Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Protect the income of the creators or they can' (Score 1) 294

Star Wars?! Oh, man, there are so many better examples of Disney rehashing old works. How about Maleficent (aka Sleeping Beauty from the villain's perspective)? Or running the Disney Princess angle into the ground with Brave (at least other Princess films had a legend or fairy tale background, Brave was just a complete fabrication)? Better yet, let's just talk about Disney Princess films, and how Disney takes an old legend or fairy tale, and turns it into a highly profitable film and merchandising effort? If that's not rehashing the same shit over and over, I don't know what is. The recent Star Wars acquisition doesn't have anything on the black hole of creativity that is Disney.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 294

On the other hand, works in the public domain allow multiple interested parties to rescue old films to update their medium, rather than relying on the generosity of a copyright holder. If a copyright holder believes there is no money to be made, why would they invest the time in updating the medium? Whereas a non-copyright holder, yet an interested party, may have archival or just plain altruistic motives for doing so?

It's also possible that the copyright holder does not have the financial means to update, publish, market and otherwise finance a restoration of the work, while another for-profit company might. While under copyright, such a company might simply buy a license, but there can be legal loopholes and financial obstacles in the way of this (such as if the copyright holder simply does not want to sell, or believes they deserve a higher cut than is reasonable). A public domain work has none of these problems. The only real issue would be getting hold of a copy of the film in good enough condition to work on and reproduce.

Comment: Re: The only thing Google has violated is ... (Score 2) 245

by jordanjay29 (#49484365) Attached to: Google Responds To EU Antitrust Claims In Android Blog Post
It also demonstrates why we Americans have had such a bitch of a time getting something as simple as ISPs regulated as common carriers made policy. There are plenty of monopolies in ISP land, it's only really if you have a municipal service or live somewhere spectacularly progressive (or mundane, that's you Kansas City) that you might get some semblance of choice. Had we a system like Europe, Ma Bell would never have grown as powerful, and ISPs like Comcast, Centurylink, Time Warner and Verizon would not have the ability to move vast markets like they do.

Comment: Re:Android without Google (Score 1) 245

by jordanjay29 (#49484333) Attached to: Google Responds To EU Antitrust Claims In Android Blog Post
Because the moment someone offers something for free, it's met with suspicion. Windows Phone licenses are not free and iOS doesn't even have licenses. But Google gives away Android with no license fees required. And somehow that makes them less than legitimate.

Yes, the Open Handset Alliance exists, and yes, Google has an agreement with the OEMs who choose to receive Android from Google. It's no less damning than any agreements a Windows Phone licensee would have to agree to, an iPhone 3rd party hardware (like a charger) manufacturer, etc. The difference is the initial cost: nothing.

There are accusations that Google promotes their own services on Android. Absolutely, as do all the other mobile phone platforms. Windows Phone comes with Microsoft apps aplenty. iOS actually forces you to use their apps by default, if you click a link from email, it opens in Safari, no matter what other browser client you have installed. From a user standpoint, Google's additions are no more or less restrictive than their counterparts. None of Google's behaviors regarding Android are much different than how Apple or Microsoft treat their mobile platforms, except one.

Somehow, without something like a license fee, I think most look on Google's agreements as something less than a business transaction. They are cruel restrictions placed on an otherwise flexible product, iron chains that restrain the great freedoms of the OEMs, who chafe under the strict yoke of Google. None of this is true, it is merely perception, a perception that begins and ends with the lack of licensing fees for Android. If Google charged $5 per Android license install, none of this would be a problem.

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel