John - Do you think of anything except the possibility of taking cheap shots at people? Please go back and read my post. Nowhere did I blame Hollywood for anything. - Tom John Willkie wrote: > so, Hollywood is responsible for your downloading a screener instead of > seeing the content in a theater? I suspect you don't have a f*****g iota of > what a screener really is, you are just using that term as well as you use > any term. > > Hint: a screener is a copy of a movie that is made available to academy and > guild members for voting at Oscar time. It replaces the "for your > consideration" showings in Hollywierd theaters and the vcr copies that > preceded dvd screeners. In otherwords, these are pristine -- and recently > watermarked -- DVDs that are never intended for commercial release or > redistribution. (Academy and guild members are now routinely kicked out of > their group if one of their screeners gets out.) > > In other words, only an idiot -- I'm sure you qualify on this point -- would > call a shitty internet copy a screener. I think you're actually talking > aboutrips from conformance copies with visible time codes. > > And, Hollywood is somehow responsible for a consipracy to induce you to > download these things? I should turn you into hollywood for the reward and > the pure fun of it. (second time this year I've used that line, but it's a > keeper.) > > You're so dumb that you admit to consipracy to violate copyright laws on a > public email list that is read by Hollywood types ($150,000 per title, you > could be charged) , and you think that Hollywood is a co-conspirator. Geez > ... > > John Willkie > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:30 PM > Subject: [opendtv] Re: Hollywood may demand DRM for larger harddrives > > > >> >>Silvio Macedo wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Without going into the details of the ongoing mail exchange, I would >>>point out that nothing can be worse than XVid/DivX screeners. Yes - >>>people do actually go into a theatre and tape the movie on a camera - >>>and this sort of, kind of, "movies" get distributed and very much >>>seen by "that" most profitable segment of man-25-to-35 year old. >>> >> >>Yes. Screeners are some kind of a crime against video nature. (not a > > joke) > >>I can't think of much else that can do more to damage the economic value >>of movie making while at the same time giving very little benefit to the >>public at large. >> >>I downloaded a screener of a recent blockbuster and totally ruined my >>enjoyment of something that I had been looking forward to and that had >>taken a lot of effort creative effort to make. >> >>It would be nice if the Hollywood PR Flacs invented a new word for these >>screener distributors (something better/worse than pirate) and convinced >>us all to separately censor them. This should be a totally separate >>campaign than the usual tirades against file swappers of most other types. >> >>If done right this one might even gain popular support, and somewhat >>succeed, even among "pirates". >> >>- Tom (again, not joking here) >> >> >> >>>Whatever the DRM technology we pick, pointing a camera to a plasma >>>screen or patching your graphics card DirectX drivers to dump every >>>frame or anything else of the sort, will provide many times the >>>quality of a screener - and hence, will be far more appealing for >>>pirates, and uncontrolled revenue. >>> >>>Watermarking ? - first, few of these users will care, and secondly, >>>there is a huge amount of things you can do to a video to destroy its >>>watermark. In this race, too, pirates will always win - and one cannot >>>continuously distribute firmware to hardware devices for security >>>updates (unless they are networked, of course). >>> >>>My conclusion, as I've said many times, and inline with others that >>>wrote before in this mailing list, is that the solution is: cheaper >>>content, far easier to get ( one click away max or pushed (user >>>profiling)) and a different value chain - in particular, geography can >>>no longer be a factor in distribution - the pressure for distribution >>>is simply too much - and more intrusive advertisements.=20 >>> >>>Silvio >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20 >>>>[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Willkie >>>>Sent: 25 July 2005 16:54 >>>>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Hollywood may demand DRM for larger >>> >>>harddrives >>> >>> >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>yeah -- another disconnect from reality. Only the extremely poor >>> >>>or >>> >>> >>>>avaracious will watch pirate content over paying for the=20 >>>>rights to watch >>>>professional content. Note that DVDs cost less than 2x the cost of >>> >>>in >>> >>> >>>>person admission. When was the last time you ACTUALLY paid=20 >>>>money to see an >>>>independent film? Are you an IFC subscriber? I suspect=20 >>>>you're just deeply >>>>into cost-avoidance, and figure any content is better than=20 >>>>paid content. >>>>=20 >>>>It's funny that you bring up the Hollings suggestion -- dead=20 >>>>for more than >>>>half a decade -- and call it a Disney move. >>>>=20 >>>>You are unlikely to ever get the ability to grant a MS DRM license. >>>>=20 >>>>While computers will continue to play unprotected content, my=20 >>>>point was that >>>>content can decide what platform is appropriate for being=20 >>>>copied to: the >>>>EXACT opposite of what you extracted, yet within what I said,=20 >>>>since content >>>>can decide not to care what the platform is. >>>>=20 >>>>John Willkie >>>>----- Original Message -----=20 >>>>From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:55 PM >>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Hollywood may demand DRM for larger >>> >>>harddrives >>> >>> >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> >>>> >>>>>John Willkie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>so, you know about hell, too? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>A little bit. But only in the visions of the older >>> >>>Disney/Hollings >>> >>> >>>>>proposals where all computers would be locked such that=20 >>>> >>>>they could not >>>> >>>> >>>>>play any unprotected content. This is still very unlikely=20 >>>> >>>>to come about >>>> >>>> >>>>> since the cost to competitive American computing would be=20 >>>> >>>>immense and >>>> >>>> >>>>>too many folks would squeal vigorously. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>They may not demand, but they can determine the=20 >>>> >>>>conditions for their >>>>content >>>> >>>> >>>>>>to be stored, once it's in DRM form. A harddrive lacking=20 >>>> >>>>a certain key >>>> >>>> >>>>>>could be easily prevented from storing content. Many=20 >>>> >>>>companies have >>>>been >>>> >>>> >>>>>>working on this technology since the middle of the=20 >>>> >>>>previous decade. >>>>Much >>>> >>>> >>>>>>hype, too. It's turned out to be a MS DRM world. >>>>>> >>>>>>And, Tom, you must have missed several recent=20 >>>> >>>>announcements from MS and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Hollywierd. Work continues, and "Longhorn" will be=20 >>>> >>>>called "Vista." >>>>What do >>>> >>>> >>>>>>you think their talking about viewing? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Trusted Computing platforms, or whatever they will be=20 >>>> >>>>called next, >>>> >>>> >>>>>will still probably allowed unprotected media to play. And if the >>>>>burden to play protected media is too large then people=20 >>>> >>>>will probably >>>> >>>> >>>>>avoid it. And frankly, if only certain sub-systems and media are >>>>>protected then I could probably live with that. But I don't >>> >>>expect >>> >>> >>>>>Hollywood to accept reasonable compromises yet. For instance, my >>>>>experiences trying to get fully licensed phone-home MS-DRM were >>>>>completely unworkable with the couple of discs I bought. >>>>> >>>>>Meanwhile, there is a hidden assumption that nobody would=20 >>>> >>>>have any media >>>> >>>> >>>>>to play if Hollywood was not satisfied. I expect the amateur and >>>>>independent movie makers and the pirates all will continue to >>> >>>supply >>> >>> >>>>>whatever the big Hollywood concerns withhold. >>>>> >>>>>- Tom >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>John Willkie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>----- Original Message -----=20 >>>>>>From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:50 AM >>>>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Hollywood may demand DRM for=20 >>>> >>>>larger harddrives >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Jeroen Stessen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hollywood may demand DRM for larger harddrives - analyst >>>>>>> >>>>>>>People in Hell want ice water. Hollywood is in no=20 >>>> >>>>position to "demand" >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- Tom >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>See: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050720_191403.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hollywood may demand DRM for larger harddrives - analyst >>>>>>>>>By Scott Fulton >>>>>>>>>July 20, 2005 - 19:14 EST >>>>>>>>>(...) >>>>>>>>>The moment you become capable of reading and writing movies >>> >>>and >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>transporting that content across borders, Cai said,=20 >>>> >>>>"Hollywood can >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>get really concerned. What if you can carry like 20=20 >>>> >>>>movies with you >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>all the time, and they can't control the content any=20 >>>> >>>>more?" It's the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>possible crossing of geographic boundaries that's the=20 >>>> >>>>problem, Cai >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>said - a problem that wouldn't crop up if the media=20 >>>> >>>>device were made >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>to sit on your desktop at home, no matter how small it >>> >>>becomes. >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>(...) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Greetings, >>>>>>>>-- Jeroen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>+-------------------------------+----------------------------- >>>>-------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>| From: Jeroen H. Stessen | E-mail: =20 >>>> >>>>Jeroen.Stessen@xxxxxxxxxxx | >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>| Building: SFJ-5.22 Eindhoven | Deptmt.: Philips=20 >>>> >>>>Applied Technologies >>>> >>>> >>>>>>| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>| Phone: ++31.40.2732739 | Visiting & mail=20 >>>> >>>>address: Glaslaan 2 | >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>| Mobile: ++31.6.44680021 | NL 5616 LW Eindhoven,=20 >>>> >>>>the Netherlands >>>> >>>> >>>>>>| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>| Pager: ++31.6.65133818 | Website: >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.apptech.philips.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>| >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>+-------------------------------+----------------------------- >>>>-------------+ >>>> >>>> >>>>>=20 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>----------- >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user=20 >>>> >>>>configuration settings at >>>> >>>> >>>>>>FreeLists.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20 >>>> >>>>with the word >>>> >>>> >>>>>>unsubscribe in the subject line. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>=20 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>---------- >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user=20 >>>> >>>>configuration settings at >>>> >>>> >>>>>>FreeLists.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20 >>>> >>>>with the word >>>> >>>> >>>>>>unsubscribe in the subject line. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>=20 >>>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >>>>>> >>>>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user=20 >>>> >>>>configuration settings at >>>>FreeLists.org >>>> >>>> >>>>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20 >>>> >>>>with the word >>>>unsubscribe in the subject line. >>>> >>>> >>>>>=20 >>>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >>>>> >>>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration=20 >>>> >>>>settings at >>>>FreeLists.org >>>> >>>> >>>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20 >>>> >>>>with the word >>>>unsubscribe in the subject line. >>>> >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >>>>=20 >>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration=20 >>>>settings at FreeLists.org=20 >>>>=20 >>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with=20 >>>>the word unsubscribe in the subject line. >>>>=20 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >>> >>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > > FreeLists.org > >>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > > unsubscribe in the subject line. > >>> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >> >>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > > FreeLists.org > >>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.