Steve Jobs Suggests Blu-ray Not Coming to Mac Anytime Soon

[xbjllb]

Hi Xbjllb or whatever you call yourself.

Had enough with you. You don't seem to understand what theft means. And you have had an opportunity to retract the accusation. Made me quite annoyed, and I was tempted to say rude things about you.

Decided to resist doing that.

If it's okay with you, I will be ignoring you from now on.

Hope you understand. Cheers.

C.

No problem. Successful conviction has a way a making people want to avoid the guilt of their crimes.

I only hope you will choose to teach your children higher ethics in the future, starting with your own example.

And if they choose content creation for their life's work, I pray we've stopped stealing by then.

 

[yg17]

One is legal. The other is not. And here's why:

One preserves the disc. The other provides a file that one's kids can readily trade under the parents' nose.

And probably will, given the parents' penchant for theft.

I don't have any kids. So if I rip a Blu-ray movie, how are my nonexistent kids going to readily trade it?

 

[macdrew]

It's common sense. A hard drive has spinning parts that wear out. An optical disc has no spinning parts.

And you have to live within a certain radius (a few miles) of the central office to get that service. Many people don't. Voice can go a lot further down a copper line than broadband. I work for a phone company that offers a similar service to that Qwest one. I know more about this than you do.

But a hard drive at rest remains as vivable as an optical disc, that's the point. you are assuming a hard drive remains spinning, i'm saying if it's treated the same as an optical disc.

and don't be ridiculous, 20Mbps is available anywhere in medium to large cities, it has nothing to do with the central office. You don't know more about it clearly...

 

[xbjllb]

I don't have any kids. So if I rip a Blu-ray movie, how are my nonexistent kids going to readily trade it?

You asked me to explain why one thing was a crime, and another wasn't. The reason is the possible repercussions of one as opposed to the repercussions of another.

I think the legal heads are right in that it has to do with the actual conversion into a more easily stolen format devoid of DRM or any other such protection against theft.

However, I'm not an expert. I go by my gut, and my conscience, to tell me what's right and what is wrong. All I know is, from my earliest childhood days, the less I stole, and it was a conscious decision to stop, the more and more resources I had to support content creators and their servicers.

The more you steal the less you have. And vice versa. That's not Buddhist, but it probably should be.

 

[yg17]

But a hard drive at rest remains as vivable as an optical disc, that's the point. you are assuming a hard drive remains spinning, i'm saying if it's treated the same as an optical disc.

But the disc has no moving parts, so you can read and write to it all you want without putting any wear on the disc. The optical drive might die, but that's easy to replace and the data is still in tact. If a hard drive dies, the data goes with it.

and don't be ridiculous, 20Mbps is available anywhere in medium to large cities, it has nothing to do with the central office. You don't know more about it clearly...[/quote]

Yes, it has everything to do with the CO. People in rural areas are too far from the CO to get broadband. You can't seem to grasp the fact that not everyone lives in a medium to large city.

You asked me to explain why one thing was a crime, and another wasn't. The reason is the possible repercussions of one as opposed to the repercussions of another.

I think the legal heads are right in that it has to do with the actual conversion into a more easily stolen format devoid of DRM or any other such protection against theft.

However, I'm not an expert. I go by my gut, and my conscience, to tell me what's right and what is wrong. All I know is, from my earliest childhood days, the less I stole, and it was a conscious decision to stop, the more and more resources I had to support content creators and their servicers.

The more you steal the less you have. And vice versa. That's not Buddhist, but it probably should be.

But just because you can commit a crime with something, it doesn't mean you will. I can commit a crime with my car. Hell, I could probably kill somebody with a pencil if I tried hard enough, or at least seriously injure them. But that doesn't mean that owning a car or a pencil makes you a murderer.

 

[Carniphage]

But the disc has no moving parts, so you can read and write to it all you want without putting any wear on the disc. The optical drive might die, but that's easy to replace and the data is still in tact. If a hard drive dies, the data goes with it.

I am a bit confused by your post. The optical disk itself spins past the laser, gramophone style (or phonograph style).

This every bit as as mechanical as a hard drive, which spins a multi-layer platter past the floating magnetic heads.

Theoretically neither should receive wear. Although some cheap optical drives do scratch the disk surface (Xbox360).

DVDs and BluRays are vulnerable to being handled and mis-handled until they become unreadable. As my son's demands to repurchase beloved game disks proves.

Hard drives are a bit more protected, being non-removable. But obviously hard drives can fail too. Which is why the bits on them should be held in more than one place. Or in a redundant array.

The future of non-physical media will have the main versions available on the cloud, but we will probably keep caches of frequently accessed content on local drives.

C.

 

[xbjllb]

But just because you can commit a crime with something, it doesn't mean you will. I can commit a crime with my car. Hell, I could probably kill somebody with a pencil if I tried hard enough, or at least seriously injure them. But that doesn't mean that owning a car or a pencil makes you a murderer.

I'm not claiming that or anything of the sort. Once again, I'm only trying to explain, to the best of my limited ability, why one thing might be against the law and another thing isn't.

 

[yg17]

I am a bit confused by your post. The optical disk itself spins past the laser, gramophone style (or phonograph style).

This every bit as as mechanical as a hard drive, which spins a multi-layer platter past the floating magnetic heads.

Right, but the difference is where the spinning parts are. If the mechanical parts of your optical drive die, you replace the drive, relatively cheaply, but your data is still safe and sound on the disc. If the mechanical bits of a hard drive die, you're screwed since there's no way to recover the data, well, there is, but data recovery is very, very expensive.

Theoretically neither should receive wear. Although some cheap optical drives do scratch the disk surface (Xbox360).

All mechanical devices will receive wear over time. The scratching thing, yeah, that's a major screw up on the drive manufacturer's part.

DVDs and BluRays are vulnerable to being handled and mis-handled until they become unreadable. As my son's demands to repurchase beloved game disks proves.

That's why, if it's important data, care should be taken to handle it manually.

Hard drives are a bit more protected, being non-removable. But obviously hard drives can fail too. Which is why the bits on them should be held in more than one place. Or in a redundant array.

True. Any important data should be backed up in multiple places, regardless of medium used.

The future of non-physical media will have the main versions available on the cloud, but we will probably keep caches of frequently accessed content on local drives.

C.

I'm not sure if I'm entirely sold on cloud storage. I like having local copies of my data. Plus, despite what macdrew thinks, not everyone has broadband.

 

[Carniphage]

I'm not sure if I'm entirely sold on cloud storage. I like having local copies of my data. Plus, despite what macdrew thinks, not everyone has broadband.

I like the idea of off-site backup for stuff I have paid for.

If I have paid for some content, and the physical copy is destroyed, I'd like to think I am entitled to get it back again. Without re-purchase.

Microsoft did this with damaged game disks. And Apple will let you re-download purchased content. So even if your computer is stolen or destroyed, your iTunes content is safe.

C.

 

[LethalWolfe]

sad state of affairs...

The sad state of affairs is people supporting the efforts of industry lobbyists to circumvent over 20 years of court precedent and laws that give consumers the right to legally space and time shift media they own, or media that is readily available over the airwaves, for personal use.


Lethal

 

[Batman101]

While technically illegal (not in my nation yet), it doesn't make much sense to not able to do whatever you want with the stuff that you bought taken the fact you have only use it for personal use.

I am not going to buy the same movie over and over again, just so I could play it on my computer, blu-ray player, ipod touch and iphone. Makes absolutely no sense and i hope my government could grow a brain and not pass such a law in the future.

 

[nickane]

1) yes, but in the computer industry the term "modem" still means a dial up connection... not: dsl, cable or satellite.
2) nonsense, there is zero proof an optical disc will outlast a hard drive
3) yes, in the states, a copper telephone line can go up to 20Mbps, take a look:

http://www.qwest.com/residential/internet/broadbandlanding/index.html

no, our Gov is simply improving the switches, trunk lines in these rural areas, the lines to the homes and farms are already in place.

4) yes, in the states it's about 15 quid for unlimited data at 7Mbps

1) No it doesn't. You're just trying to make it sound like you work in the computer industry but you obviously do not. Nobody who worked in the computer industry would say optical media is more reliable than HDs or belittle someone for using a "modem". They would call it dial-up or else their colleagues would wonder what they were talking about.

2) Hard drives are expected to fail within 5-7 years. Very few are guaranteed beyond 3 years. My Dad hasn't bought a CD since 1989 but all of his play fine cos he didn't abuse them (or put them in an Xbox 360). There's a lot to be said for common sense. If I burn a dvd and put it on a shelf for 20 years, its far more likely not to fail in that time than an HD.

3) Wow. In England, our phone network is just a complex web of strings with cups at the end of them. Is there something else magic about the US telephone network other than this mystical "copper" you speak of that can convey such speeds to the minority of people (ie rural) who are too far from the exchange to get it? Try doing an online speed test for your connection and you might just find that Qwest are overselling your connection speed since only those very near telephone exchanges can get more than 8 Mbps.

4) It is the same price in England, it's just not unlimited. But you said £50, not £15, demonstrating that you knew very little about the currency, let alone the country you claimed to know well.

 

[xbjllb]

The sad state of affairs is people supporting the efforts of industry lobbyists to circumvent over 20 years of court precedent and laws that give consumers the right to legally space and time shift media they own, or media that is readily available over the airwaves, for personal use.


Lethal

The really sad state of affairs is the fact that they are forced to do it because of the hundreds of millions of unethical rationalizing people who steal content with no thought whatsoever to the creators of that content or their well-being or even the ability to make a living creating.

 

[xbjllb]

While technically illegal (not in my nation yet), it doesn't make much sense to not able to do whatever you want with the stuff that you bought taken the fact you have only use it for personal use.

I am not going to buy the same movie over and over again, just so I could play it on my computer, blu-ray player, ipod touch and iphone. Makes absolutely no sense and i hope my government could grow a brain and not pass such a law in the future.

And you most likely wouldn't have to, if the rest of the planet would stop stealing.

We'll see if they will indeed relax the laws about personal use somewhat once torrents are shut down for good and institutionalized piracy is stopped.

 

[Batman101]

And you most likely wouldn't have to, if the rest of the planet would stop stealing.

We'll see if they will indeed relax the laws about personal use somewhat once torrents are shut down for good and institutionalized piracy is stopped.

It's impossible to stop torrents, sooner or later firms would have to do it on our favor or they cease to exist. CBC had upload their own torrents for their own television show, and BBC had iPlayer. How often do you know that firms make products that consumers doesnt like and still able to survive long term? No.

Its all about supply and demand, people do not like their content to be locked, it would just lured them into torrents, which the locks were taken off for good, and free.

If you are talking about morals, then I am ready to bet that firms arent ethical on their daily business as well. Why do you judge us on a double-standard?

Sorry for my bad english.

 

[macdrew]

no thought whatsoever to the creators of that content or their well-being or even the ability to make a living creating.

No, the thought is there, but we as a society have decided to pay the artists directly, we will no longer pay "ransom" to the middlemen... that era is over.

So you sound like you fall into the "leach" or "middlemen" category, so no wonder you are upset when more ethical people like me have arrived to set the accounting record straight.

What have you contributed to movies? List them out, I will pay you accordingly.

 

[Carniphage]

While technically illegal (not in my nation yet), it doesn't make much sense to not able to do whatever you want with the stuff that you bought taken the fact you have only use it for personal use.

People sometimes get mixed up between what is legal and what is moral.

It's completely legal to buy a game, play it, take it back to the shop and sell it on a week later.

Without doubt, that practice is actually damaging the games industry. It is serial file sharing. Content creators are being deprived of revenue. But it is perfectly legal.

C.

 

[macdrew]

We'll see if they will indeed relax the laws about personal use somewhat once torrents are shut down for good and institutionalized piracy is stopped.

but you can't stop torrents, that would be like trying to stop rain from reaching the ground. you need to learn how to generate $1 per movie from the popular torrents, otherwise you have no chance.

people are willing to pay a few bucks for content, but if you get over $2 for a 90 minute movie for example, torrents kick in and then you get $0 per movie. it's the law of the internet, so you need to learn to harness it, or go broke.

just letting you know the law of the new land...

 

[Reddkryten]

No, the thought is there, but we as a society have decided to pay the artists directly, we will no longer pay "ransom" to the middlemen... that era is over.

So you sound like you fall into the "leach" category, so no wonder you are upset when more ethical people like me have arrived to set the accounting record straight.

What have you contributed to movies? List them out, I will pay you accordingly.

Really, and how exactly does that work? Are the middle men not important? In films the horrible middlemen are very much responsible for the finished product. Someone leases a location to the production, are they not important and deserve to be paid? The transport department who brings equipment to the location? The advertiser who publicizes the film, without whom the audience would never have heard of it? A producer who hired the writers, who spotted an Idea and decided to develop it, just a middleman underserving of payment?

Also, your payment idea makes no sense, in films therre are times when seconds can be measured in pounds. Trust me, if you think you are entering a world where people pay directly for a film, then you better open your wallet, it's gonna cost you a lot.

 

[Reddkryten]

Unless of course by paying the artist directly, you are talking about things on YouTube, like a cat playing a piano.

I'd be prepared to pay £0.00 to watch that.

 

[LethalWolfe]

The really sad state of affairs is the fact that they are forced to do it because of the hundreds of millions of unethical rationalizing people who steal content with no thought whatsoever to the creators of that content or their well-being or even the ability to make a living creating.

The problem isn't people being able to time/space shift media the problem is techology giving people access to a global distribution medium (the internet) at an incredibly low cost to the end users. I'm completely fine w/laws that are in place to combat illegal mass distribution but I am not fine laws pushed through by industry lobbyists, like the DMCA, that circumvent decades worth of law and legal precedent with regards to copyright in the US.

No, the thought is there, but we as a society have decided to pay the artists directly, we will no longer pay "ransom" to the middlemen... that era is over.

You do realize that entities like music labels and movie studios are the ones that make the initial, and very risky, investment so that the albums and movies that so many people enjoy can see the light of day, right? Do you think that John Q. Moviemaker has $70mil just sitting in his bank account to self-fiance his next movie?

people are willing to pay a few bucks for content, but if you get over $2 for a 90 minute movie for example, torrents kick in and then you get $0 per movie. it's the law of the internet, so you need to learn to harness it, or go broke.

LOL, you need to learn the laws of economics. When you have a second feel free to step off that high horse, get down in the trenches w/some content creators and then you'll see how ridiculous and self-righteous your rhetoric sounds.


Lethal

 

[yg17]

but you can't stop torrents, that would be like trying to stop rain from reaching the ground. you need to learn how to generate $1 per movie from the popular torrents, otherwise you have no chance.

people are willing to pay a few bucks for content, but if you get over $2 for a 90 minute movie for example, torrents kick in and then you get $0 per movie. it's the law of the internet, so you need to learn to harness it, or go broke.

just letting you know the law of the new land...

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both released new albums online for free and they still ended up on torrent sites. The studios can make a movie $2, people will still pirate it.

 

[macdrew]

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both released new albums online for free and they still ended up on torrent sites. The studios can make a movie $2, people will still pirate it.

sure, you're always going to have an advanced element of society that gets content for free. but just as software developers understand that it's best to give 20% of their programs away for free, the movie industry needs to learn they also need to give away 20% or they will lose 40% in revenue.

these are just "bits", so the cost is basically "zero".

 

[Carniphage]

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both released new albums online for free and they still ended up on torrent sites. The studios can make a movie $2, people will still pirate it.

And Rezor (of NIN) in particular understands this and understands how to monetize his fanbase.

Musicians can give away content and create an audience which can be monetized by doing live shows. This is encouraging recording artists to build real audiences, and deliver thrilling live performances. Which isn't a bad thing.

Reznor also understands what fans are willing to pay. When he released Ghosts, he offered super-cheap downloads at one end. And limited edition packs with photographs, studio disks and Vinyl versions at $300 a pop.

He sold out of the $300 version in a day. I think limited meant 5000 units. Not a bad return on a quick studio tape. Reznor does not have a publisher, so it went straight to the artists. (ie Him)

I think the movie industry needs to think similarly to monetise movies. Real fans will pay through the nose for limited edition memorabilia. For making-ofs for behind the scenes documents. For screenplays.

People who are *not* fans need a different approach. Very low prices for PPV rental. Complete convenience. The ability to purchase on impulse.

I think the movie business is getting it wrong at the moment. The pirates get a better deal than the paying customers. In the UK every DVD is proceeded by non-skippable anti-piracy warnings and in some cases non-skippable trailers and advertisements.

When you start treating paying customers like criminals, its not surpising that some people prefer to stop paying.

C.

 

[Reddkryten]

sure, you're always going to have an advanced element of society that gets content for free. but just as software developers understand that it's best to give 20% of their programs away for free, the movie industry needs to learn they also need to give away 20% or they will lose 40% in revenue.

these are just "bits", so the cost is basically "zero".

How do bits cost nothing? To make an audio recording you must first pay for the microphones, studio time and mixing. The end product, the bits as you call them may cost basically nothing, but to create them in the first place costs quite a bit. I think 35mm film used to make movies is something like £230 per minute...per minute!

If the content creators don't get any payment for their creation, why create in the first place?

Hell, Mac os is basically bits, yet it costs to purchase that?

If nothing is created, what will we do, abandon all material possessions sit around humming all day. Perhaps this is part of Apples Buddhist master plan, to lead us away from material things?

Seriously, this is utterly insane.