People who sell copied movies should be thrown in jail.
It's one thing to swap a movie with a friend for free, but a *completely* different story when you start charging your friends $10 a copy... or go into "business" selling bootlegs.
On a side note...
The RIAA knows it's in trouble after the round of lost growth it took over the past quarter. I wholeheartedly attribute it to the closing of Napster. They won't start to act until it happens once or twice more. Fortunately for artists and consumers... the revolution in the music industry is in full swing.
As for the MPAA... I offer word of caution.
They should look at Sony and the SDMI-crippled NetWalkman, and how it failed to sell. Nobody buys them. Whereas Apple has sold the free-for-all iPod in numbers totalling thousands.
Isn't it a "no-brainer" that Microsoft would be a part of the group that complained?
I mean... it's kinda hard for Microsoft to demo games for the XBox when they still haven't put the finishing Photoshop lens-flares on their new game's slideshow?!:)
Forget about this already? Here's a refresher. And here are a few others.
i think there's enough competition just based in the fact that cable will have to compete against DSL. for competition, you only need one other player.
just wait until ricochet gets back up and together. that'll make three.
and personally, i'd rather have unlimited 175kbps wireless @ only $44.95 per month wouldn't you?
furthermore - having several "providers" that share the same pipe really isn't competition. be realistic here.
i've been looking for a cheap thinkpad that'll run win98 and take the internet on the road with me for a while. but i can't find anything worth buying that's under $300.
quote:yep, a nice licensed closed source one that does what the MPAA wants rather than what you want.
a dvd player plays movies. what else would need to be included in a software dvd player other than a set of functions like play, reverse, forward, stop, et cetera?!?! it doesn't need to wash your car or toast your toast. a player isn't necessarily supposed to facilitate copying either.
again, why does it need to be open-source?
quote:You don't really think all of the fuss over deCSS is just a matter of an unpaid license fee do you?
correct me if i'm wrong... but the people who hacked the accidentally unencrypted xing dvd key put it to use for a linux dvd player. this landed them in trouble for violating the digital millennium copyright act.
the purpose of CSS was to keep consumers from having the unrestricted ability to pirate dvd movies when dvd-r technology trickled down to the masses.
i never said that the matter over deCSS was due to an unpaid license fee.
quote: I shouldn't HAVE to get a 'pro' VCR just to tape a few movies for personal enjoyment.
time-shifting is here, and has been ever since the early '80s. why would it just up and dissapear now?
*LOOK*
if the major media and CE vendors really didn't want people to get their hands on DVD-R technology, dvd burners would not exist. deCSS came out when... at least two years ago? and consumer dvd burners didn't come to market until after that.
if the companies didn't want you to use DVD technology, with the threat of bootlegging now a clear reality... they wouldn't produce burners for consumers!
sony is both an electronics manufacturer and media distributer. they make both cd-rw and dvd-rw drives. sony, through the logic of self-preservation, should not sell a device which can be used to copy content.
oh pishaw. why would a linux dvd player need to be open source? if red hat made a kick ass dvd player, along the lines of the dvd player included with mac os x... and made it skinable... there would be NO reason to NEED it to be open source.
by the way, dvd players aren't included with windows xp. you have to buy one separately, or use one that came preinstalled (if it's even there.)
at any rate... minidiscs use something called scms.
"consumer gear" prevents copying a copy. "pro" gear leaves such recording/playing/copying/trading unrestricted. the "pro" gear isn't considered to be illegal. fuck, sony sells the two flavors themselves.
this is exactly what would REALISTICALLY happen on the television side of things.
Let's suppose I want to use clips from a movie in a class I'm giving about filmmaking.
then you can use an copy prohibition bit-stripper or de-css box. i'm sure your school would have one available to use. besides... dvd is random access. how hard would it be to swap a few discs around?
secondly, the linux aspect. does any distribution of linux carry a "dvd-video" logo on the box? in the documentation? if it were really important to linux users to be able to watch their dvd movies, why hasn't red hat stepped up to plate and built their own legit dvd player for their own distro?
alas...i think the only balance would be to have a copy-once system. you can copy anything you own, but you can't make a copy from a copy.
sorry if this isn't very organized... but here's how i feel...
the movie industry is actually worth my money.
maybe the actors are overpaid, and there are scores of shitty movies...
...but...
i'd drop $15 for a good DVD over a good CD any day.
why? hundreds of people put their effort into making one movie, while only a hand-full put their efforts into making a cd. not only that... but a movie is more engrosing than a cd will ever be because you're using both visuals and sound.
what about fair use, you cry? give me one good example where you *need* to copy a movie that you own. i can think of a few for music, namely transfering music to another format to be portable, such as an mp3 device. but what about movies?
finally... be realistic here... you can bet your sweet ass that someone will make a box which strips out whatever encryption they throw into this new movie medium --> tv format.
(side note) it's funny how the networks are so against PVRs, yet you see their commercials ON TELEVISION. funny to see that networks will help pimp the product, but hate the errosion of their business model as well. that's hypocracy at its finest.
Here's a breakdown of computer/television standards and their respective resolutions...
Computers
VGA (in graphics mode) - 640 x 480
SVGA - 800 x 600
XGA - 1024 x 768
SXGA - 1280 x 1024
UXGA - 1600 x 1200
QXGA - 2048 x 1536
Television
NTSC - 525 lines @ 29.97 fps (interlaced)
PAL - 625 lines @ 25 fps (interlaced)
Broadcast TV in America is typically around 330 lines... I believe. The same is true for analog cable.
~~HDTV formats
NBC, CBS, PBS - 1080i (1920 x 1080)
ABC - 720p (1280 x 720)
FOX - 480p (640 x 480)
~~Video Recorders/Players/Cameras (all approx.)
VHS - 240 lines
S-VHS & Beta - 400 lines
D-VHS - 1080 lines
DV (DV1) - 480 lines (720 x 480)
LaserDisc - 425 lines
DVD Video - 525 lines
Think that's a mess? Sure is. After looking at all of that, NOW I understand why JVC thinks they have a market for Digital-VHS. Digital-VHS has a high resolution. DVD doesn't have enough storage capacity in it's current form. This is where that Blu-Disc comes into play.
Now consider this: there are CONSUMER digital still-photography cameras on the market that have a resolution of 4096 x 6144. There are 8192 x 6144 cameras on the horizon. Not to mention better DV formats which are already being used in the field, like D-9 and D-5.
Now I know why my dad waited until 1986 to buy a VHS VCR and is just now (reluctantly) starting to embrace Compact Disc. 20 years from now, I have a feeling we're going to be wishing that we had implemented a better HDTV resolution from the GET GO.
As much as I'd like to see Microsoft fall for anti-trust violations... what have they really done wrong?
*They bundled IE with Windows & killed Netscape - yah... the consumer lost by having a browser that shipped standard with Windows. HA. I'm glad things have turned out the way they have. If Netscape and IE had gone toe-to-toe for years... we'd all still be coding two sets of sites: one for each flavor.
As a web designer -simply put - I want my website to work across ALL computers.
(side note... ) AOL has owned Netscape now for how many years? And they still don't use Netscape as the AOL browser? Why's that? I can only venture to guess.:-/
*Microsoft used bully tatics to force hardware manufacturers into complying with shady bundling - Nobody forced Gateway, Dell, Packard Bell, NEC, et al, into a business model revolving around Windows. Microsoft chose to exploit this. Was such exploitation bad?
*Microsoft is a computer monopoly - Spare me the conspiracy theories... but what about Apple, Sun, Linux, SGI... ? Just because the market has adopted Windows as the "standard" doesn't really make it a monopoly, does it?
There are more points... but those are the three that interest me most. If I'm wrong... reply. In a nutshell - I don't think Microsoft is like a true modern-day monopoly... from my perspective.
I have a PowerMac, so don't mod this as flamebait.:-p
i have a g4 450 dual powermac. i bought it for school in the summer of 2000. while i should be drooling over these new boxen, i'm not. why? because the box i have now can already edit movies in realtime with final cut pro 3. this is on a two-year old computer. hell, even the SINGLE cpu tibooks can do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at your calenders boys and girls...
APRIL FOOLS @#@#$
Remember this...
Steve Jobs is still the CEO of Pixar. He has an interest in the MPAA just like Disney does. Maybe not to the same extent, but interest nevertheless.
People who sell copied movies should be thrown in jail.
It's one thing to swap a movie with a friend for free, but a *completely* different story when you start charging your friends $10 a copy... or go into "business" selling bootlegs.
On a side note...
The RIAA knows it's in trouble after the round of lost growth it took over the past quarter. I wholeheartedly attribute it to the closing of Napster. They won't start to act until it happens once or twice more. Fortunately for artists and consumers... the revolution in the music industry is in full swing.
As for the MPAA... I offer word of caution.
They should look at Sony and the SDMI-crippled NetWalkman, and how it failed to sell. Nobody buys them. Whereas Apple has sold the free-for-all iPod in numbers totalling thousands.
Isn't it a "no-brainer" that Microsoft would be a part of the group that complained?
:)
I mean... it's kinda hard for Microsoft to demo games for the XBox when they still haven't put the finishing Photoshop lens-flares on their new game's slideshow?!
Forget about this already? Here's a refresher. And here are a few others.
IBM is evil. Mod me up too!
i think there's enough competition just based in the fact that cable will have to compete against DSL. for competition, you only need one other player.
just wait until ricochet gets back up and together. that'll make three.
and personally, i'd rather have unlimited 175kbps wireless @ only $44.95 per month wouldn't you?
furthermore - having several "providers" that share the same pipe really isn't competition. be realistic here.
does anyone know the frequency response these things have? or how loud they get...
just wondering
Ars got 0wn3d.
:)
The numbers say it all...
APPLE COMPUTER INC ~AAPL~ 24.66
GATEWAY INC ~GTW~ 6.07
i've been looking for a cheap thinkpad that'll run win98 and take the internet on the road with me for a while. but i can't find anything worth buying that's under $300.
:(
they should have set up a filter.
any comment which has a body exactly like another comment should be thrown out.
why wasn't this done?
then again... it's not like my comment ultimately matters in this case.
:(
i hope he grounded the thing!
maybe i'm wrong... but wouldn't it be very bad to mount a motherboard on a piece of plexiglass?
i was going to say almost everything you said untill i read this post.
:D
there's NOTHING more annoying than a website designed with a fixed horizontal layout.
well... i guess there is the tag...
AOL and Microsoft will always have competition.
So what if AOL owns CNN. Or that Microsoft has a stake in MSNBC. News still gets out through independent sources. Not to mention FOX News.
The Slate has been somewhat critical of Microsoft, in fact. And they're owned by Microsoft!
quote: yep, a nice licensed closed source one that does what the MPAA wants rather than what you want.
a dvd player plays movies. what else would need to be included in a software dvd player other than a set of functions like play, reverse, forward, stop, et cetera?!?! it doesn't need to wash your car or toast your toast. a player isn't necessarily supposed to facilitate copying either.
again, why does it need to be open-source?
quote: You don't really think all of the fuss over deCSS is just a matter of an unpaid license fee do you?
correct me if i'm wrong... but the people who hacked the accidentally unencrypted xing dvd key put it to use for a linux dvd player. this landed them in trouble for violating the digital millennium copyright act.
the purpose of CSS was to keep consumers from having the unrestricted ability to pirate dvd movies when dvd-r technology trickled down to the masses.
i never said that the matter over deCSS was due to an unpaid license fee.
quote: I shouldn't HAVE to get a 'pro' VCR just to tape a few movies for personal enjoyment.
time-shifting is here, and has been ever since the early '80s. why would it just up and dissapear now?
*LOOK*
if the major media and CE vendors really didn't want people to get their hands on DVD-R technology, dvd burners would not exist. deCSS came out when... at least two years ago? and consumer dvd burners didn't come to market until after that.
if the companies didn't want you to use DVD technology, with the threat of bootlegging now a clear reality... they wouldn't produce burners for consumers!
sony is both an electronics manufacturer and media distributer. they make both cd-rw and dvd-rw drives. sony, through the logic of self-preservation, should not sell a device which can be used to copy content.
yet they do.
oh pishaw. why would a linux dvd player need to be open source? if red hat made a kick ass dvd player, along the lines of the dvd player included with mac os x... and made it skinable... there would be NO reason to NEED it to be open source.
by the way, dvd players aren't included with windows xp. you have to buy one separately, or use one that came preinstalled (if it's even there.)
at any rate... minidiscs use something called scms.
"consumer gear" prevents copying a copy. "pro" gear leaves such recording/playing/copying/trading unrestricted. the "pro" gear isn't considered to be illegal. fuck, sony sells the two flavors themselves.
this is exactly what would REALISTICALLY happen on the television side of things.
Let's suppose I want to use clips from a movie in a class I'm giving about filmmaking.
then you can use an copy prohibition bit-stripper or de-css box. i'm sure your school would have one available to use. besides... dvd is random access. how hard would it be to swap a few discs around?
secondly, the linux aspect. does any distribution of linux carry a "dvd-video" logo on the box? in the documentation? if it were really important to linux users to be able to watch their dvd movies, why hasn't red hat stepped up to plate and built their own legit dvd player for their own distro?
alas...i think the only balance would be to have a copy-once system. you can copy anything you own, but you can't make a copy from a copy.
sorry if this isn't very organized... but here's how i feel...
the movie industry is actually worth my money.
maybe the actors are overpaid, and there are scores of shitty movies...
...but...
i'd drop $15 for a good DVD over a good CD any day.
why? hundreds of people put their effort into making one movie, while only a hand-full put their efforts into making a cd. not only that... but a movie is more engrosing than a cd will ever be because you're using both visuals and sound.
what about fair use, you cry? give me one good example where you *need* to copy a movie that you own. i can think of a few for music, namely transfering music to another format to be portable, such as an mp3 device. but what about movies?
finally... be realistic here... you can bet your sweet ass that someone will make a box which strips out whatever encryption they throw into this new movie medium --> tv format.
(side note) it's funny how the networks are so against PVRs, yet you see their commercials ON TELEVISION. funny to see that networks will help pimp the product, but hate the errosion of their business model as well. that's hypocracy at its finest.
Here's a breakdown of computer/television standards and their respective resolutions...
Computers
VGA (in graphics mode) - 640 x 480
SVGA - 800 x 600
XGA - 1024 x 768
SXGA - 1280 x 1024
UXGA - 1600 x 1200
QXGA - 2048 x 1536
Television
NTSC - 525 lines @ 29.97 fps (interlaced)
PAL - 625 lines @ 25 fps (interlaced)
Broadcast TV in America is typically around 330 lines... I believe. The same is true for analog cable.
~~HDTV formats
NBC, CBS, PBS - 1080i (1920 x 1080)
ABC - 720p (1280 x 720)
FOX - 480p (640 x 480)
~~Video Recorders/Players/Cameras (all approx.)
VHS - 240 lines
S-VHS & Beta - 400 lines
D-VHS - 1080 lines
DV (DV1) - 480 lines (720 x 480)
LaserDisc - 425 lines
DVD Video - 525 lines
Think that's a mess? Sure is. After looking at all of that, NOW I understand why JVC thinks they have a market for Digital-VHS. Digital-VHS has a high resolution. DVD doesn't have enough storage capacity in it's current form. This is where that Blu-Disc comes into play.
Now consider this: there are CONSUMER digital still-photography cameras on the market that have a resolution of 4096 x 6144. There are 8192 x 6144 cameras on the horizon. Not to mention better DV formats which are already being used in the field, like D-9 and D-5.
Now I know why my dad waited until 1986 to buy a VHS VCR and is just now (reluctantly) starting to embrace Compact Disc. 20 years from now, I have a feeling we're going to be wishing that we had implemented a better HDTV resolution from the GET GO.
i love my job. karma whoring is a great field to be in.
hopefully intel will reduce the size of this thing so the big three can get it into laptops that aren't the size (and weight) of a sack of this.
i don't believe the laptop market is filled to the brim with people who wear back-supports.
Netscape 6.2 is Internet Explorer's only true competition.
Opera, OmniWeb, iCab... they all fail to load one site or another... *correctly*
my definition of "correctly" = matching IE5 and Netscape6
As much as I'd like to see Microsoft fall for anti-trust violations... what have they really done wrong?
:-/
:-p
*They bundled IE with Windows & killed Netscape - yah... the consumer lost by having a browser that shipped standard with Windows. HA. I'm glad things have turned out the way they have. If Netscape and IE had gone toe-to-toe for years... we'd all still be coding two sets of sites: one for each flavor.
As a web designer -simply put - I want my website to work across ALL computers.
(side note... ) AOL has owned Netscape now for how many years? And they still don't use Netscape as the AOL browser? Why's that? I can only venture to guess.
*Microsoft used bully tatics to force hardware manufacturers into complying with shady bundling - Nobody forced Gateway, Dell, Packard Bell, NEC, et al, into a business model revolving around Windows. Microsoft chose to exploit this. Was such exploitation bad?
*Microsoft is a computer monopoly - Spare me the conspiracy theories... but what about Apple, Sun, Linux, SGI... ? Just because the market has adopted Windows as the "standard" doesn't really make it a monopoly, does it?
There are more points... but those are the three that interest me most. If I'm wrong... reply. In a nutshell - I don't think Microsoft is like a true modern-day monopoly... from my perspective.
I have a PowerMac, so don't mod this as flamebait.
i have a g4 450 dual powermac. i bought it for school in the summer of 2000. while i should be drooling over these new boxen, i'm not. why? because the box i have now can already edit movies in realtime with final cut pro 3. this is on a two-year old computer. hell, even the SINGLE cpu tibooks can do this.
am i the only one who thinks *that* is very cool?
academic pricing for office x for mac os x is $200.