To visualize... At Best Buy, Shanghai Noon DVD is $22.99, while the CD Soundtrack is $15.99
That's right, for $7 more you get the images WITH the music.
Now, Fight Club single DVD movie is $11.99 at Best Buy, while the Fight Club CD soundtrack is $14.99.
The trends are still there. Music is as much, if not more, than DVDs, which generally give you much more. Two different, but parallel, industries, one complaining it's losing money, the other with record years. The one losing money is making more off sales than the one not losing money.
Ah, but many direct-to-video/DVD titles still sell for about $20 each, as well. They're made cheaper, but still, they do come out at that price and have larger budgets, including marketing, than any album could.
What's more, rereleases of albums, like The Beatles "White Album" and "Greatest Hits" albums, still rank high in price, sometimes much higher than two DVD movie sets.
Even with ticket sales for movies, the pricing of DVDs and VHS still show that the RIAA members are taking in too much and not paying out enough to artists, or lying about how much they're losing. I can't fathom any other reason why a CD costing $18+ can still lose money when it can sell more than a copy of Shanghai Noon on DVD that costs only $15. Just for examples. Something to think about.
Or you just hand it over to someone under 18 and don't tell them to install it for you, just let them do it. In logical theory, they'd be doing it on their own, and without your consent, they couldn't be bound to the contract.
On Windows, libgd was installed by default, but on *NIX and other platforms, you had to install all the libraries to support GD, and then install GD, and then configure PHP for GD support. With 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 versions, many things did not work properly between all these versions on *NIX systems, compared to Windows PHP. Plus there were some bugs that couldn't be worked out in PHP because they were in the GD code.
To make it more compatible cross-platform, get a unified libgd version to use, and add functions not normally found and fix bugs, PHP has added GD as a bundled extension. This is a good thing.
PHP can be configured for XML support, but I've seen PHP move from HTML to XHTML support instead. One thing I'd love to see is a way for an install-level configuration for using XHTML or XML on PHP output. Also, yes, the striptags and htmlentities and such will barf on XML codings, and there should be better support for this, hopefully in 4.4.0
I'll have to recheck this later, but I installed PHP 4.3.0 on a Cobalt RaQ3 over a PHP 4.2.3 install using the same configuration line, simply adding the GD install flags. The PostgreSQL make errored out on the install, when it was compiled in 4.2.3 without a problem. Took it out of the configure line, and it installed fine.
I really do enjoy having Postgre and MySQL support on the same machine, but for now I guess I'll have to stick with MySQL until I figure this one out.
But above all, CONGRATS on the changes, PHP team, and please keep up with the good work! It's a great software and a great asset to server administrators, programmers and scripters around.
I believe, from what I understood, the reason why a silencer silences a gun isn't from the discharge, but from the speed of the bullet when it leaves the chamber. Just like the crack of a whip, I understand the bullet is faster than the speed of sound when it first leaves, thus making its own sonic-boom.
Movies don't pay to get into theaters, or to get on playlists, or even to push their videos onto video stations. They simply pay for the advertising on TV and other movies, and the movie theaters are usually forced (some) or more inclined to show only those movies rated by the MPAA. Most newspapers won't advertise or allow advertised any movie which isn't rated, or is rated NC-17.
So that $20 DVD (I've even seen some releases of classics for $5 new) can easily fly through due to the fact that people WANT to see that movie. The $17 CD (Still can't find any $5 new releases) has to pay to get itself noticed on the major markets, has to pay to get some notice in music stores, and has to pay to get noticed on MTV. People won't want to listen to it unless it knows it's there, and music is drowning out in the world of Movies, Computers and Video Games.
I myself prefer IV and VIII, and II is okay, and VI is worth watching at best. Can't stand the rest, but then again, I'm not a diehard fan, or even close. I just enjoyed the even movies and some of TNG.
There are many sites that are dynamic enough that content is driven by the end-user through different interfaces. With these, some companies have chosen to use multimedia such as DHTML, Flash and Shockwave. As these regularly aren't too accessible to text-only browsers or the blind, would you like to see more companies stop using these navigations to assist the blind, or would you see any potential to have parallel non-multimedia sites as a cost-effective alternative to allow the blind to view these sites?
What's strange is that writers seem to have much more protection by law than writers or musicians. IANAL, but if I recall, no writer can ever give up more than 50% of their ownership of a copyright, and must license the remainder. Most writer guilds and unions have stipulated specifics with this in the entertainment field, so you hardly ever see a writer truly get screwed in Hollywood, on Television, in Music, on Radio... About the only place writers get screwed these days are the freelance writing arena, because there really is no union or guild fighting for much there yet.
However, with artists, directors, etc., as far as I'm aware, these protections are not in place yet. Since Lee didn't write the movie and was probably just credited as a producer and consultant, they can screw him till it hurts in both ends, but probably somewhere down the line James Cameron, who worked on one of the earliest drafts (and one of the only parts of that left were the organic web-shooters), is getting a royalty check.
Again, this is stipulation, I don't know the exacts of their contracts here with this movie or who was exactly promised what. However, maybe it's time for another "Image" break-away in Marvel, in order for Lee and others who worked on Spider-Man to once again grab their rights and credits, and especially their royalties for their hard work and ideas.
It is illegal in Japan to show uncensored penises, but it is legal to show uncensored tentacles. This is why you often see them with a little mushroom tip, as well...
More than just symbolic, it's a way to bypass certain laws.
There was recently an article (I think on MSNBC) that said that online sales of music was down and the RIAA blamed illegal downloads as the reason, yet again. But the funniest part about it? They were talking about online sales of pre-packaged CDs from major outlets, and ignored sales of downloads, mp3s and from small independent outlets.
Not only won't the RIAA admit that the music is crap and that they won't do anything to improve sales on their end, they now have to focus on only one or two areas of sales to "prove" that sales are down, and ignore areas where sales go up.
The biggest reason is that the companies who had the alpha, or the individuals, most likely were under NDAs, non-disclosure agreements. Therefore, by giving away the software, or leaking it out on the internet, they're breaking those NDAs, and possibly further trust from id, in the process.
You may see it as free advertising, or that people should understand that it's an alpha, but if id wanted it public, they would have released it. The fact that someone else leaked it without permission, and probably breaking a contract, leaves id with very little recourse, since they can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. It's everywhere.
Perhaps next time, when you want to ask about why one business is upset at another business for releasing secret software or information, you'll better understand before you ask? Hopefully?
The Matrix, Toy Story 1 + 2, Lord of the Rings, Spider-man, American Beauty, Being John Malkovich (tell me that would have come out of a studio 5 years ago.. ha!), Fight Club, Traffic, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Requiem For A Dream, Shrek...
Just to help you out... Matrix seems so much like an anime movie, just in superior live-action, that it's no wonder why not only geeks enjoy it, but also the huge anime fandom.
Toy Story, and anything else Pixar made, c'mon, no contest. This studio has yet to produce a bad short or full length movie. And their newest one coming out even looks interesting, even though Ellen DeGeneres is one of the title voice actors in it (I haven't seen a decent movie with her in it yet, sorry).
Spider-Man was *YEARS* in development, and with Sam Raimi at the helm, it was going to be a hit or a cult favourite. I'm just glad, after Cameron's latest track record, that Raimi took the reins.
Fight Club and Traffic were based on two successful ventures before (as was Lord of the Rings). Fight Club, a fascinating book, and Traffic, a mini-series originally produced by Channel 4 called Traffik, both well translated to the big screen.
As for the rest, haven't seen them yet, so can't comment on them. But of course, the movie industry's big guys only want to look at one part of a success story instead of all of it.
Vin Diesel movie makes $200 million, let's put him in ANOTHER action movie. What? It flops? How could it!? They should also see that many people try to push the envelope to make their audience think or enjoy, instead of throwing everything down their throats, and those thinking movies help with promotion because people still talk about them days after they've seen the movies, thus making others want to go see it.
Just trying to help out, of course, this is merely opinion, and many will disagree.
That's funny, because your ruling on your channel was that as long as people didn't trade on the channel, they could talk about what they pirated and that they have pirated.
That was *YOUR* ruling, in public, Emmett.
That's also supporting piracy, even if you don't do it yourself, you're saying it's perfectly okay that people talk about their own acts.
So Xiph has come to this, eh? If you talk bad about Xiph, you get lawsuits?
Except that you pay for this rental service, which is the real kicker. The problem is that CivIII isn't multiplayer *YET*, so it defeats the purpose of playing it online at Yahoo!, I would think.
Emmett Plant distinctly stated that he supports piracy, but you can't trade it on their channel. You can talk about trading, you can talk about what you pirate, and the Xiph people are usually in the discussions with them.
That doesn't refute anything. He fully supports it, just doesn't want to have anything bad happen to his channel at all.
If you do not believe me, it's irc.xiph.org, channel #Vorbis. Go ahead and discuss piracy, and see whether or not they're "against it".
Whoa, now there's a nice little attribute, really.
I have logs myself where Emmett Plant even states that there's no harm in copyright piracy, that it in fact helps everyone.
He even states that people can talk about piracy and even about pirating stuff so long as they don't trade in the channel itself.
I have logs just as well, so thanks.
And to clarify, I think that the CTEA is bad, and I hope Eldred gets it struck down. If you even bother to realize things, you'll see that even Lessig and Eldred *support* copyright, just not the CTEA and DMCA, just like I publicly stated in #Vorbis.
And yes, I got banned because I didn't support piracy. Let me repeat that: You get banned from Xiph's channel if you do not apprecate piracy.
And I never stated that the only reason copyright is sacred is because it's a law, but I did say that piracy is against the law. If you wish to break it, you should also accept the consequences of breaking said law.
1) You assume a person reads an EULA. Even though a contract can still hold up if you don't read it, you're still required to sign it. If you never read an EULA or agree to it through a click, then how are you agreeing to it? Simply because they say "By using this product, you agree to our terms"?
2) Another problem with EULAs are many of the corporate ones are too one-sided. They're not responsible for anything, but you're fully responsible to follow all their rules. Some even say you can't even talk about the product or take pictures of it or anything without permission, but that they can use your information for their company's marketing research without your permission to do so. (that is, they can use it to market you magazines whether or not you asked for them)
3) You don't need to be 18 to buy many EULA products, and to have a contract valid, either a person 18 or older must agree to it, or the parent or guardian of that under-18 person must agree to have that person agree. When a 17 year old purchases an Xbox and takes it home, goes through the licensing agreements on his own, then starts playing, how can Microsoft say the EULA can still affect him?
4) There are many people who play video games who cannot read, or cannot read English. So EULAs written in English are still valid even though the other party cannot understand them? I do believe that contracts have to be signed by parties that understand them, and if it's in another language, the translator must sign off on them. I could be wrong, of course.
But again, EULAs are hardly contracts in the sense of contracts, but more of agreements that you won't do bad things to the company issuing the product. I can't wait until EULAs are struck down and normal copyright laws apply to the products (or patents to hardware).
Slashdot Mirror
Easy. The record companies make the music just as piracy hurts CD sales.
i.e. FUD
To visualize... At Best Buy, Shanghai Noon DVD is $22.99, while the CD Soundtrack is $15.99
That's right, for $7 more you get the images WITH the music.
Now, Fight Club single DVD movie is $11.99 at Best Buy, while the Fight Club CD soundtrack is $14.99.
The trends are still there. Music is as much, if not more, than DVDs, which generally give you much more. Two different, but parallel, industries, one complaining it's losing money, the other with record years. The one losing money is making more off sales than the one not losing money.
So, go figure.
Ah, but many direct-to-video/DVD titles still sell for about $20 each, as well. They're made cheaper, but still, they do come out at that price and have larger budgets, including marketing, than any album could.
What's more, rereleases of albums, like The Beatles "White Album" and "Greatest Hits" albums, still rank high in price, sometimes much higher than two DVD movie sets.
Even with ticket sales for movies, the pricing of DVDs and VHS still show that the RIAA members are taking in too much and not paying out enough to artists, or lying about how much they're losing. I can't fathom any other reason why a CD costing $18+ can still lose money when it can sell more than a copy of Shanghai Noon on DVD that costs only $15. Just for examples. Something to think about.
Or you just hand it over to someone under 18 and don't tell them to install it for you, just let them do it. In logical theory, they'd be doing it on their own, and without your consent, they couldn't be bound to the contract.
All in theory, IANAL.
On Windows, libgd was installed by default, but on *NIX and other platforms, you had to install all the libraries to support GD, and then install GD, and then configure PHP for GD support. With 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 versions, many things did not work properly between all these versions on *NIX systems, compared to Windows PHP. Plus there were some bugs that couldn't be worked out in PHP because they were in the GD code.
To make it more compatible cross-platform, get a unified libgd version to use, and add functions not normally found and fix bugs, PHP has added GD as a bundled extension. This is a good thing.
PHP can be configured for XML support, but I've seen PHP move from HTML to XHTML support instead. One thing I'd love to see is a way for an install-level configuration for using XHTML or XML on PHP output. Also, yes, the striptags and htmlentities and such will barf on XML codings, and there should be better support for this, hopefully in 4.4.0
I'll have to recheck this later, but I installed PHP 4.3.0 on a Cobalt RaQ3 over a PHP 4.2.3 install using the same configuration line, simply adding the GD install flags. The PostgreSQL make errored out on the install, when it was compiled in 4.2.3 without a problem. Took it out of the configure line, and it installed fine.
I really do enjoy having Postgre and MySQL support on the same machine, but for now I guess I'll have to stick with MySQL until I figure this one out.
But above all, CONGRATS on the changes, PHP team, and please keep up with the good work! It's a great software and a great asset to server administrators, programmers and scripters around.
Thank you for correcting me. You learn something better each day.
I believe, from what I understood, the reason why a silencer silences a gun isn't from the discharge, but from the speed of the bullet when it leaves the chamber. Just like the crack of a whip, I understand the bullet is faster than the speed of sound when it first leaves, thus making its own sonic-boom.
Could be wrong, not a gun know-it-all.
Here's a stranger difference:
Movies don't pay to get into theaters, or to get on playlists, or even to push their videos onto video stations. They simply pay for the advertising on TV and other movies, and the movie theaters are usually forced (some) or more inclined to show only those movies rated by the MPAA. Most newspapers won't advertise or allow advertised any movie which isn't rated, or is rated NC-17.
So that $20 DVD (I've even seen some releases of classics for $5 new) can easily fly through due to the fact that people WANT to see that movie. The $17 CD (Still can't find any $5 new releases) has to pay to get itself noticed on the major markets, has to pay to get some notice in music stores, and has to pay to get noticed on MTV. People won't want to listen to it unless it knows it's there, and music is drowning out in the world of Movies, Computers and Video Games.
I myself prefer IV and VIII, and II is okay, and VI is worth watching at best. Can't stand the rest, but then again, I'm not a diehard fan, or even close. I just enjoyed the even movies and some of TNG.
Anyone who says this is the worst forgot the even rule.
Star Treks I, III, V, VII and IX were all awful. They were odd numbered.
Star Treks II, IV, VI and VIII were good. Some not great, but worth watching.
X is even, so it follows the second line. And we all know statistics don't lie!
There are many sites that are dynamic enough that content is driven by the end-user through different interfaces. With these, some companies have chosen to use multimedia such as DHTML, Flash and Shockwave. As these regularly aren't too accessible to text-only browsers or the blind, would you like to see more companies stop using these navigations to assist the blind, or would you see any potential to have parallel non-multimedia sites as a cost-effective alternative to allow the blind to view these sites?
What's strange is that writers seem to have much more protection by law than writers or musicians. IANAL, but if I recall, no writer can ever give up more than 50% of their ownership of a copyright, and must license the remainder. Most writer guilds and unions have stipulated specifics with this in the entertainment field, so you hardly ever see a writer truly get screwed in Hollywood, on Television, in Music, on Radio... About the only place writers get screwed these days are the freelance writing arena, because there really is no union or guild fighting for much there yet.
However, with artists, directors, etc., as far as I'm aware, these protections are not in place yet. Since Lee didn't write the movie and was probably just credited as a producer and consultant, they can screw him till it hurts in both ends, but probably somewhere down the line James Cameron, who worked on one of the earliest drafts (and one of the only parts of that left were the organic web-shooters), is getting a royalty check.
Again, this is stipulation, I don't know the exacts of their contracts here with this movie or who was exactly promised what. However, maybe it's time for another "Image" break-away in Marvel, in order for Lee and others who worked on Spider-Man to once again grab their rights and credits, and especially their royalties for their hard work and ideas.
It is illegal in Japan to show uncensored penises, but it is legal to show uncensored tentacles. This is why you often see them with a little mushroom tip, as well...
More than just symbolic, it's a way to bypass certain laws.
There was recently an article (I think on MSNBC) that said that online sales of music was down and the RIAA blamed illegal downloads as the reason, yet again. But the funniest part about it? They were talking about online sales of pre-packaged CDs from major outlets, and ignored sales of downloads, mp3s and from small independent outlets.
Not only won't the RIAA admit that the music is crap and that they won't do anything to improve sales on their end, they now have to focus on only one or two areas of sales to "prove" that sales are down, and ignore areas where sales go up.
Desperate or misguided, I can't figure it out...
The biggest reason is that the companies who had the alpha, or the individuals, most likely were under NDAs, non-disclosure agreements. Therefore, by giving away the software, or leaking it out on the internet, they're breaking those NDAs, and possibly further trust from id, in the process.
You may see it as free advertising, or that people should understand that it's an alpha, but if id wanted it public, they would have released it. The fact that someone else leaked it without permission, and probably breaking a contract, leaves id with very little recourse, since they can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. It's everywhere.
Perhaps next time, when you want to ask about why one business is upset at another business for releasing secret software or information, you'll better understand before you ask? Hopefully?
Office Space just missed its costs at theaters, and Jennifer Aniston back then was cheap.
So yes, some good movies miss their marks because they're good, but often overlooked.
The Matrix, Toy Story 1 + 2, Lord of the Rings, Spider-man, American Beauty, Being John Malkovich (tell me that would have come out of a studio 5 years ago.. ha!), Fight Club, Traffic, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Requiem For A Dream, Shrek...
Just to help you out... Matrix seems so much like an anime movie, just in superior live-action, that it's no wonder why not only geeks enjoy it, but also the huge anime fandom.
Toy Story, and anything else Pixar made, c'mon, no contest. This studio has yet to produce a bad short or full length movie. And their newest one coming out even looks interesting, even though Ellen DeGeneres is one of the title voice actors in it (I haven't seen a decent movie with her in it yet, sorry).
Spider-Man was *YEARS* in development, and with Sam Raimi at the helm, it was going to be a hit or a cult favourite. I'm just glad, after Cameron's latest track record, that Raimi took the reins.
Fight Club and Traffic were based on two successful ventures before (as was Lord of the Rings). Fight Club, a fascinating book, and Traffic, a mini-series originally produced by Channel 4 called Traffik, both well translated to the big screen.
As for the rest, haven't seen them yet, so can't comment on them. But of course, the movie industry's big guys only want to look at one part of a success story instead of all of it.
Vin Diesel movie makes $200 million, let's put him in ANOTHER action movie. What? It flops? How could it!? They should also see that many people try to push the envelope to make their audience think or enjoy, instead of throwing everything down their throats, and those thinking movies help with promotion because people still talk about them days after they've seen the movies, thus making others want to go see it.
Just trying to help out, of course, this is merely opinion, and many will disagree.
That's funny, because your ruling on your channel was that as long as people didn't trade on the channel, they could talk about what they pirated and that they have pirated.
That was *YOUR* ruling, in public, Emmett.
That's also supporting piracy, even if you don't do it yourself, you're saying it's perfectly okay that people talk about their own acts.
So Xiph has come to this, eh? If you talk bad about Xiph, you get lawsuits?
And you want people to take you seriously?
Hacking the game hack in the game hack in the game!
Tired of Tetris in Diablo II? Play NetHack in Tetris in Diablo II!
Well, it would be an interesting thought, how far into a game can you hack before it becomes useless to do so?
Except that you pay for this rental service, which is the real kicker. The problem is that CivIII isn't multiplayer *YET*, so it defeats the purpose of playing it online at Yahoo!, I would think.
I didn't refute myself.
Emmett Plant distinctly stated that he supports piracy, but you can't trade it on their channel. You can talk about trading, you can talk about what you pirate, and the Xiph people are usually in the discussions with them.
That doesn't refute anything. He fully supports it, just doesn't want to have anything bad happen to his channel at all.
If you do not believe me, it's irc.xiph.org, channel #Vorbis. Go ahead and discuss piracy, and see whether or not they're "against it".
Whoa, now there's a nice little attribute, really.
I have logs myself where Emmett Plant even states that there's no harm in copyright piracy, that it in fact helps everyone.
He even states that people can talk about piracy and even about pirating stuff so long as they don't trade in the channel itself.
I have logs just as well, so thanks.
And to clarify, I think that the CTEA is bad, and I hope Eldred gets it struck down. If you even bother to realize things, you'll see that even Lessig and Eldred *support* copyright, just not the CTEA and DMCA, just like I publicly stated in #Vorbis.
And yes, I got banned because I didn't support piracy. Let me repeat that: You get banned from Xiph's channel if you do not apprecate piracy.
And I never stated that the only reason copyright is sacred is because it's a law, but I did say that piracy is against the law. If you wish to break it, you should also accept the consequences of breaking said law.
Now, about that lying?
Problems I find with your argument:
1) You assume a person reads an EULA. Even though a contract can still hold up if you don't read it, you're still required to sign it. If you never read an EULA or agree to it through a click, then how are you agreeing to it? Simply because they say "By using this product, you agree to our terms"?
2) Another problem with EULAs are many of the corporate ones are too one-sided. They're not responsible for anything, but you're fully responsible to follow all their rules. Some even say you can't even talk about the product or take pictures of it or anything without permission, but that they can use your information for their company's marketing research without your permission to do so. (that is, they can use it to market you magazines whether or not you asked for them)
3) You don't need to be 18 to buy many EULA products, and to have a contract valid, either a person 18 or older must agree to it, or the parent or guardian of that under-18 person must agree to have that person agree. When a 17 year old purchases an Xbox and takes it home, goes through the licensing agreements on his own, then starts playing, how can Microsoft say the EULA can still affect him?
4) There are many people who play video games who cannot read, or cannot read English. So EULAs written in English are still valid even though the other party cannot understand them? I do believe that contracts have to be signed by parties that understand them, and if it's in another language, the translator must sign off on them. I could be wrong, of course.
But again, EULAs are hardly contracts in the sense of contracts, but more of agreements that you won't do bad things to the company issuing the product. I can't wait until EULAs are struck down and normal copyright laws apply to the products (or patents to hardware).