HD-DVD as a medium is dead, and MS cannot use it for anything.
Why?
For the same reason no games can require the hard drive: Not every system has one. As a result, no games can use HD-DVD media for their software. Regardless of whether it'd afford them more protection (none, essentially, since there are HD-DVD PC drives out there) they simply cannot use it due to the existing base of DVD-only players.
there needs to be a responsibility taken on the part of the public to protect the airwaves from the scatalogical, obscene devolution of language on public airwaves.
Does there really? I personally find obscene devolution of social awareness spurned on by trash like American Idol far worse than the fact than the possibility that the FCC won't be able to arbitrarily sock people with multi-hundred-thousand finds for saying "fuck" on the air (even accidentally!)
The FCC should be solely concerned with regulating the allocation of the EM spectrum usage in the United States, and that's -IT-.
You're right, any sane security-minded company would lock their systems down.
Any security-freak company. At my current place of employment everyone is the administrator of their local machines. And this is at *cough*well known maker of microprocessors*cough*
This usually isn't about approval of certain CAD or automated test software, it's about the damn internet and the gimme-gimmes wanting their fix because they can't go 8 hours without looking at some blinkenlights.
How old are you? And who are these "gimme-gimme"s you keep referring to, the hordes of baby-boomers expecting pension checks that I'm supposed to pay for? Or some deluded image you have in your mind of the "self entitled, disrespectful YOUNGER (than me) GENERATION?"
A good compromise would be for a company to set up a common terminal(with internet access but preventing anything from being installed) in the break room with a 2-minute max for each person. It'd be trivial to set up, even by an MSCE;)
That's not security, that's being a control freak.
It seems to me that open source, and all things that distribute IP for free would be the next target.
Well that makes no sense, since they can't pursue anyone who isn't distributing something they have control over. But then this is the idiotic persecution fantasy that so many people on this site revel in.
The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor.
I'm sure they wouldn't care, if not for the fact that its the copyrights of their member companies that are being violated. Were it truly being used like Slashdot espouses, with new and innovative businesses distributing their works (and only their works) I'm sure they'd have exactly zero room to breathe.
Wonder what the response of the MPAA and others related will be? Outlaw YouTube on television screens?
While this would fit in with the slashdot persecution fantasy, unless it contains a copyrighted work held by one of their members, the MPAA can't do a damned thing.
You could put up a free trial version, and have the full version for $ right next to it.
Or you could just put up a version for free that required a serial number, and direct people to your site for it. Although I imagine Apple might delist your app if you do it that way (that and they're providing the whole charge service for you.)
To even get an app listed on the iTunes store (whether or not you pay for it) costs $99. You can't distribute your app or load it on your phone (not even for debugging) without paying them $99.
Doesn't this impinge upon the ability to release (or port) GPL software to the iPhone?
Well so distribution costs have gone to effectively zero. That's only half the problem.
Attempting to carve out a copyright space in the digital age is just government interference in an economy whose most efficient course is to allow unmitigated copying.
So the most efficient course is to ensure that the costs of production cannot be recouped? Mind you, the p2p feeding frenzy we have these days is largely on the backs of the existing economic model. Blow that out and the food for the frenzy will probably slow to a trickle as well.
Well then we have to consider that copyrighted works are intangible, and bare little resemblance to physical property. You can appraise the value of a warehouse, factory, store or residence. How do you appraise the value of a copyrighted work?
How would you determine the tax to be paid on an open source project? Or on this post?
Mind you I'm just carrying forward a point someone else brought up, not necessarily vouching for it.
We will now use technology to ensure that only the content producers are rewarded.
If the pirate bay is any indication, we will use technology to ensure that the creators are shafted directly, as opposed to shafting the middle-man (who in turn provides fewer opportunities for content producers.)
The last time this came up on slashdot, a point was made that until some income is derived from a copyrighted work it has no value. Thus taxes paid on such works are via income tax.
The media giants have too much power, they just can't face decline.
There isn't a decline, per se, so much as people see they can get it for free. Many people enjoy the "crap" they churn out, they just don't want to give up their money in exchange for it.
So am I to be prosecuted because I don't purchase rubbish commercial music and use p2p?
Wait so P2P consists of "good, non-commercial music?" Or do you just use p2p to get the "rubbish commercial music?"
This plan is poor, but you should rework your statement because it can easily mean something you might not want others to think it does.
Every person I know in the EU in that age bracket downloads most of the media they consume rather than buying authorized copies.
Surely you don't believe they do so for any other reason than the price is zero. Some may, but I imagine the majority think more about the price than any righteous belief that "information wants to be free."
They only reason bootleggers make big money is because of copyright laws.
No, the reason they -don't- is because of copyright laws. Otherwise you'd see them in mass numbers on every street corner. Right now (in the US) they're hard to find outside of major cities, or online. And even then, those caught selling or distributing bootlegs are extremely liable and regularly get busted.
Without copyright to artificially prop up the price of copies, the price would fall to nearly zero since the internet makes distribution nearly free.
The price of REPRODUCTION would fall. The cost of production would remain unchanged, which is 90% of the price on those discs.
The only bootleggers left would be selling their service as distributors, just like any other distributor.
No, they'd be in business for themselves, churning out as many copies of a DVD as they could before all the others did and there was a glut of the disc on the market. The producers (writers, artists, other workers) of a given work wouldn't see a cent and would be stuck holding the bill.
Ah, your point would hold up if everything that was edited for TV was unavailable in an unedited format. Few edits that appear on TV make it to DVD. The only ones I can think of are shows mangled by 4kids. Oh and shows like One Peice are being re-released in an unedited format.
The problem with this, is that other countries receive a translated version from the English censored version:(
The problem is, in China, uncensored versions are not available. If the work is available at all, that is.
There is no rational argument for a system which enforces people trading for something I want to produce if that thing I want to produce is not desired.
This system does not exist. If you make something no one wants, no one will pay for it. But conversley, even if no one wants it -now-, who's to say they won't want it after it's made ("hey have you heard about X?!") There's no rational argument for denying a system that allows that to happen. Going out on a limb is not unheard of, but it's much easier when you can convince some deep pockets to take a gamble, which sometimes pays off.
There is also no rational argument for forcing people to create something they don't want to create if there are people that desire it (but don't want to provide it themselves).
Not a single person is forced to create something they don't want to. If they don't want a job writing show Y or song Z they don't have to. There is no force going on. This point is baseless.
Slashdot Mirror
HD-DVD as a medium is dead, and MS cannot use it for anything.
Why?
For the same reason no games can require the hard drive: Not every system has one. As a result, no games can use HD-DVD media for their software. Regardless of whether it'd afford them more protection (none, essentially, since there are HD-DVD PC drives out there) they simply cannot use it due to the existing base of DVD-only players.
Doubtful. For the cost and complexity of a tape drive you can stick two 500GB disks in a machine and get equal capacity, minus the linear nature.
Tape drives are for long-term archival, not general storage.
I don't pay taxes on my Playstation 2, or on my couch.
Do you want to try and estimate what the value, and tax, associated with any given open source project is? Who would pay it?
Do you want Microsoft to be able to forcibly buy out the Linux kernel? How about the Apache Project?
Shouldn't that be "lightweights?"
That's being disingenuous. Proceed with a grain of salt, but I think Google may have landed something far more valuable than the spectrum itself.
Does there really? I personally find obscene devolution of social awareness spurned on by trash like American Idol far worse than the fact than the possibility that the FCC won't be able to arbitrarily sock people with multi-hundred-thousand finds for saying "fuck" on the air (even accidentally!)
The FCC should be solely concerned with regulating the allocation of the EM spectrum usage in the United States, and that's -IT-.
You don't have the right to not be offended.
You can, however, criticize them for their impotence in linguistic capabilities. This is the nature of free speech and freedom of expression.
Any security-freak company. At my current place of employment everyone is the administrator of their local machines. And this is at *cough*well known maker of microprocessors*cough*
How old are you? And who are these "gimme-gimme"s you keep referring to, the hordes of baby-boomers expecting pension checks that I'm supposed to pay for? Or some deluded image you have in your mind of the "self entitled, disrespectful YOUNGER (than me) GENERATION?"
That's not security, that's being a control freak.
Well that makes no sense, since they can't pursue anyone who isn't distributing something they have control over. But then this is the idiotic persecution fantasy that so many people on this site revel in.
I'm sure they wouldn't care, if not for the fact that its the copyrights of their member companies that are being violated. Were it truly being used like Slashdot espouses, with new and innovative businesses distributing their works (and only their works) I'm sure they'd have exactly zero room to breathe.
But they've got ammunition, and LOTS of it.
While this would fit in with the slashdot persecution fantasy, unless it contains a copyrighted work held by one of their members, the MPAA can't do a damned thing.
You could put up a free trial version, and have the full version for $ right next to it.
Or you could just put up a version for free that required a serial number, and direct people to your site for it. Although I imagine Apple might delist your app if you do it that way (that and they're providing the whole charge service for you.)
To even get an app listed on the iTunes store (whether or not you pay for it) costs $99. You can't distribute your app or load it on your phone (not even for debugging) without paying them $99.
Doesn't this impinge upon the ability to release (or port) GPL software to the iPhone?
So the most efficient course is to ensure that the costs of production cannot be recouped? Mind you, the p2p feeding frenzy we have these days is largely on the backs of the existing economic model. Blow that out and the food for the frenzy will probably slow to a trickle as well.
Well then we have to consider that copyrighted works are intangible, and bare little resemblance to physical property. You can appraise the value of a warehouse, factory, store or residence. How do you appraise the value of a copyrighted work?
How would you determine the tax to be paid on an open source project? Or on this post?
Mind you I'm just carrying forward a point someone else brought up, not necessarily vouching for it.
If the pirate bay is any indication, we will use technology to ensure that the creators are shafted directly, as opposed to shafting the middle-man (who in turn provides fewer opportunities for content producers.)
And not a new idea.
The last time this came up on slashdot, a point was made that until some income is derived from a copyrighted work it has no value. Thus taxes paid on such works are via income tax.
Symbian applications, iirc, do require signing. I wouldn't be suprised if Blackberry apps did as well.
The part that gets people's goat is the claim that only apps approved by Apple will ever see release, and only through iTunes.
Except for the whole compensating the artist thing. Even if it's a pittance, it's more than zero.
But we can't be compensating the artists now, we have to keep feeding ammunition into the RIAA legal chaingun, don't we?
There isn't a decline, per se, so much as people see they can get it for free. Many people enjoy the "crap" they churn out, they just don't want to give up their money in exchange for it.
Wait so P2P consists of "good, non-commercial music?" Or do you just use p2p to get the "rubbish commercial music?"
This plan is poor, but you should rework your statement because it can easily mean something you might not want others to think it does.
I don't know about in England, but in the US that's considered a poor argument in favor of mob rule.
While I don't agree with the bent the UK government is taking, abolishing copyright in favor of mob greed isn't the right tactic.
Surely you don't believe they do so for any other reason than the price is zero. Some may, but I imagine the majority think more about the price than any righteous belief that "information wants to be free."
No, the reason they -don't- is because of copyright laws. Otherwise you'd see them in mass numbers on every street corner. Right now (in the US) they're hard to find outside of major cities, or online. And even then, those caught selling or distributing bootlegs are extremely liable and regularly get busted.
The price of REPRODUCTION would fall. The cost of production would remain unchanged, which is 90% of the price on those discs.
No, they'd be in business for themselves, churning out as many copies of a DVD as they could before all the others did and there was a glut of the disc on the market. The producers (writers, artists, other workers) of a given work wouldn't see a cent and would be stuck holding the bill.
The problem is, in China, uncensored versions are not available. If the work is available at all, that is.
This system does not exist. If you make something no one wants, no one will pay for it. But conversley, even if no one wants it -now-, who's to say they won't want it after it's made ("hey have you heard about X?!") There's no rational argument for denying a system that allows that to happen. Going out on a limb is not unheard of, but it's much easier when you can convince some deep pockets to take a gamble, which sometimes pays off.
Not a single person is forced to create something they don't want to. If they don't want a job writing show Y or song Z they don't have to. There is no force going on. This point is baseless.