 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2011 5:59 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference. Well, at least for people
> without blurry eyes who can see a crystal clear increase in quality from 480 to
> 1080 or even 768...
>
As I said upthread, this is likely 120hz interpolated, 60hz native. And,
some things will look *worse* on it, depending on your input source (if
its digital or not).
You can't, due to this, hook it up to a 3D system and have it work.
Those need 120hz native, i.e. 3D Ready.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2011 11:33 AM, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>>> But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content you
>>>> are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.
>>>
>>> It depends. I certainly am when I buy a kindle document.
>>
>> Really? Do they let you copy it to all your other devices (even those
>> that do not support the Kindle DRM system)? How about printing it out?
>
> Making it easy is not the same as it being legal. And again, I don't
> know how the DMCA changed this, given this is exactly the field which
> DMCA was supposed to be improving.
>
The DMCA was *specifically* designed to deny this right, which you had
*prior* to its implementation. They wanted, and got, different rules for
a digital copy than they had for the same book, in paper. Which means,
*they* get to dictate how, if, how many, etc. you can have. The, "how
many", is imho, the only valid thing in the whole argument, sort of.
Yet, even in that case, you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of
a book, for a classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't
*sell* the book, or its pages, to someone else. Not so with DRMed stuff.
You simply can't *at all* ***EVER***, even if the use would otherwise be
considered legitimate. Heck, they might even be able to bring in some
secondary laws, dealing with recorded content, and sue you for, "using
the content in a performance.", as happened to a few people that made
the mistake of playing their music in a restaurant in at least one case
I know of.
They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF), and,
more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying your
right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
DMCA went way too far, trying to solve one "small" problem. You may
argue that the problem might not have been solvable given the nature of
the media, but then, if so, why the hell is it our fault that they
started selling stuff with legal rights normally attached, in a way that
denies nearly all of them? Never mind.. I know the answers - Theirs:
Money, Ours: Supposed "convenience".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> You can, they are call "3D ready". Not to be confused with 120hz
> displays/TVs, which actually take in native 60hz, then "upsample" to
> 120hz, when handling TV data (by interpolating frames).
Wouldn't that cause an annoying flicker effect, when each other frame
is slightly blurrier (being the average of the previous and next frames),
especially when there's very fast motion?
Unless the TV searches for the shapes in the image (as an MPEG-4 codec
would) and then interpolates those shapes. I would be surprised if it was
that advanced.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of
> a book, for a classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't
> *sell* the book, or its pages, to someone else.
That's not actually the case, and never has been.
> You simply can't *at all* ***EVER***, even if the use would otherwise b
e
> considered legitimate.
I don't believe that's true. See, for example, this:
http://futureofmusic.org/article/summary-dmca
"The exception to this rule is when people want to make a copy of a work
for
“fair use.” "
If you have legal access to the work, you're allowed to bypass the DRM in
order to do anything legal, including "fair use" (which includes selling
your original).
> secondary laws, dealing with recorded content, and sue you for, "using
> the content in a performance.", as happened to a few people that made
> the mistake of playing their music in a restaurant in at least one case
> I know of.
Yes. That's called "public performance", and it's not one of the legal
rights you get when you purchase the content.
> They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
> have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF), and,
> more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying your
> right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
This isn't true, as I understand it. I'm sure there are loopholes and su
ch,
and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit for, but t
he
intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally own.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I would be surprised if it was that advanced.
Be surprised. Many (but not all) 120Hz TVs do exactly that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott escreveu:
> On 1/20/2011 5:59 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference. Well, at least for
>> people
>> without blurry eyes who can see a crystal clear increase in quality
>> from 480 to
>> 1080 or even 768...
>>
> As I said upthread, this is likely 120hz interpolated, 60hz native. And,
> some things will look *worse* on it, depending on your input source (if
> its digital or not).
>
> You can't, due to this, hook it up to a 3D system and have it work.
> Those need 120hz native, i.e. 3D Ready.
got it. It was next to real 3D TVs, but with no 3D on display, only the
gobsmackingly unreal 120hz smoothness... native or not...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>> I would be surprised if it was that advanced.
>
> Be surprised. Many (but not all) 120Hz TVs do exactly that.
a luxury for a few years ahead.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> writes:
>> Most people that I know feel the same way - I bought the (CD, ePub,
>> whatever), so if I want to convert it to something more convenient for my
>> own personal use, that's my business.
>
> Sure, but in a lot of cases people incorrectly believe they are doing no
> harm by removing the DRM - I hear it all the time. They feel hard done
You can point out that their assumptions are questionable. You haven't,
however, demonstrated that harm is done when they remove DRM.
> understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed
> them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or
> at the extreme hiring DVDs).
Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
that removing DRM does harm.
Most importantly, from the wider context, you need to define what "harm"
is. When I look at these issues, my only concern is maximizing artistic
endeavors. I believe copyright's only role is to enable that, and that
was historically how it all began. People making a livelihood via the
arts is simply not a factor that need be taken into account.
> You seem to be under the illusion that if you buy a copy of something it
> gives you the right to use it as often as you want on as many devices as
> you want. If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.
Licenses need not be legal. I've owned books that forbade resale. Yet I
have the legal right to resell them, regardless of the license.
>> The problem, really, is how to draw the line about what's right and wrong
>> from an ethical point of view (from the publisher's point of view). Is
>> it ethically right to make people pay multiple times for the same digital
>> content? Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the circumstances.
>
> That's the publisher's right to choose how they sell their content and
> the business model they use. It's your choice whether to buy in to it
> or not. But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content
The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards.
It was my choice whether I bought those books. I bought them despite
their forbidding resale. Yet, I had the legal right to thwart their
business model.
This may not apply to DRM in books, movies, etc. However, the suggestion
that the publisher is free to choose whatever terms they sell their
content under is simply invalid.
> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use. If you were
> then you'd likely have to pay more.
You keep saying that, and while logical, you have not supported
it. There are certainly authors in the wild who believe that fiction
ebooks *should* be sold at the cheap rate (and some want it even cheaper
- under $4), because the publishers will /still/ make a bigger profit
than by charging what they normally charge for physical books. The
claims stem from no assumption that they will resell the book to someone
multiple times. The claim does have quite a bit of validity. Publishers
lose a huge amount of money in producing physical books.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2011 08:55 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yet, even in that case, you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of
> a book, for a classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't
> *sell* the book, or its pages, to someone else. Not so with DRMed stuff.
I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK you can't photocopy stuff for
use in the classroom without the copyright holder's permission. (Wanna
guess why school materials cost so much?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2011 04:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> not sure that's a good assumption.
>
> It has been a very successful business model.
It has been difficult to almost infeasible to duplicate content
(depending on type, of course). That's one of the main reasons that
specialised "publishers" needed to exist in the first place. It takes a
lot of equipment to, say, print a book.
Digital content is another matter...
> It's not obvious it always
> is or will continue to be so, but so far, lots of people have made it
> work, and lots of people haven't.
Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music
on CD. What can I say? I like holding the physical object in my hands,
looking at the cover art, and being able to play it on a real hi-fi
system (i.e., not my PC).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
