Now explain to me why I have to pay $12.49 - $21.95 for a single CD that cost under a $1? I would not mind if the artists saw $5 of that cost. But usually they are lucky if they see.25 cents.
Now, hang on...
You get a skilled songwriter to spend months of their lives writing songs. A skilled artist to write the cover. A musical genius to record and mix it, and removing any risk of total failure from the band, all for that $12.49.
It's certainly true that the record industry does not play fair, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the band's percentage. The rest of the contract for a new signing are pretty onerous, but royalties are obvious things that the band has the right to negotiate.
The information seems to consistently come from this article: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg. tcl?msg_id=003HzF. whether Vin Suprynowicz is actually correct or not about this, I have no idea. I believe his contact details are available though, so you could always ask him if you're willing.
Sure there is -- Disney, like just about every other person or company on the planet, wants money. The difference is that when Disney wants money, they're greedy, but when you want money, you're not.
I don't think this is a logical reason. Or at least a fully thought out reason. The thing is, shorter copyright would give Disney the rights to a lot more public domain stuff. For free! They're not making a lot of money from early Mickey Mouse. They are making a lot of money from adaptations of classic stories.
Is it possible that nobody at Disney has actually run the numbers and they're basing their position on an verestimate of the value of their property?
Well, yes. It does appear that the FCC is trying to legislate in this case. Just pointing out that if it is in their power to dictate what capabilities video recorders must have, they would have the power to reverse the Supreme court's decision.
That's and "if". And a prett big "if" by the sound of things.
The word piracy itself used when talking about copyrights means nothing.
The term "pirate" meaning one who makes use of another's work without permission, has been known since the 18th century.
Personally, I find it a convenient term to use. The most common usage an the 21st century is to refer to copyright infringement. However, some people see it as a loaded term. If it comes to a debate, I'd be quite happy to use a more neutral term if the opponent objects.
What you are saying is the same as 'even though the GPL source is copyrighted, once it is on my computer I should be able to repackage and redistribute it as I see fit, including selling it' And that simply will not fly.
erm... you can do that. You can't repackage it without including source, but protecting the rights of the copyright holder in this respect is left up to the law. And the law is determined by government rather than a government created organisation.
The flag exists for a purpose, and defeat of that purpose by any means is wrong.
Perhaps, but it is not up the the FCC to legislate right and wrong.
I know I am in disagreement with a lot of you, but i firmly believe the originator of a program, just like the originator of source code, has every right to say how his material can be used.
That's quite reasonable. Is it not up top the manufacturer of a piece of electrnics to decide how it should be built?
There's no reason they shouldn't specify the format of the broadcast flag. Or even that stations should use it. This is part fo the broadcast, and part of the standard. But once it has been received and demodulated, the FCC should have no power to require that recording equipment honours the flag.
A digital video recorder typically consists of two parts - A digital tuner and a digital recorder. The FCC is there only to regulate the tuner aspects of it (and even this may be a stretch). The recorder aspect does not do anything with a broadcast signal, so is out of their jurisdiction.
Texture compression tends not to have a performance cost. Graphics cards have dedicated circuitry for it (as well as every other operation they do), so decompressing a texture isn't stopping the card from doing anything. The compression is quite simple and takes will always take the same amount of time to unpack. In fact, the only effect on performance is the time it takes to actually read from memory. Uncompressed textures are slower here.
It is up to the compay to prove that the claims are false, and also that the claims are not opinion. If they prove this then they then must prove that they have been harmed.
I dont have explicit authority to fine people for looking at me in a funny way, but it isn't outlawed. I'm woindering what mandate the FCC has to go past explicit authority.
Geez! Dark Matter!? Astronomers calculations don't add up, so they invent "Dark Matter" as book keeping. If these guys were accountants they'd be in prison.
Which is a possible outcome of his attemping to lift their logo. Yes, he said he didn't plan on doing that, but do you really trust someone that is trying to steal another projects logo and trademark it?
Suing someone for abuse of their own mark is only likely to get the case thrown out. If this happens, Mame will have had their trademark registered for free. What would be in it for ultracade suing Mame? They couldn't possibly win.
He's not using the trademark because it hasn't be granted to him yet. If he is granted the TM, he could prevent the rightful owners from using it.
No he couldn't. Mame could easily doeminstrate they had been using the mark for a long time.
Finally, if he does use the logo, it dilutes the value of the logo to the MAME project...you know, the very thing that trade marks are meant to protect.
If MAME cared about that, they would have trademarked it. If they can't take reasonable steps to protect their trademark, I fail to see why thye deserve my sympathy.
Do you think Kleenex would like to lose their trademark? Do you think its fair for a company to usurp the logo of a smaller, free, project? The free gain is exactly what the harm is.
Kleenex have a trademark. They trademarked it. They protect it. Nobody is usurping anything. Ultracade are using the log, perhaps, but that's all.
It matters because Ultracades trademarking of the MAMEs project logo will not do ANYTHING to stop the illegal selling of copyrighted ROMs.
Yes it will. It gives him teeth to sue them. The MAME team are unwilling for whatever reason. The ROM rights holders are also unwilling. He can sue them for violating his copyright. They may be able to disprove his ownership, but to do that, they'd actually have to go to court. People selling equipment based on unlawfully copied software would rather avoid court.
I'm familiar with the ruling. Archiving of shows is not a right and never has been. The opinion was simply that the ability to do this did not make the video recorder an infringing device.
There are various settings for the broadcast flag and how long content is supposed to remain arround after recording. the four key levels are as follows:
Please supply a source for this information. Sounds like an internet rumour to me.
including the possibility of *not* being recordable at all. It's a possibility that you won't be able to timeshift some shows,
That is not a possibility with the broadcast flag. It will always allow you to record shows off air.
and some won't be DVD writeable (which is how I store some shows for long term storage).
Long term storage isn't a legal right as it is. So you can't breach copyright the way you've always been able to in the past? Well, that's unfortunate, but it wasn't legal before. Why should it suddenly become legal now?
Slashdot Mirror
Now explain to me why I have to pay $12.49 - $21.95 for a single CD that cost under a $1? I would not mind if the artists saw $5 of that cost. But usually they are lucky if they see .25 cents.
Now, hang on...
You get a skilled songwriter to spend months of their lives writing songs. A skilled artist to write the cover. A musical genius to record and mix it, and removing any risk of total failure from the band, all for that $12.49.
It's certainly true that the record industry does not play fair, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the band's percentage. The rest of the contract for a new signing are pretty onerous, but royalties are obvious things that the band has the right to negotiate.
The information seems to consistently come from this article: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg. tcl?msg_id=003HzF. whether Vin Suprynowicz is actually correct or not about this, I have no idea. I believe his contact details are available though, so you could always ask him if you're willing.
Hmmm...
I'm not sure whether anyone really still believed that. The few that did probably still do, and will do whatever happens.
Sure there is -- Disney, like just about every other person or company on the planet, wants money. The difference is that when Disney wants money, they're greedy, but when you want money, you're not.
I don't think this is a logical reason. Or at least a fully thought out reason. The thing is, shorter copyright would give Disney the rights to a lot more public domain stuff. For free! They're not making a lot of money from early Mickey Mouse. They are making a lot of money from adaptations of classic stories.
Is it possible that nobody at Disney has actually run the numbers and they're basing their position on an verestimate of the value of their property?
Well, yes. It does appear that the FCC is trying to legislate in this case. Just pointing out that if it is in their power to dictate what capabilities video recorders must have, they would have the power to reverse the Supreme court's decision.
That's and "if". And a prett big "if" by the sound of things.
That said, $OTHER_SERIES is virtually always set to "Babylon 5," which will never cease to baffle me.
Similar in tone. Both trying to be hard and edgy. Both flawed in many ways. B5 because of the dialogue. BSG because of lack of overall direction.
You missed out people saying $OTHER_SERIES is better. ($OTHER_SERIES is often set to Firefly)
It wouldn't have allowed pirating.
"Pirate has more than one meaning.
The word piracy itself used when talking about copyrights means nothing.
The term "pirate" meaning one who makes use of another's work without permission, has been known since the 18th century.
Personally, I find it a convenient term to use. The most common usage an the 21st century is to refer to copyright infringement. However, some people see it as a loaded term. If it comes to a debate, I'd be quite happy to use a more neutral term if the opponent objects.
What you are saying is the same as 'even though the GPL source is copyrighted, once it is on my computer I should be able to repackage and redistribute it as I see fit, including selling it' And that simply will not fly.
erm... you can do that. You can't repackage it without including source, but protecting the rights of the copyright holder in this respect is left up to the law. And the law is determined by government rather than a government created organisation.
The flag exists for a purpose, and defeat of that purpose by any means is wrong.
Perhaps, but it is not up the the FCC to legislate right and wrong.
I know I am in disagreement with a lot of you, but i firmly believe the originator of a program, just like the originator of source code, has every right to say how his material can be used.
That's quite reasonable. Is it not up top the manufacturer of a piece of electrnics to decide how it should be built?
There's no reason they shouldn't specify the format of the broadcast flag. Or even that stations should use it. This is part fo the broadcast, and part of the standard. But once it has been received and demodulated, the FCC should have no power to require that recording equipment honours the flag.
A digital video recorder typically consists of two parts - A digital tuner and a digital recorder. The FCC is there only to regulate the tuner aspects of it (and even this may be a stretch). The recorder aspect does not do anything with a broadcast signal, so is out of their jurisdiction.
That's the number they call from to implant a bug in your brain!
How about a little truth: "Regulators tried to ban a device that would allow for personal copying
Well, this is true, but doesn't mean the other statement was false. It would have allowed pirating. In addition to legimate copying.
and went against a previous Supreme Court ruling (Sony vs Betamax).
The ruling was simply that the video recorder didn't break exisitng copyright laws. Not that it is illegal for a law to ban it.
Can we expect each of them to repost this? It's important stuff though. We need to hear it again and again.
Texture compression tends not to have a performance cost. Graphics cards have dedicated circuitry for it (as well as every other operation they do), so decompressing a texture isn't stopping the card from doing anything. The compression is quite simple and takes will always take the same amount of time to unpack. In fact, the only effect on performance is the time it takes to actually read from memory. Uncompressed textures are slower here.
If I understand the US libel laws, then no.
It is up to the compay to prove that the claims are false, and also that the claims are not opinion. If they prove this then they then must prove that they have been harmed.
You're getting rather angry. Perhaps you should calm down and stop reading this site if dupes upset you this much.
I dont have explicit authority to fine people for looking at me in a funny way, but it isn't outlawed. I'm woindering what mandate the FCC has to go past explicit authority.
Geez! Dark Matter!? Astronomers calculations don't add up, so they invent "Dark Matter" as book keeping. If these guys were accountants they'd be in prison.
Which is a possible outcome of his attemping to lift their logo. Yes, he said he didn't plan on doing that, but do you really trust someone that is trying to steal another projects logo and trademark it?
Suing someone for abuse of their own mark is only likely to get the case thrown out. If this happens, Mame will have had their trademark registered for free. What would be in it for ultracade suing Mame? They couldn't possibly win.
He's not using the trademark because it hasn't be granted to him yet. If he is granted the TM, he could prevent the rightful owners from using it.
No he couldn't. Mame could easily doeminstrate they had been using the mark for a long time.
Finally, if he does use the logo, it dilutes the value of the logo to the MAME project...you know, the very thing that trade marks are meant to protect.
If MAME cared about that, they would have trademarked it. If they can't take reasonable steps to protect their trademark, I fail to see why thye deserve my sympathy.
Do you think Kleenex would like to lose their trademark? Do you think its fair for a company to usurp the logo of a smaller, free, project? The free gain is exactly what the harm is.
Kleenex have a trademark. They trademarked it. They protect it. Nobody is usurping anything. Ultracade are using the log, perhaps, but that's all.
It matters because Ultracades trademarking of the MAMEs project logo will not do ANYTHING to stop the illegal selling of copyrighted ROMs.
Yes it will. It gives him teeth to sue them. The MAME team are unwilling for whatever reason. The ROM rights holders are also unwilling. He can sue them for violating his copyright. They may be able to disprove his ownership, but to do that, they'd actually have to go to court. People selling equipment based on unlawfully copied software would rather avoid court.
MAME will not be harmed.
I'm familiar with the ruling. Archiving of shows is not a right and never has been. The opinion was simply that the ability to do this did not make the video recorder an infringing device.
Source. Supply a link!
The broadcast flag is a single bit. It can't possibly have 4 states! It allows or disallows rerecording. That's it!
I've been beaten by a computer simulation of Go dozens of times.
There are various settings for the broadcast flag and how long content is supposed to remain arround after recording. the four key levels are as follows:
Please supply a source for this information. Sounds like an internet rumour to me.
Yes, because it's impossible for them to ever conceivably have a valid point.
How about answering the question! What could you legally do before that the broadcast flag prevents?
including the possibility of *not* being recordable at all. It's a possibility that you won't be able to timeshift some shows,
That is not a possibility with the broadcast flag. It will always allow you to record shows off air.
and some won't be DVD writeable (which is how I store some shows for long term storage).
Long term storage isn't a legal right as it is. So you can't breach copyright the way you've always been able to in the past? Well, that's unfortunate, but it wasn't legal before. Why should it suddenly become legal now?