Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 08:16 AM
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
On what basis? Solely because it confirms your prejudice? Being gay has nothing in the slightest to do with gender identity, nor does Joseph Nicolosi's work have any standing of substance in the medical and psychiatric community.
What Joseph Nicolosi does is run a racket. He's little more than a grifter, a trait often found in religious circles.
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’ espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In short, he's a fraud.
On what basis? Solely because it confirms your prejudice? Being gay has nothing in the slightest to do with gender identity, nor does Joseph Nicolosi's work have any standing of substance in the medical and psychiatric community.
What Joseph Nicolosi does is run a racket. He's little more than a grifter, a trait often found in religious circles.
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’ espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In short, he's a fraud.
tigress666
Apr 9, 12:10 PM
When Apple Buys Nintendo eventually, it will be a good merge.
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Popeye206
Apr 9, 08:45 AM
And the Eco system grows. I love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
I really feel that Gaming will eventually be one of the things that really make the iOS devices fly even more than now. :) Love it!
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:49 PM
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
Nope; they wont. But that's only because there's no hell.
It would be much better for all concerned if they just went to prison here on Earth. Unfortunately, the pope made that difficult when he decided to cover up all the child rape.
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:17 AM
Matthew 5:10-12
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Irrelevant. Don't throw bible verses at us, it's not helping your point, but i can understand that you're using it as a last ditch effort because you realize you have no point.
PS
Matthew can go F himself. Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 05:26 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field.
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Sounds Good
Apr 16, 07:33 AM
I received my refurb iPad 1 yesterday and was very impressed with how Apple packages their refurbs. Nice!
Went into the Apple store last night to buy a case for the iPad and was ONCE AGAIN drawn to the MacBook Air. Beautiful machine.
Ahhhh, maybe someday... maybe someday. :)
Went into the Apple store last night to buy a case for the iPad and was ONCE AGAIN drawn to the MacBook Air. Beautiful machine.
Ahhhh, maybe someday... maybe someday. :)
stcanard
Mar 18, 10:19 AM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.
The problem is that DRM like this is flawed by definition. In order for me to be able to listen to the track, my computer has to have the capability to decode and play it. Therefore there has to be a hole that can be exploited to get that information. Jon is very good at finding that hole that has to exist.
The system is guaranteed to be breakable as long as you look hard enough.
The same is not true for operating systems. The system does not have to be breakable, so now you can make an assessment based on the architecture.
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.
The problem is that DRM like this is flawed by definition. In order for me to be able to listen to the track, my computer has to have the capability to decode and play it. Therefore there has to be a hole that can be exploited to get that information. Jon is very good at finding that hole that has to exist.
The system is guaranteed to be breakable as long as you look hard enough.
The same is not true for operating systems. The system does not have to be breakable, so now you can make an assessment based on the architecture.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 12:18 AM
beyond this robin hood mentality
I think you may be misunderstanding the natural human desire to be free with a fairy tale. No matter where you look in history, humans are always trying to find ways to increase their freedom and decrease oppression. This is not "Robin Hood", this is nature.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism.
Start working at changing the world from where you stand. No one needs to "wait" to care. And what you care about is of much less importance than the fact that you feel anything at all.
I think you may be misunderstanding the natural human desire to be free with a fairy tale. No matter where you look in history, humans are always trying to find ways to increase their freedom and decrease oppression. This is not "Robin Hood", this is nature.
If only people could work up a tenth of this kind of moral indignation over things that really matter, like poverty or racism.
Start working at changing the world from where you stand. No one needs to "wait" to care. And what you care about is of much less importance than the fact that you feel anything at all.
Lesser Evets
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Why does bullying have to be attached to GLBT?
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:14 PM
Tell me again: do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=condom%20hiv%20transmission), or do they actually cause the spread of HIV (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm)? Which was it? I can't recall.
All things being equal, they prevent HIV versus not using them. But the promotion of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle increases the risk overall. That's what that argument is about, not that hard to get, really.
All things being equal, they prevent HIV versus not using them. But the promotion of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle increases the risk overall. That's what that argument is about, not that hard to get, really.
darkplanets
Mar 11, 09:23 AM
NB. I guess the most critical things that can get damaged in Japan are the nuke power stations, the reports so far say none are leaking.
I wouldn't worry about those. They're incredibly well designed. If Japan has any of the new AP1000's, then there's really nothing to worry about.
I wouldn't worry about those. They're incredibly well designed. If Japan has any of the new AP1000's, then there's really nothing to worry about.
zwida
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
I'm hoping that the 8-core, 3.0 (or faster) GHz MacPro arrives the same day as Leopard and about the same time as CS3. I'd gladly swap my 2.66 GHz quad core...:)
Applespider
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
I switch all the time on this issue. For the most part, DRM doesn't get in the way of anything I do so I think 'what the hey!'
Then I envision wanting to make a silly video and using some music with it (which I could do if I'd burned it off a CD) and not being allowed to with the iTMS stuff. And yes, I know that the CD way is illegal too but until the RIAA make a very easy way for Joe Public to be able to pay a nominal amount for a very limited distribution, not-for-sale video, people are going to do it illegally.
Then I envision wanting to make a silly video and using some music with it (which I could do if I'd burned it off a CD) and not being allowed to with the iTMS stuff. And yes, I know that the CD way is illegal too but until the RIAA make a very easy way for Joe Public to be able to pay a nominal amount for a very limited distribution, not-for-sale video, people are going to do it illegally.
AidenShaw
Oct 26, 07:04 AM
Now we see what Apple saw - why the Mac Pro is strickly BTO.
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
Just add two more processor options for the X5355 and E5345, and this upgrade is done.
Just like the Dell online store... ;)
edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:34 AM
I can't think of what I'd possibly need that kind of power for here at home, but just the extravagance of having 8 CPUs ticking away is tempting in itself.
williamsonrg
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
I'm really impressed with the price. Obviously they're not gonna talk about all the features this early, but so far it looks good. Will it record TV? I guess "no."
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:06 AM
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
But come on, Dell more green than Apple? Something is not right here.
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
DemSpursBro
Apr 9, 06:49 AM
Heat is a mixed bag. For "normal" use (we browsing, etc...) I find the situation better than the typical PC. I hated the Dell notebook work had issued me because it sounded like a wind tunnnel at idle. Gaming, or other intensive use of the system does generate a lot of heat and I would not recommend using it on your unprotected lap under those circumstances.
If you're talking about pre-built PC's, Dell in particular, than yes, most will heat around the same or worse than a Mac. However Dell and HP are known to be very bad brands. If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
If you're talking about pre-built PC's, Dell in particular, than yes, most will heat around the same or worse than a Mac. However Dell and HP are known to be very bad brands. If we're talking laptops, then depending on the model you buy, some may also have heating issues that other brands will not. If we're talking PC desktops, hopefully you've built your own, but if you didn't you can install more fans, a better heatsink, better thermal paste, etc. without voiding your warranty. Last time I checked, if you open your Mac, it voids your warranty.
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.
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:51 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?Depends on which issue you are referring to: the "music should be free" issue or the "DRM is wrong/unfair/unethical/unjust" issue.
I used to have a ton of pirated MP3's from back before even the original Napster came out. Don't know what it was that caused me to delete 'em all, probably the birth of my son and the realization that I'm now a role model. (that'll scare you sober!)
I've never really had a problem with DRM though - even the anoying serial number id's and hardware "dongles" make sense to me. Is seems to me that they are there to make piracy anoyingly difficult for the majority of users - the hard core geeks (like DVD Jon) will always find ways around them, but not most of us. I find the iTMS DRM to be quite liberal, I've never had a legitimate reason to complain about it.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?Depends on which issue you are referring to: the "music should be free" issue or the "DRM is wrong/unfair/unethical/unjust" issue.
I used to have a ton of pirated MP3's from back before even the original Napster came out. Don't know what it was that caused me to delete 'em all, probably the birth of my son and the realization that I'm now a role model. (that'll scare you sober!)
I've never really had a problem with DRM though - even the anoying serial number id's and hardware "dongles" make sense to me. Is seems to me that they are there to make piracy anoyingly difficult for the majority of users - the hard core geeks (like DVD Jon) will always find ways around them, but not most of us. I find the iTMS DRM to be quite liberal, I've never had a legitimate reason to complain about it.
