As video equipment explodes in variety and lower cost, and Joe Schmoe gets an idea for a "killer you-tube" video — or a wedding videographer edits last weeks video — I'm constantly struck by the complete lack of options for the DIY cinematographer.
When you post something on YouTube with a musician's music, you get the take-down; yet, people persist in trying it.
So, why hasn't the RIAA, who *supposedly* represents the better interests of content providers, come up with a licensing plan that would enable the would-be Spielberg to legally use music in the production of their comedy/sci-fi/drama/whatever video?
I've talked to a *lot* of people who don't keep up on copyright/patent/trademark issues, and overwhelmingly they say they wouldn't mind paying $25—or more—to license a song for their video. Baby showers, weddings, and other home-made content are ripe for a balance of producer and user, yet the music industry thinks suing people will solve their problems.
Dammit, we live in an age where setting up a system of home-user licensing commercial music should be easy. Not only that, but the mechanism for indie artists to profit from this system should be relatively easy to set up!
Why is this not happening?
Dell laptop computer: around $600
Smartphone, non-subsidized: $200 — $800+
Not to mention all the T.V’s, game consoles, etc, all around sub $1k prices...
Excuse me if I sound a little pissed, but it seems to me with the shrinking electronics, better capabilities, and technological advancements, not to mention the rapidly increasing potential user base, quality hearing aids should be coming in a *lot* cheaper than what we can find.
Adding fuel to my fire is the fact, a hearing aid will greatly improve my mom’s—not to mention millions of others out there—life a lot more. Currently she suffers from frustration and isolation with having to ask people to “speak up”, and nodding her head to things her kids and grandkids say.
We’ve tried the cheapies, and they’re fraught with problems.
So, can someone tell me why a hearing aid should be so expensive?"
It seems they’ve been getting calls from there, with no dicernable reason. A google search turns up a lot of questions about it, from scammers that seem to know a lot about the callee, to a possible reverse-charge scheme.
I had a thought it might be scam wherein the target searches for the skinny on 855 and lands on a malicious website.
Either way, it’s driving a lot of people nuts, and we want to know.
1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.
2. Sold your dad's used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.
3. Sold an "import CD" of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.
4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.
Here is what's going on.
The Supreme Court case concerns something called the "first-sale doctrine" in copyright law. Simply put, the doctrine means that you can buy and sell the stuff you purchase. Even if someone has copyright over some piece of your stuff, you can sell it without permission from the copyright holder because the copyright holder can only control the "first-sale." The Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine since 1908.
The first-sale doctrine is one thing that makes it lawful to sell almost any good. The companies that have gone to court and sued over selling their "copyrights" include a watchmaker and shampoo producer. They have gone to court arguing that one part of the Copyright Act — which gives them a right against unauthorized imports — invalidates the first-sale doctrine.
In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to any product manufactured in the United States, sold in the U.S., even if the first sale by the copyright holder was abroad and the item was imported back into the U.S. This decision was unanimous and rejected the interpretation preferred by the U.S. government's lawyer — and the biggest copyright holders.
The legal confusion today concerns only products made abroad.
Continuing a long string of similar cases, the Supreme Court will review a New York federal court decision that decided, in short, that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to any copyrighted product manufactured abroad. That case concerns textbooks."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
The base cost per device varies with the most expensive being $40 for smartphones and the cheapest being $10 for tablets. In addition to the base cost per device, the plan requires the unlimited talk, unlimited text, and shared data pool to be purchased at $50 for 1GB, $60 for 2GB, and $10 per 2GB at each level thereafter up to 10GB. Overages will cost a hefty $15 per 1GB. With Verizon's still ridiculously high prices, one upside is that tethering is now included in the cost.
For those of you grandfathered into unlimited data plans, you can keep your plan as long as you do not purchase any more subsidized phones."
Link to Original Source
Over the last few days I got to thinking: is it possible to set up a distributed radio telescope array? Surely, by now, there's a way to synchronize countless small dishes to probe the skies.
Of course, it's entirely possible I have no clue as to how arrays work, and/or the frequencies involved."
The idea of Paris teeming with rickshaw operators on cold holiday nights warms my heart!
Seems I've seen this story before...'bout once every couple months, on Slashdot, If I'm not mistaken:
Rather like whack-a-mole, no?