I'm sorry. I was formulating a second reply to one of your previous posts when you sent this one. It seems to apply here also. Read it at your convenience.
Sorry, second reply. Goes to show how unimportant the person is. I was under the impression that I was talking to two different people. I was only looking at the comments themselves. But since I'm here, I may as well say this.
I'm talking about a physical entity that I made.
You make your own paper and CD's? Most people I know either buy those things or have their publisher do it. So fine. Let's say you bought your paper or CD, whatever. You didn't make them. You placed your ideas on them, run off a bunch of copies over at Kinko's. Why would you do that? I hope it's not to sell paper or plastic. I assume that you want people to read what's on the paper. That's what people are going to buy, the info on the paper. Now once I buy a copy, it's MY paper. The info may have come from you, but that's not important to you. You said so yourself. If I write a book, I am not trying to protect or sell the ideas in the book. However, that's what the copyright is protecting. Again, that's not what you seem interested in. So great. I'll put the copies on my paper. It won't cost you a dime. You're looking for control. Copyright law gives that to you, but in fact you gave up that control the moment you expressed your idea. The gov't not withstanding. It's automatic. The EULA of the universe says so. Like all EULA's, you don't have to sign it. You don't even have to see it. You agreed to it when you were born. It supercedes the "social contract" that so many people drone on about. Now if you want to be a human being, rising above the "animal universe", you will see that sharing with everybody is the one true way to spread ideas. So that everybody, including you can benefit. Allowing the sharing and building upon ideas will benefit everyone exponentially(?) more than restrictive IP laws ever could. It appears you don't want that either. You appear to want to be above others, looking down on them with your creative superiority. You want to control what they see and hear. Don't worry. I don't consider that to be bad or anything. It's perfectly natural. The only thing bad about it is that we know we don't have to act this way. If I had more information on the subject, I could probably prove to you that it's not healthy, physically or spiritually(meta physically?) to think that way. That is all...for now...
The only reason most of the/. crowd doesn't like the idea of jail time for copyright infringers... is that maybe the subject of smoking crack and shooting heroin(unless you're talking about Daryl) doesn't come up very often here. Most of us understand that they shouldn't be in jail either, but that's a subject for another thread or another site entirely. Copyright and prohibition both deserve the respect that they are getting now(ei: none).
I think he's trying to convince us that the physical medium is what's important. He refuses to understand that the medium is just the carrier, and that with digital distribution it is hardly necessary to use it as such anymore. I find his arguments pretty bizaare, but that's life in the big city.
I believe that's impossible now. Every idea ever expressed, every word ever uttered, every page ever printed, every song ever sung is under copyright according to some.
Well this is turning into a silly Monty Pythonesque series of contradictions. I realize now that I just wasted my time. Well not really. I could have stopped at any time. It has become clear that you are talking about something else entirely. All that's left to say is: You do your thing , and I'll do mine.
You own your copy, nothing more. You can't own the idea. See my posts in a parallel discussion here. I'll spell it out again for you. If someone else comes up with the same or similar idea, or even if they get it from someone else, they have the same rights as the first guy. The law says otherwise, but since it's a corrupt concept getting more corrupt over time I choose to ignore it. The gov't grants you exclusivity(the subsidy), for being first. That's not good. All the other reasons have already been spelled out. The rules that apply to my work must apply to yours also.
The only people "victimized" by copyright are people that spout obvious nonsense in an effort to disguise their real objective: Get It Free.
A good example of victimization: The DAT recorder. I can get one with digital inputs only if I buy the more expensive(indirect subsidy) "pro" version, not because it costs more. It was to appease the recording industry. I believe the mini disc machine suffers from the same crippling. Taxes on blank media is a more direct subsidy. These laws only exist to protect the industry. That in itself is a form of subsidy. It is similar to the laws Britain passed onto India during their quest for independence that stipulated that they may not make their own salt. It was designed to protect their industry. I do not accept laws that provide special privileges to a few people at the expense of the rest. Other examples?: The DVD player region coding to protect price discrimination. Past examples include that "new" invention, the automobile. Many restrictions were placed on it to protect those involved in the horse and carriage business. Notice that the carriage business survived by building automobile bodies(Body by Fisher?). So, it's up to you to adapt or die. It doesn't matter to me either way. I get paid for the stuff I produce when I produce it, and that's the way I expect it to work for the rest of you. If you can find a way to make your living without denying my right to access to technology or information, then more power to you.
Well, DUH! Obviously you didn't understand what I said.
Write back in twenty years. I'll try to keep my account active. You can bet that all newborns will have implants with the tag saying, "Do not remove. Under penalty of law." By then, I'm sure you will be comvinced that this is a good thing, if you aren't already.
If I write a book, I am not trying to protect or sell the ideas in the book.
Huh? It's what's in the book that gives it value to you or me. Otherwise just sell the blank pages. The ideas are supposed to be where the value is, not the copies. Copies used to have value because they used to require a physical medium and physical effort to distribute. This is no longer true. Copies are now worthless. They can only serve as a representative of your performing talents. If someone pays me to watch a copy(video tape) of me working my job, then I'll go along. As it is, I have to perform live. What makes you so special that you should be able to do something once and get paid for it over and over through sales of a copy of you working? It's the idea that matters. Creating false scarcity with legistration only gives it a false value, and more people are becoming aware of that every day. It appears that some poeple are trying to cash in on the copyright lotto before the train runs out of track. A good example of just how psychotic the situation has become, is that people actually believe that they should pay more for article of clothing simply because it has some corporate logo splashed all over it(a T-shirt with "Corona" or "Nike" on it). That's bullshit! They should pay me to advertise their product. In fact you should pay me also to distribute your CD's(advertisement). It can only help bring in a larger audience for your next performance.
Notions about not owning ideas area usual tactic of people who claim they own what other people make, but they aren't even talking about the issue at hand. It is just a smokescreen.
Nice try. I'm not claiming ownership. I'm telling you that nobody owns it.
Arguments that I can't own an idea are true but irrelevant.
There you go. You just contradicted yourself. However it is the heart of the matter and very relevent. If you can't own an idea, what in the world make you think that you could own a copy? Except your personal copy of course. I'm not trying to take that from you. My copy is mine to do with whatever I wish, and you can do the same with yours. What you can't ever do(without a gun) is to tell me what I can do with mine, and that includes making more copies. An expressed idea has no owner, and no one person has a right to control it in any way. You should understand that wider distribution will make your talents more valuable to more people. More people will come to watch you perform. You wiil make more money, but you shouldn't be able to do it by sitting back and collecting the rent. If you want to do that, buy an apartment building and rent it out.
The companies I could care less about. New, more innovative companies will replace them. As for the musicians, they'll just have to get used to the idea that any CD's they produce are nothing more than advertisement for their next live performance. That's where they should be making their money. If they want to work in a studio, they can hire themselves out for that kind of work. People watching a movie or listening to a soundtrack of me doing my work don't pay me for that. They expect me to perform work live to accomplish a goal. I get paid to perform work. I expect everyone to get paid the same way, for his or her performance. The same goes for all those creative "geniuses" out there. They shouldn't be receiving gov't subsidies any more than a tobacco farmer. That's what IP is. I've said this several times: I'll pay you(editorial you) if and when I go to see you perform, not for your demo. People need to understand that copyright was invented to protect an industry. Some early copyright laws left the creators completely out of the process. So this whole "innovation" spin was put on it to get people to go along. It seems that a whole lot of folks got fished in by that one. With very few exceptions, the distribution business should become extinct. As more people find themselves victimized by copyright law, through crippled tech, lawsuits, etc., they will eventually revolt, and the creators will suffer a backlash, however unjustified, as a result. Too bad actually, because most of them don't deserve that.
I understand you point. There is a problem in that you are liable for what ever your kid does until he's 18. So I kinda can understand some parents paranoia over what their kids are doing. The slippery slope is very steep here. This thing will become mandatory for everybody if enough people accept it. Just like the 55mph speed limit started out as a voluntary measure, becoming mandatory later. This is definitely about your rights, online and offline.
If I bake a cake, that cake is mine. You have no right to eat the cake...
That analogy doesn't apply, and has been proven false. We are(at least I am) not talking about physical property. Obviously this is just turning into a back and forth about your claims. You can't own an expressed idea any more than you can own air. Being first does not automatically grant exclusivity. Just because somebody with a gun says otherwise doesn't make it so. Being first only means you were the first. If I or anyone else were to come up with the same or similar idea later, by god, I'm going to use it. I don't care if you like it or not. Just because something didn't exist before you broght it to light, doesn't mean it will never exist. Somebody else will create it, and possibly do it better than you would, and others will be free to build upon it. It won't sit and rot on the shelf until the IP expires like so many things do today. So until you can prove me wrong with actual logic instead of baseless claims, I will continue to do what must be done to get these atrocious laws off the books, and we can agree to disagree. Mmm K?
If the only benefit you see is money, then by all means keep your creations to your own damn self. The real benefit is the creation. If you can't see the benefit in that, then you shouldn't be creating anything. If file sharing kills the CD/DVD market, great! The damn things won't last longer than 20 years anyway, and the landfills don't need yet more trash. The "rights"(I put quotes around rights because use of that word is a deliberate attempt to whitewash what's really going on.) you claim are not rights. It's a gov't service granted to you in the mistaken belief that you will be proportionally generous to your expected millions of dollars. It's trickle down economics, and it stinks. So please, feel free to take your ball, and go home.
It is only necessary to reduce sales to the point at which it becomes more attractive to engage in another kind of business.
And your point is...? So entertainment ceases to be big business. This is a bad thing... how? Lots of people will fill in the void. To me, lots of little businesses is much better than one big cartel controlling everything we see and hear. The creativity business will change. It certainly won't disappear. And on top of that, many more people that can't break into the business now, will become known.
There's a world of difference between a state controlled propoganda machine and a free press that defaults to partisan bias.
Oh please. If they didn't default to partisan bias, they would be state controlled. Your "freedoms" are an illusion. The U.S. and Europe can afford to more pragmatic as long as everybody pays their taxes. Any attempt at real change will be met with the same force as any dictatorship would apply. "Quit being an apologist." Indeed.
Universal Free Dicshunary Education Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday Decemba' 08, @11:16PM from de dat-is-a-big-scribblin' dept. Man! Zdenek Broz scribbles "De all free dicshunaries project focuses on maintainin' free dicshunaries (now mo'e dan 90 wid mo'e dan 3,300,000 translashuns). We is designin' some new system which gots'ta unite dem all into one universal dicshunary fo' all languages. De universal dicshunary gots'ta be soon available fo' free unda' GPL."
Yeah? So what. Do you actually think that life saving drugs won't be made at all? Screw the drug companies. Somebody will make the drugs. It just won't be in some ridiculously featherbedded lab run by the owner's son in law, receiving bloated gov't grants. We might actually get safe drugs that don't need more drugs to counter the effect of the first drug. We might get actual cures instead of mere (more profitable)treatments. People are dying now as a direct result of patents.
Without patents, company C will never disclose what is in drug D, hence stopping future research down related veins.
Absolutely, positively FALSE! All innovation is brought to a screeching halt for the duration of the patent. See the history of the diesel engine as just one example. The development of the airplane and steam engine also suffered while they were under their respective patents.
Not all monopolies are bad.
This one, along with all the other IP subsidized monopolies, most definitely is bad.
I would like to see a real replication of the movie theater experience. First you need to put up that slide with "Let's go down the lobby" playing in the background(karaoke version available if you prefer), then the trailers, and most importantly, one or two cartoons(preferably old WB or MGM ones, nothing newer than 1950), before the main feature. And to complete the process, have the machine spill popcorn and soda pop on the floor in front of your seat. All skipable of course. Anytime I made a dupe of one of my old 12 inch video disks onto tape, I would place a cartoon before the movie. Too bad the theaters don't do that any more. Personaly, I don't like DVD's. They are so damn unreliable. The few drop outs you might see on tape are so much less annoying than watching the whole picture freeze and break up. Even the occasional tracking problems are easier to put up with. The compression artifacts are absolutely horrendous. Only using the RF(antenna) input would make the picture sufficiently blurry to avoid noticing it. It looks like cheap PC graphics(I say PC because the Mac graphics have always been superb since the beginning) from the early 90's. Apparently the convenience factor outweighs all other concerns. I'll be very interested in seeing if anyone will be able to watch a 15 year old DVD(especially a recordable one) on a 10 year old player like I can with my tapes on an old RCA top loader. The bright side of blue ray is that maybe we'll get to see double features again.
Such a misguided move can only have negative effects upon the DVD industry.
Let's hope so. It could also have a very positive effect upon the general public if copyright laws are stricken off the books. That won't happen until somebody does a format c(ongress):, and installs open source.
Keep these lawsuits coming! I mean it. We'll be back to using stone tablets in no time, and only authorized rocksmiths will be allowed to distribute them to gov't approved customers only. Plus you will be required to register your hammer and chisel with your local publisher. Purchasing any of these tools of mass infringement(TMI's) will require a thrity day cooling off period. Anything that helps the general population understand the folly(tragedy really) of copyright can only help get this kind of corruption off the books, and maybe, if enough people wake up to what's happening, they actually vote some reasonable people into office. Yeah, riiiight! (Insert diety here) help us all.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a private individual person and a publicly owned company that for many good reasons should be open to public scrutiny at any time. Neither do the moderators apparently(or you broke into the moderator database). And, as already mentioned several times, the fact that other than the tax returns, those things that you mention are on public record.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. I was formulating a second reply to one of your previous posts when you sent this one. It seems to apply here also. Read it at your convenience.
Sorry, second reply. Goes to show how unimportant the person is. I was under the impression that I was talking to two different people. I was only looking at the comments themselves. But since I'm here, I may as well say this.
I'm talking about a physical entity that I made.
You make your own paper and CD's? Most people I know either buy those things or have their publisher do it. So fine. Let's say you bought your paper or CD, whatever. You didn't make them. You placed your ideas on them, run off a bunch of copies over at Kinko's. Why would you do that? I hope it's not to sell paper or plastic. I assume that you want people to read what's on the paper. That's what people are going to buy, the info on the paper. Now once I buy a copy, it's MY paper. The info may have come from you, but that's not important to you. You said so yourself. If I write a book, I am not trying to protect or sell the ideas in the book. However, that's what the copyright is protecting. Again, that's not what you seem interested in. So great. I'll put the copies on my paper. It won't cost you a dime. You're looking for control. Copyright law gives that to you, but in fact you gave up that control the moment you expressed your idea. The gov't not withstanding. It's automatic. The EULA of the universe says so. Like all EULA's, you don't have to sign it. You don't even have to see it. You agreed to it when you were born. It supercedes the "social contract" that so many people drone on about. Now if you want to be a human being, rising above the "animal universe", you will see that sharing with everybody is the one true way to spread ideas. So that everybody, including you can benefit. Allowing the sharing and building upon ideas will benefit everyone exponentially(?) more than restrictive IP laws ever could. It appears you don't want that either. You appear to want to be above others, looking down on them with your creative superiority. You want to control what they see and hear. Don't worry. I don't consider that to be bad or anything. It's perfectly natural. The only thing bad about it is that we know we don't have to act this way. If I had more information on the subject, I could probably prove to you that it's not healthy, physically or spiritually(meta physically?) to think that way. That is all...for now...
The only reason most of the /. crowd doesn't like the idea of jail time for copyright infringers... is that maybe the subject of smoking crack and shooting heroin(unless you're talking about Daryl) doesn't come up very often here. Most of us understand that they shouldn't be in jail either, but that's a subject for another thread or another site entirely. Copyright and prohibition both deserve the respect that they are getting now(ei: none).
I think he's trying to convince us that the physical medium is what's important. He refuses to understand that the medium is just the carrier, and that with digital distribution it is hardly necessary to use it as such anymore. I find his arguments pretty bizaare, but that's life in the big city.
I believe that's impossible now. Every idea ever expressed, every word ever uttered, every page ever printed, every song ever sung is under copyright according to some.
--
All you need is love
daaa da da da daaaa...
Well this is turning into a silly Monty Pythonesque series of contradictions. I realize now that I just wasted my time. Well not really. I could have stopped at any time. It has become clear that you are talking about something else entirely. All that's left to say is: You do your thing , and I'll do mine.
You own your copy, nothing more. You can't own the idea. See my posts in a parallel discussion here. I'll spell it out again for you. If someone else comes up with the same or similar idea, or even if they get it from someone else, they have the same rights as the first guy. The law says otherwise, but since it's a corrupt concept getting more corrupt over time I choose to ignore it. The gov't grants you exclusivity(the subsidy), for being first. That's not good. All the other reasons have already been spelled out. The rules that apply to my work must apply to yours also.
The only people "victimized" by copyright are people that spout obvious nonsense in an effort to disguise their real objective: Get It Free.
A good example of victimization: The DAT recorder. I can get one with digital inputs only if I buy the more expensive(indirect subsidy) "pro" version, not because it costs more. It was to appease the recording industry. I believe the mini disc machine suffers from the same crippling. Taxes on blank media is a more direct subsidy. These laws only exist to protect the industry. That in itself is a form of subsidy. It is similar to the laws Britain passed onto India during their quest for independence that stipulated that they may not make their own salt. It was designed to protect their industry. I do not accept laws that provide special privileges to a few people at the expense of the rest. Other examples?: The DVD player region coding to protect price discrimination. Past examples include that "new" invention, the automobile. Many restrictions were placed on it to protect those involved in the horse and carriage business. Notice that the carriage business survived by building automobile bodies(Body by Fisher?). So, it's up to you to adapt or die. It doesn't matter to me either way. I get paid for the stuff I produce when I produce it, and that's the way I expect it to work for the rest of you. If you can find a way to make your living without denying my right to access to technology or information, then more power to you.
Speed limits have been ever present.
Well, DUH! Obviously you didn't understand what I said.
Write back in twenty years. I'll try to keep my account active. You can bet that all newborns will have implants with the tag saying, "Do not remove. Under penalty of law." By then, I'm sure you will be comvinced that this is a good thing, if you aren't already.
If I write a book, I am not trying to protect or sell the ideas in the book.
Huh? It's what's in the book that gives it value to you or me. Otherwise just sell the blank pages. The ideas are supposed to be where the value is, not the copies. Copies used to have value because they used to require a physical medium and physical effort to distribute. This is no longer true. Copies are now worthless. They can only serve as a representative of your performing talents. If someone pays me to watch a copy(video tape) of me working my job, then I'll go along. As it is, I have to perform live. What makes you so special that you should be able to do something once and get paid for it over and over through sales of a copy of you working? It's the idea that matters. Creating false scarcity with legistration only gives it a false value, and more people are becoming aware of that every day. It appears that some poeple are trying to cash in on the copyright lotto before the train runs out of track. A good example of just how psychotic the situation has become, is that people actually believe that they should pay more for article of clothing simply because it has some corporate logo splashed all over it(a T-shirt with "Corona" or "Nike" on it). That's bullshit! They should pay me to advertise their product. In fact you should pay me also to distribute your CD's(advertisement). It can only help bring in a larger audience for your next performance.
Notions about not owning ideas area usual tactic of people who claim they own what other people make, but they aren't even talking about the issue at hand. It is just a smokescreen.
Nice try. I'm not claiming ownership. I'm telling you that nobody owns it.
Arguments that I can't own an idea are true but irrelevant.
There you go. You just contradicted yourself. However it is the heart of the matter and very relevent. If you can't own an idea, what in the world make you think that you could own a copy? Except your personal copy of course. I'm not trying to take that from you. My copy is mine to do with whatever I wish, and you can do the same with yours. What you can't ever do(without a gun) is to tell me what I can do with mine, and that includes making more copies. An expressed idea has no owner, and no one person has a right to control it in any way. You should understand that wider distribution will make your talents more valuable to more people. More people will come to watch you perform. You wiil make more money, but you shouldn't be able to do it by sitting back and collecting the rent. If you want to do that, buy an apartment building and rent it out.
The companies I could care less about. New, more innovative companies will replace them. As for the musicians, they'll just have to get used to the idea that any CD's they produce are nothing more than advertisement for their next live performance. That's where they should be making their money. If they want to work in a studio, they can hire themselves out for that kind of work. People watching a movie or listening to a soundtrack of me doing my work don't pay me for that. They expect me to perform work live to accomplish a goal. I get paid to perform work. I expect everyone to get paid the same way, for his or her performance. The same goes for all those creative "geniuses" out there. They shouldn't be receiving gov't subsidies any more than a tobacco farmer. That's what IP is. I've said this several times: I'll pay you(editorial you) if and when I go to see you perform, not for your demo. People need to understand that copyright was invented to protect an industry. Some early copyright laws left the creators completely out of the process. So this whole "innovation" spin was put on it to get people to go along. It seems that a whole lot of folks got fished in by that one. With very few exceptions, the distribution business should become extinct. As more people find themselves victimized by copyright law, through crippled tech, lawsuits, etc., they will eventually revolt, and the creators will suffer a backlash, however unjustified, as a result. Too bad actually, because most of them don't deserve that.
I understand you point. There is a problem in that you are liable for what ever your kid does until he's 18. So I kinda can understand some parents paranoia over what their kids are doing. The slippery slope is very steep here. This thing will become mandatory for everybody if enough people accept it. Just like the 55mph speed limit started out as a voluntary measure, becoming mandatory later. This is definitely about your rights, online and offline.
If I bake a cake, that cake is mine. You have no right to eat the cake...
That analogy doesn't apply, and has been proven false. We are(at least I am) not talking about physical property. Obviously this is just turning into a back and forth about your claims. You can't own an expressed idea any more than you can own air. Being first does not automatically grant exclusivity. Just because somebody with a gun says otherwise doesn't make it so. Being first only means you were the first. If I or anyone else were to come up with the same or similar idea later, by god, I'm going to use it. I don't care if you like it or not. Just because something didn't exist before you broght it to light, doesn't mean it will never exist. Somebody else will create it, and possibly do it better than you would, and others will be free to build upon it. It won't sit and rot on the shelf until the IP expires like so many things do today. So until you can prove me wrong with actual logic instead of baseless claims, I will continue to do what must be done to get these atrocious laws off the books, and we can agree to disagree. Mmm K?
I don't understand why not. I believe there will be more music to share than ever before, and it will come from many more places.
If the only benefit you see is money, then by all means keep your creations to your own damn self. The real benefit is the creation. If you can't see the benefit in that, then you shouldn't be creating anything. If file sharing kills the CD/DVD market, great! The damn things won't last longer than 20 years anyway, and the landfills don't need yet more trash. The "rights"(I put quotes around rights because use of that word is a deliberate attempt to whitewash what's really going on.) you claim are not rights. It's a gov't service granted to you in the mistaken belief that you will be proportionally generous to your expected millions of dollars. It's trickle down economics, and it stinks. So please, feel free to take your ball, and go home.
It is only necessary to reduce sales to the point at which it becomes more attractive to engage in another kind of business.
And your point is...? So entertainment ceases to be big business. This is a bad thing... how? Lots of people will fill in the void. To me, lots of little businesses is much better than one big cartel controlling everything we see and hear. The creativity business will change. It certainly won't disappear. And on top of that, many more people that can't break into the business now, will become known.
One they day will get a clue and start hunting down the users instead.
"I had to invent a new animal to hunt,...".
There's a world of difference between a state controlled propoganda machine and a free press that defaults to partisan bias.
Oh please. If they didn't default to partisan bias, they would be state controlled. Your "freedoms" are an illusion. The U.S. and Europe can afford to more pragmatic as long as everybody pays their taxes. Any attempt at real change will be met with the same force as any dictatorship would apply. "Quit being an apologist." Indeed.
You can always start here.
Universal Free Dicshunary
Education
Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday Decemba' 08, @11:16PM
from de dat-is-a-big-scribblin' dept. Man!
Zdenek Broz scribbles "De all free dicshunaries project focuses on maintainin' free dicshunaries (now mo'e dan 90 wid mo'e dan 3,300,000 translashuns). We is designin' some new system which gots'ta unite dem all into one universal dicshunary fo' all languages. De universal dicshunary gots'ta be soon available fo' free unda' GPL."
( Read Mo'e... | 255 uh 357 comments )
Future drug companies will do no research.
Yeah? So what. Do you actually think that life saving drugs won't be made at all? Screw the drug companies. Somebody will make the drugs. It just won't be in some ridiculously featherbedded lab run by the owner's son in law, receiving bloated gov't grants. We might actually get safe drugs that don't need more drugs to counter the effect of the first drug. We might get actual cures instead of mere (more profitable)treatments. People are dying now as a direct result of patents.
Without patents, company C will never disclose what is in drug D, hence stopping future research down related veins.
Absolutely, positively FALSE! All innovation is brought to a screeching halt for the duration of the patent. See the history of the diesel engine as just one example. The development of the airplane and steam engine also suffered while they were under their respective patents.
Not all monopolies are bad.
This one, along with all the other IP subsidized monopolies, most definitely is bad.
It's all over the place, old timer :-) In fact, you're soaking in it right now.
I would like to see a real replication of the movie theater experience. First you need to put up that slide with "Let's go down the lobby" playing in the background(karaoke version available if you prefer), then the trailers, and most importantly, one or two cartoons(preferably old WB or MGM ones, nothing newer than 1950), before the main feature. And to complete the process, have the machine spill popcorn and soda pop on the floor in front of your seat. All skipable of course. Anytime I made a dupe of one of my old 12 inch video disks onto tape, I would place a cartoon before the movie. Too bad the theaters don't do that any more. Personaly, I don't like DVD's. They are so damn unreliable. The few drop outs you might see on tape are so much less annoying than watching the whole picture freeze and break up. Even the occasional tracking problems are easier to put up with. The compression artifacts are absolutely horrendous. Only using the RF(antenna) input would make the picture sufficiently blurry to avoid noticing it. It looks like cheap PC graphics(I say PC because the Mac graphics have always been superb since the beginning) from the early 90's. Apparently the convenience factor outweighs all other concerns. I'll be very interested in seeing if anyone will be able to watch a 15 year old DVD(especially a recordable one) on a 10 year old player like I can with my tapes on an old RCA top loader. The bright side of blue ray is that maybe we'll get to see double features again.
Such a misguided move can only have negative effects upon the DVD industry.
Let's hope so. It could also have a very positive effect upon the general public if copyright laws are stricken off the books. That won't happen until somebody does a format c(ongress):, and installs open source.
Keep these lawsuits coming! I mean it. We'll be back to using stone tablets in no time, and only authorized rocksmiths will be allowed to distribute them to gov't approved customers only. Plus you will be required to register your hammer and chisel with your local publisher. Purchasing any of these tools of mass infringement(TMI's) will require a thrity day cooling off period. Anything that helps the general population understand the folly(tragedy really) of copyright can only help get this kind of corruption off the books, and maybe, if enough people wake up to what's happening, they actually vote some reasonable people into office. Yeah, riiiight! (Insert diety here) help us all.
antennas, it will be like carrying a porcupine in your pocket.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a private individual person and a publicly owned company that for many good reasons should be open to public scrutiny at any time. Neither do the moderators apparently(or you broke into the moderator database). And, as already mentioned several times, the fact that other than the tax returns, those things that you mention are on public record.