Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie? Very few people actually buy normal movies that they don't have the right to make a copy of, so there's actually less incentive to pay for something they do have the right to make a copy of. Fire up your torrent machines, pirates... but this one you can download legally.
Except you can't bittorrent it or get a copy in any other way.
People will pay ahead of time if they want the product to be finished and released. Its really only a hairs-breadth difference from the way people pay for movies today - you buy a ticket before you watch the movie. Its just a longer period of time between buying the 'ticket' and actually watching the movie - and if not enough people buy 'tickets' the movie doesn't get released. Kind of like a movie not testing well and ending up on the shelf instead of being released.
It seems like some organizations, particularly governments, have as a major goal the elimination of all risk. It's like they've taken the idea that government's job of protecting its citizens means that they need to be made completely safe from even the most remote cause of harm. After all, just how many people will end up caught in some sort of disaster and be unrescuable through any other means besides RFIDs? I wager the number is on the order of 1 in a million. Yet for such a tiny risk these people are seriously proposing an idealized and unproven system with the potential for a massive increase in other kinds of risks.
We need to end the insanity. Public policy needs to recognize that the tighter you clench your fist, the less sand you can hold. All things like this RFID proposal do is spend lots of money to change one kind of risk into another kind of risk, potentially magnifying it in the process.
Along those lines - try to find a serious study of the effectiveness of E911 in saving lives - not simply do E911 calls result in people being deployed and thus people being saved, but rather would those people still have been saved without the fancy gps-locator mandated in all new cell phones or the requirement for VOIP services to have the service address on file for E911 dispatch. I sure haven't been able to find anything to empirically justify the cost of all that extra infrastructure.
Right. But knowing about Gizmodo doesn't mean they'll visit. I know plenty of people who did read Gizmodo, but no longer will after this sordid publicity stunt.
A certain phrase comes to mind:
"I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right." --George M. Cohan
Prioritees. I would rather be near arrested and have my 15 minutes of fame than clean up your puke.
Indeed, this persecution is better publicity than Gizmodo could have ever bought. Now even the regular apple joe-sixpacks who aren't hardcore fanbois know about Gizmodo.
if you use Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative reference, you're an idiot. I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.
While it may not be obvious at first glance, you have effectively just cited wikipedia as authoritative proof that people who cite wikipedia are idiots.
We also checked out both options for our lab at the university. At that time (3 years back), a PS3 was EUR 600. The only way to get a "cell computer" was via IBM blades.
That's odd. Mercury Computer has had a "cell accelerator board" for $8K since the last quarter of 2006. Basically its a cell processor in a PCIe slot. Second generation is here: http://www.mc.com/products/boards/accelerator_board2.aspx
Maybe they had export problems with it, although they announced it at a singapore trade show.
But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading?
High frequency trading is good for the market. Just as is short selling. (I throw that in there because many who dislike the former also knee-jerk about the later). High frequency trading has significantly increased liquidity, putting many "market makers" (trading houses who guarantee to purchase and sell a specific company's shares) out of business. Do to their unique position of being able to dictate bid and ask prices for low-volume stocks, market makers were widely reviled as a major source of abuse of small investors.
Everything in life has its upside and downside, but high frequency trading has significantly reduced a major type of institutionalized rent-seeking, making the markets over all a more level playing field.
Only when there was reasonable expectation that the goods were stolen. If you acted in good faith you don't get prosecuted, you just lose your stuff.
Hell, sometimes you get to keep the stuff. I know a car dealer that purchased an exotic (acura NSX) from some dude. Turns out that "some dude" stole it from the real owner via fraud - gave the guy a bogus cashiers check and his bank sat on it for a month before telling him it was bogus. After tracking the car down at the behest of the original owner, the FBI 'declined' to confiscate the car, instead left it up to the local DA, who let the dealer keep it. The only way the real owner got compensated was because his insurance eventually paid for it because it was theft.
Were you watching the other hand when the FCC reclassified ISPs as "information services" from their previous categorization of "telecommunications services" back in the 2005 SCOTUS ruling of NCTA vs Brand X Internet Services?
IMNHO that was an absolutely terrible decision. One thing to note is that the SCOTUS ruled that the FCC had the legal right to make such classifications, not which one was the right one, just that the FCC could make the decision itself.
All the FCC is currently doing is returning to that original classification of 5 years ago.
so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama seems to be their strategy?
No, I think the GOP has always come down on the "net neutrality bad" side ever since there was a question of it starting back in 2005 with the SCOTUS ruling in NCTA vs Brand X. For far too long now, the GOP SOP has been "Corps good. Privatize the public commons, better!"
Whether it's indie games or music, it's all about advertising. People can say fuck the middleman all they want, but that middleman (large label) has the money/connections to promote and advertise so you can make some money.
Now, if only the middlemen would accept their role as facilitators instead of trying to be owners. They need to realize that their customers are not consumers, but the creators. Then they can start marketing their services appropriately and get out of the copyright game.
I am very curious how they come up with these figures though. At an average of $100 a piece of software, that's 510 million pirated copies a year. At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on. Wow... didnt realize it was such a serious issue..
Simple. Here's how:
This post is copyright (c) Elijah W Ryel, LLC. It is available for the price of $51B. By downloading this post you agree to pay the full licensing price.
Presto! Now copyright infringement of properties owned by Elijah W Ryel, LLC exceeds that of the worldwide software industry by a couple of orders of magnitude. Only a financial genius of my caliber is capable of keeping a company afloat despite such massive theft. This is just between you and me, but yesterday Bernie Madoff offered to acquire my company for $500B in recognition of just how incredibly resilient and successful this company has become. I plan on holding out for $1T because that's what any financial genius would do.
If piracy dropped 30% in one year, Jesus and Muhammad would come back to life and smoke a peace pipe thus ending pain and suffering all over the world. Just 30% for that!
And if it dropped 40% they would smoke each other's pipes, thus ending the entire gay marriage debate.
As with all of these arguments, the FREEDOM! to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" is an absolute and self-sufficient good, and the children that my get injured or die as a result are immaterial, since they aren't the speaker and therefore, from a strictly libertarian point of view, their suffering is irrelevant and none of anybody's business.
Such is the way people rationalize the misery of their fellow men, and turn it into a virtue.
A lot of men are not getting laid enough. Its making them miserable. I think there ought to be a law requiring that women be virtuous and put out enough to keep men from being so miserable. Not only will it be good for the men, but it will probably cut down all kinds of violence - from simple assaults all the way up to foreign invasions. Look at Clinton - he was getting it regularly and we only had minor skirmishes while he was in charge. I bet if Obama were getting some strange we'd have pulled out completely from Iraq by now.
Clearly such a law would reduce suffering everywhere.
Or maybe the right to both suffer and benefit from the consequences of one's own decisions is not a rationalization, but a basic right. It's not like megalocorp or Goldman Sachs is forcing people to not wear safety gear.
Add to that the lies that the Cambridge Cop included in his report - like that he talked to 911 caller at the scene - and it sure sounds like the cop acted stupidly, new he was in the wrong and tried to cover his ass by making up a false narrative.
Doesn't that imply that, perhaps, those safety measures HAVE worked?
No. The reason it doesn't is because terrorism is fungible. The terrorists aren't going to say, "Damn the cockpits are bolted closed, I'm just going to pray instead!" They will just find some other target. The fact that the only significant attack was the fort hood shootings - when there are hundreds of thousands of other soft targets - suggests that the risk really isn't there.
I mean not for nothing, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie being distributed on the internet that's been ripped from a cable box. There isn't even a Scene spec for it.
Scene is far from be all and end all of video piracy, especially when it comes to quality - scene is really only for stupid little kids who are more interested in their silly little rules and their rush to see who can 'release' something first - scene doesn't give a damn about quality, its all quantity and ego. There are plenty of people sharing movies outside of 'the scene' and all their drama.
Years before bluray, hddvd, or even x264 and mkv people were distributing full-bitrate HDTV caps as mpeg2 transport streams (.ts files). There were two main sources - over the air broadcasts and caps from channels like HBO and Showtime, occasionally people would share caps from 'wildfeeds' - 45mbps satellite backhauls. Ironically, as it is today, almost all PPV transmissions are unencrypted. They might have the 'no copy' bit set, but on the wire between the head-end and the cable box, they are in the clear. So if you tune to the right QAM channel you can record most PPV shows, even the ones your neighbors are watching (just hope they don't pause or rewind because you'll record that too). There are even some scripts floating around out there to periodically scan the block of channels used for PPV and record anything that shows up. Kind of the DVR version of google's "I'm feeling lucky."
Its better than that. Pirates should be celebrating. What this means is that the MAFIAA thinks they can do day & date releases on Pay-Per-View and in the theaters.
However, there will always be at least a handful of people with the means to capture such PPV transmissions and distribute copies on the net. So it means no more need for crappy camcorders in the theaters and the consequent risk of the recently legislated crazy-ass sentences for getting caught doing so. Now, the pirates can comfortably record new theatrical releases in the safety of their own homes and their hundreds of millions of friends on the net can all download new theatrical releases in HD-quality long before the movies are released on bluray.
Yeah right. Celebrities won't be forced to go through these things.
Depends on your definition of a celebrity, being the Indian equivalent of Richard Gere is apparently not enough.
Of course the airport denied it happened by simply claiming it was "impossible" and refusing to investigate - never mind the "test mode" that does allow printing or that anyone with a cell phone can take a picture of the screen and print that.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone purchase a creative commons movie? Very few people actually buy normal movies that they don't have the right to make a copy of, so there's actually less incentive to pay for something they do have the right to make a copy of. Fire up your torrent machines, pirates... but this one you can download legally.
Except you can't bittorrent it or get a copy in any other way.
People will pay ahead of time if they want the product to be finished and released. Its really only a hairs-breadth difference from the way people pay for movies today - you buy a ticket before you watch the movie. Its just a longer period of time between buying the 'ticket' and actually watching the movie - and if not enough people buy 'tickets' the movie doesn't get released. Kind of like a movie not testing well and ending up on the shelf instead of being released.
or intentionally trying to kill civilians.
Good one. When you know there are civilians in the area and you bomb anyway but feel bad about it, that makes all the difference.
It seems like some organizations, particularly governments, have as a major goal the elimination of all risk. It's like they've taken the idea that government's job of protecting its citizens means that they need to be made completely safe from even the most remote cause of harm. After all, just how many people will end up caught in some sort of disaster and be unrescuable through any other means besides RFIDs? I wager the number is on the order of 1 in a million. Yet for such a tiny risk these people are seriously proposing an idealized and unproven system with the potential for a massive increase in other kinds of risks.
We need to end the insanity. Public policy needs to recognize that the tighter you clench your fist, the less sand you can hold. All things like this RFID proposal do is spend lots of money to change one kind of risk into another kind of risk, potentially magnifying it in the process.
Along those lines - try to find a serious study of the effectiveness of E911 in saving lives - not simply do E911 calls result in people being deployed and thus people being saved, but rather would those people still have been saved without the fancy gps-locator mandated in all new cell phones or the requirement for VOIP services to have the service address on file for E911 dispatch. I sure haven't been able to find anything to empirically justify the cost of all that extra infrastructure.
Right. But knowing about Gizmodo doesn't mean they'll visit. I know plenty of people who did read Gizmodo, but no longer will after this sordid publicity stunt.
A certain phrase comes to mind:
"I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right."
--George M. Cohan
Prioritees. I would rather be near arrested and have my 15 minutes of fame than clean up your puke.
Indeed, this persecution is better publicity than Gizmodo could have ever bought.
Now even the regular apple joe-sixpacks who aren't hardcore fanbois know about Gizmodo.
I suggest you go look up the meaning of "proof."I suggest you go look up the meaning of "proof."
Lolz at the kettle.
if you use Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative reference, you're an idiot. I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.
While it may not be obvious at first glance, you have effectively just cited wikipedia as authoritative proof that people who cite wikipedia are idiots.
We also checked out both options for our lab at the university. At that time (3 years back), a PS3 was EUR 600. The only way to get a "cell computer" was via IBM blades.
That's odd. Mercury Computer has had a "cell accelerator board" for $8K since the last quarter of 2006. Basically its a cell processor in a PCIe slot.
Second generation is here: http://www.mc.com/products/boards/accelerator_board2.aspx
Maybe they had export problems with it, although they announced it at a singapore trade show.
You're paying for a one-way ticket to go up into space.
Clearly a space terrorist then, make sure his name gets put on the no launch list.
But they're not going after institutional traders who now offer co-location services with enhanced market data feeds, fueling high frequency trading?
High frequency trading is good for the market. Just as is short selling. (I throw that in there because many who dislike the former also knee-jerk about the later).
High frequency trading has significantly increased liquidity, putting many "market makers" (trading houses who guarantee to purchase and sell a specific company's shares) out of business. Do to their unique position of being able to dictate bid and ask prices for low-volume stocks, market makers were widely reviled as a major source of abuse of small investors.
Everything in life has its upside and downside, but high frequency trading has significantly reduced a major type of institutionalized rent-seeking, making the markets over all a more level playing field.
Only when there was reasonable expectation that the goods were stolen. If you acted in good faith you don't get prosecuted, you just lose your stuff.
Hell, sometimes you get to keep the stuff. I know a car dealer that purchased an exotic (acura NSX) from some dude. Turns out that "some dude" stole it from the real owner via fraud - gave the guy a bogus cashiers check and his bank sat on it for a month before telling him it was bogus. After tracking the car down at the behest of the original owner, the FBI 'declined' to confiscate the car, instead left it up to the local DA, who let the dealer keep it. The only way the real owner got compensated was because his insurance eventually paid for it because it was theft.
Fake or not, it leads to a decent enough slogan which we really haven't had yet:
Support Net Neutrality - Not Net Brutality.
It says a lot about you that you took what I wrote as endorsement of the democrats rather than disappointment with the republicans.
My point it, watch the other hand.
Were you watching the other hand when the FCC reclassified ISPs as "information services" from their previous categorization of "telecommunications services" back in the 2005 SCOTUS ruling of NCTA vs Brand X Internet Services?
IMNHO that was an absolutely terrible decision. One thing to note is that the SCOTUS ruled that the FCC had the legal right to make such classifications, not which one was the right one, just that the FCC could make the decision itself.
All the FCC is currently doing is returning to that original classification of 5 years ago.
so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama seems to be their strategy?
No, I think the GOP has always come down on the "net neutrality bad" side ever since there was a question of it starting back in 2005 with the SCOTUS ruling in NCTA vs Brand X. For far too long now, the GOP SOP has been "Corps good. Privatize the public commons, better!"
Whether it's indie games or music, it's all about advertising. People can say fuck the middleman all they want, but that middleman (large label) has the money/connections to promote and advertise so you can make some money.
Now, if only the middlemen would accept their role as facilitators instead of trying to be owners.
They need to realize that their customers are not consumers, but the creators.
Then they can start marketing their services appropriately and get out of the copyright game.
I am very curious how they come up with these figures though. At an average of $100 a piece of software, that's 510 million pirated copies a year. At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on. Wow... didnt realize it was such a serious issue..
Simple. Here's how:
This post is copyright (c) Elijah W Ryel, LLC.
It is available for the price of $51B.
By downloading this post you agree to pay the full licensing price.
Presto! Now copyright infringement of properties owned by Elijah W Ryel, LLC exceeds that of the worldwide software industry by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Only a financial genius of my caliber is capable of keeping a company afloat despite such massive theft. This is just between you and me, but yesterday Bernie Madoff offered to acquire my company for $500B in recognition of just how incredibly resilient and successful this company has become. I plan on holding out for $1T because that's what any financial genius would do.
If piracy dropped 30% in one year, Jesus and Muhammad would come back to life and smoke a peace pipe thus ending pain and suffering all over the world. Just 30% for that!
And if it dropped 40% they would smoke each other's pipes, thus ending the entire gay marriage debate.
As with all of these arguments, the FREEDOM! to ride a bike without a "goddamn-helmet-my-parents-didn't-have-to-wear" is an absolute and self-sufficient good, and the children that my get injured or die as a result are immaterial, since they aren't the speaker and therefore, from a strictly libertarian point of view, their suffering is irrelevant and none of anybody's business.
Such is the way people rationalize the misery of their fellow men, and turn it into a virtue.
A lot of men are not getting laid enough. Its making them miserable.
I think there ought to be a law requiring that women be virtuous and put out enough to keep men from being so miserable.
Not only will it be good for the men, but it will probably cut down all kinds of violence - from simple assaults all the way up to foreign invasions. Look at Clinton - he was getting it regularly and we only had minor skirmishes while he was in charge. I bet if Obama were getting some strange we'd have pulled out completely from Iraq by now.
Clearly such a law would reduce suffering everywhere.
Or maybe the right to both suffer and benefit from the consequences of one's own decisions is not a rationalization, but a basic right.
It's not like megalocorp or Goldman Sachs is forcing people to not wear safety gear.
You're depressingly naive: http://carlosmiller.com/2010/05/06/another-american-born-citizen-jailed-in-arizona-because-her-skin-was-brown/
Add to that the lies that the Cambridge Cop included in his report - like that he talked to 911 caller at the scene - and it sure sounds like the cop acted stupidly, new he was in the wrong and tried to cover his ass by making up a false narrative.
Doesn't that imply that, perhaps, those safety measures HAVE worked?
No. The reason it doesn't is because terrorism is fungible. The terrorists aren't going to say, "Damn the cockpits are bolted closed, I'm just going to pray instead!" They will just find some other target. The fact that the only significant attack was the fort hood shootings - when there are hundreds of thousands of other soft targets - suggests that the risk really isn't there.
I mean not for nothing, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie being distributed on the internet that's been ripped from a cable box. There isn't even a Scene spec for it.
Scene is far from be all and end all of video piracy, especially when it comes to quality - scene is really only for stupid little kids who are more interested in their silly little rules and their rush to see who can 'release' something first - scene doesn't give a damn about quality, its all quantity and ego. There are plenty of people sharing movies outside of 'the scene' and all their drama.
Years before bluray, hddvd, or even x264 and mkv people were distributing full-bitrate HDTV caps as mpeg2 transport streams (.ts files). There were two main sources - over the air broadcasts and caps from channels like HBO and Showtime, occasionally people would share caps from 'wildfeeds' - 45mbps satellite backhauls. Ironically, as it is today, almost all PPV transmissions are unencrypted. They might have the 'no copy' bit set, but on the wire between the head-end and the cable box, they are in the clear. So if you tune to the right QAM channel you can record most PPV shows, even the ones your neighbors are watching (just hope they don't pause or rewind because you'll record that too). There are even some scripts floating around out there to periodically scan the block of channels used for PPV and record anything that shows up. Kind of the DVR version of google's "I'm feeling lucky."
1) pirates unaffected
Its better than that. Pirates should be celebrating.
What this means is that the MAFIAA thinks they can do day & date releases on Pay-Per-View and in the theaters.
However, there will always be at least a handful of people with the means to capture such PPV transmissions and distribute copies on the net. So it means no more need for crappy camcorders in the theaters and the consequent risk of the recently legislated crazy-ass sentences for getting caught doing so. Now, the pirates can comfortably record new theatrical releases in the safety of their own homes and their hundreds of millions of friends on the net can all download new theatrical releases in HD-quality long before the movies are released on bluray.
This is a good a place as any to post the requisite:
TSA Gangstaz - I think the video needs an update to include your new scene.
Yeah right. Celebrities won't be forced to go through these things.
Depends on your definition of a celebrity, being the Indian equivalent of Richard Gere is apparently not enough.
Of course the airport denied it happened by simply claiming it was "impossible" and refusing to investigate - never mind the "test mode" that does allow printing or that anyone with a cell phone can take a picture of the screen and print that.