I'm no expert, but I believe MS did this to get Windows consumers to use their "movie editting" product. I don't think it is intended to be used by the major studios. Seen in this light, MS avoids the problems of burning DVDs that currently plague Apple's DVD - playback on consumer devices.
MS neatly avoids having to support MPEG-4 and the battling standards to determine which DVD recordable format wins. They win regardless since Windows users will be using WMP formats, not any kind of open standard format such as MPEG 4.
As for Apple and Real licsensing QuickTime and Real respectively, it doesn't really matter. QuickTime is the basis of MPEG-4 and Apple is expected to have the next version of QuickTime support MPEG-4, beating many competitor's to the punch. Real recently said they'd support MPEG-4.
Nope, I think MPEG-4 will be the default DVD recording format in the near future. MS neatly avoids the implmentation problem by going to the manufacturers. Its a great business move to prevent Windows users from having to watch their home movies on their computers, but the real impact probably won't be known until DVD recorders are widespread.
Its a settlement. That means that there is no court action, MS doesn't admit guilt, and somebody benefits from the settlement as compensation. Its a draw.
MS wants to settle so it doesn't go to court. They don't want to fight multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions. It's cheaper to settle. But this is too cheap.
Somebody please explain to me how anything MS offers will punish it for overcharging consumers for Windows.
1. A $1billion pay out in software, hardware, and support is nothing, especially extended over a few years. MS grosses $1billion a *month* on its products. So they would pay fines equivalent to one month of income at most.
2. Making the schools choose their tech needs is cool, but if MS charges less directly than on the open market (see article quote from MS Spokeman) then why would schools select anything else?
3. What refurb'ed computers will be used? And wouldn't that mean running older versions of Windows? I'm guessing most schools aren't likely to buy older Macs.
4. What made Steve Jobs speak out so loudly about this? He's been very quiet on bashing MS, even after MS got rid of their non-voting investment some time back. He sent Avie to testify about MS wanting to "knife the baby" of QuickTime. Does he really feel secure to bash MS now, or is it that Apple really, really threatened by cheap MS software being given to schools? I'm guessing the latter since mercurial Steve was relatively restrained in his response and the legal brief Apple provided.
5. What happens when the support money (a paltry amount IMHO) runs out? Do the schools get stuck paying for support on old equipment running old software that isn't supported by their makers anymore?
I don't have a great solution. I'd prefer to see the schools be given a lump sum of money to invest in whatever they want (like textbooks or infrastructure improvements) rather than allow MS to get even further entrenched in one market they don't completely push around today.
"'I guess they just meant MPEG-4. And to think, I already had it."
So where did you get it? AFAIK, MPEG-4 hasn't been finalized yet. You did read the article, right? The article says, "Once the licensing questions are resolved, companies will still need to put products on the market."
People like MS are bandying about products called MPEG-4 and MP4, but they are not true MPEG-4 products.
Step 1 Go read this: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45730,00.html
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Politan saved his sharpest needling for the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, asking how a court could accept the government's earnest assurances that its spy technology is permitted by federal law and the Bill of Rights.
Step 2 Then go read this: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45730,00.html
Note this little bit: Every bill -- including the Patriot Act, USA Act 1.0 and USA Act 2.0 -- would permit police to conduct Internet eavesdropping without a court order in some circumstances, allow federal prosecutors to imprison non-citizens for extended periods of time, and expand the power of a secret court that is used in foreign intelligence investigations.
Step 3 Now for real life: http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,48711,00.html
Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the FBI began using the powers mere hours after President Bush signed the law. The Justice Department has prepared a "field guidance" manual (PDF) for prosecutors.
Yeah, IF they showed a warrant. The thing is this "Magic Lantern" is designed explicitly to avoid detection. There is no search warrant for anybody to see. Heck, with recent Ashcroft blessings they don't even need a search warrant to run this thing.
Given your analogy, would a good guard just open the door to somebody who said "I'm with the FBI. I don't have a warrant to search the premises and I forgot my credentials back at the office."? That's a better analogy.
Re:one more step towards total integration
on
New Nokia Phone
·
· Score: 2
"As this trend increases, the total personal device (phone/pc/watch/camera/whatever) will evolve. It will do everything, go everywhere with you. It will interact with all the other devices in your life, making things easier and more personal. The electronic walls will change shade as you go into a public buliding, billboards will only advertise things you want. It'll be a better world."
Darn it, I want a *life* not a *lifestyle*. Why do the proponents of these gadgets say it will make my life easier? All it does is invade my personal space even more. Personalized ads don't help me, I want an ad-free space for crying out loud.
Now if I had a portable Library of Congress with all of its contents freely available (no advetising please) and I could carry it around in a legal size container, then I'd be happy.
To make this topical, I still won't willingly buy a portable phone. Having people SMS me doesn't seem a benefit that would change my mind.
Jackie is getting (and starting to look) old. He certainly has some charisma but his films are defintely not like Bruce Lee's. Jackie loves action, but not violence. Most of Bruce Lee's work relied on violence and venegence. I think he should do more behind the camera work.
Jet Li looks great on film. He's helped in large part by camera and editting tricks. I'm not slamming Jet, but the style of movies from the early 70s to now is completely different. He does have a lot of charisma although his AMerican films seem to focus more on his "bad ass" side than his HK stuff.
It'll be interesting to see if this proposed film will continue with the contemporary style or go back to the Cheng Che style of filming with lots of static shots that emphasize form and power over glitz and a melange of styles.
You are right about the charisma thing. I'm sceptical a CG of Bruce Lee can capture it. And there are a lot of great martial artists available that just don't have the charisma to be the hero in a big box office draw. The opposite is true of course, although CGI is being used to make Ekin Cheng look like he can do martial arts.
I hate the whole idea of CGI actors, especially using people who can't say whether they would want a CGI likeness of them being used. Its just another symptom of copyrights and IP being applied way too long IMHO.
Actually, there is a company that has done just that. I was trying to find the name and details when posting the story, but running off to work made me quit.
The company in question has rights to WC Fields and several other "Golden Age of Hollywood" actors for use in future productions.
There's another article on that here:
http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/special_c ov erage/special_coverage_digicelebs1.html
Other related articles:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/Magazines/MA_SegArti cl e/0,1539,284880----1-,00.html
http://www.moves.com/film/marlene.html
Virtual Celebrity's web site points to Global Icons - "Defining Excellence in Licensing"
check out this page: http://www.globalicons.com/Legends/index.html
"The next thing you know, Obi-wan will push Anakin into lava!"
Are they really going to do that? I remember back in '77 reading a magazine that said that was why Vader needed the suit. Holy Cow! I wish I hadn't chopped that mag up for a photo collage back in 6th grade.
1. I don't have a CD shop anywhere near my work path. (I tend to buy imports and specialty indie stuff)
2. If I go into Best Buy or someplace similiar chances are I could go in every day for a year and they would never know I was returning the CD in the fashion you state.
The other reply about the credit card sounds like the best option. But again, I would have to do that really quickly (payment is usually PDQ) and still return the CD, which in all likelihood would mean get the same CD again.
So what do you do when the only option is to receive another copy of the CD in question? That's the return policy in 99% of the stores I have bought CDs from.
"Similarly, if I was going to buy a CD but instead grab the mp3s off of a P2P service, I receive a net financial gain equivilant to the purchase price of the CD minus the cost of not having the physical CD"
True. And this is a good point.
You are making an assumption here. You are assuming the individual would buy the CD if the P2P service was unavailable. You could just as easily make the assumption that had that service not been available the CD would not be purchased or the CD was indeed purchased at a later time.
Again, claiming a theoretical loss is disingenuine IMHO. There are simply too many factors and "what ifs".
In your example of the coat you could also assume the purchaser would buy 2 coats since he had allocated $200 to the purchase of the coat. The buyer could also walk down the street and pay $50 each for 2 jackets. There is no predicting the consumers bahavior and hence no way of determining the seller's loss. The only sure way of determining loss is if the coat was destroyed or stolen (never purchased).
I agree and for the record, have never "shared" any music with somebody I never personally knew. That is my moral choice. But the issue isn't an all or nothing argument as the distribution industry wants to paint it. The court must decide the line where fair use ends and illegal activity begins.
Piracy is the word bandied by the distributors, but piracy connotes financial gain and I doubt that many users of P2P services ever saw financial gain. That is an issue that needs to be addressed in any court case.
"It's not fair use to give near-perfect recordings of copyrighted material to everyone on the planet. This is not the same as making a tape for your friend."
I'm ambivalent. Why wouldn't I want to make my recordings as near perfect as possible? That is after all the marketing spin fed to us to justify the move to CD in the past, and now DVD.
OTOH, yes, sharing it with the world is wrong IMHO. But wehre do we draw the line? Is it a specific number like 2, 50, 100? Is it only a non-profit use, for example trading or a give away? The fact that I can make a perfect duplicate in a small amount of time doesn't change the fact that I DO and should have the right to make copies for non-profit use such as gifts to a friend or backups. But it is a slippery slope.
I fear that the government (who is supposed to decide these matters) will side with the industry on this one either by makin a law prohibiting copies or washing their hangds of the matter by saying "let the market decide". Of course, either option means the distributors (not the creators or consumers) win.
"The chinese movies he has made are all, with few exceptions, excellent."
I disagree. Even if you are talking about just the martial action, he's had some bombs. I'll just mention the films I have actually seen.
Shaolin Temple. Slow. But it is a mainland production with all that entails (nice sets but threadbare plot, about Shaw Brothers in terms of production value.) Seen once.
Dragon Fight. Horrible characterization and even thinner plot. Stephen Chow before he was funny. Seen once.
Swordsman 2: Amazing action (if you can stand obvious wire-fu) but what in the world is going on? And how many times must I hear the sad drinking song? Seen 3 times.
Deadly China Hero. Wong Jing parody of OUATIC when Li decided not to do Wong Fei Hung. After this horrible thing (especially when he wears the chicken outfit to defeat the centipede group) he wisely? went back to OUATIC. Seen 2-3 times.
Bodyguard from Beijing. Rip off of "The Bodyguard" only this time Li's a mainland professional government agent. Predictable storyline nd medocre acting. Only saving gracce was the end fight scene with the natural gas spewing. Seen 2 times.
High Risk. Highlights of this Wong Jing film isn't Jet, it's Jackie Cheung as the Jackie Chan inspired numbnut. Seen 3-4 times.
Other Bad films: My father is a Hero, Fist of Legend (despite the technical brilliance the hackneyed relationship with a Japanese gf and her uncle seems too revisionist for my taste) and Black Mask.
Jet's best films are Once Upon a Time in China 2 and 3, Hitman (good acting all around and a decent storyline) and Fong Sai-Yuk 1 and 2 (again if you like wire-fu). These mix some decent characters, humor and action with good technical camera work and set pieces.
"the choreographer is the same who did choreography for The Matrix."
Yuen Woo Ping can make nearly anybody look good. He knows how to film shots and realizes that Jet Li's main martial arts style, Wu Shu, looks great on film even though it may not be best art for really punishing fights. Maybe that's why Ping's next hoped for prodigy Donnie Yen was also great in Wu Shu. Too bad Donnie is churning out his own stuff now.
Also look for work by Corey Yuen. He is easily on par with Woon Ping. You can check out Woo Ping on camera in Sammo Hung's IMHO best film, Eastern Condors.
"But the hollywood effect on Jet Li's movies is terrible."
I agree with most of what you say. But the problem with Hollywood is not only that Chinese emigres suffer, but they've had a horrible effect on the HK film industry. Instead of action dramas that successfully fused great acting, good storylines and innovative action sequences of the mid-to-late 90s, you see claptrap like Gen X Cops, Time and Tide, and the remake/sequel of Zu Mountain. These films use lowest common denominator plots, beautiful and successful pop stars and throw in lots of special effects to try to hide horrible or confusing storylines and threadbare character development.
I can understand Hollywood's paint by numbers approach because Hollywood is run by corporate beancounters. HK has fallen into the same trap going for glitz over substance and thinking special efects will draw audiences into movies we've seen done better a million times before.
What used to endear me to HK films was the hard work and actual physical demands placed upon the actors and produciton staff. These days they just generate digital effects to make the actors look like they are doing something. Yeah, the old Shaw Bros Wu Xia Pan films had lots of shots with no camera movement and crazy closeups, but to get all that action in one shot is amazing.
Save your money and go buy Shaolin Soccer. It uses special effects to enhance a good storyline with great acting and lots of actually funny gags. And just so you know the guy *doesn't* get the girl at the end.
But then you don't have to worry as much about hardware upgrades or repairs as much either. ROI is greater as well. Given MS's push to move everybody to XP and given that a lot of users will need to upgrade hardware as well why not consider a new platform?
AFAIK MS's licensing schemes for Windows XP and OfficeXP don't affect the Mac version, so it *may* be cheaper to switch hardware. In any event, monopoly status obviously hasn't prevented companies from choosing MS products in the first place.
If your business won't switch merely because of legacy documents in a particular format (in this case Office formats) would you risk relying on third parties products or emulation to access them? A smart businessman would examine the short term and long term effects of any change.
In any event, the only thing Apple really has a monopoly on is the processor and motherboard. Nearly everything else (harddrive, monitor, keyboard, mouse, CD/DVD drives, scanners, etc etc) can be bought through those ultra cheap PC vendors.
"how well does the office/Mac get along with a MS network with mounting network drives and sharing folders?"
Just fine. If you're running OS9 or below get DAVE. If you're using OSX and OfficeX no need to get anything at all, SAMBA is built into the client.
Besides, my reply was assuming you'd be no longer running a MS network since the parent stated that *Office* was the reason to prevent any switch.
If you wanted to keep Exchange on the server you could always get the Mac Exchange client for free.
"I've never used MacOffice, but I'd be willing to be the Windows Office does stuff Mac Office doesn't."
Like what? What would a PC version possibly have that the Mac wouldn't that would prevent a switchover? I guess Access is an answer. But then again, is Access a make-or-break app for most businesses? Again, I'm talking about the fact that Office was the reason businesses wouldn't switch over. In fact, the Mac version has several features such as a PIM that the Windows version doesn't. The vast majority of users use a tiny subset of Word and Excel. Feature parity is there on Mac and Windows versions.
Since you don't know anything about Office for Mac (at least you admit it), I would urge you to check out the web site over at MS: www.microsoft.com/mac/. You can check out all the stuff it has there.
"Reason #2 for not switching I feel is the ability to find people to hire who "know where the start menu is"
It took me about a week to get over my fussing when I went to Mac from PC. Go read some independent studies that state the MacOS is easier to learn and provides greater productivity. I would bet that it would take less time to go from Office XP to Office X than from Office 2000 to XP.
"I wonder what the folks over at WineHQ.com think of this deal."
Who cares? The claim was that business wouldn't switch because Office was only on Windows. That supposition is false. It didn't address emulation or compatibility. Why not use an "official" MS product rather than relying on a third party to guarantee legacy compatibility?
Some of what you say is already starting to happen. I (and most retail experts) expect the studios to contrinue to milk a movie's release to maximize profits. Here's what will happen:
1. Movie released in theaters followed immediatly by second run.
2. Pay per view starts. Movies is released to DVD rentals with movie only option. Rental stores pay premium for "early release" on DVD.
3. Pay Cable channel release with "retail" DVD sold. Retails DVD prices run about 66-75% of rental store rate adn come with the "bells and whistles".
4. general release to network television.
That's it folks. The movie distributors pigeonhole DVDs into their cash formula and continue to slowly squeeze rental outlets allowing only the biggest and niche stores to survive. Eventually "digital" movies are streamed to end users at the same time as PPV. In fact, it will likely replace PPV as soon as "digital Cable" actually works.
I suspect they objected becuase they want *their* standard of DRM enacted. Since their standard doesn't have overwhelming market share at this point there is a danger that some other scheme will be adopted. Hence, it's objection.
Also note that the bill doesn't require a single system to be adopted. Therefore, an e-book reader could have a different scheme than a handheld PDA. Since MS doesn't have (AFAIK) multiple protection schemes on the drawing board I suspect that is part of their reasoning behind their opposition.
In any event I am confident MS would back such a bill if they had a DRM or security system in place that dominated the market. After all, the proposal as intially written exempted monopoly status as a condition of protection.
The reason you see so much prattle and talking head pundits with nothing new to say is becuase the real media aren't allowed access to a lot of material that the US government has.
Nearly a dozen federal agencies have dismantled their Web sites or removed information from the sites. News helicopters are still grounded. Cameras and film belonging to the press and the public were confiscated at the World Trade Center and further photography banned. Journalists' reporting on U.S. military operations has been confined essentially to official briefings and announcements.
Are these restriction necessary? The press historically has been very careful in reporting sensitive information in the past.
It is this fettered access to information, combined with the increasing reliance on "experts" over the past 20 years that has led to "Talking Heads" syndrome.
This behavior will backfire on the press in the long run. A study I read recently (don't recall the source but it was something akin to The Economist) stated that the public's opinion of the press deteriorates as these practices continue. The public opinion of the press dipped into new lows when it covered the Monica Lewinsky case, and more recently the Gary Condit charade. These drug out non-events hurt the press.
Whether the gravity of the bombing of Afghanistan and the World Trade Center disaster chaneg the equation i unknow at this time. However, if the press and media continue the same techniques of providing non-relevent and trivial information with no confirmation and no access to hard facts I fear the press and the media as a whole will suffer the same confidence slip that it has inthe past.
Re:I'm buying one purely for the tiny firewire hd
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
Thanks. I am glad my perusal of the info was wrong.
I kept getting timed out beyond the intro page and piecing together the coverage on the mac sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no expert, but I believe MS did this to get Windows consumers to use their "movie editting" product. I don't think it is intended to be used by the major studios. Seen in this light, MS avoids the problems of burning DVDs that currently plague Apple's DVD - playback on consumer devices.
MS neatly avoids having to support MPEG-4 and the battling standards to determine which DVD recordable format wins. They win regardless since Windows users will be using WMP formats, not any kind of open standard format such as MPEG 4.
As for Apple and Real licsensing QuickTime and Real respectively, it doesn't really matter. QuickTime is the basis of MPEG-4 and Apple is expected to have the next version of QuickTime support MPEG-4, beating many competitor's to the punch. Real recently said they'd support MPEG-4.
Nope, I think MPEG-4 will be the default DVD recording format in the near future. MS neatly avoids the implmentation problem by going to the manufacturers. Its a great business move to prevent Windows users from having to watch their home movies on their computers, but the real impact probably won't be known until DVD recorders are widespread.
Its a settlement. That means that there is no court action, MS doesn't admit guilt, and somebody benefits from the settlement as compensation. Its a draw.
MS wants to settle so it doesn't go to court. They don't want to fight multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions. It's cheaper to settle. But this is too cheap.
Somebody please explain to me how anything MS offers will punish it for overcharging consumers for Windows.
1. A $1billion pay out in software, hardware, and support is nothing, especially extended over a few years. MS grosses $1billion a *month* on its products. So they would pay fines equivalent to one month of income at most.
2. Making the schools choose their tech needs is cool, but if MS charges less directly than on the open market (see article quote from MS Spokeman) then why would schools select anything else?
3. What refurb'ed computers will be used? And wouldn't that mean running older versions of Windows? I'm guessing most schools aren't likely to buy older Macs.
4. What made Steve Jobs speak out so loudly about this? He's been very quiet on bashing MS, even after MS got rid of their non-voting investment some time back. He sent Avie to testify about MS wanting to "knife the baby" of QuickTime. Does he really feel secure to bash MS now, or is it that Apple really, really threatened by cheap MS software being given to schools? I'm guessing the latter since mercurial Steve was relatively restrained in his response and the legal brief Apple provided.
5. What happens when the support money (a paltry amount IMHO) runs out? Do the schools get stuck paying for support on old equipment running old software that isn't supported by their makers anymore?
I don't have a great solution. I'd prefer to see the schools be given a lump sum of money to invest in whatever they want (like textbooks or infrastructure improvements) rather than allow MS to get even further entrenched in one market they don't completely push around today.
"'I guess they just meant MPEG-4. And to think, I already had it."
So where did you get it? AFAIK, MPEG-4 hasn't been finalized yet. You did read the article, right? The article says, "Once the licensing questions are resolved, companies will still need to put products on the market."
People like MS are bandying about products called MPEG-4 and MP4, but they are not true MPEG-4 products.
Step 1 Go read this: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45730,00 .html
0 .html
0 .html
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Politan saved his sharpest needling for the assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, asking how a court could accept the government's earnest assurances that its spy technology is permitted by federal law and the Bill of Rights.
Step 2 Then go read this: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45730,0
Note this little bit: Every bill -- including the Patriot Act, USA Act 1.0 and USA Act 2.0 -- would permit police to conduct Internet eavesdropping without a court order in some circumstances, allow federal prosecutors to imprison non-citizens for extended periods of time, and expand the power of a secret court that is used in foreign intelligence investigations.
Step 3 Now for real life: http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,48711,0
Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the FBI began using the powers mere hours after President Bush signed the law. The Justice Department has prepared a "field guidance" manual (PDF) for prosecutors.
Yeah, IF they showed a warrant. The thing is this "Magic Lantern" is designed explicitly to avoid detection. There is no search warrant for anybody to see. Heck, with recent Ashcroft blessings they don't even need a search warrant to run this thing.
Given your analogy, would a good guard just open the door to somebody who said "I'm with the FBI. I don't have a warrant to search the premises and I forgot my credentials back at the office."? That's a better analogy.
"As this trend increases, the total personal device (phone/pc/watch/camera/whatever) will evolve. It will do everything, go everywhere with you. It will interact with all the other devices in your life, making things easier and more personal. The electronic walls will change shade as you go into a public buliding, billboards will only advertise things you want. It'll be a better world."
Darn it, I want a *life* not a *lifestyle*. Why do the proponents of these gadgets say it will make my life easier? All it does is invade my personal space even more. Personalized ads don't help me, I want an ad-free space for crying out loud.
Now if I had a portable Library of Congress with all of its contents freely available (no advetising please) and I could carry it around in a legal size container, then I'd be happy.
To make this topical, I still won't willingly buy a portable phone. Having people SMS me doesn't seem a benefit that would change my mind.
Well....
Jackie is getting (and starting to look) old. He certainly has some charisma but his films are defintely not like Bruce Lee's. Jackie loves action, but not violence. Most of Bruce Lee's work relied on violence and venegence. I think he should do more behind the camera work.
Jet Li looks great on film. He's helped in large part by camera and editting tricks. I'm not slamming Jet, but the style of movies from the early 70s to now is completely different. He does have a lot of charisma although his AMerican films seem to focus more on his "bad ass" side than his HK stuff.
It'll be interesting to see if this proposed film will continue with the contemporary style or go back to the Cheng Che style of filming with lots of static shots that emphasize form and power over glitz and a melange of styles.
You are right about the charisma thing. I'm sceptical a CG of Bruce Lee can capture it. And there are a lot of great martial artists available that just don't have the charisma to be the hero in a big box office draw. The opposite is true of course, although CGI is being used to make Ekin Cheng look like he can do martial arts.
I hate the whole idea of CGI actors, especially using people who can't say whether they would want a CGI likeness of them being used. Its just another symptom of copyrights and IP being applied way too long IMHO.
Actually, there is a company that has done just that. I was trying to find the name and details when posting the story, but running off to work made me quit.
c ov erage/special_coverage_digicelebs1.html
i cl e/0,1539,284880----1-,00.html
The company in question has rights to WC Fields and several other "Golden Age of Hollywood" actors for use in future productions.
There's another article on that here:
http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/special_
Other related articles:
http://www.entrepreneur.com/Magazines/MA_SegArt
http://www.moves.com/film/marlene.html
Virtual Celebrity's web site points to Global Icons - "Defining Excellence in Licensing"
check out this page: http://www.globalicons.com/Legends/index.html
"The next thing you know, Obi-wan will push Anakin into lava!"
Are they really going to do that? I remember back in '77 reading a magazine that said that was why Vader needed the suit. Holy Cow! I wish I hadn't chopped that mag up for a photo collage back in 6th grade.
*smacks head*
I'll buy an X-Box when you pry cash into my cold, dead hands.
I don' tsee this as a realistic option.
1. I don't have a CD shop anywhere near my work path. (I tend to buy imports and specialty indie stuff)
2. If I go into Best Buy or someplace similiar chances are I could go in every day for a year and they would never know I was returning the CD in the fashion you state.
The other reply about the credit card sounds like the best option. But again, I would have to do that really quickly (payment is usually PDQ) and still return the CD, which in all likelihood would mean get the same CD again.
So what do you do when the only option is to receive another copy of the CD in question? That's the return policy in 99% of the stores I have bought CDs from.
Your wave of crime has just crashed upon the shores of justice!
"Similarly, if I was going to buy a CD but instead grab the mp3s off of a P2P service, I receive a net financial gain equivilant to the purchase price of the CD minus the cost of not having the physical CD"
True. And this is a good point.
You are making an assumption here. You are assuming the individual would buy the CD if the P2P service was unavailable. You could just as easily make the assumption that had that service not been available the CD would not be purchased or the CD was indeed purchased at a later time.
Again, claiming a theoretical loss is disingenuine IMHO. There are simply too many factors and "what ifs".
In your example of the coat you could also assume the purchaser would buy 2 coats since he had allocated $200 to the purchase of the coat. The buyer could also walk down the street and pay $50 each for 2 jackets. There is no predicting the consumers bahavior and hence no way of determining the seller's loss. The only sure way of determining loss is if the coat was destroyed or stolen (never purchased).
I agree and for the record, have never "shared" any music with somebody I never personally knew. That is my moral choice. But the issue isn't an all or nothing argument as the distribution industry wants to paint it. The court must decide the line where fair use ends and illegal activity begins.
Piracy is the word bandied by the distributors, but piracy connotes financial gain and I doubt that many users of P2P services ever saw financial gain. That is an issue that needs to be addressed in any court case.
"It's not fair use to give near-perfect recordings of copyrighted material to everyone on the planet. This is not the same as making a tape for your friend."
I'm ambivalent. Why wouldn't I want to make my recordings as near perfect as possible? That is after all the marketing spin fed to us to justify the move to CD in the past, and now DVD.
OTOH, yes, sharing it with the world is wrong IMHO. But wehre do we draw the line? Is it a specific number like 2, 50, 100? Is it only a non-profit use, for example trading or a give away? The fact that I can make a perfect duplicate in a small amount of time doesn't change the fact that I DO and should have the right to make copies for non-profit use such as gifts to a friend or backups. But it is a slippery slope.
I fear that the government (who is supposed to decide these matters) will side with the industry on this one either by makin a law prohibiting copies or washing their hangds of the matter by saying "let the market decide". Of course, either option means the distributors (not the creators or consumers) win.
"The chinese movies he has made are all, with few exceptions, excellent."
I disagree. Even if you are talking about just the martial action, he's had some bombs. I'll just mention the films I have actually seen.
Shaolin Temple. Slow. But it is a mainland production with all that entails (nice sets but threadbare plot, about Shaw Brothers in terms of production value.) Seen once.
Dragon Fight. Horrible characterization and even thinner plot. Stephen Chow before he was funny. Seen once.
Swordsman 2: Amazing action (if you can stand obvious wire-fu) but what in the world is going on? And how many times must I hear the sad drinking song? Seen 3 times.
Deadly China Hero. Wong Jing parody of OUATIC when Li decided not to do Wong Fei Hung. After this horrible thing (especially when he wears the chicken outfit to defeat the centipede group) he wisely? went back to OUATIC. Seen 2-3 times.
Bodyguard from Beijing. Rip off of "The Bodyguard" only this time Li's a mainland professional government agent. Predictable storyline nd medocre acting. Only saving gracce was the end fight scene with the natural gas spewing. Seen 2 times.
High Risk. Highlights of this Wong Jing film isn't Jet, it's Jackie Cheung as the Jackie Chan inspired numbnut. Seen 3-4 times.
Other Bad films: My father is a Hero, Fist of Legend (despite the technical brilliance the hackneyed relationship with a Japanese gf and her uncle seems too revisionist for my taste) and Black Mask.
Jet's best films are Once Upon a Time in China 2 and 3, Hitman (good acting all around and a decent storyline) and Fong Sai-Yuk 1 and 2 (again if you like wire-fu). These mix some decent characters, humor and action with good technical camera work and set pieces.
"the choreographer is the same who did choreography for The Matrix."
Yuen Woo Ping can make nearly anybody look good. He knows how to film shots and realizes that Jet Li's main martial arts style, Wu Shu, looks great on film even though it may not be best art for really punishing fights. Maybe that's why Ping's next hoped for prodigy Donnie Yen was also great in Wu Shu. Too bad Donnie is churning out his own stuff now.
Also look for work by Corey Yuen. He is easily on par with Woon Ping. You can check out Woo Ping on camera in Sammo Hung's IMHO best film, Eastern Condors.
"But the hollywood effect on Jet Li's movies is terrible."
I agree with most of what you say. But the problem with Hollywood is not only that Chinese emigres suffer, but they've had a horrible effect on the HK film industry. Instead of action dramas that successfully fused great acting, good storylines and innovative action sequences of the mid-to-late 90s, you see claptrap like Gen X Cops, Time and Tide, and the remake/sequel of Zu Mountain. These films use lowest common denominator plots, beautiful and successful pop stars and throw in lots of special effects to try to hide horrible or confusing storylines and threadbare character development.
I can understand Hollywood's paint by numbers approach because Hollywood is run by corporate beancounters. HK has fallen into the same trap going for glitz over substance and thinking special efects will draw audiences into movies we've seen done better a million times before.
What used to endear me to HK films was the hard work and actual physical demands placed upon the actors and produciton staff. These days they just generate digital effects to make the actors look like they are doing something. Yeah, the old Shaw Bros Wu Xia Pan films had lots of shots with no camera movement and crazy closeups, but to get all that action in one shot is amazing.
Save your money and go buy Shaolin Soccer. It uses special effects to enhance a good storyline with great acting and lots of actually funny gags. And just so you know the guy *doesn't* get the girl at the end.
Sorry for drifting.
True.
But then you don't have to worry as much about hardware upgrades or repairs as much either. ROI is greater as well. Given MS's push to move everybody to XP and given that a lot of users will need to upgrade hardware as well why not consider a new platform?
AFAIK MS's licensing schemes for Windows XP and OfficeXP don't affect the Mac version, so it *may* be cheaper to switch hardware. In any event, monopoly status obviously hasn't prevented companies from choosing MS products in the first place.
If your business won't switch merely because of legacy documents in a particular format (in this case Office formats) would you risk relying on third parties products or emulation to access them? A smart businessman would examine the short term and long term effects of any change.
In any event, the only thing Apple really has a monopoly on is the processor and motherboard. Nearly everything else (harddrive, monitor, keyboard, mouse, CD/DVD drives, scanners, etc etc) can be bought through those ultra cheap PC vendors.
"how well does the office/Mac get along with a MS network with mounting network drives and sharing folders?"
Just fine. If you're running OS9 or below get DAVE. If you're using OSX and OfficeX no need to get anything at all, SAMBA is built into the client.
Besides, my reply was assuming you'd be no longer running a MS network since the parent stated that *Office* was the reason to prevent any switch.
If you wanted to keep Exchange on the server you could always get the Mac Exchange client for free.
"I've never used MacOffice, but I'd be willing to be the Windows Office does stuff Mac Office doesn't."
Like what? What would a PC version possibly have that the Mac wouldn't that would prevent a switchover? I guess Access is an answer. But then again, is Access a make-or-break app for most businesses? Again, I'm talking about the fact that Office was the reason businesses wouldn't switch over. In fact, the Mac version has several features such as a PIM that the Windows version doesn't. The vast majority of users use a tiny subset of Word and Excel. Feature parity is there on Mac and Windows versions.
Since you don't know anything about Office for Mac (at least you admit it), I would urge you to check out the web site over at MS: www.microsoft.com/mac/. You can check out all the stuff it has there.
"Reason #2 for not switching I feel is the ability to find people to hire who "know where the start menu is"
It took me about a week to get over my fussing when I went to Mac from PC. Go read some independent studies that state the MacOS is easier to learn and provides greater productivity. I would bet that it would take less time to go from Office XP to Office X than from Office 2000 to XP.
"I wonder what the folks over at WineHQ.com think of this deal."
Who cares? The claim was that business wouldn't switch because Office was only on Windows. That supposition is false. It didn't address emulation or compatibility. Why not use an "official" MS product rather than relying on a third party to guarantee legacy compatibility?
"IMHO, MS Office has more to do with companies not leaving the windows platform than any other issue."
I thought Macs ran Office. So either:
a. Macs aren't a platform
b. Companies aren't leaving Windows for some other reason.
My guess is b.
Some of what you say is already starting to happen. I (and most retail experts) expect the studios to contrinue to milk a movie's release to maximize profits. Here's what will happen:
1. Movie released in theaters followed immediatly by second run.
2. Pay per view starts. Movies is released to DVD rentals with movie only option. Rental stores pay premium for "early release" on DVD.
3. Pay Cable channel release with "retail" DVD sold. Retails DVD prices run about 66-75% of rental store rate adn come with the "bells and whistles".
4. general release to network television.
That's it folks. The movie distributors pigeonhole DVDs into their cash formula and continue to slowly squeeze rental outlets allowing only the biggest and niche stores to survive. Eventually "digital" movies are streamed to end users at the same time as PPV. In fact, it will likely replace PPV as soon as "digital Cable" actually works.
I suspect they objected becuase they want *their* standard of DRM enacted. Since their standard doesn't have overwhelming market share at this point there is a danger that some other scheme will be adopted. Hence, it's objection.
Also note that the bill doesn't require a single system to be adopted. Therefore, an e-book reader could have a different scheme than a handheld PDA. Since MS doesn't have (AFAIK) multiple protection schemes on the drawing board I suspect that is part of their reasoning behind their opposition.
In any event I am confident MS would back such a bill if they had a DRM or security system in place that dominated the market. After all, the proposal as intially written exempted monopoly status as a condition of protection.
Jon,
The reason you see so much prattle and talking head pundits with nothing new to say is becuase the real media aren't allowed access to a lot of material that the US government has.
Nearly a dozen federal agencies have dismantled their Web sites or removed information from the sites. News helicopters are still grounded. Cameras and film belonging to the press and the public were confiscated at the World Trade Center and further photography banned. Journalists' reporting on U.S. military operations has been confined essentially to official briefings and announcements.
Are these restriction necessary? The press historically has been very careful in reporting sensitive information in the past.
It is this fettered access to information, combined with the increasing reliance on "experts" over the past 20 years that has led to "Talking Heads" syndrome.
This behavior will backfire on the press in the long run. A study I read recently (don't recall the source but it was something akin to The Economist) stated that the public's opinion of the press deteriorates as these practices continue. The public opinion of the press dipped into new lows when it covered the Monica Lewinsky case, and more recently the Gary Condit charade. These drug out non-events hurt the press.
Whether the gravity of the bombing of Afghanistan and the World Trade Center disaster chaneg the equation i unknow at this time. However, if the press and media continue the same techniques of providing non-relevent and trivial information with no confirmation and no access to hard facts I fear the press and the media as a whole will suffer the same confidence slip that it has inthe past.
Thanks. I am glad my perusal of the info was wrong.
I kept getting timed out beyond the intro page and piecing together the coverage on the mac sites.