alexalex Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Have you ever seen people at concerts holding an iPhone up in the air, trying to record the live performance (and probably uploading it somewhere later on as well)? But they usually don?t know that the moment they do that, they are infringing on IP copyright law. Piracy is punishable by law, even if it is sporadically enforced. It hurts the device manufacturers as well whose device is being used in ways they never intended. No one wants to be blamed for what they never did. Camera phones are a huge part of our lives these days and often the most handy way of capturing the precious moments around us. But some people do use the built in camera?s in ways that were not intended by the manufacturers. Apple?s R&D department has made a major break-through in anti-piracy technology and has applied to acquire the patent for that as well. Apple?s anti-piracy technology is based on a simple but ingenious idea. In movie theaters, they distribute special infrared waves for hearing aid devices. Apple?s new technology will enable the iPhone to detect those infrared signals and the iPhone will sense that you are in a movie theater. Now if you will try to record a scene from Kung Fu Panda 2 with your iPhone this weekend, it will automatically sense that you are in a movie theater trying to record, and will shut off the camera automatically....The same will be true with music concerts, if you try to take a picture of Lady Gaga, the whole picture could be watermarked with LadyGaga, but for that concert the management will have to bombard infrared waves on the audience... http://www.ghacks.net/2011/06/05/apple-to-patent-anti-piracy-technology/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Yeah imagine being able to make a photo at an event you're attending with friends... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De.Bug Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Oh the Irony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharpGreen Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Yet another reason not to get any iStuff. Raa, Jen Smith and Reacon 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerax Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Urmm, if i download a pirated version of a film, i don't want it to be recorded with an iPhone.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seasonic Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Jailbreak it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.derosa Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Urmm, if i download a pirated version of a film, i don't want it to be recorded with an iPhone.. QFT lol :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knife Party Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Urmm, if i download a pirated version of a film, i don't want it to be recorded with an iPhone.. thanks you! Apple's ego just getting the best of them again...pff, wth records with a iphone anyway? with what? that camera...bahaha. Apple forgets that most camcorder 'pirates' use better stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo_spook Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 You all do realise loads of stuff gets patented that never see the light of day. instant.human 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
instant.human Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 You all do realise loads of stuff gets patented that never see the light of day. This. And this again and again. And again, just to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 OK, so Apple could patent this, and no other phone manufacturers would be able to use it without paying Apple. So, if they didn't pay up, other concert goers would be able to record the concert, but Apple users wouldn't. None of the concerts I have downloaded have been recorded on iphones or anything like that, although some of the youtube footage I watch has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted June 6, 2011 Member Share Posted June 6, 2011 It's a nice idea but I doubt it will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fukachu Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I can't see concerts blocking the ability to take photos/videos at concerts but instead inserting a watermark saying the concert name and venue. Although I think most of you have missed the other uses for this technology which Apple has invented it for. The quoted text above is just focusing on one part of it. From Engadget's post on this patent. Some potential uses are a little less Big Brother, like museums beaming information about exhibits to a user's or launching an audio tour I see the potential for many great uses. The museum one is certainly a good one as I often skip over many items in museums and this would allow for personal audio and information on just the items I'm interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abecedarian paradoxious Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I hereby propose a method for submitting patents to the patent office electronically, or via print. A patent, heretofore referred to as "patent" requires the name(s) of the individuals responsible, for developing the action, whether directly or indirectly to be listed. A patent, requires citation and deferrence to any and all prior suggestions whether directly or indirectly related to developing the invention in question. Failure to abide with the above will result in immediate denial of application. Corporate entities, (corporate, incorporated, limited liability corporations, other legal entities wherein physical identities are not enumerated and otherwise indemnified) are not entitled to hold ownership of a patent. Failure to comply with the above will result in immediate denial of application. The applicant(s) must demonstrate both how the invention is similar to prior art and how and how it is different from prior art, to the extent that its difference from any previous prior art justifies assignment of a patent. Taking something extant and changing "definitions" of words is not acceptable as a new invention. Taking something extant and modifying less than 60% as so to create a new product is not acceptable as a new invention. The shape of a device, it's mean dimensions, and the location of buttons (if used) are not subject to patent. Physicality, is not subject to patent: any buttons, display screens, antenna locations, headphone jacks, etc. are not subject to patent. Patents, heretofore, may only be assigned if there is significant divergence from any extant technology, withour regards to ergonomics, button placements, general device shapes and such. Significant departure from extant hardware and software designs are required for patent approval. This does not apply to air-interface schemas, where devices may utilise such tings as CDMA, HSPDA, etc. where such technology is inherited from another entity entitled to enforce it's own previously approved and thus extant patents. Common sense extensions, i.e.: a mouse (pointing device, whether physical, touch pad or similar) with one method of signalling selection (click, left-click, tap-to-click, etc.), the addition of a second or even third means of "clicking" or "selecting" is citing prior art. Likewise, "gestures" involving moving the "mouse" on the table, or a finger on the pad, in certain directions in order to simulate "clicks" and assumed intentions, are hereby declared based on "prior art", where Xerox and there works are herby being derived from. I hereby copywrite this definition of a "patent", and it's description of a patent. This is similarly defined as incomplete and subject to addition, modification and clarification in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nohone Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You all do realise loads of stuff gets patented that never see the light of day. And usually, people (including Woz) call those who hold patents but never produce the product "Parent Trolls" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfirth Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I hereby copywrite this definition of a "patent", and it's description of a patent. You should probably go review the differences between a copyright and a patent... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarkhy Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 iFail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abecedarian paradoxious Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You should probably go review the differences between a copyright and a patent... :p You can't include copyrighted work in a patent. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Radeon Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 How about we ditch their sh*t? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts