DIVX REBORN......THIS SUCKS...

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Joseph S. Powell, III, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. Joseph S. Powell, III, Jun 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Kubez Guest

    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in
    news:hNNne.4420$:

    >
    > Read what those greedy studios want to do with the next-gen movie
    > players...it's sick!!
    >
    > http://dvdfile.com/news/viewpoints/editors_desk/2005/05_18.html


    Can't offer much support for someone who uses the worst cliche from the
    Star Wars saga and can't spell "altar".
     
    Kubez, Jun 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in news:hNNne.4420
    $:

    >
    > Read what those greedy studios want to do with the next-gen movie
    > players...it's sick!!
    >
    > http://dvdfile.com/news/viewpoints/editors_desk/2005/05_18.html


    The market for high-density digital media, if it is not supported by the
    entertainment industry, will continue to be incited by the consumer
    computer market. The result will be MORE of a nightmare for the
    entertainment industry than if they had cooperated with hardware
    manufacturers to achieve a REASONABLE level of copyright control and a
    good video standard. I already have a computer that's capable of playing
    high definition component video on my TV, on demand. The only thing it
    needs is a file in readable format (DIVX is fine) and player software and
    I can stick it right on my TV screen at 1080i resolution.

    Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they can
    control the hardware genie by choking it.


    --
    Dave Oldridge+
    ICQ 1800667

    A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
    God is an evolutionist.
     
    Dave Oldridge, Jun 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Nightspirit Guest

    Dave Oldridge <> wrote in
    news:Xns966A41B6F3881doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159:

    > "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in news:hNNne.4420
    > $:
    >
    >>
    >> Read what those greedy studios want to do with the next-gen movie
    >> players...it's sick!!
    >>
    >> http://dvdfile.com/news/viewpoints/editors_desk/2005/05_18.html

    >
    > The market for high-density digital media, if it is not supported by
    > the entertainment industry, will continue to be incited by the
    > consumer computer market. The result will be MORE of a nightmare for
    > the entertainment industry than if they had cooperated with hardware
    > manufacturers to achieve a REASONABLE level of copyright control and a
    > good video standard. I already have a computer that's capable of
    > playing high definition component video on my TV, on demand. The only
    > thing it needs is a file in readable format (DIVX is fine) and player
    > software and I can stick it right on my TV screen at 1080i resolution.
    >
    > Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they
    > can control the hardware genie by choking it.
    >
    >


    They plug up one hole in the dyke and don't realize that it is full of
    holes. The bean counter will take a look at this standard and realize
    that it is a good way to lose money.

    --
    ---
    Have Fun
    Night Spirit

    Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and quite
    good with ketchup.

    Blog: http://www.livejournal.com/~hipdale/
     
    Nightspirit, Jun 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Joseph S. Powell, III

    RichA Guest

    On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:27:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
    <> wrote:

    >"Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in news:hNNne.4420
    >$:
    >
    >>
    >> Read what those greedy studios want to do with the next-gen movie
    >> players...it's sick!!
    >>
    >> http://dvdfile.com/news/viewpoints/editors_desk/2005/05_18.html

    >
    >The market for high-density digital media, if it is not supported by the
    >entertainment industry, will continue to be incited by the consumer
    >computer market. The result will be MORE of a nightmare for the
    >entertainment industry than if they had cooperated with hardware
    >manufacturers to achieve a REASONABLE level of copyright control and a
    >good video standard. I already have a computer that's capable of playing
    >high definition component video on my TV, on demand. The only thing it
    >needs is a file in readable format (DIVX is fine) and player software and
    >I can stick it right on my TV screen at 1080i resolution.
    >
    >Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they can
    >control the hardware genie by choking it.


    The same minds behind that are the kind of people who own TiVo.
    They want the absolute ability to revoke the "permission"
    they've granted you to view movies and TV programs.
    Who knows? At some point in the future you could be looking at
    retro-actively censored discs because the moral climate changes.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Joseph S. Powell, III

    napalm68 Guest

    It worked out so well for divx. You'd think the fools would learn their
    lesson...

    "Nightspirit" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dave Oldridge <> wrote in
    > news:Xns966A41B6F3881doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159:
    >
    >
    > They plug up one hole in the dyke and don't realize that it is full of
    > holes. The bean counter will take a look at this standard and realize
    > that it is a good way to lose money.
    >
    > --
    > ---
    > Have Fun
    > Night Spirit
    >
    > Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and quite
    > good with ketchup.
    >
    > Blog: http://www.livejournal.com/~hipdale/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    napalm68, Jun 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Goro Guest

    They had to relearn that lesson with EZ-DVD or FlexPlay or whatever the
    fsck that was called.

    Likely they will again.

    btw, how many times has Sony tried to create a proprietary format?

    -goro-

    napalm68 wrote:
    > It worked out so well for divx. You'd think the fools would learn their
    > lesson...
    >
    > "Nightspirit" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Dave Oldridge <> wrote in
    > > news:Xns966A41B6F3881doldridgsprintca@24.71.223.159:
    > >
    > >
    > > They plug up one hole in the dyke and don't realize that it is full of
    > > holes. The bean counter will take a look at this standard and realize
    > > that it is a good way to lose money.
    > >
    > > --
    > > ---
    > > Have Fun
    > > Night Spirit
    > >
    > > Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and quite
    > > good with ketchup.
    > >
    > > Blog: http://www.livejournal.com/~hipdale/
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    Goro, Jun 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Barf Guest


    >
    >btw, how many times has Sony tried to create a proprietary format?
    >


    At least 5, since they have a proprietary format for the PSP's. I
    wonder if Nintendo or XBox will come with hand held movies, too.

    However, I prefer my movies on screens that are a little bigger. Also,
    many of the movies that Sony has released are not movies I want to
    see. Many I wouldn't pay to see once!
     
    Barf, Jun 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Rick M. Guest

    Dave Oldridge wrote:

    > Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they can
    > control the hardware genie by choking it.


    Don't be so sure. The RIAA practically killed DAT as a general consumer
    item years ago, relegating DAT decks to the pricey 'prosumer' and pro
    audio recording markets only.

    On top of that, now the hollywood moguls have the additional legal
    leverage of special protectionism afforded them by the DMCA to back them up.

    Orwell was right on the money... only 20 years too soon.


    -Rick
     
    Rick M., Jun 4, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <>, Rick M. <> wrote:
    >Dave Oldridge wrote:


    >> Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they can
    >> control the hardware genie by choking it.


    >Don't be so sure. The RIAA practically killed DAT as a general
    >consumer item years ago, relegating DAT decks to the pricey
    >'prosumer' and pro audio recording markets only.


    It was not quite that simplistic.

    The DAT was slowed down as regulation was being formed for taxing
    tapes, but what killed DAT as the CD.

    I remember when the battle was starting. Sony and Philips were
    pushing CD very hard. They feared that if they did not reach
    5% market penetration by the time the DAT arrived the CD would fail
    in the marketplace.

    The reasoning was that cassettes had replaced the LPs as the medium
    of choice, and they assumed that most buyers would want something
    upon which they could record also.

    I was handling a recording session [ex-audio engineer and saw the
    first CD presentation at the AES] when one of the other people
    commented on my CD player. He said something like "It will never
    be popular because you can't record on it. I won't buy one because
    of that".

    Those who were too close to technology often make mistakes similar
    to that. By the time DAT [called R-DAT then] was in the market
    the CD had far exceeded sales expectations, going on to be the
    fastest growing consumer electronics item until the release
    of the DVD.

    The DAT recorders stayed pricey because the volume never ramped up,
    and rotating head tape media in the small form factor was not an
    easy thing to make. The first couple of years of that format -
    particularly in the data field - was not very robust. It took until
    the DDS-3 format to became reliable.

    I always used data certified tapes in my audio DAT. The shells
    were better made as the data versions were expected to be
    shuttled back and forth during backups, as machine typically
    couldn't feed the data fast enough to keep the data streaming,
    while audio tapes were assumed to be put into play and listened to
    until the end.

    Recordable CDs were still a long way off at that time.

    >On top of that, now the hollywood moguls have the additional
    >legal leverage of special protectionism afforded them by the DMCA
    >to back them up.


    >Orwell was right on the money... only 20 years too soon.


    I don't think he was that far off. :)

    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
     
    Bill Vermillion, Jun 4, 2005
    #10
  11. "Rick M." <> wrote in news::

    > Dave Oldridge wrote:
    >
    >> Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they
    >> can control the hardware genie by choking it.

    >
    > Don't be so sure. The RIAA practically killed DAT as a general
    > consumer item years ago, relegating DAT decks to the pricey 'prosumer'
    > and pro audio recording markets only.


    That only worked because the consumer computer industry was not really up
    to the level where it could sustain the technology by itself. DAT
    backups were more the territory of major commercial servers than of home
    computer users.

    > On top of that, now the hollywood moguls have the additional legal
    > leverage of special protectionism afforded them by the DMCA to back
    > them up.
    >
    > Orwell was right on the money... only 20 years too soon.


    These kinds of monopolies always break of their own weight eventually.
    Of course we might have to put up with a lot of trashy stuff in the
    meantime. And the worst of it is, I'd BUY some HD content if I had
    assurance that I could continue to play it. I have a couple of shelves
    full of paid-for DVD content now. But I'll NOT be buying anything that
    can be turned off on a whim by someone I don't even know.

    --
    Dave Oldridge+
    ICQ 1800667

    A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
    God is an evolutionist.
     
    Dave Oldridge, Jun 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Rick M. Guest

    Bill Vermillion wrote:
    > In article <>, Rick M. <> wrote:
    >
    >>Dave Oldridge wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they can
    >>>control the hardware genie by choking it.

    >
    >
    >>Don't be so sure. The RIAA practically killed DAT as a general
    >>consumer item years ago, relegating DAT decks to the pricey
    >>'prosumer' and pro audio recording markets only.

    >
    >
    > It was not quite that simplistic.
    >
    > The DAT was slowed down as regulation was being formed for taxing
    > tapes, but what killed DAT as the CD.
    >
    > I remember when the battle was starting. Sony and Philips were
    > pushing CD very hard. They feared that if they did not reach
    > 5% market penetration by the time the DAT arrived the CD would fail
    > in the marketplace.


    DAT was dead as a general consumer technology long before *recordable*
    CDs arrived, but even then, this was more of a 'final nail in the
    coffin' than anything. Basically, the RIAA sought special protectionism
    via DRM-like hardware based, copyright protection scheme in the form of
    a copyguard chip in DAT decks so that it would not be bought by general
    consumers, and would appeal only to the prosumer/pro audio market. The
    'Tax-the tapes' movement came later and was aimed more at the VCR market.`




    >
    > The reasoning was that cassettes had replaced the LPs as the medium
    > of choice, and they assumed that most buyers would want something
    > upon which they could record also.
    >
    > I was handling a recording session [ex-audio engineer and saw the
    > first CD presentation at the AES] when one of the other people
    > commented on my CD player. He said something like "It will never
    > be popular because you can't record on it. I won't buy one because
    > of that".
    >
    > Those who were too close to technology often make mistakes similar
    > to that. By the time DAT [called R-DAT then] was in the market


    R-DAT wasn't the only DAT technology. There was S-DAT as well.
    Basically R-DAT was the "VHS" variant employing a rotating head, and
    S-DAT was the "Beta" variant with a stationary head. Basically, both
    were little more than mini VCRs minus video recording capability, but
    with digital encoding (PCM based, IIRC, although MPEG was under
    development even then).


    > the CD had far exceeded sales expectations, going on to be the
    > fastest growing consumer electronics item until the release
    > of the DVD.


    This is true, but CDs weren't a competing technology at that time. They
    became a competing technology long after DAT was killed. Recordable CD
    technology was very experimental at that point, and very pricey, even
    compared with DAT. By the time recordable CD technology became even
    *quasi* affordable, DAT was dead as a general consumer technology for a
    few years already, and it died because of the RIAA's lobbying efforts
    more than anything. True, it was hoped that DAT would be the general
    consumer's preferred recording medium, but recordable CD technology was
    still years away in any *affordable* manner, hence this is an apples -
    oranges comparision.


    >
    > The DAT recorders stayed pricey because the volume never ramped up,


    Exactly. But the reason for volume not ramping up had more to do with
    the RIAA intentionally crippling the technology as a general consumer
    product.


    > and rotating head tape media in the small form factor was not an
    > easy thing to make.


    Sure they were... VCR tapes were being made for *years* at that point.
    All the DAT tapes really were were mini VCR cassettes. They used the
    same tape manufacturing processes, substrate materials, and tape
    formulations, and these were constantly undergoing refinements too. The
    DAT decks used pretty much the same helical scanning method of recording
    as VCRs, just smaller.

    > The first couple of years of that format -
    > particularly in the data field - was not very robust. It took until
    > the DDS-3 format to became reliable.


    The format was not originally intended to be a general raw data storage
    medium. It *was* envisioned to be able to include this capability at
    some point, but at that time, compression technologies such as MPEG were
    still under development and not mature enough. Principally, DAT was
    intended for the audiophile, and prosumer audio markets, and eventually
    as economies of scale and production ramped up, the general consumer
    market. My point was that the RIAA made *sure* the latter never
    happened because of their fear of bootlegging.



    > I always used data certified tapes in my audio DAT. The shells
    > were better made as the data versions were expected to be
    > shuttled back and forth during backups, as machine typically
    > couldn't feed the data fast enough to keep the data streaming,


    Actually, it was the *loading* mechanism that accounted for this. As I
    said before, they were basically mini VCRs with a very similar loading
    mechanism that drew the tape out of the cartridge shell and around the
    head assembly. Once the tape was drawn into position, the data
    *transfer* rate was as good as anything else available. The latency
    introduced by the mechanical tape loading process just didn't make it
    ideal as a backup medium, as well as the fact that data compression
    technologies available then simply didn't have processors powerful
    enough for media rich content.

    It's all moot anyway, since any *linear* format was ultimately going to
    be supplanted anyway.

    > while audio tapes were assumed to be put into play and listened to
    > until the end.
    >
    > Recordable CDs were still a long way off at that time.
    >
    >
    >>On top of that, now the hollywood moguls have the additional
    >>legal leverage of special protectionism afforded them by the DMCA
    >>to back them up.

    >
    >
    >>Orwell was right on the money... only 20 years too soon.

    >
    >
    > I don't think he was that far off. :)
    >
    > Bill
    >


    -Rick
     
    Rick M., Jun 7, 2005
    #12
  13. In article <>, Rick M. <> wrote:
    >Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >> In article <>, Rick M. <> wrote:


    >>>Dave Oldridge wrote:



    >>>>Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that
    >>>>they can control the hardware genie by choking it.


    >>>Don't be so sure. The RIAA practically killed DAT as a general
    >>>consumer item years ago, relegating DAT decks to the pricey
    >>>'prosumer' and pro audio recording markets only.


    >> It was not quite that simplistic.


    >> The DAT was slowed down as regulation was being formed for taxing
    >> tapes, but what killed DAT as the CD.


    >> I remember when the battle was starting. Sony and Philips were
    >> pushing CD very hard. They feared that if they did not reach
    >> 5% market penetration by the time the DAT arrived the CD would fail
    >> in the marketplace.


    >DAT was dead as a general consumer technology long before *recordable*
    >CDs arrived, but even then, this was more of a 'final nail in the
    >coffin' than anything.


    Recordable was not even thought of then. They were pushing just to
    get to a 5% penetration. And disks were about $20 to $25 then. A
    friend paid $1100 for the Sony device, which didn't sound too good.
    I waited a year or so and then many disks were as low as $18.

    >Basically, the RIAA sought special protectionism via DRM-like
    >hardware based, copyright protection scheme in the form of a
    >copyguard chip in DAT decks so that it would not be bought by
    >general consumers, and would appeal only to the prosumer/pro
    >audio market. The 'Tax-the tapes' movement came later and was
    >aimed more at the VCR market.`


    I surely don't recall that. But I was working in the big-tape
    field then - 24 and 32 tracks on 2" tape.

    >> The reasoning was that cassettes had replaced the LPs as the medium
    >> of choice, and they assumed that most buyers would want something
    >> upon which they could record also.


    >> I was handling a recording session [ex-audio engineer and saw the
    >> first CD presentation at the AES] when one of the other people
    >> commented on my CD player. He said something like "It will never
    >> be popular because you can't record on it. I won't buy one because
    >> of that".


    >> Those who were too close to technology often make mistakes similar
    >> to that. By the time DAT [called R-DAT then] was in the market


    >R-DAT wasn't the only DAT technology.


    That was the working technology at that time.

    >There was S-DAT as well. Basically R-DAT was the "VHS" variant
    >employing a rotating head, and S-DAT was the "Beta" variant with
    >a stationary head. Basically, both were little more than mini
    >VCRs minus video recording capability, but with digital encoding
    >(PCM based, IIRC, although MPEG was under development even then).


    The only non-rotating head digital recorders I saw were the JVC
    units - that used cassettes and the Philips reel-reel that acted
    like a regular reel-reel where you would turn it over and go the
    opposite direction at the end of the play. It had seven heads
    so you had 14 interleaved tracks, and they had to use a new head
    design as there was no way to use induction heads with 7 active
    elemetns in a 1/4" wide format. Neither of those made it to
    production.

    The first digital recorder I got to 'play' with was a 3M digital
    that used 1/2" tape [as I recall] and the editing was done by using
    a scope to make sure you got the edit at the exact cross-over.
    Later I got to use a JVC on 3/4" tape that had a knob so that you
    could digitally 'scrub' the tape to be able to pick your edit
    points audibly, and the machine took care of the zero-cross.

    The early days of digital were really rocky.

    >> the CD had far exceeded sales expectations, going on to be the
    >> fastest growing consumer electronics item until the release
    >> of the DVD.


    >This is true, but CDs weren't a competing technology at that
    >time. They became a competing technology long after DAT was
    >killed.


    No. They were pushing to get enough market penetration before the
    R-DAT become commercially viable.

    >Recordable CD technology was very experimental at that point,
    >and very pricey, even compared with DAT.


    That didn't come until later on. I had left pro-audio by the time
    recordable CDs came out.

    >By the time recordable CD technology became even *quasi*
    >affordable, DAT was dead as a general consumer technology for a
    >few years already, and it died because of the RIAA's lobbying
    >efforts more than anything. True, it was hoped that DAT would be
    >the general consumer's preferred recording medium, but recordable
    >CD technology was still years away in any *affordable* manner,
    >hence this is an apples - oranges comparision.


    Marketing was held up because of the proposed legislation to tax
    the tapes and no one wanted to get into a market where the rules
    were not stable. By that time CD was going great guns.

    >> The DAT recorders stayed pricey because the volume never ramped up,


    >Exactly. But the reason for volume not ramping up had more to do with
    >the RIAA intentionally crippling the technology as a general consumer
    >product.


    >> and rotating head tape media in the small form factor was not an
    >> easy thing to make.


    >Sure they were... VCR tapes were being made for *years* at that
    >point.


    The >operative< word there is 'small form factor'.

    > All the DAT tapes really were were mini VCR cassettes. They
    >used the same tape manufacturing processes, substrate materials,
    >and tape formulations, and these were constantly undergoing
    >refinements too.


    AIR they were using a different forumlation. I'd have to check on
    that. I don't know if I have any of the old AES pre-prints
    relating to that technology.

    >The DAT decks used pretty much the same helical scanning method
    >of recording as VCRs, just smaller.


    Much smaller. My portable DAT was really damn small. The mistake
    they made on that was trying to get a small proprietary battery
    pack that lasted long enough. It's been so long since I had that
    deck - but I think it may have been a Sanyo. It was not Sony but
    did start with S.

    My regular DAT deck was a Sony. And me reel-reel machines are
    15/30 and 7.5/15. [I've been working with audio far longer than
    I'd care to remember].

    >> The first couple of years of that format -
    >> particularly in the data field - was not very robust. It took until
    >> the DDS-3 format to became reliable.


    >The format was not originally intended to be a general raw
    >data storage medium. It *was* envisioned to be able to include
    >this capability at some point, but at that time, compression
    >technologies such as MPEG were still under development and not
    >mature enough. Principally, DAT was intended for the audiophile,
    >and prosumer audio markets, and eventually as economies of scale
    >and production ramped up, the general consumer market. My point
    >was that the RIAA made *sure* the latter never happened because
    >of their fear of bootlegging.


    As with many things the original intended market was not the market
    where it had it's greatest growth.

    The first digital units using DAT technolgy really wern't too
    swift. They would get 1.3GB on a tape. Then they made it to 2.GB.

    Then the DDS specification came out - and it had special leader
    so the DDS machines would not use DAT tapes sold for audio. The
    DDS cartridges were more robust as they needed to be able to handle
    the shoe-shining that was the real slow-down until good SW
    designers wrote programs that could read the HD and write the tape
    with double-buffering.

    I wound up using DDS tapes in my DAT - as they were better. DAT
    had error correction and if the correction failed there was error
    concealment. Easy to do with audio, but you sure can't use that in
    data.

    >> I always used data certified tapes in my audio DAT. The shells
    >> were better made as the data versions were expected to be
    >> shuttled back and forth during backups, as machine typically
    >> couldn't feed the data fast enough to keep the data streaming,


    >Actually, it was the *loading* mechanism that accounted for this.


    No. It was that the computer could not deliver data fast enough
    to be able to keep up with the ability of the tape drive. So
    the tape would stop and back up and wait for more data. Ecrix
    solved this problem with packets on tape so there were 4 packets
    per slant-track, and when the data rate slowed down they slowed
    the tape down. If you did this in a DAT/DDS your track helix
    angle would change. But with packet writing and the use of two
    read heads even when the helix changed the data could be read as
    one head or the other could read the packet. That was and is an
    interesting approach. Probably as interesting as the when Kihara
    was able to implement azimuth recording so the U-Matic cartridge
    size was able to be reduced to get the the pocket-book size
    for the machine he was helping develop at Sony - the Betamax.

    >As I said before, they were basically mini VCRs with a very
    >similar loading mechanism that drew the tape out of the cartridge
    >shell and around the head assembly. Once the tape was drawn into
    >position, the data *transfer* rate was as good as anything else
    >available.


    But the computer could not deliver data fast enough. I had a great
    many clients with DDS devices, and finally on SW company got the SW
    written correctly so we could keep the DDS streaming. The same
    problem was also seen on the old QIC drives. Sloppy software made
    things go much more slowly.

    >The latency introduced by the mechanical tape loading process
    >just didn't make it ideal as a backup medium, as well as the fact
    >that data compression technologies available then simply didn't
    >have processors powerful enough for media rich content.


    The data compression in the drives made things much better. The
    first compression units I saw were add-on's the the Exabyte
    devices, and within a year all backup technologies that were
    worthwhile went to data compression at the HW level in the drive.

    >It's all moot anyway, since any *linear* format was ultimately
    >going to be supplanted anyway.


    And there are tape drives still using linear writing - but with
    more parallel track than anyone ever though was possible in the
    past.

    >>>On top of that, now the hollywood moguls have the additional
    >>>legal leverage of special protectionism afforded them by the DMCA
    >>>to back them up.


    >>>Orwell was right on the money... only 20 years too soon.


    >> I don't think he was that far off. :)


    And did you see the reports yesterday about how fast the Department
    of Homeland Security can act when it has too. From 10 days of the
    first complaint they had the sites that were offering copies
    of Revenge of the Sith totally shut down. It seems like all their
    other things they were tasked with aren't even close to being
    implemented. I guess they don't realize that tape pirates aren't
    the same a real pirates :)

    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
     
    Bill Vermillion, Jun 7, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Veritech

    ad-hoc sucks!!

    Veritech, Oct 20, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    719
  2. Pissed At Firefox

    Mozilla News Group Reader SUCKS ASS!

    Pissed At Firefox, Sep 28, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    900
    Andreas, The Grande Panjandrum
    Sep 30, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?RmxvdW5kZXI=?=

    Reborn

    =?Utf-8?B?RmxvdW5kZXI=?=, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    980
    =?Utf-8?B?Um9uYXRob3NwaWNl?=
    Oct 27, 2004
  4. vincent101
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,000
    Frank
    Aug 11, 2003
  5. Erich93063
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,202
    Mutley
    Nov 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page