I'm not sure why MS is dragged into this? Or the WMF flaw. The article was about a lawsuit pending by a company called "Landmark Education" against a video that clearly is within the fair use provisions of the copyright, using that huge loophole in the US laws, called DMCA.
Violent movies and games are not a valve to release pent-up anger. At best they pacify you for the same reasons that heartbeats drop when watching TV - it's passive entertainment. Of course violent people will enjoy violent movies and won't be committing crimes while watching them. Since when does this pass for scientific results? It's basic logic.
I disagree that video games can be considered passive entertainment. It is very active. With TV and movies indeed all you do is watch, but with video games it's YOU how controls the character. So you can't possibly call it passive entertainment.
BTW, I love the Die Hard movies (just to take an example), but I can not be considered a violent man, not by a long shot.
I also like to play first person shooters as a valve to shoot away any frustrations I might get at work. But I've yet to fire a real gun, and I don't intend to change that any time soon.
Which is safer? Acting out frustrations on a bunch of pixels or on a live person?
It's funny how everyone's up in arms about the RIAA possibly overstepping the law and completely ignoring the fact that the people they're investigating have broken the law.
Where's the proof?
The way I see it, you are innocent until proven guilty!
The moment you start reversing that, that's the moment you will have no rights anymore, only duties to perform, pay taxes and bend over for the large companies to scr#w you over...
The only thing that the RIAA has, is a suspicion, nothing more! And you can't convict people based merely on suspicion. You have to have actual and factual proof. And preferably only proof delivered by an impartial person!
They did once, long time ago. Got sued over it, and picked up the pieces and carried on as a legal reseller/importshop.
In my opinion, Sony has just done the industry a large dis-favour.
Many people like to import crazy Japanese games, or like to import games that will not be released in their region. Thus creating a revenue stream for those companies that they otherwise don't have.
Now, with the demise of Lik-sang, the future of for instance Play-asia is at risk too, as well as your local import shop (insofar you have a games-importer nearby).
Which makes getting those crazy Japanese games harder, or perhaps impossible.
Which results in those companies getting cut off from a source of income.
1) fair indeed. The prices in the Dutch cinemas while high aren't really that bad. :)
2) charging more for a small can (33ml) of cola than you need to pay for a large bottle (2l) of cola in a store, is pretty outragious. But I do agree with you, that concession prices are what keep a movie-theater going.
3) I, too, never had any stale drinks or popcorn in my theatres.
4) I think the situation is different in different countries. In The Netherlands some cinemas sell alcoholic beverages, but others don't.
5) Only at very popular movies (and mostly at opening days) I've had the issue of searching for seating.
6) Yeah, throwing popcorn, talking during the movie etc. that's pretty bad.
7) Indeed, ticket-booths are strict in enforcing the age-ratings. Even in The Netherlands and Belgium. :)
8) I think the topic-starter was talking about visitors of the movie that were cursing, and not the movie itself. Not sure if you can do anything about that, except complain indeed.
I have not encountered such things, but I did encounter trailers for R-rated horror movies before a G-rated movie, where children were attending. The projectionist had probably started the wrong reel. Still it was pretty bad.
9) Overtaxed sound happens quite a lot, especially in older theatres. Though I've also noticed it in newer ones, too. And that's during the movie, and not in the trailers (though those are indeed very loud)
I see some great points in this thread. And I think it comes down to this famous quote:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
Sadly many people don't want to think for themselves, they like being led by some greater power, and let that entity (be that either a god or a governmental entity) make all the hard decisions...
We, in The Netherlands, also had a campaign long ago, which said: "A better world starts with yourself". Let's all change just a little, to be more open to others, and accept that everyone is different, and alike at the same time.
Now about this whole Tax deduction patent scandal. Would these really hold up in court? Not that anyone would like to challenge them. (perhaps that's the main problem, no-one is willing to invest time and money to challenge these ludicrous patents and pending patents)
It's not just in the USA that this is a hot issue.
Here in The Netherlands we have exactly the same issue, and recently in Belgium there were a few strange happenings with e-voting machines.
Germany is also recalling some of their e-voting machines (the ones made by NEDAP).
E-voting as it is right now, is unclear, unsafe, and undemocratic.
The government can't say for 100% certain that the results that come out of the vote-booth are really what the people voted, because there is no transparency.
With the paper-trail at least you have a failsafe, and a way to check the results of the e-voting system in case of requested recounts.
What do you mean? I have to give away something for free, so I can get more sales? I don't understand this hippy-talk you are babbling, SECURITY!
--- anonymous UMG manager
I can just hear it now.
The music industry has just completely lost it...
And why even that high a number for each viewing?
I'm sure MTV would love to pay that amount of money to play the tracks on their music stations, for *each viewer*... [/sarcasm]
Don't these music-head-honchos notice, how moronic they sound, when they are trying to defend this tactic?
I want to ask the knowledgeable people here this:
If I walk outside, and sing a song that's stuck in my brain...
Am I then in fact performing this work?
And is this an offense to this copyright law?
(Other people could start listening to me singing, and thus making it some sort of mini-concert, at least you could interpret it that way)
In my humble opinion, I think the whole system is broken, and has been for a very long time.
Yes, I do think that artists and songwriters need to be compensated for their work, but to the point of suing restaurants/closing businesses?
That kind of actions always causes a backlash, that will hurt the music industry more than any monetary gains can compensate.
(Though the music industry interest-groups seem to disagree)
okay, so I was wrong in thinking that Google would not go that way. I really thought the chance of this happening was 0.1%, I guess I should never play in any lottery ;-)
How can it be theft, if nothing per se is missing?
In fact, it's not stealing at all, much to the contrary what the media industry likes you to think.
Instead in most cases it's called 'copyright infringement'. That is certainly illegal, but not the same as theft. Nothing is stolen.
Factually it's not applicable to downloading stuff, but rather the uploading/making the 'pirated' versions available.
And they can't back their claims up that every copyright infringement equals a loss of sale.
It is proven that many people who've downloaded music (allegedly) 'illegally', did also bought more media later on.
Another example:
many people have downloaded a ripped version of Photoshop... but how many of them would actually have gone out and bought the product? Not that many, because the tool is very expensive. Too expensive for people who are just curious how the tool works, and also too expensive for the home-users. (the majority of the users of the 'pirated' version of Photoshop)
If it weren't for this 'piracy' Photoshop wouldn't nearly be as popular as it is now.
So it could easily be said that 'piracy' actually helps with brand-recognition.
On a sidenote, in many countries it's not illegal to download music/movies, rather the uploading of copyrighted media is infringing copyright.
The RIAA need to stop wasting their time fighting p2p downloads and focus on the real problem; people are getting free music through broadcast radio and nightclubs!! If you count every song played on air times the number of people who heard it and may even have recorded it on tape, this 'broadcast piracy' is clearly costing the industry billions in potential profit!!
Point is, that radio stations pay royalty fees to labels when they play those songs (most times it's a blanket fee payed to your country's local RIAA). So the RIAA does benefit from music played on the radio.
And most nightclubs also pay a similar kind of royalty fees.
But those P2P programs don't pay that royalty fee, and that is bothering RIAA...
That said, I'd like to state, that I do think that RIAA is entirely going about this in the wrong direction. And what EMI is doing has totally no merit. Those songs they are trying to 'protect' can't be bought easily (if you're in luck you might find a copy in a cd-store).
And remixes and mashups have always existed! And they are legal to create, because of the fair-use provision in any copyright law.
Fantastic idea! Let's lock up the music in such a way, that no-one can listen to it. That way no copies can be made, ever.
No, the way to go would be for the 'music industry' to find new ways of monetizing their content. Finding new ways of generating income, instead of grasping at the little straw that is their current way of distributing music.
If they don't change, the market will change them, and they'll quickly find themselves becoming extinct.
Re: Another label, another label, another label...
Why then have charts?
Charts shouldn't be a commodity for those companies, they should show what's popular and what's not.
Not what label under BPI care has the 'best' music.
If they can't be arsed to include other labels on that list, then that list is phony and has no real value to add... Because it fails to show what's really, actually popular and what's not.
On the post: Tigers Pitcher Not Very Guitar Heroic
Wii Sports?
On the post: Has A Spanish Court Questioned The Legitimacy Of Creative Commons Licenses?
to copyright or not to copyright? That's the quest
Does this court want to return to those days?
I'm all for it! :)
On the post: Do We Need A Privacy Commission To Examine The Privacy Implications Of All New Products?
Privacy is dead... get over it.
http://www.hopenumbersix.net/speakers.html#pid2
On the post: Disney Following The Content-Based MVNO Model: Hype, Slash Prices, Fail
funny
I guess they followed the Slashdot way, but forgot about what to replace the ??? with:
1) Release an expensive service
2) Cut prices
3) ???
4) Profit?
On the post: Making YouTube Safe For Stephen Colbert Again
"Nice house you got here..."
I'd say this is beyond extortion, the major labels (both movie/tv and music industry) begin to sound more and more like maffia-run companies.
On the post: Abusing The DMCA To Shut Up Critics
Re:
On the post: New Studies Suggest On Screen Porn And Violence Reduce Real Rape And Violence
Re:
I disagree that video games can be considered passive entertainment. It is very active. With TV and movies indeed all you do is watch, but with video games it's YOU how controls the character. So you can't possibly call it passive entertainment.
BTW, I love the Die Hard movies (just to take an example), but I can not be considered a violent man, not by a long shot.
I also like to play first person shooters as a valve to shoot away any frustrations I might get at work. But I've yet to fire a real gun, and I don't intend to change that any time soon.
Which is safer? Acting out frustrations on a bunch of pixels or on a live person?
You can't tell me, that I'm alone in this!
On the post: RIAA Still Not Allowed To Get Free Access To Scour Your Hard Drive
Re:
Where's the proof?
The way I see it, you are innocent until proven guilty!
The moment you start reversing that, that's the moment you will have no rights anymore, only duties to perform, pay taxes and bend over for the large companies to scr#w you over...
The only thing that the RIAA has, is a suspicion, nothing more! And you can't convict people based merely on suspicion. You have to have actual and factual proof. And preferably only proof delivered by an impartial person!
On the post: Apparently Selling Products To Customers Who Want Them Doesn't Fit Sony's Strategy
Re: How did we get on modding?
In my opinion, Sony has just done the industry a large dis-favour.
Many people like to import crazy Japanese games, or like to import games that will not be released in their region. Thus creating a revenue stream for those companies that they otherwise don't have.
Now, with the demise of Lik-sang, the future of for instance Play-asia is at risk too, as well as your local import shop (insofar you have a games-importer nearby).
Which makes getting those crazy Japanese games harder, or perhaps impossible.
Which results in those companies getting cut off from a source of income.
On the post: MPAA Helps New York City Down The Path Of Pointless Legislation
Re: Re: Wolf
2) charging more for a small can (33ml) of cola than you need to pay for a large bottle (2l) of cola in a store, is pretty outragious. But I do agree with you, that concession prices are what keep a movie-theater going.
3) I, too, never had any stale drinks or popcorn in my theatres.
4) I think the situation is different in different countries. In The Netherlands some cinemas sell alcoholic beverages, but others don't.
5) Only at very popular movies (and mostly at opening days) I've had the issue of searching for seating.
6) Yeah, throwing popcorn, talking during the movie etc. that's pretty bad.
7) Indeed, ticket-booths are strict in enforcing the age-ratings. Even in The Netherlands and Belgium. :)
8) I think the topic-starter was talking about visitors of the movie that were cursing, and not the movie itself. Not sure if you can do anything about that, except complain indeed.
I have not encountered such things, but I did encounter trailers for R-rated horror movies before a G-rated movie, where children were attending. The projectionist had probably started the wrong reel. Still it was pretty bad.
9) Overtaxed sound happens quite a lot, especially in older theatres. Though I've also noticed it in newer ones, too. And that's during the movie, and not in the trailers (though those are indeed very loud)
On the post: I'm Sorry, You Can't Use That Deduction: It's Patented
Good points everyone
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
Sadly many people don't want to think for themselves, they like being led by some greater power, and let that entity (be that either a god or a governmental entity) make all the hard decisions...
We, in The Netherlands, also had a campaign long ago, which said: "A better world starts with yourself". Let's all change just a little, to be more open to others, and accept that everyone is different, and alike at the same time.
Now about this whole Tax deduction patent scandal. Would these really hold up in court? Not that anyone would like to challenge them. (perhaps that's the main problem, no-one is willing to invest time and money to challenge these ludicrous patents and pending patents)
On the post: Bully's False Reputation Apparently Precedes It In The UK
Re: Re: language difficulties perhaps?
On the post: Can E-Voting Be Fixed? And, If So, Why Isn't Anyone Doing It?
Re: Your votes don't count anyway
Here in The Netherlands we have exactly the same issue, and recently in Belgium there were a few strange happenings with e-voting machines.
Germany is also recalling some of their e-voting machines (the ones made by NEDAP).
E-voting as it is right now, is unclear, unsafe, and undemocratic.
The government can't say for 100% certain that the results that come out of the vote-booth are really what the people voted, because there is no transparency.
With the paper-trail at least you have a failsafe, and a way to check the results of the e-voting system in case of requested recounts.
On the post: Universal Music Finally Sues Video Sites... Just Not YouTube
huh promotional value?
--- anonymous UMG manager
I can just hear it now.
The music industry has just completely lost it...
And why even that high a number for each viewing?
I'm sure MTV would love to pay that amount of money to play the tracks on their music stations, for *each viewer*... [/sarcasm]
Don't these music-head-honchos notice, how moronic they sound, when they are trying to defend this tactic?
On the post: Enjoying Live Music Is Expensive
Singing along to music on the street.
If I walk outside, and sing a song that's stuck in my brain...
Am I then in fact performing this work?
And is this an offense to this copyright law?
(Other people could start listening to me singing, and thus making it some sort of mini-concert, at least you could interpret it that way)
In my humble opinion, I think the whole system is broken, and has been for a very long time.
Yes, I do think that artists and songwriters need to be compensated for their work, but to the point of suing restaurants/closing businesses?
That kind of actions always causes a backlash, that will hurt the music industry more than any monetary gains can compensate.
(Though the music industry interest-groups seem to disagree)
Money destroys everything that's good.
On the post: Google Decides YouTube Is Worth $1.65 Billion In Play Money Plus Any Additional Legal Hassles
Hmmm, interesting
Indeed, interesting developments.
On the post: And Just Like That, Bogus Piracy Stats Become Fact
Re: Misleading
How can it be theft, if nothing per se is missing?
In fact, it's not stealing at all, much to the contrary what the media industry likes you to think.
Instead in most cases it's called 'copyright infringement'. That is certainly illegal, but not the same as theft. Nothing is stolen.
Factually it's not applicable to downloading stuff, but rather the uploading/making the 'pirated' versions available.
And they can't back their claims up that every copyright infringement equals a loss of sale.
It is proven that many people who've downloaded music (allegedly) 'illegally', did also bought more media later on.
Another example:
many people have downloaded a ripped version of Photoshop... but how many of them would actually have gone out and bought the product? Not that many, because the tool is very expensive. Too expensive for people who are just curious how the tool works, and also too expensive for the home-users. (the majority of the users of the 'pirated' version of Photoshop)
If it weren't for this 'piracy' Photoshop wouldn't nearly be as popular as it is now.
So it could easily be said that 'piracy' actually helps with brand-recognition.
On a sidenote, in many countries it's not illegal to download music/movies, rather the uploading of copyrighted media is infringing copyright.
On the post: EMI Demands IP Addresses From Everyone Who Downloaded Beatles/Beach Boys Mashup
Re:
And most nightclubs also pay a similar kind of royalty fees.
But those P2P programs don't pay that royalty fee, and that is bothering RIAA...
That said, I'd like to state, that I do think that RIAA is entirely going about this in the wrong direction. And what EMI is doing has totally no merit. Those songs they are trying to 'protect' can't be bought easily (if you're in luck you might find a copy in a cd-store).
And remixes and mashups have always existed! And they are legal to create, because of the fair-use provision in any copyright law.
On the post: Third Way To Get RIAA To Drop Lawsuit: Accuse Them Of Extortion
Re: lets play..."what if it were me"
No, the way to go would be for the 'music industry' to find new ways of monetizing their content. Finding new ways of generating income, instead of grasping at the little straw that is their current way of distributing music.
If they don't change, the market will change them, and they'll quickly find themselves becoming extinct.
On the post: Recording Industry Bans Musician From Charts For Supporting Free Music
Re: Another label, another label, another label...
Charts shouldn't be a commodity for those companies, they should show what's popular and what's not.
Not what label under BPI care has the 'best' music.
If they can't be arsed to include other labels on that list, then that list is phony and has no real value to add... Because it fails to show what's really, actually popular and what's not.
Just my 2 cents.
Next >>