Read a post where someone tried the Harmony beta and found that it replaced their iTunes. Does any one here have an old POS PC that that they can test Harmony on? Might turn out to be a Real dog.
There are restrictions on many devices out there. If you buy a Sony digital camera, you're forced to buy Sony MemorySticks.
True, but there are cheap MemoryStick adapters for sale that will allow you to use a memory stick on non-sony computers. If Sony outlawed these adapters, would you still have a Sony camera?
The same way Microsoft is bundling and integrating IE in windows, Apple is doing for the iPod and iTunes. That got Microsoft in lots of trouble. Now, this combination is working really well for Apple, but when they specifically target and disable alternate and legitimate options to the #1 music player, that is by definition, a monopoly.
I know, I don't like it either, but This same sort of thing happened to PacBell years ago. They owned almost all the telephone networks and they were sued and ordered to open their networks to the little guys so they could have a piece of the action. This added competition and kept the prices down which was good for the consumer but bad for PacBell.
I actually look forward to the outcome of this situation because if Apple has to allow Real to access the iPod, we will see some great competition and deals between all internet music companies. Apple got there first, and they are bathing in riches, but now Real is rocking the boat.
So you're telling me that you bought a JVC TV set and only expect to get transmissions from JVC, or that you bought a Panasonic CD player from Amazon and therefore should only be buying your music from Amazon or Panasonic? Since when does anyone buy a device and then expect not to have the right to choose what they do with it afterwards?
ok, without virtual PCor native m$ for mac software from M$ how do you run microsoft products on your apple?
Apple products run apple stuff!
same analogy.
Apple has made some doozies when it comes to the mistake and misjudge departments but on this one I think that they are right. They developed the product and the market and it is winning over all of the other crap offered and now those companies with shrinking market share , and who would have the conumer and Appe begging for a crumb are crying NO FAIR.
This can turn into a real (pun intended) public relations fiasco for Apple. Constantly revising the iTunes software to disable songs people have downloaded from Rhapsody to play on their iPods could bring class action suits. Glaser, to my thinking, really has Apple between a rock and a hard place on this. The legal ramifications are not clear either. The best Apple may be able to do is get an injunction to have Real cease and desist. Then it could turn into a long battle until one party flinches. Even though I dislike Glaser and his way of doing business, he may eventually win this. Time will tell.
You are so joking and wrong.
Apple can not be sued in a class action suit by users who are using their product (iPod) with unsupported software (Harmony). That is the user's fault. Apple would say in court that they have never ever anywhere said that they would support cheapo Real media. The legal ramifications are perfectly clear- Apple would win in an instant. This WOULD NEVER turn into a long legal battle.
Apple should rev everything in a month or so just to break Real's software. Better yet, they should provide a bios update to the iPod that breaks Real's code and gives out the phone number for Real's technical support. That is what I would do if I were His Steveness. Then again, I am an evil guy who gets warm fuzzies whenever my software correctly guides a cruise missile onto target.
You can also run Linux as the OS. (Not from Apple)
You can run Adobe Photoshop. (Not from Apple)
I'm not sure quite what it does, but the X11 stuff seems to emulate PC stuff. Well, it looks funky anyways. 8)
But that stuff has more to do with what kind of processor you have. PC's and Macs have different processors that operate differently.
Adobe photoshop - In apple OSX
Linux - ok got me there I don't have much info.
X11- unix which is basis for OSX
Ipod is still an apple product and until just recently not for the PC. So, why, when apple just entered the PC market way behind its competitors should it open up its format for the world of competitors to use. It now has over 70% of the market and as any business would wants to keep it that way on apple developed hardware and apple developed software. Apple also invested millions in advertising to get the ipod where it is. Now real wants to clone itself a business model?
That is why intellectual property exists and R&D money is spent AND why apple is so frustratingly secretive about its plans.
Now what if this punk derived code fu*ks up the ipod software? Who catches blame...Apple
What if this REAL this thing is like a virus or starts to bug up the ipod. Great way to bring down apple 's dominance.
Nope with apple hardware and apple software apple controls the quality. And also it's market.
Apple, get out the UGLY stick and give REAL a swat I say!
You can also run Linux as the OS. (Not from Apple)
You can run Adobe Photoshop. (Not from Apple)
I'm not sure quite what it does, but the X11 stuff seems to emulate PC stuff. Well, it looks funky anyways. 8)
But that stuff has more to do with what kind of processor you have. PC's and Macs have different processors that operate differently.
Yes, you can ditch the Mac OS, but you don't expect to continue running Linux while updating OS X. The problem is that Apple is going to update the iPod OS and Harmony is going to still be there. As a general rule of thumb, programs do not change the OS and the OS can break any program that is doing bad things. OS trumps program.
If Adobe decided to make a hacked version of photoshop that relied on undocumented/unsupported features in a given version of OS X, then they would be idiots. The OS can change and anything that is not fixed about its behavior is not guaranteed to stay the same. Apple will most definitely NOT consider Harmony in future iPod upgrades because as far as they are concerned, it is a program that is hacking the iPod OS.
So you're telling me that you bought a JVC TV set and only expect to get transmissions from JVC, or that you bought a Panasonic CD player from Amazon and therefore should only be buying your music from Amazon or Panasonic? Since when does anyone buy a device and then expect not to have the right to choose what they do with it afterwards?
No, Apple lets you play all sorts of other formats. Apple has decided to not support other protected formats. TV is like MP3- a universally available format.
I don't know guys. This sounds like a Little-guys-fighting-a-monopoly sort of thing to me. Yes, the iPod can play MP3, AAC, and Apple's uncompressed format, but there are a lot of other formats out there whether you like them or not. Apple owns the #1 portable music player and now actively prevents you from using anyone else's other online music store. That eerily resembles a cretin software company we all love to hate.
I think Real may have a case here.
Ok, minor problem here. First, the iPod, and its user interface and such, all belong to Apple. It is Apple's complete "widget" that gives us the user experience that we all love.
To compare this to what Microsoft is doing is very short-sighted. Microsoft developed softare that could be ran on anyone's hardware. It just isn't the same as controlling the whole widget.
Quote:
Originally posted by ajmas
So you're telling me that you bought a JVC TV set and only expect to get transmissions from JVC, or that you bought a Panasonic CD player from Amazon and therefore should only be buying your music from Amazon or Panasonic? Since when does anyone buy a device and then expect not to have the right to choose what they do with it afterwards?
The problem with that statement is protocol. That is like saying since you are a Mac user, you can only recieve Mac TCP/IP packets. Wave signals, audio tapes, etc are all standard forms of communication. The standard in the digital music arena is mp3. iPod can read and play mp3s very easily, as do most of the others out there.
Back to the TV analogy, if you want the HDTV content, you have to have a TV that is HDTV compatable. It just so happens that there are converters and such, because it is an open protocol. FairPlay is NOT an open protocol. It was created by the hard efforts of Apple's marketing group, to sign on the labels; the software department to implement it; and the hardware group, to create a hardware decoder for it.
Personally, I agree with Apple's stance on it. It is their format, and to have anyone come in and reverse engineer it for their own profit is against the law.
Try playing a music cassette tape with your DVD player
I know this was kinda a joke, but Fair use laws do allow me to copy that cassette onto a DVD for my own use.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Ok, minor problem here. First, the iPod, and its user interface and such, all belong to Apple. It is Apple's complete "widget" that gives us the user experience that we all love.
To compare this to what Microsoft is doing is very short-sighted. Microsoft developed softare that could be ran on anyone's hardware. It just isn't the same as controlling the whole widget.
Good point. I didn't think about Apple owning the iPod 100%. Still, if I remember correctly, some folks got together and installed Linux on an iPod. It seems to me that if you look at a iPod as a hardware device than you can install any software on it you want. There is no law against that. (You may void the warrantee but that is to protect Apple). On the other hand, iTunes is a software program that interfaces with the iPod through the operating system. I surely hope you are not suggesting that Apple install into the OS a form of control over what applications will access what devices. That is enough to make my head spin. If some other company, for example Nullsoft, decided to add iPod synchronization among other features to it's next release, should they be blocked from doing so? After all, before iTunes for PC, they were #1 and may even still be. Likewise should Canon, Sony, Kodak, Fujifilm, Nikon, HP, and Olympus sue Apple over Image Capture's ability to interface with their digital cameras? Or is this just a one-sided deal?
PS: I'm just frendly-jabbing. I didn't mean this post to sound mean.
I know this was kinda a joke, but Fair use laws do allow me to copy that cassette onto a DVD for my own use.
Good point. I didn't think about Apple owning the iPod 100%. Still, if I remember correctly, some folks got together and installed Linux on an iPod. It seems to me that if you look at a iPod as a hardware device than you can install any software on it you want. There is no law against that. (You may void the warrantee but that is to protect Apple). On the other hand, iTunes is a software program that interfaces with the iPod through the operating system. I surely hope you are not suggesting that Apple install into the OS a form of control over what applications will access what devices. That is enough to make my head spin. If some other company, for example Nullsoft, decided to add iPod synchronization among other features to it's next release, should they be blocked from doing so? After all, before iTunes for PC, they were #1 and may even still be. Likewise should Canon, Sony, Kodak, Fujifilm, Nikon, HP, and Olympus sue Apple over Image Capture's ability to interface with their digital cameras? Or is this just a one-sided deal?
PS: I'm just frendly-jabbing. I didn't mean this post to sound mean.
I think Olympus, HP, Nikon, Fujfilm, Kodak, Sony and Canon are using open standards or providing drivers and have an agreement with Apple allowing Image Capture to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I don't agree at all with some people saying that if it's hardware and you've bought it you're allowed to use it anyway you want.
When you buy software, you're not allowed to use it anyway you want. For some software, you have to get licenses to install it on more than one computers. Is hacking an app or cracking it legal even if you own it? When you buy software and agree to install it on one and only one computer, you own the software, but you're certainly not allowed to do whatever you want with it. You're certainly not allowed to install it on 2+ computers. If you do, you're robbing a company from sales. The same applies to Protected AAC...you're robbing Apple from iTMS sales if you're allowing iPods to load non-iTMS songs. Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?
Blizzard says you shouldn't cheat or hack on Battle.net. If you do and they catch you, they ban your CD key. You're *not* allowed to use software anyway you want...are the laws different for hardware? Maybe they are but I'd love some proof.
Blizzard does this to protect the user-experience. Nobody wants to play with a cheater. Apple does the same. They're protecting the user-experience because they want to be in control of the system. Disturbing it should be considered a malicious attack.
Seems like the world is against me today. And I like it. *BIG Grin*
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
When you buy software and agree to install it on one and only one computer, you own the software, but you're certainly not allowed to do whatever you want with it. You're certainly not allowed to install it on 2+ computers.
I've always had a hard time with this rule morally. I will only buy one copy of anything and use it on every product I personally own. This sounds horrible to some of you and I can hear faint screaming: "Hang him by his toes!". It's not that bad really. Although is it convenient to have software at the ready on any computer, I only use one instance of any program at a time. I made that pact and I stick to it 100%. If I am rendering an image in Bryce for 20 hours, I can still access Photoshop on another computer. Morally, there is nothing wrong since they have not lost any money. If I had a Photoshop business and we use multiple copies at the same time than sure, I'll buy multiple licenses. I just have a problem paying for inactive software. The exception are operating systems. They are used at the same time and I bought more than my fair share of them. (Looking at the pile of Win95, 98, 2000, and XP disks in my desk. I got a healthy stack of Mac OS disks too)
Quote:
The same applies to Protected AAC...you're robbing Apple from iTMS sales if you're allowing iPods to load non-iTMS songs. Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?
Wait a second there. I have to do one of my bad analogies again but is that like saying I am robbing Tower Music if I shop at The Warehouse? I still purchase the music, pay the artist and recording industry, and receive a file. All that changed is the source I get my material. If one site happens to be cheaper, I will buy there. (Provided they don't have some freaky DRM restrictions) It's called "shopping around" and I think this has Apple is shaking in its boots. (Trying to end this fiasco before it gets out of control.)
As for: "Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?"
Well, I paid for and now OWN it. It is no longer under the manufacturors control.
What about the Good 'ol American Hobby, tinkering around with cars? If you apply the same logic and outlaw that, than you better watch out for that mob of angry Seniors who enjoyed tweaking, enhancing, fixing and modifyinging cars. The'll put da smack-down on 'yr azz.
OK, That is just a funny mental image. Ahhh! Run for your lives! -Kind of a "Austin powers vs Steamroller" scene.
Personally, I agree with Apple's stance on it. It is their format, and to have anyone come in and reverse engineer it for their own profit is against the law.
That's far from clear. Even the DMCA specifically allows reverse engineering for interoperability, which is pretty much what Real has done. And if you feel reverse engineering is morally wrong regardless, perhaps you should lobby Apple to remove Samba from OS X.
I don't agree at all with some people saying that if it's hardware and you've bought it you're allowed to use it anyway you want.
Why on earth not? What do you think "own" means?
Quote:
When you buy software, you're not allowed to use it anyway you want.
Actually, you are. What you can't do is *copy* it (although there are certain fair use exceptions), because of copyright law. I can use AppleWorks to write an editorial condemning Apple, and there's not a thing they can do about it.
Quote:
You're *not* allowed to use software anyway you want...are the laws different for hardware?
Of course. Copyright doesn't apply to hardware, because you can't copy it. (Unless you have a duplicator from Star Trek).
Earlier today, RealNetworks began threatening to license its Harmony Technology to the many digital online music stores.
This is all about Real having a hissy fit over being snubbed. That's all. Otherwise, why would they threaten to license the technology to their own compeditors?
I am with Real on this one. Apple has gained enough momentum with ITMS and iPod. They need to fuel growth by allowing more people to contribute to the popularity of the products.
I think Olympus, HP, Nikon, Fujfilm, Kodak, Sony and Canon are using open standards or providing drivers and have an agreement with Apple allowing Image Capture to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I don't agree at all with some people saying that if it's hardware and you've bought it you're allowed to use it anyway you want.
What do you think ownership entails, then? If you own something, it's yours. You control it. You can do pretty much whatever you want with it. If I want to spraypaint "I Should Have Bought a Scion!" on my Saturn in day-glow pink and drive around Detroit, I can do that and GM can't lift a finger, no matter what it does to their marketing. If I want to use compatible parts offered by third parties in the car, I can, and GM can't even void my warranty if they're up to spec. If I do something out of spec, like hot-rodding, all they can do is void my warranty. But they couldn't stop me from cutting a hole in the hood and installing a blower.
Quote:
When you buy software, you're not allowed to use it anyway you want.
That's because the sleight-of-hand in common use is that you aren't actually buying the software. All you're buying is a license to use it, and the license comes with terms. (Shrink-wrap licenses are still a legal limbo, by the way.) Even if you take home a box, you have not bought a piece of software in the same way that you'd buy a book, or anything else. You've bought the license, and the licensor throws in a copy of the software that you can use under the terms of the license you've bought. This is contract law, NOT copyright law. In fact, the whole point of all this is to do an end run around copyright law. (The DMCA affirms this tactic by conflating it with copyright law...)
Look up "Doctrine of First Sale" to see the way everything else is handled, and what "sale" and "own" have meant for the entire history of the US before the DMCA.
Quote:
For some software, you have to get licenses to install it on more than one computers. Is hacking an app or cracking it legal even if you own it?
Yes.
Let me put it this way: We hired contractors to write some code for our nonprofit. Since we're federally funded in large part, what we do goes into the public domain — and since we like it that way, we wanted all this work to go there too. Well, some of the code is a set of libraries that they license out, so they charged us a lot more than the cost of the license to, in essence, really buy the code from them. Then we could do what we wanted to do with it, such as release it into the public domain.
So, if you're talking about what you can do with software you've licensed, the answer depends on the terms of the license, and the legal standing of those terms, and of the license itself. But if you're talking about software you really own, there are no restrictions. Otherwise, you'd be putting software vendors in the ridiculous position of not being able to do what they wished with their own code!
Quote:
When you buy software and agree to install it on one and only one computer, you own the software, but you're certainly not allowed to do whatever you want with it. You're certainly not allowed to install it on 2+ computers. If you do, you're robbing a company from sales. The same applies to Protected AAC...you're robbing Apple from iTMS sales if you're allowing iPods to load non-iTMS songs. Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?
Because hardware, like books, like blank media, like appliances, like cars... like everything except software, really, is actually purchased and owned.
Quote:
Blizzard says you shouldn't cheat or hack on Battle.net. If you do and they catch you, they ban your CD key. You're *not* allowed to use software anyway you want...are the laws different for hardware? Maybe they are but I'd love some proof.
Show me the license accompanying the last piece of hardware (i.e., the last physical object) you bought, which is a contract you agreed to before using that object. If there isn't one, you bought the object and you own it.
Quote:
Blizzard does this to protect the user-experience. Nobody wants to play with a cheater. Apple does the same. They're protecting the user-experience because they want to be in control of the system. Disturbing it should be considered a malicious attack.
You're conflating several issues here: Blizzard can kick people off battle.net; restaurants can kick people out; the state can bar you from driving on public roads even if your car is paid for; the cable company can shut off your internet access for spamming. Once you're on battle.net, you're not just using the software you've bought a license to use: You're using their servers, which you have no claim to, and which is a service you use subject to terms and conditions. If you violate the terms and conditions, you can't use the service, as with every other service on Earth. This has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership.
The ease with which the founding emphasis on real ownership of property has been forgotten in favor of strings-attached renting is truly alarming. Think about this broadly: What if you didn't actually control what you bought? What if you couldn't add on to your own house in ways that you wanted to? or use your own land as you saw fit? Now, clearly, there are some limits, but this idea that there's nothing wrong with everything being provisional and subject to change without notice is terrifying to me.
Comments
Originally posted by kim kap sol
There are restrictions on many devices out there. If you buy a Sony digital camera, you're forced to buy Sony MemorySticks.
True, but there are cheap MemoryStick adapters for sale that will allow you to use a memory stick on non-sony computers. If Sony outlawed these adapters, would you still have a Sony camera?
The same way Microsoft is bundling and integrating IE in windows, Apple is doing for the iPod and iTunes. That got Microsoft in lots of trouble. Now, this combination is working really well for Apple, but when they specifically target and disable alternate and legitimate options to the #1 music player, that is by definition, a monopoly.
I know, I don't like it either, but This same sort of thing happened to PacBell years ago. They owned almost all the telephone networks and they were sued and ordered to open their networks to the little guys so they could have a piece of the action. This added competition and kept the prices down which was good for the consumer but bad for PacBell.
I actually look forward to the outcome of this situation because if Apple has to allow Real to access the iPod, we will see some great competition and deals between all internet music companies. Apple got there first, and they are bathing in riches, but now Real is rocking the boat.
Originally posted by ajmas
So you're telling me that you bought a JVC TV set and only expect to get transmissions from JVC, or that you bought a Panasonic CD player from Amazon and therefore should only be buying your music from Amazon or Panasonic? Since when does anyone buy a device and then expect not to have the right to choose what they do with it afterwards?
ok, without virtual PCor native m$ for mac software from M$ how do you run microsoft products on your apple?
Apple products run apple stuff!
same analogy.
Apple has made some doozies when it comes to the mistake and misjudge departments but on this one I think that they are right. They developed the product and the market and it is winning over all of the other crap offered and now those companies with shrinking market share , and who would have the conumer and Appe begging for a crumb are crying NO FAIR.
go apple.
Apple wins & the consumer wins
all good!
Originally posted by TednDi
Apple products run apple stuff!
You can also run Linux as the OS. (Not from Apple)
You can run Adobe Photoshop. (Not from Apple)
I'm not sure quite what it does, but the X11 stuff seems to emulate PC stuff. Well, it looks funky anyways. 8)
But that stuff has more to do with what kind of processor you have. PC's and Macs have different processors that operate differently.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
This can turn into a real (pun intended) public relations fiasco for Apple. Constantly revising the iTunes software to disable songs people have downloaded from Rhapsody to play on their iPods could bring class action suits. Glaser, to my thinking, really has Apple between a rock and a hard place on this. The legal ramifications are not clear either. The best Apple may be able to do is get an injunction to have Real cease and desist. Then it could turn into a long battle until one party flinches. Even though I dislike Glaser and his way of doing business, he may eventually win this. Time will tell.
You are so joking and wrong.
Apple can not be sued in a class action suit by users who are using their product (iPod) with unsupported software (Harmony). That is the user's fault. Apple would say in court that they have never ever anywhere said that they would support cheapo Real media. The legal ramifications are perfectly clear- Apple would win in an instant. This WOULD NEVER turn into a long legal battle.
Apple should rev everything in a month or so just to break Real's software. Better yet, they should provide a bios update to the iPod that breaks Real's code and gives out the phone number for Real's technical support. That is what I would do if I were His Steveness. Then again, I am an evil guy who gets warm fuzzies whenever my software correctly guides a cruise missile onto target.
Originally posted by Ebby
You can also run Linux as the OS. (Not from Apple)
You can run Adobe Photoshop. (Not from Apple)
I'm not sure quite what it does, but the X11 stuff seems to emulate PC stuff. Well, it looks funky anyways. 8)
But that stuff has more to do with what kind of processor you have. PC's and Macs have different processors that operate differently.
Adobe photoshop - In apple OSX
Linux - ok got me there I don't have much info.
X11- unix which is basis for OSX
Ipod is still an apple product and until just recently not for the PC. So, why, when apple just entered the PC market way behind its competitors should it open up its format for the world of competitors to use. It now has over 70% of the market and as any business would wants to keep it that way on apple developed hardware and apple developed software. Apple also invested millions in advertising to get the ipod where it is. Now real wants to clone itself a business model?
That is why intellectual property exists and R&D money is spent AND why apple is so frustratingly secretive about its plans.
Now what if this punk derived code fu*ks up the ipod software? Who catches blame...Apple
What if this REAL this thing is like a virus or starts to bug up the ipod. Great way to bring down apple 's dominance.
Nope with apple hardware and apple software apple controls the quality. And also it's market.
Apple, get out the UGLY stick and give REAL a swat I say!
Originally posted by Ebby
You can also run Linux as the OS. (Not from Apple)
You can run Adobe Photoshop. (Not from Apple)
I'm not sure quite what it does, but the X11 stuff seems to emulate PC stuff. Well, it looks funky anyways. 8)
But that stuff has more to do with what kind of processor you have. PC's and Macs have different processors that operate differently.
Yes, you can ditch the Mac OS, but you don't expect to continue running Linux while updating OS X. The problem is that Apple is going to update the iPod OS and Harmony is going to still be there. As a general rule of thumb, programs do not change the OS and the OS can break any program that is doing bad things. OS trumps program.
If Adobe decided to make a hacked version of photoshop that relied on undocumented/unsupported features in a given version of OS X, then they would be idiots. The OS can change and anything that is not fixed about its behavior is not guaranteed to stay the same. Apple will most definitely NOT consider Harmony in future iPod upgrades because as far as they are concerned, it is a program that is hacking the iPod OS.
Originally posted by ajmas
So you're telling me that you bought a JVC TV set and only expect to get transmissions from JVC, or that you bought a Panasonic CD player from Amazon and therefore should only be buying your music from Amazon or Panasonic? Since when does anyone buy a device and then expect not to have the right to choose what they do with it afterwards?
No, Apple lets you play all sorts of other formats. Apple has decided to not support other protected formats. TV is like MP3- a universally available format.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If a company says you have to use a product a certain way, and you agree by buying it, then it's your problem if you want to use it some other way.
Bull. Unless I've signed a contract to the contrary, I can do whatever I want with a product that I own, regardless of whether the seller approves.
Originally posted by 3.1416
Bull. Unless I've signed a contract to the contrary, I can do whatever I want with a product that I own, regardless of whether the seller approves.
Try playing a music cassette tape with your DVD player
Originally posted by Ebby
I don't know guys. This sounds like a Little-guys-fighting-a-monopoly sort of thing to me. Yes, the iPod can play MP3, AAC, and Apple's uncompressed format, but there are a lot of other formats out there whether you like them or not. Apple owns the #1 portable music player and now actively prevents you from using anyone else's other online music store. That eerily resembles a cretin software company we all love to hate.
I think Real may have a case here.
Ok, minor problem here. First, the iPod, and its user interface and such, all belong to Apple. It is Apple's complete "widget" that gives us the user experience that we all love.
To compare this to what Microsoft is doing is very short-sighted. Microsoft developed softare that could be ran on anyone's hardware. It just isn't the same as controlling the whole widget.
Originally posted by ajmas
So you're telling me that you bought a JVC TV set and only expect to get transmissions from JVC, or that you bought a Panasonic CD player from Amazon and therefore should only be buying your music from Amazon or Panasonic? Since when does anyone buy a device and then expect not to have the right to choose what they do with it afterwards?
The problem with that statement is protocol. That is like saying since you are a Mac user, you can only recieve Mac TCP/IP packets. Wave signals, audio tapes, etc are all standard forms of communication. The standard in the digital music arena is mp3. iPod can read and play mp3s very easily, as do most of the others out there.
Back to the TV analogy, if you want the HDTV content, you have to have a TV that is HDTV compatable. It just so happens that there are converters and such, because it is an open protocol. FairPlay is NOT an open protocol. It was created by the hard efforts of Apple's marketing group, to sign on the labels; the software department to implement it; and the hardware group, to create a hardware decoder for it.
Personally, I agree with Apple's stance on it. It is their format, and to have anyone come in and reverse engineer it for their own profit is against the law.
Originally posted by vinney57
Try playing a music cassette tape with your DVD player
I know this was kinda a joke, but Fair use laws do allow me to copy that cassette onto a DVD for my own use.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Ok, minor problem here. First, the iPod, and its user interface and such, all belong to Apple. It is Apple's complete "widget" that gives us the user experience that we all love.
To compare this to what Microsoft is doing is very short-sighted. Microsoft developed softare that could be ran on anyone's hardware. It just isn't the same as controlling the whole widget.
Good point. I didn't think about Apple owning the iPod 100%. Still, if I remember correctly, some folks got together and installed Linux on an iPod. It seems to me that if you look at a iPod as a hardware device than you can install any software on it you want. There is no law against that. (You may void the warrantee but that is to protect Apple). On the other hand, iTunes is a software program that interfaces with the iPod through the operating system. I surely hope you are not suggesting that Apple install into the OS a form of control over what applications will access what devices. That is enough to make my head spin. If some other company, for example Nullsoft, decided to add iPod synchronization among other features to it's next release, should they be blocked from doing so? After all, before iTunes for PC, they were #1 and may even still be. Likewise should Canon, Sony, Kodak, Fujifilm, Nikon, HP, and Olympus sue Apple over Image Capture's ability to interface with their digital cameras? Or is this just a one-sided deal?
PS: I'm just frendly-jabbing. I didn't mean this post to sound mean.
Originally posted by Ebby
I know this was kinda a joke, but Fair use laws do allow me to copy that cassette onto a DVD for my own use.
Good point. I didn't think about Apple owning the iPod 100%. Still, if I remember correctly, some folks got together and installed Linux on an iPod. It seems to me that if you look at a iPod as a hardware device than you can install any software on it you want. There is no law against that. (You may void the warrantee but that is to protect Apple). On the other hand, iTunes is a software program that interfaces with the iPod through the operating system. I surely hope you are not suggesting that Apple install into the OS a form of control over what applications will access what devices. That is enough to make my head spin. If some other company, for example Nullsoft, decided to add iPod synchronization among other features to it's next release, should they be blocked from doing so? After all, before iTunes for PC, they were #1 and may even still be. Likewise should Canon, Sony, Kodak, Fujifilm, Nikon, HP, and Olympus sue Apple over Image Capture's ability to interface with their digital cameras? Or is this just a one-sided deal?
PS: I'm just frendly-jabbing. I didn't mean this post to sound mean.
I think Olympus, HP, Nikon, Fujfilm, Kodak, Sony and Canon are using open standards or providing drivers and have an agreement with Apple allowing Image Capture to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I don't agree at all with some people saying that if it's hardware and you've bought it you're allowed to use it anyway you want.
When you buy software, you're not allowed to use it anyway you want. For some software, you have to get licenses to install it on more than one computers. Is hacking an app or cracking it legal even if you own it? When you buy software and agree to install it on one and only one computer, you own the software, but you're certainly not allowed to do whatever you want with it. You're certainly not allowed to install it on 2+ computers. If you do, you're robbing a company from sales. The same applies to Protected AAC...you're robbing Apple from iTMS sales if you're allowing iPods to load non-iTMS songs. Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?
Blizzard says you shouldn't cheat or hack on Battle.net. If you do and they catch you, they ban your CD key. You're *not* allowed to use software anyway you want...are the laws different for hardware? Maybe they are but I'd love some proof.
Blizzard does this to protect the user-experience. Nobody wants to play with a cheater. Apple does the same. They're protecting the user-experience because they want to be in control of the system. Disturbing it should be considered a malicious attack.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
When you buy software and agree to install it on one and only one computer, you own the software, but you're certainly not allowed to do whatever you want with it. You're certainly not allowed to install it on 2+ computers.
I've always had a hard time with this rule morally. I will only buy one copy of anything and use it on every product I personally own. This sounds horrible to some of you and I can hear faint screaming: "Hang him by his toes!". It's not that bad really. Although is it convenient to have software at the ready on any computer, I only use one instance of any program at a time. I made that pact and I stick to it 100%. If I am rendering an image in Bryce for 20 hours, I can still access Photoshop on another computer. Morally, there is nothing wrong since they have not lost any money. If I had a Photoshop business and we use multiple copies at the same time than sure, I'll buy multiple licenses. I just have a problem paying for inactive software. The exception are operating systems. They are used at the same time and I bought more than my fair share of them. (Looking at the pile of Win95, 98, 2000, and XP disks in my desk. I got a healthy stack of Mac OS disks too)
Quote:
The same applies to Protected AAC...you're robbing Apple from iTMS sales if you're allowing iPods to load non-iTMS songs. Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?
Wait a second there. I have to do one of my bad analogies again but is that like saying I am robbing Tower Music if I shop at The Warehouse? I still purchase the music, pay the artist and recording industry, and receive a file. All that changed is the source I get my material. If one site happens to be cheaper, I will buy there. (Provided they don't have some freaky DRM restrictions) It's called "shopping around" and I think this has Apple is shaking in its boots. (Trying to end this fiasco before it gets out of control.)
As for: "Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?"
Well, I paid for and now OWN it. It is no longer under the manufacturors control.
What about the Good 'ol American Hobby, tinkering around with cars? If you apply the same logic and outlaw that, than you better watch out for that mob of angry Seniors who enjoyed tweaking, enhancing, fixing and modifyinging cars. The'll put da smack-down on 'yr azz.
Enough Blab, I'm done.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Personally, I agree with Apple's stance on it. It is their format, and to have anyone come in and reverse engineer it for their own profit is against the law.
That's far from clear. Even the DMCA specifically allows reverse engineering for interoperability, which is pretty much what Real has done. And if you feel reverse engineering is morally wrong regardless, perhaps you should lobby Apple to remove Samba from OS X.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I don't agree at all with some people saying that if it's hardware and you've bought it you're allowed to use it anyway you want.
Why on earth not? What do you think "own" means?
When you buy software, you're not allowed to use it anyway you want.
Actually, you are. What you can't do is *copy* it (although there are certain fair use exceptions), because of copyright law. I can use AppleWorks to write an editorial condemning Apple, and there's not a thing they can do about it.
You're *not* allowed to use software anyway you want...are the laws different for hardware?
Of course. Copyright doesn't apply to hardware, because you can't copy it. (Unless you have a duplicator from Star Trek).
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Harmony allows people to wander out of the beautiful sunny neighborhood and into the neighborhood full of prostitutes, drugs and crime.
ah, rock and roll. the sound of rebellion...
...oh wait. that was just a dream? 2004 really is just like '1984.' shit.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Earlier today, RealNetworks began threatening to license its Harmony Technology to the many digital online music stores.
This is all about Real having a hissy fit over being snubbed. That's all. Otherwise, why would they threaten to license the technology to their own compeditors?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I think Olympus, HP, Nikon, Fujfilm, Kodak, Sony and Canon are using open standards or providing drivers and have an agreement with Apple allowing Image Capture to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I don't agree at all with some people saying that if it's hardware and you've bought it you're allowed to use it anyway you want.
What do you think ownership entails, then? If you own something, it's yours. You control it. You can do pretty much whatever you want with it. If I want to spraypaint "I Should Have Bought a Scion!" on my Saturn in day-glow pink and drive around Detroit, I can do that and GM can't lift a finger, no matter what it does to their marketing. If I want to use compatible parts offered by third parties in the car, I can, and GM can't even void my warranty if they're up to spec. If I do something out of spec, like hot-rodding, all they can do is void my warranty. But they couldn't stop me from cutting a hole in the hood and installing a blower.
When you buy software, you're not allowed to use it anyway you want.
That's because the sleight-of-hand in common use is that you aren't actually buying the software. All you're buying is a license to use it, and the license comes with terms. (Shrink-wrap licenses are still a legal limbo, by the way.) Even if you take home a box, you have not bought a piece of software in the same way that you'd buy a book, or anything else. You've bought the license, and the licensor throws in a copy of the software that you can use under the terms of the license you've bought. This is contract law, NOT copyright law. In fact, the whole point of all this is to do an end run around copyright law. (The DMCA affirms this tactic by conflating it with copyright law...)
Look up "Doctrine of First Sale" to see the way everything else is handled, and what "sale" and "own" have meant for the entire history of the US before the DMCA.
For some software, you have to get licenses to install it on more than one computers. Is hacking an app or cracking it legal even if you own it?
Yes.
Let me put it this way: We hired contractors to write some code for our nonprofit. Since we're federally funded in large part, what we do goes into the public domain — and since we like it that way, we wanted all this work to go there too. Well, some of the code is a set of libraries that they license out, so they charged us a lot more than the cost of the license to, in essence, really buy the code from them. Then we could do what we wanted to do with it, such as release it into the public domain.
So, if you're talking about what you can do with software you've licensed, the answer depends on the terms of the license, and the legal standing of those terms, and of the license itself. But if you're talking about software you really own, there are no restrictions. Otherwise, you'd be putting software vendors in the ridiculous position of not being able to do what they wished with their own code!
When you buy software and agree to install it on one and only one computer, you own the software, but you're certainly not allowed to do whatever you want with it. You're certainly not allowed to install it on 2+ computers. If you do, you're robbing a company from sales. The same applies to Protected AAC...you're robbing Apple from iTMS sales if you're allowing iPods to load non-iTMS songs. Why would owning hardware entitle you to do whatever you want with it?
Because hardware, like books, like blank media, like appliances, like cars... like everything except software, really, is actually purchased and owned.
Blizzard says you shouldn't cheat or hack on Battle.net. If you do and they catch you, they ban your CD key. You're *not* allowed to use software anyway you want...are the laws different for hardware? Maybe they are but I'd love some proof.
Show me the license accompanying the last piece of hardware (i.e., the last physical object) you bought, which is a contract you agreed to before using that object. If there isn't one, you bought the object and you own it.
Blizzard does this to protect the user-experience. Nobody wants to play with a cheater. Apple does the same. They're protecting the user-experience because they want to be in control of the system. Disturbing it should be considered a malicious attack.
You're conflating several issues here: Blizzard can kick people off battle.net; restaurants can kick people out; the state can bar you from driving on public roads even if your car is paid for; the cable company can shut off your internet access for spamming. Once you're on battle.net, you're not just using the software you've bought a license to use: You're using their servers, which you have no claim to, and which is a service you use subject to terms and conditions. If you violate the terms and conditions, you can't use the service, as with every other service on Earth. This has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership.
The ease with which the founding emphasis on real ownership of property has been forgotten in favor of strings-attached renting is truly alarming. Think about this broadly: What if you didn't actually control what you bought? What if you couldn't add on to your own house in ways that you wanted to? or use your own land as you saw fit? Now, clearly, there are some limits, but this idea that there's nothing wrong with everything being provisional and subject to change without notice is terrifying to me.