So it's possible to withhold your custom and still send a message. If enough people feel the same way content providers will get the message in due course.
With eBooks, the format changed. Who wants to read a book online instead of in paper format. The eBook was given a stab and failed. Is it surprising? Not really.
Plenty of people pop a DVD into their computer and watch a movie. If they download the movie, the format doesn't change. So, this overcoming that formatting issue.
If noone purchases downloadable movies, of course they will go away. Is it likely that no one will buy a downloadable movie? Not realistically.
I take it you are suggesting that the success of blockbuster implies that NBC's download scheme will be similarly successful? Certainly, that wasn't what you said
I am suggesting that a lack of concern to the segment of the market opposed to renting DVD's might indicate a willingness to ignore the segment of the market opposed to downloading time-limited movies to focus on those who are supportive of such an arrangement. Even if 70% of Americans would choose not to purchase time-limited movie downloads, I'll bet NBC and others would still do it if it was the best way to sell downloadable movies. Certainly NBC isn't going to listen to the segment not willing to spend their money, over the segment that is willing to spend their money, if it is the best way to provide movie downloads.
People may still find it more convenient to rent the physical media;
I'm not forseeing video rentals stores going away for a *very* long time
they may have concerns about the security of their credit card details;
Mention that to Amazon.com and others
they may feel the content is overpriced for an operation that needs no shelf space and that has their production costs already met;
Then they wouldn't purchase a downloadable movie. A virtue of a capitalistic economy. BTW, I'm not arguing that everyone will purchase downloadable movies. I'm arguing that opposition to downloadable movie will not stop NBC and others from providing downloadable movies.
hell, they may even object to the idea of tethered downloads.
huh? I'm picturing a long string. See my last paragraph for a rebuttal to this.
Also, I'd add that I don't see just one download model either. I imagine that there'd be several download models, whatever the market will support. One download model that seems plausible is the download it and view it for a limited time for a few $$'s. Another download model may very well be to download a movie without a time limit for more $$'s. Similar to renting and buying a DVD now. What exactly the choices will be for downloading movies, the market will decide. That is certain.
Of course, the people who would be deterred by a rental model, probably don't rent movies from blockbuster in the first place, so the blockbuster comparison doesn't really offer much support for your case.
Thanks for agreeing with my point. This is exactly why the download and expire model will work for NBC and others in the future.
First of all, NBC p2p offering doesn't come on physical media. I guess that should count for something right there. So there's less physical costs, which right off the bat makes it more attractive. Second, I'd consider it more like Comcast's On-Demand programming, which already is accepted. So it's off on a good start.
If it needs to be returned, I won't be renting it.
Come on. Everyone knows that it isn't true that an expiration date will keep people from paying for a movie online on-demand anymore then people will stop renting movies from Blockbuster because they have to return the DVD. There'll be millions of people who will pay for a movie that expires. Just not you. And NBC doesn't care about you, so there.
It's also why we hear one right-wing talk show after another, 24 hours a day, with no opposition; one party, one opinion, marching in lockstep.
Yeah, don't we all wish that Air America had to broadcast the opposing viewpoint 12 solid hours a day, every single day. Oh wait, it's only "right-wing" views that have to be balanced. My bad.
So? I'll ask again. If I buy a copy of an RIAA "latest release" hot seller, and then download this alternative music, how does downloading this alternative music "stick it" to the RIAA?
I find it disturbing that nobody seems nearly as upset by all of the violent imagery that children are subjected to
I think that is am extremely unfair characteristic. I believe that probably all adults who find sex on TV to be objectionable would also find violance on TV objectionable. In fact, a brief web search turns up this Rocky Mountain Family Council report on TV Violence and they state that over 80 of families surveyed feel that there is too much violence on TV.
In fact, I've never heard of any person or group who finds the amount of sex on TV objectionable to also feel that there is not a problem with the amount of violence in TV. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your statement.
Not when the point of a rep is to represent - hard to do if you don't know what people want.
But that's the whole point! He does know what the people want, because they can call, write, or fax him. I doubt comments on a web log will be that representative of what people really want anyways.
The whole point of something like this is to have FEEDBACK. He doesn't support commenting on his entries.
Oh yeah, I can just imagine the crap that would be posted if he allowed comments. I mean, just look who posts here. I don't think that adds to the value of his blog.
Now, it's not as if he's actually prohibiting feedback. If you have something you want to say, pick up your phone and give his office a call. Or else write a letter or send a fax. Those are 2 very valid forms of feedback.
Once the spell is broken, the effect of terrorism is reduced to a few casualties hardly registering in the general statistic and there's simply no point in doing it anymore. The disaster they call "war on terrorism" is costing us a lot more in human tragedy.
Nice argument. But not a new one. In the 1930's some people believed that the effect of "terrorism" would be "broken" with a spell. That spell in the 30's was, like today, to concede. Believe that the problem was not real, or serious. Well, the spell broke after several countries conceded (England didn't!) and then all hell broke loose.
Today people want the US and England to concede. The spell will break they promise. But will it? Why would it work this time, and not in 1939? Actually show me any time in history where conceding has resulted in a spell breaking and melodious harmony occuring afterwards.
It doesn't happen. If we let the terrorists attack unopposed they will get stronger, not weaker. It doesn't make any sense that terrorists will abandon terrorism just because we cease to oppose them.
This is actually a perfect example of the hassles that legitimate users get with DRM, that simply do not effect non-legitimate users.
I'm not buying that for a million dollars. Are you saying that you shouldn't have to license software DVD players to play your DVD's? What about hardware DVD players? Why should I have to buy a DVD player to legimately play a DVD (that I purchased) on my TV. It's a riot, I tell you! TOTALLY unacceptable. I say that we force the media consortium to give a free hardware DVD player to anyone who wants to play a DVD they purchased.
Now, where were we? Oh yeah, non-free software DVD players. I'm not really seeing an issue with that, are you?
"My goal is to do all of the work it takes to be explaining to the Supreme Court in 2025 why broadcasting is unconstitutional," says Moglen, who speaks in perfect, rolling sentences. "We have a long march to do, we have a lot of education to do, society has to catch up with our vision of the future, but we are going someplace and the only question is timing and skill in driving."
Great, that's all we need to do. Outlaw broadcasting, and force the FBI to crack down on all those pirate broadcasters with FM transmitters. Good Lord, I thought we wanted to expand low-power FM broadcasting, not outlaw it. And the War of Drugs seemed bad. Now Moglen wants a War of Broadcasters. lovely!
Should the FCC try to crack down, the hackers have a powerful weapon: The First Amendment. An offshoot of the Free Software Foundation called GNU Radio is developing a new generation of radios and TV receivers that use software for just about everything except the antenna and the power source. The FCC can prohibit manufacturers from selling radios that transmit on illegal frequencies, but it would have trouble shutting down a Web site distributing software that does the same thing.
Websites, schmebsites. How's a website going to stop an FBI raid on your home because you are broadcasting illegally? This isn't about prohibiting manufacturers from selling transmitters that can tranmit on illegal frequencies, it would be about the consumers who broadcast on them. Getting something off of a website isn't going to keep the law off your back. Stomping on someone else's frequency isn't a first amendment right
But Moglen believes his First Amendment arguments will trump such objections. Not only will the government have difficulty prosecuting millions of consumers using open-source radios to broadcast on unauthorized frequencies, he says, but the very act of using the airwaves in that manner will make it harder to defend the monopolies granted broadcasters like Fox.
That's what this is, isn't it? An attempt at some civil disobedience to destroy Fox. Ah, what a pleasant world Moglen fights for.
It's basically entrapment. They should concentrate on deterrents, but instead they just try to catch and imprison all the troublemakers.
Nonsense, printing a watermark on a paper is not entrapment. It doesn't force people to print counterfeit money. From wikipedia:
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.
The only way this printers/copiers could be involved in entrapment is if the police forced a suspect to accept one, and then forced them against their will to make copies of $20 bills. Not a very likely scenerio.
Also, if troublemakers don't want to be caught and imprisoned, they should stop being troublemakers.
I'd say watermarking copies is a strong deterent. After all, if people are dumb enough to make copies on watermarking copiers/printers, I'd say nothing would deter them.
So like, what linux install likes a BFG 5700 le and Soundblaster 7.1?
It's probably fine, but since Quicktime and Windows Media player don't have Linux ports that means that you are stuck with Real. Hahaha! It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And you still can't access Quicktime or Windows Media format streams.
Keep in mind that when it comes to technical stuff, you can tell the truth but the police will misunderstand something that you said, take it down wrong and then insist that you said something that you didn't.
It's better to be misunderstood telling the truth, then not misunderstood (or even misunderstood) lying.
He isn't in jail now, but he most likely would have been if he had told the truth.
Pardon me, I started in the wrong direction, the rest of my post was correct. "found guilty" is not preferable to being found not guilty, which is what the judge seemed to indicate would have been the ruling if he told the truth.
And that, as I said in the last post, is preferable.
Instead, Judge Purdy found Cuthbert guilty, because he had initially lied to the police about what he had done; Cuthbert originally told the police one story and later changed it.
It is preferable because then he wouldn't be in jail now. According to the judge, the fact that the defendent lied to the police is a strong reason for the guilty ruling. If Cuthbert had told the truth, he very probably would not have been found not guilty. I think that a not guilty ruling would be preferable. I don't know if you would disagree with me on that though. Certainly it seems reason to think that a not guilty verdict is preferable to a guilty verdict, and that is a result of telling the truth.
How many people get arrested for lying to the police? Martha Stewart, that runaway bride, this guy?
I'm not sure I understand the point of convicting someone of a crime unassociated to the lying part. For me, the fact that police are involved in all 3 of these nonviolent actions is the real crime.
Yeah, that the police would make an effort to look for a missing person is a *real* crime. We don't want the people to be wasting their time doing that. I'm sorry, but many people disagree with you that police shouldn't get involved in missing persons cases.
The thing to note is no never talk to the cops.
Actually there's another alternative. You could always tell the truth. That is more preferable then lying, or even not saying anything.
Slashdot Mirror
With eBooks, the format changed. Who wants to read a book online instead of in paper format. The eBook was given a stab and failed. Is it surprising? Not really.
Plenty of people pop a DVD into their computer and watch a movie. If they download the movie, the format doesn't change. So, this overcoming that formatting issue.
If noone purchases downloadable movies, of course they will go away. Is it likely that no one will buy a downloadable movie? Not realistically.
BrentI am suggesting that a lack of concern to the segment of the market opposed to renting DVD's might indicate a willingness to ignore the segment of the market opposed to downloading time-limited movies to focus on those who are supportive of such an arrangement. Even if 70% of Americans would choose not to purchase time-limited movie downloads, I'll bet NBC and others would still do it if it was the best way to sell downloadable movies. Certainly NBC isn't going to listen to the segment not willing to spend their money, over the segment that is willing to spend their money, if it is the best way to provide movie downloads.
People may still find it more convenient to rent the physical media;I'm not forseeing video rentals stores going away for a *very* long time
they may have concerns about the security of their credit card details;Mention that to Amazon.com and others
they may feel the content is overpriced for an operation that needs no shelf space and that has their production costs already met;Then they wouldn't purchase a downloadable movie. A virtue of a capitalistic economy. BTW, I'm not arguing that everyone will purchase downloadable movies. I'm arguing that opposition to downloadable movie will not stop NBC and others from providing downloadable movies.
hell, they may even object to the idea of tethered downloads.huh? I'm picturing a long string. See my last paragraph for a rebuttal to this.
Also, I'd add that I don't see just one download model either. I imagine that there'd be several download models, whatever the market will support. One download model that seems plausible is the download it and view it for a limited time for a few $$'s. Another download model may very well be to download a movie without a time limit for more $$'s. Similar to renting and buying a DVD now. What exactly the choices will be for downloading movies, the market will decide. That is certain.
BrentThanks for agreeing with my point. This is exactly why the download and expire model will work for NBC and others in the future.
BrentNope.
First of all, NBC p2p offering doesn't come on physical media. I guess that should count for something right there. So there's less physical costs, which right off the bat makes it more attractive. Second, I'd consider it more like Comcast's On-Demand programming, which already is accepted. So it's off on a good start.
-BrentIf it needs to be returned, I won't be renting it.
Come on. Everyone knows that it isn't true that an expiration date will keep people from paying for a movie online on-demand anymore then people will stop renting movies from Blockbuster because they have to return the DVD. There'll be millions of people who will pay for a movie that expires. Just not you. And NBC doesn't care about you, so there.
-BrentYeah, don't we all wish that Air America had to broadcast the opposing viewpoint 12 solid hours a day, every single day. Oh wait, it's only "right-wing" views that have to be balanced. My bad.
-BrentSo? I'll ask again. If I buy a copy of an RIAA "latest release" hot seller, and then download this alternative music, how does downloading this alternative music "stick it" to the RIAA?
Awesome! That means that Jeb Bush would be next in the pattern!
BrentHow am I "sticking it" to the RIAA by downloading your music? Why do they care about your music?
-BrentMitt Romney will be our next President. Mark my words....
Brent
I think that is am extremely unfair characteristic. I believe that probably all adults who find sex on TV to be objectionable would also find violance on TV objectionable. In fact, a brief web search turns up this Rocky Mountain Family Council report on TV Violence and they state that over 80 of families surveyed feel that there is too much violence on TV.
In fact, I've never heard of any person or group who finds the amount of sex on TV objectionable to also feel that there is not a problem with the amount of violence in TV. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your statement.
-BrentBut that's the whole point! He does know what the people want, because they can call, write, or fax him. I doubt comments on a web log will be that representative of what people really want anyways.
-BrentOh yeah, I can just imagine the crap that would be posted if he allowed comments. I mean, just look who posts here. I don't think that adds to the value of his blog.
Now, it's not as if he's actually prohibiting feedback. If you have something you want to say, pick up your phone and give his office a call. Or else write a letter or send a fax. Those are 2 very valid forms of feedback.
-BrentNice argument. But not a new one. In the 1930's some people believed that the effect of "terrorism" would be "broken" with a spell. That spell in the 30's was, like today, to concede. Believe that the problem was not real, or serious. Well, the spell broke after several countries conceded (England didn't!) and then all hell broke loose.
Today people want the US and England to concede. The spell will break they promise. But will it? Why would it work this time, and not in 1939? Actually show me any time in history where conceding has resulted in a spell breaking and melodious harmony occuring afterwards.
It doesn't happen. If we let the terrorists attack unopposed they will get stronger, not weaker. It doesn't make any sense that terrorists will abandon terrorism just because we cease to oppose them.
-BrentIf they get approval. Which, unlike The Onion, they probably have.
-BrentI'm not buying that for a million dollars. Are you saying that you shouldn't have to license software DVD players to play your DVD's? What about hardware DVD players? Why should I have to buy a DVD player to legimately play a DVD (that I purchased) on my TV. It's a riot, I tell you! TOTALLY unacceptable. I say that we force the media consortium to give a free hardware DVD player to anyone who wants to play a DVD they purchased.
Now, where were we? Oh yeah, non-free software DVD players. I'm not really seeing an issue with that, are you?
-BrentGreat, that's all we need to do. Outlaw broadcasting, and force the FBI to crack down on all those pirate broadcasters with FM transmitters. Good Lord, I thought we wanted to expand low-power FM broadcasting, not outlaw it. And the War of Drugs seemed bad. Now Moglen wants a War of Broadcasters. lovely!
Websites, schmebsites. How's a website going to stop an FBI raid on your home because you are broadcasting illegally? This isn't about prohibiting manufacturers from selling transmitters that can tranmit on illegal frequencies, it would be about the consumers who broadcast on them. Getting something off of a website isn't going to keep the law off your back. Stomping on someone else's frequency isn't a first amendment right
That's what this is, isn't it? An attempt at some civil disobedience to destroy Fox. Ah, what a pleasant world Moglen fights for.
-BrentNonsense, printing a watermark on a paper is not entrapment. It doesn't force people to print counterfeit money. From wikipedia:
The only way this printers/copiers could be involved in entrapment is if the police forced a suspect to accept one, and then forced them against their will to make copies of $20 bills. Not a very likely scenerio.Also, if troublemakers don't want to be caught and imprisoned, they should stop being troublemakers.
I'd say watermarking copies is a strong deterent. After all, if people are dumb enough to make copies on watermarking copiers/printers, I'd say nothing would deter them.
-BrentIt's probably fine, but since Quicktime and Windows Media player don't have Linux ports that means that you are stuck with Real. Hahaha! It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And you still can't access Quicktime or Windows Media format streams.
-BrentI don't think that "sucking" is a litigable charge for civil damages.
-BrentAre you *the* problem?
-BrentIt's better to be misunderstood telling the truth, then not misunderstood (or even misunderstood) lying.
-BrentPardon me, I started in the wrong direction, the rest of my post was correct. "found guilty" is not preferable to being found not guilty, which is what the judge seemed to indicate would have been the ruling if he told the truth.
And that, as I said in the last post, is preferable.
-BrentIt is preferable because then he wouldn't be in jail now. According to the judge, the fact that the defendent lied to the police is a strong reason for the guilty ruling. If Cuthbert had told the truth, he very probably would not have been found not guilty. I think that a not guilty ruling would be preferable. I don't know if you would disagree with me on that though. Certainly it seems reason to think that a not guilty verdict is preferable to a guilty verdict, and that is a result of telling the truth.
-BrentI'm not sure I understand the point of convicting someone of a crime unassociated to the lying part. For me, the fact that police are involved in all 3 of these nonviolent actions is the real crime.
Yeah, that the police would make an effort to look for a missing person is a *real* crime. We don't want the people to be wasting their time doing that. I'm sorry, but many people disagree with you that police shouldn't get involved in missing persons cases.
The thing to note is no never talk to the cops.Actually there's another alternative. You could always tell the truth. That is more preferable then lying, or even not saying anything.
-Brent