MovieCutter
Apr 12, 10:59 PM
You guys are all failing to realize that it's not the software that makes a great editor. This release gives us full time editors render capability that we've been wanting for years, multicore awareness, slick timeline editing capabilities, etc. It's not going to change our final product, just give us a slicker way to get there.
lord patton
Apr 12, 10:32 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:09 AM
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
I'm seeing CNN, and the images are just horrifying, images from Sri Lanka and Indonesia from the 2004 Tsunami come back:eek:
I'm seeing CNN, and the images are just horrifying, images from Sri Lanka and Indonesia from the 2004 Tsunami come back:eek:
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:19 AM
If the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay, then they shouldn't project a positive message about being straight. No more kissing on TV, film, etc. Ban all public displays of affection and don't say a word about issues that someone might take 'offence' to. Yeah...that sounds like a great world. I hope you go there someday.
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I most certainly did not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I most certainly did not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
EricNau
Sep 20, 07:30 PM
Steve Jobs claimed the iTV "completed the picture," but it does nothing of the sort (based on already revealed features). In reality there is still a hole large enough to fly a 747 through.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:46 AM
These people that are trying to claim they're a hardcore gamer, aren't. A true gamer plays games, regardless of where they are played or how they are played. A gamer plays games. There's nothing more too it than that.
Le prince William et Kate
Prince William Kate Middleton
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
Thank you!
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
Finally. Most people are not getting it.
The only thing keeps me from screaming of excitement is IF the wireless stream will be perfect. If Apple can make it work, I'll do exactly what you have described above. Elgato will be my next purchase at the same time I'll buy ITV.
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 04:02 AM
Some us have lifestyles in which we are more than content with the entertainment selection on iOS devices-myself included. I don't have time, not desire to invest in playing games over long periods of time in a sedentary fashion. I play a game when want to clear my mind a bit, or kill time. I don't go invest huge amount of money and make that a goal, because frankly Id rather spend my time in a myriad of other ways. The vast majority of the population share my mindset. iOS devices not being 'HARDCORZ' enough is not going to hurt Apple. That market is shrinking, not expanding.
Prince William And Kate
William and Kate Middleton
Prince William Kate Middleton
william and kate middleton.
Prince William and Kate
kate middleton prince william
kate middleton prince william
prince william and kate
kate middleton prince william
mattk3650
Apr 5, 09:23 PM
Wanna know the reason behind this. People on Verizon don't have the iPhone and aren't leaving the company so they just buy the next best thing.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
MacBram
Aug 29, 12:15 PM
...Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:47 PM
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
Ditto stem cells. :)
Ditto stem cells. :)
takao
Mar 15, 11:25 AM
Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
on the television i'm afraid:
they showed archive footage of the same place before the tsunami and then typical amateur footage of it getting hit
the construction looked like a 3-4 meter high reenforced-concrete wall on top of a usual levy
perhaps it's purpose was only protection against smaller tsunamies or to 'buy' more valuable seconds for evacuation or to get people into safer locations
i have heard of such constructions in Japan before so i didn't listen that closely ... hopefully it worked and saved a few hundred lives by delaying it a little bit, i don't know
regarding fuel rods being layered away:
*those in the actual reactor: yes
*but i somehow question (IMHO) the design decisions to store the spent fuel rods directly in the same building but outside of the containment:
according to the cut away charts the only thing between the fuel rods and the atmosphere is the superstructure above the containment and the direct cover of the basin
on reactors 1+3 the superstructure blew away because of a hydrogen explosion leaving one barrier directly over the basin behind and teared holes into the structure of reactor 4 having the same effect
what i have asking myself something regarding the cooling layout in regards to the spent fuel basins: the media/translation isn't clear if or how the cooling on those are potentially connected to the reactor cooling system and it's back up systems
in the shut down reactors 5+6 the temperature of the basin water has raised up to 84� from the usual 30-40 because of a cooling problem
do have any information in regards to how those cooling systems are connected to reactor cooling ? because it seems confusing that those basins are now causing so much problems now
(i suspect that the spent fuel storage thing is handled differently on newer reactor designs)
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:46 AM
Does anyone know when the tethering clause was added to AT&T contract? It couldn't have always been there since the concept hasnt always been around.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:34 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
UnixMac
Oct 9, 08:47 PM
Alex you have made some very cogent points. I hope someone at Apple will listen.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 11:10 PM
Exactly
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown. Different motherboard not Clovertown compatible. Clovertown is specifically designed to be run in tandum with another Clovertown. Kentsfield is specifically designed to run as one on a Conroe motherboard with the cheaper more popular DDR2 RAM.On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.Thanks for the props. :)
I hope Apple comes out with a single clovertown chip tower in 07 that runs on cheap standard DDR2 memory and maybe just one optical drive bay. I do like the 4 HD bays though.What you are asking for will be Kentsfield not single Clovertown. Different motherboard not Clovertown compatible. Clovertown is specifically designed to be run in tandum with another Clovertown. Kentsfield is specifically designed to run as one on a Conroe motherboard with the cheaper more popular DDR2 RAM.On a side note, the people arguing that 8 cores is just too much power are pretty damn funny. There are thousands of people like multimedia that need more cores. I'm not one of them but at least I understand their need. Some poeple on here are clueless.Thanks for the props. :)
mhar4
Oct 26, 01:40 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
faroZ06
May 2, 06:22 PM
About as huge as most windows ones!
No, I'd much rather be hit with this than some virus that comes in through an eMail and takes over my system.
No, I'd much rather be hit with this than some virus that comes in through an eMail and takes over my system.
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:47 PM
The people who put the "blood" on Christianity's hands have never used the Bible to justify it. The mujahideen use the Qur'an and hadith to justify their actions.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
I understand the distinction you are making about Islam and I agree it is a substantial distinction. But if actions count, it's a fine point if the Bible was used or not to justify the actions of seizing and holding onto power and spilling blood in the process which is a historical fact.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
spazzcat
Mar 18, 09:10 AM
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
הירשם ל-
תגובות לפרסום (Atom)
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה