 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:50:31 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> Why is that weird? A radio station is a company making money.
>
> How the hell does that work though? They don't do anything that produces
> income.
Yes, they do, they sell advertising. Advertising isn't cheap on the
radio (but cheaper than on TV).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:14:39 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> you would never come close to making enough money to cover even the
> basic costs of electricity to run the transmitter, never mind all the
> other stuff you'd need to pay for.
Obviously, that's not the case, or radio stations wouldn't continue to be
in business.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/01/2011 9:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:18:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> What did you say :-P
>>>
>>> I dunno. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> But I thought...
>
> There was your FIRST mistake. ;-)
>
Hardly my first one :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:28:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 9:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:18:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> What did you say :-P
>>>>
>>>> I dunno. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But I thought...
>>
>> There was your FIRST mistake. ;-)
>>
>>
> Hardly my first one :-P
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:22:16 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/01/2011 7:11 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain. Head 'em up, move 'em out.
>> http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
>
> Maybe this one would be more appropriate - McRawhide ;-)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWMDuRZBnnw
LOL to both of them. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love the way that Steam won't let you log in twice, so you can install
> the same game on two PCs, but you can only play it on one at once...
>
> ...unless you put Steam into offline mode. *facepalm*
Sure. Steam keeps the honest people honest. It's sufficiently easy to bypass
that nobody really feels the need to *crack* it. But it's hard enough to
bypass (in that you actually need the steam account that bought the game to
play it) that it keeps them earning money.
>>> (This of course leads directly to high quality content no longer being
>>> made, which would be very sad.)
>>
>> But that's my point. High quality content used to be made before it was
>> easy to make copies at all.
>
> Given that copying becoming easy is the problem... what's your point here?
That presenting things only in forms that are impossible to copy does not
spell the end of high quality content.
> Yeah, pretty much. I gather zero-day cracks are a relished challenge for
> some people. (Then again, most of the DRM I've seen surely can't be
> *that* hard to crack in the first place...)
You would be surprised. Almost every crack of modern DRM requires someone to
void their warranty.
> I don't think that's how it works. I thought the idea is that the
> encrypted content is decrypted inside your graphics card, processed as
> necessary (e.g., colour balance, or compositing it with the rest of your
> Windows display), and re-encrypted before leaving the pins of the chip
> in the circuit board. So the encrypted link from the graphics card to
> the monitor is a completely seperate cryptosystem from the encryption on
> the disk (or whatever).
Yes? And your point is?
> Ultimately, what it all boils down to is that the piece of electronics
> in front of you knows how to decrypt the video data. Which means that,
> in theory, you can do this too. The keys must be stored somewhere.
Sure. If they're stored in the silicon, that's not going to be easy to get out.
> People paying money for computer systems that purposely prevent them
> doing stuff? Not gonna be popular. :-P
Game consoles? Blu-ray players? DVD players? No, none of those are popular
at all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think it could be legally argued that since the technology didn't erase-
> upon-playback that it was implied that the content might/could be viewed
> more than once.
Um, it's Sony's device playing back, not the copyright holder's device. The
fact that Sony didn't make it erase doesn't allow Sony to make copies of
someone *else's* video.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Take Jammie Thomas, for example
You know, I've *never* seen anyone sued for downloading music or books or
movies. Have you? Do you have a cite to such a case?
She wasn't sued for *downloading* the files. She was sued for distributing
unknown numbers of copies to other people. She would have been just as sued
if she own the CDs she ripped the files from.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I still find it slightly weird that if I ask a friend to copy a CD for
>>> me, that's illegal.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
> Try telling that to the makers of my CD recorder that only records onto
> specially marked disks which cost 7x more "to support the record
> industry".
You're confusing lobbying with legality.
That's like saying sports cars are illegal because you can't afford one.
> And that fee is identical regardless of whether they have two thousand
> listeners or zero listeners.
I don't know about that.
> Still, it's weird that if I guy visits my house and I happen to be
> playing a CD, that's illegal,
No it isn't. What are you smoking?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The radio station pays a fee every time they play a song.
>
> And that fee is identical regardless of whether they have two thousand
> listeners or zero listeners.
Are you sure that is correct? It seems very odd that the song owners
wouldn't charge more for stations that have higher audience figures. It
would mean they'd have to charge an totally insignificant amount to the
big stations in order for small ones to be financially possible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
