I had never seen Lost, although certain friends had been raving about it. (I cancelled my cable last winter because I just don't watch TV.)
So I download the Pilot, which is sold as two episodes. $4.98. I figure if I really like it, I'll borrow the season 1 DVD from one of the aforementioned friends. The problem is that I found the pilot episode so compelling, that I couldn't wait, and downloaded another episode. And another.
That's 25 episodes (remember, the pilot is being sold in two parts) at $1.99 a crack. Of course, if I had had the foresight, I could have purchased and downloaded the entire first season for $35 bucks, instead of paying almost $50 piecemeal. And of course, buying the DVD would have been smartest of all, if I could have foreseen just how hooked I would be.
I also bought an episode of The Nightstalker, but that didn't trigger any addictive behavior.
OK, so now I'm up to date with Lost, having spent another $10 on the second season shows (5 on iTMS so far). Yes, I am jonesing for the next episode to be released online. And I'll probably end up buying the DVD anyway, I've become such a Lost addict.
So, yeah, this is a very good deal. For Apple. And for Disney especially (if I buy the DVD, they'll have gotten my money twice!).
By the way, you hear many people complaining about the "crappy resolution", but I don't think any of them have actually seen this video. It looks great on my 22" Cinema Display or full screen on my Titanium PB. Too bad it's not widescreen (like the DVD is. Doh!)
I don't see this as making a major dent in "piracy", either amongst professionals or amongst your typical college student or other person with little money (but a computer and a fat pipe) casually downloading material.
However, what Apple is demonstrating and has demonstrated is that it is possible to reclaim millions and millions of dollars that would have been otherwise lost to casual downloading. They have been able to do this because they're savvy enough to understand that people download media for a variety of reasons and motivations, and they've honed in on convenience as a motivation (or desire) they can address. (Convenience = ease of use.)
Regardless, if the movie industry can get it's head out of it's (I think you misspelled ASS), it stands to add many millions to its bottom line. They can still (and probably will) go after "pirates" large and small, but it's in their own best interest to give the customer what the customer wants. I hope they wake up and smell the coffee.
I never said "all" of/. is against copyrights. However, if you're going to pretend that the vast majority of/. isn't . . . [yada yada yada]
Your rather provocative post heavily implies the "all" of slashdot; I didn't just pull that out of my ass. Speaking of pulling things out of one's ass, let's talk about "vast majority". Or wait, let's not talk about it. Let's talk about slashdot get rich schemes:
1) Post something trollish in hopes of getting a response 2) Get response 3) ???? 4) Profit!! (Or write an excruciatingly boring lengthy reply, as you seem to have done.)
Sorry, I don't have time to read your book length "well thought out response". Try to rhetorically mug someone else. When I come across tactics such as yours, I've come to realize that I'm in the presence of a bore, and it really doesn't matter what I say, you're going to continue with your little debate. I avoid your type at cocktail parties.
I think that an uneducated god who is ignorant regarding copyright created your universe. Where did you get the idea that all of us are against copyrights? I say that you're the one having the knee jerk reaction.
I've seen a wide spectrum of opinion on copyright here on slashdot. Indeed, if you are a linux proponent, you should be aware that the GPL gets it's muscle from, and is built upon, copyright law. And while others think copyrights are not morally valid, plenty of us would disagree. Our objection is to the twisting of copyright in the DCMA and in the never-ending extensions being granted by our legislators.
You're using too broad a brush, and it reflects poorly on your intelligence.
What do you mean "replaced"? Those who have been touched by his noodley appendage know directly that FSM is the deity.
And as far as it being as valid as so called "Christian ID", then tell me, how do you explain the existence of Parmesan cheese? ID and other Christian creation myths completely duck this question.
It's not a relevant point, it's just a florish, perhaps with the purpose of demonstrating that a scientist might have religious/spiritual beliefs. However, those beliefs are irrelevant to science. A belief in God does not preclude one from engaging in science. A belief in God does not automatically mean one's brain shuts down.
What is at issue here is that a small group of people wish to insert their religious agenda on science curricula and impose their religious beliefs on others, using the science curriculum. What the satirical piece was pointing out was the hypocrisy of the creationists, who wish to pick and choose when and where their "theories" should apply (which is further evidence that ID/creationism is an ideology masquerading as science).
I don't see the Taiwanese government offering to pay a "reasonable" price.
It's in the article that Taiwan was/is in negotiations with Roche. And the bottom line is that Taiwan has decided to go ahead, despite the fact that an agreement hasn't been reached (yet) in these negotiations.
I don't think that this is really about the money to the Taiwanese. They are not a poor nation. It is about producing enough of the drug quickly to head off an epidemic.
I'm sure you did RTFA (despite this being slashdot), but you might have skipped over this part:
A top health official said Taiwan had demonstrated its goodwill to Roche in talks - and the country hoped it would eventually secure permission to copy the drug.
"We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche," Su Ih-jen told Reuters news agency.
"It means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing," he said.
I think this falls under the legal concept of eminent domain, which makes it legal for the state to use property for the public good. Usually this applies to real property and construction projects that will benefit the greater public, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.
That should have been HD, not DV, in the percentage of productions on my stage. The only thing anyone is using DV for these days is "behind the scenes" video.
I haven't yet seen anything shot on HDV come through the stage.
All pretty good points you've made, but there is one more I'd like to add.
To make a movie for under a million*, but especially for under $100,000, you must be prepared to abuse your crew and take advantage of them. Kevin Smith made Clerks for that budget because he had to, not because he wanted to make a cheap movie so that Mozk, Slavemowgli, and Warlock could download it for free and it would be easier to recoup his costs.
That he was able to complete Clerks for that amount is a testament to how dedicated and willing to be abused his crew was. And hopefully, he took care of them and hired them back when he had bigger budgets. he doesn't seem to be a total dick.
My point is this: Clerks is the rare exception. Many people try to make ultra low budget movies, and many fail. Many crew people are willing to work on these projects in between the times when they are working bigger budget projects and getting paid a decent wage. Other crew members are willing because they are trying to break into the business. They receive their on-the-job training from the more experienced (hopefully) crew that is filling in the holes in their schedules or doing favors for someone.
When you start talking about low budget movies with budgets from $5 million to $40 million, you're getting into some real money. As others have stated, those putting up the money want some assurance that they will make their money back, and possibly profit handsomely. One way of doing this is by paying for actors with some sort of recognition factor, the bigger the name the better.
When someone goes on about how all movies should be made for under $100,000 (or some such low ball figure), I just figure that they are ignorant. When they do it to justify their copyright infringement, I figure that they really don't put much value on the lives of their fellow human beings. They show a lack of respect for hard working people.
PS: 16 isn't so bad (although super16 is better), but with more shows of all budget levels going to digital intermediates, 16 doesn't represent that great a cost savings. Currently, as a stage manager, I'm seeing about 90% shot on DV and 10% shot on film. Most of the film stuff is 35mm.
* A fairly arbitrary figure, given that many factors are involved in determining what a budget should be at the minimum. Some put 5 million as ultra low budget, but I think one can generally hire a good crew at a decent wage on budgets between 1 and 5 million.
You're a lot smarter than the majority apparently is, knowing to take preventative action to avoid scratching the screen.
Yet the very existence of the product you used points to the fact that this is a problem common to all small exposed screens, not just the nano's screen. Obviously this propensity for scratches didn't surprise you.
What I find maddening is how our right as citizens to form together as a class and bring action in a civil court is being frittered away by such frivolous cases. In the not to distant future, under the cover of reform, this right will be taken from us by our duly elected representatives because a few greedy people abused the law. And it's not just the unethical greedy lawyers behind this. A greedy unethical lawyer needs a greedy unethical client.*
*The exception to this is Jack Thompson, who doesn't need a client, just a good swift kick in the ass.
Yeah, the way Apple has exploited their dominance of the OS market to take over the downloadable music market and the MP3 market is pretty heinous and I'm sure the DOJ is keeping a close eye on them. And the creation of a new market of downloading video clips! That's just the sort of unfair business practice to which the DOJ pays close attention. Reminds me exactly of how MS has bullied PC makers to maintain its monopoly.
The video ipod is classic Apple: as much as possible a one-way street from Content Owners through Apple to Consumers, with the ipod remaining as tethered as possible to a Mac/iTunes for operation. Making it harder than it should be for ipod owners to create and share their own content.
I don't think that the iPod was ever intended to create content. Maybe you're thinking of a video camera? (If you want an audio recording device, there is an accessory for the iPod, but seriously, that's not what you want to use for creating anything other than oral notes. You're better off getting a proper tool for the job, rather than using an MP3 player.)
As far as denying users the opportunity to create content being a hallmark of Apple, I entirely agree with you, as I have never heard of Garage Band, iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut Pro, Motion, iPhoto, etc.
I think you and the GP have hit upon something, intentionally or not. In both cases, you are talking about a value added option that adds to revenue, but is not the primary revenue stream.
What is interesting (to me) is that in both cases, the story is not about convergence, but about integration, creating value by successfully combining and tying together technologies. Thus we have the iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. You can use any of these individually, but they are most powerful when tied together.
It looks like Echostar is following a similar model, and if they are successful in execution of the idea, they should succeed financially.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you're a winner! I'm so happy I could provide some meaning to your otherwise meaningless existence.
Seriously, go pat yourself on the back, dude. YOU WON AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET!!!11
for Apple =)
I had never seen Lost, although certain friends had been raving about it. (I cancelled my cable last winter because I just don't watch TV.)
So I download the Pilot, which is sold as two episodes. $4.98. I figure if I really like it, I'll borrow the season 1 DVD from one of the aforementioned friends. The problem is that I found the pilot episode so compelling, that I couldn't wait, and downloaded another episode. And another.
That's 25 episodes (remember, the pilot is being sold in two parts) at $1.99 a crack. Of course, if I had had the foresight, I could have purchased and downloaded the entire first season for $35 bucks, instead of paying almost $50 piecemeal. And of course, buying the DVD would have been smartest of all, if I could have foreseen just how hooked I would be.
I also bought an episode of The Nightstalker, but that didn't trigger any addictive behavior.
OK, so now I'm up to date with Lost, having spent another $10 on the second season shows (5 on iTMS so far). Yes, I am jonesing for the next episode to be released online. And I'll probably end up buying the DVD anyway, I've become such a Lost addict.
So, yeah, this is a very good deal. For Apple. And for Disney especially (if I buy the DVD, they'll have gotten my money twice!).
By the way, you hear many people complaining about the "crappy resolution", but I don't think any of them have actually seen this video. It looks great on my 22" Cinema Display or full screen on my Titanium PB. Too bad it's not widescreen (like the DVD is. Doh!)
I don't see this as making a major dent in "piracy", either amongst professionals or amongst your typical college student or other person with little money (but a computer and a fat pipe) casually downloading material.
However, what Apple is demonstrating and has demonstrated is that it is possible to reclaim millions and millions of dollars that would have been otherwise lost to casual downloading. They have been able to do this because they're savvy enough to understand that people download media for a variety of reasons and motivations, and they've honed in on convenience as a motivation (or desire) they can address. (Convenience = ease of use.)
Regardless, if the movie industry can get it's head out of it's (I think you misspelled ASS), it stands to add many millions to its bottom line. They can still (and probably will) go after "pirates" large and small, but it's in their own best interest to give the customer what the customer wants. I hope they wake up and smell the coffee.
I never said "all" of /. is against copyrights. However, if you're going to pretend that the vast majority of /. isn't . . . [yada yada yada]
Your rather provocative post heavily implies the "all" of slashdot; I didn't just pull that out of my ass. Speaking of pulling things out of one's ass, let's talk about "vast majority". Or wait, let's not talk about it. Let's talk about slashdot get rich schemes:
1) Post something trollish in hopes of getting a response
2) Get response
3) ????
4) Profit!! (Or write an excruciatingly boring lengthy reply, as you seem to have done.)
Sorry, I don't have time to read your book length "well thought out response". Try to rhetorically mug someone else. When I come across tactics such as yours, I've come to realize that I'm in the presence of a bore, and it really doesn't matter what I say, you're going to continue with your little debate. I avoid your type at cocktail parties.
I think that an uneducated god who is ignorant regarding copyright created your universe. Where did you get the idea that all of us are against copyrights? I say that you're the one having the knee jerk reaction.
I've seen a wide spectrum of opinion on copyright here on slashdot. Indeed, if you are a linux proponent, you should be aware that the GPL gets it's muscle from, and is built upon, copyright law. And while others think copyrights are not morally valid, plenty of us would disagree. Our objection is to the twisting of copyright in the DCMA and in the never-ending extensions being granted by our legislators.
You're using too broad a brush, and it reflects poorly on your intelligence.
What do you mean "replaced"? Those who have been touched by his noodley appendage know directly that FSM is the deity.
And as far as it being as valid as so called "Christian ID", then tell me, how do you explain the existence of Parmesan cheese? ID and other Christian creation myths completely duck this question.
It's not a relevant point, it's just a florish, perhaps with the purpose of demonstrating that a scientist might have religious/spiritual beliefs. However, those beliefs are irrelevant to science. A belief in God does not preclude one from engaging in science. A belief in God does not automatically mean one's brain shuts down.
What is at issue here is that a small group of people wish to insert their religious agenda on science curricula and impose their religious beliefs on others, using the science curriculum. What the satirical piece was pointing out was the hypocrisy of the creationists, who wish to pick and choose when and where their "theories" should apply (which is further evidence that ID/creationism is an ideology masquerading as science).
Wrong. You are Jack's Karma.
(Which I guess brings this back around to the original topic.)
You mean with secret dots?
You must be referring to Wobs, aka the man with the iron pocket protector.
Let me know when you see him. The little bastard owes me $5.
Man, I hate when that happens. Why can't they sell tools and knives when I'm drunk late at night?
Anyone want a limited edition collectable Elvis plate? Cheap!
Is an anology transmitter anything like a metaphor broadcaster? Are we ready for wireless similes? Metonymy relays?
It's in the article that Taiwan was/is in negotiations with Roche. And the bottom line is that Taiwan has decided to go ahead, despite the fact that an agreement hasn't been reached (yet) in these negotiations.
I don't think that this is really about the money to the Taiwanese. They are not a poor nation. It is about producing enough of the drug quickly to head off an epidemic.
I'm sure you did RTFA (despite this being slashdot), but you might have skipped over this part:
I think this falls under the legal concept of eminent domain, which makes it legal for the state to use property for the public good. Usually this applies to real property and construction projects that will benefit the greater public, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.
That should have been HD, not DV, in the percentage of productions on my stage. The only thing anyone is using DV for these days is "behind the scenes" video.
I haven't yet seen anything shot on HDV come through the stage.
All pretty good points you've made, but there is one more I'd like to add.
To make a movie for under a million*, but especially for under $100,000, you must be prepared to abuse your crew and take advantage of them. Kevin Smith made Clerks for that budget because he had to, not because he wanted to make a cheap movie so that Mozk, Slavemowgli, and Warlock could download it for free and it would be easier to recoup his costs.
That he was able to complete Clerks for that amount is a testament to how dedicated and willing to be abused his crew was. And hopefully, he took care of them and hired them back when he had bigger budgets. he doesn't seem to be a total dick.
My point is this: Clerks is the rare exception. Many people try to make ultra low budget movies, and many fail. Many crew people are willing to work on these projects in between the times when they are working bigger budget projects and getting paid a decent wage. Other crew members are willing because they are trying to break into the business. They receive their on-the-job training from the more experienced (hopefully) crew that is filling in the holes in their schedules or doing favors for someone.
When you start talking about low budget movies with budgets from $5 million to $40 million, you're getting into some real money. As others have stated, those putting up the money want some assurance that they will make their money back, and possibly profit handsomely. One way of doing this is by paying for actors with some sort of recognition factor, the bigger the name the better.
When someone goes on about how all movies should be made for under $100,000 (or some such low ball figure), I just figure that they are ignorant. When they do it to justify their copyright infringement, I figure that they really don't put much value on the lives of their fellow human beings. They show a lack of respect for hard working people.
PS: 16 isn't so bad (although super16 is better), but with more shows of all budget levels going to digital intermediates, 16 doesn't represent that great a cost savings. Currently, as a stage manager, I'm seeing about 90% shot on DV and 10% shot on film. Most of the film stuff is 35mm.
* A fairly arbitrary figure, given that many factors are involved in determining what a budget should be at the minimum. Some put 5 million as ultra low budget, but I think one can generally hire a good crew at a decent wage on budgets between 1 and 5 million.
I am very distorbed by this development.
You're a lot smarter than the majority apparently is, knowing to take preventative action to avoid scratching the screen.
Yet the very existence of the product you used points to the fact that this is a problem common to all small exposed screens, not just the nano's screen. Obviously this propensity for scratches didn't surprise you.
What I find maddening is how our right as citizens to form together as a class and bring action in a civil court is being frittered away by such frivolous cases. In the not to distant future, under the cover of reform, this right will be taken from us by our duly elected representatives because a few greedy people abused the law. And it's not just the unethical greedy lawyers behind this. A greedy unethical lawyer needs a greedy unethical client.*
*The exception to this is Jack Thompson, who doesn't need a client, just a good swift kick in the ass.
Oh, come now. Surely you know that all of us Asians are good at math.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
You are eaten by a jobs.
Yeah, the way Apple has exploited their dominance of the OS market to take over the downloadable music market and the MP3 market is pretty heinous and I'm sure the DOJ is keeping a close eye on them. And the creation of a new market of downloading video clips! That's just the sort of unfair business practice to which the DOJ pays close attention. Reminds me exactly of how MS has bullied PC makers to maintain its monopoly.
Er, wait.
The video ipod is classic Apple: as much as possible a one-way street from Content Owners through Apple to Consumers, with the ipod remaining as tethered as possible to a Mac/iTunes for operation. Making it harder than it should be for ipod owners to create and share their own content.
I don't think that the iPod was ever intended to create content. Maybe you're thinking of a video camera? (If you want an audio recording device, there is an accessory for the iPod, but seriously, that's not what you want to use for creating anything other than oral notes. You're better off getting a proper tool for the job, rather than using an MP3 player.)
As far as denying users the opportunity to create content being a hallmark of Apple, I entirely agree with you, as I have never heard of Garage Band, iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut Pro, Motion, iPhoto, etc.
I think you and the GP have hit upon something, intentionally or not. In both cases, you are talking about a value added option that adds to revenue, but is not the primary revenue stream.
What is interesting (to me) is that in both cases, the story is not about convergence, but about integration, creating value by successfully combining and tying together technologies. Thus we have the iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. You can use any of these individually, but they are most powerful when tied together.
It looks like Echostar is following a similar model, and if they are successful in execution of the idea, they should succeed financially.
What's the name of the Vice-President?
Exactly!