Superbit is just a marketing trick telling you that they normally crap out on DVD's, but are making an exception for you. It's not something to charge for - it's exactly what they should be doing all along. If you get a dual-layer release of a movie and they didn't even bother to try to fill most of it with the film at the highest possible bitrate, they have failed you. Same for buying a double-feature on DVD - you know where the compromise is.
Not only did Sony make an improved version of The 5th Element on Blu-Ray, they offered free upgrade discs to those affected by the quality problems. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/...
Early adopters have problems. That is nothing to do with the quality of one early-format release of a movie. Just look at Ben Hur or the LOTR extended editions on Blu-Ray (directorial color changes on the latter excepted). Two discs just to contain the main movie. Certainly blows "superbit" out of the water.
That quote is also likely incorrect. It's almost certainly sending 1920x1080 signal to the TV. But rendering at 960x180. Atari emulators can do 1080p HD video output. The company knew what they were doing when they intentionally used weasel wording for their 1080p logo.
You're mostly right, except about fast-moving scenes. 720p is sharper for low-motion scenes. In ATSC over the air, most (if not all) 720p signals are 29.97 frames per second, rather than 59.94 as in 1080i. 1080i has double the temporal resolution of 720p in most cases.
Many TV shows are shot for a film-look format of 24 frames per second, and then converted via 3:2 pulldown for broadcast at 29.97fps. A lot of TV's will reverse that back to 24fps (if the TV says 120Hz refresh or more).
720p is just as much HD as 1080i. 1080i only has 540 vertical lines per field. 1080p broadcast is relatively new - and only available via cable/satellite right now (and I doubt it's 1080p60).
In fact, most of the broadcast networks settled on 720p as their native format. 1080i is used more for networks that focus on sports and need the extra temporal resolution.
They should have had a warrant before infecting them. But a drive-by download can hit anyone, so it's almost certainly breaking 4th Amendment protection.
It sometimes goes for years. Sometimes it goes the other way. One day in 2012, I looked up a tiny unincorporated community (< 100 residents) in west central Illinois and found that it had been vandalized 2 days prior. I reverted the edits and cleaned it up.
You'd think that's the sort of edit that would go unnoticed for years. Although it was pretty extensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
But your claim that they're the owner of the CD isn't necessarily true. You could borrow a CD from the library, or a friend. How's the device to know if you actually own it?
And companies sell photocopiers, too. Those can be used for copying books - even if you don't own them.
If you don't have physical possession of the CD, you no longer have rights to the ripped copies.
If the CD is scratched or melted, you still have physical possession - you just no longer have a backup. If you lost the digital file, it would be technically illegal to go download the same track online. But I certainly wouldn't let that stop me.
And who wouldn't want a very compact, lossless digital backup? No need to keep the jewel cases, but a binder is nice. Cars have CD players so you can listen to a CD on the way home after buying it (before putting it in your computer).
UMG argued, in part, that the copying was not covered by fair use because entire CDs were copied (instead of excerpts) and that the use was a commercial one (even though no fee was charged, it was supported by ad revenue).
This use would not be commercial. It's the difference between a Slingbox and Aereo. Aereo is a commercial provider. Slingbox is DIY.
And on top of that, I can't easily prove that I bought a ROM dumper on eBay/Craigslist (or borrowed one) and re-sold it once my collection was ripped. So I would hope the burden of proof that I didn't would be on them anyway.
Furthermore, piracy is not a legal or case law term - it's more of an ethical term. And ethically, it is not wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
That statement is entirely meaningless without defining a screen size.
It's not spatial scaling, no. Their term of temporal scaling describes what's going on just fine.
Superbit is just a marketing trick telling you that they normally crap out on DVD's, but are making an exception for you. It's not something to charge for - it's exactly what they should be doing all along. If you get a dual-layer release of a movie and they didn't even bother to try to fill most of it with the film at the highest possible bitrate, they have failed you. Same for buying a double-feature on DVD - you know where the compromise is.
Not only did Sony make an improved version of The 5th Element on Blu-Ray, they offered free upgrade discs to those affected by the quality problems.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/...
Early adopters have problems. That is nothing to do with the quality of one early-format release of a movie. Just look at Ben Hur or the LOTR extended editions on Blu-Ray (directorial color changes on the latter excepted). Two discs just to contain the main movie. Certainly blows "superbit" out of the water.
If they said "Own the [title] Blu-Ray today" you would be right. They say you own the movie in their wording.
That quote is also likely incorrect. It's almost certainly sending 1920x1080 signal to the TV. But rendering at 960x180. Atari emulators can do 1080p HD video output. The company knew what they were doing when they intentionally used weasel wording for their 1080p logo.
You're mostly right, except about fast-moving scenes. 720p is sharper for low-motion scenes. In ATSC over the air, most (if not all) 720p signals are 29.97 frames per second, rather than 59.94 as in 1080i. 1080i has double the temporal resolution of 720p in most cases.
Many TV shows are shot for a film-look format of 24 frames per second, and then converted via 3:2 pulldown for broadcast at 29.97fps. A lot of TV's will reverse that back to 24fps (if the TV says 120Hz refresh or more).
720p is just as much HD as 1080i. 1080i only has 540 vertical lines per field. 1080p broadcast is relatively new - and only available via cable/satellite right now (and I doubt it's 1080p60).
In fact, most of the broadcast networks settled on 720p as their native format. 1080i is used more for networks that focus on sports and need the extra temporal resolution.
marketing...gimmick...Nope. It's an effective business plan. It's the forerunner to the Freemium business model (which I hate by comparison).
It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection
A free 30-day trial is a fairly common business model in software. And it involves giving access to software with full functionality.
You've really never heard of the Silk Road? It's been in the news quite a lot.
But yes, there are actually people using it to circumvent government firewalls.
The former polygamists known for taking underage brides? Do explain.
They should have had a warrant before infecting them. But a drive-by download can hit anyone, so it's almost certainly breaking 4th Amendment protection.
Only a matter of time before she ends up shoehorned into Once Upon A Time.
how the fuck do you go thousands of years without checking that a brick falls faster than a grape?
When was the last time you had a brick in one hand and a grape in the other?
It sometimes goes for years. Sometimes it goes the other way. One day in 2012, I looked up a tiny unincorporated community (< 100 residents) in west central Illinois and found that it had been vandalized 2 days prior. I reverted the edits and cleaned it up.
You'd think that's the sort of edit that would go unnoticed for years. Although it was pretty extensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
But your claim that they're the owner of the CD isn't necessarily true. You could borrow a CD from the library, or a friend. How's the device to know if you actually own it?
And companies sell photocopiers, too. Those can be used for copying books - even if you don't own them.
If you don't have physical possession of the CD, you no longer have rights to the ripped copies.
If the CD is scratched or melted, you still have physical possession - you just no longer have a backup. If you lost the digital file, it would be technically illegal to go download the same track online. But I certainly wouldn't let that stop me.
And who wouldn't want a very compact, lossless digital backup? No need to keep the jewel cases, but a binder is nice. Cars have CD players so you can listen to a CD on the way home after buying it (before putting it in your computer).
but doesn't having 10GB of ripped Justin Beiber songs raise the resale value of a car...
No, I think that would take this from being legal to being a crime.
Precedent is precedent.
iTunes? It's been around for years.
1. The Fuck Comcast vote should have been enough to pass this in the first place.
Their entire voter marketing plan should have been "When you have problems with your Internet, you won't have to call Comcast."
And keep his money for the ticket, I presume? Or would they really offer him a refund for services not rendered?
Jammie Thomas was downloading copies of CD's she legally purchased?
I acquire mine via Bittorrent.
And since I accidentally posted as anonymous, I now have to type a random disclaimer below to get Slashdot to let me post it.
Look at your own link:
UMG argued, in part, that the copying was not covered by fair use because entire CDs were copied (instead of excerpts) and that the use was a commercial one (even though no fee was charged, it was supported by ad revenue).
This use would not be commercial. It's the difference between a Slingbox and Aereo. Aereo is a commercial provider. Slingbox is DIY.
And on top of that, I can't easily prove that I bought a ROM dumper on eBay/Craigslist (or borrowed one) and re-sold it once my collection was ripped. So I would hope the burden of proof that I didn't would be on them anyway.
Furthermore, piracy is not a legal or case law term - it's more of an ethical term. And ethically, it is not wrong.