Apple & Blu-Ray

[otc]

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

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by otc

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.

 

[intent]

Originally Posted by otc

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:

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.

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".

If you use software such as BitTorrent and eDonkey (as well as related clients like Azureus and eMule, respectively), you will automatically be uploading whatever you are currently downloading. In eDonkey, these files may appear in search results and thus become visible to the MPAA and RIAA. In BitTorrent, you must connect to a BitTorrent "tracker" to download a file, and your Internet address is visible to anyone else -- including the MPAA or RIAA -- connected to that tracker. In these instances, you may be at greater risk.

http://www.eff.org/wp/how-not-get-sued-file-sharing

Beginning in early 2010, the US Copyright Group, acting on behalf of several independent movie makers, has obtained the IP addresses of BitTorrent users allegedly downloading specific movies. The group then sued these users, in order to obtain subpoenas forcing ISPs to reveal the users' true identities. The group then sent out settlement offers in the $1,000-$3,000 range. About 16,200 lawsuits were filed between March and September 2010.

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".

 

[otc]

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:

Originally Posted by otc

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.

 

[intent]

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:

Bonus reading:

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.

Source: U.S. Copyright Office (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106. [. . . ] Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs' distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs' reproduction rights.

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).

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by otc

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 ******. 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.

 

[MikeDT]

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.

 

[stevent]

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.

 

[blairh]

Originally Posted by stevent

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.

 

[stevent]

Originally Posted by otc

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.

 

[CrackBaby]

do you have a blu-ray drive in your mac lol... only a mac user would even think this could work without one.

 

[MikeDT]

Originally Posted by stevent

Wifi is on planes these days so access would not be a problem.
Where, USA? Even if there is internet access on a plane, I doubt there would be enough bandwidth to stream an HD movie, or an SD movie for that matter. As I understand things, current internet on flights technology either uses cell networks or satellite. Maybe one would be able update their Facebook status, send a few tweets or browse CNN. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...ifi_speed.html "Aircell will upgrade its cellular infrastructure from Revision A to Revision B of EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized), the 3G data technology for CDMA (Code-Division Multiple Access) networks. In Aircell's implementation, Revision B can increase EVDO's downstream speed from about 3.1M bps (bits per second) to 9.8M bps, according to Anand Chari, vice president of engineering. For airlines that want even more capacity, Aircell will also install satellite equipment on planes to link up with Ka-band satellites. The Ka-band system will be available in the continental U.S. in 2013 and around the world in 2015, according to Aircell." 3.1 or 9.8Mbps, is not going to go very far with a 747 or 380 full of people all using laptops.

 

[intent]

Originally Posted by stevent

2. The optical drive will probably get dropped within a few years and Apple does not tout the laptop as an entertainment laptop.
Yes they do: "MacBook features the new NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics processor. With a performance boost of up to 80 percent over the previous generation, it provides outstanding speed and power for things like browsing photos and watching movies. Source

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.

But what about users who have switched to Blu-ray at home? There are many of us who watch Blu-ray at home, especially now that they are available for rental at Redboxes or on sale for around $10. They are also more durable so I prefer to get them over DVD. We can't take our movies on the road with us? Can't use the laptop as a portable Blu-ray player to hook up to a friend's TV?

5. When was the last time you popped a disc in your laptop. It's been about 3 years for me.

I do it all the time for DVDs so my passengers in the car on long road trips can get entertained, or maybe to watch videos on the road since hotel rooms don't come with DVD players and I'm too cheap to pay $14 for a PPV movie.