Human history is filled with people copying other people who copied someone else. The point is that we're moving in a forward direction. If it weren't for apple's OSX, I wouldn't have Windows 7 (IMHO, the best consumer OS). If it wasn't for IE, I wouldn't have Firefox (IMHO, the best web browser). If it weren't for Google, we probably wouldn't have all these new iphone features in the woodwork and vice-versa. In the end, it really doesn't matter which one comes out the absolute best, just that if it weren't for each company copying one another, we wouldn't get the best. (We'd get things like Internet Explorer 6 or Windows ME)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Developing Web-Based iTunes Competitor, Acquires Simplify Media for Android Me
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Human history is filled with people copying other people who copied someone else. The point is that we're moving in a forward direction. If it weren't for apple's OSX, I wouldn't have Windows 7 (IMHO, the best consumer OS). If it wasn't for IE, I wouldn't have Firefox (IMHO, the best web browser). If it weren't for Google, we probably wouldn't have all these new iphone features in the woodwork and vice-versa. In the end, it really doesn't matter which one comes out the absolute best, just that if it weren't for each company copying one another, we wouldn't get the best. (We'd get things like Internet Explorer 6 or Windows ME)
I'm getting ready to make some popcorn and enjoy the fights.
Apple vs. Google+Adobe should be interesting to say the least.
I predict Google will be the new Microsoft, Apple will be the new Apple and Microsoft will be the new Gateway 2000.
Betcha Steve's pissed right about now.
Apple vs. Google+Adobe should be interesting to say the least.
I predict Google will be the new Microsoft, Apple will be the new Apple and Microsoft will be the new Gateway 2000.
Betcha Steve's pissed right about now.
I said it may be fair use. There's no law that says it is. And the statute is the statute. There is semantical legalese, as well. You violate the statute, but you may have a legal defense that makes the violation permissible.
Good point, but it doesn't change the fact that the music phonorecords/files are copyrighted works, and copying them over the network results in the making of an unauthorized copy and/or an unauthorized derivative work. The only legal defense would seem to be fair use, and no court case has yet tested whether streaming from one's own servers (as opposed to from a central server - see mp3.com) is fair use. Google will represent a tempting target.
I don't want to keep debating this, but your logic (the bolded part of your quote) just makes zero sense to me. Streaming content over the network does NOT result in making a copy of that content (authorized or not). It is no more of a "copy" than your CD player making a "copy" the content to your speakers. Or your DVD player making a "copy" to your TV screen.
You are making a very weird logical leap in concluding that playing back content over an IP network results in "unauthorizes copy" of that content. Your conclusion that streaming equates in copying does was not confirmed in any court case to my knowledge.
Any service we use involving a computer is logged and kept on file. Our credit card purchases, books taken out of the library, movies rented from Blockbuster, websites we visit, etc. Do you get junk mail asking you to refinance your car loan or house, or random credit card offers? That's from marketers accessing your credit report--full of personal info like your social security number. Our private info is out there whether we like it or not. Google scanning my emails (which shouldn't have account numbers in it to begin with, regardless of what provider you use) and giving me targeted ads is the least of my concerns.
How many mac users complain that Apple stole their original GUI from Xerox?
Do you think people who use visual voicemail on their android phones are complaining because apple did it first?
Are iPhone users going to complain about multitasking because Android phones had it before they did?
Nope, nobody cares. People just want good phones with good features. (and good carrier options, HINT APPLE)
Consumers are pragmatic. Google makes a lot of fantastic stuff. Look at Google Voice. The iPhone has nothing on that. Who cares that Google got it from an acquisition? Not consumers. Hopefully Apple plans to copy it, because it's friggin awesome.
Do you think people who use visual voicemail on their android phones are complaining because apple did it first?
Are iPhone users going to complain about multitasking because Android phones had it before they did?
Nope, nobody cares. People just want good phones with good features. (and good carrier options, HINT APPLE)
Consumers are pragmatic. Google makes a lot of fantastic stuff. Look at Google Voice. The iPhone has nothing on that. Who cares that Google got it from an acquisition? Not consumers. Hopefully Apple plans to copy it, because it's friggin awesome.
Of course it is. And it's not a weird leap - it's the law. You are actually copying the file. A "copy" has a meaning under the law, and your two examples are not copies (they may, however, be public performances depending on how many people are standing around).
How is streaming any different than simply copying the file? You, yourself, pointed out that the file exists in cache, and that it is no different than copying the file across your own network. The binary values in the original file are replicated on the remote device (even if they are replicated only into RAM, the courts have held that copies in RAM are "copies" within the meaning of Title 17). This is a copy. ANd there are lots of cases that say a digital copy of an audio file is a copy under Title 17. Further, when someone steals and rebroadcasts cable tv streams, for example, that, too, has been found by the courts to be an illegal copy.
p.s.: see 17 USC 101 for the definition of "copy."
Don't forget drive by Wi-Fi packet sniffing, we all wanted that to happen. Germany is so pleased with it that they are giving Google hugs over it.
I didn't say a thing about files existing in a cache. And there are many streaming protocols (usually the ones using adaptive bitrates) that don't rely on endpoint buffering - the data is decoded/played back as soon as it arrives.. it's not cached, stored or buffered anywhere. So THAT type of streaming wouldn't be illegal copying?
And from the fundamental technical standpoint, there is zero difference between streaming digital content over IP network and playing back same content over HDMI cable. In both cases, the exact digital replica of the data is transmitted between the data source and the "consumer facing" endpoint. There are just different transmission protocols involved. You can throw all the legalise you want at it - if one is "illegal copying" - then so is the other. If one is "fair use" - then so is the other.
And bottom line - there is no court that has stated that streaming content over the network violates copyright. Just you.
sorry. someone else mentioned caching.
In any event, it's an interesting technical distinction, but even if the entire file doesn't exist in cache at once, part of it does. A piece arrives, is stored in memory and processed into audio data. Probably still infringement, but an interesting question.
However you have a license to use the HDMI cable. You can't infringe a copyright if you have a license to make the copy.
Nor has there been one that has said the opposite (to be fair, they HAVE said that broadcasting over the network from a centralized location IS violative of copyright). ANd my point was that this invites a lawsuit. I have not opined on the result of the lawsuit.
You are the definition of "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." In other words, you are sooo wrong:
Yes, RAM reproductions are considered "copies." BUT, you forgot Fair Use.
See Executive Summary - Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Section 104 Report, Section 2(b)
"... We believe that there is a strong case that the making of a buffer copy in the course of streaming is a fair use.
...
In the case of temporary buffer copies, we believe that the equities unquestionably favor the user. The sole purpose for making the buffer copies is to permit an activity that is licensed by the copyright owner and for which the copyright owner receives a performance royalty. In essence, copyright owners appear to be seeking to be paid twice for the same activity. Additionally, it is technologically necessary to make buffer copies in order to carry out a digital performance of music over the Internet. Finally, the buffer copies exist for too short a period of time to be exploited in any way other than as a narrowly tailored means to enable the authorized performance of the work. On balance, therefore, the equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use."
Competition is Good...
but what a snake that little prick Schmidt was, sitting quietly with his little round altar boy's face while all of these things were discussed. The purchase of Android in 2005? Just putting something away while the iPhone secrets were being discussed. And the app for the iPhone coming down with "other plans"? Bet you I can find lots of blog posts that blamed that on Apple.
Awful sneaky behavior for the "open" company.
Again, if Google is "open," it's "open" like some sleazy old fat man is "open" to free sex. Give the kiddies free heroin. They'll be back, and we make money from their personal lives, just like Facebook.
but what a snake that little prick Schmidt was, sitting quietly with his little round altar boy's face while all of these things were discussed. The purchase of Android in 2005? Just putting something away while the iPhone secrets were being discussed. And the app for the iPhone coming down with "other plans"? Bet you I can find lots of blog posts that blamed that on Apple.
Awful sneaky behavior for the "open" company.
Again, if Google is "open," it's "open" like some sleazy old fat man is "open" to free sex. Give the kiddies free heroin. They'll be back, and we make money from their personal lives, just like Facebook.
I didn't forget "fair use." I said "fair use" many times. But this is not the type of temporary copy that qualifies as a buffer. A buffer copy is fair use only when the end result is authorized. In other words, if I am streaming without permission of the rights holder, the buffer copy is not somehow magically fair use.
I also have significantly more than "a little knowledge" in this area.
Nobody knowledgeable complains about Apple "stealing" the GUI, because they bought the rights. And Xerox closed down Xerox Parc.
Google Voice is still a mystifying app that never seems to work the way it should, leaves incomprehensible transcripts in the inbox, and has a wonderful Google interface that was put together with staples.
Pretty much DEAD ON!
I like Google less and less every day and have been for quite some time. They are the new Micro$oft!
All my favorite third party streaming programs are getting caught up in this Apple/Google war. LALA and now my old favorite Simplify Media down the tubes. I sure the hope the creators of those services get paid and not screwed.
Google is now the evil one. I can honestly see what Microsoft was saying when they said Google was the enemy years ago. I really have turned a leaf and think Apple and Microsoft should work together and get SliverLight on the iPhone. That would be a real page turner!
Listen, I am not saying by any means that Apple is perfect or sublimely innocent, but I would MUCH rather trust Apple with my privacy than Google! Ultimately all of them will be a part of it though, just that Google entire reason for being and business model fuels it!
1. Competition IS a good thing.
2. The mythology that Apple is based on being 'open', is just that: a myth. And the iTunes store is just one example.
3. On the other hand, the loyalty and profits that come with a 'closed' environment is impressive. People want things to 'just work'.
4. If, from Apple's perspective, Microsoft has been the Evil Empire, then Google is a 'V' spaceship hovering over every major city in the world...acting nice and 'open' but plotting on how to eat everything it sees. Hell, they even had their 'leader' on Apple's board for a long time.
The real myth is that Google is open. They just have a "free heroin" business model. Just keep coming back, kiddies.
All my favorite third party streaming programs are getting caught up in this Apple/Google war. LALA and now my old favorite Simplify Media down the tubes. I sure the hope the creators of those services get paid and not screwed.
Google is now the evil one. I can honestly see what Microsoft was saying when they said Google was the enemy years ago. I really have turned a leaf and think Apple and Microsoft should work together and get SliverLight on the iPhone. That would be a real page turner!
Interesting proposal! Again, I know Apple is not perfect or completely innocent, but Google is looking like Facebook and really starting to tick me off! Everything they do is like an invasion! I am fine with Apple working with Microsoft so long as it makes sense and ends up creating great products, but I still dislike Microsoft for the reasons I always have. There is just too much corruption in the world today period!
Since you keep bringing it up, I am well aware of the extent of your knowledge: a junior attorney in an obscure firm, with a degree from a third-rate law school. I wouldn't wave that flag around. Particularly since one of your partners may notice the frequency of your posts.
How is what Google is doing different from Sling, or Orb, or any cloud-syncing scheme?
Also, why do you assume Google's in-house legal team is made up of idiots?
And all this breads competition, as I said earlier, which gives people more choice and keeps the industry fresh. Heck, most Android-based devices aren't the same either since the OS is entirely open source.
LOL. By the same token, Apple is more like religion, then:
You get to worship a bearded Savior, while handing over your pennies.
You are prohibited from mixing with non-believers (Flash), or straying to other temples, because Steve is a Jealous God.
Oh, and whenever He issues a command, you attack the infidels....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consultant
And the software will display ads, ads, and ads!
The difference is that for Google their total income comes from ads so that is what they are all about, but for Apple their income comes from selling stuff. iAds purpose is to support developers making free or cheap apps so that they keep making compelling software that makes people want to buy Apple products to run it on. Very different motivations.
Originally Posted by Consultant
And the software will display ads, ads, and ads!
The pot calling the kettle black. Apple has something called iAds
The difference is that for Google their total income comes from ads so that is what they are all about, but for Apple their income comes from selling stuff. iAds purpose is to support developers making free or cheap apps so that they keep making compelling software that makes people want to buy Apple products to run it on. Very different motivations.
BS. Is this why Apple is trying to charge advertisers a minimum of $1 million entry fee, which is WAY over what the competition charges?
Oh, and if you want to be there at iAd's launch, you have to pony up $10 million.
Steve Jobs is trying to milk the platform for everything it's got. He sees big bucks in media and apps, and in advertising.
Make no mistake about it, that's why he keeps the platform so tightly closed.
Google is definitely at fault there. But people should secure their wi-fi networks. Common sense is a powerful tool for protecting your privacy.