that Disney will disagree with you.

    Copyright exists the moment a creative work is fixed in tangible form.  If a copyright owner chooses to freely broadcast something, that doesn't place it in the public domain.  Consider a folk duo having a free concert in central park,  A recording of that concert would be covered by copyright, even though the event was free, and songs from the recording were broadcast over the radio.

    The bottom line is that Apple owns the copyright to their recordings and videos.  It is a copyright infringement to upload complete recordings to a public web site (including YouTube), without permission from the copyright holder.
    I hope you realize you’re talking to someone who has an extensive background in copyright.  I’m not a lawyer, but I am well-versed.  It’s a major part of my profession.  The Super Bowl and feature films are completely different animals as compared to an archived product announcement event.  The entire purpose of the event is to give a speech with announcements in front of the media. Taking that event that Apple self broadcast and having an archive of it on YouTube is not exactly the same as rebroadcasting the Super Bowl.  Apple can send all the legal notices and YouTube requests it wants. What I’m saying is that proving infringement in court on this would be extremely difficult based on the exact nature of the material and circumstances.  
    I know what you are thinking and it's wrong. You are saying that because Apple had already released these videos to the public as a form of promotion and advertising during their WWDC, anyone have the right to use these videos to show to the public again, anytime in the future since Apple have no more use for these videos. Just because Apple might no longer have any use for these videos does not mean that Apple loses any copyright rights they have on these videos. The videos original purpose was to promote their WWDC and Apple copyright rights on them can prevent anyone from using these videos for purposes Apple that never intended them to be used for. If one wants to put these videos on YouTube, to show to the public again, one would still need to get Apple permission to do so. Unless maybe if its to used for what the videos were originally intended for, to promote the WWDC.  


    The trailers to promote the next "Star Wars" movie, that LucasFilm shows to the public in theaters and other media, is copyrighted and can not be recorded and used on YouTube, without permission. Even if the tuber is a big Star Wars fan and have archived of all the Star Wars movie trailers and make them freely available on their YouTube channel. Just because LucasFilm had already shown the trailers to the public to promote the new Star Wars movie,  do not mean that LucasFilm can no longer exercise their copyright rights on them. Even 20 years after the movie the trailer was promoting, was released.  

    mfrydAlex1Nsphericwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 35
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,218member
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    ...
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    The Superbowl is a public event.  I think the broadcast networks would disagree with your assessment that copyright does not apply to a video of public event that is broadcast.

    In terms of journalistic purposes, he might be able to get by claiming fair use for small excerpts used as part of a critique.  However, if your critique/review includes a copy of the entirety of Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope, I suspect that Disney will disagree with you.

    Copyright exists the moment a creative work is fixed in tangible form.  If a copyright owner chooses to freely broadcast something, that doesn't place it in the public domain.  Consider a folk duo having a free concert in central park,  A recording of that concert would be covered by copyright, even though the event was free, and songs from the recording were broadcast over the radio.

    The bottom line is that Apple owns the copyright to their recordings and videos.  It is a copyright infringement to upload complete recordings to a public web site (including YouTube), without permission from the copyright holder.
    I hope you realize you’re talking to someone who has an extensive background in copyright.  I’m not a lawyer, but I am well-versed.  It’s a major part of my profession.  The Super Bowl and feature films are completely different animals as compared to an archived product announcement event.  The entire purpose of the event is to give a speech with announcements in front of the media. Taking that event that Apple self broadcast and having an archive of it on YouTube is not exactly the same as rebroadcasting the Super Bowl.  Apple can send all the legal notices and YouTube requests it wants. What I’m saying is that proving infringement in court on this would be extremely difficult based on the exact nature of the material and circumstances.  
    It's bizarre how wrong you are considering your "extensive background in copyright". Apple owns the rights to those materials, not YouTube, not the guy who posted them, regardless of the intent behind Apple creating the videos in the first place. It's no different than any other content.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 35
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial. 
    I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement.  And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube.  There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.  
    Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

    Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

    Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work.  The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.  

    Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

    Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value).  You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there.  It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy.  Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work.  The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible.  There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

    So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright.
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s an infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  


    The video production that was broadcast is a product and is owned by Apple. They come with a warning that hey cannot be used without permission. If someone attended and made their own recording they might be able to publishing it. But even in that case it the recording would be the property of the owner. 

    Journalistic use would be to use a snippet in the context of providing news or editorial commentary. The person in question didn't do that. 

    This would be no different than recording a movie, tv show, commercial or any other copyrighted material and posting it on YouTube. It's illegal. Your whole archive argument doesn't hold water. Youtube is a for profit endeavor and profits off the content posted, it is not an archiving service.
    edited November 2022
  • Reply 31 of 35
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,290member
    davidw said:
    When I was a member of a health club, well over 30 years ago, the management held "Movie Night" every Wednesday after 6PM. On "Movie Night", the club would show 2 movies they rented from the local BlockBuster on a big screen TV in the lobby. The movies chosen was based on members request. They gave away free popcorn and lost money selling beer for $1 a pitcher. This was just something they did as a perk for members (and any guest visiting the club at the time). This went on for over a year, until one day a lawyer representing the movie industry showed up and told the club owner to stop it or face copyright infringement charges. 

    It seems that even though the club was not directly profiting money wise, from showing rental movies in their club for their members, the club gain the goodwill of their members. Plus any non members that happened to be in the club at that night, might be more tempted to join. And not to mention that anyone staying to watch the movies that didn't drink beer, might buy other beverages that the club do profit from. That counts as "commercial value" and would be copyright infringement if a business were to take advantage of that, without the copyright owners permission. 


    Any DVD you purchase comes with a license for private use exclusively. It explicitly forbids public screening. 

    So if you're a private individual, and you throw a party for fifty of your friends and show the movie while they're there, that's a sort of edge-case, but arguably private. 

    If you're a club, and you throw a party for fifty of your members and show the movie while they're there, you need to license it. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 35
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,290member
    sdw2001 said:
    bonobob said:
    sdw2001 said:
    mfryd said:
    sdw2001 said:
    j238 said:
    Copyright infringement has gotten so rampant, when a proper claim is enforced, people react as if that's controversial. 
    I find it hard to believe it’s copyright infringement.  And the claim wasn’t legal…it was with ScrewTube.  There is no legitimate basis for taking down. You’re talking about 20 rolled video that have no commercial value or negligible value to anyone.  
    Can you elaborate on why you believe it is not copyright infringement?

    Are you suggesting that the videos are not copyrighted, or that Apple is not the copyright owner?

    Remember, copyright law gives the copyright owner the ability to place restrictions on the copying or reproducing of the protected work.  The copyright owner does not need a good reason to prohibit posting, nor does the decision need to be in the copyright owner’s best interest.  

    Also keep in mind that infringement does not need to be for profit.

    Suppose you were a photographer and created a mediocre photo (one with no commercial value).  You wanted the photo hung in your office, and you didn’t want any other copies out there.  It would be copyright infringement for someone else to post the image to a public website for all to enjoy.  Even though they are not depriving you of sales, nor are they making money on your work.  The law says that when it comes to posting, the copyright owner gets to decide, and their decision doesn’t have to be the most reasonable position possible.  There are a few “fair use” exceptions, but keep in mind that the common language definition of “fair use” may not match the legal meaning.

    So please explain why you think someone publicly posting Apple’s copyrighted video to a website (including YouTube) does not constitute a clear violation of copyright?
    I am, in fact, claiming it is likely not copyright infringement. These are events that were videoed and broadcast at the time.  They were public events.  All this guy did was have them archived on YouTube.  He could argue it is for journalistic purposes. Now if he was getting ad revenue, that changes things.  He’s not reproducing it, just maintaining an archive.  YouTube may agree it’s infringement, but that has nothing to do with infringement under the law.  
    That's not how it works.  For instance, I can take pictures or videos out in public, on the streets.  They are still subject to my copyright, because I took them.  If someone else photographs the same scene, they get the copyright for their pictures.  If someone had videoed the Apple presentations themselves, the images would be copyrighted by that individual.  There would still be the issue of having recorded a copyrighted speech, but we can leave that for another time.
    You’re really dealing with a different situation there. You’re talking about a public event like a product announcement.  It’s really not something that can be reused.  
    No, this is not about the EVENT. This is about PRODUCED CONTENT — Various camera perspectives, pre-produced trailers, voice-overs, music, audio mix, all edited together into a finalised video. 

    If this were about somebody who attended the events and put up video he'd filmed there, it wouldn't be as clear-cut (or possibly even an issue at all). 

    But use of this material is controlled by the copyright owner — and that's Apple. There is "fair use" for journalistic purposes, but simple, publicly accessible archival isn't "journalism", and certainly isn't "fair use", even if it was a public service and didn't rake in tens of thousands of dollars in YT ad revenue (which it would, if monetisation was enabled, as I believe it was). 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 35
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,793member
    Instead of shutting him down, Apple could have just officially given him permission. This is about controlling info in some stalinesque, butt hurt way. Someone doesn’t like being compared with Jobs.
  • Reply 34 of 35
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 999member
    I am sure Apple has bigger fish to fry, not sure why they would bother.

    As far as defending IP, they did not do a very good job with Android and with Samsung's interface.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 35
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 168member
    entropys said:
    Instead of shutting him down, Apple could have just officially given him permission. This is about controlling info in some stalinesque, butt hurt way. Someone doesn’t like being compared with Jobs.
    In what way would giving permission benefit Apple shareholders?

    Apple spends a great deal of time and effort maintaining a certain look and feel for Apple’s public face.  They have built a reputation that has tremendous value.

    It would hurt that reputation to a web site that doesn’t match Apple’s current corporate look but contains official Apple materials.

    It would hurt Apple’s reputation to have old videos circulating that don’t match the current look and feel.

    It would increase customer service costs, and decrease customer satisfaction if any of those videos reference policies that are no longer in effect.

    By removing the videos from the web, Apple maintains their value as a rare historical curiosity.  This allows Apple the option to roll the videos out when it is in Apple’s best interest to do so.

    Remember, Apple is a for-profit corporation.  Management has a legal obligation to act in the best interest of shareholders.  Not in the best interest of a lone fan who wants to keep alive memories of discontinued products and capabilities (for instance Apple developer videos on how Web Objects is the future, or on how Pascal is the recommended development language just before depreciating Pascal for C).
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.