Contrary to what some people say, DVD isn't "good enough" to show a movie the way it was meant to be seen. BluRay is.
That is until you see footage at 4k (either native digital capture or scan from film). Resolution will keep getting bumped more and more. But generally your right, in that eventually it really won't matter.
Small correction. Simply jailbreaking an iPhone to install 3rd party apps does not void the warranty. Rather, unlocking the phone to be used with any GSM network is what voids the warranty. Or am I completely mis-informed? No really... am I? This is my understanding.
I'm pretty much of the same mind as you (anti-piracy, but also anti-copyright extension & anti-DRM). However, I don't think it was simply unauthorized copying -> DRM. I think it's just that the technological advances that enabled easy copying coincided with the technological advances that enabled DRM. If DRM was technically feasible when CDs were introduced, I'm sure it would have been implemented.
Wow, it's almost as if you were just rehashing the same stuff off this page. [ms-studio.com] And considering your blog contains absolutely nothing about design, I'd say you were.
Because heaven forbid someone someone have knowledge and opinions about something that is not on their blog! The motion designer at our office periodically posts to his blog about electronic music. I guess I should tell him he doesn't know anything about design, typography and animation.
This is really the same argument as posed by the "red-light camera."
I just wanted to go off-topic and comment on this. My father-in-law is a judge in the city where we grew up. He vehemently opposed the red-light cameras that went up in the area. His objection had nothing to do with letting people get away with running red lights and everything to do with it being a trap and cash grab for the city. According to him, as outlined in the final proposal, the yellow-light durations for these intersections would be reduced so as to catch people going through red lights that they otherwise would have cleared.
I'm normally not one to do this, but the article linked is nearly identical to the coverage over at Ars Technica. It seems that only a few words were changed and without even a link to the original ars article.
Let's turn the situation around... What do we do if someone (or a company) takes GPL software, makes their changes, and releases said software without the source?
Licenses like GPL and Creative Commons all rely on copyright and the its enforcement, but instead of "all rights reserved" it is "some rights reserved" (or even "no rights reserved"). Now, in the previous example, which has happened before and reported here, the general consensus is that whomever violated the GPL should be held accountable. Is it only because we are the ones violating the "all rights reserved" license that we think we shouldn't be held accountable?
How, having said that, I think that going after grandmothers, 13-year-olds and college students who might be sharing/downloading a few songs is overreaching their bounds... as is attempting to buy legislation we've seen. What I think they should be doing is going after black market/boot-leg operations and perhaps the prominent/excessive file-sharers (the ones who have thousands of files up for grabs). At what point does someone cross over into the excessive category? 1,000 files? 5,000? 20,000? I don't know. It's a gray area that's a moving target.
I think copyrights should be enforced. Especially since licenses like the GPL and Creative Commons can only exist because of copyright (as they are a form of such, which many people fail to realize). But the extent of that enforcement has to be a careful balance of the law and social norms. Someone shouldn't necessarily be penalized for modifying GPL software for their own personal use and not releasing source, neither should the occasional "illegal" file-sharer.
I beg to differ. With the eventual move to VoD (direct from studious through a "store-front", not through HBO, etc), you're renting a movie every time you want to watch it. Your kids really like that ? that'll be US$2.99-7.99 every time they watch it. You know that's the business model they want. All this "owning" of discs and such just needs to go! Leased media is the way of the FUTURE (for them).
Being in Milwaukee, myself, I can relate. I only live a few blocks from the lake (about a mile south of the port) and when the wind blows just right, you definitely don't want to be outside for long.
I wouldn't even think of using Bradford Beach (which could be a really nice beach). The only time I've ever actually ventured into the Lake Michigan (aside from some parks up north) has been for polar bearing on New Year's. I just hope that the various diseases don't survive cold;)
On a more related note... Indiana, specifically Gary, seems to have such a disregard for the lake that I'm not so sure this deal with BP will really make it that much worse.
Thomas Hawk is one of the only bloggers I know by name. I heard about him after that whole PriceRite Photo thing. It seems that "exposing" companies with bad/terrible customer service became his thing. Now when I see his name attached to anything like this, I take it with a grain of salt. (Seriously, this guy either has really bad luck, or he's just looking for a fight.)
You mean the fact that media companies won't make their products easily available to the public to download at a reasonable price?
I know this point has been picked apart above, but I just want to throw in my $.02.
I have heard this statement many, many times before. Sometimes people actually mean it and follow through, many times their definition of "reasonable price" is far below what most feel is reasonable. (And yes, I know I'll get the "But distribution cost is near nothing on the net!" arguments. So be it.)
What I do not understand is how "I cannot afford it" turned into "I cannot afford it, therefor I am entitled to it for free." Yes, I get the whole "I wouldn't have bought it anyway so they aren't losing a sale" argument. And that is (for the most part) true. However, why do you need that one particular individual song/album/artist? There are plenty of other reasonably priced venues to get other music (Magnatunes, eMusic, etc).
To me, the issue is not publishers/labels/studios have a government granted monopoly on distribution of their work. The issues are that the original limited term of that monopoly is being continuously extended through the efforts of lobbyists and that there is now government protection in place defending the use of DRM (DMCA, etc). Many people seem to be confusing copyright with DRM. They are two different battlefields that need to be fought differently.
Concerning copyright... Labels, studios, and (in some rare cases) artists themselves have a limited term monopoly on their product and can charge what they wish. If you do not like the price, that does not entitle you to that work for free, but rather to search out different works at the price you are looking for. If you do not like the term of the copyright (which continues to be extend), take it up with your congressmen. (I know, I know... the system is broken, etc. So don't complain about it, do something to fix it!)
Concerning DRM... If a label, studio or artist wish to release their work with DRM fine. So be it. I understand why they want to include it (multiple purchases, slightly limited casual copying, etc). But I don't believe it should be a government enforced restriction. Copyright is enough.
These are just my opinions. Take them with whatever amount of salt you wish.
See my reply to an AC for further clarification on how I view the Bible.
I'll be the first to admit that the primary reason I am Christian is because I was raised that way. Are there other religions out there that may be correct? Definitely. However, because of my personal history (which I am not about to poorly summarize on a/. post), I am still sticking with Christianity. Religion is a deeply personal topic, and the discussion of it can offend/enrage people very easily, so I'm trying to keep this light.
What I will say, though, is that religion itself was created be humans. Humans are inherently flawed. Therefor religion may be flawed as well.*
*I believe faith, on the other hand, is what is created by God. Will these words come back to bite me in the ass? Probably. But it's what I believe, and beliefs are difficult to explain or concretely prove.
I normally don't respond to ACs, but here goes:
In its broadest sense, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that unvarying principles must apply to all people or every situation, in this case, the Bible as absolute truth. So, if someone believes every word of the Bible is absolute truth and nothing is metaphorical, simplified in terms that the people of the time would understand, and was completely accurate in its translation from language to language, then that would qualify them as a fundamentalist in my mind. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems. Open discussion of beliefs on the other hand, is good for everyone involved.
Now, what do I believe? I am a Christian, but I believe there is one problem with the Bible: it was physically written be humans. This means two primary things to me:
It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.
Because humans are flawed, some of those who physically wrote the Bible may have injected their views of the world into it. It then becomes a problem to decipher what may have been written by a human voice and not God's. This can only be done through self reflection which will be different for each person.
This is just what I believe and I have no expectations of other people to accept or adhere to this belief. This is where I depart from fundamentalists.
Just remember: not everyone who partakes in Christianity (big C or little c) believes the world was created 4,000 years ago. Some of us actually believe in evolution. (Well, us non-fundies anyway.)
I still think SDI/HD-SDI should've been the way to go. Cheap coaxial cable, good BNC connectors, and it carries audio with video. Too bad the licensing agreements limit it to professional video equipment because it carries unencrypted video signals.
The problem with voluntary efforts is that they don't really have a GUI designer and a developer. Normally they're one and the same so you end up with something that looks great from a developer's perspective but probably not to others.
This particular OK/Cancel comic illustrates your point exactly.
I never quite understood the claim of the iPhone being easily scratchable. Yes the iPod's plastic screen scratches as does a Palm. Yet my Motorola SLVR sits in my pocket all the time and never scratches due to its glass screen. I'd venture to guess that the iPhone's screen will be made of glass as well to avoid scratches.
I'm 99% sure it was before. I don't think digg appeared until well after TechTV was merged with G4, and possibly not even until after Screen Savers was canceled.
Though, as with anything I say, I could be wrong.
See... there's your problem right there. You're on Verizon. They gimp their phone's bluetooth just so you have to go through them for everything.
I've used T-Mobile & Cingluar (now AT&T) phones that I could load up my own java apps with no issues at all (at least, no issues with getting the program on the phone).
I agree with hkmwbz above me.
It isn't that Nintendo can't put consoles on the shelf, it's that stores can't keep them on the shelf. I've heard claims that production has been ramped up to 1 million per month. If that is indeed the case and the Wii continues to sell out at stores, it is just evidence of how high the demand really is for the console.
Again, this isn't an artificial limit of supply to drive up demand. There is a genuine demand for the system and it's higher than many of us thought. I'm surprised I haven't seen the "if demand is this high, they should make the price even higher to even out supply/demand" posts that floated around the PS3 threads.
I drive by that place every day to work. I'm not sure what's worse... driving by the Milorganite factory on a hot summer day, or by the breweries on a hot summer day.
The thing about podcasts on the iTMS is that they are not stored on Apple's servers, but instead on the podcast owner's server of choice. The only thing that runs though the store is the XML file, if I understand this correctly.
current iPods have 4:3 screens. (1.33:1.) All Apple's computers are 16:10. (1.6:1.) The iPhone, like the original PBG4, is 3:2. (1.5:1.) So: what shape should iTMS movies be?)
Ultimately, it should remain 640x480 with a Pixel Aspect Ratio field to enable anamorphic widescreen. I really wish they would use this now. I'm really not fond of the idea of getting a 640x480 quicktime file with a matted letterbox format. Too many wasted pixels.
Oh, damn... I hope I didn't just turn this into a torrent vs authorized movie download debate.
Slashdot Mirror
That is until you see footage at 4k (either native digital capture or scan from film). Resolution will keep getting bumped more and more. But generally your right, in that eventually it really won't matter.
Small correction. Simply jailbreaking an iPhone to install 3rd party apps does not void the warranty. Rather, unlocking the phone to be used with any GSM network is what voids the warranty. Or am I completely mis-informed? No really... am I? This is my understanding.
I'm pretty much of the same mind as you (anti-piracy, but also anti-copyright extension & anti-DRM). However, I don't think it was simply unauthorized copying -> DRM. I think it's just that the technological advances that enabled easy copying coincided with the technological advances that enabled DRM. If DRM was technically feasible when CDs were introduced, I'm sure it would have been implemented.
GP is probably referring to DIVX (Digital Video Express), not DivX
I'm normally not one to do this, but the article linked is nearly identical to the coverage over at Ars Technica. It seems that only a few words were changed and without even a link to the original ars article.
Let's turn the situation around... What do we do if someone (or a company) takes GPL software, makes their changes, and releases said software without the source?
Licenses like GPL and Creative Commons all rely on copyright and the its enforcement, but instead of "all rights reserved" it is "some rights reserved" (or even "no rights reserved"). Now, in the previous example, which has happened before and reported here, the general consensus is that whomever violated the GPL should be held accountable. Is it only because we are the ones violating the "all rights reserved" license that we think we shouldn't be held accountable?
How, having said that, I think that going after grandmothers, 13-year-olds and college students who might be sharing/downloading a few songs is overreaching their bounds... as is attempting to buy legislation we've seen. What I think they should be doing is going after black market/boot-leg operations and perhaps the prominent/excessive file-sharers (the ones who have thousands of files up for grabs). At what point does someone cross over into the excessive category? 1,000 files? 5,000? 20,000? I don't know. It's a gray area that's a moving target.
I think copyrights should be enforced. Especially since licenses like the GPL and Creative Commons can only exist because of copyright (as they are a form of such, which many people fail to realize). But the extent of that enforcement has to be a careful balance of the law and social norms. Someone shouldn't necessarily be penalized for modifying GPL software for their own personal use and not releasing source, neither should the occasional "illegal" file-sharer.
I beg to differ. With the eventual move to VoD (direct from studious through a "store-front", not through HBO, etc), you're renting a movie every time you want to watch it. Your kids really like that ? that'll be US$2.99-7.99 every time they watch it. You know that's the business model they want. All this "owning" of discs and such just needs to go! Leased media is the way of the FUTURE (for them).
Being in Milwaukee, myself, I can relate. I only live a few blocks from the lake (about a mile south of the port) and when the wind blows just right, you definitely don't want to be outside for long.
I wouldn't even think of using Bradford Beach (which could be a really nice beach). The only time I've ever actually ventured into the Lake Michigan (aside from some parks up north) has been for polar bearing on New Year's. I just hope that the various diseases don't survive cold ;)
On a more related note... Indiana, specifically Gary, seems to have such a disregard for the lake that I'm not so sure this deal with BP will really make it that much worse.
Thomas Hawk is one of the only bloggers I know by name. I heard about him after that whole PriceRite Photo thing. It seems that "exposing" companies with bad/terrible customer service became his thing. Now when I see his name attached to anything like this, I take it with a grain of salt. (Seriously, this guy either has really bad luck, or he's just looking for a fight.)
I know this point has been picked apart above, but I just want to throw in my $.02.
I have heard this statement many, many times before. Sometimes people actually mean it and follow through, many times their definition of "reasonable price" is far below what most feel is reasonable. (And yes, I know I'll get the "But distribution cost is near nothing on the net!" arguments. So be it.)
What I do not understand is how "I cannot afford it" turned into "I cannot afford it, therefor I am entitled to it for free." Yes, I get the whole "I wouldn't have bought it anyway so they aren't losing a sale" argument. And that is (for the most part) true. However, why do you need that one particular individual song/album/artist? There are plenty of other reasonably priced venues to get other music (Magnatunes, eMusic, etc).
To me, the issue is not publishers/labels/studios have a government granted monopoly on distribution of their work. The issues are that the original limited term of that monopoly is being continuously extended through the efforts of lobbyists and that there is now government protection in place defending the use of DRM (DMCA, etc). Many people seem to be confusing copyright with DRM. They are two different battlefields that need to be fought differently.
Concerning copyright... Labels, studios, and (in some rare cases) artists themselves have a limited term monopoly on their product and can charge what they wish. If you do not like the price, that does not entitle you to that work for free, but rather to search out different works at the price you are looking for. If you do not like the term of the copyright (which continues to be extend), take it up with your congressmen. (I know, I know... the system is broken, etc. So don't complain about it, do something to fix it!)
Concerning DRM... If a label, studio or artist wish to release their work with DRM fine. So be it. I understand why they want to include it (multiple purchases, slightly limited casual copying, etc). But I don't believe it should be a government enforced restriction. Copyright is enough.
These are just my opinions. Take them with whatever amount of salt you wish.
See my reply to an AC for further clarification on how I view the Bible.
I'll be the first to admit that the primary reason I am Christian is because I was raised that way. Are there other religions out there that may be correct? Definitely. However, because of my personal history (which I am not about to poorly summarize on a /. post), I am still sticking with Christianity. Religion is a deeply personal topic, and the discussion of it can offend/enrage people very easily, so I'm trying to keep this light.
What I will say, though, is that religion itself was created be humans. Humans are inherently flawed. Therefor religion may be flawed as well.*
*I believe faith, on the other hand, is what is created by God. Will these words come back to bite me in the ass? Probably. But it's what I believe, and beliefs are difficult to explain or concretely prove.
See my post above for clarification on this issue.
In its broadest sense, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that unvarying principles must apply to all people or every situation, in this case, the Bible as absolute truth. So, if someone believes every word of the Bible is absolute truth and nothing is metaphorical, simplified in terms that the people of the time would understand, and was completely accurate in its translation from language to language, then that would qualify them as a fundamentalist in my mind. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems. Open discussion of beliefs on the other hand, is good for everyone involved.
Now, what do I believe? I am a Christian, but I believe there is one problem with the Bible: it was physically written be humans. This means two primary things to me:
- It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.
- Because humans are flawed, some of those who physically wrote the Bible may have injected their views of the world into it. It then becomes a problem to decipher what may have been written by a human voice and not God's. This can only be done through self reflection which will be different for each person.
This is just what I believe and I have no expectations of other people to accept or adhere to this belief. This is where I depart from fundamentalists.Just remember: not everyone who partakes in Christianity (big C or little c) believes the world was created 4,000 years ago. Some of us actually believe in evolution. (Well, us non-fundies anyway.)
I still think SDI/HD-SDI should've been the way to go. Cheap coaxial cable, good BNC connectors, and it carries audio with video. Too bad the licensing agreements limit it to professional video equipment because it carries unencrypted video signals.
I never quite understood the claim of the iPhone being easily scratchable. Yes the iPod's plastic screen scratches as does a Palm. Yet my Motorola SLVR sits in my pocket all the time and never scratches due to its glass screen. I'd venture to guess that the iPhone's screen will be made of glass as well to avoid scratches.
I'm 99% sure it was before. I don't think digg appeared until well after TechTV was merged with G4, and possibly not even until after Screen Savers was canceled.
Though, as with anything I say, I could be wrong.
See... there's your problem right there. You're on Verizon. They gimp their phone's bluetooth just so you have to go through them for everything.
I've used T-Mobile & Cingluar (now AT&T) phones that I could load up my own java apps with no issues at all (at least, no issues with getting the program on the phone).
I agree with hkmwbz above me.
It isn't that Nintendo can't put consoles on the shelf, it's that stores can't keep them on the shelf. I've heard claims that production has been ramped up to 1 million per month. If that is indeed the case and the Wii continues to sell out at stores, it is just evidence of how high the demand really is for the console.
Again, this isn't an artificial limit of supply to drive up demand. There is a genuine demand for the system and it's higher than many of us thought. I'm surprised I haven't seen the "if demand is this high, they should make the price even higher to even out supply/demand" posts that floated around the PS3 threads.
I drive by that place every day to work. I'm not sure what's worse... driving by the Milorganite factory on a hot summer day, or by the breweries on a hot summer day.
The thing about podcasts on the iTMS is that they are not stored on Apple's servers, but instead on the podcast owner's server of choice. The only thing that runs though the store is the XML file, if I understand this correctly.
Ultimately, it should remain 640x480 with a Pixel Aspect Ratio field to enable anamorphic widescreen. I really wish they would use this now. I'm really not fond of the idea of getting a 640x480 quicktime file with a matted letterbox format. Too many wasted pixels.
Oh, damn... I hope I didn't just turn this into a torrent vs authorized movie download debate.