Ever notice that movies have FBI warnings at the beginning? Those warnings are a big clue that we're not supposed to copy movies and send them around. TV lacks these warnings, though. We have no reason to believe that there's anything illegal about capturing a show with Replay, for example, and sending it over a network to another user. You'd think at the very least they'd explicitly deny that, but they don't. They don't deny *anything* with TV.
It is for this reason that I am extremely unhappy with the statement that the CEO Turner made about 'implied contracts'. It almost feels like entrapment. "We'll bombard ppl with commercials until they develop technology to circumvent them, then we'll sue them, then we can exercise even MORE power to cram more ads in there." Yah, I know that sounds ridiculous. I'm just expressing how this whole thing strikes me.
I don't think that they imply very well that they expect you to watch the ads. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the networks did create a bit of a problem for themselves.
TV is percieved as free. You go buy a TV, turn it on, and you'll have content all the sudden. There's very little indication that the ads are part of watching the show. For example, when you watch MST3k or DS9, the eps are designed around breaks every 15 minutes or so. You get the impression that it's an intermission, as opposed to getting the impression that you're watching the ads to support the network airing the show.
This gets more complicated when you pay $30 a month for cable TV. "I'm already paying for TV! Why do they expect me to pay *and* watch the ads? Screw them, I'm getting a Replay!"
This is why people don't have a guilty conscience about skipping the ads. Networks try to cram more commercials into a show without realizing that the extra annoyance is going to cause somebody to think "Hmm.. if I just tape this show, I can zip past the commercials".
The networks should have invested a little into educating their audience about what they do and don't allow. It wouldn't hurt to have a 30 second spot that says "These ads support this show...".
If there is an implied contract, you have to learn about how TV works before you can be aware of it. That doesn't sound so implied to me.
(Again, I'm not disagreeing with you Fulcrum, I'm disagreeing with the statement Turner made.)
If the case goes in their favor, then it grows increasingly hard for similar lawsuits against Replay (or anybody else) in the future. Replay would simply respond with "Well, a judge in this 2002 case already ruled that..."
I have a better question for you, what is a fast PCI slot? All the PCI slots I have are the same. I suppose you could mean a 64-bit PCI slot, heh that'd be overkill for a modem.
Dontcha think he meant a 'fast modem' in a PCI configuration? I haven't been able to find the reference you mentioned so I can't read the context.
On a side note: Would a 64-bit PCI slot be better suited for a Video Card than an AGP port? Just curious, I'm not very knowledgable of such things.
I noticed that AM goes out in tunnels, damn near brought it up heh.
So are you saying that the radio wave enters the tunnel and then bounces around? If so, that explanation is better than the 'radio passes through concrete' explanation I got a couple of posts ago.
Lol! I was rather surprised by how many +1's I got. I'm a little confused too. I got a huge negative response from people posting here, but I probably got +15 points or so. I'm not exaggerating. I'm really curiious what convinced the moderators to rate me up so quick. Personally, I think most of the points are bogus... oh well, it makes up for all the times I had unfair moderations heh.
I finally lost 2 points on this thread, so I'm at 48 now. Heh I love Slashdot math. 50 + 15 - 2 = 48.
I'm curious why you made that comment. Don't worry, I'm not assuming you're a dumb ass, I'm assuming you know more about it than I do and was hoping you could explain a little more clearly what you meant.:)
I'm not looking for moral credibility! People think I'm trying to be Robin Hood or some stupid shit like that, it's not like that at all.
I am looking for understanding. I'm sending a message to the MPAA:
"I want this service, and if you hadn't called me a criminal I'd be waiting for this service from you. Too bad your accusation is costing YOU money."
If you guys think I'm wrong, fine. The worst case scenario is that it causes the MPAA to provide a competitive service. Given the chance, I'd pay more for legal content. However, 'given the chance...' is the operative phrase here.
PSst... I think he means DivX the pay per view DVD player, not DivX;-) the video Codec. Heh
Personally, I think the D-VHS format could be mildly successful if it provides higher definition than DVD's. I have a concern that when I get HDTV my DVD's will look kind of soft when compared to the 1920 by 1024 format.
"You're an uncaring, greedy pirate who has delusions that you're Robin hood, when really you're just a spoiled brat, who wants everything the way you want it. Of course, anyone who doesn't immediately agree that yes, you should have everything exactly the way you want is your enemy. I feel sorry for your "friends"."
Oh grow up. I can't believe you resorted to name calling, heh.
This is fairly typical. There are early adopters who buy stuff like that. It works good for the companies who are just starting to sell those products.
Is it silly to pay that much? I guess that's a matter of perspective. I think it'd be cool to make $200,000 a year, but I have trouble imagining what all I'd spend that on heh.
I do believe that if this format takes off that they'll get to the $100 to $200 range before too long.;)
You really made my day, man. This whole thread has been a drain on my good mood. I don't mind when people disagree with me, but when they misunderstand me and then get hostile with me about it I get annoyed.
So you're okay with the DMCA then? How about the SSSCA?
I think it's funny that you'll blast me for supporting a business model. (No, I'm not supporting piracy, even though you're trying to twist my meanings to sound like I am.) Yet you seem to blindly support an industry that got the DMCA passed (our rights eroded away), along with the SSSCA (the rights to free-computing, gone.).
You want me to say that paying Film88.com $1 for a movie is illegal? Okay, paying Film88.com for a movie is illegal. Is it wrong? I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
I want you to understand, though, that my story'd be a bit different if the MPAA respected the internet as a delivery device. If the MPAA had a site that did was Film88.com does, but charged $3 for the movies, then I'd be mad as hell at Film88 for what they're doing.
You're trying to make it sound like I'm some uncaring pirate who thinks everything should be free. That's not the case at all. I simply want a legal service like Film88. When that happens, I'll support it. Until then, the only thing that was preventing me from using Film88 was respect for the movie industry. They lost that when they tried to pass the SSSCA.
I don't really care if you think that I'm a criminal or not. (To be clear, I have given no money to Film88.com. Like I'm giving my cc # to a server in Iran, heh.) If that's what the law says, fine! But I don't see how you'd expect anybody to support an industry that tried to take their rights away simply to support an outdated business model.
I am not the threat. YOU are the threat for blindly siding with the organization that supports our government by paying millions of dollars to senators in order to get their way.
"I'd like to have a car for under 1000 $, and as this isn't offered, I should be able to take my remote replicator (which doesn't hurt the replicated object.. in fact, the replicated object doesn't even notice) and copy yours."
*SNORT* damn dude I almost had to wipe Diet Coke off my screen after reading that, heh. Do you think the United Federation of Planets had to deal with that issue? Heh. (It might explain why there's no money in the 24th Century...)
Okay, there are huge privacy concerns at stake. I know that. I'm just curious what good could come from it. If that's the type of thing that can stop another 9/11 from happening, then it's possible I'd reluctantly approve of something like that.
Unfortunately, I don't see the immediate connection between logging ftp logs and stopping terrorism. If anything, I think the MPAA or the RIAA would have more to gain than the War on Terrorism.
So my question is, can anybody think of benfitis to this type of surveillance? I'm not looking for justification, just silver linings here and there.
Heck, I'd love to hunt down that guy who modded me down earlier. Heh.
Slashdot Mirror
"oh my god, shut the fuck up! "
LOL!! WTF is your problem!? You must be really riled up if you're going to hide behind an AC just to avoid being modded down.
Ever notice that movies have FBI warnings at the beginning? Those warnings are a big clue that we're not supposed to copy movies and send them around. TV lacks these warnings, though. We have no reason to believe that there's anything illegal about capturing a show with Replay, for example, and sending it over a network to another user. You'd think at the very least they'd explicitly deny that, but they don't. They don't deny *anything* with TV.
It is for this reason that I am extremely unhappy with the statement that the CEO Turner made about 'implied contracts'. It almost feels like entrapment. "We'll bombard ppl with commercials until they develop technology to circumvent them, then we'll sue them, then we can exercise even MORE power to cram more ads in there." Yah, I know that sounds ridiculous. I'm just expressing how this whole thing strikes me.
I don't think that they imply very well that they expect you to watch the ads. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that the networks did create a bit of a problem for themselves.
TV is percieved as free. You go buy a TV, turn it on, and you'll have content all the sudden. There's very little indication that the ads are part of watching the show. For example, when you watch MST3k or DS9, the eps are designed around breaks every 15 minutes or so. You get the impression that it's an intermission, as opposed to getting the impression that you're watching the ads to support the network airing the show.
This gets more complicated when you pay $30 a month for cable TV. "I'm already paying for TV! Why do they expect me to pay *and* watch the ads? Screw them, I'm getting a Replay!"
This is why people don't have a guilty conscience about skipping the ads. Networks try to cram more commercials into a show without realizing that the extra annoyance is going to cause somebody to think "Hmm.. if I just tape this show, I can zip past the commercials".
The networks should have invested a little into educating their audience about what they do and don't allow. It wouldn't hurt to have a 30 second spot that says "These ads support this show...".
If there is an implied contract, you have to learn about how TV works before you can be aware of it. That doesn't sound so implied to me.
(Again, I'm not disagreeing with you Fulcrum, I'm disagreeing with the statement Turner made.)
If the case goes in their favor, then it grows increasingly hard for similar lawsuits against Replay (or anybody else) in the future. Replay would simply respond with "Well, a judge in this 2002 case already ruled that..."
I have a better question for you, what is a fast PCI slot? All the PCI slots I have are the same. I suppose you could mean a 64-bit PCI slot, heh that'd be overkill for a modem.
Dontcha think he meant a 'fast modem' in a PCI configuration? I haven't been able to find the reference you mentioned so I can't read the context.
On a side note: Would a 64-bit PCI slot be better suited for a Video Card than an AGP port? Just curious, I'm not very knowledgable of such things.
I noticed that AM goes out in tunnels, damn near brought it up heh.
So are you saying that the radio wave enters the tunnel and then bounces around? If so, that explanation is better than the 'radio passes through concrete' explanation I got a couple of posts ago.
I hope that this clears up some confusion.
:)
Yes it does, thank you.
Lol! I was rather surprised by how many +1's I got. I'm a little confused too. I got a huge negative response from people posting here, but I probably got +15 points or so. I'm not exaggerating. I'm really curiious what convinced the moderators to rate me up so quick. Personally, I think most of the points are bogus... oh well, it makes up for all the times I had unfair moderations heh.
I finally lost 2 points on this thread, so I'm at 48 now. Heh I love Slashdot math. 50 + 15 - 2 = 48.
My FM radio works inside a tunnel...
:)
I'm curious why you made that comment. Don't worry, I'm not assuming you're a dumb ass, I'm assuming you know more about it than I do and was hoping you could explain a little more clearly what you meant.
"Hominids: The Neanderthal Parallax"
The only word I understood in that sentence is 'the'.
I'm not looking for moral credibility! People think I'm trying to be Robin Hood or some stupid shit like that, it's not like that at all.
I am looking for understanding. I'm sending a message to the MPAA:
"I want this service, and if you hadn't called me a criminal I'd be waiting for this service from you. Too bad your accusation is costing YOU money."
If you guys think I'm wrong, fine. The worst case scenario is that it causes the MPAA to provide a competitive service. Given the chance, I'd pay more for legal content. However, 'given the chance...' is the operative phrase here.
And no, video games do not improve hand-eye coordination. "
*BZZZZT* Wrong!
Games have greatly improved my mouse speed and accuracy. At the office, this has greatly improved my productivity in both Photoshop and Lightwave.
"i'd really like a Boxster, but i think Porsche charges too much for one..."
If I had said 'movies cost too much!', that'd be a relevant response. Oh well.
PSst... I think he means DivX the pay per view DVD player, not DivX ;-) the video Codec. Heh
Personally, I think the D-VHS format could be mildly successful if it provides higher definition than DVD's. I have a concern that when I get HDTV my DVD's will look kind of soft when compared to the 1920 by 1024 format.
"You're an uncaring, greedy pirate who has delusions that you're Robin hood, when really you're just a spoiled brat, who wants everything the way you want it. Of course, anyone who doesn't immediately agree that yes, you should have everything exactly the way you want is your enemy. I feel sorry for your "friends"."
Oh grow up. I can't believe you resorted to name calling, heh.
O_O!
:))
Man, if they had said that on the brochure that I half read (Heh yah i know... im lazy), I woulda started ages ago!
Dude, thanks!
*looking now*
"You're not supporting a "business model." You're supporting piracy because its cheaper for you"
Actually, Morpheus/Kazaa/P2P is the cheapest, plus I get to keep the video.
This is fairly typical. There are early adopters who buy stuff like that. It works good for the companies who are just starting to sell those products.
;)
Is it silly to pay that much? I guess that's a matter of perspective. I think it'd be cool to make $200,000 a year, but I have trouble imagining what all I'd spend that on heh.
I do believe that if this format takes off that they'll get to the $100 to $200 range before too long.
Is it hard to ship the DVD's around? Do you have to get a special box or anything?
That was my big concern...
You really made my day, man. This whole thread has been a drain on my good mood. I don't mind when people disagree with me, but when they misunderstand me and then get hostile with me about it I get annoyed.
:)
Thanks for the note, it's much appeciated...
So you're okay with the DMCA then? How about the SSSCA?
I think it's funny that you'll blast me for supporting a business model. (No, I'm not supporting piracy, even though you're trying to twist my meanings to sound like I am.) Yet you seem to blindly support an industry that got the DMCA passed (our rights eroded away), along with the SSSCA (the rights to free-computing, gone.).
You want me to say that paying Film88.com $1 for a movie is illegal? Okay, paying Film88.com for a movie is illegal. Is it wrong? I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
I want you to understand, though, that my story'd be a bit different if the MPAA respected the internet as a delivery device. If the MPAA had a site that did was Film88.com does, but charged $3 for the movies, then I'd be mad as hell at Film88 for what they're doing.
You're trying to make it sound like I'm some uncaring pirate who thinks everything should be free. That's not the case at all. I simply want a legal service like Film88. When that happens, I'll support it. Until then, the only thing that was preventing me from using Film88 was respect for the movie industry. They lost that when they tried to pass the SSSCA.
I don't really care if you think that I'm a criminal or not. (To be clear, I have given no money to Film88.com. Like I'm giving my cc # to a server in Iran, heh.) If that's what the law says, fine! But I don't see how you'd expect anybody to support an industry that tried to take their rights away simply to support an outdated business model.
I am not the threat. YOU are the threat for blindly siding with the organization that supports our government by paying millions of dollars to senators in order to get their way.
hahah!! That was great!! Good one! :)
"I'd like to have a car for under 1000 $, and as this isn't offered, I should be able to take my remote replicator (which doesn't hurt the replicated object.. in fact, the replicated object doesn't even notice) and copy yours."
*SNORT* damn dude I almost had to wipe Diet Coke off my screen after reading that, heh. Do you think the United Federation of Planets had to deal with that issue? Heh. (It might explain why there's no money in the 24th Century...)
"only one I can think of - getting ahold of spammers identities. Be nice if that info was made public."
ooooooooooooo!
Wish I had mod points! heh
Okay, there are huge privacy concerns at stake. I know that. I'm just curious what good could come from it. If that's the type of thing that can stop another 9/11 from happening, then it's possible I'd reluctantly approve of something like that.
Unfortunately, I don't see the immediate connection between logging ftp logs and stopping terrorism. If anything, I think the MPAA or the RIAA would have more to gain than the War on Terrorism.
So my question is, can anybody think of benfitis to this type of surveillance? I'm not looking for justification, just silver linings here and there.
Heck, I'd love to hunt down that guy who modded me down earlier. Heh.