I've heard that for some stores, late fees are a larger revenue stream than the rentals themselves!
Obviously, we need more competition on the order of NetFlix.:)
Occurs to me that a simple way of dealing with home copying from rentals is to have "easy to copy" (rents for a buck or two more, and any DVD copier can have their way with it) and "hard to copy" (rents at the everyday low price; discourages everyone but the hardcores from copying it). At a buck or two plus 50 cents for DVD media, NO movie is worth the extra time or effort to scrounge and test a download, and under this scheme Big Media has effectively made a sale at zero cost to themselves.
But I wouldn't be surprised for such to become law at some point, given how the DMCA's penalty section lets an infringed author sue for all *possible* damages (that is, however many readers COULD have seen their work, as contrasted to how many actually DID).
Replacement policies doubtless differ from one library system to the next. Hell, interlibrary loan policies are so different from one system to the next that you don't even recognise it. (I've seen one -- firsthand -- that required that you BUY the book AND pay shipping, I shit you not. Why bother?!)
I'd heard Blockbuster's "new policy" ad blitz, but all it says is "no late fees". Sounds like they've managed to negotiate their way out of paying the "public performance fee", perhaps inherent to this new policy of making outright sales. Anyway, sounds like progress, of a sort.
"..the library paid a special price to be allowed to rent it out to people"
"No they didn't. They simply bought the video cassette."
I'm not sure about regulations wrt libraries, but I DO know that 1) our local library warns people that replacement cost for lost items will NOT be as low as one would expect per consumer prices; and 2) movie *rental* outfits have to pay a premium price because these are considered "copies intended for public performance" or some such nonsense (because many people will see it, not just one purchaser). Which is why if you lose one that belongs to Blockbuster Video, you'll get billed $100 or so, not the $20 you and I can buy the same thing for at any WalMart.
For every artist who makes it big, there are hundreds who don't even get their costs back.
The only real reason for the RIAA trying to kill P2P is to prevent independent artists and producers from being able to distribute their own music, at no significant cost, and without requiring the RIAA cartel.
Occurs to me that wireless networks could be used sortof like the old FidoNET system, where echomail was transferred from one dialup BBS to the next via whatever hops could be managed with only a local phone call. Since most sysops were in more than one local calling area, mail eventually propagated far and wide -- one system at a time.
Since wireless access also overlaps... you see the point, I'm sure.
Occurs to me that once the horror of Trusted Computing is complete, the notion of subpoenas related to online activity may become superfluous. Your guilt will be logged and a suitable fine will be automagically levied (perhaps billed via your ISP), sortof like those meatspace cameras that send you traffic tickets.
I agree with you -- proper planning, from overview to details, is the way to keep such projects running smoothly. Or as the old saying goes, "Bug free, cheap, on time, works. Pick two."
But here in California, I see a lot of building projects, both public and private, that evidently failed to plan, or perhaps more accurately, planned to fail. One has to wonder how else cost overruns get so out of hand without a certain amount of, well, planning to do so:/
My sister is a senior architect for a firm that handles massive development projects. And yes, my observation is that it's when you get management and/or customer behaviour like we see in fizzled software projects, that these "hardware" (construction) projects go over time, over budget, out of spec, or just plain... fizzle.
Thus it is with any industries that handle any sort of complex project, where creators, sales droids, purchasing managers, end users, gov't regs, and whoever or whatever else can all introduce problems that interfere with the workflow.
Hey, you'd really enjoy having our dollar theatre right next to the best restaurant in town:)
I think Cinemark is using it as a sort of overflow area for movies that are past their first flush, since most aren't all that old.
But yeah, most places those dollar theatres seem to be a thing of the past. Which is a shame -- they were a good place for kids to go on a weekend afternoon, never mind for a cheap date:)
I remember seeing Sleeping Beauty for a nickel when I was a kid. Ah, inflation!:(
That's actually a damned good idea. And while "special theatre edition" sounds cool, I think you'd get more sales and more profit if the price was lower and caught more buyers, without them having to think too much about it. A naked DVD for ten bucks requires no thought, just impulse.
I know there are a lot of times I would have bought a DVD on the spot if it were available for $10 or so on my way out of the theatre. Hell, it doesn't even need a human attendant, just a vending machine (preferably that can take credit cards or cash, a la gas pumps).
Why only $10? to hit a maximum "Gee, it only costs that much? Good deal!" impulse-buying point that will catch not only those still hot to trot, but also people who otherwise would vacillate on the purchase and maybe shine it on as "too much to spend after I just dropped $30 in the theatre".
And remember at this point there is ZERO overhead for advertising the DVD, purchase of retail store shelf space, etc.; and considering that DVDs could be shipped along with other materials needed by theatres, warehousing and distribution costs could also be minimized.
Of course, the retail stores that sell DVDs would scream, but that's where the "special edition" DVDs (with outtakes, posters, and whatnot included) could continue what is already a good solid market.
Conversely, the Cinemark theatres here are pretty nice. We have two fairly handy to me.
The "new" Cinemark is about 4 years old, has 22 (or more) screens, mostly with fairly small audience capacity, and nice comfy seats. It plays first-run films at full price (about $9). Snacks cost the usual arm and a leg. There is no neighbourhood, other than the single-A baseball stadium across the street.
The other Cinemark is old (and could stand having some seats reupholstered, but otherwise nice and comfy enough), with 12 screens (also of more "intimate" capacity), gets last month's movies (so far the ones I've seen have been in perfect condition), and costs $1.00 to $1.50 per seat. Snacks are somewhat less expensive, tho in the manner of all cinema fodder, hardly cheap. It's right next to the Black Angus, #1 rated restaurant in town... nothing "bad" about that neighbourhood!
They are only half a mile apart, and both about equally busy.
I don't know what Cinemark's policy is on theatre quality or anything else, but point was that they have some highly disparate facilities even in a single small area.
"under that dirty little loincloth of his, Gollum probably doesn't have much of his manhood left, having shrivelled up and dried off after centuries of disuse."
Damn, I didn't realise Gollum was a Slashdotter...
Try OffByOne (offbyone.com, I think) -- a reasonably full-featured Win32 browser that fits on a floppy and has miminal sysreqs beyond that. It has its annoyances too (chief among them the lack of an address bar) but it's fast, stable, does all the usual stuff one needs, and consists of a single self-contained file of just over a meg. (Minor additions needed for special functions, but you can live without it.)
Me neither. I thought tabbed browsing sounded good til I tried it, but it was just annoying -- like yourself, I find ALT-TAB faster and more efficient (and I think 20 browser windows at a time is "normal").
That aside, I found Firefox's relative dearth of options and general behaviour/layout too annoying. I don't like Moz as it is (I use it only when my beloved old NS3 doesn't work, which isn't often), but I hated Firefox. Oh well...
How does Lynx render it? When I tried Google Suggest with my preferred ancient NS3 and javascript disabled, it still worked -- by producing a static text list of results identical to the dropdown list. To refine the search, one need merely pick one of said results, copy and paste it into a new Google Suggest search, rinse and repeat til you get where you want to be.
GMail, OTOH, is completely unusable without the lastest and greatest. Supposedly a "pure HTML interface for all browsers" is in the works, but I'll believe it when I see it. (Especially since the redesigned plain Google is broken for some browsers, due to tables that wind up "overlapping", and no amount of bug-documentation has yet changed that.)
As I mention above, try it with javascript disabled. IT STILL WORKS -- still coughs up the exact same suggestion list, even tho it displays them as static text. So if you don't mind a little back-and-forth with the server as you refine your initial search in light of the suggested results, you can use it even with the most braindead browser.
Try Google Suggest with javascript disabled. It still works, in that it gives you a text list of the proposed initial results, albeit in static form. Even so, it's good enough for "suggestions of similar terms to search for".
(Actually, I vehemently dislike autocomplete in every form I've ever seen it, including this one, and don't use it if I can avoid it. But Google Suggest was still interesting to look at, as a technical gadget.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard that for some stores, late fees are a larger revenue stream than the rentals themselves!
:)
Obviously, we need more competition on the order of NetFlix.
Occurs to me that a simple way of dealing with home copying from rentals is to have "easy to copy" (rents for a buck or two more, and any DVD copier can have their way with it) and "hard to copy" (rents at the everyday low price; discourages everyone but the hardcores from copying it). At a buck or two plus 50 cents for DVD media, NO movie is worth the extra time or effort to scrounge and test a download, and under this scheme Big Media has effectively made a sale at zero cost to themselves.
Not under copyright law, no.
But I wouldn't be surprised for such to become law at some point, given how the DMCA's penalty section lets an infringed author sue for all *possible* damages (that is, however many readers COULD have seen their work, as contrasted to how many actually DID).
Replacement policies doubtless differ from one library system to the next. Hell, interlibrary loan policies are so different from one system to the next that you don't even recognise it. (I've seen one -- firsthand -- that required that you BUY the book AND pay shipping, I shit you not. Why bother?!)
I'd heard Blockbuster's "new policy" ad blitz, but all it says is "no late fees". Sounds like they've managed to negotiate their way out of paying the "public performance fee", perhaps inherent to this new policy of making outright sales. Anyway, sounds like progress, of a sort.
Which made me wonder ... *could* one patent a strain of a plant that is illegal to cultivate in the U.S. ??
There's a legal parallel there somewhere...
Comment chain:
"..the library paid a special price to be allowed to rent it out to people"
"No they didn't. They simply bought the video cassette."
I'm not sure about regulations wrt libraries, but I DO know that 1) our local library warns people that replacement cost for lost items will NOT be as low as one would expect per consumer prices; and 2) movie *rental* outfits have to pay a premium price because these are considered "copies intended for public performance" or some such nonsense (because many people will see it, not just one purchaser). Which is why if you lose one that belongs to Blockbuster Video, you'll get billed $100 or so, not the $20 you and I can buy the same thing for at any WalMart.
Actually, with the RIAA out of the way, it would be a lot *easier* for artists to make a living: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
For every artist who makes it big, there are hundreds who don't even get their costs back.
The only real reason for the RIAA trying to kill P2P is to prevent independent artists and producers from being able to distribute their own music, at no significant cost, and without requiring the RIAA cartel.
*I* noticed .... and was inspired to check my own posting history. Gods know what sort of pervert I've been while I wasn't looking! :)
Occurs to me that wireless networks could be used sortof like the old FidoNET system, where echomail was transferred from one dialup BBS to the next via whatever hops could be managed with only a local phone call. Since most sysops were in more than one local calling area, mail eventually propagated far and wide -- one system at a time.
Since wireless access also overlaps... you see the point, I'm sure.
Occurs to me that once the horror of Trusted Computing is complete, the notion of subpoenas related to online activity may become superfluous. Your guilt will be logged and a suitable fine will be automagically levied (perhaps billed via your ISP), sortof like those meatspace cameras that send you traffic tickets.
I foresee ANY use of broadband being flagged as "probable cause" :(
I agree with you -- proper planning, from overview to details, is the way to keep such projects running smoothly. Or as the old saying goes, "Bug free, cheap, on time, works. Pick two."
:/
But here in California, I see a lot of building projects, both public and private, that evidently failed to plan, or perhaps more accurately, planned to fail. One has to wonder how else cost overruns get so out of hand without a certain amount of, well, planning to do so
My sister is a senior architect for a firm that handles massive development projects. And yes, my observation is that it's when you get management and/or customer behaviour like we see in fizzled software projects, that these "hardware" (construction) projects go over time, over budget, out of spec, or just plain ... fizzle.
Thus it is with any industries that handle any sort of complex project, where creators, sales droids, purchasing managers, end users, gov't regs, and whoever or whatever else can all introduce problems that interfere with the workflow.
Hey, you'd really enjoy having our dollar theatre right next to the best restaurant in town :)
:)
:(
I think Cinemark is using it as a sort of overflow area for movies that are past their first flush, since most aren't all that old.
But yeah, most places those dollar theatres seem to be a thing of the past. Which is a shame -- they were a good place for kids to go on a weekend afternoon, never mind for a cheap date
I remember seeing Sleeping Beauty for a nickel when I was a kid. Ah, inflation!
That's actually a damned good idea. And while "special theatre edition" sounds cool, I think you'd get more sales and more profit if the price was lower and caught more buyers, without them having to think too much about it. A naked DVD for ten bucks requires no thought, just impulse.
I know there are a lot of times I would have bought a DVD on the spot if it were available for $10 or so on my way out of the theatre. Hell, it doesn't even need a human attendant, just a vending machine (preferably that can take credit cards or cash, a la gas pumps).
Why only $10? to hit a maximum "Gee, it only costs that much? Good deal!" impulse-buying point that will catch not only those still hot to trot, but also people who otherwise would vacillate on the purchase and maybe shine it on as "too much to spend after I just dropped $30 in the theatre".
And remember at this point there is ZERO overhead for advertising the DVD, purchase of retail store shelf space, etc.; and considering that DVDs could be shipped along with other materials needed by theatres, warehousing and distribution costs could also be minimized.
Of course, the retail stores that sell DVDs would scream, but that's where the "special edition" DVDs (with outtakes, posters, and whatnot included) could continue what is already a good solid market.
Conversely, the Cinemark theatres here are pretty nice. We have two fairly handy to me.
The "new" Cinemark is about 4 years old, has 22 (or more) screens, mostly with fairly small audience capacity, and nice comfy seats. It plays first-run films at full price (about $9). Snacks cost the usual arm and a leg. There is no neighbourhood, other than the single-A baseball stadium across the street.
The other Cinemark is old (and could stand having some seats reupholstered, but otherwise nice and comfy enough), with 12 screens (also of more "intimate" capacity), gets last month's movies (so far the ones I've seen have been in perfect condition), and costs $1.00 to $1.50 per seat. Snacks are somewhat less expensive, tho in the manner of all cinema fodder, hardly cheap. It's right next to the Black Angus, #1 rated restaurant in town... nothing "bad" about that neighbourhood!
They are only half a mile apart, and both about equally busy.
I don't know what Cinemark's policy is on theatre quality or anything else, but point was that they have some highly disparate facilities even in a single small area.
Kinda makes you wonder about Tolkein's/Jackson's minds, eh? ;)
"under that dirty little loincloth of his, Gollum probably doesn't have much of his manhood left, having shrivelled up and dried off after centuries of disuse."
Damn, I didn't realise Gollum was a Slashdotter...
How about a recorder having user-settable FPS? that way you could sync it with any weird framerate they cared to try.
Try OffByOne (offbyone.com, I think) -- a reasonably full-featured Win32 browser that fits on a floppy and has miminal sysreqs beyond that. It has its annoyances too (chief among them the lack of an address bar) but it's fast, stable, does all the usual stuff one needs, and consists of a single self-contained file of just over a meg. (Minor additions needed for special functions, but you can live without it.)
Me neither. I thought tabbed browsing sounded good til I tried it, but it was just annoying -- like yourself, I find ALT-TAB faster and more efficient (and I think 20 browser windows at a time is "normal").
That aside, I found Firefox's relative dearth of options and general behaviour/layout too annoying. I don't like Moz as it is (I use it only when my beloved old NS3 doesn't work, which isn't often), but I hated Firefox. Oh well...
It might not be just you or just the linux build. I vaguely recall 0.7 hung on my Win98 box when I tried to save a page with it.
How does Lynx render it? When I tried Google Suggest with my preferred ancient NS3 and javascript disabled, it still worked -- by producing a static text list of results identical to the dropdown list. To refine the search, one need merely pick one of said results, copy and paste it into a new Google Suggest search, rinse and repeat til you get where you want to be.
GMail, OTOH, is completely unusable without the lastest and greatest. Supposedly a "pure HTML interface for all browsers" is in the works, but I'll believe it when I see it. (Especially since the redesigned plain Google is broken for some browsers, due to tables that wind up "overlapping", and no amount of bug-documentation has yet changed that.)
Too late!! -- Dr. Charles Forbin
As I mention above, try it with javascript disabled. IT STILL WORKS -- still coughs up the exact same suggestion list, even tho it displays them as static text. So if you don't mind a little back-and-forth with the server as you refine your initial search in light of the suggested results, you can use it even with the most braindead browser.
(Actually, I prefer it that way...)
Try Google Suggest with javascript disabled. It still works, in that it gives you a text list of the proposed initial results, albeit in static form. Even so, it's good enough for "suggestions of similar terms to search for".
(Actually, I vehemently dislike autocomplete in every form I've ever seen it, including this one, and don't use it if I can avoid it. But Google Suggest was still interesting to look at, as a technical gadget.)