TidBITS#822/27-Mar-06
=====================
Your Honor, I object! We certainly didn't intend this issue
of TidBITS to focus on legal battles. It wasn't our idea for
the French to propose a law that would require Apple to allow
any music player to play music from the iTunes Music Store.
Plus, we simply couldn't have predicted that the Apple Computer
v. Apple Corps lawsuit would be scheduled for the same week
that the Creative Commons license was upheld in Dutch court.
And for the record, Your Honor, we also have a new DealBITS
drawing, a great MacNotables podcast on email clients, and
a slew of TidBITS Talk discussions. The defense rests.
Topics:
MailBITS/27-Mar-06
DealBITS Drawing: BeLight Software's Disc Cover
Creative Commons License Upheld in Dutch Court
Apple, iTunes and France: The Reality
Carry That Weight: Apple Versus Apple
Hot Topics in TidBITS Talk/27-Mar-06
<http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-822.html>
<ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/issues/2006/TidBITS#822_27-Mar-06.etx>
Copyright 2006 TidBITS: Reuse governed by Creative Commons license
<http://www.tidbits.com/terms/> Contact: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------
This issue of TidBITS sponsored in part by:
* READERS LIKE YOU! Support TidBITS with a contribution today! <----- NEW!
<http://www.tidbits.com/about/support/contributors.html>
Special thanks this week to Harro de Jong, Masahiro Kudo,
Christian Kaatmann, and Duane Williams for their kind support!
* Make friends and influence people by sponsoring TidBITS! <--------- NEW!
Put your company and products in front of tens of thousands of
savvy, committed Macintosh users who actually buy stuff.
For more information and rates, email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
* SMALL DOG ELECTRONICS: 2 More Bundles Added! <--------------------- NEW!
15-inch PowerBook G4 with maximum 2 GB RAM - $1739
Power Mac G5/2.3 GHz with 2 GB RAM - $2299
Visit: <http://www.smalldog.com/> 800-511-MACS
* FETCH SOFTWORKS: Fetch 5 makes FTP and SFTP easy! <---------------- NEW!
Upload, download, mirror, and manage your Web site. Dozens of
new features to make file transfers easier and more reliable.
Get your free trial version at <http://fetchsoftworks.com/>!
* Web Crossing, Inc: Web Crossing offers integrated collaboration
tools with a broad spectrum of functionality, but did you know
adding discussions, blogs, podcasts, chat, polls, and calendars
is point-click easy? Try a demo! <http://www.webcrossing.com/>
* StuffIt Deluxe 10 from Allume Systems supports Automator,
compresses JPEGs up to 30%, enables Spotlight to search in
archives, can make self-extracting archives, and more!
Upgrade for only $29.99! <http://www.stuffit.com/mac/deluxe/>
* Yojimbo 1.0 from Bare Bones Software: Your effortless, reliable <-- NEW!
information organizer for Mac OS X. It will change your life,
without changing the way you work. Download the demo or buy it
today! <http://www.barebones.com/products/yojimbo/>
* AUDIO HIJACK PRO: Gain total audio control to record <------------- NEW!
and enhance any audio. Save Internet streams, import
vinyl & much more. MacUser's 2004 Utility of the Year!
Download it now: <http://www.rogueamoeba.com/ad/tb/>
* Circus Ponies NoteBook: Never lose anything again. NoteBook <------ NEW!
keeps your digital life organized. Take notes, clip content,
share information. Find anything instantly with automatic
index pages. Free 30-day demo! <http://www.circusponies.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------
MailBITS/27-Mar-06
------------------
**MacNotables Podcast on Email Clients** -- Few types of software
engender the same level of loyalty as email clients. It makes
some sense; an email program is the communications lifeline
to the world for many of us, instant messaging notwithstanding,
and we all end up with a lot of data - messages, addresses,
carefully constructed folder hierarchies - in our email programs
that would be difficult to transfer to another client. But at
the same time, the grass always seems greener on the other side
of the fence. Entourage just picked up Spotlight and Sync Services
support that was previously enjoyed only by Mail users; Mailsmith
has killer filtering capabilities; and Eudora offers a level of
serious geekiness that many people swear by. If you're considering
a switch to a new email program or just want some confirmation
that your current program is the right one for your needs, tune
in to the latest MacNotables podcast. In it, I, Andy Ihnatko,
Dan Frakes, and Chuck Joiner discuss what we like and don't like
about our current email programs and others we've used, including
Eudora, Mail, Entourage, PowerMail, Mailsmith, Gmail, and yes,
even Elm. This was definitely one of my favorite episodes of
MacNotables, so if you're at all interested in the world of
email on the Mac, give it a listen.
<http://macnotables.com/archives/2006/629.html>
DealBITS Drawing: BeLight Software's Disc Cover
-----------------------------------------------
by Adam C. Engst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Ukrainian Mac development firm BeLight Software continues
to extend their flock of special purpose publishing programs,
adding the CD/DVD labeling software Disc Cover to the collection
of Business Card Composer, Mail Factory, and Swift Publisher.
Like BeLight's other programs, Disc Cover offers a clean interface
for arranging text and graphics, this time within the limitations
of CD/DVD disc labels (along with jewel case covers, booklets,
and even odd items like mini CDs/DVDs, business card CDs/DVDs,
and VHS labels). It shows alignment lines as you move objects
around, integrates the image editing features from BeLight's free
Image Tricks, and offers a slew of backgrounds and other images
you can use. There's also full integration with iTunes and iPhoto,
plus the capability to pull in MP3 information and pictures from
folders in the Finder. And if you're not feeling creative, Disc
Cover offers a bunch of pre-designed templates you can customize.
<http://www.belightsoft.com/disccover/>
In this week's DealBITS drawing, you can enter to win one of
three copies of Disc Cover, each worth $34.95. Entrants who
aren't among our lucky winners will receive a discount on Disc
Cover, so be sure to enter at the DealBITS page linked below.
All information gathered is covered by our comprehensive privacy
policy. Be careful with your spam filters, since you must be
able to receive email from my address to learn if you've won.
Remember too, that if someone you refer to this drawing wins,
you'll receive the same prize as a reward for spreading the word.
<http://www.tidbits.com/dealbits/disc-cover/>
<http://www.tidbits.com/about/privacy.html>
Creative Commons License Upheld in Dutch Court
----------------------------------------------
by Adam C. Engst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Now this is interesting. The non-profit organization Creative
Commons offers a set of copyright licenses that enable content
creators to grant additional rights beyond those normally provided
by copyright law - we publish TidBITS under a Creative Commons
license (see "Seven Hundred Issues, a CMS, and Creative Commons"
in TidBITS-700_). But like all open source licenses, as far as
I know, none of the Creative Commons licenses had been tested
in court, and without that trial by fire, no one really knew if
the licenses would hold up to any future suit. Years ago, when
I was researching open source licenses to see what could be used
for XNS, the general consensus I heard was that open source
licenses likely wouldn't withstand a serious (and well-funded)
legal challenge, but none had ever been so tested, largely because
trying to break an open source license legally would be horrible
PR for any company.
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07385>
Now, however, a Creative Commons license has been upheld in court.
Former MTV VJ and podcaster Adam Curry had posted photos of his
family on the photo-sharing site Flickr, assigning them an
Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike Creative Commons license
in the process. Apparently, a Dutch tabloid published those photos
without getting Curry's permission, thus violating the terms of
the Creative Commons license. Curry sued for copyright and privacy
infringement, and the District Court of Amsterdam agreed with him,
stating clearly that the conditions of the license were not
properly observed. The magazine's publisher claimed it was misled
by the phrase "This photo is public" (a standard bit of Flickr
boilerplate, as I understand it) and therefore failed to check
into why the photos were also labeled with the Creative Commons
"Some rights reserved" tagline.
<http://curry.podshow.com/?p=49>
<http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823>
<http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/5822>
The utility of this decision in my mind is that it affirms that
the Creative Commons licenses don't suffer from some sort of legal
loophole that would enable a lawyered-up company to infringe upon
them with impunity.
After I posted the above in ExtraBITS, Contributing Editor
Glenn Fleishman and I had a bit of a discussion about whether
the decision was really that positive. Glenn was concerned that
the Dutch court essentially slapped the wrist of the magazine
publisher: throwing out the privacy infringement claim (apparently
the magazine also published the name and school of Curry's 15-
year-old daughter, along with her means of transport to school),
not setting a fine, and threatening a fine of 1,000 Euros (about
$1,200) per photo for any future violation. To Glenn, the lack
of any damages undermined the fact that the Creative Commons
license had been upheld.
Rather than pretend to be a lawyer in the argument, I turned to a
real one - our friend Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF). In essence, Fred told us that the remedies were
an entirely separate issue, since the remedies are defined by
national law, and that you couldn't really draw any conclusions
about the strength of the license by the damages awarded. Fred
also noted that although the judgment upholding the validity
of the Creative Commons license is good news, it's mostly
important in the Netherlands, since the idea behind Creative
Commons licenses - that copyright owners should be able to opt
for less than full protection of their work - remains legally
untested in many parts of the world.
Apple, iTunes and France: The Reality
-------------------------------------
by Kirk McElhearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You may have read that the French are at it again: harassing
Apple, and requiring them to open the FairPlay digital rights
management (DRM) system used to protect music files sold by the
iTunes Music Store. Well, like much reporting these days, this
is both correct and incorrect. As an American living in France,
I've been following this situation closely, and it's time to set
the record straight and look exactly at what this new law will
require, if it is indeed passed.
<http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/21/france/>
First, the law has not yet been passed. It has only gone through
the first of several steps, that of a "first reading" of the law
by the lower house, the Assemble Nationale (roughly equivalent to
the House of Representatives in the U.S.). The bill then goes to
the Senat, then back to the Assemble and the Senat again for final
votes. These first two votes are more about getting the substance
in order, and amendments can be added at any point in this
process. Even after the law is passed, it goes to the Conseil
Constitutionnel which has to approve it and refine the wording
and penalties it contains. So, after this brief course in French
parliamentary procedure, you can see that, so far, nothing has
been decided.
The situation has been even more confusing because, in a textbook
example of clueless legislative procedure, the bill that was
introduced has seen amendments added, removed, and added again,
creating quite a bit of confusion both within France and without.
(Add to that the fact that many media have published articles
based on faulty translations, and you've got a nice legal and
linguistic stew to try and understand.) At one point in the
process, newspapers were trumpeting the "global license" that
was in the bill: a sort of indulgence that, for a modest monthly
fee, would protect users from prosecution from downloading music
illegally. While this idea may, in principle, be a good one,
it would only have allowed those who paid the fee to download
what is currently available illegally; it would not provide a
true global license to download all music available, since record
companies would not suddenly make their entire catalogs freely
available on-line.
But what is getting the most attention in recent days is the
clause in the law that would require Apple to open up its FairPlay
DRM system so users could purchase music from the iTunes Music
Store and play it on any music player. This clause states that DRM
used "...must not prevent... interoperability, while respecting
copyright." In other words, Apple - along with Microsoft, Sony,
Real Networks and any other companies using DRM - would have to
provide the necessary APIs to others to allow their music to be
used. It is not clear how this would be implemented, however:
would this require that DRM be stripped, or simply that all music
players would have to be able to manage all forms of DRM-protected
music? Most likely the latter; otherwise the record labels,
who saw in this bill a new lease on life, would complain.
Another important point is that DRM is currently illegal in
France... well, sort of. The courts have sided with individuals
in every case where DRM prevented them from using their music as
they want, and "copy controlled" CDs have been, several times,
declared illegal in France. These decisions have been appealed,
but part of the legal basis for this right to private copies lies
in the fact that every blank CD and DVD, along with every hard
drive, iPod, flash memory device, or other data storage device
includes a tax, which is divided among record labels and movie
studios. Because of this, blank CDs, to give just one example,
cost about four times as much in France as in neighboring England.
This tax is levied because of the assumption that every blank
CD or DVD, every iPod or hard disk - regardless of what you
use them for - is filled to the brim with "stolen" copyrighted
content. Yet nothing in this new copyright bill removes this tax,
which brings a fair chunk of change to musicians, producers and
songwriters each year.
As I pointed out earlier, this bill has not yet been passed.
But Apple has commented on it, saying that it would inspire a
"state-sponsored culture of piracy," because cracking DRM would
not only be legal, but obligatory, at least among manufacturers.
(It is interesting to note that, in 2002, Steve Jobs said,
"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to
manage it on all other devices that you own," although he was
most likely referring to other devices such as a laptop, iPod,
and desktop computer.) Soon after, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos
Gutierrez threw his tentative support behind Apple's statement.
<http://www.physorg.com/news12082.html>
So journalists have been focusing on this aspect of the issue,
forgetting that Apple is not the only company being targeted.
It's also easy to forget that it is the record companies who
demand DRM, not Apple (though I doubt Apple would really want
to sell unfettered music) and the same record companies who will
suffer in the long run. Apple, if this bill passes, has an easy
way out: they just close the French iTunes Music Store. Anyway,
most iPod users have music ripped from CDs on their iPods, not
music they've purchased from the iTunes Music Store, and this
law won't change anything for them. It will just cripple digital
music sales.
<http://playlistmag.com/news/2006/03/22/francereact/>
Regardless of what happens - whether the bill passes as is,
whether it is accepted by the European Union - it raises a broader
issue. Will Sony have to let me use a PlayStation game on an Xbox?
How about DVDs - will the movie studios finally be forced to
allow users to copy them to laptops to watch while riding the TGV
(France's high-speed train), or simply to make copying to a video
iPod easier? While they're at it, what about DVD region codes?
Why can't I buy a DVD from the U.S. and play it here?
Let's go one step further. As long as we're on the subject, what
about razor blades? That was the first example of vendor lock-in,
which this law is hoping to eliminate. Can I get Schick to
translate my blades to work on a Gillette? And when I need new
parts for my Saab, can I require Renault to make theirs work
for me?
The real point of all this is that the French members of
parliament are clueless about technology in general and digital
technology in particular. They're opening up a huge can of worms
in suggesting that interoperability should be guaranteed. While
in principle interoperability is a good thing, in practice it
is an absolute principle. You cannot expect it to work in one
area without it applying in all areas. Why single out only music?
Are there Microsoft-funded lobbies at work behind the scenes,
twiddling the minds of French legislators? Microsoft would
certainly like this bill to go through, but do they really think
that other companies will sell more MP3 players? It's not about
the content, in this market; it's the design and ease-of-use.
And besides, would Microsoft really like being forced to make
all of their software work on the Mac to meet the letter of
such an interoperability law?
In any case, as one French member of parliament said, "it will
take at least a year" to iron out all these issues. By then,
France will be approaching new presidential elections, then
parliamentary elections, and it is more than likely that things
will be very different. Also, the European Union has its say,
as do the courts. So calm down, and don't expect Apple to be
tossed out of France any time soon.
[Kirk McElhearn is the author or co-author of a dozen books,
including "Take Control of Customizing Microsoft Office."
His blog, Kirkville, features articles about Mac OS X,
the iPod, iTunes, and much more.]
<http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/office-customizing.html>
<http://www.mcelhearn.com/>
Carry That Weight: Apple Versus Apple
-------------------------------------
by Geoff Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This week, Steve Jobs's Apple Computer and the Beatles' Apple
Corps are scheduled to go to trial in England, marking a new phase
in a trademark dispute which has clung to both companies for more
than a quarter century. The outcome could define the nature of
Apple Computer's now-burgeoning iPod and digital music businesses.
**Yesterday** -- The origins of Apple v. Apple are somewhat
shrouded in modern myth and contradiction, but here are the
basics.
In 1968 the Beatles formed a new business to handle their business
and financial affairs, as well as to serve as a tax shelter and
as a corporate base from which to launch their products and ideas.
Named Apple Corps (get it?), allegedly by Paul McCartney, the
company was originally to have five divisions (electronics, film,
publishing, records, and retail) and the company supposedly threw
open its doors - and its wallet - to anyone with "worthwhile"
artistic projects. As the Beatles grew apart and eventually
disbanded, Apple Corps degenerated and nearly collapsed in a
morass of legal and financial chaos. After several years, the
dust settled with the company mostly serving as the licensing
agent for the never-ending menagerie of Beatles products, and
with former Beatles road manager Neil Aspinall still in charge
to this day. Apple Corps has a reputation for keeping a very
tight hold on Beatles-related property and licensing.
Half a world away in Mountain View, California, Steve Jobs, Steve
Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne founded Apple Computer on April 1, 1976.
(Astute readers will note Apple's 30th anniversary is less than
a week away.) Many sources claim the name is a direct homage
to the Beatles' Apple Corps (and Steve Jobs is a long-avowed
Beatles fan). Apple's official line is that the company founders
were merely concerned with having a name which came before "Atari"
in the telephone book: Apple's founders had all previously worked
at Atari.
It might seem odd for two companies to have the same name, but
in legal terms, there's no fundamental problem with companies
using the same name or trademark so long as it doesn't confuse
consumers. In practice, this usually means they can't be in the
same business (or in related businesses) and/or operate in the
same markets.
One story goes that in 1978, George Harrison saw an advertisement
for Apple Computer and asked Neil Aspinall if Apple Corps should
be concerned. In any case, in 1978 Apple Corps filed a trademark
infringement suit against Apple Computer, which was settled in
1981 for an undisclosed amount (rumored to have been $80,000).
The companies also agreed they would share the "Apple" trademark,
with Apple Computer sticking to the computer business and Apple
Corps sticking to entertainment.
**You're Going to Lose That Girl** -- In 1987, computers started
infiltrating multimedia and music production, leading Apple
Computer to try renegotiating its agreement with Apple Corps.
However, nothing could be worked out, and in 1989 Apple Corps
again sued Apple Computer, this time for violating the earlier
1981 agreement by including sound playback and MIDI capabilities
in Macintosh computers. After a great deal of painful litigation,
Apple Computer and Apple Corps settled again in 1991, for a
reported $26.5 million.
This second round of litigation had some long-standing impacts
on Macintosh software. For instance, the suit kept Apple's MIDI
Manager from being an official component of System 7. Despite
the Mac's long-standing use in music performance and production,
lack of system-level capabilities made MIDI on a hazy thing
for years, with musicians frequently cursing Apple's unsupported
MIDI Manager, or third-party MIDI implementations like OpCode's
(temperamental and long-unsupported) OMS. And if you've ever
wondered about the sound "Sosumi" which shipped with System 7
(and is still in Mac OS X), well, it's _not_ the name of some
exotic Japanese xylophone. Say "sosumi" out loud and its
intentions become clear; the sound's original name was
"Let It Beep."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi>
**Can't Buy Me Love** -- In July 2003, Apple Corps opened fire on
Apple Computer again, this time alleging the iTunes Music Store
is in violation of the 1991 settlement agreement. On the surface,
it seems like an open and shut case: Apple Computer agreed to stay
out of the music business, and there's no denying the iPod is a
music device, and that the iTunes Music Store is in the business
of selling music. So why is this case going to trial?
One of the interesting developments of Apple Corps' current
lawsuit is that previously undisclosed details of the companies'
1991 settlement have become public. In 1991, Apple Corps
agreed to let Apple Computer use its own marks on items which
fell within Apple Corps field of use (e.g., entertainment),
so long as Apple Computer didn't sell "physical media delivering
pre-recorded content." An example in the agreement bars Apple
Computer from selling a CD of Rolling Stones songs.
<http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2468/apple-v-apple.htm>
As most people know, the iTunes Music Store doesn't sell physical
media: it sells digital tracks which customers download and play
on their computers, an iPod, or (with some determination) other
music devices. The main question before the U.K. court is whether,
in legal terms, those digital versions of recorded audio
constitute "physical media." Some analysts say Apple's iTunes
service falls safely within the bounds granted to Apple Computer
outlined in the 1991 agreement; others say Apple Corps will
walk away with a gargantuan ruling.
**Baby You're a Rich Man** -- It's safe to assume the companies
have attempted to settle this dispute out of court. Although
Apple Computer made a bid to move the case to a potentially
more-friendly venue in California (the rejection of which accounts
for key terms of the 1991 agreement now being available), plainly
the computer maker is comfortable with going to trial and stating
its case before a judge. Why is Apple willing to put its market-
dominating iTunes Music Store at risk, compared to the relative
safety of a negotiated settlement?
One reason is that the door isn't closed on a settlement: the two
Apples can work toward an out-of-court agreement up until the
moment the judge issues a ruling, and keep working on a settlement
while appeals processes are underway. Going to trial just means
that both sides will be airing their arguments and evidence in
public. Both companies have previously indicated they're willing
to let these disputes drag on for years, so, even going to trial,
a quick resolution seems unlikely.
Another reason is that, despite Apple Computer's newfound music
business essentially redefining the company, the computer maker
may not have much to lose in this case. In trademark disputes,
damages are typically limited to profits derived from violations.
Apple Corps' dispute with Apple Computer centers on the iTunes
Music Store, not the company's now-iconic iPod music players.
By most accounts, Apple Computer doesn't earn a tremendous amount
of money from its iTunes Music Store: rather, the bulk of its
music profits are driven by iPod sales, which Apple Corps is
not alleging infringe on its trademarks.
A few back-of-an-envelope calculations here: let's say Apple sells
songs on the iTunes service for $1 apiece. (Yes, $0.99 is the
typical per-price track in the U.S., but collections and albums
have a lower per-track price, while international versions of
the iTunes Music Store often have higher per-track prices, so $1
a track seems fair). Of that dollar, between 65 and 75 cents go
to the record label, and another 20 to 25 cents is consumed in
management and distribution costs (servers, bandwidth, encoding;
designing, running, and managing the store; customer support,
etc.). So each track nets Apple Computer a few cents, at best.
In round numbers, let's say iTunes has sold a billion tracks
(that milestone went by last month), so in about three years
of operation Apple Computer has earned perhaps $20 to $40 million
on music sales. Let's double that to allow for fuzziness and
video sales, which undoubtedly constitute "pre-recorded content."
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08434>
How much of $80 million can Apple Computer afford to lose to Apple
Corps? A lot. Apple's total assets at the end of 2005 totalled
more than $14 billion, with over $8.5 billion being in cash, cash
equivalents and short-term investments rather than buildings and
inventory. Apple Computer may not be very afraid of Apple Corps
right now.
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/18results.html>
**The Long and Winding Road** -- Speculation regarding this case
has been rampant, particularly when the lawsuit was first filed
back in 2003. Rumors had Apple Computer negotiating a record-
setting settlement with Apple Corps; others had Apple Computer
spinning the iTunes Music Store out into a separate business,
possibly selling Apple Corps a partial or even controlling stake.
And nearly everybody has been wondering whether Steve Jobs will
negotiate a deal to get Beatles recordings available for sale on
the iTunes Music Store. To date, no legal digital music services
carry any Beatles music.
I have no inside track on the case, but I don't expect it to be
resolved in the near future. If history is any guide, the longer
these things simmer, the more likely they are to become irrelevant
or veer off in unexpected directions. Apple and Apple have been
going at each other for nearly 25 years, with this flare-up
already nearly 3 years old. Anything could happen.
Personally, I don't expect Apple Corps is in any hurry to get
Beatles recordings into iTunes or other digital download services,
which may preclude a settlement which involves Apple Computer
getting access to the Beatles catalog. I'm sure Beatles tracks
are a frequently swapped commodity on illegal file-sharing
services, but time is on Apple Corps' side. The company waited
five years to release Beatles albums on CD, and has found
substantial success repackaging Beatles material (as the recent
Anthology and One releases demonstrate) and releasing alternate
versions (for instance, re-issuing the original American versions
of Beatles albums released on Capital records, and stripping out
Phil Spector's production on Let It Be). Scarcity only makes the
Beatles material more valuable, and Apple Corps has long been
focused on maximizing the value derived from its Beatles
properties.
Persistent music industry scuttlebutt says Apple Corps has
tentatively explored limited-time, exclusive arrangements with
online music vendors (particularly Microsoft), but at premium
prices: one figure I heard from several sources in 2004 was $15
million for exclusive rights to sell Beatles tracks online for
six months. Given the low profit margins of all online music
businesses, only those with deep pockets could even consider
that sort of money-losing deal.
In the end, Apple Computer and Apple Corps share more than a name
and a litigation history: they're both perceived as products of
the enthusiasm and hopefulness of 1960s culture which held that
it was possible for a good idea to change the world. The real
surprise might be if someone _other_ than Apple Computer brought
the Beatles online.
Hot Topics in TidBITS Talk/27-Mar-06
------------------------------------
by TidBITS Staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The first link for each thread description points to the
traditional TidBITS Talk interface; the second link points to
the same discussion on our Web Crossing server, which provides
a different look and which may be faster.
**How to covert a music file to a Podcast?** An attempt to make
iTunes see an MP3 file as a podcast leads to discussions of
how iTunes handles files. (12 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2931>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/764/>
**Classifying memory allocations** -- What are the different
memory types found in Activity Monitor? (9 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2932>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/765/>
**Refurb laptop battery?** Is it possible to buy refurbished
laptop batteries? And if so, are they worth buying? (6 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2933>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/766/>
**NetNewsWire and NewsGator** -- Glenn's experience with the
newest beta incarnation of NetNewsWire prompts talk about
the service and subscription pricing. (4 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2934>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/767/>
**Macs for the very elderly?** What considerations need to be
addressed when setting up a Mac system for someone who may be
facing common symptoms of age such as poor vision and hand
dexterity? (6 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2935>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/768/>
**Mighty Mouse hardware easter egg** -- Lifting a Mighty Mouse
(and other Apple mice) reveals a mouse-shaped light pattern.
See the pictures here! (2 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2936>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/769/>
**Music licensing for podcasts** -- Learn guidelines for legally
using music in podcasts. (3 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2937>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/770/>
**Photo metadata redux** -- Where does Mac OS X store photo
metadata? (3 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2938>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/771/>
**Setting window layout on discs and disk images** -- Adam's
experiences trying to burn a disc with specific window placement
leads to someone else's solution to a similar problem. (1 message)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2939>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/772/>
**Recovering music from the iTunes Music Store** -- A reader is
able to re-download the songs purchased from the iTunes Music
Store, even though Apple doesn't make it an official policy.
(2 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2941>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/774/>
**Installing reluctant drivers** -- A reader looks for help when
trying to get a USB-to-Ethernet adapter working under Mac OS 9.
(1 message)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2942>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/775/>
**Five Years of Mac OS X** -- Mac OS X turned 5 years old on
24-Mar-06, and what changes we've seen in that time! (3 messages)
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tlkthrd=2943>
<http://emperor.tidbits.com/TidBITS/Talk/776/>
$$
Non-profit, non-commercial publications may reprint articles if
full credit is given. Others please contact us. We don't guarantee
accuracy of articles. Caveat lector. Publication, product, and
company names may be registered trademarks of their companies.
For information: how to subscribe, where to find back issues,
and more, see <http://www.tidbits.com/>. TidBITS ISSN 1090-7017.
Send comments and editorial submissions to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Back issues available at: <http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/>
And: <ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/issues/>
Full text searching available at: <http://www.tidbits.com/search/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
If you want to unsubscribe or change your address, use this link
http://emperor.tidbits.com/webx?unsub@@.3c557dc4!u=306a67f9
