You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   78-102   103-127   128-152   153-154   
 
Author Message
25 new of 154 responses total.
krj
response 103 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 27 18:47 UTC 2003

News roundup after the holiday weekend:

ZDnet.uk ran a story about relatively new & lesser known P2P systems
eDonkey and BitTorrent.  Some discussion of their technical tweaks.
BitTorrent in particular is optimized for the distribution of 
large files, such as free Unix distributions, or movies.
 
BayTSP, which looks at the Internet for the copyright holders, says 
eDonkey is passing Gnutella in popularity and is closing on KaZaa &
the rest of the FastTrack system.
 
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2135249,00.html
 
Here's another summary story, somewhat amateurish but with some 
interesting links, about the BitTorrent system:

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/bittorrent.html

ZDnet again: with a story about ISPs complaining about the bandwidth
& costs of their file-sharing users.  60% of traffic at large ISPs
is file sharing traffic, costing the ISPs a projected $1.3 billion
for 2003.  On the other hand, the file-sharing systems are what 
motivates most broadband customers.
 
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-1009456.html
goose
response 104 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 28 13:37 UTC 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2940270.stm

this is an article about how Matrix Reloaded is available via BitTorrent.
This greatly increases the profile os BitTorrent.
oval
response 105 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 28 14:01 UTC 2003

"Digital piracy has become a real menace," he said.

Despite the availability of pirate copies, The Matrix Reloaded has made more
than $363.5m at the box office worldwide so far. "

..poor poor MPAA

jazz
response 106 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 12:33 UTC 2003

        ... despite studies that show that Napster users bought MORE music than
non-Napster users ...
tod
response 107 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 16:10 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

keesan
response 108 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 16:16 UTC 2003

I agree, anyone stealing porches probably has a house and a place to store
the car.  I would not steal porches if I had no house to attach them to.
jazz
response 109 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 16:18 UTC 2003

        Car theft doesn't pay well on the low end of the totem pole.

        It just galls me, though, when people manage their business badly and
then blame something unrelated for the loss.  Napster and it's clones isn't
the problem, and never has been.
tod
response 110 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 16:52 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

gregb
response 111 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 17:43 UTC 2003

That's nuttin'.  I just read an article that said Greese has outlawed 
ANY electronic games, including PC games!  Their reasoning is that they 
can't control the contents of the games and that they're worried that 
games--any games--can be converted to gambling games.
tod
response 112 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 29 18:12 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jmsaul
response 113 of 154: Mark Unseen   May 30 02:11 UTC 2003

Re #111:  I think that's a little out of date.  I remember reading that they
          backed it off to gambling games.
krj
response 114 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 00:58 UTC 2003

Start off with what seems like good news.   The RIAA and some group
of webcasters have negotiated new royalty rates for non-profit 
webcasters.   All the articles say that payments should run between 
$200 and $500 per year, which should be managable for most small 
webcasters, and which is a huge improvement over the tens or hundreds
of thousands of dollars owed under the previous CARP scheme.
 
My view is that the RIAA is finally waking up to the idea that 
killing off independent webcasting is a really bad idea.
 
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59102,00.html
 
-----

Appeals court declines to intervene in the RIAA vs. Verizon case.
Verizon appears to have to give up the names of anyone the RIAA
asks for, without any standard -of-evidence review.   This is
the latest installment in a long running case.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=2878846
jaklumen
response 115 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 02:02 UTC 2003

Not to break the flow of of Ken's newsy posts, but I'd like to note 
something annoying I've seen in p2p file sharing: inaccurate, 
sometimes GROSSLY inaccurate naming of files, songs, and genres.

Genres sometimes are debatable, but you see some really weird labels 
on some of the files, really.  I've been on some Net radio stations 
and the DJ will name a song and just list the wrong artist because 
they were quoting the idiot they got it from on Kazaa.

Copyright law can't possibly cover this, but it's got to be really 
frustrating to some well-known artists when file sharers can't even 
match them to their songs.

Why get this information correct?  Well, I think if you do, at least 
with RealOne player, you can pull up discographies and biographies on 
the artist.  It would seem to me like a good case that file sharing 
could promote future sales.

On to the usual programming-- this may be a blip on the radar screen...
gull
response 116 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 02:15 UTC 2003

With CDDB, there's little excuse for not naming your MP3 files properly when
you rip  them from CD.
gelinas
response 117 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 02:38 UTC 2003

I've heard that one reason for misnaming them is to hide them from the
copyright owner.
jor
response 118 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 08:07 UTC 2003

        I read or heard that also
goose
response 119 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 13:55 UTC 2003

Yep.  One of my kids downloaded a bunch of essentally classic rock songs and
all the titles were correct, but the artists name was not correct.  I'm sure
the reverse happens too.
jep
response 120 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 15:25 UTC 2003

When I downloaded "Harper Valley PTA" from Kazaa, I saw versions 
labeled as being by Dolly Parton and other prominent female country 
singers.  It was really sung by Jeannie C. Riley, and I don't think it 
was ever done by anyone else.
tpryan
response 121 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 6 20:56 UTC 2003

        Well, maybe not the original lyrics.
dbratman
response 122 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 10 23:59 UTC 2003

Re mislabeling artists, some years ago there was a fly-by-night 
classical label called Aries, which issued bootlegs of BBC house 
orchestra broadcast tapes, attributing the performances to fictitious 
conductors and ensembles, of which my favorite was the "Wales Symphony 
Orchestra" conducted by Colin Wilson.  As most of the label's 
repertoire was contemporary works which had never been performed in 
public more than once, nobody was really fooled by this.
gull
response 123 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 11 19:24 UTC 2003

ReplayTV to forbid ad skipping
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Posted: 11/06/2003 at 08:48 GMT

The single most distinguishing feature of ReplayTV, namely its ability
to skip commercial propaganda automatically, will be dropped from the
next line of DVR boxes, Reuters reports.

"Due in August, the new ReplayTV 5500 series will remove the 'Commercial
Advance' and 'Send Show' options present in models that are currently
for sale," the wire service says.

An impoverished US television broadcast industry had sued ReplayTV's
former owner, SonicBlue, with piteous claims that allowing viewers to
skip adverts would siphon off the media colossus' lifeblood and so
destroy the artistic creativity for which it is so justly famous.

The suit also decried the 'send show' feature, which broadcasters
likened to a mechanism of mass piracy, though it is configured to allow
ReplayTV users to send shows only to other ReplayTV users, and only one
at a time.

ReplayTV's new owner, Japanese outfit D&M Holdings, will not be altering
the 'pause and resume' feature or preventing users from manually
fast-forwarding through commercials. For now, the broadcast industry
seems content to allow consumers to skip ads manually or, if they
prefer, to leave the room while they're playing, though for how long is
anyone's guess. 

(from http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/31126.html)
slynne
response 124 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 11 20:03 UTC 2003

Yeah but isnt that one of the main reasons to buy a replay TV or a Tivo 
or whatever?
jazz
response 125 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 11 20:11 UTC 2003

        There'll be a ROM upgrade out soon, I'm sure, that allows you to once
again skip commercials.  If you buy black-market chips, that is.
krj
response 126 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 11 20:17 UTC 2003

I mentioned in an earlier piece that the previous owners of Replay TV,
the Sonicblue company, had been much more willing to fight legal 
battles to defend innovative products.  In the short term, expect to 
see the copyright industry with much more veto control on new products.
 
tsty
response 127 of 154: Mark Unseen   Jun 11 20:32 UTC 2003

hacking tivo made one of the weekly news-mags recently.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   78-102   103-127   128-152   153-154   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss