|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
goose
|
|
response 104 of 154:
| 
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
May 29 16:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 108 of 154:
|
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:
|
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:
|
May 29 16:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gregb
|
|
response 111 of 154:
|
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:
|
May 29 18:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 113 of 154:
|
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Re #111: I think that's a little out of date.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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Jun 6 08:07 UTC 2003 |
I read or heard that also
|
goose
|
|
response 119 of 154:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Jun 6 20:56 UTC 2003 |
Well, maybe not the original lyrics.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 122 of 154:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Jun 11 20:32 UTC 2003 |
hacking tivo made one of the weekly news-mags recently.
|
senna
|
|
response 128 of 154:
|
Jun 16 03:09 UTC 2003 |
If TiVo doesn't fall for this, they're going to run ReplayTV into the ground.
One of these days the industry is going to take one of these concepts too far,
and it's going to backfire, and the public is going to revolt with their
wallets. This would have had such potential if hard-disk television was more
popular.
|
