Here's something funny... Sony's rootkit/DRM provider's, First4Internet, XCP's press release links on their website suddenly start to slow down in October 2005...
If you don't pay actors $20M up front, a movie budget can go from $21M to $1M. Take out free food and have your star bring his/her own sandwich, and your budget goes down to $500K. Making a Hollywood movie is about excess and greed and it not "art".
You can't predict a movie's profitability based on its cost. There have been many $100M flops.
The RIAA doesn't fund music production, they set standards and policies and collect the money post-production. A band's website can collect the money, and a band can set their sound and quality of their MP3s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA)
The MPAA doesn't fund the movies, they set the policies and standards for distribution and broadcast, as well as fight copywrite infringement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA)
Based on the wikipedia articles, the MPAA/RIAA's role is to protect "industry" executives and companies, not the artists producing the actual works.
My point is that a good product virtually sells itself: start small, and grow. The profits of one project funds another. Talented movie makers or musicians can make a living without the RIAA/MPAA.
BTW, the pr0n industry overshadows the profitability of Hollywood blockbuster. I don't believe there are many $100M budgets per movie to produce that "art", nor do they need the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. pr0n movies are probably pirated more often than any Hollywood blockbuster. Anybody can be a star!;)
In the Internet age, do we really need the RIAA or MPAA? All any band/movie producer needs creative people and market themselves because the distribution channels, formerly controlled by the RIAA/MPAA, are now open to the common folk because the cost to produce such works is within the budget of anyone willing to work a minimum wage job and live in their parent's basement.
I can produce, distribute and market my own movies/garage band on the Internet. If people like the product, it turns a profit. If the product sucks, it doesn't profit. Why did Barney the Dinosaur become so huge? Marketing. Do you think a parent who cares about their child would subject their child to the mind numbing antics of a purple dinosaur? Do parents who subject their children to Barney even watch and see what they are showing their children?
The RIAA/MPAA is not dedicated to quality. Why? Quality is subjective, profits are objective: some business manager OK'ed the Hulk movie because, hey, everybody knows who the Hulk is so at least N people will go see it/buy it, plug that into the profit-o-lator, and bingo, they figure out they should at least break even, which isn't bad business practice because a bunch of people got paid in the process. However, such a scenario does not bode well for the "art".
Similarly, at its height of popularity, Atari was making a killing with their 2600 console. Alas, they let piles of steaming crappy games get published in quest of more profits. Where are they now?
Having a work earn its value spurs creativity and innovation rather than remakes and rehash. With hokey television series like Dukes of Hazzard being remade, what's next? The A-Team? Chris Tucker as Murdock, the Rock as Mr. T, Leslie Neilsen as Hannible and Michael Jackson as Face?
I have to somewhat agree, it may not be forgery but it is fraud: if I made a check out for 1 million dollars and signed it, for all satirical intents and purposes, it is fraud. People who know me think it is funny (or not) and possibly satirical because they know I'm not good for a $1M check: the bank, on the other hand, might not find it so funny or satirical.
Why doesn't the Onion just create their own "Prezidential Seal" with a rubber chicken on it rather than an eagle? That is parody and satire.
There is a strong possibility that people might not "get" the Onion's intent for satire or parody when they use the "real" Presidential Seal, simply because it might not be funny, but stupid: the President (extend to government) has the ability (tendancy?) to do and publish stupid things.
Who cares about snippets? Screw the whole snippet idea.
My point is why can't Google become a digital library if they purchase digital copies of the book and loan them out? Why can we only do that with paper books? Why should a digital library be perceived as a copywrite violator when a paper brick-and-mortar library is not?
It is understood the technology to limit digital copies isn't quite perfect, but Google's got the worth (they were, briefly, worth $100 billion last week) and the brainiacs to possibly come up with a solution.
So why doesn't Google implement some kind of "check-in/check-out" feature like a library, where only X numbers of digital copies can be checked-out at a given time?
Maybe the publishers are in cahoots with the oil cartels: they want you to burn gas and drive to the library to get a copy of the book you could have gotten on-line.;)
Slashdot Mirror
There are some people who don't need RFID tags, as the world already revolves around them...
Here's something funny... Sony's rootkit/DRM provider's, First4Internet, XCP's press release links on their website suddenly start to slow down in October 2005...
http://www.xcp-aurora.com/press.aspx
Do you think they're in a panic, too busy to toot their own horns?
If you don't pay actors $20M up front, a movie budget can go from $21M to $1M. Take out free food and have your star bring his/her own sandwich, and your budget goes down to $500K. Making a Hollywood movie is about excess and greed and it not "art".
;)
You can't predict a movie's profitability based on its cost. There have been many $100M flops.
The RIAA doesn't fund music production, they set standards and policies and collect the money post-production. A band's website can collect the money, and a band can set their sound and quality of their MP3s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA)
The MPAA doesn't fund the movies, they set the policies and standards for distribution and broadcast, as well as fight copywrite infringement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA)
Based on the wikipedia articles, the MPAA/RIAA's role is to protect "industry" executives and companies, not the artists producing the actual works.
My point is that a good product virtually sells itself: start small, and grow. The profits of one project funds another. Talented movie makers or musicians can make a living without the RIAA/MPAA.
BTW, the pr0n industry overshadows the profitability of Hollywood blockbuster. I don't believe there are many $100M budgets per movie to produce that "art", nor do they need the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. pr0n movies are probably pirated more often than any Hollywood blockbuster. Anybody can be a star!
I agree.
In the Internet age, do we really need the RIAA or MPAA? All any band/movie producer needs creative people and market themselves because the distribution channels, formerly controlled by the RIAA/MPAA, are now open to the common folk because the cost to produce such works is within the budget of anyone willing to work a minimum wage job and live in their parent's basement.
I can produce, distribute and market my own movies/garage band on the Internet. If people like the product, it turns a profit. If the product sucks, it doesn't profit. Why did Barney the Dinosaur become so huge? Marketing. Do you think a parent who cares about their child would subject their child to the mind numbing antics of a purple dinosaur? Do parents who subject their children to Barney even watch and see what they are showing their children?
The RIAA/MPAA is not dedicated to quality. Why? Quality is subjective, profits are objective: some business manager OK'ed the Hulk movie because, hey, everybody knows who the Hulk is so at least N people will go see it/buy it, plug that into the profit-o-lator, and bingo, they figure out they should at least break even, which isn't bad business practice because a bunch of people got paid in the process. However, such a scenario does not bode well for the "art".
Similarly, at its height of popularity, Atari was making a killing with their 2600 console. Alas, they let piles of steaming crappy games get published in quest of more profits. Where are they now?
Having a work earn its value spurs creativity and innovation rather than remakes and rehash. With hokey television series like Dukes of Hazzard being remade, what's next? The A-Team? Chris Tucker as Murdock, the Rock as Mr. T, Leslie Neilsen as Hannible and Michael Jackson as Face?
I have to somewhat agree, it may not be forgery but it is fraud: if I made a check out for 1 million dollars and signed it, for all satirical intents and purposes, it is fraud. People who know me think it is funny (or not) and possibly satirical because they know I'm not good for a $1M check: the bank, on the other hand, might not find it so funny or satirical.
Why doesn't the Onion just create their own "Prezidential Seal" with a rubber chicken on it rather than an eagle? That is parody and satire.
There is a strong possibility that people might not "get" the Onion's intent for satire or parody when they use the "real" Presidential Seal, simply because it might not be funny, but stupid: the President (extend to government) has the ability (tendancy?) to do and publish stupid things.
Who cares about snippets? Screw the whole snippet idea. My point is why can't Google become a digital library if they purchase digital copies of the book and loan them out? Why can we only do that with paper books? Why should a digital library be perceived as a copywrite violator when a paper brick-and-mortar library is not? It is understood the technology to limit digital copies isn't quite perfect, but Google's got the worth (they were, briefly, worth $100 billion last week) and the brainiacs to possibly come up with a solution.
So why doesn't Google implement some kind of "check-in/check-out" feature like a library, where only X numbers of digital copies can be checked-out at a given time? Maybe the publishers are in cahoots with the oil cartels: they want you to burn gas and drive to the library to get a copy of the book you could have gotten on-line. ;)