REALLY good:
I can stream.wav files right from a site over my broadband connection through my Easy CD Creator software and onto a blank disc with one click. I'm billed a reasonable amount of money, say $7 - $10 (after all, I'm paying for the transportation and fabrication).
Artist, studio get paid. Roxio keeps selling software subscriptions. Consumer gets a cheap, easy alternative to buying at the store. Everyone wins.
REALLY bad
I have to pay the studio *anytime* I burn a.wav file to a CD, even the ones I already own. Now, I pay for the "privilege" of making my own Best of Iron Maiden, Vol. 1 - 4 because I don't feel like lugging 20 discs around in my car all the time. I pay for the "privilege" of having a burned copy of Seventh Son of a Seventh Son at work, so I can keep the original at home.
Consumer pay more money to legally use media she has already purchased. She seeks out less restrictive alternatives. Roxio loses money she may have spent on software. Artist, studio loses money she might have spent for an album that is worth $8 to her but certainly not $16. She considers boycotting studio and Roxio who tried to fuck her through ill-conceived business plan to bleed legitimate consumers of more money. Everybody loses.
Great. So the FTC has decided that it is legal for companies to retroactively redefine the terms of usage for customer information, without allowing the customer any recourse. So I ask -
What the fuck is the point of a privacy policy?
A privacy policy is an agreement between the company and the customer about the usage of personal, sensitive information. If I don't like the terms, then I don't use their site. Simple as that. But now, the increasingly worthless FTC has decided that I'm SOL if I provide my information with the understanding that I may opt-out at a later date, but my opt-out right is later revoked. So I ask again -
What the fuck is the point of privacy policy?
Now, all a privacy policy means is that I'm trusting a corporation not to fuck me later. Some companies are better bets than others. However, in this goddamn golden age of corporate mergers and buyouts, I have no guarantee my data won't be whored out once a trustworthy company is acquired by another with less scruples.
So I say, "Thank you FTC", for sending the message, loud and clear, that if I choose to use the Internet for e-Commerce I have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to define the usage of my own information.
The movie industry is different because the movies aren't launched at theatres in other countries than US until it has finished playing in the US
Really. So explain to me why
"Jaws"
"Taxi Driver"
"The Godfather"
"Close Encounters of the Third Kind"
all contain Region coding. (Are you getting the picture?)
If region coding was truly about theatrical release schedules, then movies that were released before 1996 wouldn't have region coding. No, region coding has been and always will be about trade restrictions and price gouging.
Goddammit, I'm sick of listening to holier-than-thou Slashdotters explaining to me that I cannot be against CSS, region-coding, and the actions of the MPAA because I buy DVDs. I own 60+ DVDs and between my computer, my PS2, and my Region-1 player, I own three DVD players. In my opinion, that makes ME more qualified to speak out against CSS and the DVD-CCA than YOU. By your own admission, you do not buy DVD products so you have no firsthand experience with the negative effects of CSS, Macrovision, and region-coding. You speak out of ignorance, merely regurgitating the experiences of those who actually buy the product.
What experience do you have besides wearing your t-shirt? I've used CSS, firsthand, for legitimate ways to access the content I legally purchased. I've used it to avoid the commercials at the beginning of my The Sixth Sense DVD. I've used it to DivX;-) my Die Hard trilogy to watch on my laptop during a recent flight to California. I've used DVD Genie to defeat the region-coding to watch my legally purchased, Region 2 ER Season 1 DVDs without having to lock my DVD drive to region 2. Can you say the same?
I also mirror a DeCSS binary, DeCSS code (multiple versions), and region defeating software. I post explanations why DeCSS is ethical and legal to use. Not Robin Gross' saying "The MPAA sux" but my own, explaining my own legitimate uses with the 60+ DVDs I've purchased. Hell, I even bought the same t-shirt you did and contributed to the EFF. Let the MPAA laywers come to my door - I am a concerned supporter of DVDs who wishes to use his posessions beyond the limited ways the movie studios have predefined for me. I am a living, breathing example of why DeCSS is right.
So stop fucking telling me that I cannot be against CSS and still "have one of these things". The MPAA will not change their tune by you whiny 0.0000001% of the buying public saying, "I won't buy these. So there!" while patting yourselves on the back. Until they, the lawmakers, and the public at large see that THERE * ARE * SIGNIFICANT * AND * LEGITIMATE * USES * OF * DECSS nothing will change.
Fourth, the digital nature of things has not changed the laws. The laws about copyright are stronger now than they ever have been, and somehow that's not enough. I beleive that the ultimate goal is pay-per-view, with the retention of ownership and all rights in perpetuity, which may go against the U.S. Constitution, but certainly seeks to reverse a few Supreme Court rulings.
I think you hit it on the nose with that one. In fact, I don't think large-scale piracy is the issue here at all. The MPAA admitted when CSS was first announced that they weren't trying to thwart the major pirates but rather, to keep Joe Sixpack honest. But I think they are cutting off their nose despite there face. The recording and movie industries lose hundreds of millions to professional pirates while possibly only millions to Joe Sixpack sharing with his brother-in-law.
Honestly, Hollywood is its own worst enemy. I download DivX;-) Seinfeld episodes from the internet - is it b/c I'm a cheap-ass pirate? No, it's b/c I've never been given the option to purchase them legally. I think the television industy would do well to take a lesson learned hard by the recording industry. If they won't make it available, someone else will! They are squabling over how to protect the $10 in the tip jar while the pirates are running away with the cash register.
There is a market for season box sets for most shows. And if not, then make them available for download on the web. They won't lose any money in syndication revenues and they'll gain the $$$ of those fanatic completionists like me.
There will never be 100% protection for IP. The best they can hope for is vigilant prosecution of those costing them the most money, while offering their products in such a way as to eliminate the market for pirated products. The fact that all three industries (music, movie, TV) have done the former and not the latter will be their downfall.
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
The aim may be innocent but the pursuit typically is not. A corporation is an entity with a single purpose - increase profits. Since a corporation does not have a conscience, does not have a set of morals and cannot experience remorse or guilt, it is free to use whatever means are necessary to acquire profits. It is easier to dump toxic waste products than to clean and process them properly. It is easier allow consumers to be harmed or die as a result of a defective product than to issue recalls. The only accountability they have is under the law.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
Nonsense. They advance any agenda that will maximize their profits. They favor any ideology that advocates less governmental regulations.
And they certainly do harm people and more largely, our whole culture. In order for companies to sell their products they must convince you that you need their product. Marketing in this day and age has become particularly insidious. Rather than convincing a consumer that their product is superior to others they prey on the insecurities of the public. They convince people that they are not cool, not sexy, not valuable without their product. They convince women that they are fat, ugly and worthless unless men desire them. They convince children that they will not be cool or liked if they do not own/consume their product. They exploit sex to sell Doritos and hair shampoo. They exploit families to sell unhealthy meals of fat-saturated hamburgers and fries cooked in vats of grease. They exploit individuality to sell you something to be different, because hey, everyone is being different. They exploit treasured classical music to sell airline tickets. They exploit inspiring speeches that have changed the social conscience of our country to sell telecommunications services. Credit card companies exploit naive incomeless college students with $10,000 credit limits so they can "establish good credit". And you're trying to tell me they are not advancing any agendas?
... in effect, define the rights of Internet users to be no more than those rights enjoyed by citizens of the most oppressive regimes.
If the most oppressive member of the international Council of Europe may prosecute citizens of member countries, then the rights enjoyed by those citizens are non-existant when using the Internet. Now, instead of France suing eBay for selling Nazi memorabilia, they can extradite the American citizen posting it as well.
So the phone has to use the data immediately, as streaming A/V. So you can watch TV...
So now, instead of dealing with idiots talking on their phones during rush hour I have to deal with idiots watching Boot Camp on their phones during rush hour.
Since I don't have moderator rights to meta-mod this post down I guess I'll rant.
<rant>
Until a poster actually reads past the first paragraph of a posted article I cannot see how anyone could suggest that he/she is Insightful, Informative, or Interesting.
Until the poster makes the effort to actually inform themselves before forming an opinion, they are merely posting Trolls or Flamebait.
</rant>
I couldn't get past the first paragraph.
[snip]
The first paragraph makes it transparently obvious that the writer has no idea what a right is, or even what the relevant disagreements are regarding what rights are, nor any idea what a fact is...
Here's a tip BBB - the first paragraph of any article is an introduction that gives a brief overview of a writer's position. They spend the rest of the article explaing/supporting their position. Next time, keep reading. Then post.
A little OT but the choice of name for this new initiative has me absolutely baffled. Why would they chose Hailstorm of all things to describe something that has privacy implications that are at best, suspect and at worst, insidious. Hailstorms conjure up, in my mind, negative images of the windows in my house being broken, my car hood being dented and my roof required several hundreds of dollars of repair. Not something I'm going to rush to sign-up for, even if I was not computer savvy. I would think they would want to conjure up the exact opposite image.
Didn't they learn from the flap over Carnivore? Hell, if they are going for truth in advertising maybe they should have called it eCancer.
Better yet, have all copyright fees fund the US Patent Office. Maybe then, they'll be able to hire enough technically competent people to review technology patents properly.
So now we've seen two clearly quanitative pieces of data that indicate 2001 isn't really that good.
Sorry mujumbo but the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director are decided by the votes of Academy members. While the vote tally may be "quantitative", the votes themselves are based on subjective opinions. I'm not sure how the opinions of only 4,000 people can "quantify" that 2001 isn't really that good.
Besides, as anyone who follows the Oscars knows the voting process is subject to extreme bouts of bias. Russell Crowe is largely thought to have won Best Actor this year because he was passed over last year. This, despite the superior performances of Tom Hanks and Ed Harris. This year's Best Picture award went to Gladiator despite two superior contestants (Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). The politics that surround movies can (and often does) negatively influence the Oscar voting (Traffic for controversial subject matter and CT,HD for being a subtitled foreign language film).
The moral of this post is, Don't rely on the Academy to decide what movies are good or bad.
Genius is almost never recognized in its own time.
Absolutely. And unfortunately, I feel that it will be mainly years before Kubrick's genius will be appropriately recognized by the masses.
Most people I speak with today are so oblivious to many of his techniques. His movies have been described to me as "confusing", "boring", and "slloooooooowww". Hogwash, I say to that. Kubrick does what exceedingly few filmmakers do today (or yesterday and tomorrow for that matter) - he allows the story to come about slowly and leaves a degree of ambiguity at the end to twist in the viewers' minds. Art is often ambiguous and such is the case with his movies. A great book on Kubrick (Kubrick: Inside A Film Artist's Maze, by Thomas Allen Nelson) contains an insightful quote from Kubrick that addresses mainy of the criticisms I've heard -
I like the slow start, the start that goes under the audience's skin and involves them so that they can appreciate grace notes and soft tones and don't have to be pounded over the head with plot points and suspense hooks.
That's actually what I suggested as a title when I submitted the Inside.com story yesterday afternoon - "The new unrippable CD". Yet it was rejected by 7pm. And now a crappy MSNBC rip of the original Inside.com article was posted by Taco this morning. What the fuck is with these guys selecting stories?
They burned me a full 12 hours earlier and when they finally post this story they use a version white-labelled by the Microsoft/NBC alliance. Why the hell Taco is sending users to the MSNBC site instead of Inside.com baffles me. That's a great idea! Let's give the large media conglomerate (which has already shown its journalistic integrity to be tenuous at best) all the page views and ad revenue instead of the site which actually authored the article! Sometimes, I think the guys who run this site really need to walk their talk a little more.
Are you kidding? UCITA rapes consumers of their rights. How? Read this.
Besides, plenty of people already know that proprietary software sucks - but they still use it anyway. Open Source software and OSs are just not appealing enough to the everyday casual user, whether they be corporate or private, for people to make the switch. And because of this, UCITA will pass and consumers will be fucked. Some will make the switch to non-UCITA, Open Source software but the vast will not. Unfortunately, they will pay the ultimate price. What is even more unfair is that they will pay this price because they may not be tech savvy enough to make an informed choice for software. Consumer rights with respect to software should not be available only to the savvy users (or those savvy in legalise, who can understand many of the cryptic license agreements).
We've already seen how the RIAA and MPAA have twisted and perverted the DMCA. It should be expected that the companies supporting UCITA will do the same.
Full disclosure: I stole the link from this guy's post but it's an excellent article that should show up several times for this story.
Kick ass! Thanks for a great follow-up to my post. That website is exactly the kind of thing that we need more off. Multiple formats, wide selection, user ratings, no ridiculous prices, and all money going to the authors.
And you're absolutely right - by my standards, I would say Ellison does have the right to bitch. His stories are available digitally, for a very fair price. Perhaps instead of bitching and suing, he could help foster awareness of these types of sites and how they actually empower artists while being fair to consumers.
Thanks for the heads-up on a very cool site. Just from quick walk-through I can already see quite a few stories I would love to have in digital format.
There is a rough assumption that every time you rip off a song or an article or a book, the only people you're hurting are rich beyond your own wildest dreams anyway.
The real assumption is that the person downloading the IP would actually have gone out and plunked hard-earned money down for it. Just b/c I read his story off of usenet in no way translates to my keeping my money out of his pocket. Only if I had intended to by the book but downloaded it for free instead am I "stealing" from Ellison.
I think one of the first things that will have to go in the post-internet IP age is fixed pricing. One Ellison story isn't worth $24.95 to me in an anthology. So I would never go out and buy the book. $0? Absolutely! But the question is would I pay $2 for that single story? Sure, to be in the right (ethically) and to ensure that Ellison gets something for his effort I would pay $2 even if it was free. The problem is that until it is available as cheaply as that and attainable as easily as getting it from usenet, Napster, or Scour Exchange people will still choose free over fixed price.
There is also a second dilemma - if I think the work is a steaming pile of shit, I cannot very well return the story for a refund, as I could a physical book. And until I plunk down the money, I have no idea if I am getting a diamond or a cubic zirconia. This is one reason I feel a business model centered on tipping will ultimately work the best for media online.
Unfortunately, until the artists themselves start changing the way the art is priced (negiotiable instead of fixed) and distributed, people will keep pirating and people like Ellison will keep screaming.
This is very true and one of the big reasons while I'd like to see the Timeship premise fleshed out. This is obviously my own opinion, but I think some of the best Trek episodes (in any of the series) were those dealings with conundrums of time travel.
It gets boring and obnoxious quickly.
Here is where I have to disagree. I think there is an immense amount of stories to be told revolving around time travel. The aforementioned Trek episodes are very different from one another and illustrates how a whole series could be had from the premise of a time ship.
Also, temporal mechanics doesn't need to be the only thing discussed. I'm sure the entire law, economy, moral system of those in the 29th century is shaped by the ease of time travel. Are criminals punished even though their wrongs can be righted? Are they placed into rehab before they even develop the personality to commit said crimes? Do rare artifacts hold any value when it is possible to reach back in time and bring them forward? Are there any fields of study like history, archaeology, anthropology when absolute answers are available rather than assessments of evidence (Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter address this question somewhat in The Light of Other Days)? Those are just ideas that I've come up in my stream of conciousness for this post. I'm sure the writers of the show would come up with others much more interesting.
Just as the all the other Trek shows don't use the exploration of space as a way to show all kinds of extraterrestrial wonders, a show based on time travel doesn't need to show all the wonders of time. They show the implications of the ability to do so. Some shows may resolve around time travel technobabble but others may use it as a vehicle to explore ethical and moral dilemmas - just as all the other Trek shows have.
Soon I had an entire 29th Century... setting thought up.... No one really wanted to hear about it, so I just kept it to myself and let it grow in my head.
Well, that is exactly what I would like to see in Star Trek (as I voiced in my original post). So let's hear some of these ideas! If you don't feel comfortable posting them in a public forum like Slashdot, then send me an email. I also have been speculating on all the other Series V premises TPTB could have chosen, so I'd like to hear what other people would like to see.
While I think the premise of showing the future history of Trek in Series V will be cool, what I'd really like to see is the Trek universe several centuries after the TNG, DS9, Voyager escapades. Similar in with what they did for TNG with respect to TOS. Set it 78 (or 500!) years in the "future" and let us know what has happened in the meantime and what new challenges await.
Let's see some more of the 29th century Federation Timeship Aeon! (Future's End, I & II, Voyager, Season 3). How many more wonders of space can they create for Series V? Let's see the wonders of time that confront the crew of a Federation Timeship. Hell, if they wanted to show some Trek history, then write an episode w/ Cpt. Braxton returning to "fix" the timeline in the 22nd century and do it there.
I just wonder how soon the premise for Series V will wear itself out. A 29th century will at least give the writers a whole new playing field. I honestly think a radical departure from what they have done in the past is the only way this francise can keep itself going without a break after 14 years.
(Gates Sr., by the way, says his son Bill is "sympathetic" to his cause, but hasn't signed his petition. He ought to.)
Of course he won't sign it. I'm surprised he even admitted that much. The last thing Bill wants to do as his appeal begins is to get off on the wrong foot with the Bush administration.
Yow! I didn't catch that when I previewed it (then again my coworkers were distracting me with their whining about wanting to go to lunch). I feel particularly bad as I love AdBusters Magazine and I recently finished the great book Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn (editor of AdBusters). I definitely didn't mean to smear AdBusters by accident!
The mission of AdCops is to keep our members informed about the latest tricks and tactics used by Internet scammers.
Lesson #1: Beware of groups asking outrageous membership prices for services other groups offer for free. For example, you paid $99 to joing AdBusters. You are a sucker.
Slashdot Mirror
I can stream
Artist, studio get paid. Roxio keeps selling software subscriptions. Consumer gets a cheap, easy alternative to buying at the store. Everyone wins.
REALLY bad .wav file to a CD, even the ones I already own. Now, I pay for the "privilege" of making my own Best of Iron Maiden, Vol. 1 - 4 because I don't feel like lugging 20 discs around in my car all the time. I pay for the "privilege" of having a burned copy of Seventh Son of a Seventh Son at work, so I can keep the original at home.
I have to pay the studio *anytime* I burn a
Consumer pay more money to legally use media she has already purchased. She seeks out less restrictive alternatives. Roxio loses money she may have spent on software. Artist, studio loses money she might have spent for an album that is worth $8 to her but certainly not $16. She considers boycotting studio and Roxio who tried to fuck her through ill-conceived business plan to bleed legitimate consumers of more money. Everybody loses.
-------
What the fuck is the point of a privacy policy?
A privacy policy is an agreement between the company and the customer about the usage of personal, sensitive information. If I don't like the terms, then I don't use their site. Simple as that. But now, the increasingly worthless FTC has decided that I'm SOL if I provide my information with the understanding that I may opt-out at a later date, but my opt-out right is later revoked. So I ask again -
What the fuck is the point of privacy policy?
Now, all a privacy policy means is that I'm trusting a corporation not to fuck me later. Some companies are better bets than others. However, in this goddamn golden age of corporate mergers and buyouts, I have no guarantee my data won't be whored out once a trustworthy company is acquired by another with less scruples.
So I say, "Thank you FTC", for sending the message, loud and clear, that if I choose to use the Internet for e-Commerce I have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to define the usage of my own information.
-------
Really. So explain to me why
- "Jaws"
- "Taxi Driver"
- "The Godfather"
- "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"
all contain Region coding. (Are you getting the picture?)If region coding was truly about theatrical release schedules, then movies that were released before 1996 wouldn't have region coding. No, region coding has been and always will be about trade restrictions and price gouging.
-------
What experience do you have besides wearing your t-shirt? I've used CSS, firsthand, for legitimate ways to access the content I legally purchased. I've used it to avoid the commercials at the beginning of my The Sixth Sense DVD. I've used it to DivX;-) my Die Hard trilogy to watch on my laptop during a recent flight to California. I've used DVD Genie to defeat the region-coding to watch my legally purchased, Region 2 ER Season 1 DVDs without having to lock my DVD drive to region 2. Can you say the same?
I also mirror a DeCSS binary, DeCSS code (multiple versions), and region defeating software. I post explanations why DeCSS is ethical and legal to use. Not Robin Gross' saying "The MPAA sux" but my own, explaining my own legitimate uses with the 60+ DVDs I've purchased. Hell, I even bought the same t-shirt you did and contributed to the EFF. Let the MPAA laywers come to my door - I am a concerned supporter of DVDs who wishes to use his posessions beyond the limited ways the movie studios have predefined for me. I am a living, breathing example of why DeCSS is right.
So stop fucking telling me that I cannot be against CSS and still "have one of these things". The MPAA will not change their tune by you whiny 0.0000001% of the buying public saying, "I won't buy these. So there!" while patting yourselves on the back. Until they, the lawmakers, and the public at large see that THERE * ARE * SIGNIFICANT * AND * LEGITIMATE * USES * OF * DECSS nothing will change.
Flame away.
-------
I think you hit it on the nose with that one. In fact, I don't think large-scale piracy is the issue here at all. The MPAA admitted when CSS was first announced that they weren't trying to thwart the major pirates but rather, to keep Joe Sixpack honest. But I think they are cutting off their nose despite there face. The recording and movie industries lose hundreds of millions to professional pirates while possibly only millions to Joe Sixpack sharing with his brother-in-law.
Honestly, Hollywood is its own worst enemy. I download DivX;-) Seinfeld episodes from the internet - is it b/c I'm a cheap-ass pirate? No, it's b/c I've never been given the option to purchase them legally. I think the television industy would do well to take a lesson learned hard by the recording industry. If they won't make it available, someone else will! They are squabling over how to protect the $10 in the tip jar while the pirates are running away with the cash register.
There is a market for season box sets for most shows. And if not, then make them available for download on the web. They won't lose any money in syndication revenues and they'll gain the $$$ of those fanatic completionists like me.
There will never be 100% protection for IP. The best they can hope for is vigilant prosecution of those costing them the most money, while offering their products in such a way as to eliminate the market for pirated products. The fact that all three industries (music, movie, TV) have done the former and not the latter will be their downfall.
-------
Wow, I can just see this guy trying to figure out this vexing situation:
"Hmmm... principles or 60% of a $5 billion dollar settlement? Principles or 60%?"
Anyone want to place bets on which will win out?
-------
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
The aim may be innocent but the pursuit typically is not. A corporation is an entity with a single purpose - increase profits. Since a corporation does not have a conscience, does not have a set of morals and cannot experience remorse or guilt, it is free to use whatever means are necessary to acquire profits. It is easier to dump toxic waste products than to clean and process them properly. It is easier allow consumers to be harmed or die as a result of a defective product than to issue recalls. The only accountability they have is under the law.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
Nonsense. They advance any agenda that will maximize their profits. They favor any ideology that advocates less governmental regulations.
And they certainly do harm people and more largely, our whole culture. In order for companies to sell their products they must convince you that you need their product. Marketing in this day and age has become particularly insidious. Rather than convincing a consumer that their product is superior to others they prey on the insecurities of the public. They convince people that they are not cool, not sexy, not valuable without their product. They convince women that they are fat, ugly and worthless unless men desire them. They convince children that they will not be cool or liked if they do not own/consume their product. They exploit sex to sell Doritos and hair shampoo. They exploit families to sell unhealthy meals of fat-saturated hamburgers and fries cooked in vats of grease. They exploit individuality to sell you something to be different, because hey, everyone is being different. They exploit treasured classical music to sell airline tickets. They exploit inspiring speeches that have changed the social conscience of our country to sell telecommunications services. Credit card companies exploit naive incomeless college students with $10,000 credit limits so they can "establish good credit". And you're trying to tell me they are not advancing any agendas?
OPEN - YOUR - EYES
-------
If the most oppressive member of the international Council of Europe may prosecute citizens of member countries, then the rights enjoyed by those citizens are non-existant when using the Internet. Now, instead of France suing eBay for selling Nazi memorabilia, they can extradite the American citizen posting it as well.
Very scary!
-------
So now, instead of dealing with idiots talking on their phones during rush hour I have to deal with idiots watching Boot Camp on their phones during rush hour.
-------
<rant>
Until a poster actually reads past the first paragraph of a posted article I cannot see how anyone could suggest that he/she is Insightful, Informative, or Interesting.
Until the poster makes the effort to actually inform themselves before forming an opinion, they are merely posting Trolls or Flamebait.
</rant>
I couldn't get past the first paragraph.
[snip]
The first paragraph makes it transparently obvious that the writer has no idea what a right is, or even what the relevant disagreements are regarding what rights are, nor any idea what a fact is...
Here's a tip BBB - the first paragraph of any article is an introduction that gives a brief overview of a writer's position. They spend the rest of the article explaing/supporting their position. Next time, keep reading. Then post.
-------
Didn't they learn from the flap over Carnivore? Hell, if they are going for truth in advertising maybe they should have called it eCancer.
-------
Better yet, have all copyright fees fund the US Patent Office. Maybe then, they'll be able to hire enough technically competent people to review technology patents properly.
-------
Sorry mujumbo but the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director are decided by the votes of Academy members. While the vote tally may be "quantitative", the votes themselves are based on subjective opinions. I'm not sure how the opinions of only 4,000 people can "quantify" that 2001 isn't really that good.
Besides, as anyone who follows the Oscars knows the voting process is subject to extreme bouts of bias. Russell Crowe is largely thought to have won Best Actor this year because he was passed over last year. This, despite the superior performances of Tom Hanks and Ed Harris. This year's Best Picture award went to Gladiator despite two superior contestants (Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). The politics that surround movies can (and often does) negatively influence the Oscar voting (Traffic for controversial subject matter and CT,HD for being a subtitled foreign language film).
The moral of this post is, Don't rely on the Academy to decide what movies are good or bad.
-------
Absolutely. And unfortunately, I feel that it will be mainly years before Kubrick's genius will be appropriately recognized by the masses.
Most people I speak with today are so oblivious to many of his techniques. His movies have been described to me as "confusing", "boring", and "slloooooooowww". Hogwash, I say to that. Kubrick does what exceedingly few filmmakers do today (or yesterday and tomorrow for that matter) - he allows the story to come about slowly and leaves a degree of ambiguity at the end to twist in the viewers' minds. Art is often ambiguous and such is the case with his movies. A great book on Kubrick (Kubrick: Inside A Film Artist's Maze, by Thomas Allen Nelson) contains an insightful quote from Kubrick that addresses mainy of the criticisms I've heard -
To that, I say AMEN.-------
-------
They burned me a full 12 hours earlier and when they finally post this story they use a version white-labelled by the Microsoft/NBC alliance. Why the hell Taco is sending users to the MSNBC site instead of Inside.com baffles me. That's a great idea! Let's give the large media conglomerate (which has already shown its journalistic integrity to be tenuous at best) all the page views and ad revenue instead of the site which actually authored the article! Sometimes, I think the guys who run this site really need to walk their talk a little more.
Here is the original Inside.com link.
-------
Besides, plenty of people already know that proprietary software sucks - but they still use it anyway. Open Source software and OSs are just not appealing enough to the everyday casual user, whether they be corporate or private, for people to make the switch. And because of this, UCITA will pass and consumers will be fucked. Some will make the switch to non-UCITA, Open Source software but the vast will not. Unfortunately, they will pay the ultimate price. What is even more unfair is that they will pay this price because they may not be tech savvy enough to make an informed choice for software. Consumer rights with respect to software should not be available only to the savvy users (or those savvy in legalise, who can understand many of the cryptic license agreements).
We've already seen how the RIAA and MPAA have twisted and perverted the DMCA. It should be expected that the companies supporting UCITA will do the same.
Full disclosure: I stole the link from this guy's post but it's an excellent article that should show up several times for this story.
-------
And you're absolutely right - by my standards, I would say Ellison does have the right to bitch. His stories are available digitally, for a very fair price. Perhaps instead of bitching and suing, he could help foster awareness of these types of sites and how they actually empower artists while being fair to consumers.
Thanks for the heads-up on a very cool site. Just from quick walk-through I can already see quite a few stories I would love to have in digital format.
-------
The real assumption is that the person downloading the IP would actually have gone out and plunked hard-earned money down for it. Just b/c I read his story off of usenet in no way translates to my keeping my money out of his pocket. Only if I had intended to by the book but downloaded it for free instead am I "stealing" from Ellison.
I think one of the first things that will have to go in the post-internet IP age is fixed pricing. One Ellison story isn't worth $24.95 to me in an anthology. So I would never go out and buy the book. $0? Absolutely! But the question is would I pay $2 for that single story? Sure, to be in the right (ethically) and to ensure that Ellison gets something for his effort I would pay $2 even if it was free. The problem is that until it is available as cheaply as that and attainable as easily as getting it from usenet, Napster, or Scour Exchange people will still choose free over fixed price.
There is also a second dilemma - if I think the work is a steaming pile of shit, I cannot very well return the story for a refund, as I could a physical book. And until I plunk down the money, I have no idea if I am getting a diamond or a cubic zirconia. This is one reason I feel a business model centered on tipping will ultimately work the best for media online.
Unfortunately, until the artists themselves start changing the way the art is priced (negiotiable instead of fixed) and distributed, people will keep pirating and people like Ellison will keep screaming.
-------
This is very true and one of the big reasons while I'd like to see the Timeship premise fleshed out. This is obviously my own opinion, but I think some of the best Trek episodes (in any of the series) were those dealings with conundrums of time travel.
It gets boring and obnoxious quickly.
Here is where I have to disagree. I think there is an immense amount of stories to be told revolving around time travel. The aforementioned Trek episodes are very different from one another and illustrates how a whole series could be had from the premise of a time ship.
Also, temporal mechanics doesn't need to be the only thing discussed. I'm sure the entire law, economy, moral system of those in the 29th century is shaped by the ease of time travel. Are criminals punished even though their wrongs can be righted? Are they placed into rehab before they even develop the personality to commit said crimes? Do rare artifacts hold any value when it is possible to reach back in time and bring them forward? Are there any fields of study like history, archaeology, anthropology when absolute answers are available rather than assessments of evidence (Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter address this question somewhat in The Light of Other Days)? Those are just ideas that I've come up in my stream of conciousness for this post. I'm sure the writers of the show would come up with others much more interesting.
Just as the all the other Trek shows don't use the exploration of space as a way to show all kinds of extraterrestrial wonders, a show based on time travel doesn't need to show all the wonders of time. They show the implications of the ability to do so. Some shows may resolve around time travel technobabble but others may use it as a vehicle to explore ethical and moral dilemmas - just as all the other Trek shows have.
-------
Well, that is exactly what I would like to see in Star Trek (as I voiced in my original post). So let's hear some of these ideas! If you don't feel comfortable posting them in a public forum like Slashdot, then send me an email. I also have been speculating on all the other Series V premises TPTB could have chosen, so I'd like to hear what other people would like to see.
-------
Let's see some more of the 29th century Federation Timeship Aeon! ( Future's End, I & II , Voyager, Season 3). How many more wonders of space can they create for Series V? Let's see the wonders of time that confront the crew of a Federation Timeship. Hell, if they wanted to show some Trek history, then write an episode w/ Cpt. Braxton returning to "fix" the timeline in the 22nd century and do it there.
I just wonder how soon the premise for Series V will wear itself out. A 29th century will at least give the writers a whole new playing field. I honestly think a radical departure from what they have done in the past is the only way this francise can keep itself going without a break after 14 years.
-------
(Gates Sr., by the way, says his son Bill is "sympathetic" to his cause, but hasn't signed his petition. He ought to.)
Of course he won't sign it. I'm surprised he even admitted that much. The last thing Bill wants to do as his appeal begins is to get off on the wrong foot with the Bush administration.
-------
-------
The mission of AdCops is to keep our members informed about the latest tricks and tactics used by Internet scammers.
Lesson #1: Beware of groups asking outrageous membership prices for services other groups offer for free. For example, you paid $99 to joing AdBusters. You are a sucker.
Lesson #2: Bitter experience is the best teacher.
-------