Get as much ram as you can afford. Presume you are running Windows -- so turn off the swap file if you have 1.5 - 2GB of ram. The difference in performance is astounding.
Besides that, turn off unneeded services and keep your system clean of spyware. Most "slow" systems I come across aren't that slow at all, they are just poorly configured.
So why hasn't the law been repealed? Because of stinking corporate lobbist money, right?
And where did the money come from? From the same public (and some Slashdotters) who grumble about the RIAA/MPAA's prices, but are too weak to vote with their wallets.
That's why things are the way they are; most people are happy to be suckers.
> not unlike the compromise with marijuana.
Please do not equate the marijuana trade with piracy. Most marijuana growers and sellers presumably get at least a few dollars for their efforts.
Content creators who have had their shit pirated get fuck all.
I can't magically transport and mass produce marijuana without a large amount of effort.
>going 66mph in a 65mph zone is technically a crime.
Yup. And if you get caught don't whine about it.
Same goes for piracy. Don't do the crime if you aren't prepared to do the time. Or to change the laws.
>thats basically the riaa/mpaa with their lawsuits, excessive punishment for a non serious crime.
But nobody forced the caught/convicted pirates to pirate, right? Too fucking bad they got caught.
>and some people really do buy more music when they are exposed to more music online.
Quote some figures, please. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
>some dont of course, but what can you do, they weren't going to pay anyways.
Yup. They are cheap shits. But they keep insisting they are somehow "fighting da MAN" or something. Give me a break.
>its not like piracy should be praised, but it shouldn't be demonized. it isn't realistic.
I'm not demonizing it. If you're read what I have written, I am a pirate myself. I simply cannot stand those who continue to insist that they are helping the artistes when they pirate. This is blatantly false.
The creators of stuff I pirate don't get anything from me.
>the industry is just alienating their customers with their excessive reaction.
Yup. Agreed. But it's not a perfect world. Maybe someday we'll all get along huh. But before that, let's be honest with ourselves first.
Oh yes. Mob rules eh. Are you looting in New Orleans now by any chance? Suppose shooting and eating little girls became fashionable tomorrow? That would make it a-ok huh?
That's all fine and dandy. But see, the artistes on Magnatune WANT to give away samples for free, right? Most other big label artistes don't. Simple as that. You should respect their wishes and rights as copyright holders.
All in all, you haven't really answered my questions at all. The above has little to do with the issue of piracy.
>- we'll make more money by people getting to know the music, and coming to the gigs, than the pittance (do you actually know the end percentages?) we take of a record-label-produced CD.
Yes I know about the percentages. However, bear in mind that in many countries, such as mine, there are no gig circuits to speak of. They only want cover bands here. It is hard for a musician to make a living here by giving all his stuff away for free. Most of the good musicians I know end up giving lessons or playing in shitty pubs for a pittiance.
I never said that the RIAA's deal was anything but raw. But that still doesn't make it right to pirate their shit.
See, your brother wants to give his stuff away. That is his choice. Good for him. But plenty of artistes do not want to give their stuff away. I don't see why some Slashdotter's think it is their divine right to "sample" everything under the sun for free.
>- will-be-fans, eyballs and eardrums that care, that pay attention to the music, will go buy the CD
Well, I hope your brother can recoup his recording costs, gear purchases/rental, travel expenses, and other day-to-day costs. I sure as hell won't depend on people to be moral in this day and age.
>If all answers are no, then you're just a passing car and we won't make money off you, unless we con you into buying a (payola) single track that's been hyped-up and much-played, and 11 other pieces of crap.
I agree. But some Slashdotters want to have their cake and to eat it too. They claim to hate the RIAA and support the artistes...by pirating?
>Because this is what happens today with the oligopoly that's called the music industry. Like any other organism, because they reproduce themselves, they (mostly) serve us crap. And will continue to do so unless this fresh wind blows them into the four corners of this world and into the past.
I certainly hope so. But we should still respect the rights of artistes to license/sell their work any way they see fit. Your bro wants to give it away. Others want to sell it for big $$$. I don't see any problem other then the hypocritic fucks who want to pretend they are helping those in the 2nd group when they "sample" their wares.
> If my friend buys a CD then the CD was legally bought and sold. If it was legally bought and sold then ownership was trasnferred. If he owns it then he can legally share it with me.
Yes, I agree with this point completely.
But now, your friend can duplicate the data to 10,000 locations at little cost other than a fast connection and a computer.
Perfect copies. We're not talking about the 80s and VCRs anymore.
What is a reasonable amount of sharing? Is it really sharing when you have a separate copy of the CD from your friend? After all, now both you and him can enjoy the work for the price of paying for it only once.
Not just you, but the rest of the planet in fact. I don't know, but that seems wrong.
>There is no secret that CDs are easily ripped to a hard drive and shared over a network. This is not a surprise.
Yes, the media companies are totally incompetent in this respect. But does it give you carte blanche to pirate everything they create?
Also, when someone pirates and think they're doing the content creator a favor, I take issue with it.
It's not about the piracy, it's about the hypocrisy I see on Slashdot regarding piracy.
>No one's forcing these people to sell CDs to every 10-year old with $15.
By the same token, nobody is forcing pro-piracy Slashdotters to buy these CDs. If they don't want to pay $15, they can do without. Or pirate. I'm cool with that.
But these same Slashdotters will talk trash bout the "crap that media corps produce..." Guess what, you are the ones lapping it up.
>Face reality. The product was legally bought and sold and there no longer is any claim to dictating terms of use.
You and I both know that RIAA/MPAA's greed is bottomless. The only way to hurt them is to ignore them and shut your wallet.
>If anything, file-sharing gives the media companies a taste of what they're doing to the artists:
Well, I'm not sure if 2 wrongs make a right. If you're for the artistes:
1. Push for more sane copyright laws in your country (I'm presuming you're an US citizen)
2. Stop paying for RIAA/MPAA content. That means no cable tv, no cinema flicks, no major label music, no major studio dvd. In short, a total boycott. Deny them mindshare.
3. No compromises. If you say, "I pirate because MPAA/RIAA..." then you're making excuses. If you say
"I pirate because I don't like paying for things," I'm right alongside you.
> You know there are plenty of people here that give away thier created works, whether fiction, art, code, or whatever else, for free, right?
Yes. More power to them. However, I don't recall the member corporations of the RIAA/MPAA stating that they're in it for the art.
>You're postiong on Slashdot, so I assume you've heard of the GPL, at least.
Yes I have. In case you're not aware, the RIAA/MPAA do not release their works under the GPL.
So, your point is?
>People were producing works of art without the incentive of copyright long before it exsisted. Art is being created without regard to copyright while it exists, and they'll still be created when it's gone, too.
Yes, I agree absolutely. But you're skirting the issue -- how does any of this excuse pirating material protected under current laws?
How does the act of piracy empower the content creators working under RIAA/MPAA?
>The **AA's copyright-supported business model has been outdated by new technology, and nothing can save it now. The effective nil cost of digital reproduction has destroyed the market for thier services, period. New content producers more adapted to the new situation will simply take thier place.
Ah yes, the old buggy-whip maker argument. Any bright suggestions on how exactly you make money when everyone rips off your shit for free?
Can you enlightened me as to how to become more "adapted"?
>Regardless of the **AA's attempts to prop up thier profits in the face of the inevitable, it's useless, and these strong-arm tactics only serve to make myself, and many others, care even less about copyright laws.
Great. I don't care about the copyright laws either.
But, what about the content creators? You still haven't addressed exactly how they are to be compensated.
Some vague mumblings about donations won't do. We need to see serious $$$ before you start getting quality content.
Any idea how much it costs to create an anime flick? 2 guys working off PayPal donations won't cut it.
Do you have any valid points at all, or are you just defending piracy because, deep down inside, you want free shit?
>I see it as a battle between consumers and monopolistic corporations.
Yes. Exactly. That's why I haven't been to a movie theater in 2 years, and refuse to pay for cable tv.
>I see it as taking back that which was stolenfrom us.
What was stolen, exactly? The songs and movies the companies paid to produce? I know how they have shitty contracts and bilk the artistes, and how Disney profits from centuries-old public domain stories, but the fight needs to be taken to the voting box.
Piracy is not doing the hardworking creators any favors.
>I pay artists directly, if that makes you feel any better.
Touche. It's a good thing to do, but how many follow your example?
>Many who share your attitude seem to think that those of us on the other side simply want a free ride.
If you read the comments from those defending piracy, it's pretty obvious that they've never tried making a living from creating intellectual property. Or for that matter, have simple respect for the rights of content creators.
Want to pirate stuff? Fine. But don't say you're helping to liberate the creators. They need $$$, not words.
>If I'm a hypocrite, then what are you, a corporate lacky?
A pirate. But I don't try to justify it. I just want shit for free.
I just can't stand hypocrites who want to pretend that they're doing something noble when they are simply leeching.
>No? I guess this name calling isn't as fun as you thought it was.
Yes it was. Got your attention, right? Need people here to wake up and start having real discussions about piracy instead of hiding behind vague legal terms.
It's not stealing. Ok. In the leter of the law, it's not stealing. But if someone did that to your
livelyhood, would you want to break their kneecaps? I would.
Yes, iTunes is alright, sorta, but they aren't making the shitloads of cash the movie/music moguls are used to.
It's all about scarcity and control. We will NEVER have non DRM'ed media as the norm until society fundamentally changes and businesses and govt are runned by upright, decent folks.
Yeah, right.
No compromises. Remember Rorshach.
What we don't need, are hypocrites trying to justify their thieving behavior. Be proud to be a pirate. Wanna break the law? Stand up and do it. You have no god given right to media.
Don't even get me started on how we should be mining asteroids by now instead of fighting over scraps of "valuable" resources...
Why don't you share some of your VISION with us? If you're one of those whining on about buggy-whip makers and new business models, I would like to invite you to come up with a business plan, or, just a simple outline based on one of the "...so many ways of making money here..." that you seem to be hoarding.
Don't be mistaken, I'm no MPAA supporter. In fact, I fly the Jolly Roger flag (wink wink). You want the MPAA to change their ways and back off?
Simple. Quit buying their shit. That means no DVD purchases, no movie tickets. Nada. I read all the complaints about crappy movie theaters in the earlier article but guess what? Slashdotters still swallow that shit up anyway. We're supposed to be smarter than that right?
And no hypocrisy please. Movies cost money to make. Music cost money to make. You either want to pay for them or you don't. I don't. But I don't whine about how I would give them my money if only blah blah blah.
I don't have a beef with anyone trying to make more money, but the editors should quit pretending that Roland's articles end up here because they're actually worth reading. That's just wrong. Why should I have to read his tripe when thousands of other slashdotters can submit the same stories?
Does he add anything to the stories? No. Is he just a leech trying to score a few bucks off the efforts of others? Yes. I dislike someone who pretends to be 'helpful.'
Slashdotters like you drank the damn Kool Aid a long time ago. Bet you thought Jon Katz was the shit too.
Roland submissions seem to go straight to the front page. This fucks with the idea that the most interesting/newsworthy article submissions be accepted, and smells badly of filthy lucre kickbacks to the editors.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fuck Roland.
One of the/. editors said that there was/is no preferential treatment for Roland's submissions. That's simply bullshit when you look at the sheer number of Roland's submissions that have made it to the front page.
Can any other Joe Schmoe even stand out among the hundreds (just a wild-assed guess) of article submissions made around the clock to the editors? Imagine -- not just to get your submission accepted, but to achieve that over and over again.
This is worse than Jon Katz, because I can't even set my preferences to filter this motherfucker out.
1. Pricing is sane: If the vid costs any more than 30% of the price for a brand new retail DVD, forget it.
2. Delivery is sane: No funky P2P implementation. I'll be damned if I pay for a movie and have to use my own connection to help the publishers distribute it. Better cough up the bucks for the fat pipes, cause you're gonna need them.
3. Timing is sane: Say, really really soon after a movie premieres? Maybe 5 working days? If not, cheap bastards like me will just score it off ***net. It's not just about the quality, it's about the timeliness too.
4. DRM is sane: I'd better be able to shift the vid around, or view it without being connected to the mothership. Or better yet, forget DRM, because
we'll just film it off the monitor if we can't crack the copy protection. Have you seen high quality telecines? They're free, and they look real decent. You can't compete with that.
5. Selection is sane: Don't just limit the choice of movies to the latest corporate trash. Some of us like the weird obscure unseen shit. Donnie Darko would have been a worldwide smash if the publishers had the brains to properly promote it.
6. Quality is sane: The vids had better not be the size of a postage stamp. And perhaps, offer the viewer the vids in a variety of formats and codecs.
Don't click on the link. Don't encourage this whore to provide more of his dubious submissions.
Get a real job eh Roland. Fucktard. And fuck you too, dipshit editors. If there's a financial arrangement between you and this Roland fellow, it's your duty as a soi-disant outlet of news to declare so.
Slashdot Mirror
Get as much ram as you can afford. Presume you are
running Windows -- so turn off the swap file if you
have 1.5 - 2GB of ram. The difference in performance is
astounding.
Besides that, turn off unneeded services and keep your
system clean of spyware. Most "slow" systems I come across
aren't that slow at all, they are just poorly configured.
>the law is in fact ineffective.
So why hasn't the law been repealed? Because of stinking corporate lobbist money, right?
And where did the money come from? From the same public (and some Slashdotters) who grumble about the RIAA/MPAA's prices, but are too weak to vote with their wallets.
That's why things are the way they are; most people are happy to be suckers.
> not unlike the compromise with marijuana.
Please do not equate the marijuana trade with piracy. Most marijuana growers and sellers presumably get at least a few dollars for their efforts.
Content creators who have had their shit pirated get fuck all.
I can't magically transport and mass produce marijuana without a large amount of effort.
Piracy? I just need to click on a few buttons.
>going 66mph in a 65mph zone is technically a crime.
Yup. And if you get caught don't whine about it.
Same goes for piracy. Don't do the crime if you aren't prepared to do the time. Or to change the laws.
>thats basically the riaa/mpaa with their lawsuits, excessive punishment for a non serious crime.
But nobody forced the caught/convicted pirates to pirate, right? Too fucking bad they got caught.
>and some people really do buy more music when they are exposed to more music online.
Quote some figures, please. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
>some dont of course, but what can you do, they weren't going to pay anyways.
Yup. They are cheap shits. But they keep insisting they are somehow "fighting da MAN" or something. Give me a break.
>its not like piracy should be praised, but it shouldn't be demonized. it isn't realistic.
I'm not demonizing it. If you're read what I have written, I am a pirate myself. I simply cannot stand those who continue to insist that they are helping the artistes when they pirate. This is blatantly false.
The creators of stuff I pirate don't get anything from me.
>the industry is just alienating their customers with their excessive reaction.
Yup. Agreed. But it's not a perfect world. Maybe someday we'll all get along huh. But before that, let's be honest with ourselves first.
Oh yes. Mob rules eh. Are you looting in New Orleans now by any chance? Suppose shooting and eating little girls became fashionable tomorrow? That would make it a-ok huh?
That's all fine and dandy. But see, the artistes on Magnatune WANT to give away samples for free, right? Most other big label artistes don't. Simple as that. You should respect their wishes and rights as copyright holders.
All in all, you haven't really answered my questions at all. The above has little to do with the issue of piracy.
>- we'll make more money by people getting to know the music, and coming to the gigs, than the pittance (do you actually know the end percentages?) we take of a record-label-produced CD.
Yes I know about the percentages. However, bear in mind that in many countries, such as mine, there are no gig circuits to speak of. They only want cover bands here. It is hard for a musician to make a living here by giving all his stuff away for free. Most of the good musicians I know end up giving lessons or playing in shitty pubs for a pittiance.
I never said that the RIAA's deal was anything but raw. But that still doesn't make it right to pirate their shit.
See, your brother wants to give his stuff away. That is his choice. Good for him. But plenty of artistes do not want to give their stuff away. I don't see why some Slashdotter's think it is their divine right to "sample" everything under the sun for free.
>- will-be-fans, eyballs and eardrums that care, that pay attention to the music, will go buy the CD
Well, I hope your brother can recoup his recording costs, gear purchases/rental, travel expenses, and other day-to-day costs. I sure as hell won't depend on people to be moral in this day and age.
>If all answers are no, then you're just a passing car and we won't make money off you, unless we con you into buying a (payola) single track that's been hyped-up and much-played, and 11 other pieces of crap.
I agree. But some Slashdotters want to have their cake and to eat it too. They claim to hate the RIAA and support the artistes...by pirating?
>Because this is what happens today with the oligopoly that's called the music industry. Like any other organism, because they reproduce themselves, they (mostly) serve us crap. And will continue to do so unless this fresh wind blows them into the four corners of this world and into the past.
I certainly hope so. But we should still respect the rights of artistes to license/sell their work any way they see fit. Your bro wants to give it away. Others want to sell it for big $$$. I don't see any problem other then the hypocritic fucks who want to pretend they are helping those in the 2nd group when they "sample" their wares.
> If my friend buys a CD then the CD was legally bought and sold. If it was legally bought and sold then ownership was trasnferred. If he owns it then he can legally share it with me.
Yes, I agree with this point completely.
But now, your friend can duplicate the data to 10,000 locations at little cost other than a fast connection and a computer.
Perfect copies. We're not talking about the 80s and VCRs anymore.
What is a reasonable amount of sharing? Is it really sharing when you have a separate copy of the CD from your friend? After all, now both you and him can enjoy the work for the price of paying for it only once.
Not just you, but the rest of the planet in fact. I don't know, but that seems wrong.
>There is no secret that CDs are easily ripped to a hard drive and shared over a network. This is not a surprise.
Yes, the media companies are totally incompetent in this respect. But does it give you carte blanche to pirate everything they create?
Also, when someone pirates and think they're doing the content creator a favor, I take issue with it.
It's not about the piracy, it's about the hypocrisy I see on Slashdot regarding piracy.
>No one's forcing these people to sell CDs to every 10-year old with $15.
By the same token, nobody is forcing pro-piracy
Slashdotters to buy these CDs. If they don't want to pay $15, they can do without. Or pirate. I'm cool with that.
But these same Slashdotters will talk trash bout the "crap that media corps produce..." Guess what,
you are the ones lapping it up.
>Face reality. The product was legally bought and sold and there no longer is any claim to dictating terms of use.
You and I both know that RIAA/MPAA's greed is bottomless. The only way to hurt them is to ignore
them and shut your wallet.
>If anything, file-sharing gives the media companies a taste of what they're doing to the artists:
Well, I'm not sure if 2 wrongs make a right. If you're for the artistes:
1. Push for more sane copyright laws in your country (I'm presuming you're an US citizen)
2. Stop paying for RIAA/MPAA content. That means no cable tv, no cinema flicks, no major label music, no major studio dvd. In short, a total boycott. Deny them mindshare.
3. No compromises. If you say, "I pirate because MPAA/RIAA..." then you're making excuses. If you say
"I pirate because I don't like paying for things," I'm right alongside you.
> You know there are plenty of people here that give away thier created works, whether fiction, art, code, or whatever else, for free, right?
Yes. More power to them. However, I don't recall
the member corporations of the RIAA/MPAA stating that they're in it for the art.
>You're postiong on Slashdot, so I assume you've heard of the GPL, at least.
Yes I have. In case you're not aware, the RIAA/MPAA do not release their works under the GPL.
So, your point is?
>People were producing works of art without the incentive of copyright long before it exsisted. Art is being created without regard to copyright while it exists, and they'll still be created when it's gone, too.
Yes, I agree absolutely. But you're skirting the issue -- how does any of this excuse pirating material protected under current laws?
How does the act of piracy empower the content creators working under RIAA/MPAA?
>The **AA's copyright-supported business model has been outdated by new technology, and nothing can save it now. The effective nil cost of digital reproduction has destroyed the market for thier services, period. New content producers more adapted to the new situation will simply take thier place.
Ah yes, the old buggy-whip maker argument. Any bright suggestions on how exactly you make money when everyone rips off your shit for free?
Can you enlightened me as to how to become more "adapted"?
>Regardless of the **AA's attempts to prop up thier profits in the face of the inevitable, it's useless, and these strong-arm tactics only serve to make myself, and many others, care even less about copyright laws.
Great. I don't care about the copyright laws either.
But, what about the content creators? You still haven't addressed exactly how they are to be compensated.
Some vague mumblings about donations won't do. We need to see serious $$$ before you start getting quality content.
Any idea how much it costs to create an anime flick? 2 guys working off PayPal donations won't cut it.
Do you have any valid points at all, or are you just defending piracy because, deep down inside, you want free shit?
>how about this: I stumble upon your work on P2P, like it and go buy the CD?
And what gives you the right to do so ("sampling " my work off p2p, that is)?
Note how you're using me as the content creator in your example?
Try phrasing it this way:
>how about this: you stumble upon mine work on P2P, like it and go buy the CD?
Are you still cool with it? Wanna put your money where your mouth is?
You can go sample albums at a shop, from a friend, at a library, or even buy and return an album from a store. But you choose to leech it, right?
Face it, you just want a free ride. And that makes you a hypocrite.
>go chase 12yo girls and die in prison HH.
Is your argument so weak that you feel the need to attack my nick? Have you actually read the book?
Wow. Your knee jerked so hard I heard it popping.
Of course I know about what you brought up...read what I wrote about record companies bilking the artistes.
Yes, I've read the Steve Albini and Courtney Love tracts.
What I was saying is, piracy on top of that sure as fuck doesn't help the already suffering content creators.
And what was your point anyway? Piracy supporter? Or what?
Or are you one of those "New Business Model" people? With pie-in-the-sky ideas about making money by offering content for free?
It's peanuts compared to what the record companies are used to making, and they're not interested.
And gigging for money is mostly bullshit for small time bands. They might make enough for gas money if they're lucky.
And quality instruments, studio time, and producers/sound techs don't come cheap.
>I see it as a battle between consumers and monopolistic corporations.
Yes. Exactly. That's why I haven't been to a movie theater in 2 years, and refuse to pay for cable tv.
>I see it as taking back that which was stolenfrom us.
What was stolen, exactly? The songs and movies the companies paid to produce? I know how they have shitty contracts and bilk the artistes, and how Disney profits from centuries-old public domain stories, but the fight needs to be taken to the voting box.
Piracy is not doing the hardworking creators any favors.
>I pay artists directly, if that makes you feel any better.
Touche. It's a good thing to do, but how many follow your example?
>Many who share your attitude seem to think that those of us on the other side simply want a free ride.
If you read the comments from those defending piracy, it's pretty obvious that they've never tried making a living from creating intellectual property. Or for that matter, have simple respect for the rights of content creators.
Want to pirate stuff? Fine. But don't say you're helping to liberate the creators. They need $$$, not words.
>If I'm a hypocrite, then what are you, a corporate lacky?
A pirate. But I don't try to justify it. I just want shit for free.
I just can't stand hypocrites who want to pretend that they're doing something noble when they are simply leeching.
>No? I guess this name calling isn't as fun as you thought it was.
Yes it was. Got your attention, right? Need people here to wake up and start having real discussions about piracy instead of hiding behind vague legal terms.
It's not stealing. Ok. In the leter of the law, it's not stealing. But if someone did that to your
livelyhood, would you want to break their kneecaps? I would.
Of course we should share everything, right? Why the hell not? It's not like music and movies costs time and money to create.
How about this: one of you sharers out there go make a record or movie.
Try selling copies of it. Online, or in a physical store. At a price of your choosing.
Now, I'll start pirating your work and sell it for $0.0001. Or I'll even start duplicating it free of charge for everyone.
Uploading a 1:1 copy of your work to *senet, where it will be propagated around the world, in digital form, costs me next to nothing.
And fuck you if you're too much of a noob to secure your product, right?
No wait, we hate DRM too, so you can't secure your product and expect the Slashdot hypocrites to pay.
Seriously, you think this is ok? It might not be stealing, but it's WRONG.
Yes, iTunes is alright, sorta, but they aren't making the shitloads of cash the movie/music moguls are used to.
It's all about scarcity and control. We will NEVER have non DRM'ed media as the norm until society fundamentally changes and businesses and govt are runned by upright, decent folks.
Yeah, right.
No compromises. Remember Rorshach.
What we don't need, are hypocrites trying to justify their thieving behavior. Be proud to be a pirate. Wanna break the law? Stand up and do it. You have no god given right to media.
Don't even get me started on how we should be mining asteroids by now instead of fighting over scraps of "valuable" resources...
Why don't you share some of your VISION with us? If you're one of those whining on about buggy-whip makers and new business models, I would like to invite you to come up with a business plan, or, just a simple outline based on one of the "...so many ways of making money here..." that you seem to be hoarding.
Don't be mistaken, I'm no MPAA supporter. In fact, I fly the Jolly Roger flag (wink wink). You want the MPAA to change their ways and back off?
Simple. Quit buying their shit. That means no DVD purchases, no movie tickets. Nada. I read all the complaints about crappy movie theaters in the earlier article but guess what? Slashdotters still swallow that shit up anyway. We're supposed to be smarter than that right?
And no hypocrisy please. Movies cost money to make. Music cost money to make. You either want to pay for them or you don't. I don't. But I don't whine about how I would give them my money if only blah blah blah.
I say fuck them all to hell.
Now that you've mentioned it -- fuck Slashdot too.
It's gonna be Adblock all the way from now on.
I don't have a beef with anyone trying to make more money, but the editors should quit pretending that Roland's articles end up here because they're actually worth reading. That's just wrong. Why should I have to read his tripe when thousands of other slashdotters can submit the same stories?
Does he add anything to the stories? No. Is he just a leech trying to score a few bucks off the efforts of others? Yes. I dislike someone who pretends to be 'helpful.'
Slashdotters like you drank the damn Kool Aid a long time ago. Bet you thought Jon Katz was the shit too.
Fuc...oh wait. Sorry. Too quick on the trigger. My bad.
I'll tell you what my problem is:
Roland submissions seem to go straight to the front page. This fucks with the idea that the most interesting/newsworthy article submissions be accepted, and smells badly of filthy lucre kickbacks to the editors.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fuck Roland.
/. editors said that there was/is no preferential treatment for Roland's submissions. That's simply bullshit when you look at the sheer number of Roland's submissions that have made it to the front page.
One of the
Can any other Joe Schmoe even stand out among the hundreds (just a wild-assed guess) of article submissions made around the clock to the editors? Imagine -- not just to get your submission accepted, but to achieve that over and over again.
This is worse than Jon Katz, because I can't even set my preferences to filter this motherfucker out.
Fuck you, Roland.
...why bother posting it?
1. Pricing is sane: If the vid costs any more than 30% of the price for a brand new retail DVD, forget it.
2. Delivery is sane: No funky P2P implementation. I'll be damned if I pay for a movie and have to use my own connection to help the publishers distribute it. Better cough up the bucks for the fat pipes, cause you're gonna need them.
3. Timing is sane: Say, really really soon after a movie premieres? Maybe 5 working days? If not, cheap bastards like me will just score it off ***net. It's not just about the quality, it's about the timeliness too.
4. DRM is sane: I'd better be able to shift the vid around, or view it without being connected to the mothership. Or better yet, forget DRM, because
we'll just film it off the monitor if we can't crack the copy protection. Have you seen high quality telecines? They're free, and they look real decent. You can't compete with that.
5. Selection is sane: Don't just limit the choice of movies to the latest corporate trash. Some of us like the weird obscure unseen shit. Donnie Darko would have been a worldwide smash if the publishers had the brains to properly promote it.
6. Quality is sane: The vids had better not be the size of a postage stamp. And perhaps, offer the viewer the vids in a variety of formats and codecs.
Don't click on the link. Don't encourage this whore
to provide more of his dubious submissions.
Get a real job eh Roland. Fucktard. And fuck you too, dipshit editors. If there's a financial arrangement between you and this Roland fellow, it's your duty as a soi-disant outlet of news to declare so.
...lazy ass editors.
The broom things strengthen the metal, of course. Everyone knows that.
My my, it's turning in to a B5 love-fest here. And that's a good thing.
Come to think of that, I think I'll volunteer to be in charge of the holo-brothel...
But seriously, there's so much potential in all this that it's ridiculous...