AFAIK, it's already illegal to even format shift in the UK - therefore we're not even allowed to rip it, never mind stream it. But what if you purchase [license] the song in downloadable, digital form [mp3, flac, AAC, or whatever]? Is it currently legal in that event to stream the song to another device in your home? Obviously any 're-encoding' might be disallowed by the format shifting, but what if you had an Apple computer, bought an AAC file on iTunes, and played it wirelessly via an iTV or another Apple product?
Just curious. Issues, like the streaming being expedited by hardware and software sold by the same company through which you purchased the media, are going to be tricky to work out. At least here in the US. Either that, or Apple is suddenly going to find iTunes and iTV to be 'piracy' tools, and be forced to stop distributing them.
As most still cameras support only jpeg, you're pretty much stuck. They're the ones that processing speed and memory requirements affect most directly. When you get the images off of the camera, you can store them in any format that you want. What Microsoft is trying to do is make their HD Photo into the new standard, with the goal being to get the Digital Camera makers to use HD Photo as their new default format on-camera. There's no proof yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if their hope is to let devices create HD Photo's freely, but control the market of software designed to manipulate them.
Excuse me? If I drop a drink on the floor, the fucking janitor will do his job, and I won't thank him for it. Man, you're not an Anonymous Coward. You're an Anonymous Jackass troll. Obviously you were never taught respect or manners.
When I'm working late, and the janitor comes in to my cube to empty my trash, I turn around and say, "Thank you," because he's working late, doing a job that nobody else wants to do, and making sure I can get my job done without having to waste time taking out the trash.
Learn to have a little appreciation for the people who do the things you don't want to do for yourself, eh?
There should be a reason why most democracies have secret ballot !!! That would also be a good response to people questioning why you want privacy. Ask them if they have any problem with voting being public. Everyone around you, and even the candidates would know whether you voted or not, and if so, whom you voted for. Most people probably wouldn't want that. When the balk, say why? You're just voting. There's nothing illegal about what you've done, why do you want privacy from all the candidates knowing who you voted for?
Once HDCP adoption surpasses 85 percent of HDTV monitors, studios will begin to turn on Image Constraint Token, which downgrades the luma resolution of analog outputs to EDTV. This makes cracking HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc not worth any more than cracking DVD. As the subject says, "Are you kidding me?" Maybe you got this turned around in your head. ICT only protects the video path. ICT needs to be a) enabled on the disc, AND b) obeyed by the player. If the either the disc doesn't have the token, or the player doesn't obey[pass] it, the display will play it at the highest capable resolution, as it is the player that decides whether or not to downgrade the image before outputting it.
If the studios turn on ICT, it will make me want to have HD-DVD and BR-D's cracked. I have a nice 42" CRT HDTV that plays 1080i beautifully but only has analog component inputs for HD. I have an xbox360 and the HD-DVD drive that outputs 1080i onto that tv, beautifully.
If the studios start selling discs with ICT enabled, and the xbox360 obeys that flag, it will be criminal [in my mind], forcing any new HD movies I purchase to play at 540p. Is that going to encourage me to purchase new movies? I think not.
No, what I will then start doing is downloading cracked copies of those HD discs, playing them without the ICT on the xbox360, or hooking up my computer to the TV and playing them that way. There is zero technical reason why new movies should only be displayed at 540p on my 1080i TV, and I will not stand for it. As long as I can still play them at full resolution, I will continue to purchase the movies [I have 10 HD-DVD's already, less than some, but more than most]. After that, bittorrent here I come.
ICT will encourage people to crack HD movies, since that will be the only way many people can view new movies at full resolution.
Besides, it could take decades to achieve 85% HDCP adoption. It was only approved in 2004. HDTV itself has been out [mainstream] since the late 90's and it has only hit around 30% saturation [see wikipedia] in the US. No, if they do it, they will do it much sooner than that, leaving most of that 30% of people with a crappy choice of dropping another $1000+ on a TV, or downloading cracked movies.
legally you can't agree to some terms that haven't even been written yet
Agreed, but once the latest version is released, from what I understand, I could then choose to release under the more open license. For instance, could I not download the latest version of Apache and release it under the new license, thereby allowing me to close the source for my own nefarious ends?
Except that you'd only be closing your 'fork' of the Apache code. Anyone would still be free to distribute the code they download from Apache. Even of Apache 'closed' their code, anyone would still be able to distributed any code that was released before the closing of the code.
Wouldn't last license change effectively turn it into a BSD license anyway?
"In explaining their starkly differing views, Baker and Mousseau criticize each other's studies as poorly designed."
Science at its best. Exactly. I'm sure it couldn't possibly have something to do with the fact that they are studying different animals, of which perhaps the mice are thriving and the barn swallows are not.
I wonder if the spectacle of AACS' failure will finally begin to wake them to the fact that no one can sell DRM, because it doesn't exist - and the people who claim it does are no better than those selling magic weight loss via email spam.
You are making a huge assumption that AACS was actively sold to the MPAA as a 'this will prevent piracy' option. I'm betting that it was not. Even if it was advertised as such, I don't think the MPAA is stupid enough to believe that it is. They knew it would be circumvented, although I'm sure they hoped it would take a bit longer than it has. At most, I'm guessing the MPAA sees AACS as a deterrent. In the grand scheme of MPAA finances, I'm sure it didn't cost very much to develop and implement AACS, in the hopes that the "difficulty" and potential legal ramifications would stop just enough acts of piracy by Joe Schmoe. For them it's a small financial gamble to maybe sell a few more copies of the movie of the day.
Unfortunately, I think they are mistaken. I'd probably be buying more HD-DVD movies if it were easier [and legal] for me to rip them to a hard drive to play through my Xbox360.
If you're old enough to remember Star Wars coming out, you're too old to think anything right now except "30 years, wow I'm old". That's almost exactly what I thought, even though I only vaguely remember it. I was 3 years old, and my mom took me to see it. The only thing I remember from seeing it in the theater was the scrolling text at the beginning, and Leia getting pissed off and saying, "Will someone get this walking carpet out of my way?"
Of course, I've seen it a few times since then.:) Damn, I'm old.:(
Re:you could at least attribute your quote
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yeah you guys are right. I couldn't remember who said it and was too lazy to look it up.
Judging by the millions of people who use email every second, I think it's safe to place bets on email being dead. Yup. Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.:)
It's strange. The email server that I control has pretty good spam filtering. Maybe one spam a month has been delivered to my inbox over the last year or so [with no false positives yet]. Ever since I implemented the current filtering I've started feeling like I hardly get any email at all. Other than a couple low-volume lists to which I'm subscribed, the only time I get email is when when my sister wants to ask me a question.
It turns out, most of the people I regularly communicate with online just use AIM/MSN/Jabber. This actually makes me a bit sad as I prefer email.
Maybe I should just stop using IM and force my friends to use email.
The thing I didn't like about the dreamcast controller was how the cord came out towards the player, not towards the TV. You lost a good 4 or 5 inches of cord length there.
That's true, the cord was slightly annoying. As far as I'm concerned though, that was the only problem with the controller. Everything else about it was perfect for me. I'm disappointed that it didn't make this list. It is certainly better than the SNES controller or the PS2 Dual-shock which fits my hands nicely, but I can't stand the 'shape' buttons, I can never remember which is which.
Is it really too much? The average torrent release of a popular TV show spreads to hundreds of users at an average of perhaps a megabit / second. University networks can probably handle that load without problem right now. Um, no they can't, they're full to the brim with torrent traffic.:)
This little flag is also implemented in some digital cable boxes. I messed around with using the firewire port on my digital cable box to record high-def shows. I found that at the time [about 6 months ago], I had no problem recording HD TV shows from local HD channels [eg. Heroes], but that certain shows on Discovery HD and INHD would not record. This was just using Windows XP and a DVHS driver, no special media-center software at all.
In this case, the cable box implemented the software to not send flagged shows through the firewire, so it's not just a Media Center thing.
Assuming something like MythTV is ever able to use a cablecard, I doubt they would implement those flags, though if they are based in the US [or anywhere else on the planet it seems], they are likely to be sued by the media companies for not obeying that flag.
It wouldn't surprise me if Disney came at this from an entirely different direction.
How did the author obtain those clips? Hopefully he just recorded them off the TV. If he circumvented the Macrovision on a VHS tape or the CSS encryption on a DVD to obtain those clips couldn't Disney come after them for DMCA violations? I know that the DMCA has provisions for educational uses, but based on the parts of the DMCA which I have read they would only apply in the following event:
Every three years, the Librarian of Congress has to make a determination on whether persons who would like to use works in a non-infringing manor [ie. fair use] might be adversely affected by the protection schemes of the work stopping them from making use of the work. Then the Librarian has to 'publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined' would apply in that situation. [See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html ]
So of the Librarian of Congress hasn't decided that Disney films might need to be used for non-infringing works, and published them for the current three year period, then from what I can tell, Disney would have the right to send a DMCA takedown notice, even though it is used for 'education' or 'critical' purposes, *IF* they believe that the author circumvented the protection schemes on VHS or DVD meda in order to obtain the clips they used.
Then again, I'm just some schmo posting on Slashdot from work. What the heck do I know?:)
Perhaps it's time to establish a colony. How far are we from building a sleeper or generational ship giving aggressive assumptions (accept risky cryogenics, one way trip, generous time limits for a journey)? Seeing as we can't even get our butts back to the moon, let alone figure out how to deal with the 12-18month trip to Mars, I'm guessing we're quite a ways from a generational/sleeper ship to anywhere.
The sellers/makers of the DVD have placed conditions on buying the DVD. If you don't abide by the terms of the sale then you are breaking the "contract".
Except that I've never signed a contract when purchasing a DVD. The content is certainly "protected" by copyright law, the idea of which is [rightfully I think] to give a *temporary* monopoly on the rights to sell and profit from that content. Other than the specific laws of your country, there is no contract with the DVD/Content manufacturers/retailers.
Until they start requiring you to sign a legally binding contract upon purchasing the DVD, you are only bound by the laws of your country. The MPAA has nothing else to say about the matter. They do have contracts/licenses with the makers of the player hardware. They have no control over what you do to modify that hardware/software/content once you purchase it. At this time, the only sticking point is the DMCA, which makes it illegal for you to tell anyone else how to hack the hardware/software.
The issue is that the MPAA has used it's massive bankroll to buy a set of US laws to give them what is effectively a permanent copyright [DMCA]. This is wrong, and goes against the entire idea of why copyright was introduced in this country.
With that said, I think people should pay for their movies. Then I think people should be able to take that movie and do whatever they want for it [aside from selling/distributing while it is protected by copyright]. If that means we have to publish the unlocking key as a form of civil disobedience, then so be it. It is a losing war for the MPAA. I remain hopeful that they realize this and start selling their content at a reasonable price, without restrictions that make it so difficult [and illegal] to put my movies in a format which is more convenient to me. I at least would start making more movie purchases in that case.
They haven't finished downloading yet but I've got bittorrent going on a 10Mbit connection for the following two disks [torrent links from the mirror posted above]:
No. Ultimately it comes down to whether you're willing to pay for it. It's not the most satisfactory answer, but "take it or leave it" is the only real response we have.
That's absolutely correct, and I've decided the songs aren't worth $2/each for me. I'm afraid that it seems to be the decision of the majority of people I've heard from. From reading the posts here on Slashdot, as well as the forums on scorehero.com and xbox.com, it's fairly clear that many many people are quite upset at the pricing, while only a relative few feel like the prices are reasonable.
Obviously that comes with the understanding that those who post on the above forums are probably a small percentage of the total XBox360 Guitar Hero customers. At the same time, those who love the game enough to follow/post forums may also be those who are more likely to actually want to buy extra content.
I was really really looking forward to these downloads. I had expected to probably buy all the songs, even though I already own GH1 and GH2 for PS2, as well as GH2 for Xbox360. At these prices, I'll have to seriously consider if I even want to buy my favorite 4-5 songs, and this is coming from someone who has a very good job in a two-income household. I can't imagine how the large number of younger, un/less employed folks [ie. kids] are going to afford that kind of expenditure.
Maybe I'm wrong as I haven't seen the numbers/projections they may have, but I imagine MS/RO would make a much larger profit selling songs at $1ea than they will at $2ea.
-The fingering charts. As others noted, RedOctane employees have made these charts for four levels, and any StepMania fan knows that it's not quite an easy job to match icons to timed, sometimes rhythmically-complex music. RedOctane has skilled musicians/nerds doing this dirty work, and they require money.
The fingering charts for the lead parts were already done for GH1 songs. They only needed to add the rhythm/bass tracks. They had to do that from scratch for GH2 as well, yet those 70 songs only cost $40-50 on physical media
-Re-recording the songs. A lot of people are missing this--maybe because the covers on Guitar Hero are so well-performed and recorded. Not only are some older releases (think the 60s and 70s rock) not up to scuff in quality, but one must think about the track issue. To think that each artist's studio has kept each individual track in storage for decades is naieve, and that's even assuming that RedOctane had access to the studios' recordings--or that some of the originals were even recorded track-by-track.
The tracks were already recorded for GH1 on PS2. They didn't re-re-record the songs for the XBOX. At most they remaster them to 5.1 surround.
We're also assuming that even IF RedOctane had access to each track AND that they were, as a whole, up to scuff, that, when soloed, the bass/drum tracks alone or guitar track(s) soloed are absolutely perfect in technique.
Re-recording songs takes expensive studio time (the tracks are well-produced) and bands also cost money. Not only the cover bands, but:
As mentioned before, the songs were already recorded by RedOctane, so there was no extra cost for this for the DLC tracks. Not only that but the 'cover bands' which did the recordings were mostly employees of RedOctane/Harmonix anyway.
-RIAA, record label, and royalty fees. It goes without saying that each part are taking their fair (or, in the case of the RIAA, maybe not so fair...) share for each song licensed.
If I'm not mistaken, the royalty fees for cover songs comes out to about $0.08 per copy [per track]. And they had to pay those same fees for the physical versions of these songs, I doubt they suddenly went up to $1 a copy.
-Microsoft and game production fees. I'm not an expert on how Microsoft and publishers push online content, but I assume someone's paying for the bandwidth these downloads chew up--and it may be the developers/publishers.
Well, we are paying for the bandwidth. We pay our monthly/yearly fee for Xbox Live Gold. It may not pay for it fully, but at least some of that cost goes towards maintaining the servers and bandwidth.
In addition, the game is already produced. We bought the game for $90 including a controller [$50 without controller I think?], which included pressing the discs, making the packaging and shipping the product, plus the profit for the retailer. Yes, MS wants to make a profit, that's fine. But if RedOctane can make a profit setting 70 songs on physical media for $50 [that's 71.4 cents per song], I seriously doubt that the digital distribution network for XBL is any more expensive than discs, packaging and shipping. Sell the songs for $1 each, and MS would still be making 28 cents profit per track, and I'm willing to bet would sell a LOT more of them.
I might be able to see new, previously unrecorded/unpublished tracks going for $1.50 each, to cover the time/cost of making them. That's still twice what the original tracks cost for their first publishing. But $2.00 each for already existing tracks is just not acceptable.
A few people say that price point is reasonable. I have yet to see a valid argument for that statement.
Sorry, the 17 independent songs don't count. There are only 30 career mode tracks, which are the ones anyone would care about. If you bought all of these, it would be $62.50. Fine, a bit pricey but most people will only buy what they really like. They should bundle all 30 songs for 40-50 bucks, but it's not a big deal. I'll definitely buy maybe three or four packs (20 bucks worth) and be completely happy with it.
I just hope they release the upcoming 80s pack on 360 via downloadable content. The price point is perfect.
What makes you think the bonus songs don't count? Just because you've never heard them on the radio? Frankly some of the bonus GH1 songs are better than some of the career mode tracks. I love playing Cheat on the Church and The Breaking Wheel.
The main point still stands. The assumption is that eventually the bonus songs will also be released as DLC. The cost of the original GH1 game includes those bonus tracks, therefore there is no reason not to count them in cost calculations.
GH1 w/47 songs = $30-40 on Physical Media with packaging GH1 47 DLC songs = $99 as a digital download [estimated: assuming consistent pricing with the current released packs] Even if what you say is true, and you only consider the 30 career tracks, that's $63 to buy 30 songs digitally instead of $30-40 to buy 47 songs on physical media.
That's just not acceptable. It's bad enough the songs were released in three packs, with one good song that people will want, and 2 mediocre songs that people may or may not care about. They're not only gouging us on the cost of the songs, they're forcing us to buy one or two songs we don't even want.
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious. Issues, like the streaming being expedited by hardware and software sold by the same company through which you purchased the media, are going to be tricky to work out. At least here in the US.
Either that, or Apple is suddenly going to find iTunes and iTV to be 'piracy' tools, and be forced to stop distributing them.
There's no proof yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if their hope is to let devices create HD Photo's freely, but control the market of software designed to manipulate them.
When I'm working late, and the janitor comes in to my cube to empty my trash, I turn around and say, "Thank you," because he's working late, doing a job that nobody else wants to do, and making sure I can get my job done without having to waste time taking out the trash.
Learn to have a little appreciation for the people who do the things you don't want to do for yourself, eh?
Anyway, just a thought.
If the studios turn on ICT, it will make me want to have HD-DVD and BR-D's cracked. I have a nice 42" CRT HDTV that plays 1080i beautifully but only has analog component inputs for HD. I have an xbox360 and the HD-DVD drive that outputs 1080i onto that tv, beautifully.
If the studios start selling discs with ICT enabled, and the xbox360 obeys that flag, it will be criminal [in my mind], forcing any new HD movies I purchase to play at 540p. Is that going to encourage me to purchase new movies? I think not.
No, what I will then start doing is downloading cracked copies of those HD discs, playing them without the ICT on the xbox360, or hooking up my computer to the TV and playing them that way. There is zero technical reason why new movies should only be displayed at 540p on my 1080i TV, and I will not stand for it. As long as I can still play them at full resolution, I will continue to purchase the movies [I have 10 HD-DVD's already, less than some, but more than most]. After that, bittorrent here I come.
ICT will encourage people to crack HD movies, since that will be the only way many people can view new movies at full resolution.
Besides, it could take decades to achieve 85% HDCP adoption. It was only approved in 2004. HDTV itself has been out [mainstream] since the late 90's and it has only hit around 30% saturation [see wikipedia] in the US. No, if they do it, they will do it much sooner than that, leaving most of that 30% of people with a crappy choice of dropping another $1000+ on a TV, or downloading cracked movies.
legally you can't agree to some terms that haven't even been written yet
Agreed, but once the latest version is released, from what I understand, I could then choose to release under the more open license. For instance, could I not download the latest version of Apache and release it under the new license, thereby allowing me to close the source for my own nefarious ends?
Except that you'd only be closing your 'fork' of the Apache code. Anyone would still be free to distribute the code they download from Apache. Even of Apache 'closed' their code, anyone would still be able to distributed any code that was released before the closing of the code.Wouldn't last license change effectively turn it into a BSD license anyway?
Science at its best. Exactly. I'm sure it couldn't possibly have something to do with the fact that they are studying different animals, of which perhaps the mice are thriving and the barn swallows are not.
Nope, it must be the other guy's fault.
I wonder if the spectacle of AACS' failure will finally begin to wake them to the fact that no one can sell DRM, because it doesn't exist - and the people who claim it does are no better than those selling magic weight loss via email spam.
You are making a huge assumption that AACS was actively sold to the MPAA as a 'this will prevent piracy' option. I'm betting that it was not. Even if it was advertised as such, I don't think the MPAA is stupid enough to believe that it is. They knew it would be circumvented, although I'm sure they hoped it would take a bit longer than it has.
At most, I'm guessing the MPAA sees AACS as a deterrent. In the grand scheme of MPAA finances, I'm sure it didn't cost very much to develop and implement AACS, in the hopes that the "difficulty" and potential legal ramifications would stop just enough acts of piracy by Joe Schmoe. For them it's a small financial gamble to maybe sell a few more copies of the movie of the day.
Unfortunately, I think they are mistaken. I'd probably be buying more HD-DVD movies if it were easier [and legal] for me to rip them to a hard drive to play through my Xbox360.
Of course, I've seen it a few times since then.
Damn, I'm old.
Yeah you guys are right. I couldn't remember who said it and was too lazy to look it up.
:)
Someone mod me down "-1:Lazy Bastard".
It's strange. The email server that I control has pretty good spam filtering. Maybe one spam a month has been delivered to my inbox over the last year or so [with no false positives yet]. Ever since I implemented the current filtering I've started feeling like I hardly get any email at all. Other than a couple low-volume lists to which I'm subscribed, the only time I get email is when when my sister wants to ask me a question.
It turns out, most of the people I regularly communicate with online just use AIM/MSN/Jabber. This actually makes me a bit sad as I prefer email.
Maybe I should just stop using IM and force my friends to use email.
The thing I didn't like about the dreamcast controller was how the cord came out towards the player, not towards the TV. You lost a good 4 or 5 inches of cord length there.
That's true, the cord was slightly annoying. As far as I'm concerned though, that was the only problem with the controller. Everything else about it was perfect for me. I'm disappointed that it didn't make this list. It is certainly better than the SNES controller or the PS2 Dual-shock which fits my hands nicely, but I can't stand the 'shape' buttons, I can never remember which is which.
This little flag is also implemented in some digital cable boxes. I messed around with using the firewire port on my digital cable box to record high-def shows. I found that at the time [about 6 months ago], I had no problem recording HD TV shows from local HD channels [eg. Heroes], but that certain shows on Discovery HD and INHD would not record. This was just using Windows XP and a DVHS driver, no special media-center software at all.
In this case, the cable box implemented the software to not send flagged shows through the firewire, so it's not just a Media Center thing.
Assuming something like MythTV is ever able to use a cablecard, I doubt they would implement those flags, though if they are based in the US [or anywhere else on the planet it seems], they are likely to be sued by the media companies for not obeying that flag.
It wouldn't surprise me if Disney came at this from an entirely different direction.
:)
How did the author obtain those clips? Hopefully he just recorded them off the TV. If he circumvented the Macrovision on a VHS tape or the CSS encryption on a DVD to obtain those clips couldn't Disney come after them for DMCA violations? I know that the DMCA has provisions for educational uses, but based on the parts of the DMCA which I have read they would only apply in the following event:
Every three years, the Librarian of Congress has to make a determination on whether persons who would like to use works in a non-infringing manor [ie. fair use] might be adversely affected by the protection schemes of the work stopping them from making use of the work.
Then the Librarian has to 'publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined' would apply in that situation. [See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html ]
So of the Librarian of Congress hasn't decided that Disney films might need to be used for non-infringing works, and published them for the current three year period, then from what I can tell, Disney would have the right to send a DMCA takedown notice, even though it is used for 'education' or 'critical' purposes, *IF* they believe that the author circumvented the protection schemes on VHS or DVD meda in order to obtain the clips they used.
Then again, I'm just some schmo posting on Slashdot from work. What the heck do I know?
Geez, it's always the last place you look!
[sigh] me... :(
Which in a way is odd, as I never got that into D&D and I haven't used a 4-sided die in many years.
Still sad.
The sellers/makers of the DVD have placed conditions on buying the DVD. If you don't abide by the terms of the sale then you are breaking the "contract".
Except that I've never signed a contract when purchasing a DVD. The content is certainly "protected" by copyright law, the idea of which is [rightfully I think] to give a *temporary* monopoly on the rights to sell and profit from that content. Other than the specific laws of your country, there is no contract with the DVD/Content manufacturers/retailers.
Until they start requiring you to sign a legally binding contract upon purchasing the DVD, you are only bound by the laws of your country. The MPAA has nothing else to say about the matter. They do have contracts/licenses with the makers of the player hardware. They have no control over what you do to modify that hardware/software/content once you purchase it. At this time, the only sticking point is the DMCA, which makes it illegal for you to tell anyone else how to hack the hardware/software.
The issue is that the MPAA has used it's massive bankroll to buy a set of US laws to give them what is effectively a permanent copyright [DMCA]. This is wrong, and goes against the entire idea of why copyright was introduced in this country.
With that said, I think people should pay for their movies. Then I think people should be able to take that movie and do whatever they want for it [aside from selling/distributing while it is protected by copyright]. If that means we have to publish the unlocking key as a form of civil disobedience, then so be it. It is a losing war for the MPAA. I remain hopeful that they realize this and start selling their content at a reasonable price, without restrictions that make it so difficult [and illegal] to put my movies in a format which is more convenient to me. I at least would start making more movie purchases in that case.
Get those torrents going folks :)
They haven't finished downloading yet but I've got bittorrent going on a 10Mbit connection for the following two disks [torrent links from the mirror posted above]:
Ubuntu Desktop i386
Ubuntu Desktop amd64
I'll leave them running for a day or two once they're finished downloading.
No. Ultimately it comes down to whether you're willing to pay for it. It's not the most satisfactory answer, but "take it or leave it" is the only real response we have.
That's absolutely correct, and I've decided the songs aren't worth $2/each for me. I'm afraid that it seems to be the decision of the majority of people I've heard from. From reading the posts here on Slashdot, as well as the forums on scorehero.com and xbox.com, it's fairly clear that many many people are quite upset at the pricing, while only a relative few feel like the prices are reasonable.
Obviously that comes with the understanding that those who post on the above forums are probably a small percentage of the total XBox360 Guitar Hero customers. At the same time, those who love the game enough to follow/post forums may also be those who are more likely to actually want to buy extra content.
I was really really looking forward to these downloads. I had expected to probably buy all the songs, even though I already own GH1 and GH2 for PS2, as well as GH2 for Xbox360. At these prices, I'll have to seriously consider if I even want to buy my favorite 4-5 songs, and this is coming from someone who has a very good job in a two-income household. I can't imagine how the large number of younger, un/less employed folks [ie. kids] are going to afford that kind of expenditure.
Maybe I'm wrong as I haven't seen the numbers/projections they may have, but I imagine MS/RO would make a much larger profit selling songs at $1ea than they will at $2ea.
-The fingering charts. As others noted, RedOctane employees have made these charts for four levels, and any StepMania fan knows that it's not quite an easy job to match icons to timed, sometimes rhythmically-complex music. RedOctane has skilled musicians/nerds doing this dirty work, and they require money.
The fingering charts for the lead parts were already done for GH1 songs. They only needed to add the rhythm/bass tracks. They had to do that from scratch for GH2 as well, yet those 70 songs only cost $40-50 on physical media
-Re-recording the songs. A lot of people are missing this--maybe because the covers on Guitar Hero are so well-performed and recorded. Not only are some older releases (think the 60s and 70s rock) not up to scuff in quality, but one must think about the track issue. To think that each artist's studio has kept each individual track in storage for decades is naieve, and that's even assuming that RedOctane had access to the studios' recordings--or that some of the originals were even recorded track-by-track.
The tracks were already recorded for GH1 on PS2. They didn't re-re-record the songs for the XBOX. At most they remaster them to 5.1 surround.
We're also assuming that even IF RedOctane had access to each track AND that they were, as a whole, up to scuff, that, when soloed, the bass/drum tracks alone or guitar track(s) soloed are absolutely perfect in technique.
Re-recording songs takes expensive studio time (the tracks are well-produced) and bands also cost money. Not only the cover bands, but:
As mentioned before, the songs were already recorded by RedOctane, so there was no extra cost for this for the DLC tracks. Not only that but the 'cover bands' which did the recordings were mostly employees of RedOctane/Harmonix anyway.
-RIAA, record label, and royalty fees. It goes without saying that each part are taking their fair (or, in the case of the RIAA, maybe not so fair...) share for each song licensed.
If I'm not mistaken, the royalty fees for cover songs comes out to about $0.08 per copy [per track]. And they had to pay those same fees for the physical versions of these songs, I doubt they suddenly went up to $1 a copy.
-Microsoft and game production fees. I'm not an expert on how Microsoft and publishers push online content, but I assume someone's paying for the bandwidth these downloads chew up--and it may be the developers/publishers.
Well, we are paying for the bandwidth. We pay our monthly/yearly fee for Xbox Live Gold. It may not pay for it fully, but at least some of that cost goes towards maintaining the servers and bandwidth.
In addition, the game is already produced. We bought the game for $90 including a controller [$50 without controller I think?], which included pressing the discs, making the packaging and shipping the product, plus the profit for the retailer. Yes, MS wants to make a profit, that's fine. But if RedOctane can make a profit setting 70 songs on physical media for $50 [that's 71.4 cents per song], I seriously doubt that the digital distribution network for XBL is any more expensive than discs, packaging and shipping. Sell the songs for $1 each, and MS would still be making 28 cents profit per track, and I'm willing to bet would sell a LOT more of them.
I might be able to see new, previously unrecorded/unpublished tracks going for $1.50 each, to cover the time/cost of making them. That's still twice what the original tracks cost for their first publishing. But $2.00 each for already existing tracks is just not acceptable.
A few people say that price point is reasonable. I have yet to see a valid argument for that statement.
Sorry, the 17 independent songs don't count. There are only 30 career mode tracks, which are the ones anyone would care about. If you bought all of these, it would be $62.50. Fine, a bit pricey but most people will only buy what they really like. They should bundle all 30 songs for 40-50 bucks, but it's not a big deal. I'll definitely buy maybe three or four packs (20 bucks worth) and be completely happy with it.
I just hope they release the upcoming 80s pack on 360 via downloadable content. The price point is perfect.
What makes you think the bonus songs don't count? Just because you've never heard them on the radio? Frankly some of the bonus GH1 songs are better than some of the career mode tracks. I love playing Cheat on the Church and The Breaking Wheel.
The main point still stands. The assumption is that eventually the bonus songs will also be released as DLC. The cost of the original GH1 game includes those bonus tracks, therefore there is no reason not to count them in cost calculations.
GH1 w/47 songs = $30-40 on Physical Media with packaging
GH1 47 DLC songs = $99 as a digital download [estimated: assuming consistent pricing with the current released packs]
Even if what you say is true, and you only consider the 30 career tracks, that's $63 to buy 30 songs digitally instead of $30-40 to buy 47 songs on physical media.
That's just not acceptable. It's bad enough the songs were released in three packs, with one good song that people will want, and 2 mediocre songs that people may or may not care about. They're not only gouging us on the cost of the songs, they're forcing us to buy one or two songs we don't even want.
How is this ok?
I picked up the Children of Men HD-DVD on the day it came out, and it played fine in my Xbox360.
:)
Thankfully! I'm usually the sap who gets stuck with the crap that doesn't work. Maybe I had some good Karma built up that I wasn't aware of.