I misread this as Pornographic Industry. It made me wonder: Someone who didn't know anything about the internet might reasonably assume, at first glance, that it was created as a place for free porn. I wouldn't be suprised if there's more piracy in the porn industry than any other one. Yet I don't hear Larry Flynt whining about lost revenue. Does anyone have any figures on this? It would seem like this is an actual real-life example that proves that piracy doesn't hurt sales. But then, is it even about loss of sales? Did the RIAA have to prove damages in the Napster case? I doubt it, since there really weren't any.
I made an image of Bartholomew Roberts' pirate flag modded to have RIAA/MPAA on it. Thought you guys might get a kick out of it. You can grab wallpaper versions here: www.rootrecords.org/joshua_csehak.html.
What if I was a gangsta rapper, and one of my songs went "Nigga, you gonna die!"? In this exmple, it'd be easy for the KKK to twist my words around to make me look like something I'm not.
But do you think Louis Armstrong gets a bad rep because "What A Wonderful World" is played at Republican Party conventions? He may find them morally despicable, but it doesn't really matter. Only idiots assume the writer is associated with the politics.
Broadcasting something is very different from packaging it alongside video. If someone saw a KKK video and saw my name in the credits, it would be a reasonable assumption that I either believe in their goals or I'm a greedy bastard who'll license my music to anyone. It wouldn't occur to most people that the song might be in the public domain.
Re:Public Domain is too free for most creative wor
on
What Is Public Domain?
·
· Score: 2
Chopping up a copy of a picasso and exhibiting it would be considered art. In the art world, since it's impossible to make an exact copy of a painting, you can do whatever you want. One major artist (can't think of his name) even painted a painstakingly accurate copy of the mona lisa and exhibited it as his own work. It was perfectly legal and widely regarded as an important artistic statement.
I have no problems with someone chopping up my work and making their own artistic statement, even if it was I thought it was total crap and I didn't agree with it. I just don't want people using my work (or bits of it) to promote their non-artistic goals, be they racism or ABC's new fall lineup.
Re:Public Domain is too free for most creative wor
on
What Is Public Domain?
·
· Score: 2
Wrong. Waiving your copyright would not give anyone else the right to copyright it.
Yes, but it gets tricky. For instance, Disney has all sorts of copyrights to the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc. Legally, I'm allowed to use these characters for whatever because they're in the public domain, but I wouldn't be suprised if Disney sued and I only won the case after losing a lot of money in legal fees. Theoretically, you're 100% right, but I can imagine that things could get twisted around in some way that ends up getting the original artist screwed, and things are hard enough for indipendent musicians out there as it is.
You have deviated far from the spirit of the GPL with this
I thought that was a standard open-source thing. When I bought my Debian CDs, they were $5. Of course, companies like Red Hat can charge lots of dough for support, but as I understand it, you're not allowed to charge for the sale of free software you simply downloaded and repackaged. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
Public Domain is too free for most creative works
on
What Is Public Domain?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
While it may be fine for a piece of code, putting a creative work like a song in the public domain can be dangerous. When I first started releasing my music, I wanted to make it free for people to listen to, copy and change. But I realised: what if the KKK made a propaganda video and wanted to use a song of mine in the soundtrack? If my work was PD, or even released under the EFF's Open Audio License, they'd be able to. Open source purists might argue that people should be allowed to use free work for good and for evil, and that may be alright when your work is an app that converts mp3s to oggs, but with music it's not that simple. If a song of mine was used in a KKK video, not only would it compromise the artisitic integrity of the song, but it would ruin the experience for anyone who heard it first alongside the video. More importantly, my reputation would be shot to hell, because it would be an easy matter for people to assume that I worked alongside the KKK for this project.
Another issue I have is that if I put my songs into the public domain, and Sting, for instance, hears them and likes them (work with me here, it *could* happen), there's nothing to stop him from rerecording them as his own work. Then when I play my own song later on down the road, people would say "Hey, that's a Sting song!" Not only that, but Sting would be free to copyright them, so I would have to get his permission before releasing an album of my own songs! For these reasons, when I wrote the Open Sourse Music License, I kept it as close to the GPL as possible, but included a term to prevent people from displaying a song alonside accompanying video without the author's permission. I was hesitant to include it, but I don't think I had any other choice. If anyone else has any better ideas, let me know.
I fully applaud the Creative Commons, and everything they're doing with it, but for many people releasing your works into the PD can cause a lot more problems than it will solve.
I think I am glad that the computing world really offers OS choices as it once did so many years ago.
Not me. I'd be happy with the Windows monopoly, if it was open-source. Imagine if Windows was the only OS that existed. The computing world would be slow, full of security holes and crash often right? But now imagine if Windows was open-source. I'm sure it'd be as tight as Linux by now. And life would be a lot easier--software developers would have to code and test less and get a larger audience, there'd be no more platform arguments in the office, no more "how many times do I have to tell you to send.rtf, I can't read.doc!" As an Apple user, I've been having cross-platform issues since I first touched a mouse. I would love to see the world using only one OS. But only if it was free and open, of course.
Okay, so when you look at the sun on a normal day, and I mean when you glance up at it and look away as quickly as possible, it leaves an afterimage that lasts for a short while, but no permanent damage is done, right? Wouldn't it stand to reason that in an eclipse, since the moon is covering up most of the sun, you would be able to look at it longer without doing any damage?
I totally see where you're coming from. I was reading this interview with Moby in NY Times magazine, and they showed photos of his manhattan apartment. The things that struck me most: lots of sunlight, and a garden on the roof. It's kinda funny how in the city you have to be rich to get what in the country you get for free. Of course, if you're in the country, there's not as many places to buy cool stuff! Actually, a city like NY has plenty really great stuff over the country, like free museums and great shows (music and otherwise). I'm thinking it's not a bad trade-off, especially when you can leave your closet-apartment and look at those gorgeous Vermeers just about anytime you want. Man, it's like you own them.
Re:How is the Brooks article unintentionally funny
on
The Almighty Buck
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've bought a lot of crap I don't need, but I want
Worse than that is when you buy stuff you don't need but really want, then two days later you realise you don't have much of a use for it, and don't really want it anymore. Anyone else just go out and buy something just cause it feels good to? What's going on? You know, I've been unemployed for a while, so I don't buy much of anything other than groceries (well, and beer) these days, and to tell you the truth, I don't really miss it. Maybe this is what the **AAs are really afraid of? Not that piracy will deprive them of their revenues, but that it'll get people used to not buying stuff, and then they'll really be up shit creek.
There's the same happy : unhappy ratio of rich and poor people. Yet I swear, no matter how many times it hasn't happened, if I had a little more cash, life would be a lot better.
All the major religions, all those philosophers mentioned in the last article seem to say "the key to true happiness is inside you," but I feel like the Greatest American Hero: where's the manual?
_ I provide a donation to the developers of all the OSS projects that I use. At least, the ones that ask for it.
_ I only donate to the software projects that I feel really need my support.
_ I'm broke, but I plan to donate when I have more money. In the meantime, I'm very grateful to these programmers for their efforts.
_ I never donate any of my own money, but I convince the place I work at to use free software and donate to the developers whenever they can.
_ I never give away any of my hard-earned cash when I don't have to. Suckers!
_ Some friday nights I give CowboyNeal money to open his "source." Yowza!
WAY OFF TOPIC:
anyone else see the ThinkGeek banner ad for the green laser pointer? What do you think the chances are of them getting them to be a couple inches in diameter (rather than 532 nanometers) and stop after about 4 feet? So cool...
Are those doors or drive-in-movie trays? What is that, like 3 less inches you have to step over to get out? I say save money on hinges and go dukes of hazzard style.
the thing with me (and I suspect most people out there) is that I can afford to buy x CDs (which, with the tech recession now, x is like, 1), but I'm interested in hearing y CDs. At any point in time for me, y is somewhere between 10 and 100, possibly way more. There's no way I'll ever be able to buy all the CDs I wan tto hear, and for some reason, p2p or no p2p, I tend to buy as many CDs as I can afford (Call me old fashioned, I just like the packaging). So pirating music just makes me want to buy more. I suspect it'll be the same with movies soon.
Okay, here's something. What if I go out and buy Eminem's new album on vinyl? Is it then morally ok to pirate it? (I say hell yeah)
Em's hooked up with Dre, and they've got their own studio and everything. I expect he makes between a buck and two (AFAIK, standard royalty rate is 11-14%) on each CD, and he probably starts with the first CD sold. I've heard stories about rappers being scared to go into the Aftermath home offices; if I was a major label, I'd give them all their royalties and then some...
You are not a "thief" or a "pirate" perhaps, but you are still morally wrong. It is their movie, to be distributed and sold as they please, at the price they want
I see your point when it relates to any artist alive today, or any label who bought the rights to an artist's work and needs to make a return on their investment (even if they screw the artist out of all their royalties in the process), but what if the people who invested time and/or money into the creation of the work are all long gone? For instance, I would love to set up a site where people could download mp3s of old blues tunes. These songs are hard to find, and much of the time you have to buy a whole CD to get the one song you want to hear. This can get very expensive. Now, the original artists are all long dead and for the most part have no kin to speak of. The original record companies who pressed the 78s so long ago are for the most part long gone bust, and sold their rights for a song to whatever major labels own them today. This is maybe the first pure american music, and most of it's not getting heard, in the name of power, control and money. What's more, musicians all over the world are unable to hear many songs that would inspire them to make more music of their own. The way I see it, it's immoral not to spread these recordings to as many people as possible.
You don't own the right to see it until a rightful owner or his licensee sells or grants a viewing license to you.
The thing is, you can do whatever you want with your physical copy of the thing (book, DVD, CD, whatever), including show it to other people, as long as it's not a whole bunch of people at the same time (broadcasting). So you do have a right to see it if a friend loans you his copy, or you rent it from a video store. The (very) fine line between this and piracy is that with p2p, your friends are people you probably just met and will never talk to again. Now if Film88 has a legally-bought copy of every DVD they make available, and they only allow as many simultaneous streams as there are copies in stock, it's all perfectly legal. I doubt that the latter is true though, which is, IMO, the only thing morally wrong about Film88's business model.
Thievery is when you take something from someone and they don't have it anymore, since you stole it. This is clearly morally and legally wrong. The taking of information is a much more grey area though. If I download Eminem's latest CD, rather than buy it at the store, is it stealing? Maybe--Eminem is out (a potential) $15. What if I download his CD, and can honestly say I wouldn't buy it, even if it wasn't on p2p? Well, in that case, he lost nothing and gained a listener. What if I've got $15 to spend and I pirate 3 different CDs, and buy the one I like the best? How about after hearing those CDs, I decide I just have to own 2 of them, and I scrounge up $30?
It's not a clear cut moral issue. What it really comes down to is this: are the labels and movie studios losing money due to piracy? All available evidence points to the notion that they're profiting from it. So far, that is. I figure the *AAs are working so hard to prevent piracy out of a (reasonable) fear that it will get out of hand and later on they will lose a lot of money from it. But until I see any evidence that piracy hurts the content distributers, I'll "pirate" with a clear conscience. And even after that, I'll buy from the musician-owned labels first.
I expect that Film88 buys DVDs, rips them, then streams them. So they have stolen nothing. What they are doing is circumventing the MPAA's business model, which may or may not be morally wrong, but it falls quite outside of "theft." We need new terms and new legislation to appropriately deal with this sort of thing.
I'll hand it to Lucas, ATOC looked a lot better than I thought. I even didn't notice that it was digital. But there was no part in the movie where I said "Damn, that's some *beautiful* photography." There is a crapload of different film stocks, all of which react to light in a different way. Because of this, digital simply can't replace chemical, it can only approximate and mimic it. Watch "Three Kings." There was some really amazing photography in that that they created through the use of a unique (custom made, IIRC) film stock. The movie would've been a lot less visually pleasing had it been filmed on digital.
I expect that studios will switch to digital and CG for pictures that are fluff and all about the benjamins (next SNL spinoff movie, etc...), but any director (and/or director of photography) who really wants to make art will continue to use film for a long, long time.
He actually got a bit frustrated over everyone finding 42 everywhere, and maintained it was because they were looking for it--if they looked for 35 instead, they'd find it just as much. He said he simply looked out the window into his garden and picked a number out of the air. It happened to be 42. Totally random. That is, totally random as far as he was aware!
Where does all the $$ go?
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Everyone I know gets charged about $40/month for basic cable (except in CT, where it's a reasonable $10). Why is it so high? Are they still recouping costs from laying the actual cables? I dunno, they've been around for years, sometimes decades. And don't they make enough money from advertisers? Anyone else remember when cable first came out, they said your monthly fee was so you didn't have to watch commercials? So much for that. I wouldn't mind forking over $40/month if they gave me a good reason why it needed to be that high. Unfortunately, it seems like they're overcharging just because they can, and that's one of the best ways to promote piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
National Federation of the Phonographic Industry
I misread this as Pornographic Industry. It made me wonder: Someone who didn't know anything about the internet might reasonably assume, at first glance, that it was created as a place for free porn. I wouldn't be suprised if there's more piracy in the porn industry than any other one. Yet I don't hear Larry Flynt whining about lost revenue. Does anyone have any figures on this? It would seem like this is an actual real-life example that proves that piracy doesn't hurt sales. But then, is it even about loss of sales? Did the RIAA have to prove damages in the Napster case? I doubt it, since there really weren't any.
I made an image of Bartholomew Roberts' pirate flag modded to have RIAA/MPAA on it. Thought you guys might get a kick out of it. You can grab wallpaper versions here: www.rootrecords.org/joshua_csehak.html.
you guys have convinced me :)
What if I was a gangsta rapper, and one of my songs went "Nigga, you gonna die!"? In this exmple, it'd be easy for the KKK to twist my words around to make me look like something I'm not.
But do you think Louis Armstrong gets a bad rep because "What A Wonderful World" is played at Republican Party conventions? He may find them morally despicable, but it doesn't really matter. Only idiots assume the writer is associated with the politics.
Broadcasting something is very different from packaging it alongside video. If someone saw a KKK video and saw my name in the credits, it would be a reasonable assumption that I either believe in their goals or I'm a greedy bastard who'll license my music to anyone. It wouldn't occur to most people that the song might be in the public domain.
Chopping up a copy of a picasso and exhibiting it would be considered art. In the art world, since it's impossible to make an exact copy of a painting, you can do whatever you want. One major artist (can't think of his name) even painted a painstakingly accurate copy of the mona lisa and exhibited it as his own work. It was perfectly legal and widely regarded as an important artistic statement.
I have no problems with someone chopping up my work and making their own artistic statement, even if it was I thought it was total crap and I didn't agree with it. I just don't want people using my work (or bits of it) to promote their non-artistic goals, be they racism or ABC's new fall lineup.
Wrong. Waiving your copyright would not give anyone else the right to copyright it.
Yes, but it gets tricky. For instance, Disney has all sorts of copyrights to the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc. Legally, I'm allowed to use these characters for whatever because they're in the public domain, but I wouldn't be suprised if Disney sued and I only won the case after losing a lot of money in legal fees. Theoretically, you're 100% right, but I can imagine that things could get twisted around in some way that ends up getting the original artist screwed, and things are hard enough for indipendent musicians out there as it is.
You have deviated far from the spirit of the GPL with this
I thought that was a standard open-source thing. When I bought my Debian CDs, they were $5. Of course, companies like Red Hat can charge lots of dough for support, but as I understand it, you're not allowed to charge for the sale of free software you simply downloaded and repackaged. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
While it may be fine for a piece of code, putting a creative work like a song in the public domain can be dangerous. When I first started releasing my music, I wanted to make it free for people to listen to, copy and change. But I realised: what if the KKK made a propaganda video and wanted to use a song of mine in the soundtrack? If my work was PD, or even released under the EFF's Open Audio License, they'd be able to. Open source purists might argue that people should be allowed to use free work for good and for evil, and that may be alright when your work is an app that converts mp3s to oggs, but with music it's not that simple. If a song of mine was used in a KKK video, not only would it compromise the artisitic integrity of the song, but it would ruin the experience for anyone who heard it first alongside the video. More importantly, my reputation would be shot to hell, because it would be an easy matter for people to assume that I worked alongside the KKK for this project.
Another issue I have is that if I put my songs into the public domain, and Sting, for instance, hears them and likes them (work with me here, it *could* happen), there's nothing to stop him from rerecording them as his own work. Then when I play my own song later on down the road, people would say "Hey, that's a Sting song!" Not only that, but Sting would be free to copyright them, so I would have to get his permission before releasing an album of my own songs! For these reasons, when I wrote the Open Sourse Music License, I kept it as close to the GPL as possible, but included a term to prevent people from displaying a song alonside accompanying video without the author's permission. I was hesitant to include it, but I don't think I had any other choice. If anyone else has any better ideas, let me know.
I fully applaud the Creative Commons, and everything they're doing with it, but for many people releasing your works into the PD can cause a lot more problems than it will solve.
I think I am glad that the computing world really offers OS choices as it once did so many years ago.
.rtf, I can't read .doc!" As an Apple user, I've been having cross-platform issues since I first touched a mouse. I would love to see the world using only one OS. But only if it was free and open, of course.
Not me. I'd be happy with the Windows monopoly, if it was open-source. Imagine if Windows was the only OS that existed. The computing world would be slow, full of security holes and crash often right? But now imagine if Windows was open-source. I'm sure it'd be as tight as Linux by now. And life would be a lot easier--software developers would have to code and test less and get a larger audience, there'd be no more platform arguments in the office, no more "how many times do I have to tell you to send
it was as simple as 'ladepujd', the name of the database's creator spelt backwards
What an idiot. I, an 31337 hax0r, am much smarter. My password, "78sne4ml;w" is composed of random characters, which nobody would ever guess. Lam3r.
Okay, so when you look at the sun on a normal day, and I mean when you glance up at it and look away as quickly as possible, it leaves an afterimage that lasts for a short while, but no permanent damage is done, right? Wouldn't it stand to reason that in an eclipse, since the moon is covering up most of the sun, you would be able to look at it longer without doing any damage?
I totally see where you're coming from. I was reading this interview with Moby in NY Times magazine, and they showed photos of his manhattan apartment. The things that struck me most: lots of sunlight, and a garden on the roof. It's kinda funny how in the city you have to be rich to get what in the country you get for free. Of course, if you're in the country, there's not as many places to buy cool stuff! Actually, a city like NY has plenty really great stuff over the country, like free museums and great shows (music and otherwise). I'm thinking it's not a bad trade-off, especially when you can leave your closet-apartment and look at those gorgeous Vermeers just about anytime you want. Man, it's like you own them.
I've bought a lot of crap I don't need, but I want
Worse than that is when you buy stuff you don't need but really want, then two days later you realise you don't have much of a use for it, and don't really want it anymore. Anyone else just go out and buy something just cause it feels good to? What's going on? You know, I've been unemployed for a while, so I don't buy much of anything other than groceries (well, and beer) these days, and to tell you the truth, I don't really miss it. Maybe this is what the **AAs are really afraid of? Not that piracy will deprive them of their revenues, but that it'll get people used to not buying stuff, and then they'll really be up shit creek.
There's the same happy : unhappy ratio of rich and poor people. Yet I swear, no matter how many times it hasn't happened, if I had a little more cash, life would be a lot better.
All the major religions, all those philosophers mentioned in the last article seem to say "the key to true happiness is inside you," but I feel like the Greatest American Hero: where's the manual?
_ I provide a donation to the developers of all the OSS projects that I use. At least, the ones that ask for it.
_ I only donate to the software projects that I feel really need my support.
_ I'm broke, but I plan to donate when I have more money. In the meantime, I'm very grateful to these programmers for their efforts.
_ I never donate any of my own money, but I convince the place I work at to use free software and donate to the developers whenever they can.
_ I never give away any of my hard-earned cash when I don't have to. Suckers!
_ Some friday nights I give CowboyNeal money to open his "source." Yowza!
WAY OFF TOPIC:
anyone else see the ThinkGeek banner ad for the green laser pointer? What do you think the chances are of them getting them to be a couple inches in diameter (rather than 532 nanometers) and stop after about 4 feet? So cool...
Are those doors or drive-in-movie trays? What is that, like 3 less inches you have to step over to get out? I say save money on hinges and go dukes of hazzard style.
placing bets with non-slashdotters (or non-mtv.com'ers)
sweet.
if you really, truly, cannot afford to buy a CD
the thing with me (and I suspect most people out there) is that I can afford to buy x CDs (which, with the tech recession now, x is like, 1), but I'm interested in hearing y CDs. At any point in time for me, y is somewhere between 10 and 100, possibly way more. There's no way I'll ever be able to buy all the CDs I wan tto hear, and for some reason, p2p or no p2p, I tend to buy as many CDs as I can afford (Call me old fashioned, I just like the packaging). So pirating music just makes me want to buy more. I suspect it'll be the same with movies soon.
Okay, here's something. What if I go out and buy Eminem's new album on vinyl? Is it then morally ok to pirate it? (I say hell yeah)
Em's hooked up with Dre, and they've got their own studio and everything. I expect he makes between a buck and two (AFAIK, standard royalty rate is 11-14%) on each CD, and he probably starts with the first CD sold. I've heard stories about rappers being scared to go into the Aftermath home offices; if I was a major label, I'd give them all their royalties and then some...
You are not a "thief" or a "pirate" perhaps, but you are still morally wrong. It is their movie, to be distributed and sold as they please, at the price they want
I see your point when it relates to any artist alive today, or any label who bought the rights to an artist's work and needs to make a return on their investment (even if they screw the artist out of all their royalties in the process), but what if the people who invested time and/or money into the creation of the work are all long gone? For instance, I would love to set up a site where people could download mp3s of old blues tunes. These songs are hard to find, and much of the time you have to buy a whole CD to get the one song you want to hear. This can get very expensive. Now, the original artists are all long dead and for the most part have no kin to speak of. The original record companies who pressed the 78s so long ago are for the most part long gone bust, and sold their rights for a song to whatever major labels own them today. This is maybe the first pure american music, and most of it's not getting heard, in the name of power, control and money. What's more, musicians all over the world are unable to hear many songs that would inspire them to make more music of their own. The way I see it, it's immoral not to spread these recordings to as many people as possible.
You don't own the right to see it until a rightful owner or his licensee sells or grants a viewing license to you.
The thing is, you can do whatever you want with your physical copy of the thing (book, DVD, CD, whatever), including show it to other people, as long as it's not a whole bunch of people at the same time (broadcasting). So you do have a right to see it if a friend loans you his copy, or you rent it from a video store. The (very) fine line between this and piracy is that with p2p, your friends are people you probably just met and will never talk to again. Now if Film88 has a legally-bought copy of every DVD they make available, and they only allow as many simultaneous streams as there are copies in stock, it's all perfectly legal. I doubt that the latter is true though, which is, IMO, the only thing morally wrong about Film88's business model.
Thievery is when you take something from someone and they don't have it anymore, since you stole it. This is clearly morally and legally wrong. The taking of information is a much more grey area though. If I download Eminem's latest CD, rather than buy it at the store, is it stealing? Maybe--Eminem is out (a potential) $15. What if I download his CD, and can honestly say I wouldn't buy it, even if it wasn't on p2p? Well, in that case, he lost nothing and gained a listener. What if I've got $15 to spend and I pirate 3 different CDs, and buy the one I like the best? How about after hearing those CDs, I decide I just have to own 2 of them, and I scrounge up $30?
It's not a clear cut moral issue. What it really comes down to is this: are the labels and movie studios losing money due to piracy? All available evidence points to the notion that they're profiting from it. So far, that is. I figure the *AAs are working so hard to prevent piracy out of a (reasonable) fear that it will get out of hand and later on they will lose a lot of money from it. But until I see any evidence that piracy hurts the content distributers, I'll "pirate" with a clear conscience. And even after that, I'll buy from the musician-owned labels first.
I expect that Film88 buys DVDs, rips them, then streams them. So they have stolen nothing. What they are doing is circumventing the MPAA's business model, which may or may not be morally wrong, but it falls quite outside of "theft." We need new terms and new legislation to appropriately deal with this sort of thing.
I'll hand it to Lucas, ATOC looked a lot better than I thought. I even didn't notice that it was digital. But there was no part in the movie where I said "Damn, that's some *beautiful* photography." There is a crapload of different film stocks, all of which react to light in a different way. Because of this, digital simply can't replace chemical, it can only approximate and mimic it. Watch "Three Kings." There was some really amazing photography in that that they created through the use of a unique (custom made, IIRC) film stock. The movie would've been a lot less visually pleasing had it been filmed on digital.
I expect that studios will switch to digital and CG for pictures that are fluff and all about the benjamins (next SNL spinoff movie, etc...), but any director (and/or director of photography) who really wants to make art will continue to use film for a long, long time.
... I can just play Quake!
Cryo-chamber, here I come!
He actually got a bit frustrated over everyone finding 42 everywhere, and maintained it was because they were looking for it--if they looked for 35 instead, they'd find it just as much. He said he simply looked out the window into his garden and picked a number out of the air. It happened to be 42. Totally random. That is, totally random as far as he was aware!
Everyone I know gets charged about $40/month for basic cable (except in CT, where it's a reasonable $10). Why is it so high? Are they still recouping costs from laying the actual cables? I dunno, they've been around for years, sometimes decades. And don't they make enough money from advertisers? Anyone else remember when cable first came out, they said your monthly fee was so you didn't have to watch commercials? So much for that. I wouldn't mind forking over $40/month if they gave me a good reason why it needed to be that high. Unfortunately, it seems like they're overcharging just because they can, and that's one of the best ways to promote piracy.
Is there a version control system in place? I want check out a previous version and get my old girlfriend back...