Movies involve actors, directors, writers, artists, set builders, cinematographers, musicians, etc, etc.
So do plays but they aren't all that expensive. Actually movies should be cheaper, they can be filmed once then played over and over. But plays on stage have to be performed every tyme they're shown. To show a movie just copy the media or download it then display on a projector. The stage, projector, and other things can be used for other movies. A play though, the stage has to be erected at each location with either the props transported between locations or made at each location.
But even a low-budget movie like Moon cost $5 million.
That's low budget? Then the Blair Witch Project had no budget. It cost "$22,000 to make and made back $240.5 million, a ratio of $1 spent for every $10,931 made."
So what DOES someone do who has bankrolled their digital creation and would like to recoup their investment
The same thing people in open source do. That is there are a number of things where money is made. Though Linux is a free download, many people actually buy it.
No matter how good you think you can read minds, you're wrong, I was not talking about the cable channel Fox New, Fox also owns TV and radio broadcasting stations.
Are you serious? How do you prevent the various companies from simply using the same frequencies, thus making it unusable for anybody?
I'm all for way fewer government granted monopolies (even cable companies, which of course could require multiple cable runs for competing companies, just like the telephone system originally), but for things that
use the limited bandwidth of the air, there needs to be some regulation.
Are you serious? How do you prevent the various companies from simply using the same frequencies, thus making it unusable for anybody?
I am absolutely serious. Before the airwaves were ever licensed US courts were upholding homesteading of the airwaves. In any given area people were allowed to broadcast on frequencies that others were not also broadcasting on. If one person broadcast on one frequency and someone else came along and started to interfere with the signal the first broadcaster was able to take the person interfering to court to stop them from also using that frequency. This did not fit in with the plans of large businesses who wanted to restrict their competition so they eventually convinced the government to require broadcasting licenses. In 1927 the Radio Act of 1927 became law and was what created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) which was the predecessor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FRC was given the power by congress to license broadcasters.
for things that use the limited bandwidth of the air, there needs to be some regulation.
Scarcity of the airwaves? HAHA! There is not scarcity though the mass media wants you to believe that. They can't have much competition, if they did then they wouldn't be that profitable, or able to drawn out other voices and views. The "right" complains the left and "liberals" drown their voices and the left complains Fox drowns their voices. Me, I might want to start a radio show about model railroads and trains, and if I can get some hobby shops in my area to sponsor it I may even operate it as a talk show and let listeners call in. Of course as it is now I can't do it broadcasting over the airwaves, though I might over the web.
I've never understood the use of this phrase. For me "porn" only applies if there's sex (either with a partner or self).
So you get to define "porn"? At least one dictionary defines porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". That was from Macmillan, Macmillan also defines soft porn, as "movies, magazines, photographs, etc. that show sexual images but not sexual acts".
The fact is that the real downfall of the porn industry isn't illegal file sharers
According to porn producers pirates do hurt the industry. Of course offline producers had to change their business model and now online producers are changing theirs. One such change is the delivery of live movies. Coupled with these live movies some producers allow viewers to post requests. Just as early tech adopters are willing to pay extra for new toys, there are some who are willing to pay to be among the first to watch movies.
thephotographer4you.com agrees with you though. In the article Free Porn for Your Pleasure they write about how the profitability of the industry is under assault.
This could lead to a replay of Microsoft's dirty old past
How so with Apple, EMC, and Oracle being part of CPTN Holdings LLC? Also Groklaw has the article About Those 882 Novell Patents: This is Where OIN Comes In - Updated saying those patents were licensed to Open Invention Network (OIN) in perpetuity by Novell. Anyone who joins OIN by the proposed 23 January 2011 closing date of the sell can use those patents.
The new ATT is actually Southwestern Bell or SBC Communications [wikipedia.org]? They basically made several power plays over the last decade and slowly but surely swallowed up all the other bells and eventually the original ATT.
Except they, SBC, didn't "swallow up" all the other baby bells. Bell Atlantic was one the those baby bells but it merged with GTE which never was part of ATT, and the combined company changed it's name to Verizon. Another of the Baby Bells was NYNEX which was acquired by Bell Atlantic, mentioned above. Still a third Baby Bell was US West which was acquired by Qwest. And like GTE Qwest was never part of ATT.
Costco also manufactures a lot of the stuff it sells. Everything that is "Kirkland Select" brand is made by them.
Does Costco make stuff itself, or does it contract with others to make the stuff? I bet Costco does not own one factory. Sam's has other companies make it's Member's Mark products, for instance Wrangler makes Member Mark jeans and Duracell makes their batteries. In reply to the question Who makes the kirkland signature private label? Answers.com says "There is no one company. Several companies ranging from Starbucks to Diamond pet food make products that are sold under the Kirkland Signature brand."
Seems Jefferson was just as much a hypocrite as today's politicians. How can one possibly think that the phrase "consistent opponent of slavery" can be synonymous with "slave owner"?
That's the way it seems, because as you say Jefferson was a slave owner. However he never bought or sold slaves, the slaves he owned he inherited from his father and his father-in-law. Thomas Jefferson did free some slaves though. He wanted to free them all but was perpetually in financial difficulties and he didn't think he was in a position to free all of his slaves. Thinking about it now I think he underestimated the cost of freeing slaves and overestimated the costs of paying workers a living wage. According to some economic studies I've read or read about many economists believed slavery would have ended without fighting the Civil War because slavery was uneconomical, it cost more to own slaves than pay willing workers a living wage.
One strike against Jefferson though is that he thought Blacks were inferior to whites.
Since the only thing protected by copyright here is the little picture on the watch, the 9th's opinion seems to be that art cannot be resold in a country that it was not originally intended for. That's ludicrous.
No, what's ludicrous is that those watches are sold in the US but that Costco was selling them for less than Omega wanted them sold for. Costco like Sam's counts on selling at low prices in volumn and for whatever reason Omega doesn't like that. Perhaps it's an elitist mentality? Whether it is or not they're not maximizing profits.
Name ONE THING in a Wal-Mart that's still made in America these days.
What are you smoking? Thinking I said anything about where Walmart buy from? As a matter of fact, Walmart does the same as Costco, it imports stuff to sell in the US.
Polygamy has never been legal in any state that I know of. What you are thinking of is not polygamy it is polygyny. In polygamy both males and females can have more than one spouse, what Mormons used to practice, some of it's off-shoots still do, and Muslims practice is polygyny, a man can have more than one wife but a female can only have one husband. And the reverse of that, where women can have more than one spouse is polyandry.
Even using a liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, most federal laws in place today are probably not Constitutionally sound without the Filburn decision.
Using a liberal interpretation of the Constitution most of what the government does would be unconstitutional. As Thomas Jefferson said "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
What article and section permitted slavery? No matter how many tymes I read and search it I do not find a single reference to "slave" in it. The only way people can get away with saying the constitution permitted it is equating blacks with property. However some Founding Fathers did no such thing.
At the time it was written, blacks were not considered part of "We the People".
They were wrong. That doesn’t mean the Constitution was wrong or needed to be changed, only that their interpretation of it was wrong and needed to be changed.
Some of the Founding Fathers were wrong, though not all, and the Constitution was written the way it was because they wanted it that way. Thomas Jefferson wrote the "Declaration of Independence" and in early drafts he wrote how everybody enjoyed the same rights, including Blacks and women. However some of those who signed the declaration said that they had to be removed otherwise they would not sign it. But as his estate Monticello says:
"Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life.[1] He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an 'abominable crime,' 'a moral depravity,' a 'hideous blot,' and a 'fatal stain' that deformed 'what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts.'"
You're showing your ignorance. First, the watches are not "used" Neither Costco nor the business Costco bought them from never even opened the packing. And two, no sells mean no money coming in. People shop at Costco, and Sam's Club, because of the cheaper prices they offer. I know, I used to shop at Costco and still shop at Sam's. I was just at Sam's yesterday shopping, and the only reason I shop there is because of the lower prices there. Hell, the fact is is I am on disability and get food stamps so I have to watch my spending, and I'm glad Sam's accepts the food stamps.
Another thing you've overlooked, or are ignoring, is that it was Costco that was sued not someone else. Of course all that matters to such people is large megacorporations and their political lackeys. If a business is one it is evil.
What this would really harm is eBay/craigslist/etc. aka the markets for used goods.
Now you're contradicting yourself. You say Costco is selling used goods but that this will not harm Costco.
Perhaps you didn't think it through, that you replied on impulse, and if so I hope you actually think it through first next tyme.
If this is the worst one you've ever heard of, then you're not very familiar with the history of the court. Look up a few of their previous failures, like Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo v. New Haven, and Gonzales v. Raich.
I agree about Kelo v. New Haven and Gonzales v. Raich but I don't know or recall Wickard v. Filburn. Let me check it out... Okay, yes that was a bad decision too. A farmer couldn't grow his own wheat to feed his chicken? Line up those injustices and shoot them.
Slashdot Mirror
Movie making does not have to be expensive.
Movies involve actors, directors, writers, artists, set builders, cinematographers, musicians, etc, etc.
So do plays but they aren't all that expensive. Actually movies should be cheaper, they can be filmed once then played over and over. But plays on stage have to be performed every tyme they're shown. To show a movie just copy the media or download it then display on a projector. The stage, projector, and other things can be used for other movies. A play though, the stage has to be erected at each location with either the props transported between locations or made at each location.
But even a low-budget movie like Moon cost $5 million.
That's low budget? Then the Blair Witch Project had no budget. It cost "$22,000 to make and made back $240.5 million, a ratio of $1 spent for every $10,931 made."
Falcon
So what DOES someone do who has bankrolled their digital creation and would like to recoup their investment
The same thing people in open source do. That is there are a number of things where money is made. Though Linux is a free download, many people actually buy it.
Falcon
You're referring to Fox News, a CABLE channel.
No matter how good you think you can read minds, you're wrong, I was not talking about the cable channel Fox New, Fox also owns TV and radio broadcasting stations.
Falcon
Are you serious? How do you prevent the various companies from simply using the same frequencies, thus making it unusable for anybody?
I'm all for way fewer government granted monopolies (even cable companies, which of course could require multiple cable runs for competing companies, just like the telephone system originally), but for things that use the limited bandwidth of the air, there needs to be some regulation.
Are you serious? How do you prevent the various companies from simply using the same frequencies, thus making it unusable for anybody?
I am absolutely serious. Before the airwaves were ever licensed US courts were upholding homesteading of the airwaves. In any given area people were allowed to broadcast on frequencies that others were not also broadcasting on. If one person broadcast on one frequency and someone else came along and started to interfere with the signal the first broadcaster was able to take the person interfering to court to stop them from also using that frequency. This did not fit in with the plans of large businesses who wanted to restrict their competition so they eventually convinced the government to require broadcasting licenses. In 1927 the Radio Act of 1927 became law and was what created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) which was the predecessor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FRC was given the power by congress to license broadcasters.
for things that use the limited bandwidth of the air, there needs to be some regulation.
Scarcity of the airwaves? HAHA! There is not scarcity though the mass media wants you to believe that. They can't have much competition, if they did then they wouldn't be that profitable, or able to drawn out other voices and views. The "right" complains the left and "liberals" drown their voices and the left complains Fox drowns their voices. Me, I might want to start a radio show about model railroads and trains, and if I can get some hobby shops in my area to sponsor it I may even operate it as a talk show and let listeners call in. Of course as it is now I can't do it broadcasting over the airwaves, though I might over the web.
Falcon
Please don't ever use the phrase "Mom and pop porn films" again.
Why? That is a category of porn, along with incest, twins, and others.
Falcon
I've never understood the use of this phrase. For me "porn" only applies if there's sex (either with a partner or self).
So you get to define "porn"? At least one dictionary defines porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". That was from Macmillan, Macmillan also defines soft porn, as "movies, magazines, photographs, etc. that show sexual images but not sexual acts".
Falcon
someone who isn't exceptionally tall with a D cup
Dolly Parton. I love her singing but think she'd gone too far with breast implants especially as she's barely 5 foot tall.
Falcon
The fact is that the real downfall of the porn industry isn't illegal file sharers
According to porn producers pirates do hurt the industry. Of course offline producers had to change their business model and now online producers are changing theirs. One such change is the delivery of live movies. Coupled with these live movies some producers allow viewers to post requests. Just as early tech adopters are willing to pay extra for new toys, there are some who are willing to pay to be among the first to watch movies.
thephotographer4you.com agrees with you though. In the article Free Porn for Your Pleasure they write about how the profitability of the industry is under assault.
Falcon
This could lead to a replay of Microsoft's dirty old past
How so with Apple, EMC, and Oracle being part of CPTN Holdings LLC? Also Groklaw has the article About Those 882 Novell Patents: This is Where OIN Comes In - Updated saying those patents were licensed to Open Invention Network (OIN) in perpetuity by Novell. Anyone who joins OIN by the proposed 23 January 2011 closing date of the sell can use those patents.
Falcon
if you want to make a new cell phone, license the patents from GSM, Wifi Alliance and whoever else and add on your own tech.
That still shuts out the little guy or gal working in the garage. How many have the millions of dollars to buy licenses?
Falcon
Is there really so much competition now that the FCC should have allowed these mergers?
I don't mind these companies were allowed to merge with one another, what I don't like is that they are still government granted monopolies.
Free the Airwaves!
Falcon
The new ATT is actually Southwestern Bell or SBC Communications [wikipedia.org]? They basically made several power plays over the last decade and slowly but surely swallowed up all the other bells and eventually the original ATT.
Except they, SBC, didn't "swallow up" all the other baby bells. Bell Atlantic was one the those baby bells but it merged with GTE which never was part of ATT, and the combined company changed it's name to Verizon. Another of the Baby Bells was NYNEX which was acquired by Bell Atlantic, mentioned above. Still a third Baby Bell was US West which was acquired by Qwest. And like GTE Qwest was never part of ATT.
Falcon
Costco also manufactures a lot of the stuff it sells. Everything that is "Kirkland Select" brand is made by them.
Does Costco make stuff itself, or does it contract with others to make the stuff? I bet Costco does not own one factory. Sam's has other companies make it's Member's Mark products, for instance Wrangler makes Member Mark jeans and Duracell makes their batteries. In reply to the question Who makes the kirkland signature private label? Answers.com says "There is no one company. Several companies ranging from Starbucks to Diamond pet food make products that are sold under the Kirkland Signature brand."
Falcon
Seems Jefferson was just as much a hypocrite as today's politicians. How can one possibly think that the phrase "consistent opponent of slavery" can be synonymous with "slave owner"?
That's the way it seems, because as you say Jefferson was a slave owner. However he never bought or sold slaves, the slaves he owned he inherited from his father and his father-in-law. Thomas Jefferson did free some slaves though. He wanted to free them all but was perpetually in financial difficulties and he didn't think he was in a position to free all of his slaves. Thinking about it now I think he underestimated the cost of freeing slaves and overestimated the costs of paying workers a living wage. According to some economic studies I've read or read about many economists believed slavery would have ended without fighting the Civil War because slavery was uneconomical, it cost more to own slaves than pay willing workers a living wage.
One strike against Jefferson though is that he thought Blacks were inferior to whites.
Falcon
Since the only thing protected by copyright here is the little picture on the watch, the 9th's opinion seems to be that art cannot be resold in a country that it was not originally intended for. That's ludicrous.
No, what's ludicrous is that those watches are sold in the US but that Costco was selling them for less than Omega wanted them sold for. Costco like Sam's counts on selling at low prices in volumn and for whatever reason Omega doesn't like that. Perhaps it's an elitist mentality? Whether it is or not they're not maximizing profits.
Falcon
Name ONE THING in a Wal-Mart that's still made in America these days.
What are you smoking? Thinking I said anything about where Walmart buy from? As a matter of fact, Walmart does the same as Costco, it imports stuff to sell in the US.
Falcon
Polygamy has never been legal in any state that I know of. What you are thinking of is not polygamy it is polygyny. In polygamy both males and females can have more than one spouse, what Mormons used to practice, some of it's off-shoots still do, and Muslims practice is polygyny, a man can have more than one wife but a female can only have one husband. And the reverse of that, where women can have more than one spouse is polyandry.
Falcon
Even using a liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, most federal laws in place today are probably not Constitutionally sound without the Filburn decision.
Using a liberal interpretation of the Constitution most of what the government does would be unconstitutional. As Thomas Jefferson said "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
Falcon
What article and section permitted slavery? No matter how many tymes I read and search it I do not find a single reference to "slave" in it. The only way people can get away with saying the constitution permitted it is equating blacks with property. However some Founding Fathers did no such thing.
Falcon
At the time it was written, blacks were not considered part of "We the People".
They were wrong. That doesn’t mean the Constitution was wrong or needed to be changed, only that their interpretation of it was wrong and needed to be changed.
Some of the Founding Fathers were wrong, though not all, and the Constitution was written the way it was because they wanted it that way. Thomas Jefferson wrote the "Declaration of Independence" and in early drafts he wrote how everybody enjoyed the same rights, including Blacks and women. However some of those who signed the declaration said that they had to be removed otherwise they would not sign it. But as his estate Monticello says:
"Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life.[1] He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an 'abominable crime,' 'a moral depravity,' a 'hideous blot,' and a 'fatal stain' that deformed 'what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts.'"
Falcon
harm their trade in used goods?
You're showing your ignorance. First, the watches are not "used" Neither Costco nor the business Costco bought them from never even opened the packing. And two, no sells mean no money coming in. People shop at Costco, and Sam's Club, because of the cheaper prices they offer. I know, I used to shop at Costco and still shop at Sam's. I was just at Sam's yesterday shopping, and the only reason I shop there is because of the lower prices there. Hell, the fact is is I am on disability and get food stamps so I have to watch my spending, and I'm glad Sam's accepts the food stamps.
Another thing you've overlooked, or are ignoring, is that it was Costco that was sued not someone else. Of course all that matters to such people is large megacorporations and their political lackeys. If a business is one it is evil.
What this would really harm is eBay/craigslist/etc. aka the markets for used goods.
Now you're contradicting yourself. You say Costco is selling used goods but that this will not harm Costco.
Perhaps you didn't think it through, that you replied on impulse, and if so I hope you actually think it through first next tyme.
Falcon
nearly equivalent to his allotment, for personal use.
Chicken feed. There is no law, nor any basis in the Constitution to set a limit on farming chickens.
Falcon
If this is the worst one you've ever heard of, then you're not very familiar with the history of the court. Look up a few of their previous failures, like Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo v. New Haven, and Gonzales v. Raich.
I agree about Kelo v. New Haven and Gonzales v. Raich but I don't know or recall Wickard v. Filburn. Let me check it out... Okay, yes that was a bad decision too. A farmer couldn't grow his own wheat to feed his chicken? Line up those injustices and shoot them.
Falcon
This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.
And these watches weren't legally imported? I bet they were, Omega does not claim the watches are counterfeits.
Falcon
This is the kind of crap that congress ought to overturn in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, the Republcrats and Demicans are so much both in the pocket of giant megacorporations that it's never going to happen.
And Costco isn't a giant megacorporation? Walmart, who won't like this ruling either, isn't a large megacorporations either?
Falcon