I think it will take 10 years for the possibility to become widely adopted in the same way physical media is. Not just because of bandwidth but the other issues also like the movie studios and the way people look at purchases. In the mean time we can see how BluRay fairs adoption wise.
I went the long route with Walter explaining everything I could because he didn't seem to understand the discussion in the first place.
iTunes is the number one music distributor in the US.. that happened in less than ten years.
so, in less than ten years most people have accepted it, it is now accepted, it has now happened, come to pass and is a fact of most peoples lives. Therefore your argument is dead, it has ceased to be, it is a dead parrot!
in what sense is iTunes being the number one choice of people for the distribution of music, NOT happening.
iTunes is the number one music distributor in the US.. that happened in less than ten years.
so, in less than ten years most people have accepted it, it is now accepted, it has now happened, come to pass and is a fact of most peoples lives. Therefore your argument is dead, it has ceased to be, it is a dead parrot!
in what sense is iTunes being the number one choice of people for the distribution of music, NOT happening.
in the sense that t has already happened?
Walter.
I use iTunes also. It'a a success right now! What the hell does that have to do with my argument?
Learn to read. Please.
You missed my point on the side of that barn by a mile!
Are you stoned or something when you read these posts?
I think you will find that, that means the purchaser of the discs OWN HOME, not every tom dick and harry you wish to lend it two, if that were the case, why press up more than a few hundred copies?
GOT IT
Look it up. It's just like books or any other copyrighted material. But still Walter this isn't at the heart of the argument.
as I understood it, YOU were moaning on about how digital downloads/rental services wouldn't work.
the thing is they are already there, in place, by many companies, did you check out the netflix service at all? or are you too blinded by your own stubbornness to actually check out a link?
Quote:
as I understood it, YOU were moaning on about how digital downloads/rental services wouldn't work.
No.
EHHHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!
Sorry that wasn't the right answer! Tell Walter what complimentary gift he gets to take home.
Public Performance rights conveyed only through the purchase of a separate license from the copyright owner. It is a violation of Federal law to exhibit prerecorded videos and dvds beyond the scope of the family and social acquaintances - regardless of whether or not admission is charged. Ownership of videos and dvds does not constitute ownership of copyright.
Social aquaintances implies outside of your immediate family or home. So in other words you can't go out on a street corner, hang a sheet on a wall, and show this in a public gathering of people you don't know ( even if you don't charge admission unless you purchase a license ) but you can show or lend this to a friend that you do know. An " aquaintance ".
And still Walter this isn't even at the heart of the argument. My argument is about weither or not downloads will replace physical media. If they do they will have to meet requirments from the consumer and have to be legal ( ie. Not torrents of a movie someone copied in a theater with a video camera ) to be widely accepted and a replacement for physical media. Learn to read! I refuse to restate! ( even though I just did for you ).
Social aquaintances implies outside of your immediate family or home. So in other words you can't go out on a street corner, hang a sheet on a wall, and show this in a public gathering of people you don't know ( even if you don't charge admission unless you purchase a license ) but you can show or lend this to a friend that you do know. An " aquaintance ".
And still Walter this isn't even at the heart of the argument. My argument is about weither or not downloads will replace physical media. If they do they will have to meet requirments from the consumer and have to be legal ( ie. Not torrents of a movie someone copied in a theater with a video camera ) to be widely accepted and a replacement for physical media. Learn to read! I refuse to restate! ( even though I just did for you ).
Here's an organizer for sale designed to keep track of your DVDs when you loan them to friends and family!
Now you can easily keep track of your DVD collection. By keeping your dvds cataloged, you know what movies you have the next time you're looking for something to watch. In addition, if you loan out your dvds to friends or family, this program will keep track of that.
It's lending. That's why it has it's own special word and isn't called "temporary distribution."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe
I think you will find that, that means the purchaser of the discs OWN HOME,
Now you're really stretching your credibility as a rational human being. By your logic it's illegal for me to watch my DVD in a car or traveling with a laptop. I suppose I should turn myself in for all the DVDs I've bought and given to people as gifts.
If you really are uptight about using the absolute most restrictive possible interpretation of the law I hope you've you turned yourself in every time a Windows program you used performed an "illegal operation," because if you didn't you're practicing a double standard.
It's OK to be provocative, spicy, witty and even stubborn.
It's even reasonable to be wrong from time to time.
But there is no actual need to be incredibly rude.
It does not actually strengthen the argument.
C.
Good manners class had been voided from schools in the states while ago. Perhaps, Obama can change that. Even Barnie, the purple dinosour, has a DVD on the matter. I think everyone should go watch it. I have a copy to lend out if anyone wants it. I consider you guys friends considering our involvement in the forum for last several years.
Perhaps, we should define what is "incredibly rude" and start from there?
It's OK to be provocative, spicy, witty and even stubborn.
It's even reasonable to be wrong from time to time.
But there is no actual need to be incredibly rude.
It does not actually strengthen the argument.
C.
Considering Frank's question, the motivation ( if you've read anything in PO ), and the way it was asked.
Which of us are you talking about?
Unless you're talking about my discussion with Walter. In which case he just wasn't stubbornly absorbing all the material and misrepresenting my case. Then on top of that posting inaccurate conclusions about the issue.
Social aquaintances implies outside of your immediate family or home. So in other words you can't go out on a street corner, hang a sheet on a wall, and show this in a public gathering of people you don't know ( even if you don't charge admission unless you purchase a license ) but you can show or lend this to a friend that you do know. An " aquaintance ".
And still Walter this isn't even at the heart of the argument. My argument is about weither or not downloads will replace physical media. If they do they will have to meet requirments from the consumer and have to be legal ( ie. Not torrents of a movie someone copied in a theater with a video camera ) to be widely accepted and a replacement for physical media. Learn to read! I refuse to restate! ( even though I just did for you ).
Got it?
clearly your countries laws are open to a different interpretation.
funny how you consider its someone else who should learn to read, iTunes HAS replaced the CD distribution model.
are your own personal desires getting in the way to blind you from seeing that the same will happen with digital video distribution?
I have, I believe, argued against this point myself in the past, the thing is I have learnt to change my viewpoint with new evidence, it can happen when you stop REFUSING to see the digital writing on the wall.
"Progress" and "refusal", don't make good bedfellows. at least IMO.
but hey, if your blue in the face, you can opt for free will, no-ones making you post here
I was considering installing the ATV Flash software. and was wondering if anyone has gone that route?
Primarily it would be for the convenience of getting BBC iPlayer on the ATV (a UK only Hulu like service without adverts)
I don't want to futz about with the ATV, so the idea of sticking a USB in the ATV and installing with maximum ease and minimal effort on my part is a fair draw, and almost worth the cost. but of course any input is welcome.
clearly your countries laws are open to a different interpretation.
funny how you consider its someone else who should learn to read, iTunes HAS replaced the CD distribution model.
are your own personal desires getting in the way to blind you from seeing that the same will happen with digital video distribution?
I have, I believe, argued against this point myself in the past, the thing is I have learnt to change my viewpoint with new evidence, it can happen when you stop REFUSING to see the digital writing on the wall.
"Progress" and "refusal", don't make good bedfellows. at least IMO.
but hey, if your blue in the face, you can opt for free will, no-ones making you post here
Yes but Walter you had the argument all wrong! That's why I was getting frustrated. And from your statement I'm still not sure you have it right. I have no problem with iTunes having replaced the CD distribution model. It has ! Ok?
But downloads will not completely replace the video distrubution model ( especially sales ) until it meets certain criteria previously discussed here. Video is a different kettle of fish controlled by different people. That's why you can't burn a video to a DVD or anything else from iTunes ( transfer it to you iPod yes but how many iPods hook to your TV in the living room? ). The exception is items like Apple TV which not everyone has. According to trends not everyone's going to. More people have a BD player. In order to knock out physical media this adoption has to be widespread.
It's limited in how you can watch it. Hence physical sales remain until this can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Because of that physical media is here to stay for awhile and BluRay will have a longer chance than it would to catch on. That's what the discussion is about. Not if I believe if iTunes is viable. It already is.
And Walter I thought you were an advocate of BD so isn't this a good thing?
Look, I have nothing against BB, I shop there for DVDs, but the fact is I don't care about the extra features with BD. A cheap upconverter will do near HD, which may be good enough. All I'm saying is that at these prices, the general public isn't buying. And if the general public doesn't buy, then BD either withers and dies or becomes an expensive niche product.
Pardon me while I eat my words.
A week after this post, I found Blu-rays at Sam's Club for $9.88. I bought one, because I had already ordered, from Amazon, a Samsung 7.1 Blu-ray theater in a box. Why? 51% off. $1000 unit for $487. Five years ago I bought my Panasonic HTiB for $429., so now we're in the same ballpark. Same for the movies - we're now at least in the same ballpark. That's what I was waiting for, parity. I just hope I haven't bet on the wrong horse.
Comments
I think it will take 10 years for the possibility to become widely adopted in the same way physical media is. Not just because of bandwidth but the other issues also like the movie studios and the way people look at purchases. In the mean time we can see how BluRay fairs adoption wise.
I went the long route with Walter explaining everything I could because he didn't seem to understand the discussion in the first place.
iTunes is the number one music distributor in the US.. that happened in less than ten years.
so, in less than ten years most people have accepted it, it is now accepted, it has now happened, come to pass and is a fact of most peoples lives. Therefore your argument is dead, it has ceased to be, it is a dead parrot!
in what sense is iTunes being the number one choice of people for the distribution of music, NOT happening.
in the sense that t has already happened?
iTunes is the number one music distributor in the US.. that happened in less than ten years.
so, in less than ten years most people have accepted it, it is now accepted, it has now happened, come to pass and is a fact of most peoples lives. Therefore your argument is dead, it has ceased to be, it is a dead parrot!
in what sense is iTunes being the number one choice of people for the distribution of music, NOT happening.
in the sense that t has already happened?
Walter.
I use iTunes also. It'a a success right now! What the hell does that have to do with my argument?
Learn to read. Please.
You missed my point on the side of that barn by a mile!
Are you stoned or something when you read these posts?
I think you will find that, that means the purchaser of the discs OWN HOME, not every tom dick and harry you wish to lend it two, if that were the case, why press up more than a few hundred copies?
GOT IT
Look it up. It's just like books or any other copyrighted material. But still Walter this isn't at the heart of the argument.
as I understood it, YOU were moaning on about how digital downloads/rental services wouldn't work.
the thing is they are already there, in place, by many companies, did you check out the netflix service at all? or are you too blinded by your own stubbornness to actually check out a link?
as I understood it, YOU were moaning on about how digital downloads/rental services wouldn't work.
No.
EHHHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!
Sorry that wasn't the right answer! Tell Walter what complimentary gift he gets to take home.
I refuse to restate for you. Learn to read!
ITS ILLEGAL
NOW do YOU understand the difficulty?
Dumty, dumb, dumb, dumb!
For example here's a set of guidlines ( interpreted for you ) from a local school as an example.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/district/de...opyright.shtml
From that page :
Public Performance rights conveyed only through the purchase of a separate license from the copyright owner. It is a violation of Federal law to exhibit prerecorded videos and dvds beyond the scope of the family and social acquaintances - regardless of whether or not admission is charged. Ownership of videos and dvds does not constitute ownership of copyright.
Social aquaintances implies outside of your immediate family or home. So in other words you can't go out on a street corner, hang a sheet on a wall, and show this in a public gathering of people you don't know ( even if you don't charge admission unless you purchase a license ) but you can show or lend this to a friend that you do know. An " aquaintance ".
And still Walter this isn't even at the heart of the argument. My argument is about weither or not downloads will replace physical media. If they do they will have to meet requirments from the consumer and have to be legal ( ie. Not torrents of a movie someone copied in a theater with a video camera ) to be widely accepted and a replacement for physical media. Learn to read! I refuse to restate! ( even though I just did for you ).
Got it?
For example here's a set of guidlines ( interpreted for you ) from a local school as an example.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/district/de...opyright.shtml
From that page :
Social aquaintances implies outside of your immediate family or home. So in other words you can't go out on a street corner, hang a sheet on a wall, and show this in a public gathering of people you don't know ( even if you don't charge admission unless you purchase a license ) but you can show or lend this to a friend that you do know. An " aquaintance ".
And still Walter this isn't even at the heart of the argument. My argument is about weither or not downloads will replace physical media. If they do they will have to meet requirments from the consumer and have to be legal ( ie. Not torrents of a movie someone copied in a theater with a video camera ) to be widely accepted and a replacement for physical media. Learn to read! I refuse to restate! ( even though I just did for you ).
Here's an organizer for sale designed to keep track of your DVDs when you loan them to friends and family!
http://www.supershareware.com/info/dvd-organizer.html
Now you can easily keep track of your DVD collection. By keeping your dvds cataloged, you know what movies you have the next time you're looking for something to watch. In addition, if you loan out your dvds to friends or family, this program will keep track of that.
Got it?
Sorry guys I guess I quoted my self to add that.!
lending isnt distribution?
what is it exactly then?
It's lending. That's why it has it's own special word and isn't called "temporary distribution."
I think you will find that, that means the purchaser of the discs OWN HOME,
Now you're really stretching your credibility as a rational human being. By your logic it's illegal for me to watch my DVD in a car or traveling with a laptop. I suppose I should turn myself in for all the DVDs I've bought and given to people as gifts.
If you really are uptight about using the absolute most restrictive possible interpretation of the law I hope you've you turned yourself in every time a Windows program you used performed an "illegal operation," because if you didn't you're practicing a double standard.
What on Earth? Jimmac, you're Obama supporter #1. Why are you posting in the DVD thread NOW?
Unlike some posters here I can multitask.
It's OK to be provocative, spicy, witty and even stubborn.
It's even reasonable to be wrong from time to time.
But there is no actual need to be incredibly rude.
It does not actually strengthen the argument.
C.
In this forum we may disagree with each other.
It's OK to be provocative, spicy, witty and even stubborn.
It's even reasonable to be wrong from time to time.
But there is no actual need to be incredibly rude.
It does not actually strengthen the argument.
C.
Good manners class had been voided from schools in the states while ago. Perhaps, Obama can change that. Even Barnie, the purple dinosour, has a DVD on the matter. I think everyone should go watch it.
Perhaps, we should define what is "incredibly rude" and start from there?
In this forum we may disagree with each other.
It's OK to be provocative, spicy, witty and even stubborn.
It's even reasonable to be wrong from time to time.
But there is no actual need to be incredibly rude.
It does not actually strengthen the argument.
C.
Considering Frank's question, the motivation ( if you've read anything in PO ), and the way it was asked.
Which of us are you talking about?
Unless you're talking about my discussion with Walter. In which case he just wasn't stubbornly absorbing all the material and misrepresenting my case. Then on top of that posting inaccurate conclusions about the issue.
Dumty, dumb, dumb, dumb!
For example here's a set of guidlines ( interpreted for you ) from a local school as an example.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/district/de...opyright.shtml
From that page :
Social aquaintances implies outside of your immediate family or home. So in other words you can't go out on a street corner, hang a sheet on a wall, and show this in a public gathering of people you don't know ( even if you don't charge admission unless you purchase a license ) but you can show or lend this to a friend that you do know. An " aquaintance ".
And still Walter this isn't even at the heart of the argument. My argument is about weither or not downloads will replace physical media. If they do they will have to meet requirments from the consumer and have to be legal ( ie. Not torrents of a movie someone copied in a theater with a video camera ) to be widely accepted and a replacement for physical media. Learn to read! I refuse to restate! ( even though I just did for you ).
Got it?
clearly your countries laws are open to a different interpretation.
funny how you consider its someone else who should learn to read, iTunes HAS replaced the CD distribution model.
are your own personal desires getting in the way to blind you from seeing that the same will happen with digital video distribution?
I have, I believe, argued against this point myself in the past, the thing is I have learnt to change my viewpoint with new evidence, it can happen when you stop REFUSING to see the digital writing on the wall.
"Progress" and "refusal", don't make good bedfellows. at least IMO.
but hey, if your blue in the face, you can opt for free will, no-ones making you post here
What on Earth? Jimmac, you're Obama supporter #1. Why are you posting in the DVD thread NOW?
thats just plain funny.
---
slightly OT
I'm really glad your country has elected someone intelligent, I'm even a little jealous
I hope he lives up to some of the promise I've seen.
I was considering installing the ATV Flash software. and was wondering if anyone has gone that route?
Primarily it would be for the convenience of getting BBC iPlayer on the ATV (a UK only Hulu like service without adverts)
I don't want to futz about with the ATV, so the idea of sticking a USB in the ATV and installing with maximum ease and minimal effort on my part is a fair draw, and almost worth the cost. but of course any input is welcome.
clearly your countries laws are open to a different interpretation.
funny how you consider its someone else who should learn to read, iTunes HAS replaced the CD distribution model.
are your own personal desires getting in the way to blind you from seeing that the same will happen with digital video distribution?
I have, I believe, argued against this point myself in the past, the thing is I have learnt to change my viewpoint with new evidence, it can happen when you stop REFUSING to see the digital writing on the wall.
"Progress" and "refusal", don't make good bedfellows. at least IMO.
but hey, if your blue in the face, you can opt for free will, no-ones making you post here
Yes but Walter you had the argument all wrong! That's why I was getting frustrated. And from your statement I'm still not sure you have it right. I have no problem with iTunes having replaced the CD distribution model. It has ! Ok?
But downloads will not completely replace the video distrubution model ( especially sales ) until it meets certain criteria previously discussed here. Video is a different kettle of fish controlled by different people. That's why you can't burn a video to a DVD or anything else from iTunes ( transfer it to you iPod yes but how many iPods hook to your TV in the living room? ). The exception is items like Apple TV which not everyone has. According to trends not everyone's going to. More people have a BD player. In order to knock out physical media this adoption has to be widespread.
It's limited in how you can watch it. Hence physical sales remain until this can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Because of that physical media is here to stay for awhile and BluRay will have a longer chance than it would to catch on. That's what the discussion is about. Not if I believe if iTunes is viable. It already is.
And Walter I thought you were an advocate of BD so isn't this a good thing?
thats just plain funny.
---
slightly OT
I'm really glad your country has elected someone intelligent, I'm even a little jealous
I hope he lives up to some of the promise I've seen.
Walter. He doesn't like Obama. He's a Republican. His comment to me was a shot across the bow concerning my political views. I'm for Obama.
OK has anyone got an AppleTV running Boxee ?
Yep. It's easy to install (if you use a 2GB stick)
Boxee can be a bit slow and flakey on the AppleTV.
iPlayer is OK.
Boxee is not as good as playing 720p content as the native Quicktime player.
But you can put stuff on a server and play it without messing around with iChoonez.
C.
Walter. He doesn't like Obama. He's a Republican. His comment to me was a shot across the bow concerning my political views. I'm for Obama.
Nonsense. It just seemed weird that you, of all people, would be posting in the DVD discussion three minutes before your guy takes the oath.
Look, I have nothing against BB, I shop there for DVDs, but the fact is I don't care about the extra features with BD. A cheap upconverter will do near HD, which may be good enough. All I'm saying is that at these prices, the general public isn't buying. And if the general public doesn't buy, then BD either withers and dies or becomes an expensive niche product.
Pardon me while I eat my words.
A week after this post, I found Blu-rays at Sam's Club for $9.88. I bought one, because I had already ordered, from Amazon, a Samsung 7.1 Blu-ray theater in a box. Why? 51% off. $1000 unit for $487. Five years ago I bought my Panasonic HTiB for $429., so now we're in the same ballpark. Same for the movies - we're now at least in the same ballpark. That's what I was waiting for, parity. I just hope I haven't bet on the wrong horse.
Jimmac is correct.