A protected digital interface that can be easily deployed on a PC enables broad access to premium content sources such as high-definition movies.
That's funny, my computers can access premium content now..... without phoning home to see if it's okay.
Why are computer manufacturers so ready to jump in bed with the RIAA/MPAA? If they don't cooperate, will the RIAA/MPAA suddenly decide not to play in the computer arena anymore? I'd like to see that happening. The most I see happening is the RIAA/MPAA bitching and moaning and at the end of the day doing business as usual.
But I agree with the GP, offering snippets of anything isn't copyright infringement, newspapers, critics and reviewers have long offered small sections of movies, articles for discussion purposes. Educators also rely on this (quoting) to provide a piece of relevant information to their students.
There are boundaries to this, but a "snippet" isn't it.
The problem with dragging out the BSOD bashing is that it just doesn't happen with the frequency that it used to. And so it doesn't resonate with some in the windows crowd.
Oh, I'm sure everybody experienced it. But on a well set-up box, it can be rare. This was especially so on Win2K. On WinXP, I experienced it a couple times mostly because of explorer.exe (while surfing local files, not the net). I'm sure there are people who see it less than 1 a year and people who experience every day, but the former is becoming more common than the latter in my experience.*
*I'm sure there are circumstances that you can deliberately trigger one. **I use and love Mac OS X, Linux Ubuntu, and Plan9/Inferno. But sometimes Windows needs to be used.
This is not a "company's private information" but the service manual. This is freedom of the press/speech in it's purest form. Unless you think a snippet from a page of Apples' service manual can cause it to loss of IP value (sales) purely based on the content shown (I was unaware they were in the service manual business).
As a small apple shareholder, I request that the company become less litigation happy. It's souring relations with the wrong crowds which could have otherwise been attracted to it's product. Pardon the pun, but stop being sour apples:(
But speeding isn't a felony, just a misdemeanor:) However, if you were to cause a hit-n-run and I witness it but fail to report it, I could be prosecuted because hit-n-run is a felony.
Usually felonies are more serious crimes to begin with, and the failure-to-report crimes don't apply to misdemeanors.
So now, according to you, merely seeing a snuff film, or other illegal content, would be a crime? I aggree that if the person bought the video, they would be culpable, but just seeing it?
Actually, I said in the original post I don't mean to include people who just see it inadvertantly. Hell, with my respect for the 1st admendant - I don't think viewing it period should be prosecutable. 2nd - otherwise it makes two classes of citizens, those who are allowed to look at everything (cops, researchers, etc) and those not allowed to look (by law) and that precedent would have a chilling effect on society as a whole when it creeps into areas.
And finally 3rd - The freedom of speech must include the right to look/listen. You shouldn't be punished for having eyes and eares.
But also because the problem can be simply contained with the set of laws criminalizing the acts of the perpetatror and also the people who distributed it. Many people who tend to collect things (photos in this case) would likely attempt to swap collections and whatnot and that can be classified as distribution and they can/should be arrested for that.
I'm not at all sympathetic to the knowing purchase of it though. You become part of the problem.
Intent is important, but in many crimes, it always was (just look at the different degrees of murder.)
The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous.
No, I don't believe this is the law and not what I was advocating. However, it is the law that if you witness a felony taking place, you have to report it (within reason - seeing it newsbroadcast would obviously negate it, and so on). That, I think, is reasonable.
In some cases, #3 can be the one creating/maintaining the market even if he never pays for it. He may trade with friends, etcetera. Of course, then he can be taken down as a distributor....
A credible case emerged in 2000, when an Italian police operation broke up a gang of child pornographers based in Russia who, it was claimed, were also offering snuff films for sale to their clients in Italy, Germany, America and Britain. This was also reported in the UK where the police admitted the existence of such films after arresting Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov. A dozen British men were also reportedly arrested.[1]"
The people viewing it are creating the demand for it, thus being inextricably linked to the cycle.
Replace your argument about "child porn" with the word "snuff films." Yes, the original perp would be jailed for murder and no additional laws would have to be created there.
But would the audience be less accountable than anybody else aiding and abbetting murder? Would they be an accomplice, just like a mafioso who orders hits against people, but never does the actual crime?
I'm not talking about people who catch a voyueristic glimpse here accidently or whatnot. I'm talking about people who actively participate in the process. Just because they are "only viewing" something, should they be completely absolved from accountability their part plays? They are already breaking the law by not reporting the crime (felony) to the police in the first place - individual citizens are actually accountable for the type of society people live in.
And the second thing about child porn, laws are on the books because of the right to privacy. They did not and cannot consent to being viewed in the first place and as minor should be protected from such things. You probably understand this, but it's important to acknowledge the victim has a right to dignity too.
The cause isn't just, it's made for personal gain, using "child porn" as the excuse and serves to put future, legitimate concerns of this nature in contempt. Warning bells should come as soon as it was said google made "billions of dollars" off this specific criminal enterprise - propaganda and exaggeration is perhaps tools for the con artist here.
Where are not there is an "independent" party is irrevelent. Voting independent is about voting for the best guy, independently of party line and hopefully said candidate is independent of party status.
I used to be republican, but did I really care about/for the whole platform? No. All I care about was balancing the budget, and fiscally responsibility (both of which the neocons have thrown out the window while paying full lip service to it).
I didn't care about banning gay marriage or most of the social program. And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that vote generally for one party or another, who really don't care about 90% of the platform. That's why it's better to vote independent, where you can look at a candidate more objectively.
I like the sentiment, but quite honestly, voting independent is like voting for the party you oppose the most (in this case, most likely the Rebpublicans)
This sentiment amoung people causes a self-fulfilling prophecy of the two party system. Thankfully, the voters of Jesse Ventura didn't think this way.
In my line of thinking, voting for either party is a zero-sum game, I lose either way, because they're both corrupt and the same in the end. If I vote independent, I can either help get someone better in, or like the strong Ross Perot showing in the 1990s, at least get the parties to discuss the independent platform/issues.
For founding fathers, people always quote the ones who expoused a view similar to the one they want, and ignore the 50% of founding fathers to staunchly disagreed with that view, and said quite the opposite.
But hey, some of the founding fathers believed in slavery, so it's a real shame our country has deteriorated so much as to let that wonderful institution be outlawed...
You're trying to take someone out of his time and apply your moral to him. We'd all like to think we're all upstanding, good people, but how much of what you think is shaped by your time versus something you came to your own conclusions to? There are very few people who have the courage to blaze a new trail and not follow the crowd, Gandhi for instance. Unfortunately, most of us are sheep, simply following the social mores of our time with little thought other than fitting in - the Milgram experiment has proven this:
That said, out of all the Founding Fathers, there are a few that everybody has heard of and that carry special weight because they were extremely immersed in beginning our Government. Washington, along with Jefferson, is such a man, he was the only president I'm aware of that wasn't associated with a political party, and also set many voluntary standards up, like two-terms to a president (until FDR broke tradition) that probably was beneficial for us in the end.
I don't see any flaws of voting independently of partly (and preferably someone independent of party) - except for maybe the same naivety that the founders of Communism display - that human beings can't be made to fit that mold no matter how well meaning.
Discriminating between fiction and non-fiction is one of the most important skills kids could and should learn.
Yet many adults don't know them either.
The best way to learn that skill would be learning the "scientific method." Usually a magazine like the "Skeptic Enquirer" is the most newb friendly, and explain things quickly to the layman, giving examples. and reinforcing that learning.
I believe Aristotle can also be looked up for logic, but I don't know much about him, so I'd rather not make claims.
Basic Scientific Method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. This hypothesis should be testable (falsifiable) to be of any worth. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Unlike that what the name suggests, this process can be used in all areas of life, for instance, to test if certain politician are full of shit and how often.
I meant that all these 1st world countries are not on the same region - R1 US vs R2 Europe/Japan.
DVDs are not much different in price in Europe or America (there's probably more variation between the different european countries), some but not enough for the average joe to go through the hassle of importing them through customs via an internet store.
If the Japanese difference in price is as you say it is, it's probably would pay to just get a R1 DVD player in Japan, that would be the price of 2-5 DVDs, depending on which model. Again, the guy who bends the rules is happy and the average consumer is forced to pay/inconvenience unnecesarrily.
Also, are these prices for brand new DVDs just released in Japan? Because I shop japanese manga, and the shipping is the most expensive cost, and the manga themselves are usually cheaper than the US counterparts. Okay, it's used, but the condition is usually better than new at the store here:) Anyway, I'm asking if the Japanese just pay this premium on newly released stuff, because by the time it gets licensed/translated here, it's old news anyway.
I second your call on "remove the regioning". Entertainment companies shot themselves in the foot here, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see a study on how much this feature "saved" lost them over time.
Traveling between Europe and America, I was appalled my Mac notebook was only allowed to switch regions 5-6 times before being locked into 1. Whoever thought of the regioning scheme is a class 1 idiot (especially for seperating europe, USA, Japan, etc as if the price difference was major). And the companies that still keep implementing it on their DVDs instead of region 0 are even dumber.
What I never understood is anime dvds with regions. No one is going to buy anime from another country where it's cheaper just for the reduced price, since they don't understand language - if they're that desperate, they'll just download it anyway.
I never said the great state of Nevada had to pay for it, so it would still help their economy. Since you said you had a great idea, I interpolated you had a fund to pay for it since that's the only way I would concur that it is such a great idea.
Otherwise, if I have to pay for it, I'd say the idea is run of the mill:)
If you're going to rip the DVDs as soon as they arrive, why not just download them from torrents? It's just a legal (or illegal, rather), and you don't have to worry about shelling out that MASSIVE $19.95 every month and making sure that you somehow game the system so your Netflix rentals work out to be $0.25/movie like a penniless schlub.
Some reasons someone would do this just off the top of my head:
1)DVD quality - not a 600MB avi or whatever. 2)Use your bandwidth for something else. 3)Prevent having your ISP kicking you off for excessive bandwidth use. 4)Both may be illegal, but I doubt they can track your activity with the netflix method. If you download off the net, that's another story. 5)Don't have to worry about virus/malware - unless you rent Sony DVDs:) I don't think this is anything to worry about, but it gives some people peace of mind. 6)Variety. Unless you are looking for the latest anime releases and Pron, I doubt the net has the consistent range of offerings as Netflix does in mainstream movies, past and present. Especially well seeded. As most movies today are crap, I like to watch somewhat older movies, yesterday it was "Name of the Rose" with Sean Connery. I doubt this is at any torrent site and if it is, probably not well-seeded. 7)Really consider the Political climate in the highly unlikely chance you get "caught" (I don't know if the MPAA is resorting to the same sue 'em tactics the RIAA is). But I really doubt the movie companies will drag someone who rented a movie to court. Especially if he deleted the copy later on, essentially just time-shifting. If he downloaded it though, that's a whole nother story because that be the intarweb, and when the intarweb is involved, the issue goes into the all-spin zone. It's like if you kill someone, that is bad in itself but the mundane thing would be to label it murder, while the new, hip thing is to label it terrorism and get a kneejerk emotional response.
Note: I'm not saying all these reasons are likely or even reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, my computers can access premium content now..... without phoning home to see if it's okay.
Why are computer manufacturers so ready to jump in bed with the RIAA/MPAA? If they don't cooperate, will the RIAA/MPAA suddenly decide not to play in the computer arena anymore? I'd like to see that happening. The most I see happening is the RIAA/MPAA bitching and moaning and at the end of the day doing business as usual.
I meant I agree with the GP of my original post in reply to yours:P Of course I agree with myself.^_^;;;;
Perhaps this may have something:
http://www.applerepairmanuals.com/
(I'm not a Mac person, so I don't know.)
But I agree with the GP, offering snippets of anything isn't copyright infringement, newspapers, critics and reviewers have long offered small sections of movies, articles for discussion purposes. Educators also rely on this (quoting) to provide a piece of relevant information to their students.
There are boundaries to this, but a "snippet" isn't it.
The problem with dragging out the BSOD bashing is that it just doesn't happen with the frequency that it used to. And so it doesn't resonate with some in the windows crowd.
Oh, I'm sure everybody experienced it. But on a well set-up box, it can be rare. This was especially so on Win2K. On WinXP, I experienced it a couple times mostly because of explorer.exe (while surfing local files, not the net). I'm sure there are people who see it less than 1 a year and people who experience every day, but the former is becoming more common than the latter in my experience.*
*I'm sure there are circumstances that you can deliberately trigger one.
**I use and love Mac OS X, Linux Ubuntu, and Plan9/Inferno. But sometimes Windows needs to be used.
This is not a "company's private information" but the service manual. This is freedom of the press/speech in it's purest form. Unless you think a snippet from a page of Apples' service manual can cause it to loss of IP value (sales) purely based on the content shown (I was unaware they were in the service manual business).
As a small apple shareholder, I request that the company become less litigation happy. It's souring relations with the wrong crowds which could have otherwise been attracted to it's product. Pardon the pun, but stop being sour apples:(
The pun police are coming and after that list won't be taking any prisoners:)
It doubles as a slot machine....
But speeding isn't a felony, just a misdemeanor:) However, if you were to cause a hit-n-run and I witness it but fail to report it, I could be prosecuted because hit-n-run is a felony.
Usually felonies are more serious crimes to begin with, and the failure-to-report crimes don't apply to misdemeanors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
Actually, I said in the original post I don't mean to include people who just see it inadvertantly. Hell, with my respect for the 1st admendant - I don't think viewing it period should be prosecutable. 2nd - otherwise it makes two classes of citizens, those who are allowed to look at everything (cops, researchers, etc) and those not allowed to look (by law) and that precedent would have a chilling effect on society as a whole when it creeps into areas.
And finally 3rd - The freedom of speech must include the right to look/listen. You shouldn't be punished for having eyes and eares.
But also because the problem can be simply contained with the set of laws criminalizing the acts of the perpetatror and also the people who distributed it. Many people who tend to collect things (photos in this case) would likely attempt to swap collections and whatnot and that can be classified as distribution and they can/should be arrested for that.
I'm not at all sympathetic to the knowing purchase of it though. You become part of the problem.
Intent is important, but in many crimes, it always was (just look at the different degrees of murder.)
No, I don't believe this is the law and not what I was advocating. However, it is the law that if you witness a felony taking place, you have to report it (within reason - seeing it newsbroadcast would obviously negate it, and so on). That, I think, is reasonable.
In some cases, #3 can be the one creating/maintaining the market even if he never pays for it. He may trade with friends, etcetera. Of course, then he can be taken down as a distributor....
It is possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film
"Credible snuff films
A credible case emerged in 2000, when an Italian police operation broke up a gang of child pornographers based in Russia who, it was claimed, were also offering snuff films for sale to their clients in Italy, Germany, America and Britain. This was also reported in the UK where the police admitted the existence of such films after arresting Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov. A dozen British men were also reportedly arrested.[1]"
This man needs to be voted out of office. People like this are neither qualified nor deserve to be in any leadership position in this country.
The people viewing it are creating the demand for it, thus being inextricably linked to the cycle.
Replace your argument about "child porn" with the word "snuff films." Yes, the original perp would be jailed for murder and no additional laws would have to be created there.
But would the audience be less accountable than anybody else aiding and abbetting murder? Would they be an accomplice, just like a mafioso who orders hits against people, but never does the actual crime?
I'm not talking about people who catch a voyueristic glimpse here accidently or whatnot. I'm talking about people who actively participate in the process. Just because they are "only viewing" something, should they be completely absolved from accountability their part plays? They are already breaking the law by not reporting the crime (felony) to the police in the first place - individual citizens are actually accountable for the type of society people live in.
And the second thing about child porn, laws are on the books because of the right to privacy. They did not and cannot consent to being viewed in the first place and as minor should be protected from such things. You probably understand this, but it's important to acknowledge the victim has a right to dignity too.
The cause isn't just, it's made for personal gain, using "child porn" as the excuse and serves to put future, legitimate concerns of this nature in contempt. Warning bells should come as soon as it was said google made "billions of dollars" off this specific criminal enterprise - propaganda and exaggeration is perhaps tools for the con artist here.
Where are not there is an "independent" party is irrevelent. Voting independent is about voting for the best guy, independently of party line and hopefully said candidate is independent of party status.
I used to be republican, but did I really care about/for the whole platform? No. All I care about was balancing the budget, and fiscally responsibility (both of which the neocons have thrown out the window while paying full lip service to it).
I didn't care about banning gay marriage or most of the social program. And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that vote generally for one party or another, who really don't care about 90% of the platform. That's why it's better to vote independent, where you can look at a candidate more objectively.
This sentiment amoung people causes a self-fulfilling prophecy of the two party system. Thankfully, the voters of Jesse Ventura didn't think this way.
In my line of thinking, voting for either party is a zero-sum game, I lose either way, because they're both corrupt and the same in the end. If I vote independent, I can either help get someone better in, or like the strong Ross Perot showing in the 1990s, at least get the parties to discuss the independent platform/issues.
You're trying to take someone out of his time and apply your moral to him. We'd all like to think we're all upstanding, good people, but how much of what you think is shaped by your time versus something you came to your own conclusions to? There are very few people who have the courage to blaze a new trail and not follow the crowd, Gandhi for instance. Unfortunately, most of us are sheep, simply following the social mores of our time with little thought other than fitting in - the Milgram experiment has proven this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
That said, out of all the Founding Fathers, there are a few that everybody has heard of and that carry special weight because they were extremely immersed in beginning our Government. Washington, along with Jefferson, is such a man, he was the only president I'm aware of that wasn't associated with a political party, and also set many voluntary standards up, like two-terms to a president (until FDR broke tradition) that probably was beneficial for us in the end.
I don't see any flaws of voting independently of partly (and preferably someone independent of party) - except for maybe the same naivety that the founders of Communism display - that human beings can't be made to fit that mold no matter how well meaning.
Yes, but this is Microsoft and the rules are different. You hope for 1 of the 3.
Yet many adults don't know them either.
The best way to learn that skill would be learning the "scientific method." Usually a magazine like the "Skeptic Enquirer" is the most newb friendly, and explain things quickly to the layman, giving examples. and reinforcing that learning.
I believe Aristotle can also be looked up for logic, but I don't know much about him, so I'd rather not make claims.
Basic Scientific Method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. This hypothesis should be testable (falsifiable) to be of any worth.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Unlike that what the name suggests, this process can be used in all areas of life, for instance, to test if certain politician are full of shit and how often.
I meant that all these 1st world countries are not on the same region - R1 US vs R2 Europe/Japan.
DVDs are not much different in price in Europe or America (there's probably more variation between the different european countries), some but not enough for the average joe to go through the hassle of importing them through customs via an internet store.
If the Japanese difference in price is as you say it is, it's probably would pay to just get a R1 DVD player in Japan, that would be the price of 2-5 DVDs, depending on which model. Again, the guy who bends the rules is happy and the average consumer is forced to pay/inconvenience unnecesarrily.
Also, are these prices for brand new DVDs just released in Japan? Because I shop japanese manga, and the shipping is the most expensive cost, and the manga themselves are usually cheaper than the US counterparts. Okay, it's used, but the condition is usually better than new at the store here:) Anyway, I'm asking if the Japanese just pay this premium on newly released stuff, because by the time it gets licensed/translated here, it's old news anyway.
I second your call on "remove the regioning". Entertainment companies shot themselves in the foot here, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see a study on how much this feature "saved" lost them over time.
Traveling between Europe and America, I was appalled my Mac notebook was only allowed to switch regions 5-6 times before being locked into 1. Whoever thought of the regioning scheme is a class 1 idiot (especially for seperating europe, USA, Japan, etc as if the price difference was major). And the companies that still keep implementing it on their DVDs instead of region 0 are even dumber.
What I never understood is anime dvds with regions. No one is going to buy anime from another country where it's cheaper just for the reduced price, since they don't understand language - if they're that desperate, they'll just download it anyway.
Does it work on Linux? (I expect not, but claiming it to be free without operating on the world's most popular free OS would be ironic....)
Does it work on OS X? Or only windows?
I never said the great state of Nevada had to pay for it, so it would still help their economy. Since you said you had a great idea, I interpolated you had a fund to pay for it since that's the only way I would concur that it is such a great idea.
Otherwise, if I have to pay for it, I'd say the idea is run of the mill:)
Oh and number 8)In this day and age, still not everybody has broadband.
Some reasons someone would do this just off the top of my head:
1)DVD quality - not a 600MB avi or whatever.
2)Use your bandwidth for something else.
3)Prevent having your ISP kicking you off for excessive bandwidth use.
4)Both may be illegal, but I doubt they can track your activity with the netflix method. If you download off the net, that's another story.
5)Don't have to worry about virus/malware - unless you rent Sony DVDs:) I don't think this is anything to worry about, but it gives some people peace of mind.
6)Variety. Unless you are looking for the latest anime releases and Pron, I doubt the net has the consistent range of offerings as Netflix does in mainstream movies, past and present. Especially well seeded. As most movies today are crap, I like to watch somewhat older movies, yesterday it was "Name of the Rose" with Sean Connery. I doubt this is at any torrent site and if it is, probably not well-seeded.
7)Really consider the Political climate in the highly unlikely chance you get "caught" (I don't know if the MPAA is resorting to the same sue 'em tactics the RIAA is). But I really doubt the movie companies will drag someone who rented a movie to court. Especially if he deleted the copy later on, essentially just time-shifting. If he downloaded it though, that's a whole nother story because that be the intarweb, and when the intarweb is involved, the issue goes into the all-spin zone. It's like if you kill someone, that is bad in itself but the mundane thing would be to label it murder, while the new, hip thing is to label it terrorism and get a kneejerk emotional response.
Note: I'm not saying all these reasons are likely or even reasonable.