Yeah, that's great. So while you're going through this machine, all your stuff is outside of your sight and control... and that includes my wallet, which apparently I need to stuff into my carry-on as well.
Just super.
I actually own a K2. I have at least two books on which TTS has since been disabled. None of my books have changed, even though I've had whispernet on several times. They all still have TTS and there's no indication the files have been changed in any way whatsoever.
I think the idea that Amazon is proactively replacing these files is just factually wrong. Nobody on Mobileread has reported this happening either.
That's not what they're considering. The rights to the Silmarillion are still controlled by Christopher Tolkien, and he's not giving them up.
The prequel they're contemplating would be the time between The Hobbit and FotR... which is potentially a huge amount of ground to cover, depending on where they decide to focus -- you have Aragorn growing up, Aragorn and Arwen, Aragorn's travels (which could cover Gondor, Rohan, etc.), the deepening shadow in Mirkwood, Gollum, maybe showing the situation at Dol Guldur instead of telling it. Theoretically it could incorporate quite a few of the main characters from LotR.
(There would be no way to cover the Silmarillion in one movie, anyway, even if the will were there.)
I downloaded the post-cancellation episode of Night Stalker from iTunes. The quality is only ok. 320 x 240. It looked acceptable on my 42" HDTV via TV out on my laptop, but far from great. Certainly not nearly as good as a Divx-encoded.avi from an HDTV feed.
This service certainly isn't something I'd use as a replacement for my HD-DVR, but in case of emergency or unavailability elsewhere (as with the NS episode) I'm glad it's there. (Cancelling Night Stalker in the middle of a two-parter was particularly cruel on ABC's part, but I'm glad they made the second half available. Even if it did cost $2.)
Um, LotR was not "funded" by copyright theft, at least not by Zaentz.
Zaentz bought the LotR rights long before the Fogerty litigation. Miramax paid Zaentz for the rights, then New Line paid Zaentz whatever points they were obligated to. Zaentz didn't fund the production at all -- he was paid for the rights he owned, not the other way around.
Now if you want to argue that "Copyright Jerk Zaentz Profits from LotR," then, fine, but since he owned the rights, that was really the only way to make the films at all.
If it hits $100 million domestic before Memorial Day, are they *still* going to whine and bitch about how downloading is ruining their industry?
Yes, I know. But it strains credulity. I suspect a lot of the people downloading either 1) already saw the movie/plan to see it this week and just want a copy to watch at home until the DVD comes out or 2) have some kind of vague curiousity but aren't planning on seeing it in the theater anyway.
It's hard to imagine that any self-respecting geek would be willing to settle for watching an inferior copy on a small screen instead of seeing the movie in the theater.
Yeah, I know -- I laughed when I heard about it, but I could understand the producers being afraid of facing an attempt to get a restraining order after negative was cut (this was a few years ago when negative was still cut on most films).
I agree with you about L&O -- it creates a lot of misleading perceptions.
For example, watching L&O, you would think that evidence is routinely excluded because of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment (often referred to as a "technicality") with the result that the bad guy goes free (usually temporarily on the show). In actuality, it is so rare for a trial judge to grant such motions that it usually makes legal headlines when it does.
So yes, I agree that the consequences of the inaccurate portrayal of the legal system as a whole is a lot more worrisome than for most other profession-based shows.
I'm not sure I see your point -- are you saying that actors should have to be experts in the field of the character they're portraying to be qualified for the role?
Do you think actors who play doctors on ER don't memorize all that stuff they say when a gurney rolls in? Or someone who plays a lawyer doesn't memorize statutes and legal argument? Or someone who plays a military guy doesn't memorize combat jargon? Etc., etc.
It's not an actor's job to go in understanding technical jargon -- just to learn enough of the gist behind it to make the words meaningful. I'd rather see a good actor playing a math genius than see a math genius who can't act playing the role -- only a percentage of which, incidentally, has to do with writing out equations and explaining math theories.
I think Krumholz is doing a great job making the math parts of the stories interesting and appealing.
You mean people don't want to watch lawyers sitting in their officers doing research and writing briefs and memos 90% of the time the show is on the air?
Yes -- fancy that! Most people have no idea that even the busiest of "trial" lawyers spends a relatively small percentage of their time in court, and even less in trial, and that many lawyers never go to court at all.
Anyone who is a professional or specialist in anything can be driven crazy by how it's portrayed in entertainment.
Cops, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers (I have a friend who can go on about Judging Amy for hours), military people, airline pilots, etc., etc. -- all of them can go on and on about how inaccurate entertainment portrays their job or profession. So scientists and computer specialists are not alone.
The bottom line, IMO, is that hey, it's entertainment, not a documentary, and whatever the *thing* is -- whether it's computers or legal procedure or spy technology or whatever -- is supposed to be in service of telling the story and revealing character, not the other way around. Yes, Hollywood makes lots of mistakes that could be fixed very easily, but the majority of any given set of viewers probably won't know or care -- in fact, they might even think something's wrong because the entertainment didn't conform to the cliche.
The way entertainment shapes real life expectations is a real issue, and one lawyers in particular are concerned about -- they call it the "CSI effect" on juries, the expectation that fancy forensics will be present in every case, when they usually aren't.
But as for the entertainment itself, it's usually good if the "stuff" is used in service of the story. I sucked at math my entire life (until prob/stat in college, which I was actually good at) but I really enjoy Numb3rs. The math -- whether it's real or not -- is used very effectively in service of the story, and there's a nice dynamic between the FBI brother and the math professor brother. And the professor Peter MacNicol plays reminds me of a brilliant but absent-minded professor I had once. On the library steps, after a conversation: "When you first saw me, was I going into this building or coming out of it?"
LOL.
You don't see characters drinking Coke or Pepsi or Tropicana Orange Juice. You don't see them using Crest toothpaste or Pantene shampoo. They might use containers that IMPLY a product, but never the product itself (unless endorsement money has been paid). After all, why give a huge multi-billion dollar free advertisement when everyone else needs to pay for commercial time and product placements.
Actually, no, that's not the reason. If they use a specific brand they must get what's called "clearance" for it from the owner of the trademark if the brand is shown or used in dialogue. I have a relative who works in post-production, and on a movie he worked on, a specific brand of bubble gum was mentioned in the script (in a very non-offensive way)but still, at the last minute, they realized they didn't have clearance, and the actors had to be brought in to re-loop all the dialogue, at a cost of about $50,000.
So if you don't have a deal in place, that's why TV shows and movies don't show specific brands -- they aren't afraid of the free advertising, but it can turn into an expensive nightmare, so it's just better to avoid it.
Throwing a DVD burner into the mix is a great step-up, but only if there is some way to edit the program before burning it...
According to the press release:
The DVR-810H and DVR-57H offer analog inputs, enabling consumers to connect a camcorder to the DVD recorder for basic transferring functions. Once the content from the camcorder is stored onto the hard drive, users have the ability to edit the content before burning it to DVD.
If you can connect a camcorder this way, I don't see why you couldn't connect a VCR this way, too, so you can edit your old tapes before burning them.
I also don't see serious legal problems... particularly as long as the burner respects macrovision. This is clearly technology with substantial noninfringing uses, same as the VCR.
Why should you get to take your mobile number with you if you switch carriers? You don't have the same privilege with your land line.
Actually, I do. I switched from SBC/Pac Bell to the digital phone service offered by my cable company. I had to pay a one-time $25 charge for them to buy the number from SBC. And guess what? SBC keeps calling, trying to get me back, and promises I can keep my same number for free. (Which I'm not going to do -- the cable company service is cheaper, I get my cable modem rental fee waived, and unlike SBC, they aren't constantly calling and trying to sell me stuff.)
So you can keep your local number when you switch phone companies. I don't see why cell phone companies should be any different. I hope this will benefit consumers by motivating companies to offer better plans and pricing to keep their customers from switching -- but only time will tell.
Then we should call it "Hobbit USB" -- that should be nice and clear for everyone.
I'm anxious to check my new Toshiba laptop (5205-S505) when I get home. The official specs list "USB 2.0" without any high speed, full speed, etc.
The only thing at issue in Rowan was the constitutionality of a law that required mass-mailers to take you off their list *if asked.* Nobody questions that kind of law is valid; it's the same idea as the do-not-call list. And nobody questions that if a "do-not-spam" list was created, it would be equally permissible under the constitution.
That is a far cry from banning "all intrusive advertising," as you propose. It's not narrowly tailored in any sense -- it's a hatchet, not a scalpel. Someone walking up to you in the mall asking you to try a sample of their product may annoy you, but how does saying "no thanks" cost anyone their productivity?
I hate spam as much as the next person. I'm also very concerned about the erosion of freedom of speech. What is first applied to commercial speech can easily be broadened to other contexts later on. It's not hard to leap from "that person walking up to me in the mall to try to sell me something is annoying and should be banned. That person walking up to me in the mall asking me to sign a petition is also annoying and therefore should also be banned." Not that I'm worried, because what you propose would be struck down by any federal court in the country in about 5 seconds, if any legislature wanted to ignore the constitution long enough to adopt it.
And of course you have the fun of defining "intrusive." If someone walking up to you in a public place is intrusive, why is tv or radio advertising not intrustive? And what is "waste" according to you? To some direct mail is junk; to others it's a billion dollar industry. Waste is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent. (And I don't suppose that I need to point out that if all these intrusive methods of advertising weren't successful, at least to some extent, they wouldn't continue to exist in the first place? So at least to some extent, there is commerce as a result.)
In any event, enforcing and strengthening existing laws, that really are narrowly tailored, such as do-not-call provisions, anti-junk fax laws, etc. makes much more sense, without sacrificing the First Amendment in the process. Professor Lessig's "bounty" idea is brilliant and eliminates many of the obstacles to enforcement.
Incidentally, an ad that merely states a brand name is not fraudulent -- for something to be fraudulent, it has to be either false or misleading. Nothing is false or misleading about a billboard or email that says "Coca-Cola." If you want an example of non-fraudulent puffery, that would be "Coca-Cola is the best soft drink ever." Puffery isn't fraudulent, by the way -- it's inherently not fraudulent, because it's obvious to any reasonable person that it's not a statement of fact.
The US Supreme Court has continually ruled that commercial speech, while entitled to less protection than pure expressive speech, is still speech and therefore subject to First Amendment protection, as long as it concerns a lawful subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's great. So while you're going through this machine, all your stuff is outside of your sight and control... and that includes my wallet, which apparently I need to stuff into my carry-on as well. Just super.
I actually own a K2. I have at least two books on which TTS has since been disabled. None of my books have changed, even though I've had whispernet on several times. They all still have TTS and there's no indication the files have been changed in any way whatsoever. I think the idea that Amazon is proactively replacing these files is just factually wrong. Nobody on Mobileread has reported this happening either.
Wrong. Thanks for playing.
That's not what they're considering. The rights to the Silmarillion are still controlled by Christopher Tolkien, and he's not giving them up. The prequel they're contemplating would be the time between The Hobbit and FotR... which is potentially a huge amount of ground to cover, depending on where they decide to focus -- you have Aragorn growing up, Aragorn and Arwen, Aragorn's travels (which could cover Gondor, Rohan, etc.), the deepening shadow in Mirkwood, Gollum, maybe showing the situation at Dol Guldur instead of telling it. Theoretically it could incorporate quite a few of the main characters from LotR. (There would be no way to cover the Silmarillion in one movie, anyway, even if the will were there.)
I would love to see a version of the Kobayashi Maru incident that's different from what we've been told about it.
I downloaded the post-cancellation episode of Night Stalker from iTunes. The quality is only ok. 320 x 240. It looked acceptable on my 42" HDTV via TV out on my laptop, but far from great. Certainly not nearly as good as a Divx-encoded .avi from an HDTV feed.
This service certainly isn't something I'd use as a replacement for my HD-DVR, but in case of emergency or unavailability elsewhere (as with the NS episode) I'm glad it's there. (Cancelling Night Stalker in the middle of a two-parter was particularly cruel on ABC's part, but I'm glad they made the second half available. Even if it did cost $2.)
Um, LotR was not "funded" by copyright theft, at least not by Zaentz. Zaentz bought the LotR rights long before the Fogerty litigation. Miramax paid Zaentz for the rights, then New Line paid Zaentz whatever points they were obligated to. Zaentz didn't fund the production at all -- he was paid for the rights he owned, not the other way around. Now if you want to argue that "Copyright Jerk Zaentz Profits from LotR," then, fine, but since he owned the rights, that was really the only way to make the films at all.
If it hits $100 million domestic before Memorial Day, are they *still* going to whine and bitch about how downloading is ruining their industry? Yes, I know. But it strains credulity. I suspect a lot of the people downloading either 1) already saw the movie/plan to see it this week and just want a copy to watch at home until the DVD comes out or 2) have some kind of vague curiousity but aren't planning on seeing it in the theater anyway. It's hard to imagine that any self-respecting geek would be willing to settle for watching an inferior copy on a small screen instead of seeing the movie in the theater.
Yeah, I know -- I laughed when I heard about it, but I could understand the producers being afraid of facing an attempt to get a restraining order after negative was cut (this was a few years ago when negative was still cut on most films).
For example, watching L&O, you would think that evidence is routinely excluded because of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment (often referred to as a "technicality") with the result that the bad guy goes free (usually temporarily on the show). In actuality, it is so rare for a trial judge to grant such motions that it usually makes legal headlines when it does.
So yes, I agree that the consequences of the inaccurate portrayal of the legal system as a whole is a lot more worrisome than for most other profession-based shows.
I'm not sure I see your point -- are you saying that actors should have to be experts in the field of the character they're portraying to be qualified for the role? Do you think actors who play doctors on ER don't memorize all that stuff they say when a gurney rolls in? Or someone who plays a lawyer doesn't memorize statutes and legal argument? Or someone who plays a military guy doesn't memorize combat jargon? Etc., etc. It's not an actor's job to go in understanding technical jargon -- just to learn enough of the gist behind it to make the words meaningful. I'd rather see a good actor playing a math genius than see a math genius who can't act playing the role -- only a percentage of which, incidentally, has to do with writing out equations and explaining math theories. I think Krumholz is doing a great job making the math parts of the stories interesting and appealing.
Yes -- fancy that! Most people have no idea that even the busiest of "trial" lawyers spends a relatively small percentage of their time in court, and even less in trial, and that many lawyers never go to court at all.
Cops, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers (I have a friend who can go on about Judging Amy for hours), military people, airline pilots, etc., etc. -- all of them can go on and on about how inaccurate entertainment portrays their job or profession. So scientists and computer specialists are not alone.
The bottom line, IMO, is that hey, it's entertainment, not a documentary, and whatever the *thing* is -- whether it's computers or legal procedure or spy technology or whatever -- is supposed to be in service of telling the story and revealing character, not the other way around. Yes, Hollywood makes lots of mistakes that could be fixed very easily, but the majority of any given set of viewers probably won't know or care -- in fact, they might even think something's wrong because the entertainment didn't conform to the cliche.
The way entertainment shapes real life expectations is a real issue, and one lawyers in particular are concerned about -- they call it the "CSI effect" on juries, the expectation that fancy forensics will be present in every case, when they usually aren't.
But as for the entertainment itself, it's usually good if the "stuff" is used in service of the story. I sucked at math my entire life (until prob/stat in college, which I was actually good at) but I really enjoy Numb3rs. The math -- whether it's real or not -- is used very effectively in service of the story, and there's a nice dynamic between the FBI brother and the math professor brother. And the professor Peter MacNicol plays reminds me of a brilliant but absent-minded professor I had once. On the library steps, after a conversation: "When you first saw me, was I going into this building or coming out of it?" LOL.
According to the press release:
If you can connect a camcorder this way, I don't see why you couldn't connect a VCR this way, too, so you can edit your old tapes before burning them.
I also don't see serious legal problems... particularly as long as the burner respects macrovision. This is clearly technology with substantial noninfringing uses, same as the VCR.
Actually, I do. I switched from SBC/Pac Bell to the digital phone service offered by my cable company. I had to pay a one-time $25 charge for them to buy the number from SBC. And guess what? SBC keeps calling, trying to get me back, and promises I can keep my same number for free. (Which I'm not going to do -- the cable company service is cheaper, I get my cable modem rental fee waived, and unlike SBC, they aren't constantly calling and trying to sell me stuff.)
So you can keep your local number when you switch phone companies. I don't see why cell phone companies should be any different. I hope this will benefit consumers by motivating companies to offer better plans and pricing to keep their customers from switching -- but only time will tell.
Then we should call it "Hobbit USB" -- that should be nice and clear for everyone. I'm anxious to check my new Toshiba laptop (5205-S505) when I get home. The official specs list "USB 2.0" without any high speed, full speed, etc.
The only thing at issue in Rowan was the constitutionality of a law that required mass-mailers to take you off their list *if asked.* Nobody questions that kind of law is valid; it's the same idea as the do-not-call list. And nobody questions that if a "do-not-spam" list was created, it would be equally permissible under the constitution.
That is a far cry from banning "all intrusive advertising," as you propose. It's not narrowly tailored in any sense -- it's a hatchet, not a scalpel. Someone walking up to you in the mall asking you to try a sample of their product may annoy you, but how does saying "no thanks" cost anyone their productivity?
I hate spam as much as the next person. I'm also very concerned about the erosion of freedom of speech. What is first applied to commercial speech can easily be broadened to other contexts later on. It's not hard to leap from "that person walking up to me in the mall to try to sell me something is annoying and should be banned. That person walking up to me in the mall asking me to sign a petition is also annoying and therefore should also be banned." Not that I'm worried, because what you propose would be struck down by any federal court in the country in about 5 seconds, if any legislature wanted to ignore the constitution long enough to adopt it.
And of course you have the fun of defining "intrusive." If someone walking up to you in a public place is intrusive, why is tv or radio advertising not intrustive? And what is "waste" according to you? To some direct mail is junk; to others it's a billion dollar industry. Waste is in the eye of the beholder, to a large extent. (And I don't suppose that I need to point out that if all these intrusive methods of advertising weren't successful, at least to some extent, they wouldn't continue to exist in the first place? So at least to some extent, there is commerce as a result.)
In any event, enforcing and strengthening existing laws, that really are narrowly tailored, such as do-not-call provisions, anti-junk fax laws, etc. makes much more sense, without sacrificing the First Amendment in the process. Professor Lessig's "bounty" idea is brilliant and eliminates many of the obstacles to enforcement.
Incidentally, an ad that merely states a brand name is not fraudulent -- for something to be fraudulent, it has to be either false or misleading. Nothing is false or misleading about a billboard or email that says "Coca-Cola." If you want an example of non-fraudulent puffery, that would be "Coca-Cola is the best soft drink ever." Puffery isn't fraudulent, by the way -- it's inherently not fraudulent, because it's obvious to any reasonable person that it's not a statement of fact.
Commercial speech can be regulated only if the government's interest in creating the restriction is substantial. The regulation must directly address that substantial interest and cannot be more restrictive than is necessary serve it. See, for example, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, (2001) 533 U.S. 525; Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980).
So while commercial speech can be regulated, it can't be outlawed altogether without repealing the First Amendment. And that? Would be bad.