I'd like to see some usage statistics on Morpheus. I'd be willing to bet that most people look for specific songs, not whole albums. If I'm right, then the RIAA's case weakens.
They claim that 'Napster like downloading of music' is hurting their sales. I think what's really happening, in most cases, that people are downloading songs that they're interested in, particularly the older ones. I got to peak in a couple of people's MP3 lockers from way back when, and most of their songs were made at least 2 years ago, and date all the way back to the Beatles. I realize this isn't a very accurate slice of the world, but think about it, how many people do you think are saying "Hmm... I wonder what Pink Floyd is like?" and going and finding out? What are they supposed to do? Go to the store and try to find these albums? That's fine and dandy, but you don't know what you're buying there. Why pay $10-$15 for a CD when you only want one song?
In any case, if somebody downloads a song, buying a CD still has value. Why? Because there are usually 10 or so more songs on it to listen to. What the person has actually downloaded is a teaser to go get the CD. In which case, it's even more valuable to the RIAA because if the user likes the song, they have more reason to go buy the album. If they don't buy the album, then it's likely that the content wasn't enticing enough. That's not the RIAA's fault.
Part of me can't help but wonder if the RIAA is trying to protect themselves against sales lost due to customers really know what's on the CD. *Shrug*
"But they can go download the rest of the album, if they like it!" -- this is what a RIAA rep would say in a Milhouse kind of voice. I think you can search for albums on the net. Who knows, maybe in the future Morpheus will get so good that all music is available. Until then, in the time it'd take me to get the album (i.e. searching for it, trying to find sources that are reliable, etc), I could have gone to the store and gotten it.
If the day comes where entire albums are up for instant download on Morpheus, then the RIAA has lost their own battle. Today they could provide a means for people to legitimately buy individual songs in MP3 (or equiv) format. If they did that, then I could download any song I wanted from a fast server without having all the headaches of a p2p network. Every day they don't do that, more and more people wouldn't try it if it did materialize.
In short, the RIAA's losses are their own fault. People want individual songs but can't get them legally without overpaying for them. File sharing is a result of a new market trend. A competent organization'd say "How can we make money here?" instead of fighting it like a bunch of spoiled babies.
Don't you find it odd that 20% of these people filled out a survey saying "I downloaded free music from the net."? Most of these people know it's illegal. I have a hard time imagining they'd fill out that survey.
In any case, I bet the survey's question was more like "Have you ever downloaded music?", "Did you pay for that download?". And then, I think the RIAA said "every time somebody downloads a song, they don't buy a CD."
This sounds like baloney to me. The reason I'm not buying CD's today is that I'm boycotting the RIAA. I suppose they could blame that on Napster, i.e. suing Napster and not providing a solution to fill consumer's desires.
I don't think we have to worry too much about this. (Altho don't mistake that comment as 'we don't need to defend ourselves.')
a.) It's unconstitutional. The Gov't is happy to step in and cap prices, but they rarely go for the idea of regulating behaviour.
b.) The people heading this up are asking for measures that are too extreme. This is usually an indication that they have something sneaky going down they're trying to create a loophole for.
c.) Also, the people heading this up are in the position of 'we are a huge corporation who wants to milk more money out of the consumer.'
d.) I seriously doubt that the people backing this up can show they've suffered any serious damage due to piracy. They can't really. They don't even transmit stuff online.
e.) The spirit of copyright is to protect people's works so that they are rewarded to keep creating. The problem is that if they take away abilities to create, then they are working against copyright. If the MPAA and RIAA have their ways, I won't be allowed to be 'inspired' by content. I think if a judge understands this, he or she won't allow this particular form of legislation to take place.
I haven't heard any arguments from these guys that don't sound incredibly extreme. It could be likened to gun control. We all know that guns are primarily used to kill people. (Please please PLEASE don't send me stupid comments about rare circumstances where they can be used for turning off the TV or for shutting up noisy neighbors. I hate when people here nitpick details instead of ideas.) Yet, nobody's been successful at making the acquisition guns illegal. This is probably because the USA refuses to take away one's right to defend themselves. It's for this reason that I don't think this heavy-handed proposal will go through.
Personally, I think the MPAA should just accept that some people are going to make content available. If somebody seeks that content instead of the legitimate ways of obtaining it (which, btw, is difficult today since the MPAA doesn't make it available..GRRR), then somebody will provide a means for it. Instead of fighting it, provide better service. Making it a challenge for people to obtain pirated copies is going to increase piracy.
'A representative for the Walt Disney Company declined to comment for this article. But in September, a Disney lobbyist defended Hollings' draft SSSCA as "an exceedingly moderate and reasonable approach." '
With the exception of posting to Slashdot, how can something be 'exceedingly moderated'?
That's certainly a possibility. But you know what? That just opens the door for somebody new to sweep in and pull the rug out from under them.
I really wish a new alliance would form that works sort of like the RIAA (i.e. gathering talent and marketing it), but then targets all media such as MP3 or Internet or.. well who knows what'll pop up?
The more the RIAA tries to fight the internet-ization (i know that isn't a word:P~~)of music, the more a need is created for somebody to come along and do it for a profit.
In a way, I hope the Industry does try to get too greedy. It'll jumpstart the imminent Internet Media Revolution.
Umm ok. I don't mind video on demand because I'm paying for a one time use of viewing, like I would for renting. The added benefit is that I don't have to be responsible for physical media in the process. Buying a DVD and renting a movie (at Blockbuster or with VoD) is not the same thing. For starters, the price is very different. If I pay $20 for a DVD, I'm paying for the rights to take it home and watch it whenever I want. As part of those rights, I should have the right to fair use of it.
Most of the DVD purchases I made were for the explicit purpose of getting inspiration. I didn't buy Lost in Space because it has a steller plot (ha!) but it does have a totally bitchin style to it that I love to examine. If the MPAA says "you cannot take screengrabs", for example, then the DVD's no longer have value to me. Even moreso, I lose some of my toolset for improving my skills.
Your comment about VoD is incongruent, and pretty lame really. I support the MPAA in producing movies using talents I hope to develop some day. But if they start to shift towards restricting it, then they can forget about me willingly going along for it.
I do intent do speak with my wallet. I will not buy a computer with copy restrictions on it. As a side effect, I won't be able to speak with my skills. If they stall my ability to grow by limiting what I can do with content, then they also stall my ability to work for them.
If you're challenging to not by a copy restricted computer, you're going to lose.
I won't buy a PC with copy restriction 'features'. Hear that, industry? I refuse to support freedoms being taken away. This world will be a sad, sad place if content is so tightly controlled.
I am a 3D Artist. Most of the learning I did was at home. I started with replicating scenes from Star Trek. Now let me explain something about myself, I'm not a foley artist, nor am I a musician. So I had to find some sound effects to accompany my animations, along with a sound track. This means I had to go purchase both a soundtrack from one of the ST movies, and an ST game with sound files in the appropriate format. (in otherwords, they were paid.) If the Music Industry or the MPAA decided to target me, they could still harass me with the DMCA. The only thing protecting me is the huge PR issue that'd ensue.
Today I'm moving into Character Animation. But in order to solidify my skills, I need reference footage. One of the ideas I had was to rip a Jackie Chan DVD and convert clips of it into an.AVI. Then I'd have it in the background as I'm manipulating a character I created to get a feel for how Mr. Chan moves. In other words, I have educational reasons for wanting to use a DVD rip.
When I finally assemble a demo reel to get a job with, I'm likely going to add a song for the sound track. Now I respect the artists out there making music, but I'm not paying a license fee for a limited use Demo Reel intended to get me a job. Just as I wouldn't expect them to pay me if they used their music with my artwork to get a record deal.
If I were to purchase a 'Copy Restricted PC', then the hardware would fight with me over the content I'm trying to use. This is *not* good. This would be a serious blow in my ability to learn how to work for the same industry that's responsible for that 'feature' going in. I have a feeling that if this idiot has his way, one of the casualties would be the talent pool that suddenly has nothing to start with. How about guys that do remixes of songs we listen to today? I've heard some incredible remixes out there. I really think there are people who have done some of these remixes who really should get hired by a music company somewhere, becuase man they are talented.
They didn't make the song, somebody else did, but they spun it in a new way that's really cool. I didn't like that song 'Torn' by Natalie Imbruglia (sp?), but I stumbled across a remix of it that really made me enjoy it. Whoever did that mix is seriously an awesomely talented person. If they were prevented from using that song, then what would they sharpen their skills on? You can't go learn how to remix in college. You can't learn how to be a talented effects animator for a movie studio from college.
So if you take my fair use rights away just because you think you're losing money to piracy, then you're also drying up your talent pool and you'll have a drought on content.
I wonder if they're expecting to suddenly gain 3 billion a year if this goes into place. They're basing sales losses on Napster without even thinking about the other conditions going on out there. The content sucked this year, the economy stinks (altho I suppose Intel and AMD having slow quarters could be linked to piracy of processors on Napster...), and the Sept 11th attacks have made people happier to stay home then go out. Perhaps the real problem is that the RIAA isn't making their content available to purchase online.
Did this guy state anything besides the obvious?
on
HTTP's Days Numbered
·
· Score: 2
I've read this article twice, and I'm still not getting anything other than some obvious remarks. The worst part is that he's not offering much of a solution either. "Well, the big guys have some ideas about it..."
Oooooooookay.
So HTTP isn't sufficient for a client and a the server to have intimate discussions. We know that. So P2P can't really work on HTTP. DUH we know that. So does he have a magical, better protocol?
If he's saying that web-browsers should have more robust protocol support, that's fine. I just think he could have made that point a little clearer. Let's say that was what he was saying... doesn't that propose a problem? One really nice advantage to HTTP is that's well developed and about anything can be made to talk to it. But what if another protocol comes around? What if that one protocol turns into 2 protocols? What if it turns into 10 or even 100? This will start over a brand new browser race, and I *reallY* don't want that. Just when the net starts to get settled on standards, they wanna turn it upside down just to implement a protocol they think is necessary.
I dunno... I wish this guy had provided more of a description of what he thinks would be appropriate, rather than saying "There's a problem!! There's a problem!! Fix it!! And give me fame for pointing it out."
I like to watch TV, but frankly it's not worth jumping through lots of hoops to do. Television content doesn't have enough brains put into it to really be worth all this encryption bs. If a show I want to watch is on a crummy timeslot, and I'm not allowed to record it, that's the Telelvision Industry shooting themselves in the foot. They are better off making it easier and easier for people to watch when they can, instead of trying to limit it. It's bad enough I have to be at my job by a certain time, it's bad enough I have to be at the doctor's by a certain time, being in front of my television at a certain time is not the type of shackles I want to place on myself.
Sorry TV Industry, you need better content before you can convince me I need to be punctual.
I think it'd be fun to play with a physics simulator of sorts, but to be honest, I'd rather have a tool where I can change or even invent my own laws of physics. Take Yosemite Sam for a moment: somehow he can survive a shotgun blast in the butt. In reality, his butt'd be missing a few important pieces, but in Toon Town, the unexpected happens.
Physics are.. well.. expected. If I could change the rules around a bit, I could create fun yet silly little movies. Remember that Far Side cartoon where a black hole suddenly formed in that guy's apartment, and everything started getting sucked into it? Heh I could animate that! Let me tweak the physics a bit, and I could really have some fun with it!
IK is not phyics. You can't create a 'stunt' with IK without manually adding your own details to every little thing that happens.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you know about features of Softimage, but you have trouble understanding how useful a 'real world physics simulator' would be. I have trouble beliving an animator would ever say 'what's the big deal?' to this type of goal.
I would love to animate a crash landing in Lightwave where instead of keyframing every little thing, instead I set up a bunch of interesting areas to be affected by the crash. I'd like the results to surprise me instead of having to meticulously plan out every little thing that has to happen. I think that's what they mean by the stunt metaphor.
Here's another example, what if a character opened a door and it caused the curtains in front of a window to billow for a moment as the pressure changed. To do that today, you'd have to animate the character opening the door, and *then* set up a totally seperate effect wher you place a 'wind generator' behind the curtain and tell it 'blow briefly for about a second on the same keyframe that the door opens.' The curtain would be a seperate object, and the 'wind' physics would only affect it. Nothing else in the room (unless specified) would react either. So a plant sitting on the dresser might sit unnecessarily still.
It's that type of subtle interaction that it may not occur to an animator to create. Every little physical response like this in the 3D world adds a new layer of believability to the viewer. This makes animation more immersive, and more rewarding to do because the user gets sucked into the world that the animator has created.
Try turning on your imagination a little bit and you might just find what the big deal is, instead of saying 'I already have that if I just jump through a few dozen extra hoops.' It's an attitude I've seen aspiring animators have over the years, but it takes them a while to discover that saying "so what?" is also saying "I don't feel like growing today."
Hey he's right! I saw an episode of Beavis and Butthead once and Butthead threw a pair of dice and they landed without even bouncing once! Ever since that day, animation never reached a higher respect of physics!
Sarcasm aside, the movie industry cares very much about physics. They may exaggerate them from time to time (like the jumping bus, heh), but they pay very careful attention to it when they are doing animated movies. Take Snow White, for example, they had a scene with lots of people dancing in it. They actually filmed a bunch of dancers and rotoscoped them, using their motions to make the characters move in the movie. The result? A surprising level of realism in that scene.
Hollywood cares more about physics than your limited over-simplification indicates.
Err not really. Maya has simulators for very specific circumstances. Every time a movie studio needs to come up with a new solution, something new has to be written in order to get the computer to do it. I think what this article is talking about is setting up a simulation so dynamic that nearly anything can be simulated, that's yet to be done today. The technology used to make a ball bounce is not the same technology used to make a skirt cling to Aki's body.
Heh, it is nice to have a civil discussion, isn't it?
I vaguely remember reading about the HAM technique you mentioned. I think SNES used a similar technique in Killer Instinct, too, where it displayed 512 instead of 256 colors. Unfortunately, I think I got that bit of info from Electronic Gaming Monthly, so consider the source if you know what I mean.
Regarding the sound on the SNES, my comment about the sound being superior comes from having a rather sensitive ear. The SNES definitely had a better range of capabilities than the Genesis did. Take, for example, in Super Mario World whenever Mario was in a cave. Everything would echo inside the cave. Final Fantasy 3 had what sounded like a chorus chanting/singing, that was pretty cool. Voices in Mortal Kombat sounded pretty good on the SNES, but on the Genesis they sounded like they had laryngitis (sp?). The Genesis always sounded like midi to me. I think I remember reading that the SNES had a really cool Yamaha sound chip in it, but I don't have much more info than that.
I think most people would agree that the SNES consistently had better sound than the Genesis. I'm not talking about music here, I'm talking about sound in general. Heh, I really did like the music in the first Sonic game.
"I've hinted at the Genesis' origins many times (closely related to Amiga) which could display 4096 colors. If you take the time to research the hardware you'll find it's very, very similar to the Ami. I think it had a 4096 color palette but could only display 256 at once, correct me if I'm wrong. So yeah, they should've made a pass-thru for video, but it was a hardware hack, so maybe it got skipped."
Ok, I'll correct you. The Genesis could only put 64 different colors on screen at a time. It's palette is 512 colors. I've heard that it had a graphics mode where you could do 16/4096, not sure I've ever seen it tho. It's pretty obvious when you play Sonic the Hedgehog, and when the screen fades from white to black, it hits some blue on the way.
The Super NES had a color palette of 256/32768 colors, and most games made really good use of that pallete. That's one of the reasons the SNES's graphics were so much nicer. Donkey Kong Country in particular made excellent use of the SNES's capabilities. I think once that game came out, few people wanted a Genesis. Not to mention that the SNES had far superior audio hardware.
I agree with you on all points except for this one:
"Dreamcast: Too small of a technological jump. Wasn't very much better than the PSX (just compare Air Force Delta to Ace Combat 3 or any racing game to Gran Turismo 2). Didn't have enough games and didn't have a DVD drive. Graphical hardware is weaker than a Voodoo 3"
The Dreamcast has a pretty decent library, and now they're gonna bomb the games out for really cheap. The DVD ROM... well that'd up to the individual's tastes. If you consider that a DVD would likely add $100 to the price tag, you could get a stand-alone DVD player for about that much. Personally I'd rather go that way, but I concede that people have differing tastes. Given how cheap the system was, I was pretty satisfied. I think most people who purchased it were.
As for being graphically weaker than Voodoo 3, Im not sure that is apples to apples. PowerVR has some efficiences that made a lot of Dreamcast games look a lot better than the PS2. I don't know how it stacks up to the Voodoo3, but I also don't worry to much about it. I can't play Jet Grind Radio on the PC. So no matter how good a 3D Card is on the PC, the DC has tons of games the PC doesn't. I'm very happy with the games I play on it.
One thing I really like about the DC is that they ported BSD over to it. That doesn't mean a whole lot yet, but the idea of downloading a CD image, burning it, and running apps on the Dreamcast is enticing. Playing VCD's on it, for example, is pretty cool.
Nintendo had a custom graphics chip for the SNES. Nintendo also has a custom graphics chip for the GameCube.
The XBOX has a custom version of the Nvidia chipset, although it may eventually turn into an 'off the shelf product'.
The Dreamcast had custom PowerVR chips I think.. but I will happily admit I'm not so well informed on the DC.
The Playstation had a custom graphics chip made also, but I honestly can't give you a whole lotta info on it. I remember reading a magazine article about how Sony did a wonderful thing by merging two processors on the same die to improve efficiency.
I don't think custom hardware necessarily means more expensive to manufacture. Compare the GC to the XBOX. The GC is almost completely custom built in some form or another, and is a very small efficient design. The XBOX is somewhat convluted, resembling a PC on the inside. The XBOX costs $100 more, and I bet you that Microsoft actually paid more than $300 per unit to have it built. I've heard rumors that they cost roughly $420, at least in the beginning. One of the processes that Nintendo takes to the extreme is to get it all one one tiny little mobo with as simple of architecture as possible.
Some could argue that the GameCube could graphically hold its own against the XBOX. That's still to be proven, but considering the machine costs roughly half as much, I'd say that using custom designed hardware has proven to be much less expensive for Nintendo. It's a shame that Microsoft and Sony hadn't gone the same route. Both the PS2 and the XBOX are pretty convoluted in one way or another.
I think most people agree that the Saturn and the 32X were horrid pieces of hardware to play games on. The Game Gear was a laughable 'portable' system, and the Sega CD was a big joke.
I'm pretty sure that's what he means by 'Sega has a horrible track record with hardware'.
Scroll down a bit, I wrote a response titled 'Breakdown of Sega Hardware' in this thread, it talks in a little more detail about the problems with each bit of hardware I mentioned.
I think he's referring to Sega's general attitude of 'get it out faster, even if that means it's missing some wizzbang features'.
Sega Master System: Superior to the Nintendo Entertainment Center... actually I'm not sure why it failed to seriously compete with Nintendo. I remember wanting one, but Nintendo was the way to go then.
Genesis: More powerful than competition, but virtually no customer hardware. The SNES was slower, but kicked the Genesis's butt graphically.
Game Gear: Sega's answer to the Game Boy, with whoo-dee-doo-battery eating-too large-but at least it has a color screen- features. This system was a pitiful portable system. It didn't fit in your pocket, battery life as 3 hours on 6 AA's, and the screen wasn't really that clear.
SegaCD: this one's debatable. The SegaCD had a faster processor, and the 1x CD ROM, that's about it tho. Yet it cost about 2x what the Genesis did, plus you needed the Genesis. The games ranged from suck to mediochre. I think the hardware was mostly untapped, but they made the horrible mistake of sticking with the original Genesis's palette of 64/512 colors. So the whoopee full screen video looked like Windows in 16 color mode trying to play a DVD.
32x: Supposedly the SaturnJR. I think Sega's marketing was trying to act like the car industry by offering the low cost version and the luxury version of their systems. They didn't seem to realize that companies don't want to develop CD based games, and then watered down cartridge ports of those games also that would presumably sell for a lower price. Fat chance. The hardware was ok, but never fully utilized.
Saturn: Oh my.. if you opened one of these bad boys up, you'd have computer guts spilled all over the place. The Saturn was intended to be a SNES asskicker. But Sega didn't think that 3D Games would be that interesting. When the Playstation was announced, the pres of Sega said "we need to do 3D too.", so a second processor was band-aided into the Saturn. Result? A 2D machine tried to compete in a 3D market. It was too difficult to program for, and rather inferior to the PS 3D capabilities. I think Sega would have been better off sticking with the 2D approach and giving people a reason to own both systems.
Sega Dreamcast: This is where Sega actually got it right. They used semi-custom hardware (I think.. I haven't researched this machine as much as I have the others.) It was fairly innovative. It was cheap. And the developers had no trouble cranking out kick ass games. I have no complaints about this sytem. It's too bad Sega didn't go this route a few years ago.
Before the Dreamcast came out, Sega was designing hardware with off the shelf parts. I guess they did good with what they had, but it lead to their downfall. I think their biggest blunder was trying to keep the Genesis as the central attraction.
I'm a busy guy. I work a lot of extra hours. I can't base my life around TV Timeslots. On top of that, some of the shows I like to watch get preempted too easily. *cough futurama cough*
I think a lot of people feel this way. It's a huge hassle to get TV shows off the net. The valuable ones are the ones that you can't see on TV anymore! I can't see the Tick anymore. There's 7 seasons of MST3k I'll never see on TV again. This is why people turn to the net!
This isn't widespread piracy, it's a new market opening up! It's a market where people want shows when they're ready to watch them. It's called Video On Demand. If the TV Networks would realize this, they'd very quickly find a way to meet this demand and make a profit on it. Until they do, they're going to lose to PVRs and the Internet.
I refuse to call downloading an old ep of MST3K piracy because I have NO MEANS to see it otherwise. Dilbert? Nope. The original Transformers Series? Uh uh. I can't even go buy these shows. Until you provide me with a reasonable way of acquiring these shows to watch (i.e. fill up digital cable with TV show reruns or something like TV Land), then don't go bitching about anybody doing it. Your 'lost revenue' is directly related to your own shortsightedness, not because people want to steal.
Hmm... I got an idea! Lets all get Windows XP, download Morpheus, and download the shit out of Futurama, and then watch it! I bet when MS gets wind of so many people watching Futurama, they'll buy FOX and make them continue the show!! Spyware beats the pants off of Neilson ratings.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see some usage statistics on Morpheus. I'd be willing to bet that most people look for specific songs, not whole albums. If I'm right, then the RIAA's case weakens.
They claim that 'Napster like downloading of music' is hurting their sales. I think what's really happening, in most cases, that people are downloading songs that they're interested in, particularly the older ones. I got to peak in a couple of people's MP3 lockers from way back when, and most of their songs were made at least 2 years ago, and date all the way back to the Beatles. I realize this isn't a very accurate slice of the world, but think about it, how many people do you think are saying "Hmm... I wonder what Pink Floyd is like?" and going and finding out? What are they supposed to do? Go to the store and try to find these albums? That's fine and dandy, but you don't know what you're buying there. Why pay $10-$15 for a CD when you only want one song?
In any case, if somebody downloads a song, buying a CD still has value. Why? Because there are usually 10 or so more songs on it to listen to. What the person has actually downloaded is a teaser to go get the CD. In which case, it's even more valuable to the RIAA because if the user likes the song, they have more reason to go buy the album. If they don't buy the album, then it's likely that the content wasn't enticing enough. That's not the RIAA's fault.
Part of me can't help but wonder if the RIAA is trying to protect themselves against sales lost due to customers really know what's on the CD. *Shrug*
"But they can go download the rest of the album, if they like it!" -- this is what a RIAA rep would say in a Milhouse kind of voice. I think you can search for albums on the net. Who knows, maybe in the future Morpheus will get so good that all music is available. Until then, in the time it'd take me to get the album (i.e. searching for it, trying to find sources that are reliable, etc), I could have gone to the store and gotten it.
If the day comes where entire albums are up for instant download on Morpheus, then the RIAA has lost their own battle. Today they could provide a means for people to legitimately buy individual songs in MP3 (or equiv) format. If they did that, then I could download any song I wanted from a fast server without having all the headaches of a p2p network. Every day they don't do that, more and more people wouldn't try it if it did materialize.
In short, the RIAA's losses are their own fault. People want individual songs but can't get them legally without overpaying for them. File sharing is a result of a new market trend. A competent organization'd say "How can we make money here?" instead of fighting it like a bunch of spoiled babies.
Don't you find it odd that 20% of these people filled out a survey saying "I downloaded free music from the net."? Most of these people know it's illegal. I have a hard time imagining they'd fill out that survey.
In any case, I bet the survey's question was more like "Have you ever downloaded music?", "Did you pay for that download?". And then, I think the RIAA said "every time somebody downloads a song, they don't buy a CD."
This sounds like baloney to me. The reason I'm not buying CD's today is that I'm boycotting the RIAA. I suppose they could blame that on Napster, i.e. suing Napster and not providing a solution to fill consumer's desires.
I don't think we have to worry too much about this. (Altho don't mistake that comment as 'we don't need to defend ourselves.')
a.) It's unconstitutional. The Gov't is happy to step in and cap prices, but they rarely go for the idea of regulating behaviour.
b.) The people heading this up are asking for measures that are too extreme. This is usually an indication that they have something sneaky going down they're trying to create a loophole for.
c.) Also, the people heading this up are in the position of 'we are a huge corporation who wants to milk more money out of the consumer.'
d.) I seriously doubt that the people backing this up can show they've suffered any serious damage due to piracy. They can't really. They don't even transmit stuff online.
e.) The spirit of copyright is to protect people's works so that they are rewarded to keep creating. The problem is that if they take away abilities to create, then they are working against copyright. If the MPAA and RIAA have their ways, I won't be allowed to be 'inspired' by content. I think if a judge understands this, he or she won't allow this particular form of legislation to take place.
I haven't heard any arguments from these guys that don't sound incredibly extreme. It could be likened to gun control. We all know that guns are primarily used to kill people. (Please please PLEASE don't send me stupid comments about rare circumstances where they can be used for turning off the TV or for shutting up noisy neighbors. I hate when people here nitpick details instead of ideas.) Yet, nobody's been successful at making the acquisition guns illegal. This is probably because the USA refuses to take away one's right to defend themselves. It's for this reason that I don't think this heavy-handed proposal will go through.
Personally, I think the MPAA should just accept that some people are going to make content available. If somebody seeks that content instead of the legitimate ways of obtaining it (which, btw, is difficult today since the MPAA doesn't make it available..GRRR), then somebody will provide a means for it. Instead of fighting it, provide better service. Making it a challenge for people to obtain pirated copies is going to increase piracy.
'A representative for the Walt Disney Company declined to comment for this article. But in September, a Disney lobbyist defended Hollings' draft SSSCA as "an exceedingly moderate and reasonable approach." '
With the exception of posting to Slashdot, how can something be 'exceedingly moderated'?
That's certainly a possibility. But you know what? That just opens the door for somebody new to sweep in and pull the rug out from under them.
:P~~)of music, the more a need is created for somebody to come along and do it for a profit.
I really wish a new alliance would form that works sort of like the RIAA (i.e. gathering talent and marketing it), but then targets all media such as MP3 or Internet or.. well who knows what'll pop up?
The more the RIAA tries to fight the internet-ization (i know that isn't a word
In a way, I hope the Industry does try to get too greedy. It'll jumpstart the imminent Internet Media Revolution.
Umm ok. I don't mind video on demand because I'm paying for a one time use of viewing, like I would for renting. The added benefit is that I don't have to be responsible for physical media in the process. Buying a DVD and renting a movie (at Blockbuster or with VoD) is not the same thing. For starters, the price is very different. If I pay $20 for a DVD, I'm paying for the rights to take it home and watch it whenever I want. As part of those rights, I should have the right to fair use of it.
Most of the DVD purchases I made were for the explicit purpose of getting inspiration. I didn't buy Lost in Space because it has a steller plot (ha!) but it does have a totally bitchin style to it that I love to examine. If the MPAA says "you cannot take screengrabs", for example, then the DVD's no longer have value to me. Even moreso, I lose some of my toolset for improving my skills.
Your comment about VoD is incongruent, and pretty lame really. I support the MPAA in producing movies using talents I hope to develop some day. But if they start to shift towards restricting it, then they can forget about me willingly going along for it.
I do intent do speak with my wallet. I will not buy a computer with copy restrictions on it. As a side effect, I won't be able to speak with my skills. If they stall my ability to grow by limiting what I can do with content, then they also stall my ability to work for them.
If you're challenging to not by a copy restricted computer, you're going to lose.
I won't buy a PC with copy restriction 'features'. Hear that, industry? I refuse to support freedoms being taken away. This world will be a sad, sad place if content is so tightly controlled.
.AVI. Then I'd have it in the background as I'm manipulating a character I created to get a feel for how Mr. Chan moves. In other words, I have educational reasons for wanting to use a DVD rip.
I am a 3D Artist. Most of the learning I did was at home. I started with replicating scenes from Star Trek. Now let me explain something about myself, I'm not a foley artist, nor am I a musician. So I had to find some sound effects to accompany my animations, along with a sound track. This means I had to go purchase both a soundtrack from one of the ST movies, and an ST game with sound files in the appropriate format. (in otherwords, they were paid.) If the Music Industry or the MPAA decided to target me, they could still harass me with the DMCA. The only thing protecting me is the huge PR issue that'd ensue.
Today I'm moving into Character Animation. But in order to solidify my skills, I need reference footage. One of the ideas I had was to rip a Jackie Chan DVD and convert clips of it into an
When I finally assemble a demo reel to get a job with, I'm likely going to add a song for the sound track. Now I respect the artists out there making music, but I'm not paying a license fee for a limited use Demo Reel intended to get me a job. Just as I wouldn't expect them to pay me if they used their music with my artwork to get a record deal.
If I were to purchase a 'Copy Restricted PC', then the hardware would fight with me over the content I'm trying to use. This is *not* good. This would be a serious blow in my ability to learn how to work for the same industry that's responsible for that 'feature' going in. I have a feeling that if this idiot has his way, one of the casualties would be the talent pool that suddenly has nothing to start with. How about guys that do remixes of songs we listen to today? I've heard some incredible remixes out there. I really think there are people who have done some of these remixes who really should get hired by a music company somewhere, becuase man they are talented.
They didn't make the song, somebody else did, but they spun it in a new way that's really cool. I didn't like that song 'Torn' by Natalie Imbruglia (sp?), but I stumbled across a remix of it that really made me enjoy it. Whoever did that mix is seriously an awesomely talented person. If they were prevented from using that song, then what would they sharpen their skills on? You can't go learn how to remix in college. You can't learn how to be a talented effects animator for a movie studio from college.
So if you take my fair use rights away just because you think you're losing money to piracy, then you're also drying up your talent pool and you'll have a drought on content.
I wonder if they're expecting to suddenly gain 3 billion a year if this goes into place. They're basing sales losses on Napster without even thinking about the other conditions going on out there. The content sucked this year, the economy stinks (altho I suppose Intel and AMD having slow quarters could be linked to piracy of processors on Napster...), and the Sept 11th attacks have made people happier to stay home then go out. Perhaps the real problem is that the RIAA isn't making their content available to purchase online.
I've read this article twice, and I'm still not getting anything other than some obvious remarks. The worst part is that he's not offering much of a solution either. "Well, the big guys have some ideas about it..."
Oooooooookay.
So HTTP isn't sufficient for a client and a the server to have intimate discussions. We know that. So P2P can't really work on HTTP. DUH we know that. So does he have a magical, better protocol?
If he's saying that web-browsers should have more robust protocol support, that's fine. I just think he could have made that point a little clearer. Let's say that was what he was saying... doesn't that propose a problem? One really nice advantage to HTTP is that's well developed and about anything can be made to talk to it. But what if another protocol comes around? What if that one protocol turns into 2 protocols? What if it turns into 10 or even 100? This will start over a brand new browser race, and I *reallY* don't want that. Just when the net starts to get settled on standards, they wanna turn it upside down just to implement a protocol they think is necessary.
I dunno... I wish this guy had provided more of a description of what he thinks would be appropriate, rather than saying "There's a problem!! There's a problem!! Fix it!! And give me fame for pointing it out."
I like to watch TV, but frankly it's not worth jumping through lots of hoops to do. Television content doesn't have enough brains put into it to really be worth all this encryption bs. If a show I want to watch is on a crummy timeslot, and I'm not allowed to record it, that's the Telelvision Industry shooting themselves in the foot. They are better off making it easier and easier for people to watch when they can, instead of trying to limit it. It's bad enough I have to be at my job by a certain time, it's bad enough I have to be at the doctor's by a certain time, being in front of my television at a certain time is not the type of shackles I want to place on myself.
Sorry TV Industry, you need better content before you can convince me I need to be punctual.
I think it'd be fun to play with a physics simulator of sorts, but to be honest, I'd rather have a tool where I can change or even invent my own laws of physics. Take Yosemite Sam for a moment: somehow he can survive a shotgun blast in the butt. In reality, his butt'd be missing a few important pieces, but in Toon Town, the unexpected happens.
Physics are.. well.. expected. If I could change the rules around a bit, I could create fun yet silly little movies. Remember that Far Side cartoon where a black hole suddenly formed in that guy's apartment, and everything started getting sucked into it? Heh I could animate that! Let me tweak the physics a bit, and I could really have some fun with it!
IK is not phyics. You can't create a 'stunt' with IK without manually adding your own details to every little thing that happens.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you know about features of Softimage, but you have trouble understanding how useful a 'real world physics simulator' would be. I have trouble beliving an animator would ever say 'what's the big deal?' to this type of goal.
I would love to animate a crash landing in Lightwave where instead of keyframing every little thing, instead I set up a bunch of interesting areas to be affected by the crash. I'd like the results to surprise me instead of having to meticulously plan out every little thing that has to happen. I think that's what they mean by the stunt metaphor.
Here's another example, what if a character opened a door and it caused the curtains in front of a window to billow for a moment as the pressure changed. To do that today, you'd have to animate the character opening the door, and *then* set up a totally seperate effect wher you place a 'wind generator' behind the curtain and tell it 'blow briefly for about a second on the same keyframe that the door opens.' The curtain would be a seperate object, and the 'wind' physics would only affect it. Nothing else in the room (unless specified) would react either. So a plant sitting on the dresser might sit unnecessarily still.
It's that type of subtle interaction that it may not occur to an animator to create. Every little physical response like this in the 3D world adds a new layer of believability to the viewer. This makes animation more immersive, and more rewarding to do because the user gets sucked into the world that the animator has created.
Try turning on your imagination a little bit and you might just find what the big deal is, instead of saying 'I already have that if I just jump through a few dozen extra hoops.' It's an attitude I've seen aspiring animators have over the years, but it takes them a while to discover that saying "so what?" is also saying "I don't feel like growing today."
Hey he's right! I saw an episode of Beavis and Butthead once and Butthead threw a pair of dice and they landed without even bouncing once! Ever since that day, animation never reached a higher respect of physics!
Sarcasm aside, the movie industry cares very much about physics. They may exaggerate them from time to time (like the jumping bus, heh), but they pay very careful attention to it when they are doing animated movies. Take Snow White, for example, they had a scene with lots of people dancing in it. They actually filmed a bunch of dancers and rotoscoped them, using their motions to make the characters move in the movie. The result? A surprising level of realism in that scene.
Hollywood cares more about physics than your limited over-simplification indicates.
Err not really. Maya has simulators for very specific circumstances. Every time a movie studio needs to come up with a new solution, something new has to be written in order to get the computer to do it. I think what this article is talking about is setting up a simulation so dynamic that nearly anything can be simulated, that's yet to be done today. The technology used to make a ball bounce is not the same technology used to make a skirt cling to Aki's body.
Heh, it is nice to have a civil discussion, isn't it?
I vaguely remember reading about the HAM technique you mentioned. I think SNES used a similar technique in Killer Instinct, too, where it displayed 512 instead of 256 colors. Unfortunately, I think I got that bit of info from Electronic Gaming Monthly, so consider the source if you know what I mean.
Regarding the sound on the SNES, my comment about the sound being superior comes from having a rather sensitive ear. The SNES definitely had a better range of capabilities than the Genesis did. Take, for example, in Super Mario World whenever Mario was in a cave. Everything would echo inside the cave. Final Fantasy 3 had what sounded like a chorus chanting/singing, that was pretty cool. Voices in Mortal Kombat sounded pretty good on the SNES, but on the Genesis they sounded like they had laryngitis (sp?). The Genesis always sounded like midi to me. I think I remember reading that the SNES had a really cool Yamaha sound chip in it, but I don't have much more info than that.
I think most people would agree that the SNES consistently had better sound than the Genesis. I'm not talking about music here, I'm talking about sound in general. Heh, I really did like the music in the first Sonic game.
"I've hinted at the Genesis' origins many times (closely related to Amiga) which could display 4096 colors. If you take the time to research the hardware you'll find it's very, very similar to the Ami. I think it had a 4096 color palette but could only display 256 at once, correct me if I'm wrong. So yeah, they should've made a pass-thru for video, but it was a hardware hack, so maybe it got skipped."
Ok, I'll correct you. The Genesis could only put 64 different colors on screen at a time. It's palette is 512 colors. I've heard that it had a graphics mode where you could do 16/4096, not sure I've ever seen it tho. It's pretty obvious when you play Sonic the Hedgehog, and when the screen fades from white to black, it hits some blue on the way.
The Super NES had a color palette of 256/32768 colors, and most games made really good use of that pallete. That's one of the reasons the SNES's graphics were so much nicer. Donkey Kong Country in particular made excellent use of the SNES's capabilities. I think once that game came out, few people wanted a Genesis. Not to mention that the SNES had far superior audio hardware.
"Didn't the Matrix and Terminator teach you people anything!
ROBOTS WILL BE THE END OF US!!!"
It only took Keanu Reeves to save us. I seriously doubt robots will be that hard to beat in the future.
I agree with you on all points except for this one:
"Dreamcast: Too small of a technological jump. Wasn't very much better than the PSX (just compare Air Force Delta to Ace Combat 3 or any racing game to Gran Turismo 2). Didn't have enough games and didn't have a DVD drive. Graphical hardware is weaker than a Voodoo 3"
The Dreamcast has a pretty decent library, and now they're gonna bomb the games out for really cheap. The DVD ROM... well that'd up to the individual's tastes. If you consider that a DVD would likely add $100 to the price tag, you could get a stand-alone DVD player for about that much. Personally I'd rather go that way, but I concede that people have differing tastes. Given how cheap the system was, I was pretty satisfied. I think most people who purchased it were.
As for being graphically weaker than Voodoo 3, Im not sure that is apples to apples. PowerVR has some efficiences that made a lot of Dreamcast games look a lot better than the PS2. I don't know how it stacks up to the Voodoo3, but I also don't worry to much about it. I can't play Jet Grind Radio on the PC. So no matter how good a 3D Card is on the PC, the DC has tons of games the PC doesn't. I'm very happy with the games I play on it.
One thing I really like about the DC is that they ported BSD over to it. That doesn't mean a whole lot yet, but the idea of downloading a CD image, burning it, and running apps on the Dreamcast is enticing. Playing VCD's on it, for example, is pretty cool.
Nintendo had a custom graphics chip for the SNES. Nintendo also has a custom graphics chip for the GameCube.
The XBOX has a custom version of the Nvidia chipset, although it may eventually turn into an 'off the shelf product'.
The Dreamcast had custom PowerVR chips I think.. but I will happily admit I'm not so well informed on the DC.
The Playstation had a custom graphics chip made also, but I honestly can't give you a whole lotta info on it. I remember reading a magazine article about how Sony did a wonderful thing by merging two processors on the same die to improve efficiency.
I don't think custom hardware necessarily means more expensive to manufacture. Compare the GC to the XBOX. The GC is almost completely custom built in some form or another, and is a very small efficient design. The XBOX is somewhat convluted, resembling a PC on the inside. The XBOX costs $100 more, and I bet you that Microsoft actually paid more than $300 per unit to have it built. I've heard rumors that they cost roughly $420, at least in the beginning. One of the processes that Nintendo takes to the extreme is to get it all one one tiny little mobo with as simple of architecture as possible.
Some could argue that the GameCube could graphically hold its own against the XBOX. That's still to be proven, but considering the machine costs roughly half as much, I'd say that using custom designed hardware has proven to be much less expensive for Nintendo. It's a shame that Microsoft and Sony hadn't gone the same route. Both the PS2 and the XBOX are pretty convoluted in one way or another.
I think most people agree that the Saturn and the 32X were horrid pieces of hardware to play games on. The Game Gear was a laughable 'portable' system, and the Sega CD was a big joke.
I'm pretty sure that's what he means by 'Sega has a horrible track record with hardware'.
Scroll down a bit, I wrote a response titled 'Breakdown of Sega Hardware' in this thread, it talks in a little more detail about the problems with each bit of hardware I mentioned.
I think he's referring to Sega's general attitude of 'get it out faster, even if that means it's missing some wizzbang features'.
Sega Master System: Superior to the Nintendo Entertainment Center... actually I'm not sure why it failed to seriously compete with Nintendo. I remember wanting one, but Nintendo was the way to go then.
Genesis: More powerful than competition, but virtually no customer hardware. The SNES was slower, but kicked the Genesis's butt graphically.
Game Gear: Sega's answer to the Game Boy, with whoo-dee-doo-battery eating-too large-but at least it has a color screen- features. This system was a pitiful portable system. It didn't fit in your pocket, battery life as 3 hours on 6 AA's, and the screen wasn't really that clear.
SegaCD: this one's debatable. The SegaCD had a faster processor, and the 1x CD ROM, that's about it tho. Yet it cost about 2x what the Genesis did, plus you needed the Genesis. The games ranged from suck to mediochre. I think the hardware was mostly untapped, but they made the horrible mistake of sticking with the original Genesis's palette of 64/512 colors. So the whoopee full screen video looked like Windows in 16 color mode trying to play a DVD.
32x: Supposedly the SaturnJR. I think Sega's marketing was trying to act like the car industry by offering the low cost version and the luxury version of their systems. They didn't seem to realize that companies don't want to develop CD based games, and then watered down cartridge ports of those games also that would presumably sell for a lower price. Fat chance. The hardware was ok, but never fully utilized.
Saturn: Oh my.. if you opened one of these bad boys up, you'd have computer guts spilled all over the place. The Saturn was intended to be a SNES asskicker. But Sega didn't think that 3D Games would be that interesting. When the Playstation was announced, the pres of Sega said "we need to do 3D too.", so a second processor was band-aided into the Saturn. Result? A 2D machine tried to compete in a 3D market. It was too difficult to program for, and rather inferior to the PS 3D capabilities. I think Sega would have been better off sticking with the 2D approach and giving people a reason to own both systems.
Sega Dreamcast: This is where Sega actually got it right. They used semi-custom hardware (I think.. I haven't researched this machine as much as I have the others.) It was fairly innovative. It was cheap. And the developers had no trouble cranking out kick ass games. I have no complaints about this sytem. It's too bad Sega didn't go this route a few years ago.
Before the Dreamcast came out, Sega was designing hardware with off the shelf parts. I guess they did good with what they had, but it lead to their downfall. I think their biggest blunder was trying to keep the Genesis as the central attraction.
I'm a busy guy. I work a lot of extra hours. I can't base my life around TV Timeslots. On top of that, some of the shows I like to watch get preempted too easily. *cough futurama cough*
I think a lot of people feel this way. It's a huge hassle to get TV shows off the net. The valuable ones are the ones that you can't see on TV anymore! I can't see the Tick anymore. There's 7 seasons of MST3k I'll never see on TV again. This is why people turn to the net!
This isn't widespread piracy, it's a new market opening up! It's a market where people want shows when they're ready to watch them. It's called Video On Demand. If the TV Networks would realize this, they'd very quickly find a way to meet this demand and make a profit on it. Until they do, they're going to lose to PVRs and the Internet.
I refuse to call downloading an old ep of MST3K piracy because I have NO MEANS to see it otherwise. Dilbert? Nope. The original Transformers Series? Uh uh. I can't even go buy these shows. Until you provide me with a reasonable way of acquiring these shows to watch (i.e. fill up digital cable with TV show reruns or something like TV Land), then don't go bitching about anybody doing it. Your 'lost revenue' is directly related to your own shortsightedness, not because people want to steal.
I stand corrected. Thank you for being civil. :)
I still think Nintendo's Lawyer would put that spin on it, but now it seems that the Flash Linker site has a defense.
Touche. :)
I want Futurama dammit! If it takes FOX knowing my individual watching habits for that show, they can HAVE IT. :P
Hmm... I got an idea! Lets all get Windows XP, download Morpheus, and download the shit out of Futurama, and then watch it! I bet when MS gets wind of so many people watching Futurama, they'll buy FOX and make them continue the show!! Spyware beats the pants off of Neilson ratings.
Whatcha think, sirs?