You should check out Vegas Video 3.0 from Sonic FOundry. It started out as an audio editing application with support for one track of video for reference while editing audio but now it supports unlimited tracks of audio and video. In my opinion, all it's really missing is support for real-time hardware such as Canopus DVStorm and an A/B editing style workspace. I'd settle for just the A/B editing workspace as v3.0 supports RAM preview. While not the best solution, if you have enough RAM you can preview non real-time effects as well as real-time effects without any trouble.
I should have been more clear about web enabled video. I meant video which has web enabled tracks and is outputted to QT, Real or WMV (all three support web enabled tracks). By the way, you can now work directly with WMV in Premiere; why you would is another question, but I'm guessing they added support to allow uncompressed,or as uncompressed as possible, WMV as source footage.
Have these guys never heard of The Interface Hall of Shame? You should NEVER EVER utilize color in an interface where color correction is required. The UI hinders the user's ability to faithfully adjust colors.
I also wouldn't go as far as saying this application will give Premiere a run for its money because Premiere benefits GREATLY from its relationship with other Adobe applications. I can edit my work in Premiere then import the entire project, tracks, effects and all, into After Effects for post production work and final rendering. Not to mention the ability to import native Photoshop and Illustrator files without any special work arounds.
I also didn't see anything in the feature list which suggested this application is capable of editing web enabled video (QT, Real and/or WMV)
Bruse was not arguing that the computer technology isn't there, he was stating the talent inherent in projects such as the one you mention is not hampered by the technology. The guy working on Rustboy is very talented and it shows by him not having to use the latest and greatest computer technology to tell his story.
"The companies doing it claim that consumer rights trump the artists rights in this case, and that the artists don't have the moral ground to stand on because they already edit their films for T.V. and planes."
Did this guy fail to read the copyright laws in the US? Unless this company is given permission to make these new works, they are violating the copyright holders rights by creating derivative works and distributing the works illegally.
If they don't lke the movies coming out of Hollywood then he needs to start a movie company which panders to the tastes of his kind. He has no right whatsoever to alter these works, consumer rights is just a straw man being waved to around to stirp up some imaginary controversy.
"and objections raised to the resulting language by Red Hat lawyer Carol Kunze. Among other things, Kunze points out that Free software projects could be effectively discouraged from releasing software if software producers are required to provide warranties -- imagine trying to provide warranties on all the packages available to Debian users, for instance, or every bit of software included with Mandrake Linux."
This is the cost of doing business. It sounds like RedHat just wants a "free-ride" without all the problems of competing in a free market. I think it would be a far greater travesty to allow legislation to seperate OSS/Free Software from proproetary software solution providers. Business is business and if you can't provide and reasonably (based on a legal definition fo reasonable, not some/. geeks idea of reasonable) support your product then you should not be in business.
It may be bullshit, but there is nothing which prohibits copyright holders from limiting use of the material. Authors are not required to translate books into multiple languages nor are they required to allow any third party to offer this service. If they want to write their book in hieroglyphics they may do so and no one may translate the material and distribute these translations. You will have to wait for the author to provide a translation in a language you can understand if you want to read the book. If somneone buys the book second hand (right of first sale), they can't violate the copyrights and translate and distribute the work either.
Same goes for DVDs. Content creators are not required to release their material without region encoding or copy-protection if they choose not to do so. If you want a translation, you'll have to buy the translation from the copyright holder. In this case it means you'll have to hope they offer a copy of the DVD in your region.
Same goes if you want to sell the DVD later on. Caveat Emptor (buyer beware). If the DVD is not offered in a region version you are capable of viewing, even if you purchased another region, you aren't entitled to "translate" the work.
I agree it's in ineffective xolution and is not well thought out but it's still the right of the copyright holder to limit distribution if they want. Don't confuse my explanation of reality as a value judegment. I'm not crazy about region encoding but as I like in Region 1, I don't miss out on too many DVDs:)
Copyright law does not specifically state this but the distribution of a particular disc can be limited for rental, sale and/or use in the US only if they copyright holder so chooses. In fact, the copyright holder has the right to require their works be viewed only in one city if they want, though it would obviously be silly to do so.
If you bring your DVD with you, it is highly likely that you will also bring your DVD player as well. You will still be able to use this DVD player to play your region encoded discs.
Actually, region encoding is protected by copyright law. It falls under the distribution clause as it limits distribution in certain geographical areas of the world as per the wishes of the copyright holder.
WRONG. It is NO different. In either case you have denined an individual's RIGHTS. No matter how you try to justify it, this is simply wrong. If you don't like the fact that an artist has these rights then work to change things but violating one's rights and breaking the law is not the way to do it.
Actually, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Recording Insudtry from MTSU. I studied the production and technology end but I got my fill of business and legal classes while in school. I have a VERY good idea how the music industry works.
...report when the shows are watched and is advertisements are skipped? I'd think this information is as important and useful, if not more so, than just whether a show was watched or not. Are people watching recording Friday night shows to watch them on Tuesday night when nothing really good is on? Are some poeple not watching the entire show? why not?
But it's the artists right to do so, no one forced them to sign over the copyright to the record label. Much like it is the right of a programmer to apply the GPL their applications they write (if they are in fact the authors and not a work for hire). My point is, it's an individual's right to protect their work as they see fit, even to lock the work away forever and never show it to anyone. Slashdot seemes to misunderstand this concept until something like this happens and the hypocricy comes out of the woodworks in full force.
...who see the irony in this? Is this the very same group stating publicly that they don't care about artists copyrights and violate them regularly? Sucks when it happens to you huh? Perhaps you'll learn from this and grow-up? Nah...this is Slashdot afterall.
Perhaps instead of legalizing pircay Malaysia should mandate fair and reasonable educational pricing for software sold in their country. Whether you like it or not, companies are mostly for profit and development costs must be returned. Another issue to consider is how this will create a "software welfare" system. It doesn't work for helpig people find work and food and it won't help in this situation either.
Or perhaps the rise of Linux has correlated with the increase of "noobs" using Linux leaving many security issues unchecked. A perusal of bugtraq will show a long list of security issues for Linux (as many, if not more, than Windows).
"...but it's still nice to see a major car audio manufacturer delivering what the public wants."
...I think this comment is a bit misguided. IS this truly what the public wants or what a small handful of geeks wants? I'd hold judgement until the sales figures come in. I'd also suggest geeks drop this attitude or kick it down several notches. You only serve to make yourselves look like idiots and appear misinformed as to how the world works (let me give you a hint, you don't live in the United Federation of Planets and teh USS Enterprise is not a starship, it's an aircraft carrier).
Neither do they in the US legal system. Judges interpret laws but this has the effect in some cases of "creating" a law because it might have been interpreted differently from the spirit of the law or the spirit of the law is ruled binding instead of the letter of the law. In any event, the judge has not actually made law, they have merely interpreted law for other judges to base their decisions upon.
I wouldn't call it "getting our butt's kicked", I would call it not wanting to be bothered EVERYWHERE we go. I have a cell phone but I only use it for emergencies. If people want to contact me they can leave a message on my answering machine.
Re:Leftist Propaganda **SPOILERS**
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 2
Precrime did NOT do away with trials and teh judicial system. Two judges conferenced with Anderton via video communication. The pre-cogs images were used as evidence and an arrest warrant was granted based on this evidence. The crime was "built" before the judges by sorting the images and creating a timeline of events.
I agree though that people who try to find corollaries between this movie and modern life are alarmists.
The RIAA is NOT deciding what you can do with music YOU own. However, you do not own the music on CD's you purchase unless the copyright holder explicitely grants you those rights. You only own the physical media the music is on.
However, you and I both know that the far greater majority of people on the P2P networks are illegally sharing copyrighted work. Movies and CDs are being traded BEFORE they are released to the public by the copyright holders. EVen under a more fair systm of copyright terms this would STILL be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
You should check out Vegas Video 3.0 from Sonic FOundry. It started out as an audio editing application with support for one track of video for reference while editing audio but now it supports unlimited tracks of audio and video. In my opinion, all it's really missing is support for real-time hardware such as Canopus DVStorm and an A/B editing style workspace. I'd settle for just the A/B editing workspace as v3.0 supports RAM preview. While not the best solution, if you have enough RAM you can preview non real-time effects as well as real-time effects without any trouble.
I should have been more clear about web enabled video. I meant video which has web enabled tracks and is outputted to QT, Real or WMV (all three support web enabled tracks). By the way, you can now work directly with WMV in Premiere; why you would is another question, but I'm guessing they added support to allow uncompressed,or as uncompressed as possible, WMV as source footage.
Have these guys never heard of The Interface Hall of Shame? You should NEVER EVER utilize color in an interface where color correction is required. The UI hinders the user's ability to faithfully adjust colors.
I also wouldn't go as far as saying this application will give Premiere a run for its money because Premiere benefits GREATLY from its relationship with other Adobe applications. I can edit my work in Premiere then import the entire project, tracks, effects and all, into After Effects for post production work and final rendering. Not to mention the ability to import native Photoshop and Illustrator files without any special work arounds.
I also didn't see anything in the feature list which suggested this application is capable of editing web enabled video (QT, Real and/or WMV)
Bruse was not arguing that the computer technology isn't there, he was stating the talent inherent in projects such as the one you mention is not hampered by the technology. The guy working on Rustboy is very talented and it shows by him not having to use the latest and greatest computer technology to tell his story.
"The companies doing it claim that consumer rights trump the artists rights in this case, and that the artists don't have the moral ground to stand on because they already edit their films for T.V. and planes."
Did this guy fail to read the copyright laws in the US? Unless this company is given permission to make these new works, they are violating the copyright holders rights by creating derivative works and distributing the works illegally.
If they don't lke the movies coming out of Hollywood then he needs to start a movie company which panders to the tastes of his kind. He has no right whatsoever to alter these works, consumer rights is just a straw man being waved to around to stirp up some imaginary controversy.
"and objections raised to the resulting language by Red Hat lawyer Carol Kunze. Among other things, Kunze points out that Free software projects could be effectively discouraged from releasing software if software producers are required to provide warranties -- imagine trying to provide warranties on all the packages available to Debian users, for instance, or every bit of software included with Mandrake Linux."
/. geeks idea of reasonable) support your product then you should not be in business.
This is the cost of doing business. It sounds like RedHat just wants a "free-ride" without all the problems of competing in a free market. I think it would be a far greater travesty to allow legislation to seperate OSS/Free Software from proproetary software solution providers. Business is business and if you can't provide and reasonably (based on a legal definition fo reasonable, not some
It may be bullshit, but there is nothing which prohibits copyright holders from limiting use of the material. Authors are not required to translate books into multiple languages nor are they required to allow any third party to offer this service. If they want to write their book in hieroglyphics they may do so and no one may translate the material and distribute these translations. You will have to wait for the author to provide a translation in a language you can understand if you want to read the book. If somneone buys the book second hand (right of first sale), they can't violate the copyrights and translate and distribute the work either.
Same goes for DVDs. Content creators are not required to release their material without region encoding or copy-protection if they choose not to do so. If you want a translation, you'll have to buy the translation from the copyright holder. In this case it means you'll have to hope they offer a copy of the DVD in your region.
Same goes if you want to sell the DVD later on. Caveat Emptor (buyer beware). If the DVD is not offered in a region version you are capable of viewing, even if you purchased another region, you aren't entitled to "translate" the work.
I agree it's in ineffective xolution and is not well thought out but it's still the right of the copyright holder to limit distribution if they want. Don't confuse my explanation of reality as a value judegment. I'm not crazy about region encoding but as I like in Region 1, I don't miss out on too many DVDs :)
Copyright law does not specifically state this but the distribution of a particular disc can be limited for rental, sale and/or use in the US only if they copyright holder so chooses. In fact, the copyright holder has the right to require their works be viewed only in one city if they want, though it would obviously be silly to do so.
If you bring your DVD with you, it is highly likely that you will also bring your DVD player as well. You will still be able to use this DVD player to play your region encoded discs.
Actually, region encoding is protected by copyright law. It falls under the distribution clause as it limits distribution in certain geographical areas of the world as per the wishes of the copyright holder.
WRONG. It is NO different. In either case you have denined an individual's RIGHTS. No matter how you try to justify it, this is simply wrong. If you don't like the fact that an artist has these rights then work to change things but violating one's rights and breaking the law is not the way to do it.
Actually, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Recording Insudtry from MTSU. I studied the production and technology end but I got my fill of business and legal classes while in school. I have a VERY good idea how the music industry works.
...report when the shows are watched and is advertisements are skipped? I'd think this information is as important and useful, if not more so, than just whether a show was watched or not. Are people watching recording Friday night shows to watch them on Tuesday night when nothing really good is on? Are some poeple not watching the entire show? why not?
But it's the artists right to do so, no one forced them to sign over the copyright to the record label. Much like it is the right of a programmer to apply the GPL their applications they write (if they are in fact the authors and not a work for hire). My point is, it's an individual's right to protect their work as they see fit, even to lock the work away forever and never show it to anyone. Slashdot seemes to misunderstand this concept until something like this happens and the hypocricy comes out of the woodworks in full force.
...who see the irony in this? Is this the very same group stating publicly that they don't care about artists copyrights and violate them regularly? Sucks when it happens to you huh? Perhaps you'll learn from this and grow-up? Nah...this is Slashdot afterall.
Perhaps instead of legalizing pircay Malaysia should mandate fair and reasonable educational pricing for software sold in their country. Whether you like it or not, companies are mostly for profit and development costs must be returned. Another issue to consider is how this will create a "software welfare" system. It doesn't work for helpig people find work and food and it won't help in this situation either.
Fortuitous that they call themselves "LightsOut Entertainment" only to suffer from a good slashdotting after posting a LOTR article.
Or perhaps the rise of Linux has correlated with the increase of "noobs" using Linux leaving many security issues unchecked. A perusal of bugtraq will show a long list of security issues for Linux (as many, if not more, than Windows).
Neither do they in the US legal system. Judges interpret laws but this has the effect in some cases of "creating" a law because it might have been interpreted differently from the spirit of the law or the spirit of the law is ruled binding instead of the letter of the law. In any event, the judge has not actually made law, they have merely interpreted law for other judges to base their decisions upon.
I wouldn't call it "getting our butt's kicked", I would call it not wanting to be bothered EVERYWHERE we go. I have a cell phone but I only use it for emergencies. If people want to contact me they can leave a message on my answering machine.
Precrime did NOT do away with trials and teh judicial system. Two judges conferenced with Anderton via video communication. The pre-cogs images were used as evidence and an arrest warrant was granted based on this evidence. The crime was "built" before the judges by sorting the images and creating a timeline of events.
I agree though that people who try to find corollaries between this movie and modern life are alarmists.
The RIAA is NOT deciding what you can do with music YOU own. However, you do not own the music on CD's you purchase unless the copyright holder explicitely grants you those rights. You only own the physical media the music is on.
However, you and I both know that the far greater majority of people on the P2P networks are illegally sharing copyrighted work. Movies and CDs are being traded BEFORE they are released to the public by the copyright holders. EVen under a more fair systm of copyright terms this would STILL be illegal.
Than they should just rip the mp3 themselves. It's not really difficult and most media players these days will rip the CD for you. Next argument.