Unlimited "you don't actually own your iPhone" thread

[Cramulus]

sure, and I too would prefer a professional recording to a shitty cell phone camera recording.

What bugs me is the presumptuous idea that somebody can privately own the capture and retransmission of an experience.

It's one thing to own a piece of information - like a song or a book - it's another thing entirely to say I can't record a memory of (say) my birthday - because it harms your ability to sell me your version of that experience.

This isn't the same thing as bootlegging a movie in a theater. A concert is more than just a transmission of content from performer to audience. How much of this group experience is privately owned? Where is the border between private content and shared public experience? Is it the exchange of money? I think it's unreasonable to say that once I've paid you, I lose my right to record my experience, especially when so much of the concert experience is not the music.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

[Doktor Howl]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

That's what licensing fees are good for.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

That's what licensing fees are good for.

Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.

Not if they passed a law requiring those features.  You know, maybe like a law that's already been drafted, and is just waiting for the patent to come through before it comes out of some fat staffer's upper left drawer, and get's added as a rider to whatever feel-good, anti-nun-beating legislation that's up this week.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

Apple doesn't own the idea, only that very specific iteration of it.

There's nothing to stop other developers from coding it in different computer languages with similar hardware, assuming the interest in it is high enough for a team to get funding for R & D.

I imagine that this is an extremely attractive function for the proprietary and political reasons you guys have pointed out earlier in the thread, so the funding should be no problem.

[Doktor Howl]

And it's not like they aren't going to pass the cost along, ensuring that you pay for your own sodomizing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

Apple doesn't own the idea, only that very specific iteration of it.

There's nothing to stop other developers from coding it in different computer languages with similar hardware, assuming the interest in it is high enough for a team to get funding for R & D.

I imagine that this is an extremely attractive function for the proprietary and political reasons you guys have pointed out earlier in the thread, so the funding should be no problem.

Right, but having a multitude of different signalling devices using different protocols... yeah never mind, it's self-explanatory enough that I don't see any point in typing it all out. The only way it could all work out feasibly is with a combination of a licensing scheme and legislation, which seems not completely implausible.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Cram- i see your point in not owning the experience. Owning a recording of an experience is another thing entirely. It costs money to get something professionally recorded and its reasonable to make money back on that recording and profit from the recording. That said i would probably have them or most of them for free as a matter of promotion. If im getting up there and i record a really awesome concert its to my advantage to show people what theyre missing out on by not buying a ticket. Just my two cents.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

That's what licensing fees are good for.

Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.

I was thinking the same thing. Here's how Apple could conceivably get people to want it:

Some live venues already ban cell phones that can record video, but if you have a phone with the Crippler™ only you get to bring your phone into the venue, much to the envy of other people.

[Doktor Howl]

People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.

I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.

Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.

That's what licensing fees are good for.

Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.

I was thinking the same thing. Here's how Apple could conceivably get people to want it:

Some live venues already ban cell phones that can record video, but if you have a phone with the Crippler™ only you get to bring your phone into the venue, much to the envy of other people.

Or CyberPolio

[Captain Swampass]

Eh, it is just a patent. Apple gets an idea and they instantly try to protect it, so its extremely likely that this won't come to fruition at all. They just like to stifle innovation and such by patenting the hell out of any and all concepts. Though, it is extremely brazen on their part. Once you buy the iPhone it should be yours, but no. The devices are locked down to such an absurd extent, and the only way you can circumvent their digital tyranny is by hacking the damnable things. And they actually tried to make that illegal! Thankfully they failed. But the fact that people are fine with this makes me terrified for the future of computers and the internet itself. I really, really don't like how the average consumer is fine about getting fucked in the ass for the sake of simplicity and ease of use.

[Jenne]

...welcome to America.

The biggest modern indicator that freedom is just a word to be bandied about for political gain and a realtime commodity to be fought for was when 9/11 caused the airline industries to treat all passengers like possible terrorists.  And people fell in line, and continue to do so.  Because safety trumps freedom.

That's how it's "sold."  So the marketing here will be similar--scare tactics, ooh-ah factors, sex, something will be a hook so folks are sold on paying more for doing less.

[Triple Zero]

sure, and I too would prefer a professional recording to a shitty cell phone camera recording.

What bugs me is the presumptuous idea that somebody can privately own the capture and retransmission of an experience.

It's one thing to own a piece of information - like a song or a book - it's another thing entirely to say I can't record a memory of (say) my birthday - because it harms your ability to sell me your version of that experience.

This isn't the same thing as bootlegging a movie in a theater. A concert is more than just a transmission of content from performer to audience. How much of this group experience is privately owned? Where is the border between private content and shared public experience? Is it the exchange of money? I think it's unreasonable to say that once I've paid you, I lose my right to record my experience, especially when so much of the concert experience is not the music.

Additionally, you could make the point that the audience is in some sense part of the performance. Without a huge cheering crowd, a performance would  not be the same. So maybe it's also the crowd's right to record their part of it.

[Bruno]

This sounds like something that could be bypassed with a piece of duct tape.

I don't know much about iPhones, though. Is the IR sensor necessary for the camera to work?