Did any of you people read anything about this case? The judge did not determine the amount of the judgment. It was completely determined by the jury. This judge is the one who allowed a new trial because he thought the $222,000 judgment from the first trial was too high.
Not all but many. I am close to your position on it, but I have a 10' screen and a projector and a huge audio system. For enjoyment of film in the home, it doesn't get a lot better, and with blu-ray, the experience is finally better than all but the better run theaters downtown.
But even I think the pricing is out of line. I'm quite willing to pay about $4-6 more for a blu-ray version of a movie. When I factor in its lower utility (can ONLY be watched on my main system) along with the quality improvement, I have real trouble with the $15-20 markup in MSRP they are pushing. There are probably only 5 or so titles a year I will spend $25+ on. Titles I am interested but not super eager for, I'll pay $18-20. Anything else, gets delayed until it breaks below $15. So even though I have well over 400 movies, I am at only 60+ blu-rays.
So I can fully understand why the general public sees marginal benefit. I was in fact confused by some of my friends decision to go blu-ray when they could probably have gotten more benefit by improving their systems' DVD capabilities first.
My sound system is Dolby 5.1. Many BD disks I have managed to rent didn't have digital 5.1 in English but rather DTS. They offer 5.1 in other languages. So I may get a better picture but only surround sound quality. That sucks.
DTS 5.1 is completely comparable to Dolby 5.1 (many argue it's better but irrelevant to this comment). Unless you have an extremely ancient system without DTS decoding support, which would be almost 16 years old at a guess, you are still getting discrete 5.1, not matrixed surround sound. And if it is that old, you are not getting the new sound improvements from blu-ray anyway, just the legacy 5.1 tracks.
If you are saying you have a new system that decodes Dolby TrueHD, but not DTS HD MA, you are mistaken. No one has sold such a receiver.
Of course, that just underscores how confusing the whole audio mess is.
Interesting thread on another forum where a guy ripped the blu-ray of Men in Black, and then made his own DVD compliant and sized MPEG2 version, burned it to DVD-9 and it had noticeably better picture quality than the original Studio-produced DVD. Shows the lack of effort the studios sometimes put into these things.
Ah, I miss driving through giant messes of unreeled tape on the freeway. Driving over shards of CDs just didn't give the same feel. And now we don't even have that.
Funny, I see a lot more slashdotters calling for revised IP laws, but still generally in support of IP, than I do patent attorneys admitting the system is completely broken and counter-productive.
I would suspect it is that the more capable IT shops in India, with the more experienced and quality programmers have seen their costs and therefore the price they charge rise due to competition for these programmers. At the same time, new lower quality shops are entering the market without reasonable skills, but bidding at the lower prices these American companies were expecting to see for outsourced work.
And they got what they paid for. They are behind the curve on the level of savings available by outsourcing code to India by a couple of years.
Brick & mortar stores do not seem to discount blu-ray into the realm of reasonable nearly as much as online outfits, so I would bet that BD purchasing is skewed much more towards online than DVD. I know that is true for me.
Slashdot Mirror
And why do mini-vans escape the wrath of the anti-car crowd?
Because they're thinking of the children.
Both of you guys' electric bills are going through the roof.
Dopey mad scientists never consider all the angles.
Did any of you people read anything about this case? The judge did not determine the amount of the judgment. It was completely determined by the jury. This judge is the one who allowed a new trial because he thought the $222,000 judgment from the first trial was too high.
It pinches it off.
LOL. Which one? There were two on the page.
It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this.
It's the correct decision, but the emotional "she must pay" reactions are going to be pervasive.
Not all but many. I am close to your position on it, but I have a 10' screen and a projector and a huge audio system. For enjoyment of film in the home, it doesn't get a lot better, and with blu-ray, the experience is finally better than all but the better run theaters downtown.
But even I think the pricing is out of line. I'm quite willing to pay about $4-6 more for a blu-ray version of a movie. When I factor in its lower utility (can ONLY be watched on my main system) along with the quality improvement, I have real trouble with the $15-20 markup in MSRP they are pushing. There are probably only 5 or so titles a year I will spend $25+ on. Titles I am interested but not super eager for, I'll pay $18-20. Anything else, gets delayed until it breaks below $15. So even though I have well over 400 movies, I am at only 60+ blu-rays.
So I can fully understand why the general public sees marginal benefit. I was in fact confused by some of my friends decision to go blu-ray when they could probably have gotten more benefit by improving their systems' DVD capabilities first.
My sound system is Dolby 5.1. Many BD disks I have managed to rent didn't have digital 5.1 in English but rather DTS. They offer 5.1 in other languages. So I may get a better picture but only surround sound quality. That sucks.
DTS 5.1 is completely comparable to Dolby 5.1 (many argue it's better but irrelevant to this comment). Unless you have an extremely ancient system without DTS decoding support, which would be almost 16 years old at a guess, you are still getting discrete 5.1, not matrixed surround sound. And if it is that old, you are not getting the new sound improvements from blu-ray anyway, just the legacy 5.1 tracks.
If you are saying you have a new system that decodes Dolby TrueHD, but not DTS HD MA, you are mistaken. No one has sold such a receiver.
Of course, that just underscores how confusing the whole audio mess is.
Interesting thread on another forum where a guy ripped the blu-ray of Men in Black, and then made his own DVD compliant and sized MPEG2 version, burned it to DVD-9 and it had noticeably better picture quality than the original Studio-produced DVD. Shows the lack of effort the studios sometimes put into these things.
No longer does he frighten me:
http://thereifixedit.com/2009/05/21/epic-kludge-photo-trogdor-proof/
My sister was bitten by a moose once . . .
TDK Super Avilyn Chrome tapes FTW!
All I used. Except when I ran low on money and had to settle for the gold colored ones.
I prefer taking pics with my film SLR on Ilford BW film because it feels more like 'pictures'.
As an aside, stock up. Ilford is getting out of the film business, as you probably know. Their new Japanese parent company has other plans for them.
Ah, I miss driving through giant messes of unreeled tape on the freeway. Driving over shards of CDs just didn't give the same feel. And now we don't even have that.
I hope you got £20,000 to even think about doing that.
+1 if I had any
Well, if they actually work, shouldn't they be in our past and present as well?
Vinyl still makes a lousy couch
Funny, I see a lot more slashdotters calling for revised IP laws, but still generally in support of IP, than I do patent attorneys admitting the system is completely broken and counter-productive.
my iPhone doesn't support MMS. I'm not sure who to be angry ATT for this.
I'll give you a hint . . .
They sell "ultra-thin" brands overseas that are quality-checked for small holes via lasers.
Don't the sharks' teeth make more holes?
I heard Sonic goes for Miles . . .
and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.
Agree on McCain, but I think that was the factory paint job on Palin.
I would suspect it is that the more capable IT shops in India, with the more experienced and quality programmers have seen their costs and therefore the price they charge rise due to competition for these programmers. At the same time, new lower quality shops are entering the market without reasonable skills, but bidding at the lower prices these American companies were expecting to see for outsourced work.
And they got what they paid for. They are behind the curve on the level of savings available by outsourcing code to India by a couple of years.
Brick & mortar stores do not seem to discount blu-ray into the realm of reasonable nearly as much as online outfits, so I would bet that BD purchasing is skewed much more towards online than DVD. I know that is true for me.