Frankly none of this seems important to me. However, Lacero sure looks hot in that Santa hat.
Pete
Pete
LethalWolfe said:But what's the point of playing back a super-high res video on something the size of the iPod? Is someone going to watch the whole video at 100x magnification?
LethalWolfe said:Is there going to be a market for 17" or 19" monitors running at 5760*3600 in 2010?
JFreak said:I couldn't disagree more!
IF there will be a copy-protected standard coming (and it will for sure), then it is surely better for us to have Apple in the decision-making process.
Super Dave said:All of them are more poor than the executives. As for my comment, not all artists are rich. My arguments clearly don't point to the rich, but to those who are not.
David![]()
You got wrong. You cannot play ENCRYPTED HD content if both the player and the screen are not HDPC compatible. How could anyone limit in a technical level forbid playing what is not encryptedCreepyArcade said:Ok so we supposedly can't play HD content that is not encrypted?
Porchland said:And this is bad how? DRM helps movie, TV and record execs sleep better at night and makes them more likely to allow content like episodes of "The Office" available over iTunes. You think that would have happened if Apple's DRM for the rollout of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" had set off a huge round of piracy? It didn't happen, and now the content is going to start coming in droves.
Can you get it for free? No. Content providers don't make money by giving it to you for free, and they're not going to make it available if the DRM doesn't work.
The anti-DRM crowd continues to mystify me.
Peace said:so why was DVD Jon arrested?
![]()
Lacero said:That would be quadrupling of the bandwidth, not a doubling.![]()
zwilliams07 said:If RIAA and the MPAA stopped being total idiots and ******s, people probably would feel worse about stealing their content.
LethalWolfe said:If you scaled back on the ignorant rants and people might care about what you are saying.
Lethal
Super Dave said:Sorta. I worked in retail for 6 years before doing web design to pay the bills through university. Every night when I was leaving, the security guard would check my bag. I didn't like it, but I put up with it. What should the company do if the majority of theft is always internal?
Further, 90% of my friends steal music and don't think twice about it. How about your friends? All it took was the ability to get away with it and their ability to say "everyone does it." Sure these same people won't rob a bank, but why? Because it is morally sanctioned, and because they wouldn't get away with it. Moral relativism has corrupted the minds of the contemporary world so much that theft is considered "ok."
Nonetheless, if you want to blame DRM on someone, you're right to blame it on the companies. After all, the thieves may be the reason that the companies added a lock, but the company itself still had a choice. But ask yourself "what would I do?" Would you be allowing everyone to steal your stuff, knowing thatas the younger generation got older and the old people who don't understand the technology die offit would only get worse?
If you want to complain about unfair DRM (DVD's inability to make ANY rips), fine. But if you want to complain about DRM as a concept at all, come up with a better model. Trust obviously doesn't work, as evident by the rampant piracy of music. So what's the better option?
An immanent critique (one that makes no suggestions) is not useful here. What is needed are suggestions for a better model of DRM that will be both fair to those of us who are not crooks, while at the same time keeping those who will steal whatever they can get away with under wraps so that pricing does not skyrocket.
Ideas people!
David![]()
ZorPrime said:huh?I've studied (US Copyright) law and your comment is wrong.
![]()
W. Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studio, Inc. are precedents that haven't been overturned... there may have been adaptation and modification of the exercise clause of the 1st Amendment but Fair Use is Protected Speech and is Legal, at least here in America.![]()
Edit/Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or advocate of "piracy" and my comments do not constitute any legal advice or others point of view because I have no clue.![]()
An immanent critique (one that makes no suggestions) is not useful here. What is needed are suggestions for a better model of DRM that will be both fair to those of us who are not crooks, while at the same time keeping those who will steal whatever they can get away with under wraps so that pricing does not skyrocket.
Ideas people!
dernhelm said:You missed what I said. Of course fair use is legal, that's what makes it fair use. What I was pointing out is that the DMCA and Fair Use conflict on the issue as to wheter or not you can rip your own movies for display on your own devices. Any way you look at it, that constitutes fair use, but the DMCA says it is ALWAYS illegal to "break" the encryption on a DVD for any purpose, even one that falls under fair use policies.
Therefore it is possible to exercise fair use and still be a criminal in the process.
![]()
Chundles said:OK, my Dad just bought a nice new Panasonic Viera 42" plasma screen. It has HDMI input on the back. What this is saying is that this screen, despite the thousands of dollars Dad has just thrown down for it, might not be able to play HD content from the new generation players?
Well that's just plain stupid.
finchna said:Are there any TV screens (not computer screens like Apple's) out there that are true HD resolution (1920 x 1080)? I've not seen any so don't all these screens compromise the quality of real HD content? Perhaps there will be an adapter box so that systems that don't meet the new specs can play something from new HD or BluRay disks--or they'll just throw a lower resolution copy of the content for such systems.
finchna said:Are there any TV screens (not computer screens like Apple's) out there that are true HD resolution (1920 x 1080)? I've not seen any so don't all these screens compromise the quality of real HD content? Perhaps there will be an adapter box so that systems that don't meet the new specs can play something from new HD or BluRay disks--or they'll just throw a lower resolution copy of the content for such systems.
Oh, but thats the consumer's opinion. Thier idea is that its NOT your stuff, its thiers, and you have no right to do what you want with it; you have the right to do what they want you to do with it.zwilliams07 said:Stop cramming "anti-piracy" junk into our stuff. Stop encrypting our stuff.
But my point is that at some point the added resolution will be pointless for most cases because people will not be able to see the added detail.shawnce said:Video isn't the best example to be talking about when talking about resolution independence.
Yes. Wouldn't you like to have a 17" or 19" display that is 300 DPI (dot per inch) coupled with an operating system that can render text, controls, etc. at 300 DPI. In other words the physical dimensions of the letter "T" stays the same when displayed but instead it is drawn with 2 or more times the number of pixels (giving it better visual appearance).
SiliconAddict said:The advent of P2P music sharing occurred not because people could do it. Not because there wasn't a legal alternative to P2P. But because of price. Sorry but $12.99 vs. .99 is somewhat of a no brainer. (Even now when you consider that iTMS only caters to iPods only....)
What is going on with movies, music, and books is no different then prohibition. Doubtless that there were people like you who believed that following the rules is the only way. Thankfully society stepped in and forced the issue otherwise we would all be drinking root beers instead right now. Society is doing the same thing with big business right now. Its basically saying F-you to the outrageous prices being forced on the consumers. Remember how we were told that the advent of CD tech would bring about lower music prices. Well last time I looked that didn't happen. What did happen and is happening is a backlash against greedy businesses. And right now we as consumers are at war with the *AA's. If you don't think this is a war wake up and look at the number of battles being fought the EFF. The amount of legislation being introduced that is so anti-consumer that its not even funny. This isn't about the poor *AA. This is about companies that want to squeeze every possible cent out of the consumer. You can rest assure that the *AA's will not be happy until you are charged every time you view, listen, read their content.
Please read this http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/analog-hole.ars
If that doesn't get your hackles up I don't know what will.