Did anyone happen to notice how the Wired News article tries to make out that DVD is in trouble, is "bogged down" by the legal disputes? I nearly died laughing, considering the utterly astonishing rate at which DVD has been adopted and continues to be adopted.
TV, Color TV, VHS, compact discs, and many of the other modern improvements we use today could only wish to have been so "bogged down"! --
It seems obvious that the various studios who've signed on with JVC must be smoking some good stuff. Probably leftovers from the stash they were taking large tokes from when they decided that DIVX was the way to go. They're living in a dreamworld, and sooner or they'll get a rude awakening when the consumers bypass their little dream scheme in droves. --
Regarding extras vanishing once DVD is adopted--well, I don't know about that. Laserdisc has had director commentaries since time immemorial, even at the point where it had hit as much market saturation as it was ever likely to. Once the public gets used to them, I think the public will demand them in future releases.
And the studios will listen. Look at how successful we were with our letter-writing campaign to get Princess Mononoke released with the original Japanese audio track intact. --
That's pretty much my take on it, too. By the time we have HDTV and this thing might actually be useful, probably the vast majority of what people used to use VCRs for will be covered by hard-disk recorders instead, and the rest by recordable DVD.
Assuming, of course, the studios' other bright idea--copy-protecting broadcast TV programs--doesn't also go through. --
What options are there for rural users, though? i.e., so rural you can't even get cable TV, and your address is "Route X, Box YY", and you're about 15 miles away from the nearest town (which only has a population of a couple thousand)? That's where my parents are right now, and they're stuck with a 33.6 modem. Granted, they haven't expressed any desire to upgrade--yet--but someday they might. What's there for them other than satellite? --
Re:Whole sites devoted to medical palm pilots
on
Digital Doctoring
·
· Score: 2
That could be so, if everybody started doing it, but I think the number of people who are going to want to run Unix on their Dreamcast is going to be quite small, perhaps even unnoticeable, compared to the number who just want to play games on it. They'll probably "lose" more Dreamcasts to warranty replacement than to hackers. --
I've never really seen much to make those bigger MP3 players worth buying just yet. It seems to me like for the same or maybe a little more money, you could have a laptop that's only slightly larger and does a whole lot more.
Now, one of the little cheap ones like the Rio 600, that I can see, sort of. But until those big ones get down into the $200 range, I don't see much use for them save for the early adopters and people with too much money to buy toys. --
The player I got my folks for Christmas, based on recommendations from friends, was that G.E. model (I forgot the specific model number) that sells for about $150 at Wal-Mart. I don't think it plays MP3 CDs, but it has very good picture quality and it's easy to operate. It's also a reliable brand, and not quite bottom-shelf (like some of the really cheaper models). --
Get the RealMagic Remote (available for under $20 at Buy.com, also at other places if you look). Perfectly sweet little gadget--though you have to have a Hollywood + or Netstream 2000 video card with DVD Station to use it. Voila, no more having to use keyboard and mouse to control DVDs.
If you don't want to wait for it to boot, well, then just boot it once and don't ever turn it off. (Though, granted, with Windows this becomes less of an option.)
And I've also done something similar--lost a bid for a box of old Shadowfist boosters--then I contacted the dealer to see if he had some others he would sell me direct. (He did, and subsequently did.) We made contact via eBay, yes--but that does not give eBay the right to forbid all subsequent business transactions between us just because that's how we met.
Man, I really have to shake my head at this. Here we have a site where people are quick to jump rabidly to the defense of "the little guy" when it looks like "the big corporation" is trying to pull a fast one on them.
And here we have precisely that kind of situation. The authors--who may be well-known to readers but who really are, essentially, little guys at the mercy of the publishers and booksellers--are seeing a big corporation trying to profit by taking away their livelihood. So they write a simple letter, saying, "Please, Mr. Big Corporation, don't do that. It's hurting us, and by extension will hurt you." And who is everyone here suddenly rooting for? The big corporation.
Perhaps it's that there seem to be a lot of authors and only one corporation in question. But then, why is everybody so up for the EFF in their fight against the RIAA and DVDCCA? The EFF is composed of a lot more people than the author group--and a single author is precisely as powerful as a single EFF member in his ability to fight the system. So, by extension, the EFF should be hated and feared and reviled by all the Slashdot folks, taking this supposition to its logical conclusion, because they're just a big bully. Why, they're colluding to restrain the trade of the DVDCCA! How dare they?
Or perhaps folks here somehow seem to think of authors as great and mystically powerful people, who are greedily profiteering at the expense of Us Little Guys. Folks, that just isn't true. Authors are normal folks, just like the rest of us, and unless they're Stephen King, are not making nearly as much money as you might think they are. They're just doing the best they can to make ends meet.
How is it inappropriate to ask someone who is blocking the sunlight from your garden, or peeing upstream from your water supply, or leaving poison out where your pets or kids can find it, or otherwise acting in a way detrimental to your life or livelihood, to kindly stop it? Turning the other cheek might be the meek and Christian thing to do, but it is rather at odds with continuing to live.
Our rights, individually and collectively, end where others' rights begin. Amazon, the authors, the publishers, and so forth all have certain rights and freedoms. Rights are not exclusive--it is not right for Amazon to profit at the expense of the authors, just as it would not be right for the authors to profit at the expense of Amazon. There should be some sort of balance reached, some sort of compromise. Even the authors don't object to Amazon's right to continue selling used books--even used copies of new books. They just object to Amazon's aggressiveness in trying to push them instead of the new books.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering, but it's a pity to see everyone suddenly rallying behind Amazon, who just a few months ago was considered another wicked big corporation just like the rest of them, for yet another instance of their profiteering at the expense of the little guy. --
Authors understand the doctrine of first sale. They're cool with it. They know a lot of people buy used, or read through libraries. They wouldn't dream of stopping that, or even trying. People here are getting in an uproar over this for very little reason.
But authors depend on a certain portion of new book buyers to pay them and let them earn a living. Amazon is trying to turn those new book buyers into used book buyers instead, which cuts down on the money they earn. That's what they object to.
And what are you talking about with lawyers? Nobody has said anything about bringing lawyers into this. Read that repeatedly until it sinks in.
The Guild isn't suing; they're writing a "we'd really appreciate it if you didn't do this" letter. That's their right. That's your or my right, too.
Try to look at this from the writers' point of view, will you? --
I've been reading through this discussion with a bit of sadness, as it seems most of the comments are from people who can barely hide their contempt for someone who simply wants to earn a living. Folks seem to have the attitude that "we're entitled to do whatever the heck we want to, and screw anyone who dares object because they might be hurt by it. That's their problem. I want what I want, and I deserve it because I want to have it."
Sure, you can cloak it in the banner of "freedom of information" all you want. But what's really behind all this high-mindedness? I have to tell you, I see a lot of greed mixed in with those principles. People want free stuff. That's all there is to it. (And I have to confess, I'm just as guilty of that at times as anyone else.)
Believe it or not, there are times when it is good to pay for something new. I hang out with authors in discussion areas online; I sit in on their discussions about publishers and contract terms; I think I know at least a little bit about their situation. And frankly, if they're not one of the really big names, like Stephen King, odds are they're just barely scraping by. Even some of the more recognizeable names in SF have to live off spouses' incomes or even take part- or full-time jobs in worst cases, just to survive.
The authors are realistic; they know that a certain portion of people will read without buying new. It's the portion of people who normally don't that they count on to earn their living. Are they so wrong to object to a company trying to lure those new-buyers away to buy used instead?
In the worst case, if more and more people start buying used, authors won't have time to write as much (or any), just from having to spend time working to stay alive. And that'll be a shame.
As Heinlein so aptly put it, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Even if you didn't pay for it, someone else did--and that someone else might not be able to afford the loss. Buying used books is essentially freeloading on an author's creativity.
But fine. It's still perfectly legal to buy and sell used. In fact, the Author's Guild folks probably wouldn't dream of trying to outlaw it. So go right ahead, buy used, save a bundle. But have you ever thought of sending fifty cents or a buck or so per used book you buy to the author of those books? As a form of thankyou for writing, and payment for the enjoyment you received out of it, and insurance that they'll be able to keep writing the stuff you enjoy? Not only will it still be cheaper than buying the book new, but you'll likely be giving them more money than they would have gotten from the sale of it if it were new. --
I read the sff.publishing.* groups on SFFnet's news server, where a lot of authorly and publisherly folks hang out. And many of them don't seem to have a problem with Amazon selling used books; after all, there are plenty of other websites that exist to sell used books--BiblioFind and Powell's, for instance, and there's also Half.com, where ordinary citizens can sell used stuff, and of course let's not forget eBay.
The problem they have is with Amazon's marketing tactics. When someone searches for a new book, that they might otherwise buy, Amazon pops up a link to a used copy of the book as well. Which is a sort of encouragement to the person to buy the book used instead of new as they'd originally intended. i.e., Amazon seems like it's trying to talk people out of buying new books, and convince them to buy used books instead. This is what is driving the authors into a snit.
And I have to admit, I can see their point. As I said, used bookstores and libraries exist. They're factored into the equation already--that a certain amount of people will buy new; others will buy used; others will read in the library and not buy at all. But Amazon seems like it is trying to skew the equation, thus depriving those writers of their bread and butter. --
...but after making the pilgrimage from Springfield, MO to Kansas City, KS yesterday to see the film, I've gone ahead and posted this review myself.
Capsule: Great movie, except the plot was a little weak.
Am I the only one amused that critics are suddenly noticing this movie as if it's something brand new, and completely neglecting the fact that it's just one example of a genre they've been content to sneer at up 'til now? --
There's a fellow working on a simplified streaming MP3 webserver, at mp3mystic.com. It generates.m3u files on the fly for files I want to play, then streams them for me--sort of like my own personal MyPlay. I've been trying it out, and it works pretty well for letting me access the files I want to, when I want to, from where I want to. When I'm running Windows, anyway.
I'd love to know how I could do something similar with Apache for when I'm in Linux instead. --
DIVX isn't the same thing. DIVX failed not because of some righteous boycott, but because the general public just plain didn't want the damn things.
The general public does want DVDs. Twelve million, maybe thirteen or fourteen million, have already sold. It shows no signs of slowing down. Boycotts just aren't gonna do it. --
I like the way a friend of mine put it in a discussion today: "Boycotts fail because no group that's crazy enough to stage a boycott and stick to it is large enough to have an effect that way." Remember when they held a rally in Washington and about 15 people showed up?
I think that a lot of the people who are boycotting are doing it just so they have an excuse to make a lot of noise and act all deprived, and rant at people who aren't. i.e., "suffering for their art." And other than that boycott, they aren't doing a damned thing to try and fight it.
Actually, in most anime, the film actually is animated before the voices are recorded--just the opposite of how it is in the west. The Japanese don't have as much attachment to lipsynch. I don't know if Mononoke was done that way or not, but I do know that the animals' speech wasn't terribly lipsynched at all in either language.:) --
Actually, the original Japanese voice actors for Mononoke Hime didn't do much anything else.
Actually...
I seem to recall hearing that Akihiro Miwa (Moro) is actually a reknowned character actor whose stock-in-trade is characters of questionable gender.
Yôji Matsuda (Ashitaka) was, among others, Asbel in Nausicaa, and in fact IMDB lists his first credit as being in 1974.
Yuriko Ishida (San) has been working since 1987, when she voiced a character in MADOX-01.
Most of the others have credits going back at least several years, and some into the 1960s or 50s. Nothing I've ever heard of, but at least it shows they've had plenty of work in their native land.
(except Shimamoto Sumi - voice of Toki - who had a bunch of other minor roles)
Well, if you can call playing the title character in Nausicaa, Clarice in Castle of Cagliostro, Tomomi and Mei's mother in Totoro, Ginrei in Giant Robo, and characters in various other well-known anime including Iczer One, Urusei Yatsura, and Ruroni Kenshin "a bunch of minor roles." I wouldn't.
They were good, but you can't say they are "some of the best voice actors in the industry."
Well, they certainly seem to be frequently employed voice actors, at least.
The American voice acting was surprisingly very good (except Clair Dane - San). They were done by REAL actors instead of some random bum(s) off the street.
No arguments there.
I am not trying to say that American dub is better than Japanese dialogue. I am just saying that the Japanese voice acting isn't one of the best. And the American dub is pretty good.
Well, I think think the quality level of the Japanese version is a matter of personal opinion. Since I don't actually speak Japanese, I don't know if I can judge that well. But it did use an experienced cast.
(There is a reason why, in Japan, they re-released Mononoke Hime with American voice acting with Japanese subtitles.)
Indeed there is--and that reason is that the Japanese seem to have an obsession with the English language; they think it's "cool" (or "kewl," as the case might be) to use it anywhere they can--even if it doesn't always make a lot of sense.
This is also why English dubs of films like Macross: Love, Do You Remember and Megazone 23 Part II were actually commisioned by the Japanese. I myself have a bootleg VHS copy of the Megazone, with Japanese subtitles all along the bottom. --
Not really. Much like in Euripidean tragedy, there really is no villain. All the characters have complex motives stemming from altruism or self-interest--even the Lady Eboshi, who from a simplistic glance would seem to be the "villain," has some practices that are downright humanitarian. (To say more would be to spoil the movie.) Ashitaka, the protagonist, must not help one side "defeat" the other (though both sides try to convince him to aid them), but to strike a balance between both.
Don't let the cover throw you; this is no Fern Gully. --
Express shipped me my Mononoke DVDs on the 18th, so I got them on the 20th. At just under $20 each, counting shipping and the $5 coupon I used. I'm happy with 'em. --
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there's the simple matter of comic book artists needing to put food on the table like everybody else...
--
TV, Color TV, VHS, compact discs, and many of the other modern improvements we use today could only wish to have been so "bogged down"!
--
It seems obvious that the various studios who've signed on with JVC must be smoking some good stuff. Probably leftovers from the stash they were taking large tokes from when they decided that DIVX was the way to go. They're living in a dreamworld, and sooner or they'll get a rude awakening when the consumers bypass their little dream scheme in droves.
--
And the studios will listen. Look at how successful we were with our letter-writing campaign to get Princess Mononoke released with the original Japanese audio track intact.
--
Assuming, of course, the studios' other bright idea--copy-protecting broadcast TV programs--doesn't also go through.
--
What options are there for rural users, though? i.e., so rural you can't even get cable TV, and your address is "Route X, Box YY", and you're about 15 miles away from the nearest town (which only has a population of a couple thousand)? That's where my parents are right now, and they're stuck with a 33.6 modem. Granted, they haven't expressed any desire to upgrade--yet--but someday they might. What's there for them other than satellite?
--
Here's another one--pdamd.com.
--
That could be so, if everybody started doing it, but I think the number of people who are going to want to run Unix on their Dreamcast is going to be quite small, perhaps even unnoticeable, compared to the number who just want to play games on it. They'll probably "lose" more Dreamcasts to warranty replacement than to hackers.
--
Now, one of the little cheap ones like the Rio 600, that I can see, sort of. But until those big ones get down into the $200 range, I don't see much use for them save for the early adopters and people with too much money to buy toys.
--
The player I got my folks for Christmas, based on recommendations from friends, was that G.E. model (I forgot the specific model number) that sells for about $150 at Wal-Mart. I don't think it plays MP3 CDs, but it has very good picture quality and it's easy to operate. It's also a reliable brand, and not quite bottom-shelf (like some of the really cheaper models).
--
--
That's just plain dumb.
--
And here we have precisely that kind of situation. The authors--who may be well-known to readers but who really are, essentially, little guys at the mercy of the publishers and booksellers--are seeing a big corporation trying to profit by taking away their livelihood. So they write a simple letter, saying, "Please, Mr. Big Corporation, don't do that. It's hurting us, and by extension will hurt you." And who is everyone here suddenly rooting for? The big corporation.
Perhaps it's that there seem to be a lot of authors and only one corporation in question. But then, why is everybody so up for the EFF in their fight against the RIAA and DVDCCA? The EFF is composed of a lot more people than the author group--and a single author is precisely as powerful as a single EFF member in his ability to fight the system. So, by extension, the EFF should be hated and feared and reviled by all the Slashdot folks, taking this supposition to its logical conclusion, because they're just a big bully. Why, they're colluding to restrain the trade of the DVDCCA! How dare they?
Or perhaps folks here somehow seem to think of authors as great and mystically powerful people, who are greedily profiteering at the expense of Us Little Guys. Folks, that just isn't true. Authors are normal folks, just like the rest of us, and unless they're Stephen King, are not making nearly as much money as you might think they are. They're just doing the best they can to make ends meet.
How is it inappropriate to ask someone who is blocking the sunlight from your garden, or peeing upstream from your water supply, or leaving poison out where your pets or kids can find it, or otherwise acting in a way detrimental to your life or livelihood, to kindly stop it? Turning the other cheek might be the meek and Christian thing to do, but it is rather at odds with continuing to live.
Our rights, individually and collectively, end where others' rights begin. Amazon, the authors, the publishers, and so forth all have certain rights and freedoms. Rights are not exclusive--it is not right for Amazon to profit at the expense of the authors, just as it would not be right for the authors to profit at the expense of Amazon. There should be some sort of balance reached, some sort of compromise. Even the authors don't object to Amazon's right to continue selling used books--even used copies of new books. They just object to Amazon's aggressiveness in trying to push them instead of the new books.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering, but it's a pity to see everyone suddenly rallying behind Amazon, who just a few months ago was considered another wicked big corporation just like the rest of them, for yet another instance of their profiteering at the expense of the little guy.
--
Authors understand the doctrine of first sale. They're cool with it. They know a lot of people buy used, or read through libraries. They wouldn't dream of stopping that, or even trying. People here are getting in an uproar over this for very little reason.
But authors depend on a certain portion of new book buyers to pay them and let them earn a living. Amazon is trying to turn those new book buyers into used book buyers instead, which cuts down on the money they earn. That's what they object to.
And what are you talking about with lawyers? Nobody has said anything about bringing lawyers into this. Read that repeatedly until it sinks in.
The Guild isn't suing; they're writing a "we'd really appreciate it if you didn't do this" letter. That's their right. That's your or my right, too.
Try to look at this from the writers' point of view, will you?
--
Sure, you can cloak it in the banner of "freedom of information" all you want. But what's really behind all this high-mindedness? I have to tell you, I see a lot of greed mixed in with those principles. People want free stuff. That's all there is to it. (And I have to confess, I'm just as guilty of that at times as anyone else.)
Believe it or not, there are times when it is good to pay for something new. I hang out with authors in discussion areas online; I sit in on their discussions about publishers and contract terms; I think I know at least a little bit about their situation. And frankly, if they're not one of the really big names, like Stephen King, odds are they're just barely scraping by. Even some of the more recognizeable names in SF have to live off spouses' incomes or even take part- or full-time jobs in worst cases, just to survive.
The authors are realistic; they know that a certain portion of people will read without buying new. It's the portion of people who normally don't that they count on to earn their living. Are they so wrong to object to a company trying to lure those new-buyers away to buy used instead?
In the worst case, if more and more people start buying used, authors won't have time to write as much (or any), just from having to spend time working to stay alive. And that'll be a shame.
As Heinlein so aptly put it, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Even if you didn't pay for it, someone else did--and that someone else might not be able to afford the loss. Buying used books is essentially freeloading on an author's creativity.
But fine. It's still perfectly legal to buy and sell used. In fact, the Author's Guild folks probably wouldn't dream of trying to outlaw it. So go right ahead, buy used, save a bundle. But have you ever thought of sending fifty cents or a buck or so per used book you buy to the author of those books? As a form of thankyou for writing, and payment for the enjoyment you received out of it, and insurance that they'll be able to keep writing the stuff you enjoy? Not only will it still be cheaper than buying the book new, but you'll likely be giving them more money than they would have gotten from the sale of it if it were new.
--
The problem they have is with Amazon's marketing tactics. When someone searches for a new book, that they might otherwise buy, Amazon pops up a link to a used copy of the book as well. Which is a sort of encouragement to the person to buy the book used instead of new as they'd originally intended. i.e., Amazon seems like it's trying to talk people out of buying new books, and convince them to buy used books instead. This is what is driving the authors into a snit.
And I have to admit, I can see their point. As I said, used bookstores and libraries exist. They're factored into the equation already--that a certain amount of people will buy new; others will buy used; others will read in the library and not buy at all. But Amazon seems like it is trying to skew the equation, thus depriving those writers of their bread and butter.
--
Ummm...I saw it in the AMC 20 in Leawood, Kansas, just yesterday.
--
Capsule: Great movie, except the plot was a little weak.
Am I the only one amused that critics are suddenly noticing this movie as if it's something brand new, and completely neglecting the fact that it's just one example of a genre they've been content to sneer at up 'til now?
--
I'd love to know how I could do something similar with Apache for when I'm in Linux instead.
--
The general public does want DVDs. Twelve million, maybe thirteen or fourteen million, have already sold. It shows no signs of slowing down. Boycotts just aren't gonna do it.
--
I think that a lot of the people who are boycotting are doing it just so they have an excuse to make a lot of noise and act all deprived, and rant at people who aren't. i.e., "suffering for their art." And other than that boycott, they aren't doing a damned thing to try and fight it.
There are more constructive ways. Use them.
--
Actually, in most anime, the film actually is animated before the voices are recorded--just the opposite of how it is in the west. The Japanese don't have as much attachment to lipsynch. I don't know if Mononoke was done that way or not, but I do know that the animals' speech wasn't terribly lipsynched at all in either language. :)
--
I seem to recall hearing that Akihiro Miwa (Moro) is actually a reknowned character actor whose stock-in-trade is characters of questionable gender.
Yôji Matsuda (Ashitaka) was, among others, Asbel in Nausicaa, and in fact IMDB lists his first credit as being in 1974.
Yuriko Ishida (San) has been working since 1987, when she voiced a character in MADOX-01.
Most of the others have credits going back at least several years, and some into the 1960s or 50s. Nothing I've ever heard of, but at least it shows they've had plenty of work in their native land.
Well, if you can call playing the title character in Nausicaa, Clarice in Castle of Cagliostro, Tomomi and Mei's mother in Totoro, Ginrei in Giant Robo, and characters in various other well-known anime including Iczer One, Urusei Yatsura, and Ruroni Kenshin "a bunch of minor roles." I wouldn't. Well, they certainly seem to be frequently employed voice actors, at least. No arguments there. Well, I think think the quality level of the Japanese version is a matter of personal opinion. Since I don't actually speak Japanese, I don't know if I can judge that well. But it did use an experienced cast.Indeed there is--and that reason is that the Japanese seem to have an obsession with the English language; they think it's "cool" (or "kewl," as the case might be) to use it anywhere they can--even if it doesn't always make a lot of sense.
This is also why English dubs of films like Macross: Love, Do You Remember and Megazone 23 Part II were actually commisioned by the Japanese. I myself have a bootleg VHS copy of the Megazone, with Japanese subtitles all along the bottom.
--
Don't let the cover throw you; this is no Fern Gully.
--
Express shipped me my Mononoke DVDs on the 18th, so I got them on the 20th. At just under $20 each, counting shipping and the $5 coupon I used. I'm happy with 'em.
--