To me, what is even more striking than the change in computer technology is the change in marketing! Everytime I see an early 80s advertisement, I just want to laugh at the naivete. Is this presentism, or have modern ads really become that much more compelling?
Yes, modern ads are more compelling. This comes from before the days of desktop publishing, remember-- it's easy to forget (especially if you weren't there) how easy Quark and Illustrator have made it for even the smallest company to produce professional looking ads.
Browse textfiles.com, lots of old BBS #'s there, including a few I remember fondly. I don't know what the point of calling would be, unless you want to ask the parents of an ex-C64 warez trader whatever happened to "NinjaPhreak."
I wonder how much the rights to Fallout are. It's a crime they dropped plans for a #3. It's a bigger crime noone's seen the potential for a Fallout movie...
I've played many games that have had good stories. Good, but not great. Fallout 2 comes to mind, Metal Gear of course, Tom Clancy's games, etc.
There's definitely a long way to go with most games, though. We give games a lot more credit, because gameplay is more important than the actual story. Dialogue and plotlines in the best games still tend to be overblown and cartoonish. Lines of dialogue that would be absolute groaners in a movie, characters that are basically stereotypes with no genuine, or with at best forced development. Maybe it's just the nature of the beast because, like B-movies and syndicated action shows, games are meant for the world market and have to be easily translated into dozens of languages, but I still think there's a lot of room to grow. Games are such an immersive medium, and since the interactivity allows for multiple paths and story arcs, that if games realize their potential in telling a story with characters you really, truly care about, who go through fully realized arcs that are determined by the lead character's actions, and if the dialogue could be made to sound natural rather than emulating genre movies... That would revolutionize entertainment as we know it.
I guess we'll get there in due time, it took the cinema a while to make a truly great film. One way to get there though may be if the game industry would hire more authors and screenwriters to script the games, or to at least assist designers who may be more concerned with the actual programming and gameplay.
The legality of downloading aside, if you are "infringing on copyright" you are indeed breaking the law -- copyright law, in this case. Copyright infringement has both civil and criminal flavors.
Right, but you're nit-picking. My point was that these aren't criminal suits, and the, ahem, "sharers" aren't being prosecuted by an arm of law enforcement. Not that they potentially couldn't be, but paying the RIAA to go away isn't the same as a traffic fine.
Incidentally, what copyrighted works have you released/profited from recently?
I work in animation, actually. And I've seen firsthand how long it can take for a property to go from being a zero-money, self-published labor of love, to being published by a small underground publisher (for no money), to being optioned and developed as a possible TV series (and if you're not aware, you don't make much money at all from something "in development", not until it actually makes it to the air.) It's been pretty close to twelve or thirteen years. And it could be a few more before it makes it to the air, if it does. By your suggestion, it will be public domain by then and anyone can do whatever they want with it, and the creators will be left to watch everyone but them profit from their work.
It's all well and good to say a hit song should be public domain when it's a decade and a half past its prime and the musicians have already cashed in. The music business works fast and careers tend to be short. But there are a lot of other works that take that long to make it to the mainstream. It can take a moderately successful book decades to become a movie; if the author only made a few thousand off it (as they usually do with moderately successful books) then 14 years later a studio shouldn't be able to grab it and make millions off the property without compensation.
And, money aside, it's just as important for the copyright holder to have a say over what's done to their property. If anyone can edit a book, or turn a book into a movie, then anyone can edit it and completely change the meanging.
So me, I'm not angry. I'm not a creative type, I just work on the assembly line. But I know quite a few creative types and I've seen how long it really takes to make it, much less profit (if they profit.)
No lawsuit has gone to trial yet out of the 2,454 litigations started by the RIAA since it began its crackdown
I wonder how many of those served have torn up the summons and said "come and get me."
I find it hard to believe they've all settled, especially considering how many are college students (presumably with some arrogance, ideals, and no credit history to lose.)
I'll bet the RIAA isn't going to take a single case to court, at least not yet. They're getting an incredible amount of attention for their scare tactics, are they going to take the chance (however slim) that they might actually go to court and lose?
I guess honestly if you play with fire then expect to get punished. I was speeding, got pulled over and got a speeding ticket. Instead of bitching about it I just paid it. I was clearly in the wrong doing almost 20mph over the limit. People sharing hundreds of songs via the Internet is clearly illegal and they should expect consequences if they lose the gamble that no one will catch them.
I'll say it again though it's been said a million times... You're not doing anything "illegal" by downloading, meaning you're not breaking a law. You're infringing on copyright. The comparison to speeding doesn't work because it's not law enforcement prosecuting you, but a corporation suing for damages. Settling the suit isn't paying a fine for a ticket-- it's giving them money to go away, so they don't sue you for a much larger and completely arbitrary amount.
The can't creating all of that merchandise would require a license from Shultz so they would not violate trademark law, assuming Shultz decide to trademark the characters.
Trademarks are usually in the realm of the corporate logo or mascot, where copyright covers artistic works. Both were actually held by the syndicate, but Shultz had creative control.
But I digress... I'm thinking of a case where someone toils in relative obscurity for a decade, then achieves success. Under your time frame, everything he or she has done would become public domain. It happens all the time-- some great books take years and years to be written, some bands struggle for ten or fifteen years before having a hit. The properties shouldn't be up for grabs because the artist didn't get it in before the copyright deadline
For Shultz the only affect is after 1963 I would be able to re-publish the earliest comic strips without compensating him, provided ofcourse I didn't violate his trademark to the characters.
And you think that would be right, to profit from his work without his consent or paying him a dime?
I can see a case for having copyright expire on the creator's death (since their heirs usually don't know what to do with the material but sell it out, anyway) but I'm glad it's there long enough to protect artists over the length of their career. What's the advantge of shortening it, except to allow others to exploit and profit from them?
And to bring it back to topic, Linspire pretty clearly ripped the guy off. They could have paid him to use the art, they could have paid him or someone else to come up with a new idea-- but they didn't. I don't see why copyright law should be shortened to allow companies to do this whenever they want (and they would, and they would use it in advertising.) As bad as some people are saying it is that Bob Dylan lent his music to Victoria's Secret, it would be worse if Victoria's Secret could use it without consent or compensation.
The lack of "Beatles" music probably has more to do with a certain publishing company also named "Apple", suing the computer company for violating an agreement not to branch into music.
I can't imagine Michael Jackson is keeping the Beatles of iTunes. I'd think he wants all the cash he can get.
Copyright is bad when it has passed a reasonable time, say 14 years.
Fourteen years is an absurdly short amount of time for a copyright to expire. It often takes artists a decade or two to really profit off of a creation or to gain any maintstream success. And with cartoon characters, for example, fourteen years could be less than halfway through the creator's career. "Peanuts" was created in 1949-- would it have been fair to take away Shultz' rights to his characters in 1963, still nearly forty years before his and the strip's demise? Would it be fair for any merchandiser to put out whatever line of "Snoopy" products they wanted, without the creator's approval or even giving him a cent? Would it be fair for any publisher to put out a book of his work purely at their own discretion and profit?
I can't believe how many people on/. claim to "stick up for the little guy" and hate the
evil corporations", but call for the overturning of copyright laws. Copyright laws exists to protect the individual creator from having his or her work appropriated without permission or profit.
I prefer quality, but I also like things smaller and cuter. That's why I went out and bought a MiniTivo. It only holds 1/20th as many shows, but it does come in pink.
Slashdotters tend to look down on people for whom technology is a convenience. And there are a lot of them-- for example, people who are just fine with dialup, or with just occasionally surfing and checking e-mail at work. Or people who use XP on the notebook they bought not because it has the most bang for the buck, but because it does what they need and looks cool. They think a different way, and there's nothing wrong with it... It's not a sign of ignorance, but rather that their interests are pointed in a different direction.
So, the iPod Mini appeals to them even though there are better deals to be had elsewhere. For example, as many people as there are out there who download music, there are millions and millions more who don't, who may only own fifty or a hundred CDs and-- gasp-- may only listen to a few hours of music a week. Good for them, and good for Apple for finding a market who wouldn't have considered buying an MP3 device otherwise.
They are either stupid or ignorant (ignorance is generally a side effect of stupidity, since those of us who aren't born with some sort of actual mental defect have more or less the same mental capacity. I define stupity as a lack of desire to learn), and thus will be duped it's the natural way of things.
I have the feeling there's a plumber, electrician, car mechanic, lawyer, accountant, or other skilled professional out there who says the same thing about you.
I can remember when the term "pirate" was worn with a badge of honor by Commodore 64 warez-trading punks who thought they were part of some outlaw underground. Blame them for the phrase, not the copyright police.
At one point, CD's were extremely cheap. I remember buying CD's for an average price of 10.49 or 9.99 Canadian, about 6 bucks US at the time.
New CDs (not used or closeouts) have been $13-20 since they were introduced in the 80's. I'm not sure a new tape was six bucks in the era of the cassette.
However, I think the real culprit here is the computer industry in general, which for no reason anyone can fathom insists on locating Caps Lock, the least used and most annoying key ever, in a very prominent position on the keyboard instead of where it belongs--in a distant city on another continent.
ACTUALLY, I USE THE CAPS LOCK EVERY DAY WHEN I WRITE EMAILS AND POST MESSAGES. I FIND PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU SAY WHEN IT READS LIKE YOU'RE SHOUTING.
Why can't I play my Game Boy Advance on take up on landing!
Cell phone issues aside... They tell us that electronic devices like Game Boys, CD players and laptops will interefere with the plane's equiptment... Obviously, that's a load of crap... But it sounds better than "We need all of you sitting upright in your seats and paying attention because the highest likelihood of crashing is when we're taking off and landing."
Dialup is extremely easy to get. Plenty of companies are more than happy to offer access for $10 a month, no credit check, no questions asked, cancel the service when you're finished.
Broadband, on the other hand, is like buying a cell phone. I tried to get it from SBC, but they wouldn't give it to me because I had a couple of late payments (NOT disconnections... Just let the beills stack a few times.) I tried to get it from the ocal cable company, but they wouldn't give it to me unless I subscribed to digital cable too. Finally got DSL from a third-party company, but I'm not sure they'll be around in a year.
PLUS, you can't get broadband month-to-month... Like a cell phone, you almost always have to sign a year contract, and while it may be $30 a month now they can charge you whatever they want when the year's up. And what if you move within the year to a place that doesn't have DSL, or is served by a different company? You can probably get out of the contract, but it'll probably be a hassle...
So I can see why people whose lives aren't centered around going on-line would be content with dial-up... It's cheap, it works okay for simple browsing and e-mail, and there are a lot less hassles.
DVD's may be the norm, but don't you think in 15 or 20 years there will be a format that can handle it?
Obviously this project is an experiment, but I understand why they're doing it. Film has a shelf life, and the original prints won't be with us much longer. We should be doing what we can to preserve the classics digitally for the ages.
You can burn songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods and play songs on up to three Macintosh computers or Windows PCs.
Sure, you can get around the DRM in various ways, but legally you can't pass the actual music files along to your next computer more than twice.
Yeah, none of that crap is worth the money. And neither is the damn tote bag you get from PBS. But if you have the cash to spare, and you want to see something you enjoy stay alive a while longer, you donate anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, modern ads are more compelling. This comes from before the days of desktop publishing, remember-- it's easy to forget (especially if you weren't there) how easy Quark and Illustrator have made it for even the smallest company to produce professional looking ads.
Browse textfiles.com, lots of old BBS #'s there, including a few I remember fondly. I don't know what the point of calling would be, unless you want to ask the parents of an ex-C64 warez trader whatever happened to "NinjaPhreak."
I wonder how much the rights to Fallout are. It's a crime they dropped plans for a #3. It's a bigger crime noone's seen the potential for a Fallout movie...
There's definitely a long way to go with most games, though. We give games a lot more credit, because gameplay is more important than the actual story. Dialogue and plotlines in the best games still tend to be overblown and cartoonish. Lines of dialogue that would be absolute groaners in a movie, characters that are basically stereotypes with no genuine, or with at best forced development. Maybe it's just the nature of the beast because, like B-movies and syndicated action shows, games are meant for the world market and have to be easily translated into dozens of languages, but I still think there's a lot of room to grow. Games are such an immersive medium, and since the interactivity allows for multiple paths and story arcs, that if games realize their potential in telling a story with characters you really, truly care about, who go through fully realized arcs that are determined by the lead character's actions, and if the dialogue could be made to sound natural rather than emulating genre movies... That would revolutionize entertainment as we know it.
I guess we'll get there in due time, it took the cinema a while to make a truly great film. One way to get there though may be if the game industry would hire more authors and screenwriters to script the games, or to at least assist designers who may be more concerned with the actual programming and gameplay.
Right, but you're nit-picking. My point was that these aren't criminal suits, and the, ahem, "sharers" aren't being prosecuted by an arm of law enforcement. Not that they potentially couldn't be, but paying the RIAA to go away isn't the same as a traffic fine.
I work in animation, actually. And I've seen firsthand how long it can take for a property to go from being a zero-money, self-published labor of love, to being published by a small underground publisher (for no money), to being optioned and developed as a possible TV series (and if you're not aware, you don't make much money at all from something "in development", not until it actually makes it to the air.) It's been pretty close to twelve or thirteen years. And it could be a few more before it makes it to the air, if it does. By your suggestion, it will be public domain by then and anyone can do whatever they want with it, and the creators will be left to watch everyone but them profit from their work.
It's all well and good to say a hit song should be public domain when it's a decade and a half past its prime and the musicians have already cashed in. The music business works fast and careers tend to be short. But there are a lot of other works that take that long to make it to the mainstream. It can take a moderately successful book decades to become a movie; if the author only made a few thousand off it (as they usually do with moderately successful books) then 14 years later a studio shouldn't be able to grab it and make millions off the property without compensation.
And, money aside, it's just as important for the copyright holder to have a say over what's done to their property. If anyone can edit a book, or turn a book into a movie, then anyone can edit it and completely change the meanging.
So me, I'm not angry. I'm not a creative type, I just work on the assembly line. But I know quite a few creative types and I've seen how long it really takes to make it, much less profit (if they profit.)
I wonder how many of those served have torn up the summons and said "come and get me."
I find it hard to believe they've all settled, especially considering how many are college students (presumably with some arrogance, ideals, and no credit history to lose.)
I'll bet the RIAA isn't going to take a single case to court, at least not yet. They're getting an incredible amount of attention for their scare tactics, are they going to take the chance (however slim) that they might actually go to court and lose?
I'll say it again though it's been said a million times... You're not doing anything "illegal" by downloading, meaning you're not breaking a law. You're infringing on copyright. The comparison to speeding doesn't work because it's not law enforcement prosecuting you, but a corporation suing for damages. Settling the suit isn't paying a fine for a ticket-- it's giving them money to go away, so they don't sue you for a much larger and completely arbitrary amount.
Trademarks are usually in the realm of the corporate logo or mascot, where copyright covers artistic works. Both were actually held by the syndicate, but Shultz had creative control.
But I digress... I'm thinking of a case where someone toils in relative obscurity for a decade, then achieves success. Under your time frame, everything he or she has done would become public domain. It happens all the time-- some great books take years and years to be written, some bands struggle for ten or fifteen years before having a hit. The properties shouldn't be up for grabs because the artist didn't get it in before the copyright deadline
For Shultz the only affect is after 1963 I would be able to re-publish the earliest comic strips without compensating him, provided ofcourse I didn't violate his trademark to the characters.
And you think that would be right, to profit from his work without his consent or paying him a dime?
I can see a case for having copyright expire on the creator's death (since their heirs usually don't know what to do with the material but sell it out, anyway) but I'm glad it's there long enough to protect artists over the length of their career. What's the advantge of shortening it, except to allow others to exploit and profit from them?
And to bring it back to topic, Linspire pretty clearly ripped the guy off. They could have paid him to use the art, they could have paid him or someone else to come up with a new idea-- but they didn't. I don't see why copyright law should be shortened to allow companies to do this whenever they want (and they would, and they would use it in advertising.) As bad as some people are saying it is that Bob Dylan lent his music to Victoria's Secret, it would be worse if Victoria's Secret could use it without consent or compensation.
I can't imagine Michael Jackson is keeping the Beatles of iTunes. I'd think he wants all the cash he can get.
Fourteen years is an absurdly short amount of time for a copyright to expire. It often takes artists a decade or two to really profit off of a creation or to gain any maintstream success. And with cartoon characters, for example, fourteen years could be less than halfway through the creator's career. "Peanuts" was created in 1949-- would it have been fair to take away Shultz' rights to his characters in 1963, still nearly forty years before his and the strip's demise? Would it be fair for any merchandiser to put out whatever line of "Snoopy" products they wanted, without the creator's approval or even giving him a cent? Would it be fair for any publisher to put out a book of his work purely at their own discretion and profit?
I can't believe how many people on /. claim to "stick up for the little guy" and hate the
evil corporations", but call for the overturning of copyright laws. Copyright laws exists to protect the individual creator from having his or her work appropriated without permission or profit.
I prefer quality, but I also like things smaller and cuter. That's why I went out and bought a MiniTivo. It only holds 1/20th as many shows, but it does come in pink.
So, the iPod Mini appeals to them even though there are better deals to be had elsewhere. For example, as many people as there are out there who download music, there are millions and millions more who don't, who may only own fifty or a hundred CDs and-- gasp-- may only listen to a few hours of music a week. Good for them, and good for Apple for finding a market who wouldn't have considered buying an MP3 device otherwise.
I'd say Sony has a history of introducing dead-end products.
I have the feeling there's a plumber, electrician, car mechanic, lawyer, accountant, or other skilled professional out there who says the same thing about you.
I can remember when the term "pirate" was worn with a badge of honor by Commodore 64 warez-trading punks who thought they were part of some outlaw underground. Blame them for the phrase, not the copyright police.
New CDs (not used or closeouts) have been $13-20 since they were introduced in the 80's. I'm not sure a new tape was six bucks in the era of the cassette.
However, I think the real culprit here is the computer industry in general, which for no reason anyone can fathom insists on locating Caps Lock, the least used and most annoying key ever, in a very prominent position on the keyboard instead of where it belongs--in a distant city on another continent. ACTUALLY, I USE THE CAPS LOCK EVERY DAY WHEN I WRITE EMAILS AND POST MESSAGES. I FIND PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU SAY WHEN IT READS LIKE YOU'RE SHOUTING.
A site decidcated to sex with geese? I'd hit it!
Cell phone issues aside... They tell us that electronic devices like Game Boys, CD players and laptops will interefere with the plane's equiptment... Obviously, that's a load of crap... But it sounds better than "We need all of you sitting upright in your seats and paying attention because the highest likelihood of crashing is when we're taking off and landing."
Yeah, "wrong." Maybe I had to deal with a different cable company, idiot.
Broadband, on the other hand, is like buying a cell phone. I tried to get it from SBC, but they wouldn't give it to me because I had a couple of late payments (NOT disconnections... Just let the beills stack a few times.) I tried to get it from the ocal cable company, but they wouldn't give it to me unless I subscribed to digital cable too. Finally got DSL from a third-party company, but I'm not sure they'll be around in a year.
PLUS, you can't get broadband month-to-month... Like a cell phone, you almost always have to sign a year contract, and while it may be $30 a month now they can charge you whatever they want when the year's up. And what if you move within the year to a place that doesn't have DSL, or is served by a different company? You can probably get out of the contract, but it'll probably be a hassle...
So I can see why people whose lives aren't centered around going on-line would be content with dial-up... It's cheap, it works okay for simple browsing and e-mail, and there are a lot less hassles.
Obviously this project is an experiment, but I understand why they're doing it. Film has a shelf life, and the original prints won't be with us much longer. We should be doing what we can to preserve the classics digitally for the ages.
You can burn songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods and play songs on up to three Macintosh computers or Windows PCs.
Sure, you can get around the DRM in various ways, but legally you can't pass the actual music files along to your next computer more than twice.
Yeah, none of that crap is worth the money. And neither is the damn tote bag you get from PBS. But if you have the cash to spare, and you want to see something you enjoy stay alive a while longer, you donate anyway.