That is my point, but only if they have a choice.

What's the battery life of a paperback?

That is my point, but only if they have a choice.

I've found that the e-book system is handy for re-reading the old SciFi short stories I enjoyed as a teenager, remember the Analog type magazines?

A lot of them are out of print now. (Some with good reason ). As I said elsewhere though, too much screen reading is hard on the eyes.

You bought a $300 Kindle?

Note I said "ebook system" General, even with my legendary IT skills I'm not sure what a kindle is, I just typed in the names of the stories on Google and up they came. If that isn't like reading an ebook I apologise.

Great to catch up with you over the weekend, sorry we never took it further with a meal out but the Walking Street market got the nod in the end. Next time.

You mean that you read them on a computer? That is probably the same thing as a Kindle, but without all the propoganda.

It's actually nothing like a Kindle or any other ebook reader. The screens are totally different. If you're going to criticise them best learn a bit about them first. Have you ever actually seen one?

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadge...dgets/e-ink.htm

It's actually nothing like a Kindle or any other ebook reader. The screens are totally different. If you're going to criticise them best learn a bit about them first. Have you ever actually seen one?

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadge...dgets/e-ink.htm

I have not kept up with the new models but...I saw the new iPad on CNBC the other morning.

Looked pretty dang cool....1.5 pounds ...10" screen .....

http://www.apple.com/ipad/

It's actually nothing like a Kindle or any other ebook reader. The screens are totally different. If you're going to criticise them best learn a bit about them first. Have you ever actually seen one?

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadge...dgets/e-ink.htm

I have not kept up with the new models but...I saw the new iPad on CNBC the other morning.

Looked pretty dang cool....1.5 pounds ...10" screen .....

http://www.apple.com/ipad/

The Ipad has a 'computer' screen which is tiring to look at for lengthy periods. It's not an ereader in the same way that the Kindle or the Sony readers are. The screen on an ereader is much more like paper than an ordinary LCD screen. It has ink (or an equivalent chemical) wrapped up in tiny bubbles. The ink is either visible or invisible depending on the polarity of an electrical signal. It's difficult to describe the difference between Eink and an LCD screen without actually seeing them. If you get a chance take a look.

The Ipad has a 'computer' screen which is tiring to look at for lengthy periods. It's not an ereader in the same way that the Kindle or the Sony readers are. The screen on an ereader is much more like paper than an ordinary LCD screen. It has ink (or an equivalent chemical) wrapped up in tiny bubbles. The ink is either visible or invisible depending on the polarity of an electrical signal. It's difficult to describe the difference between Eink and an LCD screen without actually seeing them. If you get a chance take a look.

Interesting ! Will have to read up about it as I am always curious tech wise but have not kept up the last few years.

As to the tiring to look at screens. I was a sys admin at a unix place back in 99-2004

Looked at screens all day...still do sometimes

At times it did seem to wear me down but for the most part since switching from CRT's to LCD's

I cant say as I really notice it.

It's actually nothing like a Kindle or any other ebook reader. The screens are totally different. If you're going to criticise them best learn a bit about them first. Have you ever actually seen one?

Yes I have. However, I could not really tell if it was any better than a regular computer screen.

As manufacturers are well aware, it will take a lot of use by a lot of people to find out if a Kindle screen is really superior to an average computer. It is easy to say that the screens are more advanced than a normal computer, but it will takes many months of use by unbiased users before anyone can be sure one way or the other.

I have seen a few posts where Kindle owners go on about how much they like their machine, but do they "like" it because it is a new toy that no one else has - and that they paid $300 for - or because of its readability?

We were told over and over again that CDs had superior sound quality to LPs. but very few people realized that analog sound was actually warmer until the market was swamped with CD players and phonographs records were almost phased out.

The claims of corporations that want to sell you something are often not to be believed.

Wii pirate pays $1.6m to Nintendo for illegal Super Mario sharing

A 24-YEAR-OLD Queensland man has agreed to pay game maker Nintendo $1.6 million for illegally sharing a Super Mario game on the internet in a landmark court settlement that could spark further lawsuits against game pirates.

Nintendo sued James Burt, of Brisbane, in the Federal Court for illegally copying and sharing the New Super Mario Brothers Wii game on the internet on November 6, a week before its official Australian release.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin said the illegal copy was downloaded by more than 50,000 internet users from around the world, causing untold losses for the company.

Ms Lappin said the piracy was "devastating", particularly as the game had been due to be released in Australia before the rest of the world.

"It was something we had to take action against as this game in particular was massive and years of development were involved in that game," Ms Lappin said.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

"Unfortunately (game piracy) is common and it has a massive cost to the industry as a whole.

"It really does damage not just the developers, but it hits all areas like retail stores and everyone involved in selling the game."

Ms Lappin said Mr Burt had received a copy of the game from a retailer that mistakenly put the title on display before its release date.

Nintendo settled out of court with Mr Burt for $1.5 million plus $100,000 in court costs.

Link

Wii pirate pays $1.6m to Nintendo for illegal Super Mario sharing

A 24-YEAR-OLD Queensland man has agreed to pay game maker Nintendo $1.6 million for illegally sharing a Super Mario game on the internet in a landmark court settlement that could spark further lawsuits against game pirates.

Nintendo sued James Burt, of Brisbane, in the Federal Court for illegally copying and sharing the New Super Mario Brothers Wii game on the internet on November 6, a week before its official Australian release.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin said the illegal copy was downloaded by more than 50,000 internet users from around the world, causing untold losses for the company.

Ms Lappin said the piracy was "devastating", particularly as the game had been due to be released in Australia before the rest of the world.

"It was something we had to take action against as this game in particular was massive and years of development were involved in that game," Ms Lappin said.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Nintendo settled out of court with Mr Burt for $1.5 million plus $100,000 in court costs.

1) If I were 24 years old and could afford to pay $1.6 million for anything I wouldn't waste too much time with games.

2) I have never believed that a company loses nearly as much as they claim from piracy. In this case they assume that people who downloaded the pirate would have paid for the original. That is not always true. Personally speaking, when I used to buy pirate music CDs, I bought them because they were $3 and would never have paid the regular $15 for them. I once bought 25 PS2 games in Bali for the quiv of 65 cents each. If I had paid full price, I would ever buy that many at one time. I used to buy 3-4 per year. I prefer to see films in the cinema. But most don't get played down here on Samui so if I didn't download, I wouldn't see them.

The studios/creators/artists don't always lose out either. You could make the argument that after listening to a pirate CD, someone decided to pay $80 to see the band in concert. Or after seeing a downloaded copy of Pirates of the Carribean, he couldn't wait to pay to see the next on the big screen. Or after buying the pirate of Call of Duty on PS2, I went out and bought a PS3 & a CoD game because I wanted to see the game with better graphics. I read that Metallica used to support the trade of bootleg tapes of their concerts in the early days because it built up their fans base. Nowadays they are apparently dead set against bootlegs. I would guess the same goes for today's unknown artists. They want to get their music out there as much as possible to build the fan base and create a demand for their music which they can later sell.

[/rant]

I think that there's more to this than meets the eye, I'll watch for further information.

1) If I were 24 years old and could afford to pay $1.6 million for anything I wouldn't waste too much time with games.

One thing about court cases in the US.... Nintendo won a judgment nothing more.

The fact that they will never collect it is known up front by them I'm sure.

This judgement appears to be from the Australian Federal court.

Also settled out of court.

This judgement appears to be from the Australian Federal court.

Also settled out of court.

Ooops that is a horse of a different color then

Wonder what they settled for? It would be amazing that a young guy had that $$$

And yet steals mario brothers games.

This judgement appears to be from the Australian Federal court.

Also settled out of court.

Ooops that is a horse of a different color then

Wonder what they settled for? It would be amazing that a young guy had that $$$

And yet steals mario brothers games.

I understood that they settled for the 1.5 mil.

He had those $$$$ because he had 50 000 downloads. Which is an answer to koheesti too...( "....2) I have never believed that a company loses nearly as much as they claim from piracy. In this case they assume that people who downloaded the pirate would have paid for the original....)... at $100 per legal copy (say), 50 000 is $5 000 000....they agreed to less than one third of that potential revenue.

Was he being paid for the downloads though? In that case did he have a business that was making serious dollars?

Paying tax?

Sounds like a true free enterprise conservative.

Was he being paid for the downloads though? In that case did he have a business that was making serious dollars?

Paying tax?

Sounds like a true free enterprise conservative.

I don't know.....but I assume from the settlement that he did indeed make some money from each of the 50000 downloads.

Obviously not.

Nintendo pirate just a shy gamer: dad

A Queensland man who has to pay Nintendo $1.5 million in a piracy case is little more than a shy gamer who uploaded his copy of a new game on to the internet only to prove a point to friends, his father said.

But Nintendo maintains James Burt deliberately distributed the game illegally online in order to gain acceptance with a game hacking group.

Burt, 24, a part-time freight worker who still lives at home with his parents in Sinnamon Park, will be forced to pay Nintendo $1.5 million after an out-of-court settlement was struck to compensate the company for a claimed loss of sales revenue.

Burt uploaded a game file from the Nintendo Wii game New Super Mario Bros on to the internet on November 6 last year, a week before its official release in Australia.

A large Australian retailer had sold him the game early by mistake.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin claimed thousands of people accessed the game illegally after Burt uploaded the file and that his actions created "a major cost to us and the industry".

But Nintendo itself announced recently that the game in question was among the fastest selling of all time. The game earned about $20 million in revenue in just seven weeks.

New Super Mario Bros was among the first Wii titles to launch in Australia before the rest of the world, and Nintendo said Burt's actions could mean that early releases for Australia would not happen in future.

Burt, who must also pay Nintendo's legal bill of $100,000, has been forbidden by Nintendo from commenting on the settlement.

But his father, Richard, said in a phone interview that his son was far from a commercial pirate.

He said his son was a fanatical gamer who owned every console released since he was a teenager and worked part-time at a freight handling company.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/n...00210-nrlr.html

If he sold the pirate copies then he should go to jail on top of the fine. Twenty years ago, it was OK for me to make a cassette tape of an album for personal use or even give one to a friend but if I made 50,000 copies and sold them from the back of my car I'd expect to do time if caught.

Burt uploaded a game file from the Nintendo Wii game New Super Mario Bros on to the internet on November 6 last year, a week before its official release in Australia.

A large Australian retailer had sold him the game early by mistake.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin claimed thousands of people accessed the game illegally after Burt uploaded the file and that his actions created "a major cost to us and the industry".

Not to condone it because I do not but.....

By the sound of the above quotes it sounds like he just uploaded it.

Which is more like the torrent guys. They dont charge for it. They just take it & upload it to server.

Usually the server would also get whacked by the company.

In any case ......Still wrong.