The baby NEEDS an AppleTV.

[GotPro]

Congrats on the kid too.

Rug rats are expensive, have you thought about just not having a TV full stop?

I also looked into getting an apple TV for my baby, but in the end, after discussions with my partner, we decided to just put our tv in storage in the attic. Reasons being:

- Various health bodies recommend little or no tv before age 2.

- our sprog quickly figured out how to turn the TV on, and was alway turning it on behind our backs

- she would stand with her face pressed up to the TV glass - eek!

- we do watch baby einstein etc every now and then, on our laptops, with our kid next to us.

- on laptops, it is easier to point to the screen and ask various questions / make comments about whats happening - it becomes more of a shared activity.

- we (parents) spent too much time wigging out in front of the tv in the evening, when just having a nap or a bath or reading something would actually be more restful.

Sorry, this is the most pretentious, harmful, idiotic thing you could do for a child.

Why not forbid them to ride in a car because it might leak emmisions?

OMG! I am a proud parent of 2 baby girls... who have NEVER had TV restrictions put on them. IT IS HOW YOU TEACH THEM.

My 6 year old just finished reading AND COMPREHENDING the latest Harry Potter book, and is skipping her second grade in 2 years, (skipped Kindergarten and went to 1st grade, and now will be in the third grade curriculum) this fall at a private school.

Her social abilities would absolutely be TRASHED if she could not hold a conversation, right or wrong, with other children her age about their favorite shows, etc.

She watches probably 30 minutes of TV in the morning, and an hour at night (or more)... we both LOVE to watch movies!!!

However, there are plenty of times where we sit and read to each other, or she loves doing her "workbooks" full of word and math problems...

IT IS HOW YOU TEACH THEM THE TOOLS OF ENJOYMENT.

Just putting the TV up in the attic is creating a horribly caustic view of the real problem: PARENT INVOLVEMENT.

Let me tell you something, there are great ways to LEARN from T.V. It does NOT have to be a boob tube... it can be a wonderful learning experience in CONJUNCTION with other learning tool sets.

I feel very sad for your child.

 

[mr_matalino]

LOL who cares if he copies them, oh well, he still paid something, it isn't like he loaded up a torrent, and didn't pay anything for them...

Right, $4 to rent/copy vs. free to download. That's rationalization.

Since when did MR form users start embracing piracy and/or not caring? I remember reading posts like this and the form users would rip the guy apart for suggesting piracy. Guess times change?

Buy the DVD THEN rip it to ATV...you get the best of both worlds...

 

[synth3tik]

my baby needs a new Xserver

 

[OutThere]

My 6 year old just finished reading AND COMPREHENDING the latest Harry Potter book, and is skipping her second grade in 2 years, (skipped Kindergarten and went to 1st grade, and now will be in the third grade curriculum) this fall at a private school.

That's harsh. The kids who skipped grades in my school were outcasts. They were too young to fit in among the older kids with whom they went to class, and rejected by the other kids of the same age, because they had skipped up and left their class.

It's funny that you're so concerned about the social development of your children, when really skipping them in school is easily ten times worse than taking away the TV. Maybe your kid will have her favorite TV shows to talk about, but if she's two years younger than everyone else in her class, who will she talk to? Two years is a huge gap in elementary school. Think in the future a bit...in say 7th grade where the kids are usually 11 to 12 years old. At that age your daughter would be between 9 and 10 years old. While the other kids are getting their first tastes of independence at school dances and first kisses, your daughter will yet be too young. Then high school, the other freshmen will be ~14 when starting, how will it be for a girl who is 2 years younger than her classmates? College at 16? LOL!

For someone so concerned with how a child's social life will be without TV, I think you fail to comprehend the bigger picture of child and adolescent socialization.

 

[GotPro]

That's harsh. The kids who skipped grades in my school were outcasts. They were too young to fit in among the older kids with whom they went to class, and rejected by the other kids of the same age, because they had skipped up and left their class.

For someone so concerned with how a child's social life will be without TV, I think you fail to comprehend the bigger picture of child and adolescent socialization.

Well, it's really innapropriate of you to even be able to comment, as you have no idea whatsoever of the abilities / capabilities of my child.

She has been in a Montessori program up until this coming year (finally entering a non-Montessori program), and so has been used to, and is MORE comfortable, interacting with children 2 to 3 years older than herself.

She is so much further advanced emotionally and socially than most 6 year olds, it's pathetic. Anytime she tries to play with children her own age, she is just bored and it does't go well.

The headmaster of the private school initially refused to move her up a grade (as is their policy... they adhere to a strict age with age policy) until meeting with her one on one (it's a new school), seeing her interact with children from both grade levels, and being tested.

When she tested out in a 4th grade Englsh level, the headmaster was astonished, and confessed that it would be torture to subject her to a 1st grade level curriculum.

The joy, love, passion that my daughter has for learning would just be completely trashed if she sat for 8 hours a day bored as watching paint dry.

So yes, we are painfully aware of the pitfalls that being exceptional brings.

We are also very much aware of the benefits that soar so much further beyond the risks.

The point of my response was NOT to brag about my own child, rather to lay to rest the idiotic fallacy that TV is bad for children.

 

[jsw]

Well, it's really innapropriate of you to even be able to comment, as you have no idea whatsoever of the abilities / capabilities of my child.

As someone who skipped a grade and nearly two of them (thankfully my parents didn't go along with the school's suggestion), I'd like to comment that the real social impact occurs later on and not in the elementary grades. Also, as she gets older, the desire to fit in socially will outweigh the desire to be challenged by her curriculum.

I know the pain of being bored in class. I also know the pain of being considered "different". Please keep an eye on her. Two years makes a huge difference, and she will be mocked and envied and, to an extent, feared. I'm not questioning your choice, but, as someone who has lived with the consequences, I'm just noting that it's not purely a win-win situation.

I do agree with your TV philosophy - television viewing (which was restricted for me when I was at home, along with listening to radio, etc.) is a key way to help your daughter fit in socially.

 

[GotPro]

Please keep an eye on her. Two years makes a huge difference, and she will be mocked and envied and, to an extent, feared. I'm not questioning your choice, but, as someone who has lived with the consequences, I'm just noting that it's not purely a win-win situation.

I do agree with your TV philosophy - television viewing (which was restricted for me when I was at home, along with listening to radio, etc.) is a key way to help your daughter fit in socially.

One of the things that made us comfortable with this decision was that this provides unparalleled flexibility later on.

She is the typical little girl, into Ballet, Soccer, and a million other things. We have actually discussed at length your exact concerns... and have both decided that by her skipping the grades early, it gives us flexibility to allow her to focus on her talents for a year if it gets to a problematic point:

For instance, if she develops an affinity for Ballet, and begins to have problems socially later on, she can take a year off from school, focus on her Ballet, and then go back the next year *in her age class*... that is just an example.

Getting a head start doesn't mean you HAVE to continue hard pressed forward and go to College at 16. Trust me, the last thing I want is to lose my baby girl at 16 to College...

It's all about having options, balance, etc. etc. etc.

The great evil I see in not allowing TV viewing is, and I can speak from experience on this one... anytime you strictly FORBID an activity of any kind... it will quickly become the *HOLY GRAIL* of activities for the child. Doubly so if it is an activity that all of their peers engage in.

By completely eliminating TV... the risk is run that when the child finally does get access to a TV... it will be all that much more important in their life. I think it will backfire.

Case in point: I grew up as a classical pianist. 8-10 hours a day of practice... special schools, the whole bit. Well, my mother FORBID listening to anything but Classical music... so... when I finally rebelled in my teenage years... guess what I got into?

HEAVY THRASH METAL BABY! lol... I don't listen to it as much now... but still love metal... and I have no doubt that my mother's insistance that it was the devil's work and her forbidding is part of what ended up creating my lust for it!!!

Parenting is tricky stuff, I tell you ;-)

 

[Evangelion]

Incriminating statement... This is stealing...

it might be illegal but it's NOT stealing. i'm getting sick and tired of people calling copyright infringment stealing when it is not. "stealing" implies that he takes someone elses possession for himself, thus depriving the original owner from having the said item. Creating an identical copy of the item does not deprive the original owner from having that item.

If I created an identical copy of your car using some arcane technology, would I be stealing your car? No I would not. You would still have your car, right?

 

[jsw]

it might be illegal but it's NOT stealing. i'm getting sick and tired of people calling copyright infringment stealing when it is not. "stealing" implies that he takes someone elses possession for himself, thus depriving the original owner from having the said item.

Wrong. One can steal ideas, for example. In fact, many definitions of "steal" include that example. Theft does not have to involve the taking of a material item from someone else.

 

[Evangelion]

We are having a kid soon and I just realized that my kid NEEDS an Apple TV.

what your kid needs is loving parents who are willing to spend time with him and who will nurture his abilities. What he does not "need" is AppleTV, DVD's or television. Honestly, I feel a bit sick in my stomach thinking that some parent thinks that his soon-to-be-born kid needs an AppleTV so the kid could watch some tv-shows with it. That is madness.

No, your kid noes not need AppleTV. What he needs is you and your time and attention. Don't try to use television as an alternative.

 

[Evangelion]

Wrong. One can steal ideas, for example. In fact, many definitions of "steal" include that example. Theft does not have to involve the taking of a material item from someone else.

as far as law is concerned, you are wrong. "stealing" means that you are removing something from someone else. When RIAA and friends talk of someone "stealing" music, they are usually talking of copyright infringment. Unless the guy walked to a record-store and stole the CD's from the shelf... But "stealing" sounds jazzier than "copyright infringment".

 

[gkarris]

Why not ask your kid?

BTW, copying a disc you don't OWN is copyright infringement...

 

[steamboat26]

Rather than buy/rent and rip baby einstein dvds, just make them listen to some classical music- it aids in the development on the mind, just like baby einstein, but it's a lot cheaper

 

[jsw]

as far as law is concerned, you are wrong. "stealing" means that you are removing something from someone else.

Oh, I don't know about that. When the Attorney General uses the phrase "intellectual property theft" (not that I was a big fan of that AG), I'd say that the law considers intangibles to be "stealable".

 

[mediaboy]

What a poop storm I have created!

Hey all,

Piracy Statement HERE: I understand that it is not right to rip DVDs that are not owned by me. I have purchased hundreds (literally) of DVDs. Some choose to rip rentals, other not. To each their own. Do what let's you sleep at night. That's all I have to say about that.

On to the more interesting discussion at hand:

My child will NOT be glued to the TV as a form of 24/7 entertainment. The topic starter was obviously a joke. The only thing the baby needs is love and care. BUT I do feel that the TV plays an instrumental part in their development. Its all a balancing act. Too much TV creates zombies, but choosing to believe that "the TV is the devil" and avoiding it at all costs, IMO will only hinder a child's development.

Some people spend more time hovering over this board more than with their children.

One other thing?
Why is it that extremists post the longest rants? You don't have to convince the world of your POV, just do what you feel is best for your child and hope you aren't wrong!

I bet the MPAA is onto my ass by now!

 

[atari1356]

Sorry, this is the most pretentious, harmful, idiotic thing you could do for a child.

Being a bit harsh aren't you? RedTomato said he watched DVD's with his child using a laptop. That's what we do also. It's not that the kids are totally restricted from stuff other kids are seeing... it's just done in a more controlled way (and without annoying commercials).

IT IS HOW YOU TEACH THEM THE TOOLS OF ENJOYMENT. Just putting the TV up in the attic is creating a horribly caustic view of the real problem: PARENT INVOLVEMENT.

Yep, parental involvement is absolutely important... I don't think anybody said anything to the contrary. In my case, we use the laptop to watch shows - partly due to the fact that our TV died. We didn't see any point in buying a new TV because we're usually busy having fun doing other stuff. If there's something we want to see, it gets Netflixed or recorded onto the computer with an EyeTV Hybrid.

I feel very sad for your child.

Now you're being the pretentious one...

 

[0007776]

OMG! I am a proud parent of 2 baby girls... who have NEVER had TV restrictions put on them. IT IS HOW YOU TEACH THEM.

If TV is how you teach kids then how did parents teach their children things before TV was around, the only thing that it seems to teach them better than their parents could is to have short attention spans.

 

[OutThere]

Well, it's really innapropriate of you to even be able to comment, as you have no idea whatsoever of the abilities / capabilities of my child.

Ah yes, alright then.

Sorry, this is the most pretentious, harmful, idiotic thing you could do for a child.

Let's not get into that, now.



I wasn't trying to pass judgment on your daughter, I was simply speaking from experience. I left elementary school not particularly long ago. I just felt it would be useful to point out the logical fallacy in your argument, which you began with such an antagonistic statement.

I was quite bored through much of elementary school; however, looking back, with a bit of college sociology under my belt, I think elementary school is as much, if not much more, about social development as it is about learning the material in class. We spent a large portion of our days interacting with each other...be it passing notes ( ) or doing group reading, or at recess, in the cafeteria, all of that. The actual class material was dry (to me) and so I had my mind stretched out in the gifted & talented classes...which came with their own set of social stigma.

As above, I mean no affront to your daughter, but consider this: will she look back on her childhood in 20 years and say "damn, I miss those glory days as a kid!" or "damn growing up was hell".

I don't pretend know much of anything about parenting, but I do speak from experience as a kid, and from seeing my friends' whose parents wanted them to be geniuses or sports prodigies, I'll attest to the idea that 'kids aren't cabbage, they're not done faster in a pressure cooker'. Sometimes these days I feel that parents don't fully realize how much pressure they put on their kids to perform.

 

[Evangelion]

Oh, I don't know about that. When the Attorney General uses the phrase "intellectual property theft" (not that I was a big fan of that AG), I'd say that the law considers intangibles to be "stealable".

No, it just means that the AG is wrong. Making identical copies of something is not the same as stealing it from it's owner. Never has been.

hell, why don't we start calling running the red light as "rape" while we are at it? It makes about as much sense as caling copyright infringment "stealing"

 

[jsw]

No, it just means that the AG is wrong.

Fine. I'll assume you're more versed in law than the AG was.

Copying an item instead of purchasing it is theft. Of course, I also assume you consider counterfeiting mere copying as well.

 

[miTunes75]

OK...putting copyright infringement drama aside. I have actually thought about doing the same thing. I have had to purchase Cars 3 times and VeggieTales Lord of the Beans twice due to the kids destroying them. I have a 5, 3 and 2 year old. So, I understand why someone would buy an AppleTV just for this purpose. It's a good investment. I'd like to do that someday soon (maybe 1st qtr next year - sigh).

I say go for it.

 

[suneohair]

No, it just means that the AG is wrong. Making identical copies of something is not the same as stealing it from it's owner. Never has been.

hell, why don't we start calling running the red light as "rape" while we are at it? It makes about as much sense as caling copyright infringment "stealing"

I would have to agree with jsw. Until you buy that item it is owned by someone else. By copying it without buying it, you have stolen it. You can play with the semantics all you want. But you don't own that music. You did not make. By purchasing it, you have the rights to use that music since you own it.

If you were a painter. And had some paintings for sale, how would you feel is someone can into the gallery. Copied it perfectly and sold it? Would you not feel infringed upon?

A fitting example for this discussion is the invention of TV itself. It was being developed by Philo Farnsworth and by Vladamir Zworykin (RCA/Wetsinghouse). David Sarnoff (VP of RCA) wanted be ahead, so he gave Zworykin some cash. Which was used to spy and then steal Farnsworth' technology. Is that cool with you?

And going on the copying of the car idea. No, you wouldn't be stealing MY car. But you would be stealing the IP of the car manufacturer. Be it Ford or Tesla. You copy their engine and use its technology, that is patent infringement. And thus stealing. If I WAS the inventor of that car, you would be stealing from me.

If your point is to argue that all human intelligence should be free and open to the world, advocating theft is not the way to do it.

 

[quigleybc]

so.....did you get the TV or what??

 

[Maui]

Making identical copies of something is not the same as stealing it from it's owner. Never has been.

Wrong. Look at the word itself -- copyright....copy right....the right to make copies.

The author of a work owns the copyright. See 17 USC 201(a) ("Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.").

One of the exclusive rights held by the author is the right to "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies." Id. s 106(1).

"Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be." Id. s 501(a).

That act of copying can even be a criminal act under certain circumstances. See id. s 506(a).

There is no exception in this statute anywhere for making an "identical" copy (and what sense would that make -- it is unlawful if you copy 99% but ok if you copy 100%). Under some circumstances a licensee of a copyrighted work may have the right to make a backup copy, but that is not what is being discussed here.

 

[atari1356]

The baby DOESN'T need an Apple TV, unless you want to slow his/her language development:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1650352,00.html?cnn=yes