"Get a job and fund their own movies with their own money."
You know nothing about Evil Dead. Rami (sp?!) got money to pay for it himself. It was the DISTRUBUTOR who obtained rights. All distributors obtain rights in those situations because there is no other way to get a movie out into commerce. Try showing up to a theater with a movie you made and ask if they'll run it! Depending on the contract, the rights can revert back to the producer. Or the producer will sometimes make enough money on later films to buy back the rights to the earlier films. But the producer has no choice but to go through the distributors if he wants his movie shown.
I have no problems with people fronting money for the production of a film to have rights over it. Because there is no cartel on those people. If Rami didn't like one person's terms, he could always find someone else with money and get better terms. There are many people willing to front movies AND give producers fair rights afterwards. There is no cartel in place keeping the movie from being shown like there is in the case of distributors.
"Or I could choose to build my own house, on my own land, using money I earned myself by doing work of some kind."
And what if the housing industry passed legislation making it illegal to build your own house. There is NOTHING stopping that from happening other than the fact that we would not allow it. You may think it's silly, but it is also perfectly legal.
And you wouldn't OWN the land if your mortgage company or realtor kept the title as condition of the contract. Once again, doing that would be perfectly legal. And once again, the only reason it is not done is because we would not tolerate it.
"Just as the hypothetical automotive scenario you describe is so far from reality as to be stupendously silly..."
It doesn't matter if the car analogy is "silly." What matters is that it's perfectly legal. What also matters is that the ONLY reason it isn't done is because we wouldn't accept it. Car manufactures would LOVE to be able to force us to use only their dealers for repairs, dictate where and how their are repaired, which is anther way of keeping an ownership interest. But Congress enacted laws which forbids it. Why, because we feel that after paying for a car, we should be able to do anything we want with it.
And here's a real world example to show you it is NOT silly. Imagine if you went to buy a TV. You took it home and the picture was awesome. You asked your wife to come in and take a look. The second she walked in the picture went black. You call up and ask what the problem is. You're told that you only licensed the TV for one person. You're going to have to pay for each and every person who watches.
You think that's silly? But that's exactly what Microsoft does. When universities license Office and Windows, they have to buy licenses NOT for every computer. But one for EVERY student and one for EVERY employee who could possibly use the computer. Even janitors. Why does Microsoft get away with doing something involving software that Sony never could involving TVs?! Because we tolerate it. That's the ONLY reason. Sony COULD do it, but we wouldn't let it.
To me, distributors forcing producers of movies to give up rights solely because they hold the keys to the theaters is no different than all automobile manufacturers keeping interest in our cars after we paid for them. You may see a difference, but I don't. There is no freedom of contact when the only choice is to walk away from the contract.
I am using 5. The music library sucks compared to the ease and simplicity of Explorer view. All that shit I don't want, "Recently Played, Recently added, videos..." It's just useless fluff for me. When I'm looking for a specific CD or song, all I want to see are my CD folders in the left and the songs in the right. Nothing else.
"I'm pretty sure that players from iRiver, Rio and Archos can do the drag&drop-no-software-required thing"
I agree. If you remember, as it was a LONG time ago, I only said I'd never buy an IPod. I never said anything bad about those other MP3 players. They do have other problems though. E.g., I owned an Archos and the software in it was VERY flaky. Unfortunately I returned it before discovering that there is third party software for it.
So in your view, the choices available to the film maker is to not make films or to give up all rights to the films. I'm not sure how that is a choice?
Would you "chose" home ownership if EVERY mortgage company or EVERY realtor kept the title to the property? Using your argument, you could simply choose to be homeless.
Would you "chose" to buy a car if EVERY car dealership kept ownership of the car. Using your argument, you could always choose to walk. And if the car dealerships bought all the roads and forbid walking. You could "choose" to stay in one spot and never leave.
If that's your world, I sure in heck hope you get it one day because you deserve it.
the RIAA and the MPAA will be given the right to search all laptops, portable hard drives, and flash drives.
There is a Burger King commercial where a cop stops some teenagers in a car and ask them if the music they're listening to was downloaded from the internet. It was a joke, but it IS our future!
We as a society would NEVER permit car manufacturers from charging us more for driving on certain roads after we've paid for our cars. Or allow mortgage companies to charge us for having people come into our homes, after we bought our house. These things COULD be forced on us via mandated contracts, it'd be perfectly legal. But they are NOT forced on us merely because we would not tolerate it.
When we buy stuff, we have expectations of ownership and the powers that be respect it.
But somewhere along the line, the powers that be have so manipulated our copyright laws that those who create actually have the LEAST amount of power over their works. The reason the powers that be get away with it is, again, merely because we tolerate it. I certainly wish we didn't!
On my computer I use Winamp. It's the most convenient I've found. E.g., let's imagine that I want to find a particular CD. I'd open Explorer with the "/e,/root" command in the shortcut, so it opens up to only those folders containing my CDs in the left plane. Then I could right click on the particular folder and either play it or queue in Winamp. That way I could queue up either one or several CDs and listen to them. Or I could play or queue particular songs from the right plane. I rarely do that, though.
I generally just hit a button on one of my 6 Remote Wonders (depending on what room I'm in) and it'll start my playlist. Like I said, it's about five days long. It's kind of like having my own radio station, but it's only music I like, there is a lot of variety, and there are no commercials.
What'd I'd really like is very large version of my Nomad. It works the way I like, simply drag and drop. I can plug it into a friend's computer and he can take some of my songs, or I could take some of his. (Which is perfectly legal under the Home Record Act, despite what the RIAA thinks!)
Like I've said, thanks for your help! Considering the vast majority of people have NOT ripped their entire music collections, I'm certainly in the minority. Thus I doubt if I'll ever find the player I want. But now that you've explained the iPod to me, I'll keep that in mind too.
It sounds to me like it'd be REAL easy to accidently delete the music on the iPod.
"Just out of curiosity what are you using to play music?"
Currently I use an ancient (by computer standards) Riovolt SP250. I have all of my favorite songs randomly burned on 12 discs. There's about 12 hours of music per disc.
What I love about it is that it can use regular AA batteries, so I can always just put a couple extra in my pocket. Considering the iPod's battey only lasts 10 hours, I can actually listen to two more hours of music even though it holds a heck of a lot less.
I also have a 256meg Nomad. I'm not really sure why I bought it. It was cheap, I guess. I mostly use it has a flash hard drive.
No he's right. If listen to the director's audio on the DVD of Evil Dead II, you'll learn that Rami wanted to use footage from the first movie but could not get rights to it.
Why do we tolerate a society where artists do not have rights over their own material?! I'd have to kill someone if I spend years working and slaving over a movie, only to be told that it wasn't mine.
I thought of something else. I have six computers at home, each one having access to my MP3 collection. It sounds to me like an iPod is tied to a specific instances of iTunes. Thus, I would only be able to add music to it from one particular computer. That'd certain suck, if true.
My music collection is way to big for any iPod. It's about 65 megs (at 256 kbs). What would happen when the iPod filled up?!
What do you mean you can set it to "sync manually"? Does that mean I can choose certain CDs or songs have it will "sync" those to the ipod.
"Songs present on the iPod, but not on the Library are deleted"
What?! You mean if I plug in my iPod at my friend's house the songs on my iPod would automatically be deleted?!
You keep saying that the iPod makes it easier, but having it make all these choices are not easier in my book. The communists were partially right in that for most people having limited choices makes life easier, but for some people, it makes life unbearable.
Audio Grabber already names the files, puts the id information in, and puts them in their correct subfolders. There is no work there on my part. No version of it has ever moved, renamed, or reorganized my files either, so that's good thing.
"Insert the CD and hit rip, and plug in the iPod" So EVERY CD you rip is automatically placed on the iPod if it's plugged in?!
And how do you put music that is already ripped onto the iPod? Do you have to re-rip for that?
Like I said, the iPod is NOT for someone who already has his collection ripped. If I was starting from scratch, it'd probably be a great idea. But since I've (i.e., Audio Grabber) has already done the work, there is no advantage to me at this time.
Actually, my post was more of a joke than an actual criticism. My point is that the entire Evil Dead movie was essentially re-shot and shown in the first 15 minutes of Evil Dead II. Since Evil Dead II has the entire plot of Evil Dead I, Evil Dead II was both a remake and a sequel.
For those who might not know, if you listen to the director's audio on the DVD of Evil Dead II, you'll learn why it was not a sequel.
He wanted to use footage from the first as a set up for the second, but couldn't get rights to it. So they hired some look-a-likes of the actors and re-shot parts, but were unhappy with it. So it was decided to make a slightly modified version of the first and then stuck it onto the beginning of the second.
I don't see any work involved with dragging and dropping the folders I want to the device. I do it all the time with my Creative Nomad. I open up the folder I store my CDs in. Hold the "ctrl" key, select the CDs/folders I want, and then drag them over to the device. How is that work?
If I had something the size of an iPod, I'd probably put all of my favorite CDs on it and then randomly shuffle across it. I have about a five-day play list at home. I rarely "look" for specific music, I just want it played.
I have to agree that I would probably not be happy with the iPod. The iPod seems designed for people who don't know how to use their computers. As someone who has already ripped and organized their music collection and who knows how to drag and drop, the iPod is not for me.
What's easiest for me is to simply copy my already ripped and organized MP3s over to the device. I don't want to use any third party software to do this, just Explorer. For example, I'd want to copy folder "Coltrane, John - Blue Train" over to the device. Is this possible? Thanks.
If it's possible to put a bunch of CDs, each in their own subfolder, onto the iPod, can it randomly shuffle across them?
And once I copy those files and folders over, will I be able to copy them back off? I don't want any programs. I just want to treat it as a hard drive.
One last thing. So you do NOT need iTunes at all, right?
I'd never buy an iPod. You cannot copy music off of it. (Well, there are hacks, but I'm not going to buy something I have to hack to use. Especially for the price Apple is charging.) Also, from what I hear you can't simply drag and drop music on it, but you need to install iTunes. And from what I hear about iTunes, it'll rename all of your MP3 files.
If I'm wrong about any of this, don't flame me, educate me. Thanks!
I love Creative's cards for their normalization feature. (There is really no other reason to love Creative's cards!)
Does Creative put this feature in their portable players? If they don't, they should. It's a feature I'm used to having at home.
I remember back in the 80s when a friend bought one of those multi-disc CD players. It was useless (as far as I was concerned) because no two CDs are the same volume.
...you threaten to sue customers and potential customers for not buying your product.
This is REAL bad for Microsoft. First, it shows how much of a threat Linux is.
Second, those companies and governments he is threatening will think twice about enacting any software patent laws.
Third, no one likes to be threatened! It's just a simple fact that threatening someone is the worse thing you can do to make someone do what you want. Instantly that "someone" is antagonistic and will try at the first available moment to escape.
When Microsoft competed against Linux on price and quality it had a chance. Now we know it's over.
I keep hearing about how wonderful Japanese animation is, but am I the only one annoyed by the fact that it's basically.5 frames per second?! I'm reminded of the awful Hanna Barbara cartoons from the 70s where we'd be lucky to see someone blink.
Slashdot Mirror
"Get a job and fund their own movies with their own money."
You know nothing about Evil Dead. Rami (sp?!) got money to pay for it himself. It was the DISTRUBUTOR who obtained rights. All distributors obtain rights in those situations because there is no other way to get a movie out into commerce. Try showing up to a theater with a movie you made and ask if they'll run it! Depending on the contract, the rights can revert back to the producer. Or the producer will sometimes make enough money on later films to buy back the rights to the earlier films. But the producer has no choice but to go through the distributors if he wants his movie shown.
I have no problems with people fronting money for the production of a film to have rights over it. Because there is no cartel on those people. If Rami didn't like one person's terms, he could always find someone else with money and get better terms. There are many people willing to front movies AND give producers fair rights afterwards. There is no cartel in place keeping the movie from being shown like there is in the case of distributors.
"Or I could choose to build my own house, on my own land, using money I earned myself by doing work of some kind."
And what if the housing industry passed legislation making it illegal to build your own house. There is NOTHING stopping that from happening other than the fact that we would not allow it. You may think it's silly, but it is also perfectly legal.
And you wouldn't OWN the land if your mortgage company or realtor kept the title as condition of the contract. Once again, doing that would be perfectly legal. And once again, the only reason it is not done is because we would not tolerate it.
"Just as the hypothetical automotive scenario you describe is so far from reality as to be stupendously silly..."
It doesn't matter if the car analogy is "silly." What matters is that it's perfectly legal. What also matters is that the ONLY reason it isn't done is because we wouldn't accept it. Car manufactures would LOVE to be able to force us to use only their dealers for repairs, dictate where and how their are repaired, which is anther way of keeping an ownership interest. But Congress enacted laws which forbids it. Why, because we feel that after paying for a car, we should be able to do anything we want with it.
And here's a real world example to show you it is NOT silly. Imagine if you went to buy a TV. You took it home and the picture was awesome. You asked your wife to come in and take a look. The second she walked in the picture went black. You call up and ask what the problem is. You're told that you only licensed the TV for one person. You're going to have to pay for each and every person who watches.
You think that's silly? But that's exactly what Microsoft does. When universities license Office and Windows, they have to buy licenses NOT for every computer. But one for EVERY student and one for EVERY employee who could possibly use the computer. Even janitors. Why does Microsoft get away with doing something involving software that Sony never could involving TVs?! Because we tolerate it. That's the ONLY reason. Sony COULD do it, but we wouldn't let it.
To me, distributors forcing producers of movies to give up rights solely because they hold the keys to the theaters is no different than all automobile manufacturers keeping interest in our cars after we paid for them. You may see a difference, but I don't. There is no freedom of contact when the only choice is to walk away from the contract.
I am using 5. The music library sucks compared to the ease and simplicity of Explorer view. All that shit I don't want, "Recently Played, Recently added, videos..." It's just useless fluff for me. When I'm looking for a specific CD or song, all I want to see are my CD folders in the left and the songs in the right. Nothing else.
"I'm pretty sure that players from iRiver, Rio and Archos can do the drag&drop-no-software-required thing"
I agree. If you remember, as it was a LONG time ago, I only said I'd never buy an IPod. I never said anything bad about those other MP3 players. They do have other problems though. E.g., I owned an Archos and the software in it was VERY flaky. Unfortunately I returned it before discovering that there is third party software for it.
So in your view, the choices available to the film maker is to not make films or to give up all rights to the films. I'm not sure how that is a choice?
Would you "chose" home ownership if EVERY mortgage company or EVERY realtor kept the title to the property? Using your argument, you could simply choose to be homeless.
Would you "chose" to buy a car if EVERY car dealership kept ownership of the car. Using your argument, you could always choose to walk. And if the car dealerships bought all the roads and forbid walking. You could "choose" to stay in one spot and never leave.
If that's your world, I sure in heck hope you get it one day because you deserve it.
the RIAA and the MPAA will be given the right to search all laptops, portable hard drives, and flash drives.
There is a Burger King commercial where a cop stops some teenagers in a car and ask them if the music they're listening to was downloaded from the internet. It was a joke, but it IS our future!
We as a society would NEVER permit car manufacturers from charging us more for driving on certain roads after we've paid for our cars. Or allow mortgage companies to charge us for having people come into our homes, after we bought our house. These things COULD be forced on us via mandated contracts, it'd be perfectly legal. But they are NOT forced on us merely because we would not tolerate it.
When we buy stuff, we have expectations of ownership and the powers that be respect it.
But somewhere along the line, the powers that be have so manipulated our copyright laws that those who create actually have the LEAST amount of power over their works. The reason the powers that be get away with it is, again, merely because we tolerate it. I certainly wish we didn't!
On my computer I use Winamp. It's the most convenient I've found. E.g., let's imagine that I want to find a particular CD. I'd open Explorer with the "/e, /root" command in the shortcut, so it opens up to only those folders containing my CDs in the left plane. Then I could right click on the particular folder and either play it or queue in Winamp. That way I could queue up either one or several CDs and listen to them. Or I could play or queue particular songs from the right plane. I rarely do that, though.
I generally just hit a button on one of my 6 Remote Wonders (depending on what room I'm in) and it'll start my playlist. Like I said, it's about five days long. It's kind of like having my own radio station, but it's only music I like, there is a lot of variety, and there are no commercials.
What'd I'd really like is very large version of my Nomad. It works the way I like, simply drag and drop. I can plug it into a friend's computer and he can take some of my songs, or I could take some of his. (Which is perfectly legal under the Home Record Act, despite what the RIAA thinks!)
Like I've said, thanks for your help! Considering the vast majority of people have NOT ripped their entire music collections, I'm certainly in the minority. Thus I doubt if I'll ever find the player I want. But now that you've explained the iPod to me, I'll keep that in mind too.
I'm sorry, I meant 65 GIGS!!!
It sounds to me like it'd be REAL easy to accidently delete the music on the iPod.
"Just out of curiosity what are you using to play music?"
Currently I use an ancient (by computer standards) Riovolt SP250. I have all of my favorite songs randomly burned on 12 discs. There's about 12 hours of music per disc.
What I love about it is that it can use regular AA batteries, so I can always just put a couple extra in my pocket. Considering the iPod's battey only lasts 10 hours, I can actually listen to two more hours of music even though it holds a heck of a lot less.
I also have a 256meg Nomad. I'm not really sure why I bought it. It was cheap, I guess. I mostly use it has a flash hard drive.
Thanks for your help.
Yes.
No he's right. If listen to the director's audio on the DVD of Evil Dead II, you'll learn that Rami wanted to use footage from the first movie but could not get rights to it.
Why do we tolerate a society where artists do not have rights over their own material?! I'd have to kill someone if I spend years working and slaving over a movie, only to be told that it wasn't mine.
I thought of something else. I have six computers at home, each one having access to my MP3 collection. It sounds to me like an iPod is tied to a specific instances of iTunes. Thus, I would only be able to add music to it from one particular computer. That'd certain suck, if true.
Thanks for all your help!!!
I totally agree. The fact that Rami had a limited budget meant he had to actually be creative. Art is not made by throwing money at a problem.
Bruce Campbell deserves all the success he can get!
"You can set iTunes to sync either:..."
My music collection is way to big for any iPod. It's about 65 megs (at 256 kbs). What would happen when the iPod filled up?!
What do you mean you can set it to "sync manually"? Does that mean I can choose certain CDs or songs have it will "sync" those to the ipod.
"Songs present on the iPod, but not on the Library are deleted"
What?! You mean if I plug in my iPod at my friend's house the songs on my iPod would automatically be deleted?!
You keep saying that the iPod makes it easier, but having it make all these choices are not easier in my book. The communists were partially right in that for most people having limited choices makes life easier, but for some people, it makes life unbearable.
Audio Grabber already names the files, puts the id information in, and puts them in their correct subfolders. There is no work there on my part. No version of it has ever moved, renamed, or reorganized my files either, so that's good thing.
"Insert the CD and hit rip, and plug in the iPod" So EVERY CD you rip is automatically placed on the iPod if it's plugged in?!
And how do you put music that is already ripped onto the iPod? Do you have to re-rip for that?
Like I said, the iPod is NOT for someone who already has his collection ripped. If I was starting from scratch, it'd probably be a great idea. But since I've (i.e., Audio Grabber) has already done the work, there is no advantage to me at this time.
Actually, my post was more of a joke than an actual criticism. My point is that the entire Evil Dead movie was essentially re-shot and shown in the first 15 minutes of Evil Dead II. Since Evil Dead II has the entire plot of Evil Dead I, Evil Dead II was both a remake and a sequel.
For those who might not know, if you listen to the director's audio on the DVD of Evil Dead II, you'll learn why it was not a sequel.
He wanted to use footage from the first as a set up for the second, but couldn't get rights to it. So they hired some look-a-likes of the actors and re-shot parts, but were unhappy with it. So it was decided to make a slightly modified version of the first and then stuck it onto the beginning of the second.
Have you NOT seen Evil Dead II?!
"You want to do all the work"
I don't see any work involved with dragging and dropping the folders I want to the device. I do it all the time with my Creative Nomad. I open up the folder I store my CDs in. Hold the "ctrl" key, select the CDs/folders I want, and then drag them over to the device. How is that work?
If I had something the size of an iPod, I'd probably put all of my favorite CDs on it and then randomly shuffle across it. I have about a five-day play list at home. I rarely "look" for specific music, I just want it played.
I have to agree that I would probably not be happy with the iPod. The iPod seems designed for people who don't know how to use their computers. As someone who has already ripped and organized their music collection and who knows how to drag and drop, the iPod is not for me.
Thanks for your help!
Thanks for clearing some stuff up.
What's easiest for me is to simply copy my already ripped and organized MP3s over to the device. I don't want to use any third party software to do this, just Explorer. For example, I'd want to copy folder "Coltrane, John - Blue Train" over to the device. Is this possible? Thanks.
If it's possible to put a bunch of CDs, each in their own subfolder, onto the iPod, can it randomly shuffle across them?
And once I copy those files and folders over, will I be able to copy them back off? I don't want any programs. I just want to treat it as a hard drive.
One last thing. So you do NOT need iTunes at all, right?
I'd never buy an iPod. You cannot copy music off of it. (Well, there are hacks, but I'm not going to buy something I have to hack to use. Especially for the price Apple is charging.) Also, from what I hear you can't simply drag and drop music on it, but you need to install iTunes. And from what I hear about iTunes, it'll rename all of your MP3 files.
If I'm wrong about any of this, don't flame me, educate me. Thanks!
You can buy a firewire card from newegg for 14 bucks shipped. If you can turn a screw driver, you can install it. No drivers necessary.
Not having firewire is no excuse.
I love Creative's cards for their normalization feature. (There is really no other reason to love Creative's cards!)
Does Creative put this feature in their portable players? If they don't, they should. It's a feature I'm used to having at home.
I remember back in the 80s when a friend bought one of those multi-disc CD players. It was useless (as far as I was concerned) because no two CDs are the same volume.
Exactly how is Microsoft going to sue "Asian governments" in US courts?! He's going to have to sue those governement in their own courts!
Do you REALLY think that Microsoft will win there?!
...you threaten to sue customers and potential customers for not buying your product.
This is REAL bad for Microsoft. First, it shows how much of a threat Linux is.
Second, those companies and governments he is threatening will think twice about enacting any software patent laws.
Third, no one likes to be threatened! It's just a simple fact that threatening someone is the worse thing you can do to make someone do what you want. Instantly that "someone" is antagonistic and will try at the first available moment to escape.
When Microsoft competed against Linux on price and quality it had a chance. Now we know it's over.
I built my own PVR!!!
I keep hearing about how wonderful Japanese animation is, but am I the only one annoyed by the fact that it's basically .5 frames per second?! I'm reminded of the awful Hanna Barbara cartoons from the 70s where we'd be lucky to see someone blink.