Hello, Mickey Mouse and Disney were the initial driving force behind copyright extensions. Disney today is no different. Some of us would like copyrights to expire so we could enjoy it without always paying fees.
Oh come on. Look at government 100 years ago. Look at the progress made on a variety of issues. Now look at 50 years ago. Now 20. Don't think that money only recently started corrupting politics. Yet progress has happened anyway. Unless you wan't to go back to victorian times I think gridlock is bad for government. It would impede our social progress.
Too little too late...Or that would be true if MS wasn't so damn slow on their own to actually improve Windows. The only OS to be improving at a decent clip is Linux, may it kick both companies' asses and spur some innnovation on their part.
Just what we need, another way for people to get into our computers. Doesn't the FBI already watch what's on peoples' monitors from vans on the street? If we have our hard drives open for all, count on someone trying to fake a signal to talk to the drive. If the signal is encrypted, that means at some point the signal must be decrypted. That means more latency and slower overall times.
Right, but unless something has changed, users banned by Metallica can go to Napster.com and fill out a form declaring they did not have any Metallica songs. If this person ever gets hauled into court, which won't happen, he can use this defense.
Last summer when there were screenings of the film and most of the CG was still 640x480 or near blue screen except for the important scenes, I saw it and I think it was 90 to 110 minutes. I don't remember exactly but back then the falling pipe from the commercials was what knocked him into a coma. I have not and will not see the 75 minute version until it's released on DVD with all the original footage available. I'm annoyed that it has a PG-13 rating now, which means some of the funniest gags, which unfortunately I can't really remember anymore, had to have been cut.
Then perhaps the RIAA will stop selling you music. What you buy online will be a KEY that has restricted usage. The key you buy will happen to come with a file that the key will work on. It will be at the RIAAs discresion to provide the file. If you have a copy of your friend's song file, but he has the key and you want to listen to the file, you purchase a key. This way the RIAA doesn't have to use up so much bandwidth because there is no need to send the file.
I think one copy is fair for the large majority of users. Ideally the purpose of the copy would be for the owners convenience or to allow someone else to enjoy a song. In the case of a married couple, the husband and wife could each listen to the song on their digital car stereos, but if they wanted to listen while at work they'd have to transfer the song with a portable player or removable media from the stereo.
It might also be possible to keep copies of the song on many players, but only when the (hopefully lifetime) license is transferred will the hardware play the song.
Two copies would essentially allow two users to always use the song simultaneously, in which case two user licences would have been bought. The RIAA will never go for this.
Even if you're right, the more important idea is that with the napster payment plan, the labels get the money. Napster will keep track of the file names traded around, potentially, but the labels will not be obligated to give money to the artists by download. If a song is bought from the website I would hope the contract is a little more fair.
You're very correct that the RIAA can't stop mp3 now, but the trick will be to have all future CDs with watermarking that turns out to be very difficult to crack while maintaining acceptable quality. Then if the RIAA can get detection software into all the popular media players they can stop most of the music buying public from easily copying and sharing the music with thousands through an underground napster. This will hold the RIAA over until a successor such as DVD-audio takes hold. I don't expect the RIAA to give up on DVD-A either. I figure Sony at least will continue to take losses on these players for decades if neccessary until there is consumer acceptance so RIAA can stop copying.
But in the long run, can copy-protection circumvention be made easy enough for more than 2% of the potentially music buying public? If not, then the copy-protection is essentially successful.
Here's what this technology can offer if implemented fairly:
1. Music can be compressed with a new format that improves sound quality per bitrate. Who wouldn't like to carry around four hours of music instead of two or three?
2. The consumer's knowledge that if the songs are bought directly from a band's website, actual money has gone to the artist, and not neccessarily just the labels as it will be under the Napster payment system.
3. If RIAA can pull this off, they will get newer mp3 players to only support protected files, either through intimidation or changing the laws. I'm not in favor of this action, but I also think that with the Senate's help there will be a genuine effort to reform copyright laws that will help consumers while protecting business. If the music contains watermarks, it might be possible to limit free, unrestricted copying to a small percentage of society with the neccessary skills and attitude.
Allow each song to be copied once. A song could be downloaded and copied onto a mp3 player. The song on the player cannot be copied. The song on the hard drive cannot be copied until the player is reconnected to any computer that can connect to the hard drive, through a network or even wireless through cell phones.
This is the wireless interconnected fair digital music control that could appease the RIAA and consumers alike.
What would mess up this beautiful equation is if RIAA doesn't allow that one copy. That's taking it too far. If they do that I can't share a song with my friend or keep a copy on my laptop and desktop.
My eyes can tell the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz I swear! And if I don't have 100fps in Quake 3 I swear the game sucks! Wahhhhh! Wahhhh! Quake 3 at 100fps improves my game! Really it does! I can aim better at 100fps then 60! Wahhh! My hands are really that fast!
Come on here. He was thinking that because Sony makes consoles that the chip will go in a console, and not a PC. HDTV doesn't get better then 1024x768 at 60Hz.
What matters is all the other shit that gets rendered along the way. All the texturing, alpha blending and anti-aliasing bring those 50 million down considerably. Besides, you're assuming there is one polygon for each pixel. Suppose the scene has polygons behind polygons, ya know, like trees with semi-transparent leaves behind each other. Then the more polygons a card pushes the further it can draw out to infinity.
Last I heard the GeForce2 Ultra was doing 31 million. Let's see here. If by next year the GeForce3 Ultra does 45 million, then by the time the PS3 comes out PC video cards will be pushing 100 million. Looks like the only thing this card will be good for is arcade machines.
I would suspect the evidence works like this: Porno site sends out 10,000 spams. Hits and user registrations go up. Therefore spam works. The logic isn't solid but if this happens on a consistent basis I'd believe spam works.
That this got a score three is apalling. Let's see, as the article says a game will take three minutes to be received. I'm presuming that's a single disk, so Shenmue would take nine minutes, though actually less if the media-less version is recoded to not need three sets of textures and sounds.
If you can't wait five minutes every time you feel like playing a game you playe once every two months I pity you. Go make a sandwich while it loads.
I'll assume there will be parental controls to keep your kid safe from pedophiles. I doubt your kid will have to talk to any strangers in order to load Railroad Tycoon 2.
Monopolistic behavior huh? I suppose you think Sega is going to stop selling GD-ROMs of newer games? Why the fuck would they do that? They would lose their existing fan base. They're going to stop selling Dreamcasts as we know it, and release a set top box. If someone wants a Dreamcast, they'll have to buy the new box. Personally I'd prefer Sega continue to make DCs available at least over the web if not in EB and Babbages.
A fairly weak rip off of the early reading books for 4 year olds: See Tom. See Tom run. Run Tom run. Then imagining what would happen in a windows environment and expressing my displeasure with Windows' need to always get confirmation on creating or deleting anything.
The idea was children are being indirectly harmed if law enforcement has to set pedophiles free. If virtual images are illegal, the pedophile can be convicted under this law. I don't think child porn has any value to our society. Murder seems to have some. It is a common enough occurance that movies portray it all the time. Child porn is a seperate case from violence in movies.
I fully understand the slippery slope argument, but none of your scenarios protect children. Banning tentacle sex pictures would not protect children, nor would law-enforcement have any problem discerning real from fake.
Society draws lines in the sand on many issues. This is another line. It sounds like you're advocating allowing CG kiddie porn to allow the masses the freedom to enjoy it if they want to. Well this is one freedom that doesn't need to be available. If you read earlier posts of mine you'll see why: When law enforcement has to let someone go because they can't tell if the images on the hard drive were real or CG, and this guy continues purchasing or personally generating kiddie porn with someone's kids, I draw the line.
Go to webster.com and check the definition of bigot. Actually, don't bother:
Bigot:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Now it is entirely possible this person already considered this question, perhaps on another forum where child pornography was discussed. This poster has his or her own opinions, but not necessarily prejudices or interlerances. I take the original poster to task for failing to expand his or her argument, but I won't say the person is automatically a bigot.
Slashdot Mirror
It might also be possible to keep copies of the song on many players, but only when the (hopefully lifetime) license is transferred will the hardware play the song.
Two copies would essentially allow two users to always use the song simultaneously, in which case two user licences would have been bought. The RIAA will never go for this.
1. Music can be compressed with a new format that improves sound quality per bitrate. Who wouldn't like to carry around four hours of music instead of two or three?
2. The consumer's knowledge that if the songs are bought directly from a band's website, actual money has gone to the artist, and not neccessarily just the labels as it will be under the Napster payment system.
3. If RIAA can pull this off, they will get newer mp3 players to only support protected files, either through intimidation or changing the laws. I'm not in favor of this action, but I also think that with the Senate's help there will be a genuine effort to reform copyright laws that will help consumers while protecting business. If the music contains watermarks, it might be possible to limit free, unrestricted copying to a small percentage of society with the neccessary skills and attitude.
This is the wireless interconnected fair digital music control that could appease the RIAA and consumers alike.
What would mess up this beautiful equation is if RIAA doesn't allow that one copy. That's taking it too far. If they do that I can't share a song with my friend or keep a copy on my laptop and desktop.
If you can't wait five minutes every time you feel like playing a game you playe once every two months I pity you. Go make a sandwich while it loads.
I'll assume there will be parental controls to keep your kid safe from pedophiles. I doubt your kid will have to talk to any strangers in order to load Railroad Tycoon 2.
Monopolistic behavior huh? I suppose you think Sega is going to stop selling GD-ROMs of newer games? Why the fuck would they do that? They would lose their existing fan base. They're going to stop selling Dreamcasts as we know it, and release a set top box. If someone wants a Dreamcast, they'll have to buy the new box. Personally I'd prefer Sega continue to make DCs available at least over the web if not in EB and Babbages.
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Now it is entirely possible this person already considered this question, perhaps on another forum where child pornography was discussed. This poster has his or her own opinions, but not necessarily prejudices or interlerances. I take the original poster to task for failing to expand his or her argument, but I won't say the person is automatically a bigot.