August 31, 2007
— Gabriel Malor NBC-Universal and Apple were unable to come to an agreement about the pricing of TV shows on iTunes. iTunes will stop selling new shows from NBC-Universal starting in September.
NBC wanted "more than double the wholesale priceĀ for new TV episodes. Apple was unwilling to agree to that since it would bring the price to iTunes consumers of downloading an episode to $4.99.
Also, Apple's statement claims:
Since NBC would withdraw their shows in the middle of the television season, Apple has decided to not offer NBC TV shows for the upcoming television season beginning in September.
This seems more like Apple trying to punish NBC than anything else. Why not sell half a season before the contract is up?
Why is this important? Because the best show on television will no longer be available on iTunes. Frak!
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:32 PM
| Comments (117)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: EC at August 31, 2007 02:34 PM (j2Tjh)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 02:39 PM (1Ug6U)
NBC's Heroes is available online for free at NBC's website. Which is cool of them, I must say.
Also, FOX shows are were available on myspace TV on Demand. 
Posted by: Bart at August 31, 2007 02:42 PM (pSH8t)
Posted by: EC at August 31, 2007 02:45 PM (j2Tjh)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 02:46 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 02:51 PM (1Ug6U)
SONOFA#*%&#$!!!!! This is how I've watched all the episodes of BSG to date! My world is turned upside. I hate them all. Bastards.
*sigh*...
Posted by: John at August 31, 2007 02:55 PM (7itTb)
It is stealing.
Some young people I know well did not accept my argument that downloading copywrited material from the Net at no cost was stealing. After much debate, their arguement boiled down to this: "It can't be stealing, it's too easy, stealing is hard".
It is stealing.
Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 02:57 PM (F/DIG)
Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 03:01 PM (ROA4D)
There is a difference between downloading movies, which you have no other way of seeing for free, and downloading shows, which you can watch for free as long as you have a recording device (VCR or DVR).
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:04 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:05 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:07 PM (3vVOD)
When a company produces a show they sell the right to air that show to one or more entities (in this case Sci-Fi*and iTunes). If you and a lot of other people are watching it through a pirated, non-licensed distribution method, you are lowering the number of people who will watch it the legal way. When the audience goes down, the rate they can charge advertisers goes down and then they won't pay the production company to make the show.
There's no free lunch or tv.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:09 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:12 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: Sgt. York at August 31, 2007 03:13 PM (xe2+h)
How old are you? I ask this not to dismiss you because you are young (if the 87 is the year you were born) but because it reflects the generational difference on this issue and the problem it presents content creators and distributors.
As for you argument, I am not arguing that at all.
DVRs do present a problem for distributors but you are still watching and recording it from someone who was legally allowed (through a grant of rights from the original creator and rights holder) to air something. Bittorent has not been granted that right. You are making a technological argument, I am making a legal one.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:16 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 03:17 PM (jbiW7)
magnetism87,
You have a point. What you describe does not sound so much like stealing. But, maybe a broadcast show is free only when it is broadcast? I think the Supremes ruled back in the Eighties that it was not a violation of copywrite law to record anything sent into your home by air or cable. If what you describe is like bootlegging Gilligan's Island off a local affilliate, then it's ok with me.
Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 03:17 PM (F/DIG)
Posted by: EC at August 31, 2007 03:18 PM (j2Tjh)
Posted by: MamaAJ at August 31, 2007 03:18 PM (X6Zdh)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:19 PM (3vVOD)
Yes, there was always a fair usage exemption. You could make a copy for yourself to use in a non-commercial way. Now, if you made 10,000 copies and started selling them, you would run afoul of copyright provisions.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:24 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: bartwing plover at August 31, 2007 03:25 PM (pSH8t)
Posted by: ultimaflare99 at August 31, 2007 03:25 PM (tNTd5)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:26 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 03:28 PM (IirzJ)
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 03:29 PM (IirzJ)
Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 03:29 PM (F/DIG)
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 03:33 PM (jbiW7)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:33 PM (3vVOD)
Two things...they sell ads on that site. They are using the illegal downloads for the commercial purpose of generating traffic and ad revenue.
Second... Did you ever read the fine print at the end of a show. It says something like "All rights reserved".You may not like it but one of those rights is to decide who distributes their product online. In this case they have reached an exclusive agreement with iTunes. When bittorent comes in and streams them from free they are hurting the rights holder. How? Some percentage of people who are watching this for free would have paid their online distributor (and eventually them) if bittorent wasn't pirating them.
I don't understand what's so complicated about this.
Gabriel...hit them with the copyright post.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:33 PM (hlYel)
OFF TOPIC: As for the Gabe bashing.... I'm all for it on his "lessons" threads if it is deserved (which it really wasn't on the Command Responsibility...aside from pointing out the obvious), but to bring it up here just shows that you have the maturity of a 12 year old.
OFF TOPIC EVEN MORE: I like pie.
That is all.
Posted by: former republican at August 31, 2007 03:33 PM (I+C25)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:36 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 03:38 PM (F/DIG)
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 03:38 PM (jbiW7)
Is it a copyright violation to watch the show stream from somebody else's website that may not be under the same legal regime (e.g., overseas) if you don't affix the copyrighted material to some medium? Has there been a test case on that question?
Would this be equivalent to going over to somebody's house to watch a movie for free that they illegally copied?
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:39 PM (EkG0f)
First, copyright infringement occurs whether or not something is sold for value. Obviously. If I write a book which I sell for $5 and you copy it and give it away for free, you are infringing my copyright.
Second, "fair use" is by statute only limited use for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. That's why you don't see Ace or any other major bloggers just copying whole articles out of the Washington Post. Fair use is a limited exception to copyright. It doesn't let you steal whole TV shows.
At best, in the television context, it would allow you to take just a few minutes worth of the show--so long as your use is accompanied by criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Your own private enjoyment is not a "fair use."
Third, anything the Supreme Court ruled on in the 1980s probably got destroyed by Congress in the 1990s and certainly did in 2000 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 03:39 PM (1Ug6U)
Posted by: madne0 at August 31, 2007 03:39 PM (wuxU/)
would have your DVR download for you for FREE from a different software
source, in this case a bit torrent server, stealing? It is "fair use".
For one, the bittorrent downloads contain no commercials, which - as we know - give the incomes necessary to fund shows like BSG. When ratings drop (and, baby, BSG's have dropped), sales rates for advertising drops and shows that don't make money get cancelled (unless BSG's ratings improve, quickly, it's soon to be gone). Two, yes, there are ratings available for same day DVR (tvnewser posts them almost daily for the cable network news shows), they're just wholly unreliable. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with recording a show on a DVR or VCR and watching whenever. It's when you SHARE the show that copyright infringement comes in to play. You can watch any show on your computer any time you wish, but when you upload it & share it to the masses, it's breaking the law. In the example you cited, the person downloading the episode is getting it from a source that did not get the written permission to share/resell the property of NBC, which is breaking the law.
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 03:42 PM (IirzJ)
technology, there are plenty of trackers which don't have ads, and you
can simply bypass the site itself.
And on the overseas question, this had been tried with pirate's bay several times. And like lot of the people on this site have said Gabriel, there is no international law. There is nothing the supreme court can do shut them down.
Posted by: ultimaflare99 at August 31, 2007 03:42 PM (tNTd5)
Thanks for correcting my 'fair use' comment. It was sloppy and I knew it as soon as I hit post. There was some exception that allowed you to make tape of something you heard on the radio or of an album you bought (google it kids) for personal use. Wasn't there?
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:42 PM (hlYel)
Appe pie with a scoop of vanilla ice cream -- so simple, yet there's nothing better.
The hard part is finding a great apple pie.
Posted by: bartwing plover at August 31, 2007 03:44 PM (pSH8t)
My question was about whether I had to actually copy the material instead of just watching a streaming version that doesn't affix to a medium.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:46 PM (EkG0f)
technology
And so was Napster. How'd that work out? It's illegal. It's been held
to be such in court. Rationalize all you want, you are still stealing
intellectual property when you watch content from a non-licensed
provider.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:46 PM (hlYel)
downloads for the commercial purpose of generating traffic and ad
revenue.
Drew, you can get torrents from Usenet servers, P2P networks and other sources that do not have any kind of commercial purposes or ad revenue.
Second... Did you ever read the fine print at the end
of a show. It says something like "All rights reserved".You may not
like it but one of those rights is to decide who distributes their
product online. In this case they have reached an exclusive agreement
with iTunes. When bittorent comes in and streams them from free they
are hurting the rights holder. How? Some percentage of people who are
watching this for free would have paid their online distributor (and
eventually them) if bittorent wasn't pirating them.
If you have such a strict interpretation of the "fine print", that means, that you can never watch a show with your spouse, your children, or any of your friends, since you are the only paying customer (assuming your are the one who is paying the cable bills).
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:47 PM (3vVOD)
Fair use, as a rule of thumb, allows up to 10% be used for classroom presentations, criticism, et cetera. Anything above that and you're pressing your luck.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:47 PM (EkG0f)
Personally, I think that few tv shows have complained about this because they're not losing much - if any - due to bittorrent. It's the movies & music. In the case I cited, I watched the first two seasons of BSG & now I'm hooked on the show and never miss it, so the sci-fi network has a loyal viewer in me (I'm not rationalizing the downloading, only emphasizing what many artists have now realized; sampling sells...they just have to figure out how to make 'sampling' available w/o it becoming whole-downloads).
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 03:48 PM (IirzJ)
All kinds of pie.
Here might be an interesting question. I am a US citizen currently living in the US. I have found a website that allows me to watch television shows streamed to my computer. The servers for this website are located outside of the US. Since I am not downloading a permanent copy of the show, and the source of the data is outside of the US, am I breaking copyright laws?
Also, I have lived in other countries where US copyright law is non-applicable. If I were to purchase a boot-legged DVD for $1 and return to the US with it in my possession, would that be breaking copyright law?
Posted by: former republican at August 31, 2007 03:48 PM (I+C25)
First, the copyright is held by the TV show creator which, at least in the example of BSG is a U.S. company. So it doesn't matter that you're watching NBC's content on a website hosted overseas. You're infringing NBC's copyright.
Second, even if the copyright was held by a person or company outside the U.S., you could still be sued in U.S. courts or the courts of the other country. The U.S. is (after many years of holding out) a party to the Berne Convention. (Thank you so much for letting me work international law into this. I'm sure Drew thanks you, too!)
Third, U.S. courts have already ruled that streaming video is affixed to a tangible medium (assuming the content in question was never affixed to something else before it got modified for internet streaming). The fact that you asked makes me think that you're not ignorant of copyright law.
Finally, if you go over to your friends house to watch the movie that he illegally copied, you have infringed the copyright. (And your friend will have infringed at least twice; once when copying illegally, and once when watching.)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 03:49 PM (1Ug6U)
advertising drops and shows that don't make money get cancelled (unless
BSG's ratings improve, quickly, it's soon to be gone). "
Hate to break this too you...but nexts season is going to be the last. Ron Moore himself has confirmed it.
Posted by: madne0 at August 31, 2007 03:49 PM (wuxU/)
Remeber Cookie Puss and Fudgie the Whale?
And the guy who did the commercials for Carvelle's who sounded like he had a mouthful of marbles?
Posted by: bartwing plover at August 31, 2007 03:49 PM (pSH8t)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 03:51 PM (1Ug6U)
There are 6+ billion people in the world. If a torrent is downloaded by 10,000 people, that means that only 0.00016% will have seen it.
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:51 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 03:51 PM (1Ug6U)
Posted by: former republican at August 31, 2007 03:51 PM (I+C25)
Posted by: ultimaflare99 at August 31, 2007 03:53 PM (tNTd5)
means, that you can never watch a show with your spouse, your children,
or any of your friends, since you are the only paying customer
(assuming your are the one who is paying the cable bills).
That's just nonsensical.
Look magnetism87 you can argue all you want for what you think and what you'd like. The reality is no court (and Gabriel and others can correct me if I am wrong here) have upheld your position. In fact they have done just the opposite.
Now, you can argue what you think the law should be but please stop insisting that is the same as what the law is.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:53 PM (hlYel)
You assume too much in your final paragraph. You assume I knew or had reason to know that the friend's recording violated copyright.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:54 PM (EkG0f)
Value of silence, dude.
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 03:55 PM (jbiW7)
of your friends, since you are the only paying customer (assuming your
are the one who is paying the cable bills).
Nope.
The courts decided this kind of stuff long ago. You can pay the $39.99 for a boxing ppv and invite your friends over to watch and there's no problem, because you paid for the rights to view that show in your HOUSEHOLD. You can't illegally share it. They usually use some sort of legalese like this: "Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law, no copying, redistribution, retransmission, publication or commercial exploitation of downloaded material will be permitted without the express permission...
</span>
Bittorrent falls under the 'retransmission' and 'redistribution' part.
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 03:55 PM (IirzJ)
You will note that I said I was watching at a friend's house for free. If they charged I'd have reason to believe there were some copyright questions. That's why I said it was for free.
And yes, I'm not uninformed on these issues. And I thought I'd tee one up for you.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:57 PM (EkG0f)
Gracias.
ultimaflare99...I admit I may be wrong on that point. When I went to bittorent just now (for the first time because I don't steal content) there were ads. I could be wrong that the ad revenue generated is legally related to the streaming of show.
The fact remains that the owners of the copyright on BSG have the right to allow or disallow a site to stream their content.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 03:57 PM (hlYel)
Hate to break this too you...but nexts season is going to be the last. Ron Moore himself has confirmed it.
Yeah, I remembered that after I typed it. It began losing steam the minute they put the humans on New Caprica.
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 03:58 PM (IirzJ)
Look magnetism87 you can argue all
you want for what you think and what you'd like. The reality is no
court (and Gabriel and others can correct me if I am wrong here) have
upheld your position. In fact they have done just the opposite.
Now, you can argue what you think the law should be but please stop insisting that is the same as what the law is.
Not at all nonsensical. The only difference being that the lawyers have not gone after the spouses and the children and the friends, because it would be a suicidal PR move on the part of the networks to do so. If you wish to argue strict interpretations of the "fine print", and according to the legal definition of "fair use" as state by Gabriel, then you can't pick and choose who you go after.
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:59 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 03:59 PM (3vVOD)
If they charged I'd have reason to believe there were some copyright
questions.
They can just do what bars do when they televise big fights and just say that it's a 'cover charge' for the beer.
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 04:00 PM (IirzJ)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 04:01 PM (3vVOD)
the copyright owner.
Now, obviously no one is going to get sued for watching a pirated video in their friends living room. But that's just because there's no money in it.
From a legal standpoint, your use is an infringement and therefore subject to injunctions, damages (if they can prove them), impound, and attorney's fees for the trouble.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:01 PM (1Ug6U)
Bars pay a lot more than would you in your home for PPV stuff. Usually they have to pay based on capacity or the number of TVs or some such.
But for HBO or Showtime fights you're right, of course.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 04:02 PM (EkG0f)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:03 PM (1Ug6U)
I think you're wrong on that point but would be happy to be corrected if I am in error. If you can point to one case where anybody has been sued for the violation you allege is punishable, I'll change my opinion.
Don't give me some "fertile octogenarian" law school answer. Show me a case. It's simply not 'the law' if it's never been used.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 04:05 PM (EkG0f)
See RW at #60, he did you the courtesy of taking you seriously.
Look, by your argument then there's different copyright protections for
cable v. over the air broadcast tv. It's not about the rights of the
person who pays the cable bill, it's about the property of the person
who bought the right to distribute content. They paid for certain
exclusive rights, when you get that content outside of those licensed
distribution methods you are stealing.
Again, please stop telling us what you wish the law was and deal with what it actually is.
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 04:05 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: ultimaflare99 at August 31, 2007 04:06 PM (tNTd5)
plz to be stop splitting hairs naow
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 04:11 PM (jbiW7)
This question is assuming that only one copy was brought back and there was no intent to distribute.
Posted by: former republican at August 31, 2007 04:12 PM (I+C25)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 04:12 PM (3vVOD)
And it's also illegal to reinstall that software into your new computer. It's a one time use license.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 04:12 PM (EkG0f)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 04:14 PM (3vVOD)
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 04:18 PM (3vVOD)
the Microsoft software you installed including your operating system.
Usually, by then there's another version out & no one would want it, anyway (got any copies of Windows 98 lying around?)
Jokes aside, that is a good point. Here's something about MSFT that has bothered me for a while: the oil companies make billions in profit for a commodity that many can derive and sell (there are still oil rigs capped in TX, it's just not economically feasible to drill there, yet) and they're pilloried and considered just short of Satan because of the "obscene" profits that they provide to their shareholders. Bill Gates, however, is the richest person in the history of the universe, with Paul Allen following close - which means that they've been gauging MSFT purchasers all along....yet, Gates isn't asked to cut his prices: ever. No one utters a peep about the price of MSFT products, even though the US gov't took them to court claiming a monopoly. Sorry, side discussion, I know. Just had to vent.Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 04:19 PM (IirzJ)
That's the tricky part about "affixing to a medium" with distributed systems but the courts are unlikely to carve out an exception that would kill copyright protections. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time admitting you're wrong.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 04:20 PM (EkG0f)
The richest guy is now some dude from Mexico.
And Rockefeller is still the richest, by some measures, of all time.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 04:21 PM (EkG0f)
Why is this important? Because the best show on television will no longer be available on iTunes. Frak!
Waahhh de fuckin wahwahwah! So you miss a TV program. Grow the fuck up and get a life you little GenX bitches. Read a damn book every once in a while. Or have you not seen the latest Patricia Shroeder report? Illiterate, techno-addict deadbeat.
Yeah, I've been drinkin'. Deal with it.
Homos.
Posted by: Sticky B at August 31, 2007 04:21 PM (wkjFE)
My problem lies with the strictest interpretation of the law. Hell, the law of the land, the Constitution is not interpreted so strictly.
Posted by: magnetism87 at August 31, 2007 04:25 PM (3vVOD)
First, there are very few countries where it is legal to buy pirated works--legal in that jurisdiction, I mean. Assuming that you've somehow managed to find one of those hell-holes, you still violate U.S. copyright law when you purchase it. U.S. courts may never get jurisdiction over you, but you've still violated U.S. law.
When, as in your hypothetical, you come back to the U.S. you can be sued for infringement.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:25 PM (1Ug6U)
Ron Moore is gonna have to do a really good job explaining "All Along The Watchtower" as well as why the Final Five are among the human crew. If the FF are so important, why risk having them killed by Cylon attacks on the fleet? That's a little odd isn't it? If they die, do they go to a resurrection ship? If so, then it's pretty easy for the other skinjobs to peek inside a respawn chamber to see who they are right? If they don't respawn, then it's pretty reckless of them to be on Galactica.
The whole religion angle got a bit much for me. I'm not slamming mono or poly-theism, I'm just saying that Moore et al are investing a lot into the religious side of the show. Please just stay on track with the sci-fi stuff! You've already got enough plot holes.
Oh yeah, Six better be naked this season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: EC at August 31, 2007 04:25 PM (j2Tjh)
Posted by: Terry at August 31, 2007 04:26 PM (/Soh5)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:26 PM (1Ug6U)
Posted by: ultimaflare99 at August 31, 2007 04:27 PM (tNTd5)
How about some Lucy Lawless action, as well?
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 04:28 PM (IirzJ)
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 04:30 PM (jbiW7)
I also would like an explanation of All Along the Watchtower. However, I'd never heard the song before, so I'm not one of those that immediately got bent out of shape about using a cover. I like the BSG version.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:30 PM (1Ug6U)
works--legal in that jurisdiction, I mean. Assuming that you've somehow
managed to find one of those hell-holes, you still violate U.S.
copyright law when you purchase it. U.S. courts may never get
jurisdiction over you, but you've still violated U.S. law.
When, as in your hypothetical, you come back to the U.S. you can be sued for infringement.
Well Gab, if that is the case, then almost every soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine that has ever served in South Korea, Iraq, or (I'm assuming...never sent there) Afghanistan needs to be brought up on charges.
Posted by: former republican at August 31, 2007 04:30 PM (I+C25)
Yeah, well, at least we're not Baby Boomers.
Fraking kids these days. Get off my lawn!
Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 04:31 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:32 PM (1Ug6U)
since it's easy to pirate windows if you wanted to
Their updating checks have made it harder than it used to be.
His prices are high enough to make him worth, what, 60 billion? That stock price didn't appear by accident: they expect income.
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 04:33 PM (IirzJ)
Posted by: Bart at August 31, 2007 04:34 PM (kbrrs)
Now, I need some dinner. Smell ya later, grandpa.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:36 PM (1Ug6U)
Posted by: RW at August 31, 2007 04:38 PM (IirzJ)
Posted by: not that ryan at August 31, 2007 04:39 PM (jbiW7)
Ok, now I know not to take you seriously anymore. I'm hereby revoking your Man Card and all privileges and benefits that go with it.
Dude....
Posted by: EC at August 31, 2007 04:44 PM (j2Tjh)
Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 04:44 PM (F/DIG)
Posted by: former republican at August 31, 2007 04:46 PM (I+C25)
products either purchases the package or buys a buttload of computers
that have a 'free' version included.
If you're a corporate customer, then yes, Gates now owns you. But the truth is, no one cares about business. At least here in liberal california, whenever people/news talk about the evil oil corporations, it's always, what do you mean gas is $3 a galleon? Now i can't afford to go watch a baseball game, they're gouging the little guy sort of thing.
Their updating checks have made it harder than it used to be.
I've never known anyone to have trouble with anything pre-Vista, and I refuse to run that, so you may be right there
His prices are high enough to make him worth, what, 60 billion? That stock price didn't appear by accident: they expect income.
UCLA provides copies of Windows XP, visual studio, office etc. for free to the entire student body. And they gave out 100 something copies of Vista at a launch party this year. Steve Ballmer made a famous comment about piracy in China, that they would rather them pirate Windows then use the competitors, because they could always figure out some way later to make them pay. So yes, they do expect income, but until they figure out how to get it, they want you using Windows, even if it's a pirated copy.
They can do this of course, since piracy imposes no additional production costs
Posted by: ultimaflare99 at August 31, 2007 04:47 PM (tNTd5)
Posted by: Sticky B at August 31, 2007 04:54 PM (wkjFE)
Posted by: Sticky B at August 31, 2007 04:55 PM (wkjFE)
2. There's a reason All Along The Watchtower was chosen. There's a reason why (aside from money to pay for it) that a cover was chosen. That's all I'm gonna say about that.
From the rumors I've heard, the next (the last) season's gonna be something else, BTW. Can't. Wait.
Cheers,
Dave
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at August 31, 2007 04:56 PM (JRpJU)
Posted by: Sticky B at August 31, 2007 04:57 PM (wkjFE)
It better be a damn good season. They were slipping a little there in the third.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 05:33 PM (1Ug6U)
My question is: if some 12-year-old in his parent's basement can make these episodes available through BitTorrent, why the frak can't the networks?
Posted by: FrakYou at August 31, 2007 05:48 PM (je3ki)
Posted by: chad at September 01, 2007 05:13 AM (WNcvq)
Posted by: RW at September 01, 2007 05:14 AM (IirzJ)
Here in Canada we pay TAX on every audi & video casette, and every CD and DVD disk (blank ones eh?) the Government then give that money to the music and film industry. I have no idea who gets what, but I know this: I have paid for anything I will ever download, in advance yet.
Is it fair? Hard to say. Of course many blank casettes & roms are not actually used for copying music or movies, so we paid the Industries for nothing.
Now as to the morality of it all: if you lend a friend a movie, that's fair & leagal. If you charge your friend money to borrow the movie, that is copyright infringement unless you give some of the money to the rights holders. If you make lending illegal, then playing that 8-track in your car when someone else is in the car would be against the law, eh? That's just stupid.
The bottom line is this: you cannot outlaw free sharing of something that was freely distributed in the first place. By "free" I mean you don't pay per view off TV, or pay per listen off the radio, of that specific movie/song.
Posted by: 5Cats at September 01, 2007 07:55 AM (Knaf0)
The bottom line is this: you cannot outlaw free sharing of something that was freely distributed in the first place.
Of course you can. Let's say I write a book. I give away 20 proof copies to friends and family. One of my friends copies the copy that I gave him and starts giving the copies away free. He is infringing my copyright.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at September 01, 2007 08:54 AM (1Ug6U)
So yeah, if you bootlegged BSG to bittorrent, they would win the case against you, and they would get an injunction against you. If you did it again, then they would be able to go after you for bigger damages on violating the injunction (various contempt charges and sanctions available.) I have a hard time getting worked up about crimes where the damages are zero.
Posted by: Phelps at September 03, 2007 09:03 AM (0Nw5i)
Posted by: vagf at February 05, 2009 03:35 PM (b40qC)
iSkysoft DVD to iPad Converter for Macis specially designed for Mac users to convert DVDs to iPad video and audio on your Mac directly.
The default presets are the optimized settings for iPad with best video quality and sound effect, making the most of your iPad's big screen and HD feature
* Easily convert DVD movies to high quality videos for iPad, iPad 3G.
* Optimized presets for iPad take all the hassle out of DVD Ripping process.
* Enjoy movies on your iPad in the living room, or on the go.
Platform:1G Hz or above Intel processor; Mac OS X 10.5 above system
Posted by: DVD to iPad converter mac at May 31, 2011 01:13 AM (tuHXg)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
