[IPodPJ]

I have a subscription to Popular Science magazine, which I always read cover-to-cover, because it's a fun magazine and is somewhat educational... not to mention most of the companies mentioned in the magazine usually take off like a bandit in the stock market. I came across an article I thought you guys/gals might want to read.

Popular Science magazine has given the Etymotic ETY8 Gadget of The Month (on front cover) and the front page review in it's February edition's "What's New" section.

They had this to say:

REMOVED

 

[jinp6301]

there was a best of 2006 article, and the shure e500 won, not because it sounds awesome, because of the PTH module -_-

 

[Azure]

Thanks for the heads-up, but you need to remove the article from your post as it is against Head-Fi rules to do post articles from commercial magazines and the like (If you have to pay to get the magazine, then you can't post its contents on here).

 

[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the heads-up, but you need to remove the article from your post as it is against Head-Fi rules to do post articles from commercial magazines and the like (If you have to pay to get the magazine, then you can't post its contents on here).

I'm glad our Head-fi moderators are always watching over us.

 

[IPodPJ]

Ok, removed.

Why is it not okay to re-type an article so long as noone re-sells it?
I pay for the subscription, and have been for over 10 years. I had once asked Time4 media if I could use an article before to make photocopies of and put on the internet for a project I was working on, and they said no problem as long as I wasn't reselling it.

But I can see the problem of posting an article from a February edition which isn't even out on the newstands yet, if someone here was to reprint it somewhere.

 

[Jokieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, removed. Why is it not okay to re-type an article so long as noone re-sells it?

It's considered copyright infringement because you didn't receive permission from the author (in this case the editor) of the magazine to use the material.

It's also considered piracy or theft of content. If you read that big FBI warning on the DVD's you buy, the one where it basically says (if you copy and distribute this copyrighted material, with the intention of making a profit or not, you're going to jail. hehe) -- Same thing.

Technically speaking, by posting the article here, in a location where it can be read for free the magazine's lawyers could justify a suit using the rationale that you cost them $$ because people who wanted to read that article no longer had to buy a copy of the magazine to do so. Thus costing the magazine precious revenue dollars. Just because you receive permission from one place/person does not automatically mean that everyone will give permission to do so.

Then, if someone from the magazine or it's parent company finds out that it's posted on Head-fi. They don't come after you, instead they issue Cease and Desist orders against the administrator of head-fi.org, and threaten all kinds of legal action that is a royal pain in the arse.

Hence the policy.

 

[kugino]

my brief session with the ety8 at macworld was mostly positive. nice sound, albeit the style is...er, something that has to grow on you. kudos to ety for being the first of the audiophile crowd to try something like this...i imagine more wireless IEMs will come out in the next year or two...

 

[jinp6301]

Wireless IEMs are one step closer to brain inserts!

thats a good thing, right?

 

[IPodPJ]

So what they printed was a misprint, wasn't it?

They said the frequency response was 50Hz - 6kHz.

Don't they mean 16kHz?? Somehow I doubt Ety would cut their frequency response at 6Khz.

Printing something like that could really steer away potential customers from a product which is probably quite good for what it is.

I did send a letter to the editor about the possible mistake.
I'm sure Ety will be thrilled for the free press, but upset about the misinformation.

But look at this, this is from Ety's website: Frequency Response Accuracy: 50 Hz -6 kHz ± 3 dB; 20 Hz -15 kHz ± 6 dB
I'm confused, can someone explain this to me? Typo, right?

 

[AdamP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what they printed was a misprint, wasn't it? They said the frequency response was 50Hz - 6kHz. Don't they mean 16kHz?? Somehow I doubt Ety would cut their frequency response at 6Khz. Printing something like that could really steer away potential customers from a product which is probably quite good for what it is. I did send a letter to the editor about the possible mistake. I'm sure Ety will be thrilled for the free press, but upset about the misinformation. But look at this, this is from Ety's website: Frequency Response Accuracy: 50 Hz -6 kHz ± 3 dB; 20 Hz -15 kHz ± 6 dB I'm confused, can someone explain this to me? Typo, right?

It's fine. They have the tolerances on the side as well.

Basically between 50-6KHz you can expect the frequency response to be within ±3dB of one another. From 20-50 and 6-15KHz you can expect the frequency response to be more loose at ±6dB.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamP /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's fine. They have the tolerances on the side as well. Basically between 50-6KHz you can expect the frequency response to be within ±3dB of one another. From 20-50 and 6-15KHz you can expect the frequency response to be more loose at ±6dB.

Ok, when put that way it makes sense. The way it was printed in the article is very misleading: Frequency Response: 50Hz - 6kHz.