How? Ok, you get your HD cam out and record a plasma screen viewing of a Blu-ray disc. This is going to "kill drm"? No, this is going to result in poorer quality. This poorer copy is not going to kill drm. It gets around DRM, but people will still want the superior DRMed version. Have you looked at any of the DVD rips floating around the net? 99.99% are reduced quality from the original. Most of the time it is a full-blown re-encode down to ~700MB (size of one CD), if you are lucky it is re-encoded down to 1.4GB (size of 2 CDs) and if you are in the midst of quality freaks, then it is just re-encoded down to 4.3GB (size of a single-layer DVD).
At the rate technology is progressing, somebody with a HD projector, a HD camcorder and a few extra lenses and filters will be able to do an analog capture that easily satisfies the average guy with a 50" LCD display.
It sure helps that even today all of the satellite HD signals are highly degraded, often re-encoding from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080 and the vast majority of the viewers don't give a damn. Even the broadcast networks do shitty job, Fox is bitrate starved for no good reason, running their stuff at roughly 10Mbps when the available bandwidth over the air is just under 20Mbps. NBC and ABC are only a little bit better. Only CBS seems to give a crap about the quality of their broadcasts.
So, either consumer standards are going to have get a LOT higher or pricing on DRM'd products is going to have get a LOT cheaper if they want to compete with the quality level available via "free."
All that assumes that no bored grad students ever take an electron-tunneling microscope to the "tamper-proof" chips in these DRM systems and extracts the keys necessary to do the decrypt at the digital level. Nowadays that's not particularly expensive to do.
While photographers may now be paid less frequently (probably once) for an individual work, they will probably be able to negotiate a higher price under the new scheme. So there is pro and con to this decision. Except it doesn't work like that.
The only effect of thus ruling will be to retroactively screw photographers who sold their work product PRIOR to electronic media becoming commonplace.
Once digital distribution became commonplace - somewhere in the late '90s, all the boilerplate contracts that the big buyers of freelance work use started to include digital distribution rights from the get go. So, even without this ruling, all new sales ALREADY included the additional distribution rights and thus ALREADY included the opportunity for greater compensation. Thus, the only effect of this ruling is to expand the scope of contracts already written and signed without a corresponding increase in compensation for the photographer.
I'm telling you people, this is just a harbinger of what's to come. A thousand years from now, as the Google empire reigns with an iron fist over the cringing masses of humanity, records will tell of that legendary sage Puff of Logic and his predictions of Google's rise to empire! It won't matter what the records say, because Evil Google won't index them anyway.
Lol. Weasel. YOU can't just back and arbitrarily decide that people can create without any influence by those who have come before unless you know the that the creator has spent their entire life in an isolation chamber.
Digitize your artist wife's piece and post it, let the world judge if there is nothing derivative at all about it. But, don't bother if she didn't create her own raw materials from pure elements, its already derivative of something that came before.
Ok then, if you aren't buying it you surely must be able to cite at least 5 completely and wholly new inventions or works of art that were created in the last decade. Absolutely no reuse, extension, reformulation, etc -- all completely brand new generated from just the whole cloth of the creator's imagination and skills.
Yes, they do. They are legally forbidden from preventing you from installing dishes in your apartment by the FCC. Maybe you're not aware of this, but here in the USA, when a Federal Law says you can do something, a landlord or other private party cannot take this right away from you. However, once your lease is up for renewal, they can choose not to renew with you, so the law isn't really much help unless you don't mind moving every 6 to 12 months.
Forget all that hoohaa about campaign donations being speech. It certainly may be, but it is also bribery. As in the giving of money with the expectation of consideration in return. We have a ton of laws regulating the giving of "gifts" in the business world, they should apply at least as strongly to the political world.
...Google. Weird. I really expected to see them. These "surveys" are just PR for the HR departments. They have little objective reality. My impression is that Google has no problems hiring enough of the drone-level people who are fooled by these things. The people that Google does have to put some effort into recruiting are probably the type to figure things out on their own anyway.
Seems like it was probably the most important lesson of your school years - don't trust anyone with institutional authority, if it can, it will be abused.
The above quoted 1st Ammendment is not, for example, ever taken to legalize plagiarizm... Lol! If you are going to give people crap because you think they are making non-sequiturs, it would behoove you to avoid making one for real. Plagiarism is not illegal.
There is no relation, sorry. Only because your brain is stuck in a box. Art is cultural history. And history can most definitely be taken away, one common phrase is "the victor writes the history books."
Nor is there anything wrong with "pay-per-view" per se No more than is wrong with "pay per drive" for your car, or "pay per night" for living in your house. Charging for distribution is a poor, poor substitute for charging for creation that brings with it all kinds of pitfalls that ultimately retard the progress of science and the useful arts.
And, finally, I refuse to accept the need to have access to the society's entertainment trends as vital to anything but the entertainment industry itself. Big deal... Then your world is a dull and bleak place. Art is one of the most important things that separates people from animals.
Where is this sense of entitlement coming from? I deserve free (or low cost) entertainment. My grandchildren deserve music quality... WTF? Is there something in the Constitution, that I missed? Do you deserve history? If you think society's history needs to be locked up and served out on a pay-per-view basis, then at least you would be consistent. Meanwhile, to address your last question, it's freedom of expression that guarantees the right to copy. Nothing completely new is ever created nowadays, every phrase, every sketch, every melody all use what has come before in varying degrees.
Really, I don't understand how the FBI could "ignore" a ruling. I would think that the judge would respond by naming specific individuals at the FBI, like the Director, and holding them in contempt and in jail, in perpetuity, until compliance occurs. That only works as long as there has been no pre-emptive spying on the judge and his little extra-marital affair that would be a real shame if his wife ever found out about.
When you have so much Intelligent Design/Creationist proponents in positions of power it is natural that science education will suffer. I'm sure the war on terrah isn't helping either - we waste $5B a year on just the useless TSA alone, then there are the hundreds of billions spent on the iraqi occupation. That money would have gone a long, long way if spent on something productive like basic research. Instead, the only return on investment has been negative.
I don't know about you, but around these parts I pay for 80+ channels and watch 2 of them. Maybe. About 1/3 are foriegn language stations. Another 1/5 are sports related, How do you watch 2/3rds and 2/5ths of a channel? Is this some sort of new picture-in-picture function?
As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with vigilantism, as long as you get the right guy. That's nice and all for you, but still has not one thing to do with defense, which is what the OP was making up stories about being made illegal due to "political correctness."
Its not nonsense I hear, its not legal for me in many states in this country to actively defend myself from theft, my physical person needs to be in danger. Bullshit. It's not legal for you to use LETHAL force to defend yourself from NON-LETHAL threats. Don't exaggerate. Before you start on about non-lethal threats, getting punched in the face is potentially lethal as was ruled by a grand jury in Texas in the case of the first lethal shooting by a person with a concealed carry permit.
And that's a TERRIBLE idea, because now you are risking YOUR money instead of someone else's money. Debit cards are a distant 2nd to credit cards in terms of benefits and LEGAL protections (not corporate policies that can be ignored by a flunky who doesn't like the tone of your voice or the color of your shoes).
Maybe you don't like that, maybe you think that victims have to sacrifice their rights to protect those who violate them. One thing is certain the more I hear this kind of nonsense the more annoyed I get at exactly how "politically correct" we've become. Get the stick out of your ass - you are just making up the nonsense that you "hear."
He said that, "It's inexcusable to say that murder is ever an appropriate recourse after crime."
So unless you want to argue that shooting a rapist in the back as he walks away from the scene of the crime is "defense" you've just been tilting at windmills.
I still believe we'll all be better off the more we can keep government out of it. Correct. First I would like to see these reforms:
No tax breaks or other governemtn guaranteed incentives for telecom providers
No government granting of exclusionary/preferential franchising of certain areas to telecom providers
No government-enforced easements or right-of-way for telecom providers
When all of those government intrusions into the business of telecomm are remedied, then we can address the reduction of any net neutrality requirements.
People who are too afraid of letting any of their information be shared by third parties have made life difficult for everyone else. As a psycho privacy nut, I disagree.
I see your description of the situation not as a problem but as an opportunity to gain complete control over my information. If it is a real PITA to get providers to share information, then it becomes the responsibility of the patient to share it. As it should be.
I really want to see the day come soon where each patient, or the patient's legal guardian, caries a thumb-drive like storage device with them when they visit a doctor and the doctor puts all records generated by the visit on the device so that they are put into the safe-keeping of the one person with the most to lose should that information end up in the wrong hands.
Hinduism is generally considered to be non-proselytizing - there are no hindu "missionaries" who think they have to spread the word/worship of Vishnu or anyone else in the pantheon. But, like just about every group, there are extremist hindus too.
Why is this amazing? Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
People are always trying to build models based on historical data, especially for things like the stock market. But, as they say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results" - and one big reason is that all it takes is for one significant new factor to come into play that didn't exist in any of the historical data and the model becomes useless.
Slashdot Mirror
At the rate technology is progressing, somebody with a HD projector, a HD camcorder and a few extra lenses and filters will be able to do an analog capture that easily satisfies the average guy with a 50" LCD display.
It sure helps that even today all of the satellite HD signals are highly degraded, often re-encoding from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080 and the vast majority of the viewers don't give a damn. Even the broadcast networks do shitty job, Fox is bitrate starved for no good reason, running their stuff at roughly 10Mbps when the available bandwidth over the air is just under 20Mbps. NBC and ABC are only a little bit better. Only CBS seems to give a crap about the quality of their broadcasts.
So, either consumer standards are going to have get a LOT higher or pricing on DRM'd products is going to have get a LOT cheaper if they want to compete with the quality level available via "free."
All that assumes that no bored grad students ever take an electron-tunneling microscope to the "tamper-proof" chips in these DRM systems and extracts the keys necessary to do the decrypt at the digital level. Nowadays that's not particularly expensive to do.
The only effect of thus ruling will be to retroactively screw photographers who sold their work product PRIOR to electronic media becoming commonplace.
Once digital distribution became commonplace - somewhere in the late '90s, all the boilerplate contracts that the big buyers of freelance work use started to include digital distribution rights from the get go. So, even without this ruling, all new sales ALREADY included the additional distribution rights and thus ALREADY included the opportunity for greater compensation. Thus, the only effect of this ruling is to expand the scope of contracts already written and signed without a corresponding increase in compensation for the photographer.
It's a screw job, plain and simple.
Lol. Weasel. YOU can't just back and arbitrarily decide that people can create without any influence by those who have come before unless you know the that the creator has spent their entire life in an isolation chamber.
Digitize your artist wife's piece and post it, let the world judge if there is nothing derivative at all about it. But, don't bother if she didn't create her own raw materials from pure elements, its already derivative of something that came before.
Ok then, if you aren't buying it you surely must be able to cite at least 5 completely and wholly new inventions or works of art that were created in the last decade. Absolutely no reuse, extension, reformulation, etc -- all completely brand new generated from just the whole cloth of the creator's imagination and skills.
Good luck.
Forget all that hoohaa about campaign donations being speech. It certainly may be, but it is also bribery. As in the giving of money with the expectation of consideration in return. We have a ton of laws regulating the giving of "gifts" in the business world, they should apply at least as strongly to the political world.
...Google. Weird. I really expected to see them. These "surveys" are just PR for the HR departments. They have little objective reality. My impression is that Google has no problems hiring enough of the drone-level people who are fooled by these things. The people that Google does have to put some effort into recruiting are probably the type to figure things out on their own anyway.Seems like it was probably the most important lesson of your school years - don't trust anyone with institutional authority, if it can, it will be abused.
Is this some sort of new picture-in-picture function?
What part of "defense" do you fail to understand?
None of your examples constitute defense, they are all vigilantism.
And that's a TERRIBLE idea, because now you are risking YOUR money instead of someone else's money. Debit cards are a distant 2nd to credit cards in terms of benefits and LEGAL protections (not corporate policies that can be ignored by a flunky who doesn't like the tone of your voice or the color of your shoes).
He said that, "It's inexcusable to say that murder is ever an appropriate recourse after crime."
So unless you want to argue that shooting a rapist in the back as he walks away from the scene of the crime is "defense" you've just been tilting at windmills.
- No tax breaks or other governemtn guaranteed incentives for telecom providers
- No government granting of exclusionary/preferential franchising of certain areas to telecom providers
- No government-enforced easements or right-of-way for telecom providers
When all of those government intrusions into the business of telecomm are remedied,then we can address the reduction of any net neutrality requirements.
Sound good to you?
I see your description of the situation not as a problem but as an opportunity to gain complete control over my information. If it is a real PITA to get providers to share information, then it becomes the responsibility of the patient to share it. As it should be.
I really want to see the day come soon where each patient, or the patient's legal guardian, caries a thumb-drive like storage device with them when they visit a doctor and the doctor puts all records generated by the visit on the device so that they are put into the safe-keeping of the one person with the most to lose should that information end up in the wrong hands.
PS - It sure doesn't look like enough draconian restrictions have been implemented yet:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.68.html#subj3
Hinduism is generally considered to be non-proselytizing - there are no hindu "missionaries" who think they have to spread the word/worship of Vishnu or anyone else in the pantheon. But, like just about every group, there are extremist hindus too.
Why is this amazing? Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
People are always trying to build models based on historical data, especially for things like the stock market. But, as they say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results" - and one big reason is that all it takes is for one significant new factor to come into play that didn't exist in any of the historical data and the model becomes useless.