https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Music Man bites dog

This will be a fun one to follow: a countersuit in Atlantic v. Anderson: This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. Tanya Andersen, a 41 year…

This will be a fun one to follow: a countersuit in Atlantic v. Anderson:

This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of “outrage”, and deceptive business practices.

Ms. Andersen’s counterclaims demand a trial by jury.

Stay tuned.

(via Amanda)

How to strangle the DVR industry in its cradle

What’s cool about DVRs like TiVo? That you can automatically grab any shows you want from TV, hold onto them, watch them at your convenience, watch them again, and completely…

What’s cool about DVRs like TiVo? That you can automatically grab any shows you want from TV, hold onto them, watch them at your convenience, watch them again, and completely control, from a time perspective, what you do with TV content.

The big media companies, of course, hate it, because it means that they think they therefore lose that much control. So now they are starting to impose restrictions on what TiVo and others can do with their copyrighted material.

I recently got a sample of Tivo DRM, accidentally I suspect. Recently a Simpson’s rerun recorded with a red-flag next to it (an icon I’ve never seen before). When I selected the episode, I got a message to the effect that “the copyright holder prohibited saving the episode past date mm/dd”. I also noted that this episode could not be copied using Tivo To-go (but ironically it could be “saved to tape” ? I guess that is the analog hole).

I can understand (though rail against) restricting folks from copying the materials for their own future use. But putting in restrictions indicating that the recorded show will “expire” within a certain date?

Screw. You.

I may not watch a show for weeks after recording. I may wait until I can sit down and watch several episodes at once. I may love a show and want to save it so that Margie can watch it, or so that friends and I can watch it in a few weeks.

You want to tell me that I can’t do that?

Imagine someone building a “self destruct” mechanism into your VCR tapes, a la Mission: Impossible. Imagine self-destucting DVDs — oh, wait, we’ve had that and it’s failed miserably.

The media companies are so terrified of losing control of their works that they are willing, even eager, to cripple DVRs, make them far less valuable of a proposition, make them as regulated and restricted as DRM-heavy MP3 players. And they’ll kill the industry — willingly — not realizing that they’ll kill all the DVR-based enthusiasm and market they’ve just started building.

Content does not become popular, or profitable, by keeping it locked away and doled out in tiny, controlled doses. I’m not saying anything like “content wants to be free,” but content wants to be freely distributed, and amount of money that folks are then willing to spend on that content, or on still more content, increases far more than a locked-down, gate-kept, Soviet Bloc-style product will ever achieve.

If TiVo goes ahead with this OS, they’ll drive away a lot of their loyal fanbase. And TiVo cannot afford that. Nor, frankly, can the companies who are, with short-sighted malice aforethought, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Amazonian Sex

Amazon has started offering (shhhhhh!) sex stuff. Buried deep in the “Health & Personal Care” beta section, down below the fold, you’ll find “Sex & Sensuality,” including (non-Rx) contraceptives, “Romantic…

Amazon has started offering (shhhhhh!) sex stuff. Buried deep in the “Health & Personal Care” beta section, down below the fold, you’ll find “Sex & Sensuality,” including (non-Rx) contraceptives, “Romantic Delights,” “Sexual Enhancers,” and Vibrators.

All just one click away …

(Actually, 1-Click(tm) Shopping does not seem to be available with most items. Sorry.)

(via Doyce)

AOL = Hotel California for your credit card

You can cancel any time you like … but you can never leave. One reader passed on some advice from a friend who works for AOL. “Get the name of…

You can cancel any time you like … but you can never leave.

One reader passed on some advice from a friend who works for AOL. “Get the name of the person you are speaking with and their shift code,” the reader wrote. “The name will nine times out of ten be made up, but the shift code is the key. When you call back to tell them that, yes, you did indeed cancel it last month, you mention the shift code and that tells them you really did. They will credit the month and then they are forced to offer you free months access. You must decline this. When you think, well, maybe a couple more months is okay, they dump you back into the system and you will have to go through it all again. Of course, you may get a newbie at their call center who actually cancels your order and processes it; the standard is to cancel the order but not finish the processing. That way it is in the system if you call back, but if you do not follow up, they rely on the majority of people who do not look at the itemized bills and just make their credit card payments. AOL’s business model is based on one thing — people use their credit cards a lot — and people are generally lazy. They have automatic bill payment set up for their credit card(s) and rarely look at the charges. Now, I know YOU look at every line item you get, but you are sadly in the very small minority of people in this nation.”

I used AOL when I first moved to Colorado, a decade ago, but after the frickin’ software crashed and corrupted multiple times, and their only recourse was to “rebuild the machine” (my old Mac, no less), I decided to hell with it. And am so glad I did.

Disney Fairies

Think the omnipresent Disney Princesses (currently earning $3 billion a year for Disney in various consumer products) are obnoxiously cute? Try the Disney Fairies. What if there were a world…

Think the omnipresent Disney Princesses (currently earning $3 billion a year for Disney in various consumer products) are obnoxiously cute?

Try the Disney Fairies.

What if there were a world where fairies lived… where they played music and danced and sang under the light of the fireflies? The wonder of it is that there is such a place. It is the world of Disney Fairies …

Oh, boy!

And, unlike the whole Princess thing, these critters are all part of a unified universe (with Tink providing a link back to the rest of the Disney world). No need to struggle with different art styles or colors or supporting cast like you do when you bundle up Snow White and Belle and Aurora and Cinderella (let alone rolling in Jasmine and Pocahontas and Mulan and whoever else is being considered a “Disney Princess” this week).

Not sure if Katherine will get caught up in all this (after all, it doesn’t feature pink as a color motif), but I see serious Fairy magic in Kaylee‘s future …

 

Temptation …

Ran across this. Drool … Seasons 1 and 2 of Justice League. All episodes on DVD. $80. Except … … well, looking up the EmpricalFilm.com domain, it’s a Canadian company…

Ran across this. Drool …

Seasons 1 and 2 of Justice League. All episodes on DVD. $80.

Except …

… well, looking up the EmpricalFilm.com domain, it’s a Canadian company (I think), using an Austrialian DNS server. There’s no direct contact information. There are some … oddities in the spelling and graphics. And it highly touts the discs as being Region-free, usuable on DVDs anywhere …

It’s almost certainly bootleg. WB has not released all these episodes to the public (hence it being so tempting). So the quality, and the recourse if there’s a problem, is limited.

On the other hand, they sure seem to be widely advertised through Google, and I’ve not found anything explicitly negative about them, just the same sort of vague warnings that are ringing softly in my own head.

Hrm. Don’t think so.

But … damn … they have a lot of cool stuff collected …

How DVDs are changing movie economics

The DVD market is beginning to change what’s a “success” or “failure” in Hollywood. Hollywood’s basic strategy is a familiar one: invest a huge amount of money in films that…

The DVD market is beginning to change what’s a “success” or “failure” in Hollywood.

Hollywood’s basic strategy is a familiar one: invest a huge amount of money in films that have the potential to be blockbusters, target teen-agers as a core audience, and spend enormous amounts of energy and money trying to get people to the theatre on the first weekend. This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy, and it can work, but it makes less sense in a world in which DVDs are the main source of revenue. While many blockbusters do very well on DVD, they generally make less that way than at the box office. Instead, the weekly lists of DVDs are full of movies that Hollywood has traditionally considered mediocre performers — small-to-mid-budget comedies, horror films, and dramas, like “Friday Night Lights,” “The Notebook,” and “Hide and Seek.” Unlike blockbusters, these movies often earn more from DVD sales than at the box office. The bio-pic “Ray,” for instance, earned seventy-five million in the theatre but a hundred and twenty million in DVD sales.

In recent weeks, business pages have been full of dire predictions about slowing DVD sales, based mainly on news that the numbers for “Shrek 2” and “The Incredibles” came in well below expectations. But while there?s some evidence that the performance of the biggest hits appears to be slumping (though only slightly), smaller movies are picking up the slack: over-all sales are still rising briskly. This year, they are on a pace to top twenty billion dollars.

One reason is because the DVD audience isn’t the same as the VCR audience was, let alone the movie-going audience.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the people who buy DVDs are, for the most part, not the people who go to the movies on opening weekend. According to research from Fox Home Entertainment, DVD buyers tend to be older than your typical theatregoer. More of them are women, and most of them don’t see movies in theatres before buying them. Most important, the new DVD audience is so diverse that companies can target niche markets and still sell millions of disks. Because specialized markets are more predictable, the risk of failure is much lower, and so small-to-mid-budget movies can be very profitable indeed. In the U.S., a big-budget epic like “Troy” may have earned nearly twice as much money at the box office as “Ray” did, but, once DVD sales are included, that ratio drops to just 1.2 to 1. And, once you take into account the difference in production and marketing costs, “Ray,” a far cheaper film to make, starts to look like a truly excellent investment.

But when will the studios begin to realize it?

It will be hard, of course, for Hollywood to break itself of the habit of fetishizing opening weekends, but some studios seem to have done it, most notably New Line Cinema (which made “Wedding Crashers”). Over the past four years, the company has flourished by combining lots of small- and mid-budget movies — including DVD hits like “The Notebook,” and “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle” — with one big “tent-pole” investment (“The Lord of the Rings”). Over time, other studios are bound to adopt similar strategies.

(via Kottke)

The Blurb Racket

Okay, you always suspected those movie review blurbs in movie ads were artfully punched up with elipses to make them sound better than even the most breathless reviewer could make…

Okay, you always suspected those movie review blurbs in movie ads were artfully punched up with elipses to make them sound better than even the most breathless reviewer could make them. But here’s a list of rather egregious examples of Orwellian editing:

The Talent Given Us (Daddy W Productions)

Dennis Lim, Village Voice: “Raw, fascinating … blessed with almost shockingly unselfconscious performances.”
Actual line: “This raw, fascinating, often unpleasant film is not in the least coy about its queasy mix of exploitation and therapeutic exhibitionism. A stunt premised on the unembarrassed supply of too much information, The Talent Given Us is blessed, if that’s the right word, with almost shockingly unselfconscious performances.”
Not quoted: “basically a glorified home movie…”

The Girl in the Café (HBO)

Oregonian: “An endearing romantic comedy.”
Actual line: “This new offering from HBO Films is at its heart a bit of political propaganda wrapped into an endearing romantic comedy that starts losing its laughs when it gets to Reykjavik and decides its teachable moment has arrived.”

A regular feature, the listing includes blurbs for movies, TV, theater, and books.

(via BoingBoing)

And now, a word from our sponsors

I remember when the theater was either silent or had some sort of generic music pumped into it. Then we started having “customized” sound tracks before movies, usually with commercials….

I remember when the theater was either silent or had some sort of generic music pumped into it.

Then we started having “customized” sound tracks before movies, usually with commercials. About the same time, commercials started showing up after the lights went out but before the previews began. Those latter commercials, at least, were different from TV ads, usually with higher production values.

Soon we started having slide shows before movies, advertising local businesses interspersed with stupid trivia contests and the like. Coke was heavily into this.

Then we started getting pre-movie shows, usually music videos and entertainment interviews and the like. The commercials, for the most part (except insofar as the shows were, themselves, commercials for the entertainment properties), waited for the lights to come down.

Now?

Yesterday when I walked into the theatre 20 minutes early to get a good seat for “War of the Worlds,” there was an Entertainment Tonight-style show on the screen, projected from a low-resolution video projector, with the volume set to ‘deafening.’ In between the banal interviews with movie stars (and by interviews, I mean 30-second clips), they played regular television commercials — blaring at me through every one of the theatre’s speakers. I thought, “Okay, they’ll turn this off in a few minutes.” But it played for the entire time I was stuck sitting there waiting for the movie to start — 20 minutes! And then I got to sit through the usual number of ads and trailers.

I noticed this when we went to SBLG3D on Friday at the AMC Highlands Ranch — before the show was like tuning into any entertainment TV show, complete with the same annoying TV ads — nothing special to recommend them except being 60 feet high and deafening. And, thus, highly annoying.

I know that theaters are desperate for revenue streams — see the $5 hot dogs and the like? But this sort of thing has to be counter-productive in the long run. If the theaters stop offering anything better than just the novelty of seeing a movie when it originally comes out — if that novelty is balanced against noisy patrons, overpriced food, the inconvenience of going to the movie theater, and, oh yeah, commercials before the movie and then again before the movie … and they charge you for the privilege … theater attendance will continue to plummet. And deservedly so.

(via J-Walk)

The Lucre of the Ring

Peter Jackson is suing New Line Cinema for $100MM over lost proceeds that should have come to him for Fellowship of the Ring. In his lawsuit, Jackson accuses New Line…

Peter Jackson is suing New Line Cinema for $100MM over lost proceeds that should have come to him for Fellowship of the Ring.

In his lawsuit, Jackson accuses New Line of granting the licensing rights to “Lord of the Rings” books, DVDs, and merchandise to other Time Warner companies without allowing bids from other entertainment companies. As a result, the total revenues related to the film were lower than they would have been had there been open bidding for these ancillary rights, Jackson claims.

Because Jackson’s compensation from the movie was tied to gross revenues, he says New Line’s alleged self-dealing cost him money.

New Line denies the charges, or that “most” licensing rights went to Time Warner units.

Supremes cases

Here’s my uninformed (i.e., I haven’t read much more beyond just the news stories) opinions on some of the recent end-of-session flurry of Supreme Court cases: Ten Commandments: Two split…

Here’s my uninformed (i.e., I haven’t read much more beyond just the news stories) opinions on some of the recent end-of-session flurry of Supreme Court cases:

  • Ten Commandments: Two split (and split) decisions on public display of the Ten Commandments. In decisions sure to displease both absolutist sides (and close enough at 5-4 each to make both sides of any upcoming Justice confirmation froth at the mouth even further), the Court neither outright banned nor outright allowed 10C displays in public buildings. Instead, it provided various factors to consider.In the case of a Texas granite monument at the state capitol, the historical nature of the monument (as well as its presence on the grounds of the capitol as opposed to inside of a courtroom) argued for its retention. It had been in place since 1961, and that seems to have been the deciding factor. While some might argue that the length of time an evil has persisted is no argument to allow it to continue to persist, the passage of time also alters the nature of the offense; clearly, what was seen as a permissible display of state/religious entanglement in 1961 (and over decades afterward) is not necessarily the same as what’s acceptable to do today.

    Which was what the Kentucky case seemed to revolve around. They were an attempt to put the 10C into courtrooms today, both the location and timing of which was seen as sending an unacceptable message of religious preference.

    Overall, the Court refused to offer an overall rule, but indicated that these things will need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, factoring in history, setting, and intent as to what message such an inscription sends. I’ll need to read more to get a better feel for it, but overall I’m at least not aghast.

     

  • Software and Piracy: The court agreed that software companies that produce technology which can be used for piracy and encourage (or do not somehow discourage) such use, can be sued for such piracy. Yeargh. On the one hand, yeah, despite all the legit uses of peer-to-peer, it’s clear that most folks see it as a way to (illegally) swap files, and “hear no evil, see no evil” is a dubious ethical code. On the other hand, not only do I have a visceral dislike for Big Media (even as I shovel dollars in their mouths), but find the idea that one is guilty for what someone else can do with your creation to be … worrisome.
  •  

    I need to review this one more carefully. I fear, though, that most of the write-ups I read about it will consist of either Jack Valenti crowing or warnings of DOOOOM, and I suspect the reality will be somewhere in-between. On the bright side, the Court didn’t actually rule on the case at hand, only that the defense that “We aren’t committing the crime, therefore we can’t be sued for it” doesn’t apply. It seems that the lower court to which the Grokster case goes will still need to rule on whether Grokster intended that illegal file sharing would be allowed by its software.

     

  • Cable Internet: The Court ruled that a lower court was wrong to force the FCC to tell cable companies they must lease their lines for third party cable modem service. Legally (which, of course, is what matters) they may be on solid ground (the Court basically seems to have said that it’s an FCC decision, not a judiciary one), but it means less competition and higher prices, most likely, for cable modem service.
  • Eminent Domain: The Court ruled last week that local governments can use eminent domain on behalf of private developers, not just for public development — i.e., jobs and tax revenue can represent a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment, if so desired by local communities. While on the one hand, I see eminent domain as something that should be a last resort (and hate to see neighborhoods and older buildings demolished on behalf of Big Development Companies who may or may not come through with promised tax revenues), it’s also a matter of (as Justice Stevens noted) recognizing that it is up to the local communities — the local government as elected by the voters, or even the state government — to make that decision, not the Feds. Federalism is funny in that way.
  •  

    So, another one where I can see the legal justification, even if the Real World outcome is not what I’d like to see.

     

  • Medical Pot: Bottom line, if it’s something that can be sold, it can be sold across state lines, which means that it can be restricted by Federal law under the “interstate commerce” clause. Which means that the Feds can enforce anti-marijuana use laws, even if a state has approved pot’s use for medical purposes. I understand the rationale (which has been used and abused by the Feds almost as much as the “promote the general welfare” phrase), but I’m not thrilled (nor surprised) with the application of it.

And so it goes.

All your pictures are belong to us

Because professional photography agencies and organizations have been rattling law suit and copyright infringement sabers, photofinishing labs are beginning to not print digital photos that they think may have been…

Because professional photography agencies and organizations have been rattling law suit and copyright infringement sabers, photofinishing labs are beginning to not print digital photos that they think may have been done by professionals. In other words, if you take a really nice, professional-looking photo with your digital camera, and send it to Walmart.com to be printed — you may be presumed a criminal and your printing denied.

Amateur photographer Zee Helmick encountered that problem when she went to pick up photos she had ordered at a Wal-Mart near her home in Henderson, Nev. She had taken the photos of her son that morning to use as head shots for an audition for a TV commercial. She had used her photo-editing software to add his name, information about him and even her own copyright to make the image look more polished, Helmick said. She uploaded the 8-by-10-inch photos to Walmart.com, which prints photos sent to the site at a nearby store for customers to pick up.

At the store, Helmick said a clerk told her, “We can’t release the pictures to you.”

“What’s wrong?” Helmick asked.

“We can’t release the pictures to you without a copyright release form signed by the photographer,” the clerk replied, according to Helmick.

The clerk refused to believe her, nor would they take a signed statement saying that Helmick had taken the pictures herself.

While it’s true that professional photographs can be scanned and then sent to a photo finisher to be printed — in violation of the photographer’s copyright (and I’ll be you didn’t really realize that those school photos of the kids, or the shots that the photographer took of your wedding, are actually copyrighted), the presumption that something that looks professional means that it was stolen is pernicious.

The Professional Photographers of America sees education of consumers and photofinishers as key to preventing unauthorized copying. The trade group sent a wake-up call to the photofinishing industry when, in 1999, it sued Kmart Corp., alleging that the discount store violated federal copyright law by copying images without the permission of the copyright owners.

In 2000, Kmart settled the case by paying $100,000 and agreeing to implement procedures to guard against the unlawful copying of professional photos.

The fact is, amateurs can take — or send in for processing — much better photos than ever before, Photoshopped to look professional. And, unlike in the old days, when you’d have to send in an entire roll (or five) for processing, in the digital age, you only need send in the best.

Just make sure it isn’t too much of a best. Otherwise, you may get called a crook.

(via BoingBoing)

Now that’s complimentary

Being an IT professional, I get free subscriptions to any number of trade magazines and journals. In theory, you could buy subs to a number of these, but in practice…

Being an IT professional, I get free subscriptions to any number of trade magazines and journals. In theory, you could buy subs to a number of these, but in practice they make their money off of ads — which they justify by making “free” subscribers fill out (or answer on the phone) eleventy dozen questions about staff size, purchasing authority, budgets, etc. I understand that’s so that they can then say to the advertisers, “Spend your ad dollars on us, because our average reader is a CIO who oversees a budget of $20MM and a staff of 750. W00T!”

But it’s damned annoying, especially since I rarely have the profile they’re looking for, even though they gently nudge you in the direction of the sorts of things they want. The irony being that even our CIO couldn’t answer in all the detail they ask. Sure, most folks making up SWAGs for most of the values, but it’s still 5-10 minutes out of one’s life, such that I usually just skip it (as I receive more reading material at the office already than I could possibly read).

On the other hand, it was very nice being quizzed by someone today who only wanted to know (for a renewal) how many folks we have world-wide, and is this still my mailing address. It won’t make me read their stuff any more thoroughly, but it kept me from saying, “Sorry, not interested, no time,” which may be the reason they went with the far less intrusive and time-consuming approach.

“Stop haXXing our trailer or we will tell the mods on you!”

Alas, the folks who put up the l337-speak subtitled version of the Episode 3 trailer have finally gotten a Cease & Desist letter from Lucasfilm, and have had to take…

Alas, the folks who put up the l337-speak subtitled version of the Episode 3 trailer have finally gotten a Cease & Desist letter from Lucasfilm, and have had to take it down.

But they’ve provided a nice l337-speak translation of the C&D letter

Stupid warning labels: Number 439 in a series

Um … if I’ve bought a CD (versus, say, finding illegally pirated versions of the music online and downloading them), I’ve done just what the RIAA wants, right? And if…

Um … if I’ve bought a CD (versus, say, finding illegally pirated versions of the music online and downloading them), I’ve done just what the RIAA wants, right?

And if I’m a CD pirate, I’m already aware of laws against pirating CDs, right?

So why does the RIAA not only insist on anti-pirating warning labels on CD case liners, but now on CDs themselves?

This all seems like the dumbest fucking idea in the world. I just want to shake every single moron who works for the RIAA by the lapels and say to them, “Do you understand? The thing that makes me want to buy CDs is that I am a geek who enjoys having physical objects around. If you go around stamping ugly text directly on the artwork in a CD’s packaging, you are decreasing my incentive to want to buy it, because you are making it objectively less attractive as an object.”

I am (seriously) waiting for anti-piracy messages to show up as audio tracks on the CDs themselves — and then to be included as part of each song’s track, too.

If the recording industry put as much effort into producing stuff that the (majority honest) buyers wanted to buy as they put into harrassing the (majority honest) buyers they depend upon, we’d have a new musical renaissance upon us.

Sanity in the standards wars? Inconceivable!

Sony is making noises that its support for the Blu-Ray next-generation DVD format may not preclude reaching some sort of compromise with its HD-DVD competitors: “Listening to the voice of…

Sony is making noises that its support for the Blu-Ray next-generation DVD format may not preclude reaching some sort of compromise with its HD-DVD competitors:

“Listening to the voice of the consumers, having two rival formats is disappointing, and we haven’t totally given up on the possibility of integration or compromise,” Ryoji Chubachi, Sony’s president-elect, said at a news conference today in which he discussed the company’s performance and future strategy.

[…] HD-DVD backers, which include NEC Corp. and Toshiba Corp., say HD-DVDs can be produced for about the same price as DVDs and are backward-compatible with DVDs and CDs, making the format more convenient for both consumers and the industry. HD-DVD movie titles, PC drives and players are all due out by the end of the year.

Sony has steadfastly promoted Blu-ray as a technology that has greater capacity, saying this makes the format more useful because more content can be stored on a disc. The technology also has wider support in the technology industry, although release dates for movie titles have not yet been announced.

Chubachi’s comments mark the second time that a Sony executive has signaled the possibility of a compromise between the two camps. In January, Ken Kutaragi, executive deputy president of Sony, said a format war wasn’t in the public interest and that Sony hadn’t ruled out the possibility of uniting the formats.

Indeed it is not in the public interest — and, further, is the thing most likely to keep folks from investing in either technology. Folks have become a lot more sensitized to standards issues than they were in the Beta-vs-VHS days (and to some degree because of that), and are less willing to pony up for a machine that will be only useful for some title and not for others.

And Sony has not been exactly the most successful in promoting alternative formats and technologies, even though its offerings — from Betamax to Mini-discs — have been technologically spiffy.

If they can come up with a compromise on this, everyone will be muuuuuch happier.

Good thing the Ring restrains aging …

Don’t expect Peter Jackson’s Hobbit for at least 3-4 years. Part of the problem, Jackson explained, is that the film rights are split between MGM and New Line Cinema. Moreover,…

Don’t expect Peter Jackson’s Hobbit for at least 3-4 years.

Part of the problem, Jackson explained, is that the film rights are split between MGM and New Line Cinema. Moreover, MGM’s recent sale to Sony looks set to further muddy the water.

“I think there is probably a will and a desire to try and get The Hobbit made,” Jackson told fans. “But I think it’s gonna be a lot of lawyers sitting in a room trying to thrash out a deal before it will ever happen.”

Asked to provide a possible timescale, he said: “Three or four years would be accurate, I would say.”

And, of course, Jackson has a pretty full plate right now.

Hope we don’t see key talent (e.g., Ian McKellan) being forced to drop out of the project because of the passing years …

Screen-to-screen turn-around

Interesting WaPo article on how turn-around from theater release to DVD release continues to get shorter and shorter — and not just for box office flops, but for major flicks…

Interesting WaPo article on how turn-around from theater release to DVD release continues to get shorter and shorter — and not just for box office flops, but for major flicks like The Incredibles (4 months). Biggest reason — piggybacking on publicity, both paid ads and word of mouth.

“Not only do we compete with new releases for DVD street dates, we’re competing with big-event TV programming like ‘Seinfeld’ and big reissues like ‘Star Wars,’ ” says Ben Feingold, president of Sony Home Entertainment, which last year released more films on DVD more quickly than any other studio, according to Home Media Retailing. Movies also don’t stay in theaters as long as they used to, say, even a decade ago, which means they are more likely to show up sooner at a Blockbuster or Best Buy, Feingold adds. “If films are no longer in theaters, then it’s probably not a bad idea to have them available for people to buy while they’re still relatively fresh in people’s minds,” he says. “Then again, it’s really about the best date.”

Having grown up in the day when movies ran in theaters for several months, and maybe, a year or two later (assuming they weren’t re-released to theaters), showing up on TV as a Major Event, seeing DVDs coming out so quickly after the theater release is amazing.

And it does begin to raise the same issue as we see with comics-vs-trade-paperback-collections: at what point does the reduced wait time begin to impact theater attendance? Movies have gotten expensive enough at the theater so that for a lot of folks, going to see a movie of marginal interest is less and less likely. If the film will be out in DVD in a couple of months, that might further reduce the incentive to go out and see anything short of a social-group-shaking or fx-amazing blockbuster.

(via Kottke)

One

Interesting article on Pepsi’s new ad push for Pepsi One, which will eschew traditional celebrity-laden TV spots for more quirky alternative methods. Which is good news, I guess, since it’s…

Interesting article on Pepsi’s new ad push for Pepsi One, which will eschew traditional celebrity-laden TV spots for more quirky alternative methods. Which is good news, I guess, since it’s my diet drink of choice, and I was increasingly concerned that it would soon vanish from the shelves as Pepsi pushes a 50% diet drink.

I’m less than pleased that they’re reformulating the drink (to use Splenda) since, well, as I said, I like it as it is. And … um … black cans?

Having it both ways

If, in fact, the new AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) Terms of Service (TOS) include some privacy-busting clauses like … … by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL,…

If, in fact, the new AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) Terms of Service (TOS) include some privacy-busting clauses like …

… by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy.

… then does AOL have to take responsibility for what’s there? They say they can use it, they say it’s not private, that means they have control over it.

Is that really the course that AOL wants to take? Most ISP and similar service providers have followed (with some difficulty) the “common carrier” route, which means that they serve as “a mere conduit” to what others say and do, meaning they can’t (and won’t) control or restrict it, and cannot be held responsible for it.

By essentially taking ownership of the content, rather than just its distribution, AOL seems to be inadvertently setting itself up for some uncomfortable legal times ahead.

(via BoingBoing)