A Solution in Search of a Problem

If you don't work for Sony, you might be surprised to learn that people aren't interested in buying overpriced movie discs that can only be played on a single device which actually have less content and lower quality video than their DVD counterparts. I guess that only Sony thought that they could convince people to do this.

I have to offer some Full Disclosure type information before I continue. I am a mostly satisfied owner of a Sony PSP, who was finally convinced to buy one after seeing one playing one of my favorite movies, Spiderman 2. I think that my exact quote was "kewl!." That being said, I don't exactly see the appeal of buying UMD movies which were relatively expensive, and seemed to be released almost as an afterthought. When more and more studios started to expand into UMD releases, I seriously wondered if I was missing something. After seeing several articles about this today, though, I have come to the conclusion that UMD movies are a solution in search of a problem.

I think that the concept of UMDs in general is a great hybrid of CD and cartridge based video game technologies. You get the storage benefits of a CD, but the stability, durability, and ease of use that cartridges provide. However, with the prices of portable DVD players coming down to sub $100, I can't justify the extra money to buy both a DVD and a UMD of a given movie, even if it is a favorite of mine, such as Spider-Man, Mystery Men, or Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Those movies benefit from being able to watch them with friends together around a TV, instead of jostling around on a PSP screen. The PSP experience with a movie turns it into a potentially solitary one, which is not what movies are about.

Now that real games are starting to come out for the PSP, such as Maverick Hunter X, Exit, and the great and mighty Lumines, I think that sales for UMD movies will continue to decline. It was a solution to a problem that only existed in Sony's minds.

UMDs not selling all that well

Illegal iPods?

One of my best purchases ever was back in 2004, when I finally got myself an iPod. It completely changed the way that I related to my music collection, and re-acquainted me with some good stuff that I had acquired, but fell off my radar. It also inspired me to get back in touch with albums that I had let go before, such as Soul Asylum, Toad the Wet Sprocket, and Matthew Sweet.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that I was violating copyright law when I ripped the audio off of the discs that I had gone to a lot of trouble over the years to acquire, and in some cases re-acquire.

Of course, it's simply a money grab by Big Music to encourage people to get roped into the legal music services, such as iTunes, Napster, or even Rhapsody. This isn't to say that these services don't have their place. But I fail to see why I should have to buy crippled copies of songs that I like just to have them on my iPod, when I make a copy of them with my PC, which is a time honored tradition (at least since 1992, when the Home Recording Act was passed, which gives Big Music a cut of all blank media sales, specifically to subsidize losses due to piracy. It also allows customers to make copies of music for personal, non-infringing uses, which copying to an iPod certainly is).

This is not even the most offensive part of the linked article. The Big Music exec quoted shows just how out of touch he is with regular folks, by stating that its not that expensive to re-acquire legal online versions of songs and albums that people like. This may be true, but only if you own 1 or 2 albums. Many of Big Music's best customers own hundreds (some even thousands) of CDs, and even albums before that. These are the people who will scoff at this kind of thing. It's no big deal to re-acquire one or two albums at $10 a piece. Try 500 CDs, and I think I've made my point. Not everyone has that kind of money laying around, and most people have better ideas of what could be done with that money.

iPod uploading NOT Fair Use?

It seems that HE would know...

It's something about the defeatist tone of this article that really bothers me. It seems that the CEO of ExxonMobil doesn't think America will ever kick it's addiction to foreign oil. I suppose that the fact that he is CEO of ExxonMobil means that he would know this better than anyone else. Doncha think?

Considering the source, I think that most people will take this with a grain of salt, as well they should. America's history is certainly one of innovation, spunk, and creativity that bodes well for meeting this challenge. Of course, it will be a monumental challenge, like none that America has faced in its recent history. Are we up to it? I think that as the world situation develops, both in terms of the amount of oil in the world, and where its coming from, we may not have a choice.

It will probably be painful, it will be probably be inconvenient, but at some point, we will have all have to say "Our name is America, and we are an oiloholic." At that point, the candle be lit, and we can stop cursing the darkness because our head is in the sand.

MSNBC: America will always need foreign oil