The quality is excellent on satellite but if you live in a windy area I'd be careful. I spent 7 months in Wellington, NZ and the wind was so bad I'd have signal trouble at least once a week and sometimes daily. Generally in was intermittent pixelation but at times it went out for most of the day. When it gets bad enough you simply loose the signal completely. Wellington is an extreme case but if you live in an area with a lot of windy weather I'd consider cable. Otherwise satellite would be my choice. In a pinch if the dish is ground mounted you might be able rig a windscreen. I've heard dense fog will cause problems but wind was my biggest problem. Best of luck.
I completely agree. Ultimately what happens is the options become more limited. Less music will be availible and fewer films will be made concentrating the wealth even more. It's already happened in the film industry. The shift from a theater based economy to a video tape/DVD based one drastically reduced production. It originally caused a boom in the 80s but by the end of the 80s the video stores decided to limit the number of independent and lower budget films and focas on higher profit big budget films. By this point it had become nearly impossible to get a proper theatrical release for a smaller film so they were shut out. At first it was hard to get anything made for over three mill. It then dropped to one mill and now the target is under 500 grand. The direction is for under 100 grand for independent films. Trust me you can't do much for under a 100 grand. Yes there are films made for more than these numbers but most loose money or make very little. It's a lot of risk for little return so the numbers keep dropping. Depend on cable? Most channels are paying between 8 grand and 500 grand. Those paying at the high end want all rights. If you make a film for 500 grand it doesn't leave much profit. If it cost more you loose. Yes the major players, the HBOs and such, are paying more but just for high budget or popular films. Blockbuster recently decided to radically downsize what few independents they buy now. HBO is concentrating on made for cable TV series. Markets are drying up fast with foreign countries starting to focas on locally produced reality TV. The industry can't take a lot more hits. Everyone can choose not to support the film industry but I continually hear complaints about a lack of options from consumers. Video is the last hold out for independents. If it ceases to be viable most will dry up and what you'll be left with is what the studios choose to produce. Legally Blonde 6 or how about Friday the 13th Part 20? Don't laugh you could see both films. The trend is in that direction because they've largely run out of ideas and don't want outsiders taking work away from the insiders. Ultimately the consumers are hurting themselves. That free CD or DVD may be fun for now but in the end it will limit what is availible and by reducing competition it will hurt quality.
Music is the easier subject now but film will be getting hit harder and hard as downloading speeds become less of an issue. The artists have always gotten the short end of the stick in both industries, worse in music than film. Unfortunately the falling revenues have forced groups to look to touring as potentially their primary source of income. A lot of artist prefer not to tour due to it making it virtually impossible to have a life. They are having to look serious at touring now as an option. It's changing artists lives. If a direct sales system settles in it will benefit the artists in the end. Film is a different problem. Films are extremely expensive to make. Most want to see big budget films not the glorified home movies that could be made by most individuals. Ticket sales have been falling. Profits have gone up only because of rising ticket prices. They've basically hit the barrier of diminishing returns. The studios have already begun to defend their profit margins by taking productions out of country. If DVD sales and theatrical sales drop due to pirating they'll simply push harder on finding cheaper and cheaper foreign sources. It's absolutely hurting the artists and technicians more than the studios. On the average big budget effects film between 100 and 500 CG artists are hired. Most of those jobs will disappear in the US in the next ten years. In a perfect world when the profits drop the ones at the top would take the hit. In the real world the cuts start at the bottom.
Very interesting attitude. I've gotten into several very heated exchanges on Slashdot concerning copyrights. The universal answer was copyright laws favor the artists too much and they should do it out of love and there's nothing wrong with downloading music and movies for free even if it robs the artist. I was given the pious example of people writing open source code for free. I was never given an example of how they were suppose to feed themselves while they worked for free. Now I hear code writers should aways be paid for their work even if it's for the benefit of all. Feels different when the shoes on the other foot. If all intellectual property should be free why aren't code writers working for free and working at the local 7 eleven to pay their bills? I realize no one wants to hear this and I'm sure this post will get a low mod because it's tradition to kill the messenger but you can't have it both ways. Everyone has a right to earn a living and working for free or giving away your work ain't going to pay the bills. I'm thrilled people write open source code for free. Artist often work for free and work a disturbing number of unpaid hours. The hardest thing for an artist is generally getting some one to pay for their work in the first place. Free market basically works, inspite of a few bumps. Change the law and allow people to go into a famer's field and pick the crops without paying and see how quick people give up on farming. Sorry there's no difference.
In film we generally throw in a flesh tone shot to help in color timing. It's like the meteric conversion problem. The green flesh tones of the martians in those unreleased shots are throwing off the calibration for the other shots. There'll be a lot of red faces when they figure this one out.
If you've ever tried to exchange currency you'll find most require a passport to exchange it. Even if you pass it off I think you'll soon be getting a knock on the door. Small town banks might not enforce the rule but most will. Might want to be careful what currency you choose to knock off. Some may not be worth as much as the price of paper and ink.
The forces are gathering against the Dark Lord Gates.
"One operating system to rule them all. One operating system to find them, one operating system to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
I constantly see postings where the responses are always blasting any laws or actions taken to combat piracy but I have yet to hear a resonable solution for all parties. It's easy to say in an ideal world films would be free but that's hardly a reasonable business model. Most want the big epics these days. They are expensive. Even moving them out of the country they are still costing 150 to 200 million or more. Given people aren't going to make them for free, some of those are tech people and I doubt you all want to work for free, how do they continue to make films if piracy continues to grow? It's also easy to say it doesn't hurt sales but the music industry has had a different experience. Broadband connections aren't fast enough to be practical and freely duplicating movies is not a solution. Copying films may be fun in the short term but it hurts everyone in the long term. Independant film sales have plummeted in recent years. Most are showing a loss. People complain about the quality of films but the markets are drying up which limits the number of people that can make films on a reasonable budget. Most don't want to watch golified home movies but the returns are so small soon we'll be left with no budget and mega budget. Sure some people buy copies of the blockbusters but given the choice on lower budget films do you buy or copy? It's funny, people will fight to pay $50 or $100 to go to a ball game where you have a couple of dozen people compete for a couple of hours but whine when they have to pay $10 to see a film that took 500 people a year to make. Films are still a good value. The real problem right now is concentration of wealth. Most of the money is made by the top 2%. Piracy doesn't help this situation it makes it worse. Those at the top are fairly well insulated. It's everyone else that's at risk. Runaway production has nearly killed the American film industry. Piracy could be the final blow.
Spam is like phone solicitation and junk mail. If it didn't work they wouldn't do it. The only real way to perminately stop it is to encourage everyone to not respond. If no one responded it would dry up overnight. Unfortunately there is a percentage that are gullible so we all pay the price. I've encouraged people for years to hang up on phone solicitors. The same must be done with spammers. There really needs to be a grass roots movement to educate people to avoid junk mail of all forms. Personally I boycote products that send junk mail and spam. I also try to avoid sites that use multiple pop-ups. If it starts costing them business they'll stop. If they loose ten customers for everyone they gain the junk mail/e-mail will vanish.
It's not even that simple. There's talk of blue laser HD TV as well as non Blue Laser. The biggest issue is making them backwardly compatible so your old media is useful. Eventhough all my CD disks will play on my current drives including my DVD burner I have a stack of old 4x disks which none of my current burners will accept. Other than making attractive flying disks they are pretty useless. So long as the new drives will read my old media I'm happy. I don't want to go through what an old friend did. When 8 track died he ran out and bought four players so he would always have one. Hate to have to do that with disk drives. I have hundreds of CDs as back ups. It would take a long time to transfer all that to another format. Then there's the software issue. My original copy of Micrsoft Word was on 5 1/4. Can you say extinct?
Where the internet would be useful is in making registration and obtaining absentee ballets easier. I work a lot of hours, as do most of us, and find registration a pain. It's rediculous to have to register months before an election. I was buried in work and found out late at night it was the last day to register for the last Presidential election. If we could register on-line and obtain ballets it would definately make things more accessable. Verifying identification is an issue but most aren't checked for ID as it is and none of those are verified.
As far as electronic voting, I'm against National ID cards but most of us have drivers licenses with magnetic strips. An ATM system that uses those as verification could improve security. The system would only use the drivers license to access an electronic form. It would record that the individual voted but not which form was used.
Any system can be hacked. The only way to largely avoid that is to network the voting machines at each location by firewire. An electronic count could be sent but would have to be verified by a verbal number given over the phone by some one at the polling location. A print out of totals could act as a third verification. It doesn't prevent tampering before the fact though. One possible way to avoid pretampering would be to have name order assigned on the day with more than one person required as in nuclear sites. Any pretampering would not know which name was being represented by any given code number.
No system is foolproof but there is a fair amount of tampering already. Can you say Florida?
I take it you didn't see Jackie Brown? I haven't even bothered to catch Kill Bill. I got tired of Tarentino a few years before the rest of Hollywood. The only reason he got another shot is people were afraid he might have another hit in him. Kill Bill made money so the arrogant little SOB will get to make more films. I loved Pulp Fiction and thought True Romance was an excellent film but he's largely a one hit wonder. Where as I think Fincher has another Seven in him Tarentino is unlikely to make another really good film. He believes his own press and it went straight to his head. Maybe after he starved for a couple of years he could do it again. The dry years humbled Travolta long enough to make a couple of good films. Then Battlefield Earth happened. Need I say more.
People are already being tracked on freeways using the signal from their speedpasses. It's bad enough that you can be tracked from your purchases by credit card. All we need is a system where you just need to walk through an area to be identifed. It can't be stopped. Between biometerics and chip based credit systems there will come a day when our location and a record of our movements will be known. The upside is solving more crimes. The downside is very little privacy. Politicians are already under a microscope. What if your movements and habits become public record? There are no laws preventing it. What if you are turned down for a job because you frequent strip joints? Or maybe you are considered at risk of being a pediphile because you regularly visit places that happen to have lots of children. It's not so rediculous. Credit information is already being used in hiring and profiles are being generated by your TiVo habits. Remember the profile that identified some one as a pregnant gay man? Personally I'm a big fan of cash.
We have a chance to end some of the most horrible debilitating deseases know and it largely comes down to semantics. When life starts. The attitude is better to flush the tissue down the toliet than find a cure to these deseases. It shouldn't come down to a religious issue of when life starts. People should be given the option of donating the unused tissue. I have major reservations about genetically modifying plants and animals but have no issue with stem cell research. Few of the same people show the same enthusiasm about banning nuclear weapons that can kill millions but become irrational when it cames to a line of research that can save millions. Cloning itself simply produces a twin. Deal with it. I oppose cloning of humans strictly because of the crude nature of the current techniques. Few it any would survive and any survivors would have severe genetic problems. There's enough genetic desease without creating more. Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans. Reproducing stem cell tissue is a completely different issue. A three or four day old cluster of cells lacks conciousness. There are no brainwaves. In fact no brain. Stem cells by definition lack defining characteristics. They are a blank slate waiting to be told what to become. It's why they are such a promising option for replacing damaged tissue.
The law is vague to allow for improvements in technology. The quality of camcorders has improved dramatically in the last ten years. Broadcast quality cameras go for a few grand now and are a fraction the size and weight of the original VHS camcorders. It's possible in the next ten years that PDAs and Celphones will be capible of broadcast quality. If the law didn't allow for that in ten years you'd be calling it shortsighted.
The current problem with camcorders is massive. Films are far too easy to duplicate. I'm a filmmaker myself and I'm currently wrapping up the post on a film. It's an independent and we decided not to allow crew copies to be distributed until the film is sold. Independent films have become extremely hard to sell in the last few years. Buyers are very concerned about the films being pirated before the can sell them to their clients. The problem is far worse foreign and that's where most sales for independents occur. A film coming out as a pirate is more than enough to scare off buyers for small films and prevent them from getting a proper release. In independent films it's not profit these days it's returning your initial cost that is the concern. If you can't even return those costs you aren't going to make many films. The big studios are better insulated. It's the independents that are most at risk. People are more likely to buy a store copy of a major feature to get the quality. On an independent film they are willing to accept a little less quality. The foreign markets mostly don't care so long as it's cheaper. Screening a film can in several cities can improve the sellability of a film and dramatically increase the return. Unfortunately it increases the risk of piracy. The free advertising angle really doesn't pan out. I've never in my life known some one to see a pirate copy of a film and run out and buy a store copy. If that was true China would be a massive customer. At least they are a solid customer, they buy one copy of every film made.
I'm dead tired and the posts are blurring together. I've responded to dozens of postings so it's hard to keep it all clear.
I rechecked your original post. Your claim is there is no damage done. How is loss of revenue no damage? This hardly falls under the category of a victimless crime. The bread analogy seems to have annoyed a few because they don't see intelectual property having weight and mass. The analogy was to point out that things are being taken without payment being made. The downloads are being made to avoid paying the artist. I'm sure a few are gratified that people love their work so much they felt they had to steal it but personally I'd rather feed my kids and pay rent. We're not all greedy bastards. Most of us are struggling to survive and it's gotten a lot harder.
"I suspect we'd find the strength to go on living. Of course this is a false dilemna, as it ignores the many artists who have found that they can make money while giving away MP3s or text of their works."
How pray tell do you make money giving away MP3s? I'm sure you are thinking of live performances. Guess again. Small venue paying gigs are rare. Many people are trying to figure out alternative ways of making money not out of nobliity but nessecity.
Xerox is a common use term for photocopying works. Can't you do any better than that?
The rental issue referred to a fundimental change in a related industry that hurt independents. A similar attrician is going on now. The major companies will survive. It's the small guy that is being hurt.
Copyright infringement generally refers to exploiting a work. Thief is used in this case because it is being done to avoid paying for something that has a market value. Duplication without the owners consent is illegal. Try walking into a movie theater with a video camera.
I've tried to be a lone voice for the artist. Saying I have an inferiority Complex is in accurate and a childish attempt to insult. Just because I'm shocked at the lack of respect given to an artist's work doesn't mean I value mine less. I place too high a value on it to just give it away because some out there are too cheap to pay for it. I'm not in the music industry. I was trying to defend them because we face similar issues.
The word is semantics. I have dyslexia and am very tired. I've tried to respond to every e-mail and I'm quite exhausted.
I missed nothing. You seem to miss the point that most of the people working on Open Source have good paying day jobs funding their activities. Check your facts.
If you downloaded music without paying for it it's the same as shoplifting. If you had no problem with an artist being paid for his work we wouldn't be having this exchange. That's my only point. Artist should get reasonable compensation for the exploiting of their work. The middle men are generally the ones that get rich. Very few artist make it above middle class and most live considerably below it.
First off copyright infringement applies if the work were being exploited. Shoplifting is closer to the truth if you prefer that word?
I'm saying the answer isn't to say "screw the artist".
Taping a song inorder to avoid buying the album is illegal. Check any video tape you might have bothered to buy. There is a warning against duplicating it. The same rules apply to music. I wish some one that responded was familar with our current laws. I'm amazed by some of what has been said.
As to knee jerk please read the other reponders. Virtually all are defending the practise and don't feel the laws should be modified they should be removed. As to "MY response said it was not okay". You just said that a person recording music is doing nothing wrong. Right or wrong the law disagrees with you. It's a diferent issue in practise because people recorded music off the radio for years but still bought the albums because the recordings were often of poor quality. Now you can download a version that is lossless. Most today see no problem with downloading an album and not paying for it. The few that bothered to mention paying were referring to the subscriptions deals proposed. $20 a month and you can download all you want. 20 albums, $20 bucks. Sounds like a deal. It is maybe for everyone but the artist that just saw sales drop to 5% of what they were. The record companies will survive but many of the artist will probably have to say forget it. They have a right to make a living like everyone else. Duplicating their work to stiff them is wrong. Call it what you will.
Having access to an artist work is a privilege. Copyright is a law.
If people were really just checking out an album and artist then buying the music there won't be an issue. Are you really claiming that most people run out and buy the album they just downloaded? I haven't had a single person say they later bought an album they downloaded. This is about people getting something for nothing and trying to rationalize it. I've had more than one say not being paid helped the artists as well. That's like saying clear cutting is good for a forest. I heard a lumberman make that argument. Perhaps attrician is good for the music industry. Serve everyone right if they got stuck listening to Britney Spears 24/7 because everyone else said screw it and went home.
"Any analogy that uses real property instead of intellectual property simply isn't going to work. Don't bother with them."
Your reference was to real property. Because a work of art may not have mass and physical dimensions doesn't mean it isn't real. I have worked to the point of physical collapse on art projects. Just because we don't always swing hammers doesn't mean we don't work for a living. It also doesn't make our work is any less substantial than some one that builds a physical structure. Artwork is the property of the artist. If copyright laws were removed it might make it legal to steal from an artist but it wouldn't make it right. I used the loaf of bread analogy to make a point. Because the information is in the form of ones and zeroes doesn't mean that it is okay to reproduce it without the artists permission. I keep feeling like the responders are kids in a candy store stuffing their pockets and rationalizing the act because no one is stopping them. You may have fun now but what happens when the candy store goes broke?
I would like to thank you for not taking the cheap shot and saying that my decison to not publish is fine by you and good riddance. Others would have done as much, so thank you. Your agruments have remained civil and professional where as most have not. I still disagree and tonight has been a real eye openner for me. The handle allows a certain amount of anonymity. You might not recognise my name but I guarentee you've seen my work many times. I've always tried to provide my services at a reasonable rate and wanted the largest number of people to benefit from my work. Sadly I have to say I've been a fool. Most in my position have grabbed every dime they could. I paid people well and often went without myself. All for the sake of my art. I lost everything I owned a half a dozen times and struggled back each time. After hearing how much the public actually appreciates the effort I have to say I was a fool. Not that I would change how I do business. It's how I'm wired. I believe in treating people well no matter how I'm treated. I was a fool because I thought that at least some people appreciated the effort. If one post had supported the artist I would have said at least there is one out there. There wasn't a single one. All I got was statements that "real artists" don't do it for the money and why should artists own their own work it belongs to the world. The world would be a lesser place without the contributions of artists. It's sad that they are thought so little of. It's about time to retire to that cabin with a block of marble and some parchment and ink. No one owns my soul, my thoughts, my work but me. True art comes from the soul and if it's not going to be appreciated maybe it should stay there. What a loss if Shakespear had written his plays and then burned them before they were read. I'm in no way compairing myself to him. We should all be judged on our own merits good or bad. I have destroyed sculptures and deleted written works for similar reasons to these. Good or bad, what a loss that an artist should have to think like this. Shouldn't an artist be unencumbered in bringing his work to market so that the most people possible have access to it? Publishers and middle men should be restricted. They contribute nothing creatively. An artists creativity shouldn't be restricted by law. It should be a fair market system. Artists are paid based on peoples desire for their work. Things like Napster for artists ais like being mugged and their work stolen. If an artist were carrying a painting down the street and a mob grabbed it and ran away would you say "too bad you shouldn't have taken it out in public?" Maybe he shouldn't have?
"You've got a serious inferiority complex going on."
Give me a break. The comment is childish and irrelavent. You don't know me and the comment is pretty laughable. My ego is on rock solid footing. How's yours?
True artist should work for free is simply stating that you are too cheap to pay for their work. True artist work because they have no choice. It's the work that drives them.
As to my kids benefitting from my inheritence, according to you if I was a "real artist" I wouldn't leave them any. I didn't see programers working for free during the dotcom boom. Most grabbed every cent they could. If non artist want to call artist greedy first take a hard look in the mirror. Historically the bulk of artist have starved. It's still true today.
I don't agree with public domain of a work where the family wishes to retain rights. The only one that benefits from public domain are the publishers. They still get paid just the artists don't. Even your beloved Napster was a business hoping to turn a profit by effectively publishing work without paying the artist. Saying that they only provided access is a symatec. It's rationalizing what was done because it benefits you. I say again. Grow up and pay an artist for his work. You're no longer a kid shoving candy into his pockets in a candy store. It's the real world.
I'm very tired and was mostly responding to people who were quoting 17 years. I don't know what the current laws are and I know they have changed. I've responded to dozens of e-mails so I'm a little frazzeled. Copyright is the right to restrict duplication of a work. I'm stunned that everyone thus far hasn't seen a problem with freely distributing an artist work. What is the incentive for an artist to distribute his work to the public if he isn't going to benefit? Personally I say we should all collectively say to hell with it and stop producing. Picture all the farmers saying the same thing? We aren't going to grow food anymore. Saying one group shouldn't be paid for their work is surreal to me. Where do people get this crap from? No one has a god given right to what I create but me. I guess the smart thing to do is hide our work in caves away from the public. Artists used to hide their work for fear of pursecution. Now maybe we should do it from fear of thieft.
Slashdot Mirror
The quality is excellent on satellite but if you live in a windy area I'd be careful. I spent 7 months in Wellington, NZ and the wind was so bad I'd have signal trouble at least once a week and sometimes daily. Generally in was intermittent pixelation but at times it went out for most of the day. When it gets bad enough you simply loose the signal completely. Wellington is an extreme case but if you live in an area with a lot of windy weather I'd consider cable. Otherwise satellite would be my choice. In a pinch if the dish is ground mounted you might be able rig a windscreen. I've heard dense fog will cause problems but wind was my biggest problem. Best of luck.
I completely agree. Ultimately what happens is the options become more limited. Less music will be availible and fewer films will be made concentrating the wealth even more. It's already happened in the film industry. The shift from a theater based economy to a video tape/DVD based one drastically reduced production. It originally caused a boom in the 80s but by the end of the 80s the video stores decided to limit the number of independent and lower budget films and focas on higher profit big budget films. By this point it had become nearly impossible to get a proper theatrical release for a smaller film so they were shut out. At first it was hard to get anything made for over three mill. It then dropped to one mill and now the target is under 500 grand. The direction is for under 100 grand for independent films. Trust me you can't do much for under a 100 grand. Yes there are films made for more than these numbers but most loose money or make very little. It's a lot of risk for little return so the numbers keep dropping. Depend on cable? Most channels are paying between 8 grand and 500 grand. Those paying at the high end want all rights. If you make a film for 500 grand it doesn't leave much profit. If it cost more you loose. Yes the major players, the HBOs and such, are paying more but just for high budget or popular films. Blockbuster recently decided to radically downsize what few independents they buy now. HBO is concentrating on made for cable TV series. Markets are drying up fast with foreign countries starting to focas on locally produced reality TV. The industry can't take a lot more hits. Everyone can choose not to support the film industry but I continually hear complaints about a lack of options from consumers. Video is the last hold out for independents. If it ceases to be viable most will dry up and what you'll be left with is what the studios choose to produce. Legally Blonde 6 or how about Friday the 13th Part 20? Don't laugh you could see both films. The trend is in that direction because they've largely run out of ideas and don't want outsiders taking work away from the insiders. Ultimately the consumers are hurting themselves. That free CD or DVD may be fun for now but in the end it will limit what is availible and by reducing competition it will hurt quality.
Music is the easier subject now but film will be getting hit harder and hard as downloading speeds become less of an issue. The artists have always gotten the short end of the stick in both industries, worse in music than film. Unfortunately the falling revenues have forced groups to look to touring as potentially their primary source of income. A lot of artist prefer not to tour due to it making it virtually impossible to have a life. They are having to look serious at touring now as an option. It's changing artists lives. If a direct sales system settles in it will benefit the artists in the end. Film is a different problem. Films are extremely expensive to make. Most want to see big budget films not the glorified home movies that could be made by most individuals. Ticket sales have been falling. Profits have gone up only because of rising ticket prices. They've basically hit the barrier of diminishing returns. The studios have already begun to defend their profit margins by taking productions out of country. If DVD sales and theatrical sales drop due to pirating they'll simply push harder on finding cheaper and cheaper foreign sources. It's absolutely hurting the artists and technicians more than the studios. On the average big budget effects film between 100 and 500 CG artists are hired. Most of those jobs will disappear in the US in the next ten years. In a perfect world when the profits drop the ones at the top would take the hit. In the real world the cuts start at the bottom.
Very interesting attitude. I've gotten into several very heated exchanges on Slashdot concerning copyrights. The universal answer was copyright laws favor the artists too much and they should do it out of love and there's nothing wrong with downloading music and movies for free even if it robs the artist. I was given the pious example of people writing open source code for free. I was never given an example of how they were suppose to feed themselves while they worked for free. Now I hear code writers should aways be paid for their work even if it's for the benefit of all. Feels different when the shoes on the other foot. If all intellectual property should be free why aren't code writers working for free and working at the local 7 eleven to pay their bills? I realize no one wants to hear this and I'm sure this post will get a low mod because it's tradition to kill the messenger but you can't have it both ways. Everyone has a right to earn a living and working for free or giving away your work ain't going to pay the bills. I'm thrilled people write open source code for free. Artist often work for free and work a disturbing number of unpaid hours. The hardest thing for an artist is generally getting some one to pay for their work in the first place. Free market basically works, inspite of a few bumps. Change the law and allow people to go into a famer's field and pick the crops without paying and see how quick people give up on farming. Sorry there's no difference.
In film we generally throw in a flesh tone shot to help in color timing. It's like the meteric conversion problem. The green flesh tones of the martians in those unreleased shots are throwing off the calibration for the other shots. There'll be a lot of red faces when they figure this one out.
If you've ever tried to exchange currency you'll find most require a passport to exchange it. Even if you pass it off I think you'll soon be getting a knock on the door. Small town banks might not enforce the rule but most will. Might want to be careful what currency you choose to knock off. Some may not be worth as much as the price of paper and ink.
The forces are gathering against the Dark Lord Gates. "One operating system to rule them all. One operating system to find them, one operating system to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
I constantly see postings where the responses are always blasting any laws or actions taken to combat piracy but I have yet to hear a resonable solution for all parties. It's easy to say in an ideal world films would be free but that's hardly a reasonable business model. Most want the big epics these days. They are expensive. Even moving them out of the country they are still costing 150 to 200 million or more. Given people aren't going to make them for free, some of those are tech people and I doubt you all want to work for free, how do they continue to make films if piracy continues to grow? It's also easy to say it doesn't hurt sales but the music industry has had a different experience. Broadband connections aren't fast enough to be practical and freely duplicating movies is not a solution. Copying films may be fun in the short term but it hurts everyone in the long term. Independant film sales have plummeted in recent years. Most are showing a loss. People complain about the quality of films but the markets are drying up which limits the number of people that can make films on a reasonable budget. Most don't want to watch golified home movies but the returns are so small soon we'll be left with no budget and mega budget. Sure some people buy copies of the blockbusters but given the choice on lower budget films do you buy or copy? It's funny, people will fight to pay $50 or $100 to go to a ball game where you have a couple of dozen people compete for a couple of hours but whine when they have to pay $10 to see a film that took 500 people a year to make. Films are still a good value. The real problem right now is concentration of wealth. Most of the money is made by the top 2%. Piracy doesn't help this situation it makes it worse. Those at the top are fairly well insulated. It's everyone else that's at risk. Runaway production has nearly killed the American film industry. Piracy could be the final blow.
Spam is like phone solicitation and junk mail. If it didn't work they wouldn't do it. The only real way to perminately stop it is to encourage everyone to not respond. If no one responded it would dry up overnight. Unfortunately there is a percentage that are gullible so we all pay the price. I've encouraged people for years to hang up on phone solicitors. The same must be done with spammers. There really needs to be a grass roots movement to educate people to avoid junk mail of all forms. Personally I boycote products that send junk mail and spam. I also try to avoid sites that use multiple pop-ups. If it starts costing them business they'll stop. If they loose ten customers for everyone they gain the junk mail/e-mail will vanish.
It's not even that simple. There's talk of blue laser HD TV as well as non Blue Laser. The biggest issue is making them backwardly compatible so your old media is useful. Eventhough all my CD disks will play on my current drives including my DVD burner I have a stack of old 4x disks which none of my current burners will accept. Other than making attractive flying disks they are pretty useless. So long as the new drives will read my old media I'm happy. I don't want to go through what an old friend did. When 8 track died he ran out and bought four players so he would always have one. Hate to have to do that with disk drives. I have hundreds of CDs as back ups. It would take a long time to transfer all that to another format. Then there's the software issue. My original copy of Micrsoft Word was on 5 1/4. Can you say extinct?
Where the internet would be useful is in making registration and obtaining absentee ballets easier. I work a lot of hours, as do most of us, and find registration a pain. It's rediculous to have to register months before an election. I was buried in work and found out late at night it was the last day to register for the last Presidential election. If we could register on-line and obtain ballets it would definately make things more accessable. Verifying identification is an issue but most aren't checked for ID as it is and none of those are verified. As far as electronic voting, I'm against National ID cards but most of us have drivers licenses with magnetic strips. An ATM system that uses those as verification could improve security. The system would only use the drivers license to access an electronic form. It would record that the individual voted but not which form was used. Any system can be hacked. The only way to largely avoid that is to network the voting machines at each location by firewire. An electronic count could be sent but would have to be verified by a verbal number given over the phone by some one at the polling location. A print out of totals could act as a third verification. It doesn't prevent tampering before the fact though. One possible way to avoid pretampering would be to have name order assigned on the day with more than one person required as in nuclear sites. Any pretampering would not know which name was being represented by any given code number. No system is foolproof but there is a fair amount of tampering already. Can you say Florida?
I take it you didn't see Jackie Brown? I haven't even bothered to catch Kill Bill. I got tired of Tarentino a few years before the rest of Hollywood. The only reason he got another shot is people were afraid he might have another hit in him. Kill Bill made money so the arrogant little SOB will get to make more films. I loved Pulp Fiction and thought True Romance was an excellent film but he's largely a one hit wonder. Where as I think Fincher has another Seven in him Tarentino is unlikely to make another really good film. He believes his own press and it went straight to his head. Maybe after he starved for a couple of years he could do it again. The dry years humbled Travolta long enough to make a couple of good films. Then Battlefield Earth happened. Need I say more.
People are already being tracked on freeways using the signal from their speedpasses. It's bad enough that you can be tracked from your purchases by credit card. All we need is a system where you just need to walk through an area to be identifed. It can't be stopped. Between biometerics and chip based credit systems there will come a day when our location and a record of our movements will be known. The upside is solving more crimes. The downside is very little privacy. Politicians are already under a microscope. What if your movements and habits become public record? There are no laws preventing it. What if you are turned down for a job because you frequent strip joints? Or maybe you are considered at risk of being a pediphile because you regularly visit places that happen to have lots of children. It's not so rediculous. Credit information is already being used in hiring and profiles are being generated by your TiVo habits. Remember the profile that identified some one as a pregnant gay man? Personally I'm a big fan of cash.
I use to have something that could bleed my account dry without any input from me. It was called a wife.
We have a chance to end some of the most horrible debilitating deseases know and it largely comes down to semantics. When life starts. The attitude is better to flush the tissue down the toliet than find a cure to these deseases. It shouldn't come down to a religious issue of when life starts. People should be given the option of donating the unused tissue. I have major reservations about genetically modifying plants and animals but have no issue with stem cell research. Few of the same people show the same enthusiasm about banning nuclear weapons that can kill millions but become irrational when it cames to a line of research that can save millions. Cloning itself simply produces a twin. Deal with it. I oppose cloning of humans strictly because of the crude nature of the current techniques. Few it any would survive and any survivors would have severe genetic problems. There's enough genetic desease without creating more. Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans. Reproducing stem cell tissue is a completely different issue. A three or four day old cluster of cells lacks conciousness. There are no brainwaves. In fact no brain. Stem cells by definition lack defining characteristics. They are a blank slate waiting to be told what to become. It's why they are such a promising option for replacing damaged tissue.
The law is vague to allow for improvements in technology. The quality of camcorders has improved dramatically in the last ten years. Broadcast quality cameras go for a few grand now and are a fraction the size and weight of the original VHS camcorders. It's possible in the next ten years that PDAs and Celphones will be capible of broadcast quality. If the law didn't allow for that in ten years you'd be calling it shortsighted. The current problem with camcorders is massive. Films are far too easy to duplicate. I'm a filmmaker myself and I'm currently wrapping up the post on a film. It's an independent and we decided not to allow crew copies to be distributed until the film is sold. Independent films have become extremely hard to sell in the last few years. Buyers are very concerned about the films being pirated before the can sell them to their clients. The problem is far worse foreign and that's where most sales for independents occur. A film coming out as a pirate is more than enough to scare off buyers for small films and prevent them from getting a proper release. In independent films it's not profit these days it's returning your initial cost that is the concern. If you can't even return those costs you aren't going to make many films. The big studios are better insulated. It's the independents that are most at risk. People are more likely to buy a store copy of a major feature to get the quality. On an independent film they are willing to accept a little less quality. The foreign markets mostly don't care so long as it's cheaper. Screening a film can in several cities can improve the sellability of a film and dramatically increase the return. Unfortunately it increases the risk of piracy. The free advertising angle really doesn't pan out. I've never in my life known some one to see a pirate copy of a film and run out and buy a store copy. If that was true China would be a massive customer. At least they are a solid customer, they buy one copy of every film made.
I'm dead tired and the posts are blurring together. I've responded to dozens of postings so it's hard to keep it all clear. I rechecked your original post. Your claim is there is no damage done. How is loss of revenue no damage? This hardly falls under the category of a victimless crime. The bread analogy seems to have annoyed a few because they don't see intelectual property having weight and mass. The analogy was to point out that things are being taken without payment being made. The downloads are being made to avoid paying the artist. I'm sure a few are gratified that people love their work so much they felt they had to steal it but personally I'd rather feed my kids and pay rent. We're not all greedy bastards. Most of us are struggling to survive and it's gotten a lot harder.
"I suspect we'd find the strength to go on living. Of course this is a false dilemna, as it ignores the many artists who have found that they can make money while giving away MP3s or text of their works." How pray tell do you make money giving away MP3s? I'm sure you are thinking of live performances. Guess again. Small venue paying gigs are rare. Many people are trying to figure out alternative ways of making money not out of nobliity but nessecity. Xerox is a common use term for photocopying works. Can't you do any better than that? The rental issue referred to a fundimental change in a related industry that hurt independents. A similar attrician is going on now. The major companies will survive. It's the small guy that is being hurt. Copyright infringement generally refers to exploiting a work. Thief is used in this case because it is being done to avoid paying for something that has a market value. Duplication without the owners consent is illegal. Try walking into a movie theater with a video camera.
I've tried to be a lone voice for the artist. Saying I have an inferiority Complex is in accurate and a childish attempt to insult. Just because I'm shocked at the lack of respect given to an artist's work doesn't mean I value mine less. I place too high a value on it to just give it away because some out there are too cheap to pay for it. I'm not in the music industry. I was trying to defend them because we face similar issues. The word is semantics. I have dyslexia and am very tired. I've tried to respond to every e-mail and I'm quite exhausted. I missed nothing. You seem to miss the point that most of the people working on Open Source have good paying day jobs funding their activities. Check your facts. If you downloaded music without paying for it it's the same as shoplifting. If you had no problem with an artist being paid for his work we wouldn't be having this exchange. That's my only point. Artist should get reasonable compensation for the exploiting of their work. The middle men are generally the ones that get rich. Very few artist make it above middle class and most live considerably below it.
First off copyright infringement applies if the work were being exploited. Shoplifting is closer to the truth if you prefer that word? I'm saying the answer isn't to say "screw the artist". Taping a song inorder to avoid buying the album is illegal. Check any video tape you might have bothered to buy. There is a warning against duplicating it. The same rules apply to music. I wish some one that responded was familar with our current laws. I'm amazed by some of what has been said. As to knee jerk please read the other reponders. Virtually all are defending the practise and don't feel the laws should be modified they should be removed. As to "MY response said it was not okay". You just said that a person recording music is doing nothing wrong. Right or wrong the law disagrees with you. It's a diferent issue in practise because people recorded music off the radio for years but still bought the albums because the recordings were often of poor quality. Now you can download a version that is lossless. Most today see no problem with downloading an album and not paying for it. The few that bothered to mention paying were referring to the subscriptions deals proposed. $20 a month and you can download all you want. 20 albums, $20 bucks. Sounds like a deal. It is maybe for everyone but the artist that just saw sales drop to 5% of what they were. The record companies will survive but many of the artist will probably have to say forget it. They have a right to make a living like everyone else. Duplicating their work to stiff them is wrong. Call it what you will.
Having access to an artist work is a privilege. Copyright is a law. If people were really just checking out an album and artist then buying the music there won't be an issue. Are you really claiming that most people run out and buy the album they just downloaded? I haven't had a single person say they later bought an album they downloaded. This is about people getting something for nothing and trying to rationalize it. I've had more than one say not being paid helped the artists as well. That's like saying clear cutting is good for a forest. I heard a lumberman make that argument. Perhaps attrician is good for the music industry. Serve everyone right if they got stuck listening to Britney Spears 24/7 because everyone else said screw it and went home.
"Any analogy that uses real property instead of intellectual property simply isn't going to work. Don't bother with them." Your reference was to real property. Because a work of art may not have mass and physical dimensions doesn't mean it isn't real. I have worked to the point of physical collapse on art projects. Just because we don't always swing hammers doesn't mean we don't work for a living. It also doesn't make our work is any less substantial than some one that builds a physical structure. Artwork is the property of the artist. If copyright laws were removed it might make it legal to steal from an artist but it wouldn't make it right. I used the loaf of bread analogy to make a point. Because the information is in the form of ones and zeroes doesn't mean that it is okay to reproduce it without the artists permission. I keep feeling like the responders are kids in a candy store stuffing their pockets and rationalizing the act because no one is stopping them. You may have fun now but what happens when the candy store goes broke?
I would like to thank you for not taking the cheap shot and saying that my decison to not publish is fine by you and good riddance. Others would have done as much, so thank you. Your agruments have remained civil and professional where as most have not. I still disagree and tonight has been a real eye openner for me. The handle allows a certain amount of anonymity. You might not recognise my name but I guarentee you've seen my work many times. I've always tried to provide my services at a reasonable rate and wanted the largest number of people to benefit from my work. Sadly I have to say I've been a fool. Most in my position have grabbed every dime they could. I paid people well and often went without myself. All for the sake of my art. I lost everything I owned a half a dozen times and struggled back each time. After hearing how much the public actually appreciates the effort I have to say I was a fool. Not that I would change how I do business. It's how I'm wired. I believe in treating people well no matter how I'm treated. I was a fool because I thought that at least some people appreciated the effort. If one post had supported the artist I would have said at least there is one out there. There wasn't a single one. All I got was statements that "real artists" don't do it for the money and why should artists own their own work it belongs to the world. The world would be a lesser place without the contributions of artists. It's sad that they are thought so little of. It's about time to retire to that cabin with a block of marble and some parchment and ink. No one owns my soul, my thoughts, my work but me. True art comes from the soul and if it's not going to be appreciated maybe it should stay there. What a loss if Shakespear had written his plays and then burned them before they were read. I'm in no way compairing myself to him. We should all be judged on our own merits good or bad. I have destroyed sculptures and deleted written works for similar reasons to these. Good or bad, what a loss that an artist should have to think like this. Shouldn't an artist be unencumbered in bringing his work to market so that the most people possible have access to it? Publishers and middle men should be restricted. They contribute nothing creatively. An artists creativity shouldn't be restricted by law. It should be a fair market system. Artists are paid based on peoples desire for their work. Things like Napster for artists ais like being mugged and their work stolen. If an artist were carrying a painting down the street and a mob grabbed it and ran away would you say "too bad you shouldn't have taken it out in public?" Maybe he shouldn't have?
"You've got a serious inferiority complex going on." Give me a break. The comment is childish and irrelavent. You don't know me and the comment is pretty laughable. My ego is on rock solid footing. How's yours? True artist should work for free is simply stating that you are too cheap to pay for their work. True artist work because they have no choice. It's the work that drives them. As to my kids benefitting from my inheritence, according to you if I was a "real artist" I wouldn't leave them any. I didn't see programers working for free during the dotcom boom. Most grabbed every cent they could. If non artist want to call artist greedy first take a hard look in the mirror. Historically the bulk of artist have starved. It's still true today. I don't agree with public domain of a work where the family wishes to retain rights. The only one that benefits from public domain are the publishers. They still get paid just the artists don't. Even your beloved Napster was a business hoping to turn a profit by effectively publishing work without paying the artist. Saying that they only provided access is a symatec. It's rationalizing what was done because it benefits you. I say again. Grow up and pay an artist for his work. You're no longer a kid shoving candy into his pockets in a candy store. It's the real world.
I'm very tired and was mostly responding to people who were quoting 17 years. I don't know what the current laws are and I know they have changed. I've responded to dozens of e-mails so I'm a little frazzeled. Copyright is the right to restrict duplication of a work. I'm stunned that everyone thus far hasn't seen a problem with freely distributing an artist work. What is the incentive for an artist to distribute his work to the public if he isn't going to benefit? Personally I say we should all collectively say to hell with it and stop producing. Picture all the farmers saying the same thing? We aren't going to grow food anymore. Saying one group shouldn't be paid for their work is surreal to me. Where do people get this crap from? No one has a god given right to what I create but me. I guess the smart thing to do is hide our work in caves away from the public. Artists used to hide their work for fear of pursecution. Now maybe we should do it from fear of thieft.