Looks more like what happened a few months ago on netflix when a company put a movie up, but included the fan-subs instead of paying for a professional subtitle to be generated. Fan-sub listings were included at the end during credit-roll.
That may be what happened here. Someone wanted to put subtitles on the video and just googled for them and used one that showed up.
To make the analogy even better, the bank robber should be tried on one count per dollar bill stolen, the way you get charged with X counts for X tracks of music downloaded from a single torrent session.
Steal 10,000 in 20's, that's 500 counts of robber. Stacked.
I'll concede, for the moment, the argument of bitrate / sample rate and the quality of the audio.
What I want to see improvement in is the area of soundfield reproduction. If I'm listening to a live performance of a Chopin piano concerto, I want to be able to pinpoint the idiot with the cough in the 5th row.
Well, maybe not that level, but something that close to being there.
Current stereo mp3/flac/format-de-jure do not give me that capability.
I thoroughly enjoy listening to the few DVDs I have with score only tracks. I get drawn into the music much better than simple stereo.
There is a lot more to the quality of the listening *experience* than bits.
If Neil Young wants to get my money, give me a better experience, not just numbers on a page.
There is also the chance (likely, actually) that they will not end up in control of those gTLDs. And why would they want to spend the money and resources on being a registrar if they can get rules passed that limits what the people who do pay for those gTLDs can do.
They get their control and don't even have to pay for it.
They want to create a 'panic' mentality and convince everyone that there needs to be legislative controls put in place. That way they can just point to the laws or regulations and say "see, we're just abiding by the law, unlike all you pirates".
After looking into the details on the gTLD system being set up, there are a couple of details that seem to be missing from this discussion.
The process is expensive; hundreds of thousands of dollars expensive. No one on here is going to be buying .pirate or .whatever anytime soon.
The organization, company, group, etc.. that lands control of a generic TLD such as .music or .movies will have the rights and obligation to control the domains that are created on that TLD.
Assuming the RIAA gets .music then it is perfectly acceptable within the contract for a gTLD for them to only offer domains to their own members. There is no requirement to offer the general public access to that gTLD.
Personally, I don't have a problem if EMI wants .emi for their bands or Disney wants .disney for their brands. I have a problem with generic words such as .music or .movies being in the control of a single organization such as the RIAA or MPAA.
If they do land .music or .movies, then the rest of the world will just happily move along with the current .com/.net/org or other domains just like we've been doing for 20+ years.
I also foresee competitors, or even groups of indies coming together to buy something like .indie. Think of what someone with an understanding of the new markets, how the internet works, and a desire to not be a gate-keeper but fascilitator to those bands and producers could do in competition against the walled gardens.
Let the **IA's of the world have their gardens, I'll take the wilds of the internet any day. It's more fun out there anyway.
"A movie starts directly from the beginning, without forcing the family to endure advertisements, trailers, and confusing menus. "
This is why the Kaleidescape had to die. If products that are legal (which this obviously was) *and* allow people, en mass, to skip all the cruft, then the value of that kruft drops significantly.
The movie distributors are PAID to put that kruft on the DVD and force the viewer to sit through it. It's a major part of the profit made on the DVDs. As the number of eyeballs guaranteed to see that kruft drops through the use of such systems as the jukebox, the price the distributors can charge drops.
It all comes back to business models predicated on control of the viewer and control of the distribution channel. You are not the consumer, in this case, you are the product.
Take a look at the just completed and going on tour next month fan-funded movie, Iron Sky. From everything I've seen, it's on part with most mid budget sci-fi comedies and better than most of what comes out of the Syfy channel now.
There will always be room at the top of the budget for the movies that push the very bleeding edge of film making technology. Look at the history of ILM, Pixar, BlueSky, Weta Digital and others.
That same tech very rapidly moves into the realm of affordability to the garage production company, usually within 12-18 months, if not sooner.
As for budgets, keep in mind that a huge chunk of the hundreds of millions goes to actors, marketing and other such costs. With alternative means of marketing, alternative casting, etc.. you can create something with the visual and production quality of the big budgets without spending the big budgets.
A store needs to sell a shirt to make $5 on that shirt. The shirt costs them $2 so their profit is $3.
Someone lifts the shirt. The store is out the shirt and needs to spend another $2 to replace it. When they sell the replacement, they're profit is now only $1. Their net gain is $1, but they actually lost money.
They spent $4 to make $1. If they had not had to replace the stolen shirt, then that same $4 would have netted them $6.
Now, let's look at software or music downloads.
Musician puts an mp3 of a song out on the net for $5. The cost to distributor (ie.. itunes or similar) is $2.
Someone downloads the song from pirate bay without paying for it. The musician has to spend $0 to replace the songe because the mp3 is an infinite resource. The download is a copy of a non-physical item, ie.. data, that does not in any way deprive the artist of the item, that is.. the mp3.
So, someone downloads the song. Some one else comes along and buys the song. The artist still makes $3 no matter how many times the song is downloaded. He makes $3 PER SALE due to the infinite nature of his goods.
Make sense now?
Physical items must be replaced. Non-physical items don't. A physical item can be stolen, depriving the rightful owner of their material goods. A non-physical item can not be stolen, only copied, therefore there is no deprivation of goods.
I'd like to see this idea taken a step further. Take the idea that Nine Inch Nails had last year with encouraging their fans to submit remixes of their tracks. Now allow fans to create an album with X number of tracks with 3-4 slots available for their own custom mixes.
The hardest core fans are the ones who are also your creative peers. Give them the tools to make art with your art and you'll have a heck of a lot stronger fanbase.
There is a point, of a sort here. When I'm working without a tripod, especially when I'm 'in the field', I have a hold and stance with my slr very similar to the one I have with a hand gun.
Body posture, stance, movement are all very similar when your desire is a steady, calm pull of the finger.
Yeah, if you look close enough, you can see that the big long blocky thing I'm holding up, left arm out at an angle, right arm in tight, next to left cheek is a camera with a moderate zoom lens and not a large semi-auto pistol.
In a firefight, your reaction to subliminal cues such as posture and focus of someone in the dark, at a distance is going to be to target first, identify and examine second.
That explains the taking aim at the guy with the camera, but does not explain or excuse their actions after they determined, by sight, that he was not a perp.