MacRumors Review: Apple TV

[digitalbiker]

isn't ripping your DVDs technically illegal since the program you'd use to unencrypt your DVDs was reverse-engineered?

Yes, but the supreme court recently ruled that it is legal and proper for customers to make archival copies of digital video, audio, software, and data media for personal use.

Hence the problem with DRM software and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which prohibit the creation of software which would achieve a personal use copy.

There are so many issues related to Digital Copyright Laws that are going to have to be worked out in the near future that you'll need a lawyer to turn on your TV set.

As far as the industry is concerned, they are not going to be wasting money tracking down and prosecuting individuals for making individual use copies of DVD's. They will however go after those who profit at the expense of the copyright holder.

 

[firewire2001]

uh

i might have actually read this except it was written extremely poorly

 

[milo]

sure, 1st why do you need a hard drive?
I have the avellink player...
It has a usb port which allows you to play movies off any usb device.
It has a network jack so I can stream from any computer on my network
It has a dvd player if you want to drop in a DVDR

Does it do wireless streaming?

This is totally false - Apple TV supports Dolby Pro Logic II (aka "surround sound"). What it does not support (at this time) is Dolby AC-3 (aka "discrete channel surround sound"). It looks like the "HUGE oversight" here is made by the MacRumors review.

Sure, technically it supports "surround sound" although the format it supports is years (decades?) out of date. For a box designed for HDTVs it IS a huge oversight (although I bet they can fix it with a software update).

It is a true multichannel format, but encoded in an analog method using continuous values.

True, but surround matrixed into stereo has far worse separation and imaging than discrete surround. You simply can't get the same imaging with pro logic.

 

[matticus008]

Yes, but the supreme court recently ruled that it is legal and proper for customers to make archival copies of digital video, audio, software, and data media for personal use.

Hence the problem with DRM software and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which prohibit the creation of software which would achieve a personal use copy.

Actually, breaking DRM has nothing to do with personal copying. You can happily duplicate a DVD without using deCSS--you can even store that file as an .iso and watch it on your computer. The DRM used by DVDs is not at issue, nor was ripping declared either legal or proper (ripping is neither illegal nor legal) by the decision. The majority opinion simply reiterated that personal copying still had legal uses and clarified the more difficult context that comes as a result of recent digital developments. Mostly it warns providers against creating too many hoops or trying to push too much farther.

There are so many issues related to Digital Copyright Laws that are going to have to be worked out in the near future that you'll need a lawyer to turn on your TV set.

Unsubstantiated fearmongering. Anyone who simply watches TV, uses a commercial DVR product, or buys media for its intended use will encounter no problems. The difficulty lies at the periphery, as it always has. When people go out to seek additional tools to use their content in ways not supported "out of the box" is where you run into trouble--some of those tools are legal, but many are not. It is currently difficult for most people to tell the difference.

i might have actually read this except it was written extremely poorly

Says the poster with a split verb phrase and no punctuation. It's no beautiful piece of prose, but I'd say it's as intelligible as just about anything else on the Internet.

 

[matticus008]

Who says surround has to be AC3? Many HD quicktime trailers have AAC surround sound. Apple could definitely support that if they wanted to, and there's no reason DVD's couldn't be ripped to QT/surround AAC files, or convert other vids with surround to that format.

Who says? Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, Harman/Kardon, Yamaha, Onkyo, and all the other receiver manufacturers. Quicktime surround is useless in the living room. Why should anyone support AAC surround sound? The AppleTV is for the living room. Your home theater can't just play any willy-nilly surround codec. They support AC3 (Dolby) and DTS surround modes, and that's it.

That's a lame excuse. First, I'm fairly sure many online movie trailers are in 5.1 AC3; next, if you want to put all your DVDs into a computer-based media sever, you want MPEG-2 and AC3 support;

No--I haven't seen any of the general consumption trailers online with AC3 audio (I'm not saying they don't exist, but please provide a link if you think they do). You're right that you would want MPEG2 and AC3 support if you wanted to rip your DVD collection. Apple consciously removed those from the AppleTV--they don't want to encourage DVD ripping, because to do so would involve breaking CSS, and the content providers which Apple needs to make the AppleTV a hit would not allow Apple to provide an easy path to accomplish this.

The worst part is that, if the source contains AC3, the Apple TV doesn't have to do any work, just pass the bitstream as-is over the optical output. They only have to work to downmix it to 2 channel stereo on the analog outputs.

It's not the work that's an issue. It's the fact that there is no content to use it. The AppleTV hardware does support AC3 passthrough and full surround output. But where can you get AC3 content? You can't, unless you create it yourself from DVDs, which they cannot encourage if they want to provide movie downloads from the big studios.

If Apple starts selling surround-encoded movies through iTunes, expect a software update that day enabling AC3 passthrough. Until then, it stays off.

 

[Rocketman]

The difficulty lies at the periphery, as it always has. When people go out to seek additional tools to use their content in ways not supported "out of the box" is where you run into trouble--some of those tools are legal, but many are not. It is currently difficult for most people to tell the difference.

A tool "capable of violating copyright" is entirely different from a "user violating a copyright with that tool".

Either a violation occurs or it does not. A tool capable of such violation is not a violation of law. It is a violation of DRM licensing to which the tool is NOT subject.

The ONLY violation of either the license or the law occurs when someone resells or otherwise commercially misuses it (displays an image at a commercial venue).

Short of that anyhing goes. Let me cite my facts:

""
18 USC 107

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...tle=17&sec=107

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
above factors.
""

Please pardon me for relying on actual cited fact.

Rocketman

 

[janstett]

No one has mentioned the biggest problem: There is no way AT ALL to connect this to an analog TV. WTF.

Technically component is analog. But your point is valid -- no svid, no composite.

The biggest waste of space on this machine is the Component connectors. This is OLD technology.

Not that old. People who bought HDTVs more than 3-5 years ago don't have HDMI or DVI connectors, and need component. That's your reward for being a $15,000 early adopter, I guess.

My set-up is very up-to-date. A $4000 TV in Japan with a $1500 bose sound system attached. The TV has only one HDMI-in port, and no other digital input ports whatsoever. This leaves me with no choice. I will have to plug the apple TV into it, then watch DVD's over an analog connection. What will I choose? Not to buy Apple TV.

You can buy HDMI switchers. Cheap mechanical ones go for under $50.

2 HDMI ports are standard now, but they weren't when I got my flat screen. And component video? Please. Talk about yesterday. And they never were in any TVs in Asia, and I'm guessing the same fro Europe.

In Europe they use the SCART interface (but I don't think that does HD so they use component). In Japan there was a small interface that looks similar to HDMI but can easily be adapted to component.

The bose has no Digital input, however it does have a composite input.

Talk about OLD technology, not to mention the way Bose destroys the integrity of the original signal with their DSP. You shouldn't be rallying on about quality, integrity, and cutting-edge technology if you have a Bose system.

The biggest problem here is that there is no analog output on Apple TV. This would make it backward compatible with nearly all systems.

You just got done ranting about how component is an ancient technology, and then you pine for ancient composite output? Do you want an RF modulator too?

Even if analog technology is even older than component connections, the need for two digital outputs is the dumb. Plus the waste of space due tot he size due to the THREE plugs required for component? Only Americans have component connectors.

Component is an ANALOG connection. And I'm pretty sure the Europeans use it too. But I agree, Apple could have come up with some sort of break-out box.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

"Funny how the Netgear device is NOT Mac Compatible, but in their illustration, every computer in the house is a Mac:"

How is netgear not supported with Macs? My WGT624 super G works wonders. I didn't even require an installation disc (which was useless anyway since it was Windows only). All I did was go through the setup wizard on FireFox and presto.

 

[matticus008]

A tool "capable of violating copyright" is entirely different from a "user violating a copyright with that tool".

I see you're not a fan of syncope. As noted in the beginning, ("ripping is itself neither legal nor illegal"), the use of tools is the issue. For brevity's sake, that phrase was not repeated throughout. However, the software in question (to break encryption on DVDs) is both created illegally and distributed illegally within the United States. Furthermore, is illegal to use such a tool, regardless of commercial value ("(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--" - 17 USC s. 1204). 'Private financial gain' has been upheld in court to refer to the evasion of payment for services otherwise rendered--search Westlaw for satellite/cable splicing cases if you don't believe that.

Either a violation occurs or it does not. A tool capable of such violation is not a violation of law. It is a violation of DRM licensing to which the tool is NOT subject.

The tool is not subject to DRM licensing precisely because it is created in an illegal fashion--that's like saying pirated books aren't subject to the copyright notice because that page was removed. All devices and software which are legally empowered to handle the decryption of DRM are licensed to do so; anything not licensed is in violation of that license.

The existence of such a tool is (1)illegal to create and (2)illegal to distribute.

17 USC 1201
"`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."

" `(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"

The ONLY violation of either the license or the law occurs when someone resells or otherwise commercially misuses it (displays an image at a commercial venue).

No.

Please pardon me for relying on actual cited fact.

You're pardoned for building a straw man and relying on partial facts. In particular, "nonprofit educational" is a compound (note the lack of "or"), which has absolutely nothing to do with private, home use. To get into such definitions would be off-topic, but suffice it to say that academic exceptions do not cover people in their living rooms.

 

[GregA]

Does anyone think this thing was rushed to market?

There have been some issues (which I assume will be corrected), such as the inability to organize the video / tv shows.

The surround sound issue is kind of a big deal to anyone who invested in a home theater setup.

I kind of agree.

Perhaps Apple will replace this OS with OSX-Lite soon (ie when Leopard is released).

Apple is creating a great new OS (Leopard) with CoreAnimation which will be very useful for a new type of interaction (especially the iPhone and iTV). They are also creating a lite version of this, for use on non-computers, which has no finder (or carbon) & requires less hard disk space & probably less Ram etc. It may even be more real-time focussed.

I think Apple has released the AppleTV because the market is ready for it and so is their hardware. They've created a temporary OS for the machine which will work great until June/July when the replacement OS will be ready.

I'm not sure what the new OSX-Lite will be capable of - but I'm hoping mainly for a greater focus on our needs in the living room, an interesting interface upgrade while addressing the needs you mention (including AC3 support and/or transcoding of AAC to AC3).

Just thoughts
ps. If AppleTV now uses a hybrid OSX10.4.7 (+ extra features) and is to be replaced by OSX Lite, it may be that any apps 3rd parties want to provide (eg EyeTV plugins?) would cease to work in June/July...

 

[candykane]

LoL read the revieuw Atv does not support any thing only the things you buy from the Istore and you mp3's thats it

mov no
divx no
xvid no
wmf no
jpeg foto's no
Apple is not going to upgrade the software to support this. Thats why Hackers are working on getting codecx suppored. they hacked it so that Divx wil work but you have to take the drive out of the systeem hook its to you mac copy the file and put it back in !

If you live outside the US like me in Europe well the Istore only sells music and short movies from pixar . :S So its basicly one hell of an expensive airport express!

 

[Machead III]

This is one of the first really average Apple products in a long time. They didn't have to go all out on features, but as it is, it's practically sparse. Factor in the price and you've got an extremely lousy sell there.

My 2 cents: forget the form factor, forget the current price range. Have the same features with a better remote, ability to buy from iTMS via. the box and build it around a 1 terabyte HD.

That's the set top box to replace all set top boxes.



Still, it's not like I care, Apple sgtill haven't gotten around to putting video content on any store outside the US - I hope they realise the Apple TV will sell sweet FA outside of America then. Morons.

 

[milo]

LoL read the revieuw Atv does not support any thing only the things you buy from the Istore and you mp3's thats it

mov no
divx no
xvid no
wmf no
jpeg foto's no
Apple is not going to upgrade the software to support this. Thats why Hackers are working on getting codecx suppored. they hacked it so that Divx wil work but you have to take the drive out of the systeem hook its to you mac copy the file and put it back in !

MOV is already supported, you just need the right codec and can convert to it if you need it (and there are batch scripts online for it already). DIVX was hacked within the first DAY, and I'll bet they have an install without removing the drive soon. You can also rip your DVDs as well, iTunes store is just the tip of the iceberg.

And JPEG is supported, it's listed in the specs: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

 

[Rocketman]

I see you're not a fan of syncope.

("(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--" - 17 USC s. 1204). 'Private financial gain' has been upheld in court to refer to the evasion of payment for services otherwise rendered-

All devices and software which are legally empowered to handle the decryption of DRM are licensed to do so; anything not licensed is in violation of that license.

The existence of such a tool is (1)illegal to create and (2)illegal to distribute.

17 USC 1201
"`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."

" `(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"


No.

You're pardoned for building a straw man and relying on partial facts. In particular, "nonprofit educational" is a compound (note the lack of "or"), which has absolutely nothing to do with private, home use. To get into such definitions would be off-topic, but suffice it to say that academic exceptions do not cover people in their living rooms.

I see the "conflict within the law". So I will be radical and cite your own cite to support my case

"IN GENERAL- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--"

I state and can argue successfully in court, that repurposing content which I have properly purchased (ie a CD or a DVD) to display it for my own personal use (ie myself, my family, my friends) does not constitute a "commercial purpose" or a "private financial gain". Anyhing I can legally do with a CD I should be able to do with a computer image file of a CD.

Here are some examples:

1. Show it in my residence to whomever I want.
2. Loan the artifact (the disc, the rights to use the disc, the right to use the original computer backup artifact) to another person.
3. Sell the original and/or any backup and all associated rights to another person.

What I cannot do in this way:
1. Show it at a theatre or a (bar) business.
2. Loan it to two or more people at once (ie torrant).
3. Sell the same purchased copy to 2 or more people.
4. Be China and duplicate it tens of thousands of times just "because you can".

I have this "takeaway" for you. The GENERAL paragraph colors and determines the "interpretation" of all following terms. They do not each standalone literally.

Law is subject to interpretation, hence the existance of (greedy & abusive) lawyers, and judges. And badly concluded results.

Rocketman

 

[Rocketman]

17 USC 1201
"`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
"

I omitted the portion that is against the argument in this post

A person can "hack" a commercial product. They can modify, destroy, disassemble. or combine it with other products. It limits or lowers the liability of the offering company. But a person has a right to privacy that superceeds the right of the commercial entity to "protect its technology" . I cannot cite a law, rule, or regulation at tis time but there is "case law" supporting this fact and theory.

Again it is related to "internal use". Once a person commercializes or distributes it, copyright, trademark, patent, and licensing all applies.

Rocketman

 

[matticus008]

A person can "hack" a commercial product. They can modify, destroy, disassemble. or combine it with other products. It limits or lowers the liability of the offering company.

Certainly. But what does that have to do with your issue? Unless you write the decryption software yourself, you're violating the law at whatever juncture breaks said encryption. That is obviously not your argument thus far. If you want to write your own software, have at it, but keep it to yourself.

But a person has a right to privacy that superceeds the right of the commercial entity to "protect its technology" . I cannot cite a law, rule, or regulation at tis time but there is "case law" supporting this fact and theory.

"Privacy" as a juridical concept does not extend to trump the commission of a crime, a breach of license, or a civil tort. The right to privacy protects you only insofar as to limit the ways in which you may be observed committing such an act, and the limits on which evidence may be collected. There is no case law which says that a content provider, having made an explicit agreement with a customer notifying them of DRM and attendant restrictions, cannot enforce those provisions. If you're arguing that DRM is an invasion of privacy, that's a different matter (and one in which, again, there is no case law supporting your conclusion).

I state and can argue successfully in court, that repurposing content which I have properly purchased (ie a CD or a DVD) to display it for my own personal use (ie myself, my family, my friends) does not constitute a "commercial purpose" or a "private financial gain".

No, you couldn't. There is no case law which supports your conclusion. Cite it if you'd like it considered. It very much constitutes a personal financial gain if you are transferring content in a way inconsistent with its license (to avoid payment for additional copies or different formats [e.g. license of the standard DVD does not mean that you may download the Blu-Ray]). If you agree that you are legally downloading a digital file to view on authorized computers, you gain financially when you break protections to enable watching it on two systems (where you normally would be required to purchase two copies). This is established in any number of cases in the category previously given. Further, if the valid stipulation exists (viz. standard form contract) that you are accepting specific limitations, you are breaching contract concomitant with any DMCA violations.

Arguing what you "should be able" to do is contrary to the controlling facts of the license. If I lease an office, I feel I "should" be able to paint it whatever damn color I want, because I have previously been able to repaint offices. But the lease agreement I signed said that I can't, and that's how the cookie crumbles, and the only way around it is to prove that the provision itself is unlawful. The license holds prima facie until overruled, and it has not been overruled. QED, your argument has not yet succeeded in any court.

Anyhing I can legally do with a CD I should be able to do with a computer image file of a CD.

Precisely. And you can, even with DVDs. You do not need to "rip" a DVD to accomplish those same uses (an .iso image, preserving CSS, works exactly the same way, except that network media players don't support the format).

3. Sell the original and/or any backup and all associated rights to another person.

No, not "or." Just "and."

 

[odedia]

I'd like to know something:

Do I HAVE to have a WI-FI network to use the AppleTV?

Isn't there a way to make some kind of a Computer-to-Computer connection between the AppleTV and my iMac?

In other words, do I have to buy an Airport Extreme as well?

Oded S.

 

[GregA]

Do I HAVE to have a WI-FI network to use the AppleTV?

No. You can plug a regular network cable in.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

 

[balamw]

Do I HAVE to have a WI-FI network to use the AppleTV?

No, TV has an Ethernet port, so you should just be able to connect it directly to your iMac, or connect both to a switch.

Specific configuration will depend on the details of your network.

B

 

[Rocketman]

Certainly. "Privacy" as a juridical concept does not extend to trump the commission of a crime, a breach of license, or a civil tort.

Actually that is false. It does not trump a crime but it can trump a tort (including that of a license).

It very much constitutes a personal financial gain if you are transferring content in a way inconsistent with its license (to avoid payment for additional copies or different formats [e.g. license of the standard DVD does not mean that you may download the Blu-Ray]).

The counter arguement, which is wholly valid is that it is a format not invisioned when created OR a backup for personal use, OR a repurposing of content for PERSONAL USE.

you gain financially when you break protections to enable watching it on two systems

1. You as a individual do not either gain or lose. You repurpose a license. You do not "profit" per se. You cannot buy the "licence you want" at any price because it is not offered.

2. So long as you do not watch it on two systems AT ONCE you are complying with "fair use", which superceeds the copyright for tort purposes.

Rocketman

 

[matticus008]

Actually that is false. It does not trump a crime but it can trump a tort (including that of a license).

That is not the case. Breach of contract, whether committed in private or in view of the public, is still breach of contract. There is no "privacy" enshrined in contracts and licensing. What you are attempting to refer to is simply a wrongful tort (the respondent was acting in a legal manner in his private sphere and could not have been expected to act differently to avoid the alleged tort).

The counter arguement, which is wholly valid is that it is a format not invisioned when created OR a backup for personal use, OR a repurposing of content for PERSONAL USE.

No. There is no "personal use" exemption for license violation. You are mixing your fields of law. There are "fair use" exemptions to copyright, which allow archival storage and format shifting. They are not universal: you cannot make backups of rental movies, for example. They also do not stand alone in the context of licensing and the DMCA. Fair use provisions are not themselves deterministic when you have made legal agreements to the contrary--fair use is an exception which must be demonstrated, good cause appearing. It is not carte blanche to do as you please.

1. You as a individual do not either gain or lose. You repurpose a license. You do not "profit" per se. You cannot buy the "licence you want" at any price because it is not offered.

Again, a normative argument and not a legal one. If the license you desire is not available, copyright law does not allow you to agree to an alternative license and "repurpose" that content in your desired way. You do not gain the right to do as you please because someone will not sell something under your terms. That is a complete perversion of any construction of fair use, and one which once again has zero case support.

2. So long as you do not watch it on two systems AT ONCE you are complying with "fair use", which superceeds the copyright for tort purposes.

Format shifting does not supersede all other issues involved. It is not a controlling provision precisely because the act of format shifting is not the objection of the originator. You can store a complete DVD on any format you wish; you cannot break the encryption to do so. The DMCA criminalizes that act, which becomes the controlling provision. Yes, the DMCA is ridiculous, but so are speed limits. The law is the law.

It's clear that you're not familiar with the extent of legal interaction involved in this issue, and furthermore quite clear that you lack a basic conversant status in the law and copyright (evident from your emphasis of an academic exemption from square one). You may continue to believe what you wish, but I'm not going to argue until you provide a single case where your view has been upheld by any court in the past 5.

 

[Rocketman]

That is not the case. Breach of contract, whether committed in private or in view of the public, is still breach of contract.

This raises the argument of if a "unilateral" license is enforceable. Obviously I say it is not.

Your other strong arguement is the one of a tool designed "primarily to break a security tool". On that one I both claim the rule is unconstitutional, and not yet ruled as such, AND also not applicable to that narrow portion of the market where personal use applies, thus making even the tool complaint for that purpose.

Let's not forget one can also offer the tool from jurisdictions where your rule does not apply and the person downloading the tool is themselves complying with the law.

"You are mixing your fields of law."

Yep.

Rocketman

 

[igr]

Apple TV - They got it all wrong

I'm sure I'm completely alone on this but I can't help but feel the new Apple TV does exactly the opposite of what I want from the 'latest' in technology. Let me try to 'splain.
I want to bring content from my TV to my Mac, since nowadays this is where I'm spending most of my time. I don't need to take my internet content to another source to view, away from the workstation. That takes me away from my work time on my computer, ie emailing, editing, surfing, etc.
When I miss a program on tv, such as LOST, Heroes, what have you, I watch the latest episode online at network sites(not through iTunes though, because I already pay for cable, why would I pay twice?!)...and the quality sucks soooooo bad. So I'm often left to download from bittorent sites. Which is glorious if only it didn't take so long to download and 'bung up' your computer system while it does so. 'So get a DVR' you might say. Love the idea of the DVR but to pay a monthly charge for using it? Can you imagine ever having to have paid anyone a monthly fee for using your VCR back when you got it in the early 80's? the DVR is just that...a VCR for the new millenium.
I would be willing to buy an Apple TV though, if someone hacked into it and was able to make it a DVR that I could then hook up to my Mac and watch all my fav shows and events in all their HD beauty on my computer. It's all about getting rid of the biggest 'eye sore' in the home it always has been...the television set.

 

[Avatar74]

That's a lame excuse. First, I'm fairly sure many online movie trailers are in 5.1 AC3;

Nope.

next, if you want to put all your DVDs into a computer-based media sever, you want MPEG-2 and AC3 support

You do realize that AC-3 and MPEG-2 are separate bitstreams, right? The only format in which the two currently are muxed is VOB, which is uniquely used on DVD's.

finally, you can make your own "lower quality" rips using handbrake (which, if I recall, let's you preserve the AC3 track inside the MP4 container).

Supposedly, but I haven't actually been able to find any commentaries on how exactly the pass-through works it and, more importantly, how well it works. If it's not licensed by Dolby Laboratories there's simply no guarantee that you're getting the fidelity of true AC-3.

The worst part is that, if the source contains AC3, the Apple TV doesn't have to do any work, just pass the bitstream as-is over the optical output. They only have to work to downmix it to 2 channel stereo on the analog outputs.

It's a bit more complicated than that... The better solution would be to implement Dolby Digital Live to transcode multichannel AAC on the fly to legitimate Dolby Digital AC-3. The Intel HD Audio chipset already supports this and it's a licensed Dolby Laboratories technology so there's far greater assurances over the fidelity of the output.

 

[Avatar74]

A tool "capable of violating copyright" is entirely different from a "user violating a copyright with that tool".

Either a violation occurs or it does not. A tool capable of such violation is not a violation of law. It is a violation of DRM licensing to which the tool is NOT subject.

The ONLY violation of either the license or the law occurs when someone resells or otherwise commercially misuses it (displays an image at a commercial venue).

Short of that anyhing goes. Let me cite my facts:

""
18 USC 107

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...tle=17&sec=107

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

<snip>

Please pardon me for relying on actual cited fact.

Rocketman

Pardon me for relying on actual fact...but according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Title 17, Chapter 12), tools designed to circumvent copy protection schema are in fact illegal:

17 USC 12 §1201(a)(2) - Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations.—

(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

(2) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.