mfryd
About
- Username
- mfryd
- Joined
- Visits
- 57
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 726
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 274
Reactions
-
Apple will buy US-made chips from TSMC, confirms Tim Cook
Taiwan doesn't want factories outside of Taiwan to succeed.Right now, a major factor in why the US protects Taiwan, is that much of our electronics infrastructure depends on chips made in Taiwan. If mainland China takes over Taiwan, China gains the ability to easily disrupt the US economy. Furthermore, China gains the ability to build backdoors into various chips, bypassing security.If the US gains the ability to meet our own chip demand, a threat to Taiwan is no longer a threat to our economy. Therefore we have less incentive to protect Taiwan.
-
Ampere Apple Watch Charging Cable review: A better fast charger
Apple's USB-C charging cable is only $29. If you want a fast charging cable, and want to save money, but the Apple cable.The Ampere cable is longer (Apple's in only 1 meter long), and the Ampere has a different look. If you need either of those, it may make sense to spend more for the Ampere cable.
-
Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube
In what way would giving permission benefit Apple shareholders?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.
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increase customer service costs, and decrease customer satisfaction if any of those videos reference policies that are no longer in effect.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). -
Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube
sdw2001 said:
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.mfryd said:
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.sdw2001 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.mfryd said:
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.
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.
-
Apple kills long-time event archive on YouTube
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.sdw2001 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.mfryd said:
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.
