How was it exactly that they *@?!& the pooch? With one movie they revieved a 10 year dead series, launched 3 spinoffs (5 if you count the other Roddenberry series that wouldn't have seen the light of day but for Star Trek's success), spawned 9 additional movies, and gave steady work to a group of actors that probably would never have worked again.
This sounds like a resounding success to me, but what do I know; I liked the whale movie.
And what does learning about Shatner have to do with whether you like a movie or not? I think Scientology is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard about, but I liked Pulp Fiction and Mission Impossible both staring famous Scientologists. The actors are not their roles and the roles are not the actors.
Yes, it will be awhile before the old formats die, but they will die and here is how:
RIAA will force makers of CD hardware to start supporting the watermarks. The hardware will play both formats so your old CD collection will be safe. Slowly, the record companies will start releasing CDs in both formats and then eventually only in the watermarked format. By that time we will all have SDMI watermark supporting CD players. Once the tide shifts in WaterCD sales the hardware start supporting only SDMI.
Don't think this will happen? I have a dual-deck VCR sitting on my desk. If I had plugged it in one month later it would have enabled the macrovision copy protection and would have refused to dupe tapes. That means that the the technology was just lying their dormant until the date clicked over. No problem creating a CD player that plays traditional CDs for say the next 5 years and then all of the sudden refuses to play anything but WaterCDs.
The RIAA isn't in this for the short term outlook. It will take years and they are willing to do it for one simple reason -- survival. The RIAA compaines make most of their income from the physical form of the music. In the digital age, we have no need of the physical form so they have to find some other way to control the music so they can make money.
The interesting thing will be when the artists recognize that they no longer need the RIAA companies. They only ever needed them to front the cash to press the content onto physical media and to promote the media. With the Internet they can promote it themselves and don't need the vast capital it takes to press a million CDs.
If someone really wants to give the RIAA a black-eye, wait until the RIAA has strongarmed all the CD hardware manufactures (or gotten the US government to do it for them) into including the watermarking scheme. A few million CD players ship and then Suzie Programmer releases her crack. The hardware guys will have invested millions in supporting a scheme that is now moot. I don't think the hardware guys will be as easily duped into a hairbrained scheme such as this again.
The government has to make a compelling case to keep something secret. Since the taxpayers foot the bill, things produced by the government are owned by its citizens and available for public review and inspection. That is why things like the Freedom of Information Act exist, to allow the people to get at the information they paid for.
So how useful can this information really be to a company? I know that I lie my arse off on those forms, and I'm betting I'm not the only one. Can they seriously expect this stuff to be accurate? Poor joe@garage.com gets a lot of mail destined for me....
One thing is for sure, I don't recommend reading the above links or posts on this topic while listening to all three (3) Rage Against The Machine albums. I am in a frenzy and about ready to return the power to the have-nots right here from my corporate cubicle.
"Just victims of the in-house drive-by. They say jump; you say how high?"
I can think of several reasons they would want to. Mostly during times of war or a large terrorist action (such as blowing up a major building).
As more and more "criminals" use the Internet to conduct business on the internet, the FBI may see it advantageous to turn off the switch temporairly to keep them from talking while they are rounded up.
As for an actual war, they might want a method of stopping any percieved treasonous acts. In the olden days you had to hide the data in a coat pocket and smuggle it out of the country. Now you just log onto AOL and send it to Rahish in Iran and it's a done deal.
Never underestimate the government's ability and desire to abrogate your civil rights at the slightest provocation when there are precieved threats to their interests. Governments all over the world including the U.S. do this all the time every day.
Do you do everything celebrities tell you? I expect you are not a Limp Biskit fan or you would be downloading MP3s from Napster like a maniac.
The truth seems to be that very little of your CD money will make it into Eminem's hands. Dr Dre probably has a slightly better deal, but still the majority of the money you spend never gets into Dre's hands either. If you want to support the artists, go to their concerts and buy their t-shirts.
Does this give anyone the right to subvert an owner's copyright? Absolutely not (IMHO). But just make sure you are For or Against something because you thought the issues through, not because Lars said so.
I'm sure it was just a slip on your part, but how does Windows figure into this picture. Is there some magical operating system you know of that will prevent programs from making socket connections you don't already know about? Yes, I guess you would say, a firewall, but in this case it was the firewall sending the message, what OS would have prevented this?
I'm sure the programmers over at Real Networks told their bosses about the backlash they would shortly be receiving if they went ahead with this feature. They did anyway, I'm sure they will offer some bizzaro explanation for the "feature" and take it out once they have been Slashdotted. But this isn't a Windows issue and neither was your firewall.
I hate to be picky about language, but a class action lawsuit cannot be instigated by a single person. That aside, however, people allow themselves to be used all the time, not just by the legal profession. Increase the average intelligence of the population and more people would recognize when they are being used.
Are there distrespectable lawyers? Surely. Are they in the majority at the legal profession, no. They are just regular joes like you and me trying to make a buck and feed their kids.
Our lawyers are saints, their lawyers are spawn of satan. This is an old philosophy when in fact, the lawyers are doing the bidding of their customers. Another way of saying this is: Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.
Slashdot Mirror
How was it exactly that they *@?!& the pooch? With one movie they revieved a 10 year dead series, launched 3 spinoffs (5 if you count the other Roddenberry series that wouldn't have seen the light of day but for Star Trek's success), spawned 9 additional movies, and gave steady work to a group of actors that probably would never have worked again.
This sounds like a resounding success to me, but what do I know; I liked the whale movie.
And what does learning about Shatner have to do with whether you like a movie or not? I think Scientology is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard about, but I liked Pulp Fiction and Mission Impossible both staring famous Scientologists. The actors are not their roles and the roles are not the actors.
Yes, it will be awhile before the old formats die, but they will die and here is how:
RIAA will force makers of CD hardware to start supporting the watermarks. The hardware will play both formats so your old CD collection will be safe. Slowly, the record companies will start releasing CDs in both formats and then eventually only in the watermarked format. By that time we will all have SDMI watermark supporting CD players. Once the tide shifts in WaterCD sales the hardware start supporting only SDMI.
Don't think this will happen? I have a dual-deck VCR sitting on my desk. If I had plugged it in one month later it would have enabled the macrovision copy protection and would have refused to dupe tapes. That means that the the technology was just lying their dormant until the date clicked over. No problem creating a CD player that plays traditional CDs for say the next 5 years and then all of the sudden refuses to play anything but WaterCDs.
The RIAA isn't in this for the short term outlook. It will take years and they are willing to do it for one simple reason -- survival. The RIAA compaines make most of their income from the physical form of the music. In the digital age, we have no need of the physical form so they have to find some other way to control the music so they can make money.
The interesting thing will be when the artists recognize that they no longer need the RIAA companies. They only ever needed them to front the cash to press the content onto physical media and to promote the media. With the Internet they can promote it themselves and don't need the vast capital it takes to press a million CDs.
If someone really wants to give the RIAA a black-eye, wait until the RIAA has strongarmed all the CD hardware manufactures (or gotten the US government to do it for them) into including the watermarking scheme. A few million CD players ship and then Suzie Programmer releases her crack. The hardware guys will have invested millions in supporting a scheme that is now moot. I don't think the hardware guys will be as easily duped into a hairbrained scheme such as this again.
Because Microsoft makes some of the most popular Mac applications including the Mac version of Microsoft Office.
The government has to make a compelling case to keep something secret. Since the taxpayers foot the bill, things produced by the government are owned by its citizens and available for public review and inspection. That is why things like the Freedom of Information Act exist, to allow the people to get at the information they paid for.
So how useful can this information really be to a company? I know that I lie my arse off on those forms, and I'm betting I'm not the only one. Can they seriously expect this stuff to be accurate? Poor joe@garage.com gets a lot of mail destined for me....
One thing is for sure, I don't recommend reading the above links or posts on this topic while listening to all three (3) Rage Against The Machine albums. I am in a frenzy and about ready to return the power to the have-nots right here from my corporate cubicle.
"Just victims of the in-house drive-by. They say jump; you say how high?"
I can think of several reasons they would want to. Mostly during times of war or a large terrorist action (such as blowing up a major building).
As more and more "criminals" use the Internet to conduct business on the internet, the FBI may see it advantageous to turn off the switch temporairly to keep them from talking while they are rounded up.
As for an actual war, they might want a method of stopping any percieved treasonous acts. In the olden days you had to hide the data in a coat pocket and smuggle it out of the country. Now you just log onto AOL and send it to Rahish in Iran and it's a done deal.
Never underestimate the government's ability and desire to abrogate your civil rights at the slightest provocation when there are precieved threats to their interests. Governments all over the world including the U.S. do this all the time every day.
Do you do everything celebrities tell you? I expect you are not a Limp Biskit fan or you would be downloading MP3s from Napster like a maniac.
The truth seems to be that very little of your CD money will make it into Eminem's hands. Dr Dre probably has a slightly better deal, but still the majority of the money you spend never gets into Dre's hands either. If you want to support the artists, go to their concerts and buy their t-shirts.
Does this give anyone the right to subvert an owner's copyright? Absolutely not (IMHO). But just make sure you are For or Against something because you thought the issues through, not because Lars said so.
I'm sure it was just a slip on your part, but how does Windows figure into this picture. Is there some magical operating system you know of that will prevent programs from making socket connections you don't already know about? Yes, I guess you would say, a firewall, but in this case it was the firewall sending the message, what OS would have prevented this?
I'm sure the programmers over at Real Networks told their bosses about the backlash they would shortly be receiving if they went ahead with this feature. They did anyway, I'm sure they will offer some bizzaro explanation for the "feature" and take it out once they have been Slashdotted. But this isn't a Windows issue and neither was your firewall.I hate to be picky about language, but a class action lawsuit cannot be instigated by a single person. That aside, however, people allow themselves to be used all the time, not just by the legal profession. Increase the average intelligence of the population and more people would recognize when they are being used.
Are there distrespectable lawyers? Surely. Are they in the majority at the legal profession, no. They are just regular joes like you and me trying to make a buck and feed their kids.
Our lawyers are saints, their lawyers are spawn of satan. This is an old philosophy when in fact, the lawyers are doing the bidding of their customers. Another way of saying this is: Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people.