i have no problem with requiring an id, but only if the id is free to obtain. otherwise, you're putting a price, the size of which does not matter, on the ability to vote.
of course it should be solely up to the rights holder to determine this. they should pay any and all costs to investigate. do used cd stores make sure that the discs they're buying weren't copied beforehand? kind of the same thing.
burn my iTunes library directly to this superior medium.
wouldn't the source also have to be completely analog to achieve this so-called audio nirvana. once the jaggies are there, there are there, which is why i never understood releasing modern, digitally manipulated stuff on vinyl (aside from djing, although maybe those cd-dj decks have come along way from their initial hokey-ness).
I stick with DVD and will be doing so till the next revolution comes around without DRM. Yes, I know, that DVD technically has CSS. That is hardly a roadblock though and I can still make 1:1 backups and preserve the originals.
the locking has nothing to do with market demand. they could easily let pro users unlock and do what they want, at no harm to themselves, but they choose not to. why is that?
fuck i am too tired. he wasn't talking about downloads. the content creators would also be the sole retailers, so every OTHER retailer would be out of the loop. yeah, that's what i meant.
1. I reckon he is talking about downloads. I'm sorry, but Joe's Corner Mom and Pop would be gone. Retailers would be cut out of the loop: remove the much larger costs of packaging, shipping, and retail and let the end prices reflect that. Every step in that process needs to make a profit. It is even worse when any step is owned by the content creators, because they'll just use hollywood accounting to inflate those costs. If you own a construction business and an equipment rental place, adding the cost of rental for a construction job, onto something you already own, in order to increase revenue is shady as fuck. I'd like to see this practice removed from all industries.
2. It is more risky to have a retail store buy stuff, with all these added physical distribution costs (and that is with wholesale discounts). The risk, is on the retailers, though. If the retailer doesn't sell them, then they have to sell at a loss, but, as I said above, the retailers would be out of the loop.Of course, virtual delivery isn't free, but the distribution costs are much, much smaller.
Thr problem is this:
Even if physical distribution AND piracy were eradicated, the content creators had sole digital distribution, and the cost of said distribution was zero, they'd still charge as much (if not more) as they do now because they can never make enough money. I wonder if the prices they charge currently have gotten so high because they had a monopoly on the entire distribution chain for so many decades. And that's just the movie industry.
Television is another beast entirely. If you can broadcast something over the air for free, why can't you give me a drm-free, ads-inserted copy? They used to get paid once, for the initial broadcast, but then came syndication, home video, and internet streaming. How much longer until I have to pay for every time I watch something, even though it was already paid for after the first airing? Cable channels are almost in the same boat. All the ratings and other bullshit that determine advertising costs needs to be re-thought, methinks. Premium channels, however, are a bit different though. It's too bad none of them offer a Netflix like option that is independent of a cable/sat subscription. I'd love a $7.99/month HBO Go type app for my blu-ray player.
if that is the case, then the secondary market should have to do that with everything else that can be copied.
also, the ease of replication should always be irrelevant.
i am keenly interested in this. a year or so ago, amazon offered like 10 albums from a certain artist for free. if they are no longer free from amazon, i SHOULD be able to undercut them (i would obviously delete the originals), much like you could if they had given out free cds. i was gonna put them on a flash drive and ebay it, but with all these bullshit laws, many of them untested, i'd rather not risk it.
You also have no chance of getting Jack Black or Angelina Jolie as voice actors.
I really dislike the surge, of using A-list celebrities as voice actors, that has ramped up tremendously over the past decade or so.
It's not like they need the work. There is an entire industry of professionals that have been doing it for as long as there's been animation,
some of whom can act well, but don't have 'the look'. I'd much prefer a handful of voice actors doing all the roles
than having to hear whatever movie star decided that they need another mansion.
the problem isn't really the people, but the fact that dipshits can be in office that long. that is one of the major problems with our government.
naysayers tend to argue:
A) there are some good people that should be lifers. well then, let's have no term limits for anything then, right? comptroller for life, dawg!
or
B) it takes them awhile to learn how things are done. bullshit. they should know exactly how the job works before getting on the ballot. how fucking hard is it to read/write bills and vote on them? oh, they have to learn how to be corrupt. i get it.
exactly. you can't sell a phone with specific features then not expect that feature to be used, daily even. if it can be a wifi hotspot, expect it to be that for quite a bit of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
do you think isps and computer makers are pissed that they didn't create this type of bullshit system?
i have no problem with requiring an id, but only if the id is free to obtain. otherwise, you're putting a price, the size of which does not matter, on the ability to vote.
but it would be sooo awesome
change the name?
the wars and/or communism were not a direct result of the atheism, were they? were they done in the non-name of the non-god? didn't think so.
you should have to prove it as much as you proved you did not copy that cd before selling it.
of course it should be solely up to the rights holder to determine this. they should pay any and all costs to investigate. do used cd stores make sure that the discs they're buying weren't copied beforehand? kind of the same thing.
would you also need the inlays while using an mp3 player?
burn my iTunes library directly to this superior medium.
wouldn't the source also have to be completely analog to achieve this so-called audio nirvana. once the jaggies are there, there are there, which is why i never understood releasing modern, digitally manipulated stuff on vinyl (aside from djing, although maybe those cd-dj decks have come along way from their initial hokey-ness).
I stick with DVD and will be doing so till the next revolution comes around without DRM. Yes, I know, that DVD technically has CSS. That is hardly a roadblock though and I can still make 1:1 backups and preserve the originals.
you can currently do all that with blu-ray.
this is why they'll never release anything past the first season of malcolm in the middle
the locking has nothing to do with market demand. they could easily let pro users unlock and do what they want, at no harm to themselves, but they choose not to. why is that?
or sell the stolen car. isn't selling stolen goods also a crime?
fuck i am too tired. he wasn't talking about downloads. the content creators would also be the sole retailers, so every OTHER retailer would be out of the loop. yeah, that's what i meant.
1. I reckon he is talking about downloads. I'm sorry, but Joe's Corner Mom and Pop would be gone. Retailers would be cut out of the loop: remove the much larger costs of packaging, shipping, and retail and let the end prices reflect that. Every step in that process needs to make a profit. It is even worse when any step is owned by the content creators, because they'll just use hollywood accounting to inflate those costs. If you own a construction business and an equipment rental place, adding the cost of rental for a construction job, onto something you already own, in order to increase revenue is shady as fuck. I'd like to see this practice removed from all industries.
2. It is more risky to have a retail store buy stuff, with all these added physical distribution costs (and that is with wholesale discounts). The risk, is on the retailers, though. If the retailer doesn't sell them, then they have to sell at a loss, but, as I said above, the retailers would be out of the loop.Of course, virtual delivery isn't free, but the distribution costs are much, much smaller.
Thr problem is this:
Even if physical distribution AND piracy were eradicated, the content creators had sole digital distribution, and the cost of said distribution was zero, they'd still charge as much (if not more) as they do now because they can never make enough money. I wonder if the prices they charge currently have gotten so high because they had a monopoly on the entire distribution chain for so many decades. And that's just the movie industry.
Television is another beast entirely. If you can broadcast something over the air for free, why can't you give me a drm-free, ads-inserted copy? They used to get paid once, for the initial broadcast, but then came syndication, home video, and internet streaming. How much longer until I have to pay for every time I watch something, even though it was already paid for after the first airing? Cable channels are almost in the same boat. All the ratings and other bullshit that determine advertising costs needs to be re-thought, methinks. Premium channels, however, are a bit different though. It's too bad none of them offer a Netflix like option that is independent of a cable/sat subscription. I'd love a $7.99/month HBO Go type app for my blu-ray player.
don't forget about videogames. i don't play many of my steam purchases...
should there be any difference in fair use rights regardless of medium? would 'digital media' include cds, dvds, etc?
if that is the case, then the secondary market should have to do that with everything else that can be copied.
also, the ease of replication should always be irrelevant.
i am keenly interested in this. a year or so ago, amazon offered like 10 albums from a certain artist for free. if they are no longer free from amazon, i SHOULD be able to undercut them (i would obviously delete the originals), much like you could if they had given out free cds. i was gonna put them on a flash drive and ebay it, but with all these bullshit laws, many of them untested, i'd rather not risk it.
You also have no chance of getting Jack Black or Angelina Jolie as voice actors.
I really dislike the surge, of using A-list celebrities as voice actors, that has ramped up tremendously over the past decade or so.
It's not like they need the work. There is an entire industry of professionals that have been doing it for as long as there's been animation,
some of whom can act well, but don't have 'the look'. I'd much prefer a handful of voice actors doing all the roles
than having to hear whatever movie star decided that they need another mansion.
the problem isn't really the people, but the fact that dipshits can be in office that long. that is one of the major problems with our government. naysayers tend to argue:
A) there are some good people that should be lifers. well then, let's have no term limits for anything then, right? comptroller for life, dawg!
or
B) it takes them awhile to learn how things are done. bullshit. they should know exactly how the job works before getting on the ballot. how fucking hard is it to read/write bills and vote on them? oh, they have to learn how to be corrupt. i get it.
exactly. you can't sell a phone with specific features then not expect that feature to be used, daily even. if it can be a wifi hotspot, expect it to be that for quite a bit of the time.
if anything, the cat should be covered under a family plan.
die off?
On that matter, stories always change when they are passed from people to people.
The Bible