So, what are the bits that impressed, and what bits didn't you like?
As a PC User myself who wants to (one day) give a Mac a try, what is it that makes the switch worth the pricetag? I'm genuinely interested, and I doubt I'm the only one.
I think the problem is with the initial outlay, and that there are no third-party/cheaper alternatives.
Although I've not really used a Mac (and definitaly not since waaay before MacOS X), they do look a whole lot better than Windows PCs. However even though a mac is probably better value for money, the inital cost is currently outside my (and others') price-range.
I think that's why people do go on about the price. There are probably many of us out here who'd dearly love to give a Mac a try. But the cost of the unit is too much.
(Yes, I know it's possible to buy on credit. But certainly for me I'd rather not buy on credit what I couldn't pay for quickly anyway.)
Although cheaper computers are rarely as good value for money, having a much cheaper entry-level machine can be what gets people interested/hooked. Apple, going more for the luxury market, have opted not to go that route. That's up to them, but it doesn't mean that there won't always be people who wish that a cheaper Mac didn't exist. (Especially as Windows-dissatisfaction slowly rises)
So, in a short answer, why is using a P2P client sooo much better? From the consumer side that is?
For one, there's less load on the server(s). As long as the Tracker doesn't go under then mass popularity won't swamp the server, as quickly more and more of the downloaders can pick up the slack by offering up the chunks they already have.
If you can't get it down in one go, or something necessitates a reboot halfway through your Linux ISO set, it will always resume.
Heck, if the computer crashes then resuming will also check that what you have got isn't corrupt, and if it is then it'll automatically redownload the damaged parts.
I don't think anyone's saying that Mozilla'd have as many severe flaws. I also don't think, however, that anyone's seriously saying it'd have none, or as few as at the moment.
It's a combination of popularity and insecurity that leaves IE wide-open at the moment. Were Mozilla the dominant browser then there would probably be many attempts to exploit it.
Mozilla would have the advantage of probably having less inherant flaws. So there's a good chance that the exploitation level would be nowhere near as high as in IE at the moment. On the other hand sheer determination will mean that flaws will still be discovered.
A more popular Mozilla would get targetted. I don't think anyone with common sense could say otherwise. But it seems like Moz'd probably handle it somewhat better than IE does. It's less tied into the OS, so there would be less (though, as proven this week, not none) in the way of OS vulnerabilities being exploited. There would be less exploits that don't even reuqire the program to be used.
Also when a severe flaw did pop up (and it would, they always do), there would probably be less time before patches/upgrades were available in the majority of circumstances.
I was going to suggest using XP's Program Access and Defaults settings. But it seems that even deselecting "Enable Access to this Program" doesn't remove a program from the Start Menu or even stop it loading.
We can tlak about "Educating the User" all we want, but the only way to stop someone doing something is for it not to be there for them to do.
Hence the only way that we can stop Windows users from useing IE/OE is to have them not physically there. MS's Program Access and Defaults is a nod in the right direction, but that's all it is. Until they allow us to either physically deactivate or deinstall things like IE then those of us who support Windows are always going to have to clear up after people who know enough to hunt the executable but not enough to use the supplied alternative.
What is it about Windows that requires these things to require a reboot? It's what I like about Linux (and other *NIX systems) in that most things less than a kernel change can be done without requiring a full system reboot.
It's annoying having to reboot the computer because of an update. In a home setup it's just annoying. I leave my computer on most of the time most days. When I'm not using it, I'm downloading.
For corporate users it's worse. If your mission-critical systems are running on Windows (I'm not going into whether they should, that's another discussion entirely) the you're going to want to minimize downtime. Shutting down a service to restart it is one thing, but bringing your entire server up and down isn't something you want to do too often. Plus choosing a time is probably getting harder and harder. Especially with international business these are less times when you system isn't going to be used.
And the problem with timing is that something will exploit the vulnerability between the patch being released and your scheduled maintenance window.
I know that Windows is apparently getting better and needing less reboots when patching, but if anything it's the severe ones that are the worst. You can't leave them unpatched too long, yet you similarly can't afford the data downtime.
Education establishments are going to be potentially hit hardest by this delay. Late July through August is perfect for making major changes. Classes have finished. If SP2 comes out too late in August it'll be just in time for all the clerical admin work needing doing. Not really the time you want the IT Department to schedule maintenance.
I know the RCs can be used to test compatibility, but installing the Final without checking it too might not be a good idea. (Could/should RCs be used on live systems if in-house testing deems them stable enough?) And in educational places, if a major change can't be done before the end of the summer break, it shouldn't be done until the next break. (Christmas or, in the UK, half-term) As if your "weekend maintenance job" takes longer than that, you'll b fielding angry tutors and students the next Monday.
I know that these things shouldn't be released until they're ready, but some sectors (especially education) have very definite periods of time when you want the envoronment to be stable, and not still having apps and fixes installed.
It seems to be a bit of both. MS should have closed this hole ages ago, on the other hand Mozilla might not have had the best idea just passing any unknown protocol onto the OS.
Having said that, within a day or so of the seriouness of the vulnerability being published there was a patch and a new version of mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird all out.
One thing about the whole Mozilla thing, though, is that MS will find it very hard to turn this one to their advantage. "See. Even Mozilla and Firefox aren't secure. They had an exploitable vulnerability! What was it? Oh, it passed unkown protocols for the Operating System to handle.... oh."
A competitor's product having a hole that exploits a problem in one of your own products might not be a good selling point in your favour.
I do wonder how fast MS will patch this vulnerability in its own apps. And in the non-free ones how will they go around providing the update?
Apple play to the high end of the market. They don't make their profit by selling lots of machines, they make it by selling few machines at a higher margin.
This is seen, by some of us, as not being a good thing. OK, it's great to see that a company can sell something at preium prices, not go for 100% market-share, and still stay afloat. And not only afloat, but pretty damned successful.
But there are people out there (like me, for example) who lack the funds to buy even a new PC, let alone a Mac. Now I will probably aim to get a new computer by 2006. Unless MS has a severe political turnaround then Windows will not be my preference. I love Linux, but it's not quite ready for some of what I do. (Though as it gets better an better, by 2006 it might be good enough for me personally to go 100% Linux.) Some things I just need that commercial edge (Oh and, unfortunately, 100% compatibility with MS Office. Though, once again, OOo keeps improving...)
I'd love to go for a Mac instead. I see a lot of anti-Mac scorn from Windows users, but I don't understand it. Macs look cool, but they also look like they work. But if I can barely afford a Windows-based PC, there's no way I could get a Mac.
Macs are overpriced. They also seem much much better than Windows/PC. But when you have a hard limit on your funds, wishes do not the extra for a Mac make.
The proprietary hardware setup is also a sticking point. Were there third-party machines (or component seperates) that could run MacOS then I know I'd go for it. It looks like an otherwise-ideal Operating System.
Selling to the lower end would kill Apple for sure. They're smarter than that!!
A year or more ago I would have agreed with you. I though Apple were grasping at straws trying to gain customers. (Boy was I wrong on that one!)
After a year or more's security issues with Windows I think many people would love to try out alternatives. At this point Linux isn't quite ready for the mainstream desktop. MacOS X is. But with PC packages going for only just more than half the price of a Mac in the shops then people aren't going to try them. But if they were priced competitively then I can imagine it taking off.
The "Lower End" are starting to want something that comes pre-installed, is easy, is popular/supported, and is more stable/secure.
OS X being based on BSD has that stability and security. Sure it's probably not perfect. I doubt anything is. Yes a lot of issues are down to user errors, but Windows combines with these to make the consequences so much worse.
OS X looks like it could so easily take over if Apple wanted it to. For whatever reason they choose not to. I don't know whether this decision is right or wrong, I've no head for business. but they do seem to have an OS platform that is powerful and easy enough for the mainstream, but that runs only on hardware that is priced way outside.
I think the letter is naive. It shows a total misunderstanding of Apples market placement or business.
Maybe it does. Apple survive, and survive well. They don't currently need to change that severaly. They have no need to cater for the lower end.
This doesn't mean that they woudn't (or couldn't) do well fi they choose to focus on more affordable computers.
What MS created and keeps creating is an OS that even that last computer illiterate can use with no problem.
You say that like it's a Good Thing. Oh, and "no problem" is an understatement.
MS created an OS that needs less and less knowledge about what the computer is actually doing, and requires less skill to sit down and use it.
However using it well or securely still requires time and effort to pick up the skillset. But most Users now believe it should "Just Work" and don't want to learn.
This is not a good thing.
Trust me, I work IT Support Tech for a classroom. People using computers with no desire to learn how they work is not good.
They don't know. They don't want to know. And they think that anything going wrong is automatically the computer.
OK, yes, many problems do lie with the computer (or OS). But people don't want to accept that User Error is a major factor in these things.
And the reason I know this is that I still make the dumb mistakes. I forget to check the cables. I click "close" instead of "minimise". I reach for the USB cable and yank the power instead. Maybe not regularly, but even as someone who "knows what they're doing" I have made these mistakes. Yes beginenrs get offended if I ask them if ti's any of these factors.
It's time people had to learn a bit more about how these "computer" things actually work.
Desktop Linux isn't (yet) the answer. But neither is Windows. Windows is learning to be more secure, but it's gonna be slow. And it removes (or hides well) a lot fo the low-level stuff that some of us need. Linux is more versatile and has a higher potential for security, but still has a bit to go before average users can just pick up and run with it. I think it'll be a while before either gains enough of the other's advantage.
Although I've not used one I think that Apple has the right idea - but it has a high price-tag and hardware-lock-in. If it was priced competitively with Windows they'd probably be mroe popular and widely used than they are now.
What it looks to me like is that both sides screwed up. Mozilla/Firefox passing on requests to a known Windows vulnerability is not a smart move.
That said, as much as Mozilla should have looked into this earlier, so should Microsoft.
Now yes, Mozilla really should have done something about this ages ago. Defaulting to let any OS handle arbitrary protocols is a bad move, let alone Windows. However it seems that the moment it was published exactly how severe this vulnerability was they released both an updated version and a patch. That's definitely points in their favour. So old installs can be fixed and fresh installs can be more secure.
So far it looks like Mozilla have handled this well. Yes, they made an initial mistake, but they seem to have handled it well now. I just hope they can learn and not make any more mistakes like this. if they do learn better it will be major poitns in their favour.
What remains to be seen is what they'll do about protocol-handling in general. Have an option in the UI-menu to alter, add and remove protocols would be nice.
Is this "shellblock" thing the only fix? Sounds like it would be much easier to install the shellblock.xpi extension.
Yes, it would. That's probably why on the mozilla.org page about this particular flaw they have a link to the XPI first, and the newer version second.
Having a new version containing the fix as well (and with a number increment so that you know whether your install-file has it or not) is a good idea for anyone wanting to install from today or later.
If they didn't do this, any downloads of any of the three programs would be vulnerable from the word go. This is not a good thing.
The alternatives would be the two usual ways mott software from many companies (including bugs in other Moz versions) get fixed.
1 - By patch only, no new version. So any fresh installs will be vulnerable and need the patch applying.
2 - By new version only - no patch. So fresh installs are safe, but old versions need a complete download/install.
By doing it this way it provides a quick method of closing the vulnerability in 0.9.1 as well as providing a version that installs without this bug.
While keeping the tapes seems reasonable, making complaints easier looks rather like censorship through the backdoor.
You've basically summed up my first thought on reading this.
The equipment-cost issue will be a major issue for smaller broadcasters, but keeping an archive copy of every show for up to three months doesn't seem like a bad idea. For various reasons, not just the whole complaints thing. But being able to produce evidence immediately is probably better than stringing stuff out, especially if the time-period for complaint is kept at the same limit as the length they need to keep the tapes.
Decide 4 months down the line that something wasn't suitable? Well unless they've repeated it you're too late.
On the other hand, making it easier to complain is wrong. TV is already dumbed down too much due to risk of complaint by people who should be supervising what their kids watch - and by people who think that body parts are inherantly traumatic. (Inapproproate for certain broadcasts, maybe. But worth the whole Jackson-boob chaos? It wasn't that bad.)
I think that they should increase what you have to claim to make a complaint. The stupid stuff that gets complained about would (hopefully) escape targetting, but complaints would go through either when it's sufficiently bad, or the outrage really is as big as the media claims. (Rather than a small number of gobby sods)
Oh and although I'm not in the US, I do agree that the FCC seems to be overstepping what it should do. Maybe a regulating body is needed, maybe not. That's another argument entirely. But if one is needed it needs to be seperate from the FCC. The "Broadcast Frequency" and "Program Deceny" roles should not be held by the same entity. That's far too much power in one group's set of hands.
But what Adobe probably want is for all of the users to pay the full price. (I've seen $600 in a omcment here. Is that right?)
The BSA and their ilk seem to think that the risk of heavy fines will actually cause all of these people to buy a full copy. I reality if they did put people off getting unlicensed copies, only a comparitive handful would actually pay for the legit copy at this price. Many would jump ship.
Another issue is quite possibly the lack of real desire to upgrade software that aready works. Hell, on my work PC here I downgraded Office the other day. (All copies legit, unless my higher-ups aren't telling me things)
Office XP wasn't doing what I wanted, so I uninstalled it and stuck 2K on instead. I have more control and less bloat with the older version - hardly an argument to sway any tech-savvy buyer towards upgrading.
We've reached feature-saturation, and we're at a point I think where the genuinely useful features aren't worth the price, adn the rest of the features are worthless anyway. So people only get the new software with a new PC.
Also so much software is quite simply overpriced. Yes, many people use this to "justify" getting a bootlegged copy. But also many people use this to justify not bothering with the software at all.
The companies don't always want to admit that many "Lost Sales" are people who don't pay, but also choose not to go for a pirate copy. They just go without entirely.
It's not the "New version needed for new OS" time anymore that came with Win95. Nor is it the "They've aded new features that are worth the price" time that happened in the late-90s. As a result of this and the pricing you get the following four types of lost sales. 1 - Unlicensed copy. Whether via warez sources, copying a friend's install CD or installing multiple times the program you bought once. (I still don't see a blanket problem with this one. Some sort of volume-licensing for companies, yes. But there should be a little leeway in insttalling something you've bought.) 2 - Old Version. If the old one works fine then why pay over-the-odds for what's mostly the same features with a few bonuses? Especially if your license is still valid it makes more sense to use the old. 3 - less-costly alternatives. Whether commercial, freeware, or Free and/or Open software. There are alternatives for at least the mainstream applications these days, and many of them are comparable to the overpriced alternatives. They're still not a "One Size Fits All" alternative yet, as some things (OOo, for example) isn't 100% compatible and sometimes don't do qutie a good enough job. But this is getting better as time goes on. Plus for smaller organisations it could well be feasible to buy one licensed copy of, for example, MS Office, and then use it to test and tidy up output from OOo installed on the otehr machines. 4 - Go Without. If the only options are the Illegal option and the Expensive option then sometimes it's just easier to do without entirely.
P2P probably accounts for some of #1. I don't doubt it's helped increase the number of people attain software that they woudn't pay for anyway. And, being data not physical, this isn't really stealing in the classic sense of the work. (Illegal, yes. Stealing no.) There's still a copy on the shelf somewhere. They didn't buy it, but they didn't nick it either.
But the other 3 points I would think are a major cause of lost potential sales. I just think the companies don't/can't accept that people won't pay their prices, but that it doesn't always equate to people using illegal copies. They seem to beleive that their software is so good that not only should people not bootleg it, but that everyone will automatically flock to upgrade or buy.
Between no-cost, cheap, old and open software I'm pretty certain that I use more types of software than I did 5 or 6 years ago, yet I also use less unlicensed copies. If I do choose to use a commercial package, these days I'm more likely to actually pay for it. However most of the time I go for a legitimately free alternative instead. Less cost. Less illegal. Oh, and less likely to pick up a virus by installing brand-name software from an unknown source.
People will not stand for copyright when it actually enforced.
Worse. It's sending us well on the slippery slope to anarchy. Or, at least, to general disregard of inconvenient laws by the the majority of people.
And I'm not sure they see that.
They're creating laws that corporations love, but the mojority of society in many countries do not like. Are they persuading people to stay within the letter of a law they don't believe in? Probably not in a lot of cases. instead people just dismiss the Law as an inconvenience. This is not going to end well.
yes, sometimes laws probably need tightening up to stop rampant law-breaking. But each law really should be looked at case-by-case.
Why was the law created?
What was society/technology like at the time?
What are things like now?
Does $ACTIVITY$ really need protecting/prohibiting now as it did back then?
Copyright law probably needs wholesale revision, but not automatically in favour of (large) corporations.
Currently they're wanting to restrict more things, and impose bigger sentences. What people see, though, is them being faced with out-of-proportion punishments for something that's not perceived as a serious crime.
Copyright needs reworking. Allow more stuff, decrease restrictions, don't penalise for what should these days be allowable, reduce copyright periods and allow things to hit the Public Domain within the public's lifetime, and don't make breaking the law seem more attractive than obeying it.
Conversely, what's left as illegal should be serious breaches that really do look like criminal activity and make them the ones with teh heavy punishments. Mass bootlegging factories of DVDs, and making a profit for someone else's work does seem to warrant heavy punishment. People sharing MP3s doesn't seem to warrant the same level. But the **AA (and local equivalents) want to make it so, and people can't understand that thinking.
I hope these "Never Seen Before Cast And Crew Interviews" are significantly different from the various things I saw on MTV last year.
All too often "Exclusive footage" isn't, and "Never seen before" has been.
Hmmmmm. Maybe the money I shelled out on the Reloaded disc won't be wasted if I buy the box-set.
If you realyl want it, do the usual of checking bargain bins, sales, and Amazon special offers.
It's even more complete/canonical when you realise the the ETM footage of the Logos crew watcing the last message from the Osiris is actually (static-fuzzied) footage taken straight from the Animatrix short.
It all fitted together, and I like that. They didn't just make animated shorts and a game that used the franchise name and merely paid lip-service to the storyline. At least two parts of Animatrix contained extra backstory to the sequels, and the game (even though no the best game in the world) decided to take the player through some of the action going on elsewhere, rather than the tried and tested "Play through the major sequences of the film, but modified to fit a gaming engine".
It's effort we can only dream of seeing in many other licensed movie franchises.
Yes, there movies out there with better sequels and probably even better games. But none of them make such a coherant whole. Just imagine what could happen if the same level of effort in keeping the spin-offs consistent was put into a better-sequeled series.
The problem is that people think that films are (or should be) either perfect, or utter garbage. They're not very good at finding the middle ground. OK, there are many films that do hit those extremes, but there are films which "could have been a lot better, but are still good films".
The Matrix sequels didn't live up to the promise that a lot of fans saw in the first movie. People seem to blinded by what they wanted to see to give what was given a chance. Newsflash. This happens a lot in stories. Sometimes you give up following them, sometimes you persist anyway to see what happens.
Yes, there are many series (books and TV) that I gave up on. Do I think they're utter failures? No. They're not what I wanted, but that doesn't make them bad.
I saw Reloaded at least twice in the cinema. I also bought the DVD. (Though, I admit, pre-ordered on Amazon to save cash - but I think all UK DVD-releases are priced 5-10 quid too high. So that's not a Matrix-only issue.)
I saw Revolutions twice in the Cinema. Haven't bought the DVD yet, but that's the above-mentioned price issue.
I enjoyed them both. Yes, there are things I'd rather unfolded differently. Yes, there are some serious flaws in both films. But do I think that the films are totally unenjoyable? No.
If anything the main problem was that there was so lone between Matrix and Reloaded. 3-4 years worth of expectations was too long, especially for a film like the first Matrix.
People also missed a major part of what made the first movie so special. It was all exposition. We were following Neo in his evolution from system-cog (albeit an unwilling one) to ultra-powerful rebel. But once that genie was out, there was no going back. There's no way that a sequel could have the same kind of feeling, as too much had changed in the first.
The sequels followed one totally viable plot-direction. Nothing was contradicted except for things which were mere assumptions on the part of the rebels. (And even then, I went back and noticed that although it changes the facts behind some of Morpheus' explanations, the words he says still hold. Only he was following an interpretation that turned out to be false)
OK, so the direction it took wasn't the one that many fans wanted to see explored. Too much disappointment. Too many people just weren't interested, but this manifested as hatred and suddenly everyone started saying that the movies sucked.
I've paid to see them. I'm glad I did. Although I have the first 2 on DVD, I don't have the Revisited or Animatrix yet, so might even buy the box-set when it comes out and get the lot.
(10 discs for under 50 quid? Even if I only watch every disc once, it'd be worth it to me.)
Do I wish that the sequels had turned out differently?
Honestly, I don't know. Despite the flaws, the movies were ones that I did enjoy. That's a fact. Whether I'd enjoy ones made differently is speculation. So I'll take what's out there. 2003 would have been a lot less fun for me without those two films.
I think the main problem is they way the UK Government want to go about implementing the things.
Firstly although compulsary, I bet it wouldn't be the government who pay for it. I can just about stomach some sort of compulsary ID, but I draw the line at having to pay for yet another thing you have no choice in.
Secondly it's the privacy issues. Personally I quite like the idea of one solitary ID card being absolute proof of ID, rather than the current slew of various options, not all of which are accepted for everything. However, I'm rather less enamoured of the idea of it also containing biometric data and potentially containing tracking data.
Oh, and there's a fine line between something you "have to own" and something you "have to carry at all times", and I know which one any government would eventually tend towards.
Thirdly there are rumours (no idea if they're true or not) that they'd have some sort of RFID component. Card-fan or not, that's something I'd be dead-set against. But I also get the feeling that full specs wouldn't be released until after they've been made mandatory, if at all.
The main problem is that they've taken a potentially good but very controversial idea and then added some modifiers that make it less acceptable for those who would have supported it otherwise.
A tricky-to-forge ("impossible" is an aim they're not going to meet) absolute proof of identity that could be accepted in all situations is a good idea. A mandatory card with biometric data and the potential equivalent of "tracking cookies" is not.
That said, it wouldn't be the first time that a government has taken an idea with potential and ruined it by making it less (rather than more) palatable. And I doubt it's be the last time, either.
Tabbed browsing was actually one of the main reasons I stuck with mozilla
I'm kind of the opposite. I didn't quite see the fuss at first. But now it's the first thing I miss when i have to use IE.
OK, that and pop-up blocking one come PCs. But I don't miss it as much as any machine I use regularly that absolutely must run IE soon finds itself with the Google Toolbar installed. (I didn't realise how many popups that blocked back in my IE days until I used a machine without it).
Laurence Roth, VP and co-founder of Cinea, Inc., the company behind the technology, says 'the discs, by themselves, cannot be hacked.'"
Regardless of my personal opinions on any kind of media-protection efforts, for his sake I hope he's right.
You know that the moment someone gets their hands on a disc that they'll try to break the encryption. Whether on principle, for bootlegging, or purely for academic interest, the factr emains that someone will try. So this guy better not have staked his reputation on this unless he's absolutely sure. (And even then, the better assumption is that anything can be hacked eventually)
You raise a lot of points, but they're not (individually, anyway) viable business concerns. They don't fit in with the current movie distribution model, and for whatever reasons[*] the industry wants to hang onto that model despite technological/society changes that render it obsolete. Unfortunately for them, the Internet provides an illegal but convenient alternative. And if going outside the law is convenient on such a scale, shouldn't it be a signal that something's wrong? (* - Probably to do with profits)
Your first point is the kicker though. Buying a legit DVD would solve the majority of the other problems. But as long as they want Box Office profit-margins (and ludicrously high first-day takings), it ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Maybe if DVDs came out as soon as it leaves the cinemas (or during the tail-end of a run) it would be a compromise, but I can't see them doing that. (I hope I'm wrong though.)
Yes. Buying a DVD (either of a long-awaited film, or of one you saw last week at your local Expens-o-plex) would be a lot more cost-effective to those of us who want to see a movie more than once. Or who want to go with a date or a group of friends.
Problem with this is that it would probably eat heavily into Box Office takings. Even though a DVD would be a legal purchase, and showing it at home is allowed, I think the companeis would rather you didn't buy the DVD once and then show it to your buddies over the next few weekends. Some would want to see it cinema-size anyway, but many would see it once and not bother again.
I think they'd rather we played the "Wait for the local release" game. But between having to ship the copies out, and some smaller cinemas having limited screens, I doubt they can justify getting it everywhere at once.
This is changing, but slowly.
Not their problem. Like it or not, the movie companies can't be expected to have any control over how the audience behaves.
But it does put me off seeing kids films during peak hours. After some kid sneezed in the back of my head in Toy Story 2 I'm somewhat less caring about the copyright holders. They're not the ones who needed a wash after that showing.
Ads and previews are a part of what gets extra money in to the cinema itself, I guess. Probably due to the prices set to get the film in, they have to recoup revenue somehow. If the movie copanies dropped their prices it might help a little.
This one's a sticking point. As customers we fully believe in the "Try Before you Buy" model. They don't. Again, if the prices were lower it wouldn't be so much of a concern.
Of course, whether we like it or not, they are right to complain if seeing a bootleg costs them a ticket. Even if it's because the film was so godawfully dull that you delete it before finishing it. That said, "Make better films" would be a better solution.;)
This is, again, probably the cinema trying to recoup the costs of actually getting the film in. Well, that coupled with the fact that they have a captive audience.
Seems to me the industry should be alleviating each of these issues instead of hoping one day they can guard theaters with ED-209
Yeah well fixing those issues probably doesn't fit in with their view of the world. The world is changing into one which doesn't support their model - not to high profit-levels anyway. But their efforts to criminalise anyone who uses modern technology to get around obsolete restrictions just encourages people to break the law.
They're fighting a losing battle here. I just hope they realise soon that their overly-restrictive tactics are making a subculture who care less and less about the letter of the law. And that can only be a bad thing.
What part of supply and demand don't MPAA understand?
Heh. They want to demand exactly how they supply things.
I've said it before, but the genie was out of the bottle the moment communications technology improved, gained power with the Internet, and became unstoppabe with broadband. but it's not filesharing that started the ball rolling, it was just what finished it off.
The MPAA (and equivalents) sprung up aroudn the old infrastructure, found it profitable, and want to continue that way forever. It was 1989 when i first really noticed the lag between American and British film releases. And that was only because I spent the summer in Ohio. I spent 6 weeks seeing promos for Batman (and actually saw i), and Honey, I Shrunk The Kids. Batman didn't come out until I got back, and "Honey" didn't come out until either late '89 or early '90.
Then along came the Internet. Even in low-bandwidth, the MPAA methodology started to break down. It's easy to control releases when people don't know what's available elsewhere. The moment they do there is a demand. And if you don't actually release the film quickly then bootlegs are to be expected. It's not legal, but it's inevitable. People don't care about distribution rights and marketing, they want to see a film. Even knowing that a bootleg is technically illegal people will buy it if there's no other alternative.
This is in addition to those who'll go for the cheap/free alternative every time. But you'll never sell to them. Chasing them is a lost cause, it's the "Willing to pay, but not to wait" crowd you have to address.
The Industry lost their control the moment information could cross borders faster than normal media channels. They then refused to cater for the demand, and broadband suddenly opened up a supply. The industry had missed the boat. Simple as that.
Remember, we can now hear all about the status of a film, no matter where it's being filmed. it's more or less free advertising, as you know that a long-awaited film is closer and closer to release.
Oh, but you're a UK-resident, not a US-resident. So you'll have to wait week, maybe months. Before the Internet there wasn't that level of expectation. But now there is, and they still seem reluctant to address the issue at hand. They're treating the symptom (bootlegged films) instead of the cause (film not legitimately available yet in certain areas, even if willing to pay).
The longer delay also has another issue. The DVD can be available in another country whilst it's still in the cinema in your area.
You (legally) see a film at the cinema. You pay to see it several times. you love it. You want the DVD. It's out on legitimate DVD in another country. You import it, it makes perfect sense. It's more legal than downloading or buying a bootleg, but the industry hate it just as much.
They're finally changing their methods. Several films over the past 2 years have been released within a week in several countries. I'm pretty certain that if "piracy" wasn't a worry to the film companies that they'd not bother. Well although I don't advocate mass bootlegging of films, I certainly think that this is one case where something good has happened - at least for consumers. near-simultaneous releases of films in the cinema, then close DVD release dates for home viewing. It's long overdue, and probably owes more than a little to bootlegs.
And that is why although I don't like copyright infringement I'm firmly against the Industry's heavy-handed attempts to stamp out all piracy. Should they ever regain complete control I would bet that they'd go back to their old tricks of time-delayed releases. This would not be a good thing.
And them trying to accomplish that by wanting to set punishments out of proportion to the crime is not going to win them any friends. Well, not from the paying public anyway. I've said it before (first point), and recently too. Recording in a cinema is illegal, but it's not worth hard jail-time. You fine, steal, ban. You don't imprison.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what are the bits that impressed, and what bits didn't you like?
As a PC User myself who wants to (one day) give a Mac a try, what is it that makes the switch worth the pricetag? I'm genuinely interested, and I doubt I'm the only one.
I think the problem is with the initial outlay, and that there are no third-party/cheaper alternatives.
Although I've not really used a Mac (and definitaly not since waaay before MacOS X), they do look a whole lot better than Windows PCs. However even though a mac is probably better value for money, the inital cost is currently outside my (and others') price-range.
I think that's why people do go on about the price. There are probably many of us out here who'd dearly love to give a Mac a try. But the cost of the unit is too much.
(Yes, I know it's possible to buy on credit. But certainly for me I'd rather not buy on credit what I couldn't pay for quickly anyway.)
Although cheaper computers are rarely as good value for money, having a much cheaper entry-level machine can be what gets people interested/hooked. Apple, going more for the luxury market, have opted not to go that route. That's up to them, but it doesn't mean that there won't always be people who wish that a cheaper Mac didn't exist. (Especially as Windows-dissatisfaction slowly rises)
TiggsFor one, there's less load on the server(s). As long as the Tracker doesn't go under then mass popularity won't swamp the server, as quickly more and more of the downloaders can pick up the slack by offering up the chunks they already have.
If you can't get it down in one go, or something necessitates a reboot halfway through your Linux ISO set, it will always resume.
TiggsHeck, if the computer crashes then resuming will also check that what you have got isn't corrupt, and if it is then it'll automatically redownload the damaged parts.
I don't think anyone's saying that Mozilla'd have as many severe flaws. I also don't think, however, that anyone's seriously saying it'd have none, or as few as at the moment.
It's a combination of popularity and insecurity that leaves IE wide-open at the moment. Were Mozilla the dominant browser then there would probably be many attempts to exploit it.
Mozilla would have the advantage of probably having less inherant flaws. So there's a good chance that the exploitation level would be nowhere near as high as in IE at the moment. On the other hand sheer determination will mean that flaws will still be discovered.
A more popular Mozilla would get targetted. I don't think anyone with common sense could say otherwise. But it seems like Moz'd probably handle it somewhat better than IE does. It's less tied into the OS, so there would be less (though, as proven this week, not none) in the way of OS vulnerabilities being exploited. There would be less exploits that don't even reuqire the program to be used.
TiggsAlso when a severe flaw did pop up (and it would, they always do), there would probably be less time before patches/upgrades were available in the majority of circumstances.
I was going to suggest using XP's Program Access and Defaults settings. But it seems that even deselecting "Enable Access to this Program" doesn't remove a program from the Start Menu or even stop it loading.
We can tlak about "Educating the User" all we want, but the only way to stop someone doing something is for it not to be there for them to do.
TiggsHence the only way that we can stop Windows users from useing IE/OE is to have them not physically there. MS's Program Access and Defaults is a nod in the right direction, but that's all it is. Until they allow us to either physically deactivate or deinstall things like IE then those of us who support Windows are always going to have to clear up after people who know enough to hunt the executable but not enough to use the supplied alternative.
What is it about Windows that requires these things to require a reboot? It's what I like about Linux (and other *NIX systems) in that most things less than a kernel change can be done without requiring a full system reboot.
It's annoying having to reboot the computer because of an update. In a home setup it's just annoying. I leave my computer on most of the time most days. When I'm not using it, I'm downloading.
For corporate users it's worse. If your mission-critical systems are running on Windows (I'm not going into whether they should, that's another discussion entirely) the you're going to want to minimize downtime. Shutting down a service to restart it is one thing, but bringing your entire server up and down isn't something you want to do too often. Plus choosing a time is probably getting harder and harder. Especially with international business these are less times when you system isn't going to be used.
And the problem with timing is that something will exploit the vulnerability between the patch being released and your scheduled maintenance window.
I know that Windows is apparently getting better and needing less reboots when patching, but if anything it's the severe ones that are the worst. You can't leave them unpatched too long, yet you similarly can't afford the data downtime.
Education establishments are going to be potentially hit hardest by this delay. Late July through August is perfect for making major changes. Classes have finished. If SP2 comes out too late in August it'll be just in time for all the clerical admin work needing doing. Not really the time you want the IT Department to schedule maintenance.
I know the RCs can be used to test compatibility, but installing the Final without checking it too might not be a good idea. (Could/should RCs be used on live systems if in-house testing deems them stable enough?) And in educational places, if a major change can't be done before the end of the summer break, it shouldn't be done until the next break. (Christmas or, in the UK, half-term) As if your "weekend maintenance job" takes longer than that, you'll b fielding angry tutors and students the next Monday.
I know that these things shouldn't be released until they're ready, but some sectors (especially education) have very definite periods of time when you want the envoronment to be stable, and not still having apps and fixes installed.
TiggsIt seems to be a bit of both. MS should have closed this hole ages ago, on the other hand Mozilla might not have had the best idea just passing any unknown protocol onto the OS.
Having said that, within a day or so of the seriouness of the vulnerability being published there was a patch and a new version of mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird all out.
One thing about the whole Mozilla thing, though, is that MS will find it very hard to turn this one to their advantage.
"See. Even Mozilla and Firefox aren't secure. They had an exploitable vulnerability! What was it? Oh, it passed unkown protocols for the Operating System to handle.... oh."
A competitor's product having a hole that exploits a problem in one of your own products might not be a good selling point in your favour.
I do wonder how fast MS will patch this vulnerability in its own apps. And in the non-free ones how will they go around providing the update?
TiggsThis is seen, by some of us, as not being a good thing. OK, it's great to see that a company can sell something at preium prices, not go for 100% market-share, and still stay afloat. And not only afloat, but pretty damned successful.
But there are people out there (like me, for example) who lack the funds to buy even a new PC, let alone a Mac. Now I will probably aim to get a new computer by 2006. Unless MS has a severe political turnaround then Windows will not be my preference. I love Linux, but it's not quite ready for some of what I do. (Though as it gets better an better, by 2006 it might be good enough for me personally to go 100% Linux.) Some things I just need that commercial edge (Oh and, unfortunately, 100% compatibility with MS Office. Though, once again, OOo keeps improving...)
I'd love to go for a Mac instead. I see a lot of anti-Mac scorn from Windows users, but I don't understand it. Macs look cool, but they also look like they work. But if I can barely afford a Windows-based PC, there's no way I could get a Mac.
Macs are overpriced. They also seem much much better than Windows/PC. But when you have a hard limit on your funds, wishes do not the extra for a Mac make.
The proprietary hardware setup is also a sticking point. Were there third-party machines (or component seperates) that could run MacOS then I know I'd go for it. It looks like an otherwise-ideal Operating System.
A year or more ago I would have agreed with you. I though Apple were grasping at straws trying to gain customers. (Boy was I wrong on that one!)
After a year or more's security issues with Windows I think many people would love to try out alternatives. At this point Linux isn't quite ready for the mainstream desktop. MacOS X is. But with PC packages going for only just more than half the price of a Mac in the shops then people aren't going to try them. But if they were priced competitively then I can imagine it taking off.
The "Lower End" are starting to want something that comes pre-installed, is easy, is popular/supported, and is more stable/secure.
OS X being based on BSD has that stability and security. Sure it's probably not perfect. I doubt anything is. Yes a lot of issues are down to user errors, but Windows combines with these to make the consequences so much worse.
OS X looks like it could so easily take over if Apple wanted it to. For whatever reason they choose not to. I don't know whether this decision is right or wrong, I've no head for business. but they do seem to have an OS platform that is powerful and easy enough for the mainstream, but that runs only on hardware that is priced way outside.
Maybe it does. Apple survive, and survive well. They don't currently need to change that severaly. They have no need to cater for the lower end.
TiggsThis doesn't mean that they woudn't (or couldn't) do well fi they choose to focus on more affordable computers.
You say that like it's a Good Thing. Oh, and "no problem" is an understatement.
MS created an OS that needs less and less knowledge about what the computer is actually doing, and requires less skill to sit down and use it.
However using it well or securely still requires time and effort to pick up the skillset. But most Users now believe it should "Just Work" and don't want to learn.
This is not a good thing.
Trust me, I work IT Support Tech for a classroom. People using computers with no desire to learn how they work is not good.
They don't know. They don't want to know. And they think that anything going wrong is automatically the computer.
OK, yes, many problems do lie with the computer (or OS). But people don't want to accept that User Error is a major factor in these things.
And the reason I know this is that I still make the dumb mistakes. I forget to check the cables. I click "close" instead of "minimise". I reach for the USB cable and yank the power instead. Maybe not regularly, but even as someone who "knows what they're doing" I have made these mistakes. Yes beginenrs get offended if I ask them if ti's any of these factors.
It's time people had to learn a bit more about how these "computer" things actually work.
Desktop Linux isn't (yet) the answer. But neither is Windows. Windows is learning to be more secure, but it's gonna be slow. And it removes (or hides well) a lot fo the low-level stuff that some of us need. Linux is more versatile and has a higher potential for security, but still has a bit to go before average users can just pick up and run with it. I think it'll be a while before either gains enough of the other's advantage.
TiggsAlthough I've not used one I think that Apple has the right idea - but it has a high price-tag and hardware-lock-in. If it was priced competitively with Windows they'd probably be mroe popular and widely used than they are now.
What it looks to me like is that both sides screwed up. Mozilla/Firefox passing on requests to a known Windows vulnerability is not a smart move.
That said, as much as Mozilla should have looked into this earlier, so should Microsoft.
Now yes, Mozilla really should have done something about this ages ago. Defaulting to let any OS handle arbitrary protocols is a bad move, let alone Windows. However it seems that the moment it was published exactly how severe this vulnerability was they released both an updated version and a patch. That's definitely points in their favour. So old installs can be fixed and fresh installs can be more secure.
So far it looks like Mozilla have handled this well. Yes, they made an initial mistake, but they seem to have handled it well now. I just hope they can learn and not make any more mistakes like this. if they do learn better it will be major poitns in their favour.
TiggsWhat remains to be seen is what they'll do about protocol-handling in general. Have an option in the UI-menu to alter, add and remove protocols would be nice.
Yes, it would. That's probably why on the mozilla.org page about this particular flaw they have a link to the XPI first, and the newer version second.
Having a new version containing the fix as well (and with a number increment so that you know whether your install-file has it or not) is a good idea for anyone wanting to install from today or later.
If they didn't do this, any downloads of any of the three programs would be vulnerable from the word go. This is not a good thing.
The alternatives would be the two usual ways mott software from many companies (including bugs in other Moz versions) get fixed.
1 - By patch only, no new version. So any fresh installs will be vulnerable and need the patch applying.
2 - By new version only - no patch. So fresh installs are safe, but old versions need a complete download/install.
By doing it this way it provides a quick method of closing the vulnerability in 0.9.1 as well as providing a version that installs without this bug.
TiggsYou've basically summed up my first thought on reading this.
The equipment-cost issue will be a major issue for smaller broadcasters, but keeping an archive copy of every show for up to three months doesn't seem like a bad idea. For various reasons, not just the whole complaints thing. But being able to produce evidence immediately is probably better than stringing stuff out, especially if the time-period for complaint is kept at the same limit as the length they need to keep the tapes.
Decide 4 months down the line that something wasn't suitable? Well unless they've repeated it you're too late.
On the other hand, making it easier to complain is wrong. TV is already dumbed down too much due to risk of complaint by people who should be supervising what their kids watch - and by people who think that body parts are inherantly traumatic. (Inapproproate for certain broadcasts, maybe. But worth the whole Jackson-boob chaos? It wasn't that bad.)
I think that they should increase what you have to claim to make a complaint. The stupid stuff that gets complained about would (hopefully) escape targetting, but complaints would go through either when it's sufficiently bad, or the outrage really is as big as the media claims. (Rather than a small number of gobby sods)
Oh and although I'm not in the US, I do agree that the FCC seems to be overstepping what it should do. Maybe a regulating body is needed, maybe not. That's another argument entirely. But if one is needed it needs to be seperate from the FCC. The "Broadcast Frequency" and "Program Deceny" roles should not be held by the same entity. That's far too much power in one group's set of hands.
TiggsBut what Adobe probably want is for all of the users to pay the full price. (I've seen $600 in a omcment here. Is that right?)
TiggsThe BSA and their ilk seem to think that the risk of heavy fines will actually cause all of these people to buy a full copy. I reality if they did put people off getting unlicensed copies, only a comparitive handful would actually pay for the legit copy at this price. Many would jump ship.
Another issue is quite possibly the lack of real desire to upgrade software that aready works. Hell, on my work PC here I downgraded Office the other day. (All copies legit, unless my higher-ups aren't telling me things)
Office XP wasn't doing what I wanted, so I uninstalled it and stuck 2K on instead. I have more control and less bloat with the older version - hardly an argument to sway any tech-savvy buyer towards upgrading.
We've reached feature-saturation, and we're at a point I think where the genuinely useful features aren't worth the price, adn the rest of the features are worthless anyway. So people only get the new software with a new PC.
Also so much software is quite simply overpriced. Yes, many people use this to "justify" getting a bootlegged copy. But also many people use this to justify not bothering with the software at all.
The companies don't always want to admit that many "Lost Sales" are people who don't pay, but also choose not to go for a pirate copy. They just go without entirely.
It's not the "New version needed for new OS" time anymore that came with Win95. Nor is it the "They've aded new features that are worth the price" time that happened in the late-90s. As a result of this and the pricing you get the following four types of lost sales.
1 - Unlicensed copy. Whether via warez sources, copying a friend's install CD or installing multiple times the program you bought once. (I still don't see a blanket problem with this one. Some sort of volume-licensing for companies, yes. But there should be a little leeway in insttalling something you've bought.)
2 - Old Version. If the old one works fine then why pay over-the-odds for what's mostly the same features with a few bonuses? Especially if your license is still valid it makes more sense to use the old.
3 - less-costly alternatives. Whether commercial, freeware, or Free and/or Open software. There are alternatives for at least the mainstream applications these days, and many of them are comparable to the overpriced alternatives. They're still not a "One Size Fits All" alternative yet, as some things (OOo, for example) isn't 100% compatible and sometimes don't do qutie a good enough job. But this is getting better as time goes on. Plus for smaller organisations it could well be feasible to buy one licensed copy of, for example, MS Office, and then use it to test and tidy up output from OOo installed on the otehr machines.
4 - Go Without. If the only options are the Illegal option and the Expensive option then sometimes it's just easier to do without entirely.
P2P probably accounts for some of #1. I don't doubt it's helped increase the number of people attain software that they woudn't pay for anyway. And, being data not physical, this isn't really stealing in the classic sense of the work. (Illegal, yes. Stealing no.) There's still a copy on the shelf somewhere. They didn't buy it, but they didn't nick it either.
But the other 3 points I would think are a major cause of lost potential sales. I just think the companies don't/can't accept that people won't pay their prices, but that it doesn't always equate to people using illegal copies. They seem to beleive that their software is so good that not only should people not bootleg it, but that everyone will automatically flock to upgrade or buy.
Between no-cost, cheap, old and open software I'm pretty certain that I use more types of software than I did 5 or 6 years ago, yet I also use less unlicensed copies. If I do choose to use a commercial package, these days I'm more likely to actually pay for it. However most of the time I go for a legitimately free alternative instead. Less cost. Less illegal. Oh, and less likely to pick up a virus by installing brand-name software from an unknown source.
TiggsWorse. It's sending us well on the slippery slope to anarchy. Or, at least, to general disregard of inconvenient laws by the the majority of people.
And I'm not sure they see that.
They're creating laws that corporations love, but the mojority of society in many countries do not like. Are they persuading people to stay within the letter of a law they don't believe in? Probably not in a lot of cases. instead people just dismiss the Law as an inconvenience. This is not going to end well.
yes, sometimes laws probably need tightening up to stop rampant law-breaking. But each law really should be looked at case-by-case.
Why was the law created?
What was society/technology like at the time?
What are things like now?
Does $ACTIVITY$ really need protecting/prohibiting now as it did back then?
Copyright law probably needs wholesale revision, but not automatically in favour of (large) corporations.
Currently they're wanting to restrict more things, and impose bigger sentences. What people see, though, is them being faced with out-of-proportion punishments for something that's not perceived as a serious crime.
Copyright needs reworking. Allow more stuff, decrease restrictions, don't penalise for what should these days be allowable, reduce copyright periods and allow things to hit the Public Domain within the public's lifetime, and don't make breaking the law seem more attractive than obeying it.
TiggsConversely, what's left as illegal should be serious breaches that really do look like criminal activity and make them the ones with teh heavy punishments. Mass bootlegging factories of DVDs, and making a profit for someone else's work does seem to warrant heavy punishment. People sharing MP3s doesn't seem to warrant the same level. But the **AA (and local equivalents) want to make it so, and people can't understand that thinking.
That smacks of overkill, and would probably be a very bad idea...
And it still makes more sense.
TiggsI hope these "Never Seen Before Cast And Crew Interviews" are significantly different from the various things I saw on MTV last year.
TiggsAll too often "Exclusive footage" isn't, and "Never seen before" has been.
Hmmmmm. Maybe the money I shelled out on the Reloaded disc won't be wasted if I buy the box-set.
TiggsIf you realyl want it, do the usual of checking bargain bins, sales, and Amazon special offers.
It's even more complete/canonical when you realise the the ETM footage of the Logos crew watcing the last message from the Osiris is actually (static-fuzzied) footage taken straight from the Animatrix short.
It all fitted together, and I like that. They didn't just make animated shorts and a game that used the franchise name and merely paid lip-service to the storyline. At least two parts of Animatrix contained extra backstory to the sequels, and the game (even though no the best game in the world) decided to take the player through some of the action going on elsewhere, rather than the tried and tested "Play through the major sequences of the film, but modified to fit a gaming engine".
It's effort we can only dream of seeing in many other licensed movie franchises.
TiggsYes, there movies out there with better sequels and probably even better games. But none of them make such a coherant whole. Just imagine what could happen if the same level of effort in keeping the spin-offs consistent was put into a better-sequeled series.
The problem is that people think that films are (or should be) either perfect, or utter garbage. They're not very good at finding the middle ground. OK, there are many films that do hit those extremes, but there are films which "could have been a lot better, but are still good films".
The Matrix sequels didn't live up to the promise that a lot of fans saw in the first movie. People seem to blinded by what they wanted to see to give what was given a chance.
Newsflash. This happens a lot in stories. Sometimes you give up following them, sometimes you persist anyway to see what happens.
Yes, there are many series (books and TV) that I gave up on. Do I think they're utter failures? No. They're not what I wanted, but that doesn't make them bad.
I saw Reloaded at least twice in the cinema. I also bought the DVD. (Though, I admit, pre-ordered on Amazon to save cash - but I think all UK DVD-releases are priced 5-10 quid too high. So that's not a Matrix-only issue.)
I saw Revolutions twice in the Cinema. Haven't bought the DVD yet, but that's the above-mentioned price issue.
I enjoyed them both. Yes, there are things I'd rather unfolded differently. Yes, there are some serious flaws in both films. But do I think that the films are totally unenjoyable? No.
If anything the main problem was that there was so lone between Matrix and Reloaded. 3-4 years worth of expectations was too long, especially for a film like the first Matrix.
People also missed a major part of what made the first movie so special. It was all exposition. We were following Neo in his evolution from system-cog (albeit an unwilling one) to ultra-powerful rebel. But once that genie was out, there was no going back. There's no way that a sequel could have the same kind of feeling, as too much had changed in the first.
The sequels followed one totally viable plot-direction. Nothing was contradicted except for things which were mere assumptions on the part of the rebels. (And even then, I went back and noticed that although it changes the facts behind some of Morpheus' explanations, the words he says still hold. Only he was following an interpretation that turned out to be false)
OK, so the direction it took wasn't the one that many fans wanted to see explored. Too much disappointment. Too many people just weren't interested, but this manifested as hatred and suddenly everyone started saying that the movies sucked.
I've paid to see them. I'm glad I did. Although I have the first 2 on DVD, I don't have the Revisited or Animatrix yet, so might even buy the box-set when it comes out and get the lot.
(10 discs for under 50 quid? Even if I only watch every disc once, it'd be worth it to me.)
Do I wish that the sequels had turned out differently?
TiggsHonestly, I don't know. Despite the flaws, the movies were ones that I did enjoy. That's a fact. Whether I'd enjoy ones made differently is speculation. So I'll take what's out there. 2003 would have been a lot less fun for me without those two films.
I think the main problem is they way the UK Government want to go about implementing the things.
Firstly although compulsary, I bet it wouldn't be the government who pay for it. I can just about stomach some sort of compulsary ID, but I draw the line at having to pay for yet another thing you have no choice in.
Secondly it's the privacy issues. Personally I quite like the idea of one solitary ID card being absolute proof of ID, rather than the current slew of various options, not all of which are accepted for everything. However, I'm rather less enamoured of the idea of it also containing biometric data and potentially containing tracking data.
Oh, and there's a fine line between something you "have to own" and something you "have to carry at all times", and I know which one any government would eventually tend towards.
Thirdly there are rumours (no idea if they're true or not) that they'd have some sort of RFID component. Card-fan or not, that's something I'd be dead-set against. But I also get the feeling that full specs wouldn't be released until after they've been made mandatory, if at all.
The main problem is that they've taken a potentially good but very controversial idea and then added some modifiers that make it less acceptable for those who would have supported it otherwise.
A tricky-to-forge ("impossible" is an aim they're not going to meet) absolute proof of identity that could be accepted in all situations is a good idea. A mandatory card with biometric data and the potential equivalent of "tracking cookies" is not.
That said, it wouldn't be the first time that a government has taken an idea with potential and ruined it by making it less (rather than more) palatable. And I doubt it's be the last time, either.
TiggsI'm kind of the opposite. I didn't quite see the fuss at first. But now it's the first thing I miss when i have to use IE.
OK, that and pop-up blocking one come PCs. But I don't miss it as much as any machine I use regularly that absolutely must run IE soon finds itself with the Google Toolbar installed. (I didn't realise how many popups that blocked back in my IE days until I used a machine without it).
Regardless of my personal opinions on any kind of media-protection efforts, for his sake I hope he's right.
You know that the moment someone gets their hands on a disc that they'll try to break the encryption. Whether on principle, for bootlegging, or purely for academic interest, the factr emains that someone will try. So this guy better not have staked his reputation on this unless he's absolutely sure. (And even then, the better assumption is that anything can be hacked eventually)
Tiggs)You raise a lot of points, but they're not (individually, anyway) viable business concerns. They don't fit in with the current movie distribution model, and for whatever reasons[*] the industry wants to hang onto that model despite technological/society changes that render it obsolete. Unfortunately for them, the Internet provides an illegal but convenient alternative. And if going outside the law is convenient on such a scale, shouldn't it be a signal that something's wrong?
(* - Probably to do with profits)
Your first point is the kicker though. Buying a legit DVD would solve the majority of the other problems. But as long as they want Box Office profit-margins (and ludicrously high first-day takings), it ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Maybe if DVDs came out as soon as it leaves the cinemas (or during the tail-end of a run) it would be a compromise, but I can't see them doing that. (I hope I'm wrong though.)
Problem with this is that it would probably eat heavily into Box Office takings. Even though a DVD would be a legal purchase, and showing it at home is allowed, I think the companeis would rather you didn't buy the DVD once and then show it to your buddies over the next few weekends. Some would want to see it cinema-size anyway, but many would see it once and not bother again.
This is changing, but slowly.
But it does put me off seeing kids films during peak hours. After some kid sneezed in the back of my head in Toy Story 2 I'm somewhat less caring about the copyright holders. They're not the ones who needed a wash after that showing.
Of course, whether we like it or not, they are right to complain if seeing a bootleg costs them a ticket. Even if it's because the film was so godawfully dull that you delete it before finishing it. That said, "Make better films" would be a better solution.
Yeah well fixing those issues probably doesn't fit in with their view of the world. The world is changing into one which doesn't support their model - not to high profit-levels anyway. But their efforts to criminalise anyone who uses modern technology to get around obsolete restrictions just encourages people to break the law.
They're fighting a losing battle here. I just hope they realise soon that their overly-restrictive tactics are making a subculture who care less and less about the letter of the law. And that can only be a bad thing.
TiggsHeh. They want to demand exactly how they supply things.
I've said it before, but the genie was out of the bottle the moment communications technology improved, gained power with the Internet, and became unstoppabe with broadband. but it's not filesharing that started the ball rolling, it was just what finished it off.
The MPAA (and equivalents) sprung up aroudn the old infrastructure, found it profitable, and want to continue that way forever. It was 1989 when i first really noticed the lag between American and British film releases. And that was only because I spent the summer in Ohio. I spent 6 weeks seeing promos for Batman (and actually saw i), and Honey, I Shrunk The Kids. Batman didn't come out until I got back, and "Honey" didn't come out until either late '89 or early '90.
Then along came the Internet. Even in low-bandwidth, the MPAA methodology started to break down. It's easy to control releases when people don't know what's available elsewhere. The moment they do there is a demand. And if you don't actually release the film quickly then bootlegs are to be expected. It's not legal, but it's inevitable. People don't care about distribution rights and marketing, they want to see a film. Even knowing that a bootleg is technically illegal people will buy it if there's no other alternative.
This is in addition to those who'll go for the cheap/free alternative every time. But you'll never sell to them. Chasing them is a lost cause, it's the "Willing to pay, but not to wait" crowd you have to address.
The Industry lost their control the moment information could cross borders faster than normal media channels. They then refused to cater for the demand, and broadband suddenly opened up a supply. The industry had missed the boat. Simple as that.
Remember, we can now hear all about the status of a film, no matter where it's being filmed. it's more or less free advertising, as you know that a long-awaited film is closer and closer to release.
Oh, but you're a UK-resident, not a US-resident. So you'll have to wait week, maybe months. Before the Internet there wasn't that level of expectation. But now there is, and they still seem reluctant to address the issue at hand. They're treating the symptom (bootlegged films) instead of the cause (film not legitimately available yet in certain areas, even if willing to pay).
The longer delay also has another issue. The DVD can be available in another country whilst it's still in the cinema in your area.
You (legally) see a film at the cinema. You pay to see it several times. you love it. You want the DVD. It's out on legitimate DVD in another country. You import it, it makes perfect sense. It's more legal than downloading or buying a bootleg, but the industry hate it just as much.
They're finally changing their methods. Several films over the past 2 years have been released within a week in several countries. I'm pretty certain that if "piracy" wasn't a worry to the film companies that they'd not bother. Well although I don't advocate mass bootlegging of films, I certainly think that this is one case where something good has happened - at least for consumers. near-simultaneous releases of films in the cinema, then close DVD release dates for home viewing. It's long overdue, and probably owes more than a little to bootlegs.
And that is why although I don't like copyright infringement I'm firmly against the Industry's heavy-handed attempts to stamp out all piracy. Should they ever regain complete control I would bet that they'd go back to their old tricks of time-delayed releases. This would not be a good thing.
TiggsAnd them trying to accomplish that by wanting to set punishments out of proportion to the crime is not going to win them any friends. Well, not from the paying public anyway. I've said it before (first point), and recently too. Recording in a cinema is illegal, but it's not worth hard jail-time. You fine, steal, ban. You don't imprison.