I know, but the op needs to share files from his video project. An Apache server is a very useful resource in this situation, regardless of your status.Originally Posted by Bob Sanders
I know, but the op needs to share files from his video project. An Apache server is a very useful resource in this situation, regardless of your status.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Scary:
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Orwellian more like.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Yeah, seems like the whole world goes down the drain.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Gee... I wonder why I ever left the USA.... such a wonderful place. LOL
Enjoy YouTube and Vimeo as long as you can!
I doubt SOPA will ever pass... at least not in its present form anyway. Of course it has nothing to do with Human rights... the US government doesn't give a crap about that. What SOPA has the potential to do however is hurt the US economy as more internet based businesses shy away from setting up in the USA. (Mention lost revenue to the US Gov and all of a sudden it's a whole different ballgame... an evil one at that). The USA got rid of the draft specifically for that reason.
Wait until it, or something like it, slips through as a Rider bill...
I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that almost all legislation aimed at protecting "intellectual property" in the artistic/creative industries actually stifles more creativity and innovation by individual artists than it fosters. For example, I think it's absurd that if I want to make a boulevard-of-broken-dreams or a rags-to-riches feature about somebody hopping a bus to Hollywood, I can't have the "Hollywood" sign or the stars on the Walk of Fame in my shots without negotiating a fee to be paid to Global Icons (and many other recognizable landmarks around the world are similarly protected).
Really? The two most recognizable forms of visual shorthand to tell the audience, "Hey, now we're in Hollywood," which people the world over have seen in countless movies and TV shows, that every tourist has snapshots of, and even if I've got all the necessary shooting permits and paid the necessary location fees, I can't even have them in the background of my shots without paying some third party for the privilege? To say nothing of posters, soft drink machines, clothing, cars, electronics, anything and everything found in a typical urban environment with a logo on it. There's an entire industry of "Errors and Omissions Insurance" built around the difficulty of complying with the need for all of these "rights holders" to get their pound of flesh.
By way of contrast, look at areas which haven't been heavily "protected" by patents, copyrights or trademarks. While the logo badges and other "trade dress" of a car or electronic device are protected, the basic shapes and styling are not. Nobody "owns" the hood scoop or the tail fin, so all automotive designers are entitled to use them, either to set a trend or to follow one. And how about the fashion industry? It seems to be doing pretty well in terms of innovation as well as revenue, despite being largely "unprotected."
Meanwhile the little guy writer or filmmaker who has actually been pirated or plagiarized and attempts to assert his rights quickly discovers a bottomless pit of lawyers' fees, jurisdictional confusion and conflicting legal precedent. All he can reasonably do is write a strongly-worded cease and desist letter and chalk it up to experience. Copyrighting a creative work is cheap and easy, but actually enforcing that copyright, should the need arise, is only practical for those with very deep pockets.
I realize that the world has changed and that unlimited pristine digital copies represent a different threat to the entertainment industry than did low-quality VHS and cassette recordings from OTA broadcasts. I am a "content creator" from time to time, and I know what it feels like being plagiarized, and I think clearly-defined piracy is wrong. But the answer to that problem isn't to grant the government sweeping new powers. As the Megaupload case shows, they already have the authority and ability to shut down off-shore sites and arrest foreign nationals with little to no due process when they actually have the will to do so.
Oh, that's how you ended up in Canada (j/k)the draft
SOPA and PIPA are the protection of business models that were developed 100 years ago. The industry missed out on the democratization of content creation and distribution. They never figured out the great opportunities of the new platforms. It is the typical Angst of conservatives***.
***whereas I don't think that conservatism per se is a bad thing.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Rider bills don't fly when there is a chance the bill will do more overall damage to the economy than good. The whole idea of the USA is FREEDOM TO MAKE MONEY and they have quite an open-door policy to business... while this bill on the other hand has the ability to actually scare business away.
I suspect SOMETHING will pass as a form of protection... but I would be quite surprised to see anything other than a GREATLY watered down SOPA bill.
Actually that's not too far from the truth. My parents did not want their children involved in any one of the great many wars the USA digs into.
Interestingly enough however, my father got his draft papers while we were already safely in Canada. He decided that to ignore them would hurt his international career in the future, so we went back. Dad served 2 years in Washington as a Commander. The instant it was done however... we returned to Canada because the USA just plain SUCKS.
I'm not too sure that the clowns on Capitol Hill actually understand economy. As long as Hollywood and RIAA spend money on lobbying, I bet the bill will fly in one way or the other. This bill is too good of a chance for conservatives to finally control the internet (or so they think at least) to let it go.
Kudos to your dad!
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
You know, the hill in Helsinki upon which the Finnish Parliament is built, was earlier the place where circuses put up their tents --- so, more proof that "there is no new thing under the sun."
There is similar legislation proposed in Finland and the EU, and it is attacked by IT experts as being "inadequately and incorrectly prepared legislation" - Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translat...itysta&act=url
Authority, no, not at all- The US has no jurisdiction over anything that happens outside of US soil. Ability, most definitely. The US has proven time and time again that they will just take what they want If it isn't given to them. Its like the school bully who steals the scrawny kids lunch money, He doesn't want an ass-woopin, so he just gives it to them.
Damn straight
Although the USA may have finally met its match - the internet.
See my videos! http://www.youtube.com/user/lowcostvideos
-Proud owner of the world's only GS80 with a mic input.
Why do you think China has put up "The Great Firewall" ? Is the US going for something similar, but on an economic rather than an ideological basis ?
I'm not sure if there is a difference anymore.on an economic rather than an ideological basis ?
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
UK signs ACTA along with the rest of Europe
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ta-rest-europe
(Signed, but not yet ratified.)
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Co...rade_Agreement
The anti-piracy measures are going to happen one way or the other, that's clear.
I agree that something needs to be done about piracy. It really devalues content and it's hilarious how many people online will defend downloading by saying "if you just make a copy/it's not actually stealing".
Yet, I'm concerned about a couple of things...
First, will the part of the SOPA bill where websites can be blocked because someone makes a copyright infringement claim ever become a reality/even if in different form? That would clearly destroy the internet, as we know it - one person could take down every major website with copyright claims.
Secondly, Big Content companies are using their muscle to make copyright infringement laws stronger... but I have to wonder what they have planned for the small artist who can sell their goods directly to the customer.
I can't imagine that Big Content will want that to continue. For example; look at an artist like Katy Perry; the music is clearly lalalala/yet she's had more number ones than Michael Jackson.
Why would they want some kid to be able to make real music at home and sell it directly to the customer and how do you think they are going to go about addressing that with all of these copyright laws and/or something else?
Because, ideally, the small artist should be able to utilize these copyright laws to protect their work, right?
But I don't see that ultimately happening.
Are you serious?
It's value is one of the reasons pirating has hit an all time high. The price of movies USED to be pretty reasonable but now....
You will certainly never completely stop pirating but to cut it significantly would be pretty easy.... just drop the price. But you see... they don't want to cut into their pretty (and HUGE) profits. itunes on the other hand is a great example of how things can work if the price is REASONABLE.
To a certain extent this pirating issue has gotten to the point it has DIRECTLY because of movie studio greed. I have very little sympathy for Hollywood on this issue
Last edited by Bob Sanders; 2012 January 27th at 06:43.
Yes, I am serious: downloading devalues the content.
It is typical, for example, that someone will download entire catalogs of an artist; every Jimi Hendrix album/song, every Led Zeppelin album/song, etc. all in one zip file at a time.
Why would someone then bother to purchase an iTunes download? There is no benefit in doing that/it's the same content. There is a whole (younger) generation that have been casually doing this and are the prime demographic for buying music.
The industry is greedy - but the downloaders are also being greedy. If people just occasionally downloaded a couple of songs/movies, they wouldn't care and none of this would be happening right now. The downloading got out of hand.
It's not an ideal system; if someone doesn't like how a company operates/they can stop buying or downloading their products.
Why must someone have a song or movie?
It's just a movie; don't buy it.
This is not debatable.
Piracy devalues content.
The more of something exists, the less it's worth. Period. It's simple supply and demand. I can provide you with an easy example.
Imagine if there were 8 billion million trillion copies of your favorite cd or DVD laying around. They would be completely worthless, you could not even GIVE them all away. Good luck trying to make a dollar selling one, when there are 8 billion million trillion copies laying around for anyone that wants one. Hope your not planning on paying your rent with profits from sales.
Additionally there is the concept of ownership.
What about when you go on vacation. Should ANYONE be able to use your apartment or house? After all, you're not using it right?
So it wouldn't cause you any harm. It's not like you're sitting in the living room, so why shouldn't just anyone be able to use your house if you're not there?
Because you own it. That means you get to say when someone can use it.
Same with IP.
you own it. You get to say when someone can use it. Period. Just like your house or apartment. If people can use it without your permission, you don't really own it do you?
And of course I mean in general, there are exceptions. If someone is going to die from a hurricane, they can come in and use your house in an emergency, etc.
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 January 27th at 12:20.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
You're missing the point. The worth of the content has been inflated beyond what most find acceptable. Gasoline pricing and thefts are a perfect example. Every single time there is a spike in fuel prices there is also a noticeable (and recorded) increase in Gasoline related thefts. In other words unreasonably high prices turn normal people into crooks. However lower those prices again and the thievery then begins to take a back seat. There are ACTUALLY statistics out on this BTW. If movie studios lowered their prices to the point where the risk of theft is not worth it... then there wouldn't be much theft.
Have you EVER seen or heard of a movie studio stating such a thing? The studios don't care how much it's happening.... only that it in fact IS happening.If people just occasionally downloaded a couple of songs/movies,
I don't think any one here is saying that pirating is right, honorable, or honest. That's not the issue or the point. It's theft. There are no 2 ways about it.
My point is that a lot of this theft is being fueled unreasonably high prices set by the studios and they can EASILY control some of the theft by simply dropping those prices. In the long run that would probably SAVE money. But they would never dream of doing such a thing. Why? GREED.
So it all works both ways.
Well said!My point is that a lot of this theft is being fueled unreasonably high prices set by the studios and they can EASILY control some of the theft by simply dropping those prices.
...and if the industry changes their archaic business model and embrace the opportunities the internet could offer them, instead of fighting it with tooth and nail, we'd all be happy ( and mostly legal) campers.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Movies and music are not necessities.
They are aware of the numbers from tracking. I saw it on a show years ago/don't have the source.
When Napster started having legal troubles (Metallica, Dr. Dre lawsuits), with Napster users being named raised the possibility of liability. Only then did iTunes, a couple years after that, seem like a feasible model. There was a sense of safety in that people were clearly freaked out about the implications of using Napster.
Otherwise, people would have been using Napster in it's original form for the past decade; there would be no reason not to - file sharing wasn't about price; it was, and still is, about being free.
Although you appear to be talking more about movies, and me about music - the file sharing started with Napster. As far as prices, the Amazon mp3 store sells songs for $.99 or $1.29 each and albums can go for $5.99 to $8.99/or other. That's reasonable.
Yes, the prices of movies are steep. It wouldn't compel me to download the latest movies as there are already so many titles for cheaper, it's impossible to watch them all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Evil Bastard Productions