Once something is published, availability should be a requirement of copyright, especially in this digital age.
Artificial scarcity is the enemy of the consumer.
It also doesn't define what type of arms, so any weapon restrictions violate it. I want to know where the outrage is over the restriction of fully-automatics, destructive devices, and wmds. How am I supposed to get behind any Second Amendment fanatics when they won't fight for the right to bear all arms. Seems kind of limp-dicked when you've already made some pretty heavy concessions in the past.
Yes. GTX 1080s were over a grand last fall. I got one for $700 in February. It's just too bad AMD couldn't get their Vegas out in any meaningful quantities in the same time frame.
If Disney think I'm going to subscribe to yet another streaming service just for Star Wars, I've got some bad news for them. I'll binge them during my trial periods, each and every season.
Case 1: I have access to anything from OTA to the biggest CATV package. I buy a dvr. I edit out all the commercials and have a nice DRM-free copy.>br>
Case 2: I have access to anything from OTA to the biggest CATV package. Someone else does the legwork, for free, even. So long as I have access, I download that DRM-free copy.
Nothing in the "Betamax case" could plausibly explain why only one of these 2 actions is legal, given that the end result and process are effectively identical except for trivial access-verification differences. Such a requirement completely fails to stand up to the slightest bit of logical scrutiny, and any legal code that would result in such an outcome would have to be patently absurd.
There is a whole spectrum of knock-offs. What of the counterfeit goods that are the exact same as the genuine article, but just made after hours and lacking the blessing of its IP overlord? If those identical goods can sell for a price, sometimes drastically, below the real deal, it shows that profits are being protected, not consumers.
I think it is mostly because bandwidth and compression technologies became viable for "good enough" streaming.
Personally, I do own about 120 blu-rays of stuff that I want to look/sound as good as I can get, but that's nowhere near my peak ~700 dvd collection.
Copyright should include an availability clause. Artificial scarcity in a digital word has got to be one of the most anti-consumer things I can imagine. I'd love to lock Disney's board's children in the fucking vault. If it's not available, it should not protected. Media's value should also not be exempt from going down with the cost of reproduction. Infinite copies with such little overhead should mean drastic reductions in cost (75% seems like a good place to start, not to mention recompense for consumer rights lost like resale or lending), like nearly every other industry.
Besides that, they've had 15 years to get their shit together and release globally, yet they continue their bullshit regioning, milking it to the last drop. What do they expect? I mean, if it is a global economy and all, shouldn't consumers be able to find the cheapest media like corporations find the cheapest labor?
Here's another stupid case of not allowing a third party to do what is legal if done by oneself.
Copyright really needs an agent clause. A timeshifting/commercial removing service should be a totally legit thing.
I'm pretty sure that Facebook's short-lived Poke app was out before SnapChat and it did the same thing: one-view text, pics and video, so who is really copying who here?
Exactly. We have the most basic of cable subs with like 20-some channels and the HBOs, SlingTV (orange+blue), Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus. There are still a few cases, where I had fell behind and torrented a show, that falls under one of those subscriptions. Neither AMC nor FX(X) will let me use my SlingTV credentials to activate their respective apps, which have a lot more episodes on demand than SlingTV offers. #goodfaithcopyrightinfringement
If some people get use the whole world to lower their costs via cheap labor, then the surely, people can use the whole world to find the cheapest/easiest to access content. It's 20-fucking-17. Play globally or gtfo.
Slashdot Mirror
If anything, it is generated from the seller's side. Move everything to Nevada, problem solved.
Once something is published, availability should be a requirement of copyright, especially in this digital age.
Artificial scarcity is the enemy of the consumer.
Just leave "Most Recent" as default ffs.
It also doesn't define what type of arms, so any weapon restrictions violate it. I want to know where the outrage is over the restriction of fully-automatics, destructive devices, and wmds. How am I supposed to get behind any Second Amendment fanatics when they won't fight for the right to bear all arms. Seems kind of limp-dicked when you've already made some pretty heavy concessions in the past.
At the very least, integrate all branches of the armed forces. So much wasteful redundancy.
Well, duh. Cointelpro, for one.
Yes. GTX 1080s were over a grand last fall. I got one for $700 in February. It's just too bad AMD couldn't get their Vegas out in any meaningful quantities in the same time frame.
I say we switch to 6 x 28 hour days and get off the solar time teat. Sleep-masks, blackout drapes, and flashlights for the weak.
If Disney think I'm going to subscribe to yet another streaming service just for Star Wars, I've got some bad news for them. I'll binge them during my trial periods, each and every season.
Case 1: I have access to anything from OTA to the biggest CATV package. I buy a dvr. I edit out all the commercials and have a nice DRM-free copy.>br> Case 2: I have access to anything from OTA to the biggest CATV package. Someone else does the legwork, for free, even. So long as I have access, I download that DRM-free copy.
Nothing in the "Betamax case" could plausibly explain why only one of these 2 actions is legal, given that the end result and process are effectively identical except for trivial access-verification differences. Such a requirement completely fails to stand up to the slightest bit of logical scrutiny, and any legal code that would result in such an outcome would have to be patently absurd.
They're doing it wrong if the bottom doesn't have a reverse Apple Logo to leave its mark.
Actually, oxygen displacement via helium or nitrogen tent is the most painless, but granted not the easiest to set up.
the plaintiffs will just get an extra 5gb of storage.
Going to be?
There is a whole spectrum of knock-offs. What of the counterfeit goods that are the exact same as the genuine article, but just made after hours and lacking the blessing of its IP overlord?
If those identical goods can sell for a price, sometimes drastically, below the real deal, it shows that profits are being protected, not consumers.
I think it is mostly because bandwidth and compression technologies became viable for "good enough" streaming.
Personally, I do own about 120 blu-rays of stuff that I want to look/sound as good as I can get, but that's nowhere near my peak ~700 dvd collection.
Shouldn't it be 16k?
His movies have gotten consecutively worse, and he only uses other people's IP. Two thumbs down.
Copyright should include an availability clause. Artificial scarcity in a digital word has got to be one of the most anti-consumer things I can imagine. I'd love to lock Disney's board's children in the fucking vault. If it's not available, it should not protected. Media's value should also not be exempt from going down with the cost of reproduction. Infinite copies with such little overhead should mean drastic reductions in cost (75% seems like a good place to start, not to mention recompense for consumer rights lost like resale or lending), like nearly every other industry.
Besides that, they've had 15 years to get their shit together and release globally, yet they continue their bullshit regioning, milking it to the last drop. What do they expect? I mean, if it is a global economy and all, shouldn't consumers be able to find the cheapest media like corporations find the cheapest labor?
Here's another stupid case of not allowing a third party to do what is legal if done by oneself.
Copyright really needs an agent clause. A timeshifting/commercial removing service should be a totally legit thing.
Should've titled it: Kit Kat Arkanoid.
I'm pretty sure that Facebook's short-lived Poke app was out before SnapChat and it did the same thing: one-view text, pics and video, so who is really copying who here?
Exactly. We have the most basic of cable subs with like 20-some channels and the HBOs, SlingTV (orange+blue), Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus. There are still a few cases, where I had fell behind and torrented a show, that falls under one of those subscriptions. Neither AMC nor FX(X) will let me use my SlingTV credentials to activate their respective apps, which have a lot more episodes on demand than SlingTV offers. #goodfaithcopyrightinfringement
Seeing that Comcast has both an additional $50/unlimited or $10/50gb overage, do they really have a cap?
If some people get use the whole world to lower their costs via cheap labor, then the surely, people can use the whole world to find the cheapest/easiest to access content. It's 20-fucking-17. Play globally or gtfo.