Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie
Yes and no.
Yes, I read about the Java bittorrent player, and what does that have to do with Flash? If a bittorrent player or system is seen as largely infringing, at least in the US it will face scrutiny: Napster, Grokster, Limewire.
|
the grokster case choose to ignore the concept of access shifting because the sharing transaction had 1 infringement even if the downloaders rights were authorized by access shifting.
While that is true for grokster protocol because the sharer gave away a complete working copy of the file (infringing) that is not true for bit torrent where the seeder only gives away non working pieces of the file.
in the case of bit torrent the fair use rights of the leacher should not be ignored
ISOhunt has an appeal based on this arguement because the judge who made the ruling wrongly used the grokster case as a base without address this fundamental difference.
Quote:
|
Adobe wants ALL the money. They have zero altruistic sense. Their aim is to own the platform, own the network, own the rights management that content providers use to secure their feeds. Traditional P2P lets money go to too many other people, so there's no point in them creating such a system.
|
but that the point
if seeding becomes fair use proected (sampling ) because of the piece meal nature then adobe could sell MORE flash servers becuase it would provide equal legal protection for such tube sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie
Wow, that's an interesting concept! You mean movie theaters have strong-armed studios and distributors to force them to show their movies first???
I always thought it was the STUDIOS that required theaters to sign minimum-length engagements and "must show" contracts, often MONTHS before a picture is even completed. And take up to 90% of the box office receipts on the first weeks. And block-book (was illegal at one time; isn't any more) a less profitable picture in order to get the rights to show a more popular one.
With such friendly terms with your studio suppliers, it's a wonder why everyone doesn't want to run a movie theater!
|
so either you are a world class moron who thinks the movie theaters are the copyright holders
or your trying to misrepresent what i am saying again
Problem is you are doing a lousy job because you actually document the abuse i am talking about.
here let me show you
RBGY tv are a new form of tv that give truer to life picture quality.
The problem is that it is no where close to what it could be because the source doesn't film in RBGY.
this tv would replace 4096 red beside 4096 green(approximate true 4096 yellow) with two 4096 yellows (true 4096 yellow)
it doesn't recognize the hues created by putting 4096 red beside 4096 yellow because the original content is not filmed in RBGY.
this problem occurs because the technology did not perculate up thru theaters to the tv because the copyright holders are allowed to abuse their copyright monopoly to play favorites of one medium over another.
IF access shifting had been established as a fair use right, and the act of abusively saying we are only going to allow the movie in the theater would allow other business to distribute it on dvd and tv without paying any fees whatsoever (like recording a tv show on a vcr doesn't require paying royalties for the taping) then the only way the copyright holder could protect their dvd and tv royalties would be release them to all mediums at the same time.
under that senerio the theaters would only be able to compete if they adopted technological advancements that made watching it in the theater superior to watching it at home. (like RGBY)
unlike the home viewing market which would have to wait until the price point of the technology dropped that it could afford by a single family, a movie theater making 10k per hour showing movies could afford to make the change at a much higher price point.
the copyright holders would have to either accpet lower liciencing fees or give up the market place.
Given what happened with 3d versions due to the problem of "piracy" it a pretty good bet they would accept the lower fees and allow the investment in new technology.
of course some movie producers would realize that if they shot in RBGY it would be a small 20% improvement but would actually allow 256 x as many colors and obviously it would not be that hard to replace true 256 yellow with a pair 256 red/256 green to down grade it for dvd sales.
Geometrically increasing the value of seeing that movie over all the guys who decided to keep the outdated RGB only camera equipment.
As more content is being shot in RGBY then the demand would increase for the technology quickly dropping the price so that dvd, and tv could broadcast in full RGBY.
which would just repeat the cycle again (8 bit to 12 to 16 bit or adding cyan and magenta).
instead of crappy 3d which requires me to wear glasses to see the effect i would be watching movies with so many shades of color that my eyes would natually precieve them to be in 3d.
that what the abuse has caused the market.
we have crappier technology, inferior version of what we would have had simple because a monopoly held up an inferior quality offering.