Flying Llama
macrumors 6502a
GodBless said:
Oh, no... there's more... there's WAY more to come... but shhh... they can hear us. Remember one thing: Apple suprises all.
llama
P.S: aussie_geek: good to see I'm not alone! 🙂
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.
What We Want to See in Leopard
- Thread starter GodBless
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh, no... there's more... there's WAY more to come... but shhh... they can hear us. Remember one thing: Apple suprises all.
llama
P.S: aussie_geek: good to see I'm not alone! 🙂
sacear
macrumors 6502
That is because none of those sights charge money for the lyrics. As soon as one charges for the lyrics, it will be shut down. Apple sells the songs for money thru iTunes Music Store, so Apple would have to pay the royalty fee for use of the lyrics, which would be passed on to the consumer.GodBless said:
Lyrics have a completely different copyright than the composition and the recording. The lyrics copyright is usually held by a publishing company different from the record company. The record company usually only owns a copyright to a particular recording of the music. A different copyright is for the composition of the music. And a third copyright for the lyrics. All held by different, often multiple, entities. That is why dealing with music royalties is so difficult.GodBless said:
sacear
macrumors 6502
Yeah, System 7, OS 8, and OS 9 had a recording feature as a Desk Accessory.iMacZealot said:
That is the record company showing they have permission from the lyrics copyright holders, the three named entities, to print and publish the lyrics, as well as the music.iMacZealot said:
For those who wants a simple sound recording app...
I thought all macs came with Sound Studio sounds exactly liek what you all are requesting. But then again it might only come with the consumer line, I wouldn't know, when I got my PowerBook i had Apple migrate all the stuff over from my iBook, it was awesome, I turned it on and everything was the same.
I thought all macs came with Sound Studio sounds exactly liek what you all are requesting. But then again it might only come with the consumer line, I wouldn't know, when I got my PowerBook i had Apple migrate all the stuff over from my iBook, it was awesome, I turned it on and everything was the same.
sacear
macrumors 6502
Well, the copyright holders (the owners) of the lyrics say so. Those copyright holders can also say they can give the lyrics away for free, yet the majority will not. Lyrics are intellectual property subject to copyright, just like books, magazine articles, poems, etc. If one copies or distributes, then one violates copyright.GodBless said:
Let's not be naïve. We all know how business works, and there is no way Apple can say, "We are going to sell the songs and give the lyrics away for free," then expect the publishing companies to respond, "Oh, okay, that's great. My children don't need a dental check-up or a pediatric exam this year. My car doesn't need routine safety maintenance this year. Also, my family does not need to eat nor need shelter this year. Yeah, go ahead just take my product for free and walk away."
Well, it's hypothetically possible for Apple to give the lyrics away for free (but they won't), yet Apple will still get charged by the publishing company with royalty fees, as a percent per download, just as publishing companies get a percentage of royalty fees per radio play of a song or live performance of a song. That is what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are all about. You better believe the RIAA will get involved too.
Podcasts are a completely different entity, given away freely by the creator or publisher of the podcast, not by Apple. Apple is just the distributor of the free podcasts. Apple is also only the distributor of iTunes songs, not the publisher. The record companies or independent artists determine the price of their product, not Apple. Apple's iTMS is a retail store, just like Tower, Virgin, etc. Those retailers do not set the price of the product, the publisher usually does. Apple highly suggests that the price be set at 99 cents per song.
So you admit that it is a part of OS X. Just because it is optional doesn't mean its not part of the OS. It officially is part of the OS and it has been and it always will be. It is part of the standard install too so you don't need to check any extra boxes to install it.sacear said:
On the other hand iLife is not part of the OS. You don't get iPhoto, iMovie, Garage Band or iDVD with Tiger. So I don't know what you are referring to when you mention iLife Apps. iLife apps require a separate CD than the Tiger one so your comment is misleading.
Again I'll ask, "Why can't Apple give the lyrics away for free if web sites can?", and hope for an answer. If these people don't shutdown web sites that freely distribute lyrics then Apple should be able to distribute lyrics too. Think about it. Sites that gave .mp3s away for free got shutdown but not lyric sites. You are talking about 2 totally different things when you compare music to lyrics.sacear said:
zach
macrumors 65816
Tiger has gotten to the point where for me, I think it's doing all that can be reasonably expected of an OS.
In fact, I could just about say that about Panther.
With bugfixes, of course, and certainly a new Apple feature or two, there's only one more thing I want in Leopard.
Resolution Independence.
Once a resolution independent operating system is made mainstream, LCD manufacturers will FINALLY start making high pixel density screens en masse, and despite whatever anyone wants to say, this will increase the quality of computer use for everyone.
In fact, I could just about say that about Panther.
With bugfixes, of course, and certainly a new Apple feature or two, there's only one more thing I want in Leopard.
Resolution Independence.
Once a resolution independent operating system is made mainstream, LCD manufacturers will FINALLY start making high pixel density screens en masse, and despite whatever anyone wants to say, this will increase the quality of computer use for everyone.
sacear
macrumors 6502
What? What are you smoking? I said just the opposite and there is nothing to "admit." iTunes is not part of OS X, never has been. iTunes is a separate app, always has been. All iLife apps are separate apps from the OS. iTunes is an iLife app. Just because the installer has those apps "checked" for install by default does not mean they are part of the OS. The OS will work without them and they are developed separately from the OS.GodBless said:
I like how you use "officially," what makes it official? Is there an official or an officiating body that deems it official? No, because iTunes is not part of the OS, especially not "officially."
If iTunes is part of OS X, then explain the "Windows" version?
I did get all the other iLife apps (iPhoto, iMovie, Garage Band and iDVD) with Tiger. The iLife apps are included with the Tiger installation. One has the option to install them or not. They are set to install by default. Yet they are not "part of" OS X itself.
Prior to Tiger, Microsoft Internet Explorer was also set to install automatically by default, so is MS IE part of Apple's OS X?
sacear
macrumors 6502
I already answered that and so did another poster. Because Apple is a corporation, a profit making business venture. If a business uses intellectual property of another then they must pay to do so. If they don't, then that is copyright violation, which leads to big law suits. Apple sues often for violation of its intellectual property copyrights, so they will definitely get sued for violating someone else's copyright.GodBless said:
If Apple gives the lyrics away, for free or otherwise, Apple will be charged money to do so, by the owner of the lyrics. Apple does not want to lose money, by paying for the lyrics and then giving them away for free.
The owner of the lyrics decides if the lyrics are included with the recording or not. The retailer does not make that decision. Apple is a retailer, just like Tower Records, not the copyright holder.
If the owner of the lyrics agrees to give them away for free, then Apple will distribute the lyrics. I believe Apple will work something out. Some artists are including lyrics with a few songs on iTMS. Apple includes those lyrics in pdf format. However, those lyrics are provided by the artist or the publisher, not by Apple.
There are two, and only two, copyrights on any song:
1) The melody set against a chord progression.
2) The lyrics
When an individual writes a song, he owns the copyright for both of these. If he enters into a music contract with a company, he might have to give up one, both, or parts of one or both, as defined by the contract.
The copyrights for these pieces of music come into play when:
1) Someone else records the music.
2) The music is played on the radio.
3) The music is used in a film, or some other kind of score.
In Canada, we have an organization called the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency, a non-profit group that basically has a huge database of songs for recording artists to look through in order to find out who they have to pay royalties to (I know there's something similar in the states, but I can't remember what it's called).
Every time a song is recorded, with the intention of selling it for profit, the recording artist has to pay 8.5 cents for it, if it's between 1 second and 5 minutes long. For each additional minute, you get to tack on another 1.7 cents. This covers both the melody and the lyrics.
There are similar guidelines for radio and film, but they elude me at the moment.
As you can see, the copyrights for lyrics apply only in a case where someone is reproducing them in a piece of music (or sometimes in a songbook). By selling songs that have lyrics, Apple has already covered themselves legally to distribute the lyrics (you can't split a lyric away from a song...that would be ludicrous) under whatever deals they've made with the various record companies and individual recording artists.
However, some of the older lyrics, like the early jazz recordings, soon won't have any kind of restriction on them whatsoever. 50 years after the death of the author of a piece of music, it becomes public domain, and anyone can record and distribute versions of the music with no charge. This is only just starting to happen with popular music, because most of the composers are either still kicking, or it hasn't been 50 years since their death. So you can imagine how pissed off MJ is going to be when the 50th anniversary of John Lennon's death rolls around.
😀
1) The melody set against a chord progression.
2) The lyrics
When an individual writes a song, he owns the copyright for both of these. If he enters into a music contract with a company, he might have to give up one, both, or parts of one or both, as defined by the contract.
The copyrights for these pieces of music come into play when:
1) Someone else records the music.
2) The music is played on the radio.
3) The music is used in a film, or some other kind of score.
In Canada, we have an organization called the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency, a non-profit group that basically has a huge database of songs for recording artists to look through in order to find out who they have to pay royalties to (I know there's something similar in the states, but I can't remember what it's called).
Every time a song is recorded, with the intention of selling it for profit, the recording artist has to pay 8.5 cents for it, if it's between 1 second and 5 minutes long. For each additional minute, you get to tack on another 1.7 cents. This covers both the melody and the lyrics.
There are similar guidelines for radio and film, but they elude me at the moment.
As you can see, the copyrights for lyrics apply only in a case where someone is reproducing them in a piece of music (or sometimes in a songbook). By selling songs that have lyrics, Apple has already covered themselves legally to distribute the lyrics (you can't split a lyric away from a song...that would be ludicrous) under whatever deals they've made with the various record companies and individual recording artists.
However, some of the older lyrics, like the early jazz recordings, soon won't have any kind of restriction on them whatsoever. 50 years after the death of the author of a piece of music, it becomes public domain, and anyone can record and distribute versions of the music with no charge. This is only just starting to happen with popular music, because most of the composers are either still kicking, or it hasn't been 50 years since their death. So you can imagine how pissed off MJ is going to be when the 50th anniversary of John Lennon's death rolls around.
😀
sacear said:
I know I'm not who you were talking to, but I'd like to venture a thought.
You're right, iTunes is not an integral part of Mac OS X, but it does come with the OS. However, the other iLife apps DO NOT come with a standard install DVD or CD package of Tiger. The other iLife apps are not part of the OS installation, which I think is where the technicality lies.
-Chase
oingoboingo
macrumors 6502a
raggedjimmi said:
This is what I don't understand...sleep fulfills your requirements perfectly, and has the advantage of waking instantly when the notebook is reopened, rather than having to wait for the machine state to be reloaded from disk. I've been putting my PowerBook to sleep and transporting it to and from home practically every day for the past 18 months...never a problem. The battery drain is miniscule, there are no moving parts left running to be damaged in transit (like hard drive and cooling fans), there is only a trickle of current to the system so there's no heat generated, and the PowerBook never gets confused about going to sleep while connected to an ethernet LAN and waking up to find an 802.11b wireless network (or vice versa), or for that matter going to sleep while mirroring the display to a TV and waking up with the TV disconnected. It works like a dream. I'd go so far as to say it's probably the feature of the PowerBook that has consistently impressed me the most in 18 months of ownership. So why would you want to use hibernate instead? 😕
Please be kind. I am not smoking anything. I never have and I never will smoke.sacear said:
Just because iTunes is an iLife Application doesn't mean that it is separate from the OS. iTunes is part of iLife and it is part of OS X.sacear said:
Safari is an optional install too and it is definitely part of OS X although OS X doesn't require it to run. You could say this about QuickTime too. Remember QuickTime 7 and Safari 2.0 were major features in Tiger. Also if iTunes wasn't part of OS X then why is there an iTunes Artwork screen saver in Tiger?sacear said:
As long as it is on the Tiger install CD it is officially part of the OS.sacear said:
I don't understand what you mean here. What point are you trying to make.sacear said:
Tiger alone doesn't include iLife. Just because you got iLife with Tiger doesn't make iLife part of Tiger.sacear said:
Yes it was part of OS X. Safari is another browser that installs by default and it is part of OS X now. Internet Explorer is not a part of OS X anymore.sacear said:
Go to these web sites:sacear said:
http://www.azlyrics.com/
http://lyrics.astraweb.com/
http://www.sing365.com/
These sites are not small, they have ads that make them money and they give lyrics away for free. Explain this. I am sure they make quite a bit of money. These are just some of the many sites that give lyrics away for free.
As mentioned before Apple already sells songs that have lyrics in them so they legally have the right to distribute the written lyrics of those songs too.sacear said:
I highly doubt this because of how many web sites give lyrics away for free.sacear said:
I've never heard of lyrics being sold. This is a new one for me.sacear said:
PDF files won't really be necessary with a lyric database. If all albums sold on iTunes came with a PDF booklet (as they do when you buy an album in a retail store) file then how would you be able to see lyrics for the individual songs that you buy?sacear said:
Good question. There are advantages and disadvantages to both sleeping and hibernating.oingoboingo said:
Hibernating makes it possible to keep the computers state on the Hard Drive without using any power at all.
Sleeping preserves the computer's state to the RAM and uses a small amount of power to keep the data in the RAM.
What Hibernating is Good For:
- With a Power Mac you can't just put it to sleep and unplug the power cord if you wanted to move the computer because sleeping requires power since the RAM preserves the settings. If you do this then your computer will power off and you will lose your computer's state. For this scenario hibernation is the best option.
- If your PowerBook's or iBook's battery gets low then it should hibernate instead of sleep as it does now. It is the better option to make sure the computers state is preserved compared to the sleep option because sleeping still takes some power and totally drains a low battery after a day or two.
- If you go on vacation and you want to preserve your desktop computer's power (quite a bit) and state while you are gone then the hibernate option is probably the best for this (although it will probably take a while for the computer to be ready to be used).
What Sleeping is Good For:
- If you carry around your laptop and want it to wake up fast the next time you open it, then the sleep option is the best option over hibernating. You don't waste much battery at all having the computer sleep.
- If you don't want to shutdown you computer at night or when you go out and want it to be available fast the next time you use it but want to preserve the power some then you can put it to sleep and you will save quite a bit more power compared to if the computer was running.
GodBless said:
Hey, how did you do that?!
I'm a Windows user and surprised that Mac OS doesn't let you to switch between all application windows via Command + Tab.
It does let you switch through Applications with an onscreen viewer via cmd+tab like this:forumBuddy said:
And OS X does let you switch through documents within each Application via cmd+`. The thing is that there is no onscreen document switch method so I photoshopped what I thought it should look like which is below:
It really wasn't too hard to Photoshop the simple design addition to what Apple already has.
OS X is better than Windows in just about any way. I was a hardcore Windows user 2.5 years but switched to Mac and I'm glad I did. You should switch too. 😉
sacear
macrumors 6502
Five songs that I have written the lyrics for have been contracted for recording by a recording artist. The artist has permission to record and perform the music and lyrics. Yet there is specifically and purposefully no permission for the artist, the producer, the publisher, and the record company to print, publish, or distribute the lyrics.Flux Harmonic said:
There's something about the way that you integrated it that is visually distracting. It seems like a confusing extension to Cmd + Tab.GodBless said:And OS X does let you switch through documents within each Application via cmd+`. The thing is that there is no onscreen document switch method so I photoshopped what I thought it should look like which is below:
Perhaps if there was some other way to visually represent the child documents of a parent app... I dont' have any ideas now, but maybe someday.
sacear
macrumors 6502
Oh, jeez, are we still going on about this?
That is just a teasing, rhetorical comment, just as I would rib my buddies and give them the business. That is not a personal attack of any kind, please don't take it that way. I appreciate your decision and attitude to not smoke. I do not smoke either and neither do my friends, yet that is what we say to each other to playfully call one another out.GodBless said:
Yes, iTunes is separate from the OS (the Operating System). There is a Windows version of iTunes and an OS 9 version of iTunes. There is even a hacked Linux version of iTunes. None of those are a part of any Operation System. iTunes is an application that runs within (some say atop) the Operating System. iTunes is included with OS X, yet is not a part of OS X (Operating System Ten).GodBless said:
No, Safari is not a part of the Operating System. The screen saver just makes a call to a file address somewhere on the hard disk. One could call (select) the artwork for the screen saver from a PhotoShop folder, yet PhotoShop is not a part of OS X. The artwork is not a part of the Operating System. That has been the same since System 7 and maybe even earlier.GodBless said:
Really? How do you figure that? So, the Read Me text files are part of the Operating System? Code Line Software's Art Director's Toolkit is part of Apple's Operating System? Thorsten Lemke's Graphic Converter is part of the Operating System? Omni Group's Omni Giraffe and Omni Outliner are part of the Operating System? Intuit's Quickbooks are part of the Operating System? Zinio's Delivery Manager and Reader are part of the Operating System? Microsoft's Internet Explorer was a part of Apple's Operating System? Allume's Stuffit Expander was a part of Apple's Operating System?GodBless said:
iTunes is separate from the OS (the Operating System). There is a Windows version of iTunes and an OS 9 version of iTunes. There is even a hacked Linux version of iTunes. None of those are a part of any Operation System. iTunes is an application that runs within (some say atop) the Operating System. iTunes is included with OS X, yet is not a part of OS X (Operating System Ten).GodBless said:
Exactly, that is what I have been saying. iTunes is an iLife application. It always has been. It may have been the first one. So now, there you say it is not a part of the Tiger Operating System.GodBless said:
Microsoft Internet Explorer was never a part of Apple's Operating System. Safari is not a part of Apple's Operating System. It is an application that is included with and runs within Apple's Operating System.GodBless said:
rendezvouscp said: