521–530 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope so. The Steam Deck has been pretty nice but I hate leaving Steam and fiddling with Arch Linux and KDE to get non-Steam games working.
Don't support Epic and other stores that are hostile to Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably does, I think mostly in the sense digital media is relatively new and misunderstood -- even today -- and publishers thought they could get away with an iron grip they simply could not have with physical stuff. So it's probably not that they lose profitability, but more that the extraordinary profit margins of digital get capped back to normality. Disregarding piracy [1], if I can sell a digital item and l…
> if I can sell a digital item and lose access in the process Which is exactly the problem with digital media – how do you prove that to the satisfaction of everybody involved, i.e. especially the rightsholders? On the one hand, the fact that almost all of the music market and parts of the e-book market for example operate without DRM shows that in those cases the publishers/labels have somewhat resigned themselves t…
The platform and DRM. The single one use of DRM that would make sense, and it's disregarded.
> it would likely restrict the choice of software players
I'm confused. This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. For music, we've thankfully moved past DRM. For movies, right now you cannot play a movie you bought in one platform in another platform; that's already the status quo, so this would introduce no additional restrictions.
If you tweak and change your music files, that's a derived work, not the original work. You cannot edit up a physical novel and resell it, either. Regardless, music files have no DRM and they are not the topic of discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you link me to something showing that that's an issue? Because the issues people run into as volunteers that I've hard about tend to be city ordinances, not state or federal food safety requirements. Further I'm aware of Food Not Bombs winning a case by claiming an expressive first amendment right to share food.
This is just one of many ordinances countrywide, that was fought during #OperationFeedTheHomeless https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/os-homeless-feedi... Though local ordinances, they require certified and licensed establishments, so it still rolls back to the original issue.
The article mentions GOG’s movie selection (which is indeed extremely limited: https://www.gog.com/en/movies ). It’s worth pointing out that Vimeo also provides some DRM‐free digital downloads through its “On Demand” imprint ( https://vimeo.com/ondemand/oxyana ). Like GOG, though, it mostly contains works of a particular niche (in this case, documentaries and short films). I’ve been hard‐pressed to find any other way…
Awesome. Digital downloads are my favorite kind of download.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What part of a streaming movie is a physical item? The issue is telling someone this: Rent ($2.99) Rent HD ($3.99) Buy ($13.99) So I pick buy, and it sure looks like I own it because the other two choices were presented as rentals. The buy option really is a "long term rental" and should have a very easy to read disclaimer under it that says: "Buy access until 12/31/2029". That way the consumer does not conclude it…
> The buy option really is a "long term rental" It isn't a "long term rental", it is a limited license to use it until the service provider isn't able to provide it. There isn't a pre-defined end date you're agreeing to with this buy button. Depending on the movie, putting an end date of 2029 is actually more limiting than what many of those videos will have. I bought movies on Unbox 16 years ago which are still avai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're talking about loaning a physical copy of a movie to a friend, sure. We have to make arrangements to get the "thing" from one location to another. Surely you can understand that freely "loaning" digital copies - with none of the friction involved in physical media transport - would de-incentivize purchasing by others. If you want that, fine. But that will jack up the price of movies, since a lot fewer of the…
We already have exactly this system for library e-book lending. There is a queue of people on the waitlist for a book and once loan period for the current reader is expires it is automatically loaned (no scare quotes because it is in every way a loan) to the next person in the queue. I don’t see why the same couldn’t be done for other forms of media. Movies, albums, maybe even software licenses. This system will like…
I'm not a fan of the walled gardens of streaming and the you-own-nothing credo that goes with it. I'm just saying that we need to be fair to all sides with the solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The buy option really is a "long term rental" It isn't a "long term rental", it is a limited license to use it until the service provider isn't able to provide it. There isn't a pre-defined end date you're agreeing to with this buy button. Depending on the movie, putting an end date of 2029 is actually more limiting than what many of those videos will have. I bought movies on Unbox 16 years ago which are still avai…
Then you should change the buy button to license. Your analogies are bad because in both cases, no one is being deceived by the seller.
You're obtaining a license for exchange of payment.
You're buying a license.
The car isn't my analogy, it is yours. You're the one suggesting buying a license to stream movies on Amazon is like buying a car. I don't get how its more similar to that than buying a movie or concert ticket. You still haven't explained why you feel a car purchase is a better example other than now suggesting it is a bad analogy now that you presume its mine.
The terms of this license are clearly listed in the link right next to the Buy button. Is the person also deceived if they didn't bother reading the showtime for the ticket they bought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope so. The Steam Deck has been pretty nice but I hate leaving Steam and fiddling with Arch Linux and KDE to get non-Steam games working.
Don't support Epic and other stores that are hostile to Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest difference for me is the sound quality. Lossless 7.1 24/96 or even 24/192. Compared to, at best, DTS or DD+.
I currently have a 5.1 setup, and I want your opinion. Do you think 7.1 or 5.1.2 with on-ceiling speakers would be better? I'm leaning toward 5.1.2.
I don't have gear that can decode Atmos, unfortunately, so I haven't tried ceiling speakers myself - only at movie theaters. Why not 7.1.2? =)