I'm no law student, but according to a lawstudent friend of mine there's actually a huge difference(we've debated the fair use subject again and again).
Interesting.
Unfortunately, the defense argument becomes a moot point quickly with the provisions of the DMCA that prevent breaking encryption. I guess the only options left for those of us that want change are media-boycott and civil disobediance. I choose the latter.
Well, if I'm only afforded the right to make a copy and not a copy with the full quality technology will allow, I'd say that's an awfuly slippery slope! If that were the case, what would stop the *AAs from restricting copies to some unuseably low quality?
The proposed introduction of ICT (Image Constraint Tokens) with blue-ray and HD-DVD formats as part of the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) offers a way forward, a means of limiting the quality of secondary copying. ICT would enable a user to still see content, but not in its original resolution. This way, analogue displays and other unauthorized devices can still receive and play content, just not in a rich HD format.
That is from Slyck! Last time I checked those technologies did things like disabling HD output unless you are using HDMI (with support for a no-copy flag). WTF?!? Not only are most HD displays manufactured to this date lacking an HDMI input, but such technology eliminates my FAIR USE RIGHT to make a full quality backup! What kind of a sell-out crappy-ass solution is that?
If you want to make sure I never pirate content here are a few tips:
Make the content cheap (a few bucks a movie, $.50 a song, etc.)
Make the content easily accessable (let me download it from a fast, searchable site)
Make the content high-quality (give me the option of HD quality video and CD-or-better quality audio)
Once purchased, let me use the content as I damn well please (rip it, burn it, transcode it, play it on a computer, play it on a portable device, etc).
Once these requirements are met, all my media will be obtained 100% legally because it will just make sense! I am willing to pay a reasonable amount for convenience, quality, and flexability.
Good lord,
How high does the price of a single song have to be before people just go out and buy the CD? I know most people say things like "what if you only like one song on the CD?" but the truth is if I really like one song I usually like (or grow to like) many others on the CD. Personally, even if there were no other alternatives to get music (radio, iTunes, CDs, pirating) I wouldn't be caught dead paying $2.50 for a song. At that point I'd just save some bucks and go to a concert now and then! But... maybe that's just me and maybe there are a ton of music addicts out there that can afford to drop $250 to have a relatively small library of music on their phone.
But the obvious answer: The majority of downloaders will be people who want the content without paying for it.
More correctly, people who want the content without paying the price HBO is asking! I'm not saying downloading Rome is right, just that HBO might more effectively spend their money finding a way to make the show available at a price and via a medium that the current pirates would buy. I for one wouldn't ever consider paying for HBO because I would watch it very little for the price. I might, however, consider paying a small fee for the opportunity to download a specific show like Rome.
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
Perhaps...
If I had to drive to the store every time I wanted one slice of free cheese, assuming I ate cheese at all frequently, I would likely plop down the few dollars it would cost to take a bit home with me. I think your argument has inadvertantly proven the exact opposite point you were trying to. If a product (even copy-able content) is made convenient and priced fairly, I will likely buy it rather than pirate it. The benefits of convenience, finding a quality copy of the content in a known location with decent download speed, will quickly out weight monetary cost if the product is priced right.
I converted a 150+ user enviornment from Novel/Groupwise to Win2K3/Exchange and I can tell you that Novel+Groupwise is not any easy system to manage. Win2K3 and Exchange certainly have their quirks and some pain-in-the-ass things here and there but they were much much more friendly to maintain in my opinion. In addition, Windows 2003 provided Group Policy management that made a massive difference in the required setup and maintenance of client boxes.
Is there any open software to allow group policy management with the directory services? In an enviornment where the users are on Windows boxes (which is most enviornments) group policy is an invaluable tool.
Wow, the magical Linux OS will somehow allow my dated hardware to peform incredible feats by running modern appliations! To a certain extent, OS bloat and complexity will eat up processing power... TO AN EXTENT! To claim decade old hardware will be able to run modern applications is asinine. Newer applications are more powerful, more powerful applications have more processing needs, more processing needs means newer hardware... period!
It really saddens me to see John Carmack nay-saying a bit about physics acceleration in games. Apparently, he conceeded he's a graphics guy and is afraid the bar is going to be set too high with physics but I think that is a huge cop-out. Just because something isn't your area of expertise you're going to spread FUD about how it might make games unstable and about how it might not be used correctly in games and how the first generation of hardware might cause problems? That is just plain weak. In my mind, the time of graphics has long since passed. I could (and would) be perfectly happy with the level of graphic detail acheieved in current games forever. I am much much much more interested in seeing game physics improve. Eye candy is neat but gets old very quickly. Realistic physics beget emergant gameplay. This idea is exemplified by Half-Life 2 which is one of the most interesting, immersive, and replayable games I've ever experienced. And no game is a better example of how boring amazing graphics can be than Doom3! I think John Carmack might want to re-examine his viewpoint and start stepping into the uncharted (for him) water of game physics or I stronly believe he's going to get left behind.
I'd imagine the original poster meant Component inputs, not Composite inputs. And if so, he is write that he (like myself) would be punished for being early adopters of HDTV technology! By the way, my HDTV is a Toshiba and has no DVI/HDMI. Fuck Toshiba!
Without speed there are not applications to take advantage of it and (up until now) without applications to take advantage of it there haven't been speed upgrades. I will enjoy watching HDTV on my new 100mbps connection. Maybe you can still download streaming quicktime crap at a 50% cost reduction while I'm watching 1080p content with DD7.1 sound for $50/mo.
I couldn't possibly disagree any more! The PPU could easily add as much value to current computer games as the original Vodoo cards did, maybe even more. As it stands now, I could care less about improved graphics in computer games... they're good enough for me. What I will shell out some hard-earned cash for is better physics. If you think physics aren't that important in a computer game then pick up a copy of HL2 and get back to me. Physics allow emergent gameplay, it's just that simple. As for game designers being overworked and not taking advantage of PPUs, that's just BS. Games like HL2 already implement a 3rd party physics system (HAVOC) and you can be damn sure the folks at HAVOC will be clamoring to use the new power afforded to them by PPUs.
Every job or position is just as hard as every other. Say that to yourself over and over, because you're obviously a snob who needs to get over an assinine, overinflated sense of your own importance.
That has to be about the most politically-correct bullshit I've ever read. Sounds like the opinion of a Communication major to me!
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, developers hit pirates where it hurts.
Why in the world are they trying to compare a full blown PVR/Media Center (Windows Media Center) to a computer with a remote (Mac Mini)?
How dare you question The Church of the Mac? Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble!
This has to be one of the more ridiculous pieces of tripe I've read recently.
I used jython and it took three days, with no curly braces to be seen.
You can have my curly braces when you pry them from my cold dead hands!
Don't bother.
Thanks Toshiba, glad to hear it will only work with HDMI seeing as how my Toshiba HD-Ready TV only has component connections!
I'm no law student, but according to a lawstudent friend of mine there's actually a huge difference(we've debated the fair use subject again and again).
Interesting.
Unfortunately, the defense argument becomes a moot point quickly with the provisions of the DMCA that prevent breaking encryption. I guess the only options left for those of us that want change are media-boycott and civil disobediance. I choose the latter.
Well, if I'm only afforded the right to make a copy and not a copy with the full quality technology will allow, I'd say that's an awfuly slippery slope! If that were the case, what would stop the *AAs from restricting copies to some unuseably low quality?
That is from Slyck! Last time I checked those technologies did things like disabling HD output unless you are using HDMI (with support for a no-copy flag). WTF?!? Not only are most HD displays manufactured to this date lacking an HDMI input, but such technology eliminates my FAIR USE RIGHT to make a full quality backup! What kind of a sell-out crappy-ass solution is that?
If you want to make sure I never pirate content here are a few tips:
Once these requirements are met, all my media will be obtained 100% legally because it will just make sense!
I am willing to pay a reasonable amount for convenience, quality, and flexability.
Dear Slashdot, I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. How should I go about it? Thanks, Some Guy
Good lord, How high does the price of a single song have to be before people just go out and buy the CD? I know most people say things like "what if you only like one song on the CD?" but the truth is if I really like one song I usually like (or grow to like) many others on the CD. Personally, even if there were no other alternatives to get music (radio, iTunes, CDs, pirating) I wouldn't be caught dead paying $2.50 for a song. At that point I'd just save some bucks and go to a concert now and then! But... maybe that's just me and maybe there are a ton of music addicts out there that can afford to drop $250 to have a relatively small library of music on their phone.
Why didn't they build an adapter for a normal iPod? Oh yea, the hard drive in a magenetic field thing.
Honestly, I can't personally forsee a lot of uses for this (other than the mousepad idea mentioned which has merrit).
But the obvious answer: The majority of downloaders will be people who want the content without paying for it.
More correctly, people who want the content without paying the price HBO is asking! I'm not saying downloading Rome is right, just that HBO might more effectively spend their money finding a way to make the show available at a price and via a medium that the current pirates would buy. I for one wouldn't ever consider paying for HBO because I would watch it very little for the price. I might, however, consider paying a small fee for the opportunity to download a specific show like Rome.
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
Perhaps...
If I had to drive to the store every time I wanted one slice of free cheese, assuming I ate cheese at all frequently, I would likely plop down the few dollars it would cost to take a bit home with me. I think your argument has inadvertantly proven the exact opposite point you were trying to. If a product (even copy-able content) is made convenient and priced fairly, I will likely buy it rather than pirate it. The benefits of convenience, finding a quality copy of the content in a known location with decent download speed, will quickly out weight monetary cost if the product is priced right.
I converted a 150+ user enviornment from Novel/Groupwise to Win2K3/Exchange and I can tell you that Novel+Groupwise is not any easy system to manage. Win2K3 and Exchange certainly have their quirks and some pain-in-the-ass things here and there but they were much much more friendly to maintain in my opinion. In addition, Windows 2003 provided Group Policy management that made a massive difference in the required setup and maintenance of client boxes.
Is there any open software to allow group policy management with the directory services? In an enviornment where the users are on Windows boxes (which is most enviornments) group policy is an invaluable tool.
You sir, have failed. You just sent it to a blind musician, not a deaf one.
I told them a 'disabled' boolean in the contact database wasn't sufficient! Lazy bastards!
Wow, the magical Linux OS will somehow allow my dated hardware to peform incredible feats by running modern appliations! To a certain extent, OS bloat and complexity will eat up processing power... TO AN EXTENT! To claim decade old hardware will be able to run modern applications is asinine. Newer applications are more powerful, more powerful applications have more processing needs, more processing needs means newer hardware... period!
It really saddens me to see John Carmack nay-saying a bit about physics acceleration in games. Apparently, he conceeded he's a graphics guy and is afraid the bar is going to be set too high with physics but I think that is a huge cop-out. Just because something isn't your area of expertise you're going to spread FUD about how it might make games unstable and about how it might not be used correctly in games and how the first generation of hardware might cause problems? That is just plain weak. In my mind, the time of graphics has long since passed. I could (and would) be perfectly happy with the level of graphic detail acheieved in current games forever. I am much much much more interested in seeing game physics improve. Eye candy is neat but gets old very quickly. Realistic physics beget emergant gameplay. This idea is exemplified by Half-Life 2 which is one of the most interesting, immersive, and replayable games I've ever experienced. And no game is a better example of how boring amazing graphics can be than Doom3! I think John Carmack might want to re-examine his viewpoint and start stepping into the uncharted (for him) water of game physics or I stronly believe he's going to get left behind.
Sounds like Nintendo DS has reinvented Lemmings :)
I'd imagine the original poster meant Component inputs, not Composite inputs. And if so, he is write that he (like myself) would be punished for being early adopters of HDTV technology! By the way, my HDTV is a Toshiba and has no DVI/HDMI. Fuck Toshiba!
Without speed there are not applications to take advantage of it and (up until now) without applications to take advantage of it there haven't been speed upgrades. I will enjoy watching HDTV on my new 100mbps connection. Maybe you can still download streaming quicktime crap at a 50% cost reduction while I'm watching 1080p content with DD7.1 sound for $50/mo.
I couldn't possibly disagree any more! The PPU could easily add as much value to current computer games as the original Vodoo cards did, maybe even more. As it stands now, I could care less about improved graphics in computer games... they're good enough for me. What I will shell out some hard-earned cash for is better physics. If you think physics aren't that important in a computer game then pick up a copy of HL2 and get back to me. Physics allow emergent gameplay, it's just that simple. As for game designers being overworked and not taking advantage of PPUs, that's just BS. Games like HL2 already implement a 3rd party physics system (HAVOC) and you can be damn sure the folks at HAVOC will be clamoring to use the new power afforded to them by PPUs.
Every job or position is just as hard as every other. Say that to yourself over and over, because you're obviously a snob who needs to get over an assinine, overinflated sense of your own importance.
That has to be about the most politically-correct bullshit I've ever read. Sounds like the opinion of a Communication major to me!
What they are doing is down-right vile, but disagreeing with corporate practices doesn't justify theft (obtaining something without proper payment).
Why Not? I say fuck em!