You haven't even remotely addressed what ARC is doing NOW. You keep pointing to arguments related to the long standing relationship between J&J and ARC.
And instead of discussing what ARC is doing NOW, you do what? Try to call me out as a Troll?
Riiight.
Anyways, I have better things to do with my time than continue on with your complete non-discussion.
Not worth so much now, at least the live recordings.
I've got 30 year old bootleg vinyl though, in very very good condition. I don't mean it's worth a lot of money by any stretch, and I'll never sell them anyways. But they are certainly worth a lot more than any digital copy would be.
When discussing Blu-Ray and HDDVD useage, and whether consumers understand that the PS3 and 360 (via addon, respectively), play these new media types or not, whether they play CD's/DVD's etc is not relevant.
So, to answer your question directly:
The PS3 Blu-Ray drive supports...get this...PS3 games!!! Just happens that out of the box it ALSO supports [PS1/PS2/CD/DVD] media.
The 360 out of the box supports...hrm....right, NO high def media. Thus, the HDDVD drive addon for the 360 has but ONE SINGLE USE: That is to play HDDVD media.
Is that a little clearer for you now?
Don't mean to be so sarcastic, but you really did have to try hard to misinterpret what I was saying.
Ahh yes, good idea. Kill the RIAA off and replace it with the government. Yeah, that'll help.
And I was talking reasonable, out of pocket for the artist, recording costs. That's ignoring the big-label practice of 'funding' the production of an album for an artist up front, in 'their' studios, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars...all of which gets paid back via album sales...of which the artist sees none of because they owe that money to the label.
Recording equipment may have gotten cheaper. But expertise and time has not. It takes a lot of time and effort to put together a well polished album. Or should artists all record to 4-track directly and call that a wrap as that is the most cost effective?
You're trying to paint a very black and white picture when the problem is that the entire industry is one big gradient of gray.
J&J have an agreement with ARC that has been in place since 1895. An arrangement that appears to have worked well for both parties. ARC is now undermining this agreement by licensing out the trademark to other for-profits. This is outside of the agreement between J&J and ARC.
ARC is actually diluting BOTH uses.
So having said that, and assuming you've actually read something more about this, how is it that J&J is diluting the trademark outside of the accepted uses both parties agreed to in 1895?
Artists RIGHT NOW don't get anywhere NEAR 10c per song. They're getting barely more than 10c PER ALBUM out of the RIAA.
Not that this is right. But fact is, in the big leagues of the music business, you sell your recording soul to the RIAA, hope that they promote you enough to a) make back enough to pay your recording costs and b) make you well known enough so that you can tour and actually make some money.
Why do you think that just about every single band from the 70's that still has enough members alive to get on stage, still tour regularly? Because they make Fuck All from album sales.
The entire industry is completely screwed, and unless that changes, nothing else really matters.
Those are damned small costs for most professional recordings actually. Try adding another factor of 10. And that's STILL low for professional artists/studios. You list $500-1000 per song, it can easily cost that for a low budget indy recording at a small studio. Heck, 15 years ago the band I was in spent 20k to record, mix, and master a 10 song album, and that was using a close friends studio at very cheap rates.
Popular artists regularly spend tens of thousands Per Song!
What we need to have happen is a change to purchasing true licenses for works we want to, that actually grant us rights to continue to do so. This money should go directly to the artist. 10c per song for this would be a HUGE amount more than artists currently get paid for song sales, but is still cheap for us. Organizations like the RIAA should be able to purchase Distribution Licenses from the artists. Then we buy Media from the RIAA (or whomever else) for a reasonable price that actually reflects their costs...which again, would likely be in the order of 10c per download...more for actual physical media. (Given your proof of purchasing a license for the contents of said media). Yes, this would be a LOT less than the RIAA currently rakes in...but it's STILL basically free money...and then the artist is actually getting paid because the RIAA isn't playing bullshit games of collecting money on behalf of all artists, but then paying them a meager pittance, and not even to the artists that are necessarily making the SALES.
There is a very large underground market for live tapings. Little is done about it because little CAN be done about it...but for the most part the industry AND the artists do NOT condone this whatsoever...with some notable exceptions. (GD, Phish, some other taper friendly bands etc.)
Have you never seen what some live recordings will sell for? I've got bootleg vinyl from shows such as Pink Floyd, The Who, etc, that are very much not legal, and are very much worth a bit of money.
For the most part, a blind eye is turned...but you do NOT want to be caught taping a show where it is not allowed, and you do NOT want to be caught distributing illegal recordings.
Maybe John would have been able to avoid hitting the kid if he HADN'T had those couple drinks. Maybe John SHOULD fry.
Legal drinking limits are a very very dangerous line...it creates the situation where a LOT of people feel it is more than OK to have a couple of drinks and drive...oops if someone poured me two glasses of wine slightly larger than I usually drink...Bah, I've nursed these 2 beers over an hour, I can have another...
Why is it that we allow drinking and driving of any kind?
If you can afford to drink away from home, you can afford a cab.
I really fucking hate these kinds of excuses. Take responsibility for YOUR ACTIONS. It's sickening that people expect society to lead them by the hand to do the Right Thing.
I personally believe however that there are simply so many people in the world that WON'T do the right thing, that what SHOULD happen is that ALL drinking and driving should be banned, COMPLETELY. Get caught with alcohol in your system? Jail for you. Period. Now give me a reasonably justification for NOT doing that?
What is the argument for allowing ANY amount of drinking and driving? Hmm? Hell, we're on the cusp of banning using CELL PHONES while driving...and yet, a couple little drinkies will remain OK?
Tell me with a straight face that that's not fucked up.
If you are not innocent, how about you do us all a favor and plead guilty mmkay?
It's one thing to argue points surrounding false positives...but there is a whole lot of discussion on 'beating' breathalysers going on around here, and that thoroughly disgusts me.
If you're drinking, Don't Fucking Drive.
It really is that simple, and doing anything else makes you a total piece of shit, PERIOD. Drink all you want, but don't you DARE risk MY life or anyone else's while you're at it. If you do, you damned well should pay the consequences...and all the while be thankful that those LEGAL consequences are WAY better than the possible NATURAL consequences.
Now THAT goes too far. Technically correct in the eyes of the law you are...but intentionally distributing movies online...I'm sorry, but that is and should be illegal.
Please do us all a favor and refrain from hiding your illegal activities behind the legitimate fair use arguments that we all deserve, you aren't helping even a little bit.
Hint: Physical media sales are directly tied to the supporting hardware to consume said media.
We're talking adoption of DVD media, IE: discs. It takes DVD players to drive DVD disc sales. Chicken or egg...and this time it's fairly easy: If the player is the egg, then the egg must come first before DVD media sales can rise.
Thus why a particular DVD player is mentioned as a cause that affected rising sales of DVD media
Then how come I know dozens of people that bought a PS2 BECAUSE it was also a cheap DVD player, and STILL use it as their ONLY DVD player?
It didn't create the market, but I'd argue it certainly gave it the final push over the hump with little doubt.
$100 DVD players didn't come along until after the PS2 was firmly embedded. At the time, the PS2 cost the same amount as a reasonably priced DVD player did.
People are forgetting where we were at with multimedia entertainment when DVD came around, and later, when the PS2 arrived.
DVD was around LONG before the PS2 came out. It wasn't ubiquitous until about the time the PS2 came out. And that time around, ALL you needed to jump on the bandwagon was...a DVD player. $350 for a PS2 got you all you needed in that arena, and was a game console to boot.
Just buying a $650 PS3 ONLY gets you PART of the way to HD. You still need an expensive new TV, and likely some expensive cabling and other peripherals..HD sound system etc. Barrier to entry is WAY higher than DVD ever was, with no where NEAR the perceived added value. Plus, once you get there, Blu-Ray and HDDVD discs are expensive compared to DVD. By the time the PS2 came out, DVD's were already well on the way to being extremely affordable.
Deciding to carry Blu-Ray over HDDVD does not do 'just that'. Lots of places carry Blu-Ray, but the catalog is very small at this point, and purchase prices are well above standard DVD. Until one or the other is ubiquitous, your average joe won't be buying into either. (Early adopters not withstanding, but that's not who we're talking about here)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I for one am proud to NOT have been born near you.
:)
At least, I hope I wasn't...thankfully your anonymity will allow me to remain ignorantly blissful if I was
Is the serious engine still being developed? Haven't heard squat from Croteam in quite a long time.
No idea about LithTech.
How can we discuss gameplay when we're not even talking about a game?
The discussion is about game engines, NOT games themselves.
Thus the GP's request to compare 3 game engines, not games.
Given that, what about what gameplay?
You haven't even remotely addressed what ARC is doing NOW. You keep pointing to arguments related to the long standing relationship between J&J and ARC.
And instead of discussing what ARC is doing NOW, you do what? Try to call me out as a Troll?
Riiight.
Anyways, I have better things to do with my time than continue on with your complete non-discussion.
Yes and? That is nothing new, that's ancient history now.
That does nothing to change what the ARC is CURRENTLY doing does it?
Not worth so much now, at least the live recordings.
I've got 30 year old bootleg vinyl though, in very very good condition. I don't mean it's worth a lot of money by any stretch, and I'll never sell them anyways. But they are certainly worth a lot more than any digital copy would be.
Did you purposefully misinterpret that or what?
When discussing Blu-Ray and HDDVD useage, and whether consumers understand that the PS3 and 360 (via addon, respectively), play these new media types or not, whether they play CD's/DVD's etc is not relevant.
So, to answer your question directly:
The PS3 Blu-Ray drive supports...get this...PS3 games!!! Just happens that out of the box it ALSO supports [PS1/PS2/CD/DVD] media.
The 360 out of the box supports...hrm....right, NO high def media. Thus, the HDDVD drive addon for the 360 has but ONE SINGLE USE: That is to play HDDVD media.
Is that a little clearer for you now?
Don't mean to be so sarcastic, but you really did have to try hard to misinterpret what I was saying.
Ahh yes, good idea. Kill the RIAA off and replace it with the government. Yeah, that'll help.
And I was talking reasonable, out of pocket for the artist, recording costs. That's ignoring the big-label practice of 'funding' the production of an album for an artist up front, in 'their' studios, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars...all of which gets paid back via album sales...of which the artist sees none of because they owe that money to the label.
Recording equipment may have gotten cheaper. But expertise and time has not. It takes a lot of time and effort to put together a well polished album. Or should artists all record to 4-track directly and call that a wrap as that is the most cost effective?
You're trying to paint a very black and white picture when the problem is that the entire industry is one big gradient of gray.
Ehh? Have you RTFA and subsequent comments?
J&J have an agreement with ARC that has been in place since 1895. An arrangement that appears to have worked well for both parties. ARC is now undermining this agreement by licensing out the trademark to other for-profits. This is outside of the agreement between J&J and ARC.
ARC is actually diluting BOTH uses.
So having said that, and assuming you've actually read something more about this, how is it that J&J is diluting the trademark outside of the accepted uses both parties agreed to in 1895?
Just a note...you expect to get your hands on the iPhone's source code? ;)
Good luck with that! (At least, getting it legitimately
There is a MAJOR flaw in your argument.
Artists RIGHT NOW don't get anywhere NEAR 10c per song. They're getting barely more than 10c PER ALBUM out of the RIAA.
Not that this is right. But fact is, in the big leagues of the music business, you sell your recording soul to the RIAA, hope that they promote you enough to a) make back enough to pay your recording costs and b) make you well known enough so that you can tour and actually make some money.
Why do you think that just about every single band from the 70's that still has enough members alive to get on stage, still tour regularly? Because they make Fuck All from album sales.
The entire industry is completely screwed, and unless that changes, nothing else really matters.
Note that all those 'dubbing' decks degraded the copies quality by ~10%
But still, that was considered fair use, and was accepted. No one complained, since it was...fair.
Those are damned small costs for most professional recordings actually. Try adding another factor of 10. And that's STILL low for professional artists/studios. You list $500-1000 per song, it can easily cost that for a low budget indy recording at a small studio. Heck, 15 years ago the band I was in spent 20k to record, mix, and master a 10 song album, and that was using a close friends studio at very cheap rates.
Popular artists regularly spend tens of thousands Per Song!
What we need to have happen is a change to purchasing true licenses for works we want to, that actually grant us rights to continue to do so. This money should go directly to the artist. 10c per song for this would be a HUGE amount more than artists currently get paid for song sales, but is still cheap for us. Organizations like the RIAA should be able to purchase Distribution Licenses from the artists. Then we buy Media from the RIAA (or whomever else) for a reasonable price that actually reflects their costs...which again, would likely be in the order of 10c per download...more for actual physical media. (Given your proof of purchasing a license for the contents of said media). Yes, this would be a LOT less than the RIAA currently rakes in...but it's STILL basically free money...and then the artist is actually getting paid because the RIAA isn't playing bullshit games of collecting money on behalf of all artists, but then paying them a meager pittance, and not even to the artists that are necessarily making the SALES.
Like that'll ever happen though.
Live show's can't be pirated? Riiiight.
There is a very large underground market for live tapings. Little is done about it because little CAN be done about it...but for the most part the industry AND the artists do NOT condone this whatsoever...with some notable exceptions. (GD, Phish, some other taper friendly bands etc.)
Have you never seen what some live recordings will sell for? I've got bootleg vinyl from shows such as Pink Floyd, The Who, etc, that are very much not legal, and are very much worth a bit of money.
For the most part, a blind eye is turned...but you do NOT want to be caught taping a show where it is not allowed, and you do NOT want to be caught distributing illegal recordings.
Maybe John would have been able to avoid hitting the kid if he HADN'T had those couple drinks. Maybe John SHOULD fry.
Legal drinking limits are a very very dangerous line...it creates the situation where a LOT of people feel it is more than OK to have a couple of drinks and drive...oops if someone poured me two glasses of wine slightly larger than I usually drink...Bah, I've nursed these 2 beers over an hour, I can have another...
Why is it that we allow drinking and driving of any kind?
If you can afford to drink away from home, you can afford a cab.
I really fucking hate these kinds of excuses. Take responsibility for YOUR ACTIONS. It's sickening that people expect society to lead them by the hand to do the Right Thing.
I personally believe however that there are simply so many people in the world that WON'T do the right thing, that what SHOULD happen is that ALL drinking and driving should be banned, COMPLETELY. Get caught with alcohol in your system? Jail for you. Period. Now give me a reasonably justification for NOT doing that?
What is the argument for allowing ANY amount of drinking and driving? Hmm?
Hell, we're on the cusp of banning using CELL PHONES while driving...and yet, a couple little drinkies will remain OK?
Tell me with a straight face that that's not fucked up.
If you are not innocent, how about you do us all a favor and plead guilty mmkay?
It's one thing to argue points surrounding false positives...but there is a whole lot of discussion on 'beating' breathalysers going on around here, and that thoroughly disgusts me.
If you're drinking, Don't Fucking Drive.
It really is that simple, and doing anything else makes you a total piece of shit, PERIOD.
Drink all you want, but don't you DARE risk MY life or anyone else's while you're at it. If you do, you damned well should pay the consequences...and all the while be thankful that those LEGAL consequences are WAY better than the possible NATURAL consequences.
(Not to rant at the parent directly btw)
No actually, it wouldn't be hard to show reckless endangerment...you had a passenger in the car.
Now THAT goes too far. Technically correct in the eyes of the law you are...but intentionally distributing movies online...I'm sorry, but that is and should be illegal.
Please do us all a favor and refrain from hiding your illegal activities behind the legitimate fair use arguments that we all deserve, you aren't helping even a little bit.
That is a big statement that requires some significant proof to back it up.
Please show us where the US Government subsidized the development of CD technology.
? That's all fine and dandy for your own desires, but has absolutely ZERO to do with the conversation at hand.
;)
Or were you under the impression that the Wii plays Blu-Ray AND HDDVD?
(Hint: it does neither. Good luck getting your hi-def video fix on cartridges
Hint: Physical media sales are directly tied to the supporting hardware to consume said media.
We're talking adoption of DVD media, IE: discs. It takes DVD players to drive DVD disc sales. Chicken or egg...and this time it's fairly easy: If the player is the egg, then the egg must come first before DVD media sales can rise.
Thus why a particular DVD player is mentioned as a cause that affected rising sales of DVD media
So STFU yourself mr pedantic.
Then how come I know dozens of people that bought a PS2 BECAUSE it was also a cheap DVD player, and STILL use it as their ONLY DVD player?
It didn't create the market, but I'd argue it certainly gave it the final push over the hump with little doubt.
$100 DVD players didn't come along until after the PS2 was firmly embedded. At the time, the PS2 cost the same amount as a reasonably priced DVD player did.
Nope, and this will be a long ramp to climb.
People are forgetting where we were at with multimedia entertainment when DVD came around, and later, when the PS2 arrived.
DVD was around LONG before the PS2 came out. It wasn't ubiquitous until about the time the PS2 came out. And that time around, ALL you needed to jump on the bandwagon was...a DVD player. $350 for a PS2 got you all you needed in that arena, and was a game console to boot.
Just buying a $650 PS3 ONLY gets you PART of the way to HD. You still need an expensive new TV, and likely some expensive cabling and other peripherals..HD sound system etc. Barrier to entry is WAY higher than DVD ever was, with no where NEAR the perceived added value. Plus, once you get there, Blu-Ray and HDDVD discs are expensive compared to DVD. By the time the PS2 came out, DVD's were already well on the way to being extremely affordable.
Deciding to carry Blu-Ray over HDDVD does not do 'just that'. Lots of places carry Blu-Ray, but the catalog is very small at this point, and purchase prices are well above standard DVD. Until one or the other is ubiquitous, your average joe won't be buying into either. (Early adopters not withstanding, but that's not who we're talking about here)