1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Apple & Blu-Ray

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Knisse, Mar 1, 2011.

  1. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Downloading and uploading copyrighted material via torrents in the States is illegal. Period. It's not just uploading. And it doesn't matter if you already bought the copyrighted material in a different format already (like a Blu-ray disc).

    However at the same time while it is illegal I believe it's also very rare that someone gets in trouble in the States for downloading torrents. I think the authorities are more interested in tracking down the people that upload the copyrighted material. But even that is incredibly difficult to prosecute because, for example, the FBI cannot really pursue a lead in a country outside the States. They would need the host country of the uploader to take some sort of action, and it's unclear if they would even be bothered to take it that far.
     
  2. MikeDT

    MikeDT Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,276
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    China, Mongolia and UK
    You can't keep changing the jurisdiction on a discussion like that. You're in China.
    ...as you're in the USA. I believe the OP is in Denmark, US law does not apply here. So whatever jurisdictions and copyright laws are in Denmark are going to apply for him/her. It may well be legal for them to download something they've already paid for, for the purposes of backup and format shifting. FYI SF is a global forum, with members from all over the world. Many country's have different laws about copyright, backups and downloads. The US has a law called DMCA(Title 17 of the United States Code), which makes it illegal to break DRM for backup and format shifting purposes,. e.g. playing a Blu-ray disc on a Mac or Linux OS. So much for 'fair use'. Hollywood just loves it that you have to buy the same movie again in a different format. Of course the United States Code has no meaning in other countries, e.g. China, Denmark or the UK.
    Someone made a comment that hinted it was legal everywhere, which it is clearly not for at least 300 million people.
    Of course not. As i said, each country has it's own copyright laws with differing restrictions and freedoms. What is law in the US, does not apply in other countries. Problem is, the US lets Hollywood and the media industry have carte blanche making the copyright laws. With nonsense like the DMCA. There is also the Copyright Term Extension Act, which was brought in because Disney was terrified their major cash cow, Mickey Mouse was in danger of going public domain. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment..._sprigman.html "Back in 1998, representatives of the Walt Disney Company came to Washington looking for help. Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse, who made his screen debut in the 1928 cartoon short "Steamboat Willie," was due to expire in 2003, and Disney's rights to Pluto, Goofy and Donald Duck were to expire a few years later."
     
  3. slight

    slight New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Unless your work involves producing onto DVDs, I personally struggle to find a situation where I would have the time to watch a DVD AND would want to use my mac to do so vs sitting down in front of a big screen with decent sound. (econo-class seat room makes for awkward viewing angles on a 15").

    Wouldn't complain if Apple foregoes the CD drive completely and replace it with either a SSD or another battery.
     
  4. GQgeek

    GQgeek Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    Buy blu-rays that include the digital copy. You can copy them to itunes. I did that with the back to the future trilogy, expendables, predators, the town, etc etc. Most blu-rays now come with the digital copy which is nice because even if you own a blu-ray player they aren't hooked up to every TV and your friends won't always have one.

    Other than that, no.


    Awesome advice. Buy blu-rays so that you can watch DVDs. Apple is so win.
     
  5. otc

    otc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,201
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    To the guys on the downloading vs uploading front: I think you need to review your rulings. Yes downloading and uploading are both wrong...but uploading is the one with the legal issues. AFAIK (and IANAL), every single piracy related case that has ever moved through the courts is filed under "distribution of copyrighted material." Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US.

    The charges (and the absurd "damages") are always based completely on how many copies of how many different works you allegedly distributed or made available. There is no way to get around this with torrents...but with something like usenet you can consume without ever uploading.

    I find your reply puzzling.

    You seem to be speaking with regards to not having cable, and I'm not sure why.


    That is because you are not living in the future. Apple wants to push to a world where everyone is speaking with regards to not having cable. I don't have cable and I rarely even switch the TV to the antenna tuner--all my content comes in over the internet.

    My rough analysis is sound--if you wanted to consume content via the internet at anything close to the quality levels provided by blu-ray movies/tv-seasons and good non-gimped HD broadcasts...you would eat many many gigabytes of bandwidth.

    As other posters have mentioned...apple seems to be skirting the issure right now by operating under a sort of "buy a blu-ray, watch a DVD" system where their itunes quality is just not that good and only takes a few hundred megabytes for an hour of content. What you have is apple trying to get you to live in the future by refusing to put blu-ray players in (or by refusing to let you store data on the new apple tvs or even refusing to let you use non-HD tvs on the old ones) but the futures is not there for you to live in legally.

    You can live the future right now with a torrent client--every TV show is available in HD an hour after it airs and full blu-ray rips pop up all the time. But if you want to live the future legally, your options are pretty shitty so I am not sure why apple insists.
     
  6. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Unless your work involves producing onto DVDs, I personally struggle to find a situation where I would have the time to watch a DVD AND would want to use my mac to do so vs sitting down in front of a big screen with decent sound. (econo-class seat room makes for awkward viewing angles on a 15").

    Wouldn't complain if Apple forgoes the CD drive completely and replace it with either a SSD or another battery.


    There are two scenarios where Blu-ray on Macs would really benefit the consumer (who wants it):

    1. A Mac Mini with a Blu-ray drive capable of HD audio would eliminate the need for a stand alone Blu-ray player. You can easily attach a Mac Mini to your HDTV. I contemplated doing this myself however instead I just connect my MBP to my TV when desired.

    2. Blu-ray on a MacBook Pro, for example, would allow you to bring your discs onto the plane to watch them. I agree however that a 15" laptop in coach sounds like a nightmare.

    I believe the optical drive could be eliminated when the MacBook Pro debuts with its redesign next year. I'm not entirely sure though. People still create projects and place them on DVD. The latest MacBook Air's have been a big hit and Apple might think that is the option for consumers who don't want or need an optical drive. I am confident that we will see a move to all SSDs across the board when the MacBook Pro is released next year.
     
  7. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    To the guys on the downloading vs uploading front: I think you need to review your rulings. Yes downloading and uploading are both wrong...but uploading is the one with the legal issues. AFAIK (and IANAL), every single piracy related case that has ever moved through the courts is filed under "distribution of copyrighted material." Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US. The charges (and the absurd "damages") are always based completely on how many copies of how many different works you allegedly distributed or made available. There is no way to get around this with torrents...but with something like usenet you can consume without ever uploading. That is because you are not living in the future. Apple wants to push to a world where everyone is speaking with regards to not having cable. I don't have cable and I rarely even switch the TV to the antenna tuner--all my content comes in over the internet. My rough analysis is sound--if you wanted to consume content via the internet at anything close to the quality levels provided by blu-ray movies/tv-seasons and good non-gimped HD broadcasts...you would eat many many gigabytes of bandwidth. As other posters have mentioned...apple seems to be skirting the issure right now by operating under a sort of "buy a blu-ray, watch a DVD" system where their itunes quality is just not that good and only takes a few hundred megabytes for an hour of content. What you have is apple trying to get you to live in the future by refusing to put blu-ray players in (or by refusing to let you store data on the new apple tvs or even refusing to let you use non-HD tvs on the old ones) but the futures is not there for you to live in legally. You can live the future right now with a torrent client--every TV show is available in HD an hour after it airs and full blu-ray rips pop up all the time. But if you want to live the future legally, your options are pretty shitty so I am not sure why apple insists.
    You're wrong. For starters there have been several cases brought by the RIAA to the courts where they won and people were forced to pay massive fines. These cases are rare, but when they rule in favor of the RIAA the person found guilty is usually fined ridiculous amounts of money to be made an example for others who download music illegally. With respect to torrents, again, you are wrong. The MPAA will sometimes contact ISPs and make them aware that customers using their broadband service are downloading copyrighted material. The ISP will in turn send out a letter to the customer making them aware that someone using their IP address has downloaded a copyrighted movie or tv show (they will list exactly what the file was and what time/date the file was downloaded). The letter is meant as a warning to stop downloading copywrited material. If they receive another notification from the MPAA regarding another file of copyrighted material you downloaded, you can have your service terminated. Most consumers get scared from the first letter and stop using public domains for torrents (they'll either look into private domains, Usenet, or they will stop entirely). Please stop saying that people don't get in trouble for downloading copyrighted materials in the States. Some do. I think you are the one not living in the present. I don't care if Apple wants a world sans cable. That isn't happening anytime soon (or even in the near future). That's great that you don't have cable and use the net for everything. Most people in the States don't watch TV that way. They have cable and some have premium channels. Even with all the streaming services, the people ditching cable for Netflix, etc, most consumers still elect to have a set-top box providing cable and their respective channels. As much as I hate my monthly cable bill, and the fact that HBO is too expensive, I absolutely love the HD channels available to me. With my HD DVR box and Netflix membership I have everything covered for my TV and movie needs and it's dead simple. Yes, your math might be sound, but again you are talking in terms of people relying entirely on their internet bandwidth for their TV and movie needs, and again you are in the minority there. It's a lot easier and convenient to just DVR the shows I want to watch versus having to seek them out via torrents, have them download, connect my MBP to my TV to watch them, etc. The "full Blu-ray rips" you speak of are still compressions of the rips themselves. Full rips would range between 15 - 35 or more GBs. The high-res movie files you find via torrents are often between 4 - 12 GBs. The PQ is still very good (sometimes, not always, depends on if the uploader knows what they are doing) but you won't come close to the audio provided on BDs. Apple wants nothing to do with Blu-ray because it's a direct competitor to their iTunes movie and rental store. Period. Nothing more.
     
  8. intent

    intent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,391
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, ME
    You're wrong. For starters there have been several cases brought by the RIAA to the courts where they won and people were forced to pay massive fines. These cases are rare, but when they rule in favor of the RIAA the person found guilty is usually fined ridiculous amounts of money to be made an example for others who download music illegally.

    With respect to torrents, again, you are wrong. The MPAA will sometimes contact ISPs and make them aware that customers using their broadband service are downloading copyrighted material. The ISP will in turn send out a letter to the customer making them aware that someone using their IP address has downloaded a copyrighted movie or tv show (they will list exactly what the file was and what time/date the file was downloaded). The letter is meant as a warning to stop downloading copywrited material. If they receive another notification from the MPAA regarding another file of copyrighted material you downloaded, you can have your service terminated.

    Most consumers get scared from the first letter and stop using public domains for torrents (they'll either look into private domains, Usenet, or they will stop entirely). Please stop saying that people don't get in trouble for downloading copyrighted materials in the States. Some do.


    +1
     
  9. otc

    otc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,201
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    This is probably going to be my farewell to this thread...some total [​IMG] going on here

    You're wrong. For starters there have been several cases brought by the RIAA to the courts where they won and people were forced to pay massive fines. These cases are rare, but when they rule in favor of the RIAA the person found guilty is usually fined ridiculous amounts of money to be made an example for others who download music illegally.

    No, this is not true. You seem unable to even read a wikipedia summary of what is happening in this world. The RIAA has brought many suits, every single one of them to my knowledge was for distribution or "making available" which is a well-defined violation of copyright law. The defendants were chosen because they were sharing music, not because they downloaded it. For most people these things are one and the same--limewire and its ilk share everything you download by default and bittorrent by nature of how it works will always be sharing whatever you are downloading. That does not change the fact that while morally wrong, downloading is not what you get nabbed for.

    With respect to torrents, again, you are wrong. The MPAA will sometimes contact ISPs and make them aware that customers using their broadband service are downloading copyrighted material. The ISP will in turn send out a letter to the customer making them aware that someone using their IP address has downloaded a copyrighted movie or tv show (they will list exactly what the file was and what time/date the file was downloaded). The letter is meant as a warning to stop downloading copywrited material. If they receive another notification from the MPAA regarding another file of copyrighted material you downloaded, you can have your service terminated.

    I don't know where I am wrong here? I don't even remember broaching this topic. Still you speak like someone who has never seen one of these letters. The letters are very specific in that someone using that IP address is sharing/uploading/distributing a copyrighted work. They usually state the titles of the selected works and the dates and times at which they were made available. The RIAA does the same thing and has actually stated that they are transferring to more of a warning system like this than actually suing their customers for outrageous amounts of money.

    Most consumers get scared from the first letter and stop using public domains for torrents (they'll either look into private domains, Usenet, or they will stop entirely). Please stop saying that people don't get in trouble for downloading copyrighted materials in the States. Some do.

    Yes, this is the point. The pirates get scared and stop. Most people don't know the differance between downloading and uploading (and again, with torrents, both are happening at the same time) so they give up. Still, they have not gotten in trouble for *downloading*, only for copyright infringement that occurs in the unauthorized distribution of a work.

    Apple wants nothing to do with Blu-ray because it's a direct competitor to their iTunes movie and rental store. Period. Nothing more.

    And this is why it is scary that apple is shoehorning themselves in the middle and blocking out the ability to even go blu-ray. If Microsoft did this (and took a 30% cut) everybody would be at their throats with antitrust concerns.


    I am not advocating wholesale piracy but I'd prefer the facts to be correct as to where the crime is actually occurring. I am amazed at the length people are willing to go to make long posts based entirely on their own personal anecdotes and unresearched incorrect conclusions. IP law gets complicated but this is some pretty basic shit that is pretty well defined with a ton of pretty accessible summaries online.
     
  10. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    This is probably going to be my farewell to this thread...some total [​IMG] going on here



    I am not advocating wholesale piracy but I'd prefer the facts to be correct as to where the crime is actually occurring. I am amazed at the length people are willing to go to make long posts based entirely on their own personal anecdotes and unresearched incorrect conclusions. IP law gets complicated but this is some pretty basic shit that is pretty well defined with a ton of pretty accessible summaries online.


    Everything that I've written is correct. I don't know why you are trying to play it off like facts I'm making up.

    I never said anything about "downloading" with respects to the RIAA suits. I said people were brought to court and lost and forced to pay huge fines. There is no disputing that. Most people who download music are also uploading it at the same time (often times they don't even realize it). Every person that I've seen on TV that was nabbed by the RIAA and lost in court seems to fit that description.

    I brought up the torrents issue because you said in a previous post that people downloading torrents cannot get in trouble. That. Is. Not. True. It doesn't matter if you were uploading or downloading the torrent, you get nabbed regardless for either infraction (because you can't shut off uploading with most, if not all, torrent applications). Which means of course that you can get these letters from ISPs for simply downloading. What don't you understand?

    My point is you can get in trouble for downloading torrents. Getting a letter is a slap on the wrist, a warning, but it can lead to serious measures if you continue your torrent behavior. You keep writing how you can't get in trouble for downloading torrents in the States and that's simply wrong.

    This is your quote: "Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US."

    That's exactly what torrents are with copyrighted material. You couldn't be more wrong.
     
  11. otc

    otc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,201
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Since I am no longer contributing to this thread and cannot find a good "Reading Comprehension Fail" gif...here is a video of a water-skiing squirrel:
    IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

    TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

    Sorry I don't have it on blu-ray
     
  12. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Since I am no longer contributing to this thread and cannot find a good "Reading Comprehension Fail" gif...here is a video of a water-skiing squirrel:
    IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

    TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

    Sorry I don't have it on blu-ray


    Yeah man, you really won this argument. Total burn on me.
     
  13. intent

    intent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,391
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, ME
    Since I am no longer contributing to this thread and cannot find a good "Reading Comprehension Fail" gif...here is a video of a water-skiing squirrel: [blah]
    You, sir, are wrong. You wrote that:
    In which case you are trying to backtrack and argue a technicality that downloading isn't "sharing". Anybody who has ever used BitTorrent will tell you that you MUST share/upload in order to download. Sure, there are hacked clients, but they get banned quickly. Your argument amounts to "In stealing, you don't get nabbed for having the items in your possession. You get nabbed for the act of stealing itself".
    http://www.eff.org/wp/how-not-get-sued-file-sharing
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_i...nt#cite_ref-23 Let's make this simple for you to read: When you connect to a tracker, your IP address is visible. If you think you're safe on a private tracker, you are not, because others can sign up too. Law firms then find you by collecting these IP addresses and tracing them to ISPs, who in turn reveal your information after being subpoenaed with the information. You then get sued or threatened with a lawsuit. If you want to continue to insist otherwise, I want to hear you say this on the record: "My name is otc and I believe that downloading copyrighted content, without uploading in return, is not an illegal act in the United States".
     
  14. otc

    otc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,201
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Ok, I will respond to this thread one more before I let it die, but only because intent is a regular poster who actually did some research and isn't just talking out his ass.

    I still think we have lost focus of what we are discussing here.
    In my first contribution to this topic I said this:
    You won't get nabbed for downloading...only uploading (although bittorrent does both).
    (incidentally this is about where I think blairh decided to stop reading my posts...because he keeps trying to tell me that a torrent does both)

    I am well aware that bittorrent requires you to upload while you download and I stated from the beginning. Blairh chose not to read what I am actually talking about and just go at me with the crazy.

    The points that intent made are completely correct and are only refutations of an argument that blairh is somehow convinced that I was trying to make despite my first post clearly stating that use of bittorrent mandates uploading.

    There is no way (short of occasional flaws that get through like hacked clients) to download infringing material via bittorrent without opening yourself up to legal action--I am pretty sure we all agree on this so I don't know why it has turned into a game of "you're wrong"

    The point I have been trying to convey is that every suit brought against pirates has been for uploading. I have not seen a single suit that was based upon the pure downloading (like say, from usenet where nothing is uploaded or even from a website that posted it illegally or even *watching* an unauthorized youtube video).

    Again, IANAL but if you look at the relevant code, you will see that (3) very explicitly makes distribution illegal. (1) may be twisted into making downloading illegal but it would be a nasty court case (it depends on all sorts of definitions of copying and intricacies of how computers work) and would make it subject to all sorts of goofy exceptions and fair use. I can say that I, otc, believe that there are cases in which downloading copyrighted material, without uploading, is not an illegal act in the US. I won't make the general statement as I am not sure it is true and reasonably sure that it will not remain true if it is. Even the EFF won't make this claim at intent's link--but they are pretty clear about no-upload = no lawsuit.

    I will say that I believe that downloading copyrighted material without uploading will not get you in trouble in the US. If that were the case, simply watching half of the youtube videos out there would open you up to lawsuits.
     
  15. intent

    intent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,391
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, ME
    While I still believe that downloading a file onto your computer (as opposed to streaming, which is probably just as illegal) can open you up to legal action, otc, I respect your efforts and I'll leave it at that. Also, I will say that most of my posts in this thread were meant to clear up common misconceptions about American and Canadian law. EDIT: [​IMG] Bonus reading:
    Source: U.S. Copyright Office (emphasis added).
    Source: A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) (emphasis added) (yes, otc, possible negative treatment with this case).
     
  16. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Ok, I will respond to this thread one more before I let it die, but only because intent is a regular poster who actually did some research and isn't just talking out his ass.

    I still think we have lost focus of what we are discussing here.
    In my first contribution to this topic I said this:
    (incidentally this is about where I think blairh decided to stop reading my posts...because he keeps trying to tell me that a torrent does both)

    I am well aware that bittorrent requires you to upload while you download and I stated from the beginning. Blairh chose not to read what I am actually talking about and just go at me with the crazy.

    The points that intent made are completely correct and are only refutations of an argument that blairh is somehow convinced that I was trying to make despite my first post clearly stating that use of bittorrent mandates uploading.

    There is no way (short of occasional flaws that get through like hacked clients) to download infringing material via bittorrent without opening yourself up to legal action--I am pretty sure we all agree on this so I don't know why it has turned into a game of "you're wrong"

    The point I have been trying to convey is that every suit brought against pirates has been for uploading. I have not seen a single suit that was based upon the pure downloading (like say, from usenet where nothing is uploaded or even from a website that posted it illegally or even *watching* an unauthorized youtube video).

    Again, IANAL but if you look at the relevant code, you will see that (3) very explicitly makes distribution illegal. (1) may be twisted into making downloading illegal but it would be a nasty court case (it depends on all sorts of definitions of copying and intricacies of how computers work) and would make it subject to all sorts of goofy exceptions and fair use. I can say that I, otc, believe that there are cases in which downloading copyrighted material, without uploading, is not an illegal act in the US. I won't make the general statement as I am not sure it is true and reasonably sure that it will not remain true if it is. Even the EFF won't make this claim at intent's link--but they are pretty clear about no-upload = no lawsuit.

    I will say that I believe that downloading copyrighted material without uploading will not get you in trouble in the US. If that were the case, simply watching half of the youtube videos out there would open you up to lawsuits.


    I have read every single word you have written in this thread and I have not been "bringing the crazy". What upsets me and angers me most is that I take the time to reply with clearly explained points and you come back acting like I'm talking out of my ass. Again, I will say this one last time, nothing that I have written in this thread is wrong or made up. Please feel free to quote anything that I've written here as proof that it is. Instead you are just insulting me for no reason while ignoring my words to you.

    I'll say this one last time and I'm seriously done going back and forth. You. Wrote. This.

    "Consuming copyrighted material that is being distributed by someone who is not authorized to do so is not something you get in trouble for in the US."

    Yes it is. That is my only point. You come back saying "well lawsuits are all about who is uploading". That isn't my point. It never was from the first place. All I was saying many responses ago is that a person can indeed get in trouble from downloading torrents, despite what you have written. It's very simple.

    1. Person downloads copyrighted torrent.
    2. MPAA, through their sneaky ways, identifies your IP as the person who is uploading/downloading said file, notifies your ISP.
    3. ISP writes you a letter, essentially tells you to knock it off, you are in breach of contract, next warning can mean termination of service.

    So, if you continue to use public torrents, you can indeed get in trouble. That's all I'm saying. And that's my only point here.

    intent understands what I'm saying and has been backing me up. That's it. So yes, you can get nabbed for downloading. This isn't about public suits but rather the fact that yes, people have gotten in trouble for downloading. And by "trouble" I mean having their internet service terminated by an ISP. You cannot refute this fact. So please cut the bullshit.

    "I will say that I believe that downloading copyrighted material without uploading will not get you in trouble in the US."

    Have fun living in a fantasy world.
     
  17. MikeDT

    MikeDT Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,276
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    China, Mongolia and UK
    Such an interesting thread this has become. I think there might be some copyright and IP laws where I am, but no one seems to really care about them.
     
  18. stevent

    stevent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,554
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    To get back on topic, Apple does not give any support to Bluray which is disappointing since the new Macbook pro is an absolute beast. Best bet is to rip your blurays onto your computer use dvddecripter / vidomi or something like that. Honestly a typical 700mb avi rip off a DVD will be clear enough since the screen is so small.
     
  19. blairh

    blairh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    777
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    To get back on topic, Apple does not give any support to Bluray which is disappointing since the new Macbook pro is an absolute beast. Best bet is to rip your blurays onto your computer use dvddecripter / vidomi or something like that. Honestly a typical 700mb avi rip off a DVD will be clear enough since the screen is so small.

    Yes, let's get back on topic.

    I've watched Blu-ray's and DVDs on a laptop screen. While I do appreciate the HD quality, I agree that a concession to DVD quality on a such a small screen is not a huge deal. OP, you need to decide if playing a Blu-ray on your laptop is worth going through the work of ripping and potentially encoding. Personally I don't think it is. A much easier solution is to just download the torrent via a DVD rip and add it to your laptop before your travels.
     
  20. stevent

    stevent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,554
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    I am a little confused by apple refusing to embrace the blu-ray. It doesn't make sense like their abandonment of legacy ports for USB...They are not trying to push forward a new standard--they are just trying to push you to a platform where they can take a 30% cut from every sale. This doesn't seem like a long-term view...maybe they are trying to rake in the cash until Jobs has to leave.

    Note: I see that you could argue that leaving the optical disk behind for the cloud is akin to dropping depreciated tech for a new standard...but unless you want to blow a lot of money on 4G dongles and service and only live in densely populated areas, having cloud movies (like the streaming-only apple TV) is a terrible replacement for a reliable optical disk. Sure there are workarounds but unlike prevalent USB peripherals, high speed access or substitutes (like buying a movie in an airport and transferring it to your computer over USB) are not ubiquitous. Good luck accessing your cloud version of the HD movie on an airplane.


    Wifi is on planes these days so access would not be a problem. Second of all I would say Apple does not have blu-ray for a few reasons. [the laptop I'm basing this off of is the Macbook pro]

    1. iTunes movies. Adding Blu-ray would discourage sales of Apple's "HD" movies. And the screen on the MacBook pro is not even full HD quality (17 inch is pretty much).
    2. The optical drive will probably get dropped within a few years and Apple does not tout the laptop as an entertainment laptop.
    3. People have not really adopted blu-ray. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread the quality difference on such a small screen is negligible. And not to mention on planes the lighting is not the most optimal for movies anyways. Even on long-haul flights when the lights are out, someone will turn their reading light on.
    4. No USB 3.0 is a bigger issue than Blu-ray
    5. When was the last time you popped a disc in your laptop. It's been about 3 years for me.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by