I've heard that WB is going to release all their movies for streaming to Netflix.*
*(note: movies included in the agreement are limited to, but may not include all, movies released between the years 1932 and 1965 that did not receive awards nominations or include any actors who have ever appeared in a movie with Kevin Bacon. Movies will not be release sporadically to not be in excess of one title per lunar cycle except when in the moon is waning when an additional title can be released under the condition its runtime is not in excess of 73 minutes. Movies will only be made available for a period of d20+3 weeks in which case they will self-destruct causing massive ecological disasters across the world.)
Personally, I view the anti-piracy watermarks to be a bonus. It's like getting a rare version of the movie that most people will never see ... like some inside club of elitists getting the goods before anyone else. Sometimes I'd still keep the watermarked versions for kitsch value after buying the legit version.
Or, because Sony Online Entertainment, LLC didn't come FROM the Internet. And considering nothing comes FROM the Internet, but merely passes through it, his statement isn't technically wrong. Nothing good has come FROM the Internet, of course, then again, nothing bad has either ... the Internet doesn't produce anything in and of itself. Just being a semantic bastard now.
Somebody needs to buy 10,000 copies of this guy's CD IMMEDIATELY. I mean, the poor guy can't even afford a moderately priced set of computer speakers. He obviously has to buy the Big Lots computer speakers for $4.99 because of music piracy. How is he going to make music if he can't afford to buy computer speakers made in the past 15 years?!? Oh the humanity.
But seriously, computer speakers made after 1998 are pretty good compared to full-size home stereo speakers from the '80s & early '90s. My Logitech speakers & subwoofer sound far better than my stereos back in high school did.
Not to mention this bit of error in logic: "10% of the quality of the actual music created" ... um, MP3s are 10% of the file size of uncompressed versions (typically), that does NOT mean they are 10% of audio quality ... not to mention the artistic quality of the music has nothing to do with the compression. I'm sure his music would qualify as 0% quality no matter how much or how little you compressed it.
Seriously, that Edward Vox is an idiot. CDs suck, they always have.
I think that's a perfectly logical possible scenario. If the movie studio isn't going to support your career as an actor, why support that studio with your talent. Particularly when they aren't going to let the industry recognize your talent with its back-patting awards shows.
Though, the biggest flaw is not that actors with nominations make more money, but that actors that are good enough to get nominations have enough talent to command higher salaries. The nominations are just an indicator of industry-perceived talent, not a prerequisite for salary grades. Just like a college diploma doesn't mean you'll earn more in the real world, just that people who complete college tend to have other characteristics that allow them to excel in jobs that pay more ... the diploma doesn't make you earn more.
Movie studios, fearing downloads and lost sales, don't distribute a screener of a movie already p2p-available to industry insiders, which in turn limits the potential reputation & marketing of the movie that could have increased its sales. Oscar-nominated movies always receive a sales boost, and by not putting the movie up for consideration they're costing themselves more.
So, for fear of losing sales they cost themselves sales. It's particularly sad when the lost sales to file sharing are unsubstantiated, but decades worth of previous market patterns demonstrate how an Oscar nod can increase a movie's income.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's actually an issue with third-party cross-site content sharing. It has almost nothing to do with "Cloud Computing". A complete misuse of buzz words.
There are dozens of more options available to police officers before any weapon at all is necessary. There are entire branches of martial arts designed just to deal with these types of situations that incapacitate an assailant without needing to cause harm.
Reminds me of an old Sega CD game where a character is found dead and the police on the scene say something along the lines of ...
"He died of natural causes. You can't live without your spleen, nothing unnatural about that."
after a body is found mutilated and missing a body organ.
In essence the only thing that ever kills anyone is either a lack of oxygen to the brain or severe brain damage. Everything else is nothing more than a contributing factor.
"The kid refused to listen," Chief Burton said. "The officer took him by the arm and said ...
The officer instigated violence in a situation where he did not have authority to do so in the interest of his or any one else's safety.
Police don't get to instigate violence because they want to. If a cop violates your personal space without cause, then as a citizen you have the right to defend yourself. The cop was out of line and acting illegally.
The officer should be charged with aggravated assault. Unless an officer is putting you under arrest, you are not obligated to follow their requests or answer their questions. They are not gods, they are people.
And *poof* computers can magically figure all that out.
But seriously, what you're suggesting is not only impractical, but practically impossible.
1. What's stopping Viacom from simply searching for its content in YouTube and excluding usernames it owns from the lawsuit? Nothing, because it should know the usernames its employees are using to upload videos. Yet, 200 videos purposefully uploaded by approved Viacom employees on accounts Viacom should have approved were included in their lawsuit. So, Viacom can't keep track of their own legally uploaded videos through user accounts that it knows about.
2. Using a simple username system doesn't tell you WHO is uploading videos. Simply, what user account is uploading videos. If marketing exec A doesn't properly log-out, anyone can upload videos through their account. So, an account does nothing to guarantee you information on who you're dealing with. It's impossible to truly know WHO is behind a user account.
3. You can't ever know without a reasonable doubt WHO is on the other end of a web connection. And essentially, you're expecting Google to know Viacom's employees better than Viacom knows them, because Google is supposed to know which Viacom employees should be uploading stuff when Viacom can't be bothered to keep track of its own staff and what they're up to itself.
Essentially your solution is ineffective at best. The only foolproof method is Viacom to know what it owns, what it uploads, and actually be marginally competent to tell the difference between unlicensed uploads and THE STUFF IT PUT UP ITSELF.
And all the solutions involve Viacom knowing its own business. And Viacom has proven it doesn't. Not to mention knowing WHO someone is, doesn't mean you know what they have rights to upload ... nor is it Google's responsibility to keep track of that for Viacom.
They would only know what user account uploaded the video. They would not know if that user has proper permissions to upload that video.
In which case Viacom would have to let them know that they own the copyright and that the user account in question does not. Then they would need to let Google know.
And this they can do now. But since they can't even manage to keep track of which videos they uploaded and which they have rights to, how is Google going to magically have this information? Essentially, Viacom is asking Google to know more about its business than it does itself.
So what you're saying is the U.S. has a piss-poor security process written by people with absolutely no understanding of how to secure anything? That they're probably people with 1-2-3-4 as the combination on their luggage? Because if one of their security features is people not knowing their security processes, then the American public has put their care and protection in the hands of a bunch of idiots. Security 101 tells you that obscurity is not security, particularly if more than one person knows about it.
All it takes is a single mole on the inside, and their years of hard work and training are down the tube. Except if the secret agent is marginally competent, then no one would even know their security is broken. If a single blogger can completely unravel the National Security Plan by posting it on-line, then it's a problem with The Plan, not with the blogger. The plan shouldn't rely on people now knowing about its details as a key security feature.
In essence, the plan should be 100% open AND still be effective. That's a good plan, and that's the plan the US government needs to come up with. But, that assumes they actually do anything competently themselves, which never happens.
Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
It occurs to me that you have WINE and VMWare confused.
WINE:
Requires no copy of Windows, installs applications directly into Linux so that they can be run as native Linux applications.
VMWare:
An x86 emulator that requires the user to install a copy of Windows (or another OS) onto its virtual machine where all applications must be run within the OS installed within VMWare.
Maybe demonstrating the differences there would clear it up? WINE allows Windows applications to run as native Linux applications ... VMWare and emulators do not, requiring they be launched first and then the applications are run through them separately.
Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
"I can't even install drivers without going through a command line. I have to build and compile it myself."
I tried Ubuntu over a year ago, and I was able to install dozens of drivers for hardware not designed to work with Linux (video cards & wifi cards) without having to build or compile anything. And the only reason I sometimes went to through the command line is because it's quicker than a GUI (and I could copy & paste instructions instead of following menu trees & image-based directions).
If you had to build and compile anything, then you were doing it wrong. You should only need to compile anything if you are customizing Linux. I've used 4 different distros and have never had to compile a thing unless I was installing a very obscure program.
Installing programs & drivers is actually significantly easier in Ubuntu than Windows, because you can install almost any application or driver directly from within Linux without having to go outside and do it manually. All installation, builds, compiles, downloads dependencies, and customization and initialization is handled by the OS itself. It actually does more of the work for you than Windows does.
I've installed a robust OS environment that handles all audio/video files, internet surfing, office productivity, and a dozen games ... without ever having to download a file directly. It's all handled within Ubuntu's software repository. And without me having to manually build or compile a single thing.
And WINE ... is not an emulator. WINE is an implementation of the Windows API calls, but it doesn't emulate Windows. It's an application layer that redirects or translates API calls. Not to mention, traditionally you emulate HARDWARE. So, you wouldn't have a Windows emulator, but you'd have an x86 emulator that you would install Windows in to. Since WINE is not an emulator, a copy of Windows is not necessary.
Perhaps all of the unregistered artists were found, and the list is no longer needed! There is no list on the new site, because EVERYONE HAS BEEN PAID. It was a Christmas miracle, and peace broke out on earth as the world's starving artists could afford a burger off of the dollar menu.
On the post: Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers
Re: Re: Good for streaming
*(note: movies included in the agreement are limited to, but may not include all, movies released between the years 1932 and 1965 that did not receive awards nominations or include any actors who have ever appeared in a movie with Kevin Bacon. Movies will not be release sporadically to not be in excess of one title per lunar cycle except when in the moon is waning when an additional title can be released under the condition its runtime is not in excess of 73 minutes. Movies will only be made available for a period of d20+3 weeks in which case they will self-destruct causing massive ecological disasters across the world.)
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
Or, because Sony Online Entertainment, LLC didn't come FROM the Internet. And considering nothing comes FROM the Internet, but merely passes through it, his statement isn't technically wrong. Nothing good has come FROM the Internet, of course, then again, nothing bad has either ... the Internet doesn't produce anything in and of itself. Just being a semantic bastard now.
On the post: Finnish Indie Record Label Says It Won't Sign Any New Bands Unless The Gov't Stops Piracy
Re: Still not understanding why anyone even deals with record lables anymore.
On the post: Finnish Indie Record Label Says It Won't Sign Any New Bands Unless The Gov't Stops Piracy
Re: Geesh
Somebody needs to buy 10,000 copies of this guy's CD IMMEDIATELY. I mean, the poor guy can't even afford a moderately priced set of computer speakers. He obviously has to buy the Big Lots computer speakers for $4.99 because of music piracy. How is he going to make music if he can't afford to buy computer speakers made in the past 15 years?!? Oh the humanity.
But seriously, computer speakers made after 1998 are pretty good compared to full-size home stereo speakers from the '80s & early '90s. My Logitech speakers & subwoofer sound far better than my stereos back in high school did.
Not to mention this bit of error in logic: "10% of the quality of the actual music created" ... um, MP3s are 10% of the file size of uncompressed versions (typically), that does NOT mean they are 10% of audio quality ... not to mention the artistic quality of the music has nothing to do with the compression. I'm sure his music would qualify as 0% quality no matter how much or how little you compressed it.
Seriously, that Edward Vox is an idiot. CDs suck, they always have.
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
Though, the biggest flaw is not that actors with nominations make more money, but that actors that are good enough to get nominations have enough talent to command higher salaries. The nominations are just an indicator of industry-perceived talent, not a prerequisite for salary grades. Just like a college diploma doesn't mean you'll earn more in the real world, just that people who complete college tend to have other characteristics that allow them to excel in jobs that pay more ... the diploma doesn't make you earn more.
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re:
Movie studios, fearing downloads and lost sales, don't distribute a screener of a movie already p2p-available to industry insiders, which in turn limits the potential reputation & marketing of the movie that could have increased its sales. Oscar-nominated movies always receive a sales boost, and by not putting the movie up for consideration they're costing themselves more.
So, for fear of losing sales they cost themselves sales. It's particularly sad when the lost sales to file sharing are unsubstantiated, but decades worth of previous market patterns demonstrate how an Oscar nod can increase a movie's income.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
On the post: MySpace Replaces All iMeem Playlists With Ads -- Doesn't Ask Permission
Re:
It's actually an issue with third-party cross-site content sharing. It has almost nothing to do with "Cloud Computing". A complete misuse of buzz words.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Tasers Can Be Excessive Force
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Tasers Can Be Excessive Force
Re: Ugh, not this again
"He died of natural causes. You can't live without your spleen, nothing unnatural about that."
after a body is found mutilated and missing a body organ.
In essence the only thing that ever kills anyone is either a lack of oxygen to the brain or severe brain damage. Everything else is nothing more than a contributing factor.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Tasers Can Be Excessive Force
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The kid refused to listen," Chief Burton said. "The officer took him by the arm and said ...
The officer instigated violence in a situation where he did not have authority to do so in the interest of his or any one else's safety.
Police don't get to instigate violence because they want to. If a cop violates your personal space without cause, then as a citizen you have the right to defend yourself. The cop was out of line and acting illegally.
The officer should be charged with aggravated assault. Unless an officer is putting you under arrest, you are not obligated to follow their requests or answer their questions. They are not gods, they are people.
On the post: Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But seriously, what you're suggesting is not only impractical, but practically impossible.
1. What's stopping Viacom from simply searching for its content in YouTube and excluding usernames it owns from the lawsuit? Nothing, because it should know the usernames its employees are using to upload videos. Yet, 200 videos purposefully uploaded by approved Viacom employees on accounts Viacom should have approved were included in their lawsuit. So, Viacom can't keep track of their own legally uploaded videos through user accounts that it knows about.
2. Using a simple username system doesn't tell you WHO is uploading videos. Simply, what user account is uploading videos. If marketing exec A doesn't properly log-out, anyone can upload videos through their account. So, an account does nothing to guarantee you information on who you're dealing with. It's impossible to truly know WHO is behind a user account.
3. You can't ever know without a reasonable doubt WHO is on the other end of a web connection. And essentially, you're expecting Google to know Viacom's employees better than Viacom knows them, because Google is supposed to know which Viacom employees should be uploading stuff when Viacom can't be bothered to keep track of its own staff and what they're up to itself.
Essentially your solution is ineffective at best. The only foolproof method is Viacom to know what it owns, what it uploads, and actually be marginally competent to tell the difference between unlicensed uploads and THE STUFF IT PUT UP ITSELF.
And all the solutions involve Viacom knowing its own business. And Viacom has proven it doesn't. Not to mention knowing WHO someone is, doesn't mean you know what they have rights to upload ... nor is it Google's responsibility to keep track of that for Viacom.
On the post: Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself
Re: Re: Re:
In which case Viacom would have to let them know that they own the copyright and that the user account in question does not. Then they would need to let Google know.
And this they can do now. But since they can't even manage to keep track of which videos they uploaded and which they have rights to, how is Google going to magically have this information? Essentially, Viacom is asking Google to know more about its business than it does itself.
On the post: Post TSA's New Security Rules And Get A Visit And Subpoena From Homeland Security
Re: Re: Re: A nice rant, but...
On the post: Post TSA's New Security Rules And Get A Visit And Subpoena From Homeland Security
Re: A nice rant, but...
All it takes is a single mole on the inside, and their years of hard work and training are down the tube. Except if the secret agent is marginally competent, then no one would even know their security is broken. If a single blogger can completely unravel the National Security Plan by posting it on-line, then it's a problem with The Plan, not with the blogger. The plan shouldn't rely on people now knowing about its details as a key security feature.
In essence, the plan should be 100% open AND still be effective. That's a good plan, and that's the plan the US government needs to come up with. But, that assumes they actually do anything competently themselves, which never happens.
On the post: Microsoft Cracks Down On Windows Piracy In China... So Pirating Group Offers Up Ubuntu That Looks Like XP
Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
WINE:
Requires no copy of Windows, installs applications directly into Linux so that they can be run as native Linux applications.
VMWare:
An x86 emulator that requires the user to install a copy of Windows (or another OS) onto its virtual machine where all applications must be run within the OS installed within VMWare.
Maybe demonstrating the differences there would clear it up? WINE allows Windows applications to run as native Linux applications ... VMWare and emulators do not, requiring they be launched first and then the applications are run through them separately.
On the post: Microsoft Cracks Down On Windows Piracy In China... So Pirating Group Offers Up Ubuntu That Looks Like XP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
Linux & Ubuntu can be completely administered and used without ever touching the command line. Just that GUIs are easier to use, not faster.
On the post: Microsoft Cracks Down On Windows Piracy In China... So Pirating Group Offers Up Ubuntu That Looks Like XP
Re: Re: ubuntu linux
On the post: Microsoft Cracks Down On Windows Piracy In China... So Pirating Group Offers Up Ubuntu That Looks Like XP
Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
I tried Ubuntu over a year ago, and I was able to install dozens of drivers for hardware not designed to work with Linux (video cards & wifi cards) without having to build or compile anything. And the only reason I sometimes went to through the command line is because it's quicker than a GUI (and I could copy & paste instructions instead of following menu trees & image-based directions).
If you had to build and compile anything, then you were doing it wrong. You should only need to compile anything if you are customizing Linux. I've used 4 different distros and have never had to compile a thing unless I was installing a very obscure program.
Installing programs & drivers is actually significantly easier in Ubuntu than Windows, because you can install almost any application or driver directly from within Linux without having to go outside and do it manually. All installation, builds, compiles, downloads dependencies, and customization and initialization is handled by the OS itself. It actually does more of the work for you than Windows does.
I've installed a robust OS environment that handles all audio/video files, internet surfing, office productivity, and a dozen games ... without ever having to download a file directly. It's all handled within Ubuntu's software repository. And without me having to manually build or compile a single thing.
And WINE ... is not an emulator. WINE is an implementation of the Windows API calls, but it doesn't emulate Windows. It's an application layer that redirects or translates API calls. Not to mention, traditionally you emulate HARDWARE. So, you wouldn't have a Windows emulator, but you'd have an x86 emulator that you would install Windows in to. Since WINE is not an emulator, a copy of Windows is not necessary.
On the post: SoundExchange Claims To Open Up,
But Somehow Its List Of Unpaid Musicians Has Disappeared[Updated: List Found]Re:
Next >>