Could you ever imagine buying a house that doesn't allow you to perform certain activities inside its walls, because the architects and engineers who built it disapprove, and they're fully in control of it?
Neither would I. It wouldn't be true ownership. Yet that's exactly what's happening here. The OP bought a Mac, but he can't perform certain activities, because the company that built it disapproves, and they control his machine.
"Your" Mac does what you want, but only if Apple and its partners are OK with it. Is it really "yours?"
To keep in tune with your analogy, it's not so much the architect / engineers that are building the house that are wanting to prevent you from doing things, it's the outside influences.
Similar to how local government in the United States can dictate guidelines on how your house should look externally etc, building code on how it should be constructed etc.
Basically it's the MPAA that are really creating these restrictions, not Apple.
> it's not so much the architect / engineers that are building the house that are wanting to prevent you from doing things, it's the outside influences.
I wonder what "outside influence" runs the iTunes store?
IMO parent is right, the situation looks like real estate developer with interest in selling as many apartments as possible selling you a "smart" apartment which counts people inside and doesn't allow more than one family to live there.
If you're talking about the App store then no one. If it's the approval process that you're worried about then that's an issue with their philosophy
If we're talking about the rest of the store where they sell books and movies and music you better believe that there is outside influence dictating how they can sell products.
I'd also be curious to know if anyone complaining about this has actually seen the OS and screenshot and dvd player source code. There could be technical limitations that we are not aware of. Chances are that there are none, and if that's the case then you only have the movie studios to blame, not apple.
> If we're talking about the rest of the store where they sell books and movies and music you better believe that there is outside influence dictating how they can sell products.
Yes, obviously I'm talking about this. And the issue is not about how they sell these products, but what they want customers to do with other media. I don't think any studio would deny them permission to sell their stuff just because it's possible to screenshot DVD movies purchased in the meat world.
And face it, by running this store Apple has as much interest as Hollywood in indoctrinating people that "The Content shall never be copied".
The problem is the DMCA, not Apple. At worst, Apple is being overly restrictive here just to cover their asses -- which is bad, admittedly, but it's the law that needs to change.
> and they control his machine.
But they don't. This is why we can all install VLC :) or even an alternative OS if we choose.
That's overblowing it a little bit. Has anyone tried doing the same thing with third party DVD playback software? I haven't but I think chances are good that it'll work.
This sort of thing is just par for the course and I see no reason to be upset over it (not saying you are, just generally). You've got a for-profit company with close partnerships and deals with various media companies plus their own iTunes store. Of course this is going to happen. But is it a big deal? It's sure a pain in the ass if you really need a screenshot of the DVD you're watching but if you really need it you'll find a way around it.
It's a deal breaker for me. My present computer doesn't have a DVD drive, but even if it did, I wouldn't buy or use a DVD unless I'm in control. I would rather download from BitTorrent -- not only is it free as in beer it is also free as in freedom, which is more important.
Computers are already ubiquitous and this will only get more true. If they do what governments and corporations want instead of what their users want, then they will become a massive tool for oppression, an oppression more fine-grained than anything Hitler or Stalin dreamed of.
Treacherous computing is an evil, and all good people should have nothing to do with it.
Imagine a world where a little eye stares balefully at you from above your TV. If it sees what it thinks is a recording device, say a phone or a video camera pointed at the TV, it turns the screen off until you lower your device.
Kinect the dots. Say goodbye to your living rooms sovereignty.
I chuckled, then I realized it was probably not too far off, as MS already is collaborating with NYC and using object recognition on its network of 6000 street cams.
There are plenty of activities that you are not allowed to perform inside your house. In short, anything that's not legal.
I wonder if this "feature" is smart enough to only blank out the player if a licensed movie is being shown (i.e. would it allow the screenshot if you were playing your own home video DVD? Or a ripped copy of a movie with the DRM removed?
A couple of days ago I saw some posters criticizing Stallman and calling him "crazy". I hope those same posters see your writing, because I'm pretty sure problems like these are exactly what Stallman has been predicting (and fighting) for quite some time now.
They are there to keep people from maiming and death due to exceeding the design envelop. Despite the rhetoric of media interests, bootleg clips of Saturday Nigh Live or The Little Mermaid are not a threat to anyone's health.
> Neither would I. It wouldn't be true ownership. Yet that's exactly what's happening here. The OP bought a Mac, but he can't perform certain activities, because the company that built it disapproves, and they control his machine.
You buy the machine, yes, but iirc, you enter a license agreement for the OS; as in, you do not buy the OS, but you buy a license to use it. There's a technical difference there.
Second, as the owner of the machine, you are allowed to install a non-Mac OS on there that does allow you to take screenshots of movies, or install non-Mac-supplied video software that does not have this protection installed.
You can use a variety of other software products on Mac OS to accomplish this. A better analogy would be that the architect leaves you a free table that doesn't suit your needs, so you complain about the way it was built.
Comments
Could you ever imagine buying a house that doesn't allow you to perform certain activities inside its walls, because the architects and engineers who built it disapprove, and they're fully in control of it?
Neither would I. It wouldn't be true ownership. Yet that's exactly what's happening here. The OP bought a Mac, but he can't perform certain activities, because the company that built it disapproves, and they control his machine.
"Your" Mac does what you want, but only if Apple and its partners are OK with it. Is it really "yours?"
To keep in tune with your analogy, it's not so much the architect / engineers that are building the house that are wanting to prevent you from doing things, it's the outside influences.
Similar to how local government in the United States can dictate guidelines on how your house should look externally etc, building code on how it should be constructed etc.
Basically it's the MPAA that are really creating these restrictions, not Apple.
> it's not so much the architect / engineers that are building the house that are wanting to prevent you from doing things, it's the outside influences.
I wonder what "outside influence" runs the iTunes store?
IMO parent is right, the situation looks like real estate developer with interest in selling as many apartments as possible selling you a "smart" apartment which counts people inside and doesn't allow more than one family to live there.
If you're talking about the App store then no one. If it's the approval process that you're worried about then that's an issue with their philosophy
If we're talking about the rest of the store where they sell books and movies and music you better believe that there is outside influence dictating how they can sell products.
I'd also be curious to know if anyone complaining about this has actually seen the OS and screenshot and dvd player source code. There could be technical limitations that we are not aware of. Chances are that there are none, and if that's the case then you only have the movie studios to blame, not apple.
> If we're talking about the rest of the store where they sell books and movies and music you better believe that there is outside influence dictating how they can sell products.
Yes, obviously I'm talking about this. And the issue is not about how they sell these products, but what they want customers to do with other media. I don't think any studio would deny them permission to sell their stuff just because it's possible to screenshot DVD movies purchased in the meat world.
And face it, by running this store Apple has as much interest as Hollywood in indoctrinating people that "The Content shall never be copied".
> because the company that built it disapproves
Or because the company that built it has to adhere to the rules dictated to it by whatever the DVD-playback licensing authority is.
e.g. see this article on why DVD playback in many Linux distros is illegal http://www.itworld.com/open-source/105736/legalizing-linux-d...
The problem is the DMCA, not Apple. At worst, Apple is being overly restrictive here just to cover their asses -- which is bad, admittedly, but it's the law that needs to change.
> and they control his machine.
But they don't. This is why we can all install VLC :) or even an alternative OS if we choose.
Apple is not an innocent victim here. They could fight the DMCA on a number of levels.
Instead they implement their own DRM (e.g. for iTunes) and invent whole new kinds of locked-down platforms. (App store)
They talk about smashing big brother but they sell telescreens.
That's overblowing it a little bit. Has anyone tried doing the same thing with third party DVD playback software? I haven't but I think chances are good that it'll work.
This sort of thing is just par for the course and I see no reason to be upset over it (not saying you are, just generally). You've got a for-profit company with close partnerships and deals with various media companies plus their own iTunes store. Of course this is going to happen. But is it a big deal? It's sure a pain in the ass if you really need a screenshot of the DVD you're watching but if you really need it you'll find a way around it.
> But is it a big deal?
It's a deal breaker for me. My present computer doesn't have a DVD drive, but even if it did, I wouldn't buy or use a DVD unless I'm in control. I would rather download from BitTorrent -- not only is it free as in beer it is also free as in freedom, which is more important.
Computers are already ubiquitous and this will only get more true. If they do what governments and corporations want instead of what their users want, then they will become a massive tool for oppression, an oppression more fine-grained than anything Hitler or Stalin dreamed of.
Treacherous computing is an evil, and all good people should have nothing to do with it.
I've seen giant black boxes show up over movies with third party DVD software before, yes.
Yes it works fine in VLC.
Imagine a world where a little eye stares balefully at you from above your TV. If it sees what it thinks is a recording device, say a phone or a video camera pointed at the TV, it turns the screen off until you lower your device.
Kinect the dots. Say goodbye to your living rooms sovereignty.
I see what you did there!
I chuckled, then I realized it was probably not too far off, as MS already is collaborating with NYC and using object recognition on its network of 6000 street cams.
Actually, that technology (camera detectors) are used today in cinemas, especially during premieres and early screenings.
There are plenty of activities that you are not allowed to perform inside your house. In short, anything that's not legal.
I wonder if this "feature" is smart enough to only blank out the player if a licensed movie is being shown (i.e. would it allow the screenshot if you were playing your own home video DVD? Or a ripped copy of a movie with the DRM removed?
So this is like your house blowing out the flame before you can toke up, it's complete non-sense!
But is taking a screenshot of a film illegal?
I sincerely hope it isn't.
A couple of days ago I saw some posters criticizing Stallman and calling him "crazy". I hope those same posters see your writing, because I'm pretty sure problems like these are exactly what Stallman has been predicting (and fighting) for quite some time now.
Cars and mopeds have speed limiters. When I was a kid there was a little industry around removing the 30 km/h governer on mopeds.
They are there to keep people from maiming and death due to exceeding the design envelop. Despite the rhetoric of media interests, bootleg clips of Saturday Nigh Live or The Little Mermaid are not a threat to anyone's health.
> Neither would I. It wouldn't be true ownership. Yet that's exactly what's happening here. The OP bought a Mac, but he can't perform certain activities, because the company that built it disapproves, and they control his machine.
You buy the machine, yes, but iirc, you enter a license agreement for the OS; as in, you do not buy the OS, but you buy a license to use it. There's a technical difference there.
Second, as the owner of the machine, you are allowed to install a non-Mac OS on there that does allow you to take screenshots of movies, or install non-Mac-supplied video software that does not have this protection installed.
You can use a variety of other software products on Mac OS to accomplish this. A better analogy would be that the architect leaves you a free table that doesn't suit your needs, so you complain about the way it was built.
Sounds like a homeowners association to me.