So, we're talking something that hasn't been declared as a classic or stood the test of time. So no Alien, Metropolis, Blade Runner, 2001 or other established classics.
It's the bloody nerve of the record companies. Music at 10UKP for an album, on top of a subscription, in (presumably) below-CD quality DRMd format. Sounds like they think they can repeat what they did with CD (only this time I don't think it will work).
A 10UKP CD gets sold to a shop for how much? My guess? 5-6UKP. For that they've got to press the media, print the insert and stick it in a case. Then physically shift it to the shop.
50-60 pence a track, I'd be considering it. 1UKP+ per track? You're having a laugh!
You're right, it's nothing to do with Napster. The idea that people will stay loyal to this paid for, controlled, DRM service because they once had a free, uncontrolled, unrestricted service is laughable.
The biggest scam about branding is on the companies themselves. They believe that branding gives them some kind of guaranteed market, because people will use them because they trust the name. Trouble is, once the name turns to shit, or the products go up in price, or the quality goes down or the competition get better, your brand becomes worthless.
I can think of a few companies now who are basically trying to trade on their brand. Where they once made the best of something, they get it made cheaper and think they can keep the price high and pocket the cash "because we have a strong brand". Eventually, this unwinds because people wake up to the alternatives. It can take some time, though.
If you stole a CD from a shop to replace one that was stolen, that would be wrong too.
The issue here is the whole question of what license do you have? It's pretty rich of record companies to justify the high price of CDs on the "artistic development" basis, and then not offer people a reasonable replacement cost (like $2 for a CD). AFAIK, people like Microsoft will replace a duff copy of Windows for a small charge, so why won't the record companies?
I've seen so much CGI that looks out of place, hollow gloss.
The spacecraft in AOTC just didn't look right. Too bright etc. Yoda looked shite. Crowd scenes in movies don't look right, either. Getting a few thousand extras in always looks more correct.
From what I understand, that was in the bill that came out of the EU parliament.
My MEP went through the proposal and it seemed quite sensible. Sure, some people are completely anti-patents, but a genuine invention should get some protection.
As someone else commented, the only way would really be to analyse GPL changes, rewrite them and implement them in a non-GPL version, and then release the amended non-GPL code as the new GPL code.
Sounds complicated, and a pity as I can see dual-license as a really good option from all perspectives.
That sounds reasonable. Of course, with bug fixing, identification is often more important than cure.
Question is, do you think many developers would allow their code to be dual-licensed?
In other words, if I made a piece of software that was quite useful, but dual licensed it, do you think a lot of people would be happy to have their GPL code dual-licensed (for reasonable payment).
Personally, if I were selling a dual-licensed product, I'd probably rather just pay people for their fixes and assignment of copyright (and the code would also remain in the GPL version as well) than spend the time doing them again myself.
Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?
Firstly, I regularly get close to my bandwidth on it.
Secondly, a lot of these "cheap ass distribution companies" are companies often giving away software like Open Office. I'd rather they spent money on the software and the rest of us picked up the bandwidth tab.
nobody leaves their BT clients open longer than it takes to download a file
Well, correction required, because I for one do, and I'm sure lots of others do too. Quite often it's by accident rather than design, but sometimes I'm happy to. Often I have downloaded something just before going to bed. It might have arrived within 2 hours, but the client is running all night. Typically I've given back more in that situation. Sometimes, I'll just let it carry on for the day while I do something else.
Simple example: What if Starbucks showed the actual cost of making that cup of coffee on the bill seperate from the markup at the register? People already know they're very expensive, but if they "really" saw it things would be different.
Alternatively, people could just shop around. Personally, I drink in a local cafe and spend much less on coffee than at Starbucks. Then again, for a lot of people I imagine that drinking coffee at Starbucks is as much about self-image than quality of coffee (the quality at Starbucks is good, though).
At the end of this lawsuit, assuming IBM win, there will be a crater in the stockmarket where SCO used to be. IBM, Red Hat et al will sue them to oblivion.
If I was using SCO software, I'd be quite worried about that.
Their movies are cool because they do them properly.
I've read enough about Hollywood movies to get the view that most are based on "get idea, hire stars, hire director, write movie". The guys at Pixar ISTM are doing what the studios did in the 40s - they get the story right before doing anything else.
I'm no supporter of Jeb Bush, but do you have anything to back this up?
As for Michael Moore, his manager was warned by someone at Disney NOT to sign with Miramax because they wouldn't distribute it, and now he's all "I'm shocked! Disney won't distribute my film".
Maybe I'm unusual, but I enjoy Pixar's films. And I also enjoy Scorsese, Tarantino and Woody Allen films.
They do deal with a lot of themes of childhood, but I don't find them over cute or vomit inducing and they work with real emotions. They are good stories with good dialogue and coherent.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if he tried, would anyone buy it? If you were wanting to start a company, would you employ him, considering the publicity backlash?
Fantastic Voyage is good.
Thankfully, the resistance to GM is strong here. It's completely unnecessary in the UK.
Hopefully, we'll get such a bad case soon, that public attention to stoopid (sic) patents will be raised and it will become a real issue.
A 10UKP CD gets sold to a shop for how much? My guess? 5-6UKP. For that they've got to press the media, print the insert and stick it in a case. Then physically shift it to the shop.
50-60 pence a track, I'd be considering it. 1UKP+ per track? You're having a laugh!
The biggest scam about branding is on the companies themselves. They believe that branding gives them some kind of guaranteed market, because people will use them because they trust the name. Trouble is, once the name turns to shit, or the products go up in price, or the quality goes down or the competition get better, your brand becomes worthless.
I can think of a few companies now who are basically trying to trade on their brand. Where they once made the best of something, they get it made cheaper and think they can keep the price high and pocket the cash "because we have a strong brand". Eventually, this unwinds because people wake up to the alternatives. It can take some time, though.
The issue here is the whole question of what license do you have? It's pretty rich of record companies to justify the high price of CDs on the "artistic development" basis, and then not offer people a reasonable replacement cost (like $2 for a CD). AFAIK, people like Microsoft will replace a duff copy of Windows for a small charge, so why won't the record companies?
The spacecraft in AOTC just didn't look right. Too bright etc. Yoda looked shite. Crowd scenes in movies don't look right, either. Getting a few thousand extras in always looks more correct.
I'll get the site restarted. Rather not post email addys here.
If you can tell me where to go to get co-ordinated with you chaps, I'll give you some time.
My MEP went through the proposal and it seemed quite sensible. Sure, some people are completely anti-patents, but a genuine invention should get some protection.
Sounds complicated, and a pity as I can see dual-license as a really good option from all perspectives.
Question is, do you think many developers would allow their code to be dual-licensed?
In other words, if I made a piece of software that was quite useful, but dual licensed it, do you think a lot of people would be happy to have their GPL code dual-licensed (for reasonable payment).
Personally, if I were selling a dual-licensed product, I'd probably rather just pay people for their fixes and assignment of copyright (and the code would also remain in the GPL version as well) than spend the time doing them again myself.
What parts of Unix have been 'stolen'?
Here's hoping it goes for sale on Amazon. Let's see what the comments are like after /.ers have finished with it.
Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?
Secondly, a lot of these "cheap ass distribution companies" are companies often giving away software like Open Office. I'd rather they spent money on the software and the rest of us picked up the bandwidth tab.
Well, correction required, because I for one do, and I'm sure lots of others do too. Quite often it's by accident rather than design, but sometimes I'm happy to. Often I have downloaded something just before going to bed. It might have arrived within 2 hours, but the client is running all night. Typically I've given back more in that situation. Sometimes, I'll just let it carry on for the day while I do something else.
Alternatively, people could just shop around. Personally, I drink in a local cafe and spend much less on coffee than at Starbucks. Then again, for a lot of people I imagine that drinking coffee at Starbucks is as much about self-image than quality of coffee (the quality at Starbucks is good, though).
At the end of this lawsuit, assuming IBM win, there will be a crater in the stockmarket where SCO used to be. IBM, Red Hat et al will sue them to oblivion.
If I was using SCO software, I'd be quite worried about that.
And Darl Mc Bride is the biggest Cnut out there.
I've read enough about Hollywood movies to get the view that most are based on "get idea, hire stars, hire director, write movie". The guys at Pixar ISTM are doing what the studios did in the 40s - they get the story right before doing anything else.
As for Michael Moore, his manager was warned by someone at Disney NOT to sign with Miramax because they wouldn't distribute it, and now he's all "I'm shocked! Disney won't distribute my film".
They do deal with a lot of themes of childhood, but I don't find them over cute or vomit inducing and they work with real emotions. They are good stories with good dialogue and coherent.
It has a unique status, that it is specifically named in UK law, and has a perpetual copyright.
As for Walt, a recent documentary I saw painted him in a very different light to the "uncle Walt" image that was created.