Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.
and http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=224367
It's just misrepresentation of the difference between Widescreen and Full Screen on the inserts of many of MGMs discs. The comparisons would show a widescreen image of a 1.85:1 open matte film and then place a 4:3 ratio box within that image to show how information would be cropped out. However, since the films are open matte, those representations would be incorrect and misleading.
I keep reading in these threads that $0.99 a song is great because CDs are $15-$20. Where are you people buying CDs?
Circuit City and Best Buy, among other stores, carry new releases and even a lot of catalog titles at $13.99 or less...am I the only one aware of this?
Downloading a MP3 from Kazaa is taking someone else's property without right or permission. It's stealing.
I disagree...simply because if I download an mp3, the owner, whoever it is, STILL HAS a copy of the mp3. What you are referring to is copyright violation.
If someone breaks into my car and steals my car stereo, that's stealing...because I don't have my property anymore.
If someone downloads copies of my mp3s, let's say they're copyrighted mp3s, of my band and my own music...it's not stealing, because I still have the master copies of the music. It's copyright violation. There's a difference...
Where are you buying your CDs? Do you not see the Best Buy / Circuit City ads in your Sunday newspaper? I haven't bought a CD that cost me more than $13.99 in the past 4 or 5 years because these stores discount CDs so well...
Committing a crime? Yes. Stealing? No, in the definition of the word, it is not stealing. I am not taking someone's physical property. There is a difference...
Well, assuming there is the technology (and I know there is), to limit the copying of a digital music file... then if I subscribe to a service where I can download and burn a digital music file, then the song will not get pirated into oblivion, because of the copying restriction...right?
Well, yeah, I suppose, the people are violating copyright. It may seem like a thin line between the two, but the two are still completely different things.
I got my car broken into this summer, got a nice pair of sunglasses stolen, my car stereo, and a subwoofer/amplifier. That was stealing. They broke into my personal property, violated it, blah blah, I was pissed.
If I download an mp3, the artist still has the master copy of their song. No one, "in a sense", loses any personal property. Just my opinion...there's a distinct difference between the two...
While I don't attend any of the affected colleges, my college (Gonzaga University) at one point did have a search engine (developed by a student, put on his personal web site) that searched everyone's PCs who had enabled file/folder sharing on the network (Windows).
People found out about it via word of mouth, eventually the network people found out, first forced him to make it "Opt-In" (it searched everyone's PC whether you wanted in the database or not), and then decided to shut it down entirely because of the availability of copyrighted files on the search engine.
At first, when they told him to make it opt-in, they also made him put up a warning that stated to not make available copyrighted files...yeah, that really did the trick.
So, in conclusion, we don't have a search engine anymore, but I was lucky enough to have bookmarked a couple people's IP addresses so I can access their PC's still:).
Oh, and BTW, our network admins have pretty much blocked all P2P/file sharing programs network ports, it's pretty much impossible to download anything that's not over the WWW/FTP.
It really bugs me when the RIAA calls copyright violation, "Stealing." This is not stealing music. If I were to steal music, I would walk into my local Circuit City, grab some CDs, and run out the door. They lose their merchandise, I now have their CDs.
Downloading or having mp3s, as I'm sure every person who reads/. knows, is NOT stealing.
At the same time, while I understand the need for deterrent from downloading copyrighted mp3s, I still don't understand why the RIAA seems to be resisting the method of distributing music digitally. Are they planning on going back to cassette tapes? We've got this incredible method of getting into almost everyone's home to distribute music and reduce their costs, and all they want to do is sue people who are allegedly taking their business away.
Not that this is a justification of my downloading mp3s, but I wouldn't have bought probably 3/4 of the mp3s I have because I simply want one song off of the CD. If the record companies would just come up with a service that charged 25-50 cents a song,...I'm such a music lover that I'd be downloading probably 50 songs a month, probably more. That's $25 that the record industry would get out of my pocket that they would have never seen before.
If businesses figured out that this was all happening as a result of IM services, they would ban it. Period. What kind of moronic businessmen would allow the use of such applications if they clearly caused what you claim will be blatant inefficiency in their company?
That's like saying adding telephones to each desk in a cubicle environment will be the end of the company, because all you have to do is pick up the phone and dial someone's extension.
Don't want to be disturbed? Put up your away message, or an even more novel solution: TURN OFF YOUR IM PROGRAM!
I believe the first episode featuring the Borg is "Q Who?", [or maybe it was some other Q episode]...where he throws the ship a couple hundred (million?) light years away where he shows them 'an enemy they're not ready to face', or something to that effect. I think that was in season 2. Then they come back in The Best of Both Worlds, at the end of Season 3, if I remember correctly.
Unless I've been reading wrong for the past year, the PS2 is very Dolby Digital 5.1 capable and apparently has as good video quality as middle range DVD players.
Slashdot Mirror
ATTN: Your DVDs are fine. Its the inserts that are "bad." This isn't really a big deal.
n .shtml
d .php?s=&threadid=224367
from: http://www.widescreen.org/commentaries/2005_01_ja
Before any of you start to worry, the realistic side of me says that this was indeed a frivolous lawsuit - to an extent. MGM misrepresented the facts, but no harm was really done, either mentally or physically, to anyone. The whole idea behind widescreen, regardless of how MGM misrepresented the widescreen examples, is the sustaining of artistic integrity for those who spent a great deal of time making that movie - a hell of a lot more time than someone who sits and watches the final results in the form of a $20 DVD. MGM was a tad too over-zealous in representing 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 movies, but the final result was the same - the aspect ratio of what was seen in theatres. Their widescreen DVDs appear on the TV screen exactly as they should. I don't see that a lawsuit in this case was really necessary.
and http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthrea
It's just misrepresentation of the difference between Widescreen and Full Screen on the inserts of many of MGMs discs. The comparisons would show a widescreen image of a 1.85:1 open matte film and then place a 4:3 ratio box within that image to show how information would be cropped out. However, since the films are open matte, those representations would be incorrect and misleading.
I keep reading in these threads that $0.99 a song is great because CDs are $15-$20. Where are you people buying CDs?
Circuit City and Best Buy, among other stores, carry new releases and even a lot of catalog titles at $13.99 or less...am I the only one aware of this?
Downloading a MP3 from Kazaa is taking someone else's property without right or permission. It's stealing.
I disagree...simply because if I download an mp3, the owner, whoever it is, STILL HAS a copy of the mp3. What you are referring to is copyright violation.
If someone breaks into my car and steals my car stereo, that's stealing...because I don't have my property anymore.
If someone downloads copies of my mp3s, let's say they're copyrighted mp3s, of my band and my own music...it's not stealing, because I still have the master copies of the music. It's copyright violation. There's a difference...
CDs are too expensive, at $15-20 a CD...
Where are you buying your CDs? Do you not see the Best Buy / Circuit City ads in your Sunday newspaper? I haven't bought a CD that cost me more than $13.99 in the past 4 or 5 years because these stores discount CDs so well...
Circuit City, Best Buy...
I can't believe people still shop at Musicland, Sam Goody, etc. Even catalog titles aren't more than $13.99 or so at these stores...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stealing
Committing a crime? Yes. Stealing? No, in the definition of the word, it is not stealing. I am not taking someone's physical property. There is a difference...
Well, assuming there is the technology (and I know there is), to limit the copying of a digital music file... then if I subscribe to a service where I can download and burn a digital music file, then the song will not get pirated into oblivion, because of the copying restriction...right?
Or am I missing something?
Well, yeah, I suppose, the people are violating copyright. It may seem like a thin line between the two, but the two are still completely different things.
I got my car broken into this summer, got a nice pair of sunglasses stolen, my car stereo, and a subwoofer/amplifier. That was stealing. They broke into my personal property, violated it, blah blah, I was pissed.
If I download an mp3, the artist still has the master copy of their song. No one, "in a sense", loses any personal property. Just my opinion...there's a distinct difference between the two...
While I don't attend any of the affected colleges, my college (Gonzaga University) at one point did have a search engine (developed by a student, put on his personal web site) that searched everyone's PCs who had enabled file/folder sharing on the network (Windows).
:).
People found out about it via word of mouth, eventually the network people found out, first forced him to make it "Opt-In" (it searched everyone's PC whether you wanted in the database or not), and then decided to shut it down entirely because of the availability of copyrighted files on the search engine.
At first, when they told him to make it opt-in, they also made him put up a warning that stated to not make available copyrighted files...yeah, that really did the trick.
So, in conclusion, we don't have a search engine anymore, but I was lucky enough to have bookmarked a couple people's IP addresses so I can access their PC's still
Oh, and BTW, our network admins have pretty much blocked all P2P/file sharing programs network ports, it's pretty much impossible to download anything that's not over the WWW/FTP.
It really bugs me when the RIAA calls copyright violation, "Stealing." This is not stealing music. If I were to steal music, I would walk into my local Circuit City, grab some CDs, and run out the door. They lose their merchandise, I now have their CDs.
/. knows, is NOT stealing.
...I'm such a music lover that I'd be downloading probably 50 songs a month, probably more. That's $25 that the record industry would get out of my pocket that they would have never seen before.
Downloading or having mp3s, as I'm sure every person who reads
At the same time, while I understand the need for deterrent from downloading copyrighted mp3s, I still don't understand why the RIAA seems to be resisting the method of distributing music digitally. Are they planning on going back to cassette tapes? We've got this incredible method of getting into almost everyone's home to distribute music and reduce their costs, and all they want to do is sue people who are allegedly taking their business away.
Not that this is a justification of my downloading mp3s, but I wouldn't have bought probably 3/4 of the mp3s I have because I simply want one song off of the CD. If the record companies would just come up with a service that charged 25-50 cents a song,
Obvious troll...I mean, seriously.
If businesses figured out that this was all happening as a result of IM services, they would ban it. Period. What kind of moronic businessmen would allow the use of such applications if they clearly caused what you claim will be blatant inefficiency in their company?
That's like saying adding telephones to each desk in a cubicle environment will be the end of the company, because all you have to do is pick up the phone and dial someone's extension.
Don't want to be disturbed? Put up your away message, or an even more novel solution: TURN OFF YOUR IM PROGRAM!
I believe the first episode featuring the Borg is "Q Who?", [or maybe it was some other Q episode]...where he throws the ship a couple hundred (million?) light years away where he shows them 'an enemy they're not ready to face', or something to that effect. I think that was in season 2. Then they come back in The Best of Both Worlds, at the end of Season 3, if I remember correctly.
Unless I've been reading wrong for the past year, the PS2 is very Dolby Digital 5.1 capable and apparently has as good video quality as middle range DVD players.