Let me show you the pics I made last weekend.. oops that would make me a filesharer, I'd better not give you the link to my gallery, there might be something on those images that's copyrighted (like a branded t-shirt or some such).
the recording industry doesn't want any music to be heard. If that's what they want, then that's what they'll get from me. I won't listen to their music again. See if I care. Music is but a minor part of my life, I need food, drinks and good friends above all that.
Amazon is offering authors a 70% royalty fee if they release their books on the Kindle without intervention from publishers.
It seems more interesting to me, than any appstore.
Only this part makes me concerned though:
- "Under this royalty option, books must be offered at or below price parity with competition, including physical book prices."
In other words: no, you can't have your book on the Kindle and the Nook for the same price.
But I guess Amazon would like to get a vice grip on the fledgling market.
Similar threats have been used in boiler-plate texts on sites like Suprnova, when they got taken down by the **AAs. Usually not as silly as "Stay where you are", but the "Your visit to this URL has been logged" part, yes, definitely.
some people (like myself) sometimes forget to log in.
When I enter a comment and I notice that I forgot to log in, I still enter a nickname and my email address, so that I can "claim" my comment later on. That's when the commenter's name can change from a not-logged-in version to his or her logged in version.
Mike had very little to do with that. It's all the power of the commenter.
In the case of the BBC destroying Doctor Who episodes (and in The Netherlands, Dutch broadcaster NCRV destroyed a whole tv-series called "Ja zuster, nee zuster") was because whole reels were reused, as film was very expensive in those days.
Both are different situations from what's happening here.
In this case the episodes are completely intact, and in a known location, CBS just doesn't want to release it to the public.
Who would download the movie the moment it comes out on torrent sites? People that don't much care for it, or people who are anxiously awaiting it's arrival in the cinemas (aka the fans)?
My money is on the latter group, and then I'll add to the bet, that a lot of those initial downloaders (the fans) would also go to the cinema to watch it on the big screen.
Sure, Jackson may not like it that the movie is out on torrent sites, and of course the initial uploader committed a felony, but that does not negate the reality that the movie is now on torrent sites.
It's the uploaders the Jackson should focus his anger on, they are the providers of the illegally acquired material, and not on the sites the stuff got uploaded to nor on the people who downloaded it.
well that's simply not true, as I can play most videos just fine, without jittering (at least non-HD stuff), it's Flash that makes my computer go crazy. But if what you say is true, then why doesn't Ima have the same problem?
It's just that Flash (especially on Linux) is a resource hog.
weird thing though, often, when I put the flash video in full screen mode, it suddenly stops being jittery, and I get good quality video.
and yet, while the BBC still offered it, I preferred the Real Audio streams over the Flash streams.
As Flash is a real resource hog, and Real Audio is playable through third party players, such as VLC and mplayer.
So basically I'd like a successor to Flash, that's leaner and faster, and is supported by a whole host of players. Or Adobe should just open source Flash.
Repeat after me, copyright violations does not equal theft.
You know why? because no physical goods were misplaced or removed. Look it up in the lawbooks, you have copyright laws and laws regarding theft. Both types are in different law books, and have different punishments.
Yes, it's illegal, perhaps even immoral (though that remains to be seen) but it's not theft.
It's like this:
people who, in the media, are against smoking in public places getting caught smoking in a public place.
You call that hypocrisy.
So now we have people who are always complaining about 'the pirates/content thieves' and they are being caught doing the exact same thing that they are accusing those 'pirates/content thieves' of. (please note the quotation marks, I don't think that piracy==theft.)
On the post: What The IFPI Report Left Out: Its Own Study Showed That File Sharers Do Buy
Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon Quietly Lets Publishers Remove DRM (Update: Or Quietly Adds DRM?)
Re: Re:
Because it limits you and creates a monopoly, which you don't want in a free market.
On the post: Amazon Quietly Lets Publishers Remove DRM (Update: Or Quietly Adds DRM?)
Re:
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Re: Re:
On the post: Prisons And Hair Dressers Latest To Push Back On Ridiculous Collection Society Demands
To me it's perfectly clear
On the post: App Store Overload? Kindle Gets An App Store
Actually the appstore part is the least interesting news from Amazon today
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1376977&a mp;highlight
Amazon is offering authors a 70% royalty fee if they release their books on the Kindle without intervention from publishers.
It seems more interesting to me, than any appstore.
Only this part makes me concerned though:
- "Under this royalty option, books must be offered at or below price parity with competition, including physical book prices."
In other words: no, you can't have your book on the Kindle and the Nook for the same price.
But I guess Amazon would like to get a vice grip on the fledgling market.
On the post: Halt...In The Name Of The MPAA/RIAA/FBI/NSA! [Updated: Hoax]
Re:
On the post: Halt...In The Name Of The MPAA/RIAA/FBI/NSA! [Updated: Hoax]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I enter a comment and I notice that I forgot to log in, I still enter a nickname and my email address, so that I can "claim" my comment later on. That's when the commenter's name can change from a not-logged-in version to his or her logged in version.
Mike had very little to do with that. It's all the power of the commenter.
On the post: CBS Would Rather Kill Off Classic Jack Benny Video Footage Than Let Fans Rescue And Digitize It
Re: and i pirate why
Both are different situations from what's happening here.
In this case the episodes are completely intact, and in a known location, CBS just doesn't want to release it to the public.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My money is on the latter group, and then I'll add to the bet, that a lot of those initial downloaders (the fans) would also go to the cinema to watch it on the big screen.
Sure, Jackson may not like it that the movie is out on torrent sites, and of course the initial uploader committed a felony, but that does not negate the reality that the movie is now on torrent sites.
It's the uploaders the Jackson should focus his anger on, they are the providers of the illegally acquired material, and not on the sites the stuff got uploaded to nor on the people who downloaded it.
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just that Flash (especially on Linux) is a resource hog.
weird thing though, often, when I put the flash video in full screen mode, it suddenly stops being jittery, and I get good quality video.
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re: Re: Re:
video is jittery and can hang firefox.
On the post: Rob Glaser Leaving RealNetworks; A Chance To Reflect On How Being Anti-Consumer Fails In The Long Run
Re:
As Flash is a real resource hog, and Real Audio is playable through third party players, such as VLC and mplayer.
So basically I'd like a successor to Flash, that's leaner and faster, and is supported by a whole host of players. Or Adobe should just open source Flash.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Re:
You know why? because no physical goods were misplaced or removed. Look it up in the lawbooks, you have copyright laws and laws regarding theft. Both types are in different law books, and have different punishments.
Yes, it's illegal, perhaps even immoral (though that remains to be seen) but it's not theft.
On the post: Peter Jackson Freaks Out About BitTorrent Leak Of The Lovely Bones
Well
If you kneejerk like this, you don't deserve my money. period.
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Re: May not be a money grab
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
Re: Re: Re:Re: WTF?
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
Re: Re: obviously
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135105.htm
And apparently, the hack also targeted other US companies, such as Adobe.
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
Re: obviously
On the post: AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
Re: Re: hypocrites
people who, in the media, are against smoking in public places getting caught smoking in a public place.
You call that hypocrisy.
So now we have people who are always complaining about 'the pirates/content thieves' and they are being caught doing the exact same thing that they are accusing those 'pirates/content thieves' of. (please note the quotation marks, I don't think that piracy==theft.)
Next >>