Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Sirmausalot
Apr 13, 05:49 AM
A professional is someone who makes money from their work. So someone who gets paid for a project they make in iMovie is a professional. Perhaps you need to make a living at it though to be a true professional :-)
As for Final Cut Pro X, jury is still definitely out. We all need to try it, make sure the features we still need are there and make sure the new features don't make our computers crash.
No mention of delivery (DVD Studio Pro or Compressor functions) nor enough information about sound editing. So again, the jury is still far, far out.
As for Final Cut Pro X, jury is still definitely out. We all need to try it, make sure the features we still need are there and make sure the new features don't make our computers crash.
No mention of delivery (DVD Studio Pro or Compressor functions) nor enough information about sound editing. So again, the jury is still far, far out.
MACRUS
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 03:46 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:11 AM
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
ipad wallpaper yankees.
Graffiti iPad Wallpaper
ipad wallpaper retro.
desktop wallpaper iPad:
ipad wallpaper yankees.
İpad Wallpaper
Water Splash iPad Wallpaper
Ocean view iPad Wallpaper
ipad wallpaper retro.
hello kitty wallpaper ipad.
new ipad wallpapersurround
CGI Woman iPad Wallpaper
wallpaper images for mac. mac
Apple OC
Apr 22, 08:06 PM
Science is where you will find the real answers
MacRumors
Jul 14, 02:03 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
Groovey
Aug 29, 05:12 PM
From Greenpeace.org
It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." said Kruszewska.
And this is something I gotta agree with. I don't believe that people in Greenpeace are sitting around doing nothing and just making things up, such as ranking corporations blindly with no research data at all. In my opinion realizing such issues doesn't make anything worse, just makes it possible for things to get even better. Sounds probably quite optimistic, yes, but gotta keep the spirits up. I also have bought all my Apple-stuff in the belief that they are somewhat more eco-friendly too. They make excellent computers, and soon to be even more perfect! :D
It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation." said Kruszewska.
And this is something I gotta agree with. I don't believe that people in Greenpeace are sitting around doing nothing and just making things up, such as ranking corporations blindly with no research data at all. In my opinion realizing such issues doesn't make anything worse, just makes it possible for things to get even better. Sounds probably quite optimistic, yes, but gotta keep the spirits up. I also have bought all my Apple-stuff in the belief that they are somewhat more eco-friendly too. They make excellent computers, and soon to be even more perfect! :D
neiltc13
Apr 20, 05:35 PM
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
SeattleMoose
Mar 11, 10:29 AM
I pray the loss of life is minimal. I was in the 6.8 Northridge Quake that hit LA back in the early 90's. That was a very destructive quake that caused whole buildings to tilt and knocked down part of the I-10 freeway.
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
But 8.9!!!! I can't even imagine...and then to have those Tsunami's on top of it.
:eek:
mahonmeister
Sep 26, 02:20 AM
You can buy a 32 core machine today. Sun sells them. They are not cheap. I'm waiting for the day when we see "kilo-cores" and people add them like RAM, a thousand cores at a time.
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Thats an interesting concept but I think someone is a bit ahead of themselves.
I've heard that processors have reached some sort of theoretical limit and I'm guessing that multiple cores is getting around this. But why aren't these chips at higher clock speeds? I really don't milti-task that much so I would be more interested in raw power rather then power in numbers. If the prices on the current processors drop I think I'd get the quad 3GHz rather then a 8 core 2.66GHz. But if they had a dual 6GHz that would be even better.;)
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 10:05 AM
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I might buy the iTV when it finally arrives. It really depends on what I can do with it. Right now it feels slightly anemic to me. It is more or less just a beefed-up Airport Extreme.
The iTV would be much more appealing to me if Apple offered a TV-tuner in it (BTO or third party). If not, well...
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I might buy the iTV when it finally arrives. It really depends on what I can do with it. Right now it feels slightly anemic to me. It is more or less just a beefed-up Airport Extreme.
The iTV would be much more appealing to me if Apple offered a TV-tuner in it (BTO or third party). If not, well...
megadon
Oct 19, 12:59 PM
So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?[/B]
Economics.
Different products are marketed different ways. Different price points, and different marginal utility for each person.
The joy/benefit that you get out of the iphone (lets say touch screen for example) could be a downside to another customer, and that's just one example.
Economics.
Different products are marketed different ways. Different price points, and different marginal utility for each person.
The joy/benefit that you get out of the iphone (lets say touch screen for example) could be a downside to another customer, and that's just one example.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 06:03 PM
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Recent items are "today, yesterday, and past week." I checked with the 'finder' and a document showed up yesterday without accessing my documents folder. Hope this helps, as you sound computer savvy!
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Recent items are "today, yesterday, and past week." I checked with the 'finder' and a document showed up yesterday without accessing my documents folder. Hope this helps, as you sound computer savvy!
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
NikeTalk
Mar 18, 09:40 AM
That guy that used 90GBs should be the first one converted.
totoum
Apr 13, 11:58 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
Then they should include it in such #'s when it WILL be one not while it's not don't you think?
balamw
Sep 12, 07:30 PM
It's got USB.
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:34 PM
I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
scoobydoo99
May 2, 09:45 AM
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!