>> And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
>> difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
>> thousands of pounds for.
>
> They're now the standard TV sets and you don't pay much more than what you used
> to pay for.

Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk 
player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture 
sharpness. Big deal.

>> Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
>> other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
>> call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
>
> Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference.

Not having watched any video at 120 Hz, I couldn't say. (And are you 
saying there are actual plans to implement this? Or just that you've 
seen it somewhere?)

By the way, normal TV (in my country) is 50 Hz, but that's interlaced, 
so it's actually 50 *half frames* per second. It's a piffling 25 *full 
frames* per second. How does progressive scan change this? Is it still 
only 25 full frames per second? Or does it actually allow 50 full frames 
per second?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And besides, I didn't say there was *no* difference. I just said the
> >> difference was rather small. Certainly not worth paying tens of
> >> thousands of pounds for.
> >
> > They're now the standard TV sets and you don't pay much more than what you used
> > to pay for.
>
> Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk
> player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture
> sharpness. Big deal.

If I was you, I'd first buy new glasses and then actually stare at the TV rather
than at a specs sheet..

>
> >> Increasing the framerate does sound like one hell of a good idea. On the
> >> other hand, they'll probably just increase it from 50 Hz to 55 Hz and
> >> call it "extreme motion" or something. :-P
> >
> > Nope, it's 120hz and very visible a difference.
>
> Not having watched any video at 120 Hz, I couldn't say. (And are you
> saying there are actual plans to implement this? Or just that you've
> seen it somewhere?)

Like I said, I've seen.  It's easy, you go outside and enter some store...

>
> By the way, normal TV (in my country) is 50 Hz, but that's interlaced,
> so it's actually 50 *half frames* per second. It's a piffling 25 *full
> frames* per second. How does progressive scan change this? Is it still
> only 25 full frames per second? Or does it actually allow 50 full frames
> per second?

beats me.  Just looks terrific.  Then again, I don't use glasses

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, sure. Buy a new TV. Buy a new signal decoder. By a new disk
>> player. All for what? A noticeable but small increase in picture
>> sharpness. Big deal.
>
> If I was you, I'd first buy new glasses and then actually stare at the TV rather
> than at a specs sheet..

Yeah, right. Because I haven't done that already. :-P

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.

In the USA, copyright supersedes license agreements. According to some old 
court cases, if it's copyrighted, and your license agreement conflicts with 
what copyright allows, and you bought the stuff *before* you agreed to the 
license, then copyright wins.

I don't know if DMCA changed that, tho.

> 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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> not sure that's a good assumption.

It has been a very successful business model. 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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

>> 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?

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 20/01/2011 1:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:05:52 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> LOL
>>>
>> There, there. I'll give you a Glasgow kiss. :-P
>
> I think I'll pass - I like my forehead too much. ;-)
>

Understandable :-)

>>> Well, you quoted me saying it. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Did you read my reply to Andrew?
>
> Probably, but you know how it is with memory. ;-)
>

Something to do with toerags IIRC

>>> LOL, I thought I remembered you saying something about having worked in
>>> Wales at one point, so I knew it would get your attention. ;-)
>>>
>> Two points. About 40 years ago I worked in a holiday camp in Pwllheli.
>> And of course St lived in Colwyn Bay. :-(
>
> I keep forgetting that you've got 20 years on me.  Shame on me, must be
> that old memory thing. :-)
>

What did you say?

>>>> I behaved similarly in Jamaica.  Speaking like "Teach" in workshops
>>>> but like me in the office.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that confused people at first. :-)
>>>
>> No, it was expected. o_O
>
> Interesting.
>

Politeness is everything.

>>>> Again, they do that in Jamaica. Probably picked it up from the Irish
>>>> "Indentured servants" who were transported there (and to Barbados) by
>>>> Cromwell's son.
>>>
>>> Quite possibly.
>>>
>> We've got a lot of history.
>
> So I've noticed.  Sadly, the immigration policies don't look to be
> conducive to us moving over in the near future, so we're actually
> contemplating a move to Oregon (since we have friends out there who have
> said they want us to be near them, at least for a while<g>).
>

Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain.
Head 'em up, move 'em out.
http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2011 1:55 AM, scott wrote:
> Well the infrastructure is surely still in the software and hardware (at
> least with analogue VGA) for higher framerates as it is commonly used by
> CRTs. Also reading the wikipedia page on DVI it seems there is no limit
> for the framerate, only the overall bandwidth in single-link (it gives
> 1920x1200x120Hz as a valid mode for dual-link).
>
> Just need someone to build a monitor that accepts something other than
> 60 Hz!
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).

They also cost 2-3 times what the 60hz one does, *and* if its a TV, you 
won't find one smaller than 40" that supports it. I know, I just got a 
bluray 3D, and went looking to see what was needed to actually use it... 
Yikes!!

-- 
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

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 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

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] npgcablecom> 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

>> 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.

Ermm, the BBC makes a huge amount of profit from selling programs to 
foreign broadcasters and content on DVD.  Anyone who removes the DRM 
from iPlayer programs is one person who will be much less likely to pay 
to watch that content again.  I'm not saying everyone who removes DRM is 
doing harm, but some are - the ones who would have otherwise paid again 
for the content, either directly or indirectly.

The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free) 
when you bought the material, would they make as much money?  It seems 
like almost every publisher thinks they wouldn't, which is why they 
don't offer such an offer, and actually *spend* a lot of money to try 
and "improve" the DRM.  Surely they are not all wrong?

>> 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.

It's obvious if you think about it though.  At the extreme when you rent 
a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively 
small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are 
allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for.  It would 
be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any 
personal use.  IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.

Post a reply to this message

> Digital content is another matter...

That relies on people being honest and it taking a certain amount of 
skill/knowledge to duplicate.

Post a reply to this message

>    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.

Yes, the "genuine" 120 Hz and 240 Hz TVs do this (even 60 Hz TVs have 
had "noise reduction" schemes for ages that use similar motion 
estimation techniques).

There is however a much cheaper way to do it that is almost as good. 
That is showing the image at normal 60 Hz, but for each frame only 
putting the backlight on for 50% of the time (at double the brightness). 
  This is called "black frame insertion" and makes any motion look much 
smoother.  With LED backlights this is easy to do.

Post a reply to this message

> You can, they are call "3D ready".

Oh, do they really take 120 Hz data and give 60 Hz to each eye?  I 
assumed they took 60 Hz and gave 30 Hz to each eye - will need to look 
into that...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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).

Quite apart from all that, it's often the cheapest option (depending on what
you're buying, and assuming you actually want most of the tracks on the album).
Last two cds I bought were £4 each off amazon, the download was £9 each. A
no-brainer really, more than twice the price for a stripped-out lossy version?
Pff.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 09:05 AM, scott wrote:

>> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
>> that removing DRM does harm.
>
> The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free)
> when you bought the material, would they make as much money?

If you wanted to split hairs, actually removing the DRM doesn't do any 
harm by itself. It's what you do afterwards that potentially causes 
harm. (Presumably the only reason you removed it was to do something you 
couldn't do otherwise...)

> Surely they are not all wrong?

That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?

>>> 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.
>
> It's obvious if you think about it though. At the extreme when you rent
> a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively
> small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are
> allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for. It would
> be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any
> personal use. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.

Renting something is a little different to *buying* it.

If I buy a ladder, I can use it as much as I want. I can use it in any 
way I please. I can cut it into bits, make a sculpture out of it, and 
sell it as modern art. I can lend it to a friend. I can rent it out to 
people. I can sell it to somebody. I can give it to a charity shop.

If I buy a CD, I can do any of those things with the physical object.

If I buy some DRM-protected digital data, usually I won't be able to do 
any of the things listed above. (Not that you can cut up a binary stream 
to make a sculpture out of it, of course.)

Then again, content is strange. If I hear a tune on the radio, and I 
spent two months sat at my keyboard and figure out how to play it, 
that's "reverse engineering". If I record myself playing it, that's 
"constructing a derivative work". And if I let another human being hear 
it, that's "public performance", at which point I'm likely to be sued 
out of existence. (And at this point, I haven't even used the word 
"digital" yet...)

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 09:33 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Quite apart from all that, it's often the cheapest option (depending on what
> you're buying, and assuming you actually want most of the tracks on the album).
> Last two cds I bought were £4 each off amazon, the download was £9 each. A
> no-brainer really, more than twice the price for a stripped-out lossy version?
> Pff.

For most of the stuff I've seen on Amazon, it's the other way round. 
Like, £12 for the CD, or £2 for the MP3. I'm still sceptical.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

It's not removing the DRM itself, it's what you do afterwards (which 
presumably you couldn't do before - or else, why did you bother?)

> 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
> endeavours. 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.

Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize 
artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the arts"??

>> 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.

> The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
> shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards.

More to the point, if somebody buys an item, they reasonably *expect* to 
be able to do certain things with it (depending on what the item is).

If I buy a tune on CD, I expect to be able to play it on any CD player I 
possess. But if I buy a tune as a digital file, I can only play it on 
the PC I bought it with? I don't *think* so! :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 09:33 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> 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).
> >
> > Quite apart from all that, it's often the cheapest option (depending on what
> > you're buying, and assuming you actually want most of the tracks on the album).
> > Last two cds I bought were £4 each off amazon, the download was £9 each. A
> > no-brainer really, more than twice the price for a stripped-out lossy version?
> > Pff.
>
> For most of the stuff I've seen on Amazon, it's the other way round.
> Like, £12 for the CD, or £2 for the MP3. I'm still sceptical.

Do you mean £2 for the entire contents of the CD? Never seen mp3 that cheap. But
then I don't buy music very often, so perhaps I should revise my picture of the
market... :)

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely they are not all wrong?
>
> That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?

Well they surely have a lot more information than most of us do on the 
subject, plus they are forced by shareholders to make profit, so it 
seems unlikely they took the decision to invest in and use DRM without 
some thought.

> Renting something is a little different to *buying* it.

How about if I sell you the right to watch my film 10 times, is that 
renting or buying?  How about 100 times, 1000 times, for 5 years, only 
through a specific media player (eg your TV set-top box)?

> If I buy a ladder,

If someone has spent some time coming up with a novel design (eg those 
ones that collapse and fold 10 different ways) then you're probably not 
allowed to make copies and sell it.  You can claim it's your ladder as 
much as you want, but you don't own the IP for it.

> Then again, content is strange. If I hear a tune on the radio, and I
> spent two months sat at my keyboard and figure out how to play it,
> that's "reverse engineering". If I record myself playing it, that's
> "constructing a derivative work". And if I let another human being hear
> it, that's "public performance", at which point I'm likely to be sued
> out of existence. (And at this point, I haven't even used the word
> "digital" yet...)

Exactly, the laws are there to allow people to make investments knowing 
that they will be able to profit from their work.  This goes for 
everything from music and art through to designing cars and phones. 
Without such laws it would be a waste of money to try and develop 
something as you'd never be able to get enough money in return.

Post a reply to this message

>> If I buy a ladder,
>
> If someone has spent some time coming up with a novel design (eg those
> ones that collapse and fold 10 different ways) then you're probably not
> allowed to make copies and sell it. You can claim it's your ladder as
> much as you want, but you don't own the IP for it.

Well, that's the fundamental difference, really.

Designing a car may be difficult, but *building* one is also absurdly 
difficult. Almost nobody would bother to buy a BWM, copy its design, 
build a hundred of them and give them to all their friends for free. The 
materials and equipment required cost a fortune. (Not to mention the 
fact that it would be *easier* to design a car from scratch than try to 
copy an existing design that you don't have the plans for.)

For "content", the IP *is* the product. Which is a problem, since it's 
trivially copyable.

> Exactly, the laws are there to allow people to make investments knowing
> that they will be able to profit from their work. This goes for
> everything from music and art through to designing cars and phones.
> Without such laws it would be a waste of money to try and develop
> something as you'd never be able to get enough money in return.

Indeed. If you sit down and watch something like the making of Pirates 
of the Caribbean, you start to realise _why_ it cost 140 *million* USD 
to make it. No sane person is going to spend that kind of money unless 
they're expecting to make some kind of a return on that investment.

It used to be that music, video and so forth were all analogue, and it 
was difficult to make decent quality copies, and impractical to 
distribute them. Oh, if there was a profit in it, somebody would have 
done it, which is why it was illegal.

Today, if you wanted to, you could film your cat sleeping or something, 
and have it distributed to a thousand million viewers within minutes. It 
costs virtually nothing.

Hence, we arrive at the fundamental problem: It is trivially easy to 
copy and distribute digital data. However, some of this digital data is 
copyrighted work, who's creators (quite reasonably) expect you to pay 
for it. Others simply reason "why pay if I can get it for free?"

But then of course, the publishers think "OK, well if we embed this 
computer program, we can stop people copying it". (Actually no, no you 
cannot. But the CEO probably isn't smart enough to comprehend this.) And 
then /some/ of them start thinking "hey, instead of just stopping people 
doing illegal stuff, we could stop them doing legal stuff too, and 
charge them money for the privilege that used to be free".

(And then of course the other side reacts, and they break the DRM, and 
the publishers come up with new, more inflexible DRM, and the whole 
thing spirals out of control...)

I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their 
investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1 being 
"it doesn't work".) I have literally no idea what the solution is; the 
only workable one I can think of is "don't bother producing new 
content", but I *really* hope that's not the solution that everybody 
settles on... (!)

Post a reply to this message

> Well, that's the fundamental difference, really.
>
> Designing a car may be difficult, but *building* one is also absurdly
> difficult.

Not really, building one just needs unskilled workers and tooling for 
the parts.  The tooling you can just ask a toolmaker to copy from 
existing parts.  The actual difficult bit is knowing what shape to make 
everything and what material to make it from.  If you have an existing 
design you can just use that.

 > Almost nobody would bother to buy a BWM, copy its design,
> build a hundred of them and give them to all their friends for free.

Actually yes companies do exactly this (well not give away for free, but 
sell for cheaper as they don't need to pay so much design costs):

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/08/27/bmw-threatens-action-against-chinese-copy-of-x5/

> For "content", the IP *is* the product. Which is a problem, since it's
> trivially copyable.

Indeed, it's clearly much easier and cheaper to copy an mp3 than a car, 
but the principle is the same.

> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1 being
> "it doesn't work".)

You mean everyone knows how to bypass DRM?  You mean none of the people 
who pay for content today wouldn't be tempted to copy if there was no 
DRM to bypass?

 > I have literally no idea what the solution is; the
> only workable one I can think of is "don't bother producing new
> content", but I *really* hope that's not the solution that everybody
> settles on... (!)

Given that many companies still make a lot of money from digital 
content, the problem doesn't appear to be as bad as you make out 
(certainly no need to stop making new content yet!).

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 12:16 PM, scott wrote:

>> Almost nobody would bother to buy a BWM, copy its design,
>> build a hundred of them and give them to all their friends for free.
>
> Actually yes companies do exactly this (well not give away for free, but
> sell for cheaper as they don't need to pay so much design costs):
>
>
http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/08/27/bmw-threatens-action-against-chinese-copy-of-x5/

Yes, some *companies* do this. And there are laws to prevent it. What 
I'm saying is that some random dude on the street isn't going to do 
this. It's far too expensive, for a start.

>> For "content", the IP *is* the product. Which is a problem, since it's
>> trivially copyable.
>
> Indeed, it's clearly much easier and cheaper to copy an mp3 than a car,
> but the principle is the same.

Sure, the *principle* is the same. You shouldn't be making illegal 
copies of stuff. I'm pointing out that the *practise* is different. It's 
so hard to copy a car that very few do so. It's so trivially easy to 
copy digital data that potentially a vast number of people might well do 
this.

>> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their
>> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1 being
>> "it doesn't work".)
>
> You mean everyone knows how to bypass DRM?

No. I mean that it only takes one single person to work out how to 
defeat DRM (which will happen with probability 1), and your system is 
broken. You no longer have control over what people do with your data.

(More to the point, with current DRM systems, it's actually *easier* to 
use the cracked content than the genuine article. Incentive to pay, much?)

>> I have literally no idea what the solution is; the
>> only workable one I can think of is "don't bother producing new
>> content", but I *really* hope that's not the solution that everybody
>> settles on... (!)
>
> Given that many companies still make a lot of money from digital
> content, the problem doesn't appear to be as bad as you make out
> (certainly no need to stop making new content yet!).

Emphasis "yet"...

I don't think we'll ever see cinema die. (Could *you* afford a screen 
that big? And a sound system that powerful?) There's something to be 
said for seeing a film projected onto a screen the size of a small 
housing estate. "Home cinema" isn't.

Likewise, I'm sure they'll always be a market for live performance.

As for making money out of digital content... well, I *hope* it 
continues to be viable, but I'm not optimistic unless a "solution" can 
be arrived at. DRM is not the solution; DRM is the problem.

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, some *companies* do this. And there are laws to prevent it. What
> I'm saying is that some random dude on the street isn't going to do
> this. It's far too expensive, for a start.

OK I understand your point.

> No. I mean that it only takes one single person to work out how to
> defeat DRM (which will happen with probability 1), and your system is
> broken. You no longer have control over what people do with your data.

But the DRM is not useless in that situation, as not everyone knows how 
to find illegal copies.

> (More to the point, with current DRM systems, it's actually *easier* to
> use the cracked content than the genuine article. Incentive to pay, much?)

A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced 
to watch.  A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some 
people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their 
own personal use.  But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is 
actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to 
charge more for the DVD in the first place.

> Emphasis "yet"...

I don't see the channels used for pirate content becoming any more 
mainstream, you still need to be "in the know" to find where to get such 
stuff, and there's always the risk you'll get caught and sent a fine 
and/or blocked by your ISP.  And the more popular such places become, 
the more likely they are to get shut down.

> As for making money out of digital content... well, I *hope* it
> continues to be viable, but I'm not optimistic unless a "solution" can
> be arrived at.

As of today DRM is apparently the best solution.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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, 

It's the same in the USA, modulo Fair Use. E.g., you could copy a paragraph 
out of a novel to discuss certain words in it, but you couldn't copy an 
entire scholarly article to give it out.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Surely they are not all wrong?

Yet, many people who write books or play music for free and then sell copies 
later manage to sell lots of copies. There was even a very popular group 
(whose name I forget) that decided to do an entire professional-quality 
album and release it online with "pay what you think it's worth", and wound 
up making 10x as much money as they would have had they given it to a 
publisher, since most direct downloaders wound up giving them something like 
90% of the price they would have paid for it on CD.

Then there's "Machine of Death", a book that you could get online for free 
or buy in print from Amazon. I got it online free, and bought copies for 
people who I know don't have an e-reader.

The Harry Potter DVD was released with no macrovision protection, saving the 
cost of the license of that and apparently not harming sales noticeably.

So the model does work. How well and for how many is another question.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 21-1-2011 10:00, Invisible wrote:
> 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?)

Here too. A friend of mine ended up having to prove that he did certain 
drawings himself. Otherwise the default assumption was that they were 
stolen. And no, they didn't need to show wherefrom. This was part of a 
campus agreement where they needed to pay a certain amount per image per 
reader to the general copyrightholders agency.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Surely they are not all wrong?
> That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?

That would be this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Well they surely have a lot more information than most of us do on the 
> subject, 

That would be "argument from authority."

> seems unlikely they took the decision to invest in and use DRM without 
> some thought.

You put a lot of faith in those sorts of decisions, don't you? :-)

>> Renting something is a little different to *buying* it.
> 
> How about if I sell you the right to watch my film 10 times, is that 
> renting or buying? 

Renting.

> How about 100 times, 1000 times, for 5 years, only 
> through a specific media player (eg your TV set-top box)?

Renting.

>> If I buy a ladder,
> 
> If someone has spent some time coming up with a novel design (eg those 
> ones that collapse and fold 10 different ways) then you're probably not 
> allowed to make copies and sell it.  You can claim it's your ladder as 
> much as you want, but you don't own the IP for it.

I don't think folks are talking about the IP.  I can buy a DVD then rent it 
to the public legally. Copyright only controls copying, at least in the USA.

> Without such laws it would be a waste of money to try and develop 
> something as you'd never be able to get enough money in return.

Maybe, maybe not.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Oh, if there was a profit in it, somebody would have 
> done it, which is why it was illegal.

And that's why public performance is also regulated. :-)

> Hence, we arrive at the fundamental problem: It is trivially easy to 
> copy and distribute digital data. However, some of this digital data is 
> copyrighted work, who's creators (quite reasonably) expect you to pay 
> for it. Others simply reason "why pay if I can get it for free?"

Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to make 
copies but not cheap to make copies.

There was no RIAA before there were records. Copyrights on books were 
senseless before the invention of the printing press. Now that a 
personal-scale printing press costs less than 10 books, and making a copy of 
a recording no longer requires an entire factory, the publishing industry 
has to deal with that.

> But then of course, the publishers think "OK, well if we embed this 
> computer program, we can stop people copying it". (Actually no, no you 
> cannot. But the CEO probably isn't smart enough to comprehend this.) 

Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security theater.

> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their 
> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1 being 
> "it doesn't work".)

The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once. Once 
someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the broken 
version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not just the 
average attackers.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2011 2:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  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.
>
Actually, I think that is exactly what it does do. The inputs for most 
of those is digital, and the digital data is some sort of streaming 
codec, not an analog pattern. **But**, if you do watch analog on the 
same thing, you get precisely what you describe, as I understand, which 
is blurring and other problems, since it can't interpolate frame 
information it doesn't have, so has to guess.

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize 
> artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the arts"??

Check out "moral rights" in copyright law.  I'm not saying it's sufficient, 
but it's part of the whole parcel.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Digital content is another matter...

I'm talking about with digital media. Downloads, even.

> Apparently some people think I'm weird because I still buy all my music 
> on CD. 

I do too. I wind up ripping them every 2 or 3 years as I get new media players.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 2:19 AM, scott wrote:
>> You can, they are call "3D ready".
>
> Oh, do they really take 120 Hz data and give 60 Hz to each eye? I
> assumed they took 60 Hz and gave 30 Hz to each eye - will need to look
> into that...
 From a quick google:

"3D TV size and refresh rate

While there seems to be no restrictions in terms of TV size, a 3D TV 
needs a minimum refresh rate of 120Hz (a basic 60Hz displayed for each 
eye). The higher the refresh rate, the smoother the 3D effect. So a 
240Hz set will be capable of outputting 120Hz to each eye.

HDMI 1.4 will also be required for full HD per eye viewing."

The forum post I found explaining why I couldn't just use a TV that 
claims 120hz, but isn't, I don't remember the link to. But, basically, 
while, in theory, you only need 25 frames a second to "see" an image, 
this isn't practical for various reasons, especially motion issues, 
which is why games *attempt* to always produce at least 50 frames a 
second, if not 60. The difference "is" visible, since even though the 
eye only needs 25, those 25 don't necessarily match the "frame rate" the 
eye is looking at the screen with (i.e., your meat system isn't 
"synchronized" with the refresh rate on the display). So, trying to use 
30 frames a second, by splitting 60hz (i.e. 60 frames) flat out won't 
work properly. The closer you can get to 60 frames a second per eye, the 
less likely you are to notice any sort of flicker, blurring, etc., from 
desynching.

-- 
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

On 1/20/2011 2:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Fair use. You mention it yourself soon after.

>> You simply can't *at all* ***EVER***, even if the use would otherwise
>> be 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.” "
>
All well and good, but, in a practical sense, this is meaningless for 
"digital" content.

> 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.
>
Oddly, reading a book isn't "public performance". Even if you put it 
under a projector it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand.. plug your 
iPad into a big display on a wall... Would it?

>> 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
> such, and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit
> for, but the intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally
> own.
>
The biggest "loophole" is, if the software stops working, or the server 
goes down, even if they promised to let you replace a copy, if you lost 
the local one, you lose the thing you bought. So, no, I am quite correct 
in this.

Same with "giving/selling the original". Try that with an eBook...

-- 
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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:10:39 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> On 19/01/2011 06:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:16:42 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'd think having access to a studio really helps when you're
>>> recording a song...
>>
>> Depends on the quality you're looking for, but yes, having the right
>> tools helps (in both cases).
> 
> I'd suggest having the right technicians helps more. Mix engineering is
> non-trivial, whether you have the right equipment or not.

I consider the personnel part of the toolset in this case.  Just like if 
you're publishing a technical book, having a good technical reviewer and 
editor is essential to ending with a good product.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:11:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> I think I'll pass - I like my forehead too much. ;-)
>>
> Understandable :-)

:)

>>> Did you read my reply to Andrew?
>>
>> Probably, but you know how it is with memory. ;-)
>>
> Something to do with toerags IIRC

What were we talking about? ;-)

>> I keep forgetting that you've got 20 years on me.  Shame on me, must be
>> that old memory thing. :-)
>>
> What did you say?

I'm not sure. :)

>> Interesting.
>>
> Politeness is everything.

That's certainly true. :-)

>>> We've got a lot of history.
>>
>> So I've noticed.  Sadly, the immigration policies don't look to be
>> conducive to us moving over in the near future, so we're actually
>> contemplating a move to Oregon (since we have friends out there who
>> have said they want us to be near them, at least for a while<g>).
>>
> Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain. Head 'em up, move 'em out.
> http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx

Nice of you to say - who knows, maybe the rules will change while it's 
still feasible for us.  I blame Cameron (though that's largely "just 
because").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:25:38 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> The way I see it, there's two sides to this DRM stuff.

That's a reasonable view.

I actually had an opportunity to listen to a talk given by the head of 
legal at the RIAA last year.  He talked about their strategy (this was in 
the context of "intellectual property protection" to a group of exam 
creators/publishers), and the underlying part of the strategy that 
they've taken is to actually cut off the supply lines for those who 
counterfeit products and sell them in the streets, particularly in places 
like China and New York.

From that point of view, the strategy makes a lot of sense (I've always 
said that they need to go after those who are actually selling 
counterfeit products for profit, never considered that the source of the 
material for those counterfeit products was largely file sharing, for 
example).

That said, there's a difference between preventing illegal distribution 
and making it inconvenient to use a product for legal purposes (such as 
fair use provisions in US Copyright law - mostly not codified but enabled 
through legal precedent).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:00:42 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> 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?)

That's the way it is in the US as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>>
>>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>>> originally written.  Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
> 
> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
> "Who will be coming tomorrow?"

OK, I now know (after talking with my boss, who studied linguistics and 
language in college) what the problem is with that response.

"It will be John and I coming tomorrow" is passive voice, and to get to a 
passive voice, it goes through some significant grammatical gymnastics to 
get there.

The rule of thumb Dave (my boss) says he was taught was this:

Make the subject of discourse the subject of the sentence.

"It" in that particular sentence refers to something other than "John and 
I", who are the subject of the discourse.  By mixing the subject of 
discourse and the subject of the sentence different, the sentence becomes 
awkward.

Then adding a passive verb in the mix makes it a softer sentence.  A lot 
of times, people mix "passive" with "formal", but that isn't necessarily 
the case.  Formality does not need to be passive, and more often than not 
isn't.

That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will be 
attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between 
discourse and sentence).

There's also no grammatical gymnastics necessary to get there, even 
though it is still passive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message