And this demonstrates exactly why the MPAA is struggling against piracy. $14.99 to DOWNLOAD a movie that comes crippled with DRM? Are they really that disconnected from reality? (Yes, that is in fact a rhetorical question.)
Sadly, I guessed this is exactly what they would try to force if/when someone actually tried to offer such a service. And anyone here on/. could have told them it will be an abject failure.
If they actually want to be relevant in the digital age, they will need to sell their products at real market prices. Which would probably be about $8-10 for hot new releases, $5 for most movies, and $1-2 for older bargain-bin dross.
At $15 each they won't even sell enough to pay the electric bill for running the servers.
Well no, not cheaper with the particular chipset specified. But it's easy to get an AMD+motherboard combo cheaper than $81 that will blow the socks off the atom bundle you linked.
Ok, so after RTFA, I'm a bit confused. What exactly does this device do that you couldn't already do with a laptop using bitpim and bluetooth or the correct usb cable for the phone??
Sure, it's more portable, but it's still not so small that you wouldn't notice someone using it.
I have been playing off and on for over 3 years. But I'm pretty sure this craptastic next expansion will seal the deal for me. Looks like I'll be giving Warhammer a try.
It's not surprising though that the expansions are sucking compared to the original game, given how much of the original team has left.
Remember when cordless drill batteries took an hour or two for a full charge? Maybe not, but I do. Now you can get chargers that do a full charge in less than 15 minutes.
Typically technology has to start gaining some popularity before there's going to be these types of improvements made.
Sure, it'll take an overnight charge for now, but that will improve with time. I'd guess they can probably get it down to an hour or two within the next couple years. That's still not so short that you can just stop at a charging station on your way home from work, but it's short enough that you can recharge while you're grabbing groceries or shopping at the mall. And given the distribution system of electricity compared to petrol, I think it's fairly likely there will be options like that available.
What's funny though is the extreme irony in this thread. Video games can't be as "intellectually deep" as other art? Really? That's odd, considering you can build a video game that includes every one of those other pieces of art, in full detail, in 100% 3D.
Not everyone can make a profit in 5 years, especially if they are a person and not a corporation so a system with extensions allows for the possibility of giving you extra time to show a profit because you usually have to find somone who's willing to invest in your idea.
Yes, I suppose that's a good point. So what we should do then is allow an extension for an additional five years, if the author/artist can demonstrate that the work has not yet made a profit.
Any kind of fee system for extended copyrights is a bad bad bad idea. No matter how you set it up, the big corporations will find loopholes to make it work to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the small guy.
But regardless of that, it completely defeats the purpose of copyright.
The purpose of copyright is to give the author/artist/developer a short, time-limited period of no competition to profit from his work. In the digital age, copyright should be limited to around 5 years or less -- period.
Disagree? Think about this. From the production starts, how long does it take a (worthwhile) new movie to not only recoup production costs, but also make an obscene profit? How well do PC games usually sell after the first year or two? Music albums? Fees for long extension periods are not the answer. Sane durations of copyright are.
There are consequences for cheating, even if you're a kid and you're only cheating because mom/dad/the coach told you to -- even if you have no idea you're cheating.
If they are caught cheating, the medals need to be stripped. Simple as that.
Also, comparing it with the couple seconds of the actual person, the eyes are shaped wrong for the rest of the face. They're slanted up a bit too much for her face.
I haven't played most of the games on the list, however I have played Mount and Blade. And it really is a great game. The graphics are a bit dated, but the gameplay is fantastic. It has easily the best melee combat I've ever played. (It puts Oblivion to shame in that regard.) I downloaded and tried the demo, and it wasn't long before I purchased a serial for it.
For folks who want a bit more detail, the melee combat system works thus: you control the direction of every swing as well as block, by how you move your mouse when you start the swing or block (but there are other options you can choose from, if that doesn't suit your style). The same works when fighting on horseback, and when you're using a pole-arm on horseback you can couch it and run enemies through with it for massive damage. Also, if you run over foot soldiers with your horse, they get knocked down and take damage.
No, you can't, because nobody is going to pay any significant amount for something that took you 1 minute to create
Yes yes, everyone who read my post you were going to say exactly that. I hoped you wouldn't, because that claim is so absurd all it does is make you look stupid. There's plenty of examples of 1-minute creations done by non-professionals that made boatloads of cash.
even an artistic photograph takes longer - and it takes a lot of knowledge and skill to get it right.
And you know what? It takes even MORE knowledge and skill to build a high-quality handmade chair and get it right. And the actual labor is a lot more than a simple press of a button. And when it's all said and done, you get to sell it exactly once.
But you know what the real irony here is? You can't even go to university to buy the knowledge to do that kind of work. It only comes from years of experience. And that's a lot more than 4 years.
By the same token, a much less-skilled person can be doing top-notch "artistic photographs" with a lot less experience. Not to say it takes none; it just takes a whole lot less.
So the problem is that someone spends time learning how to use the equipment, spends significant amounts on the equipment, then uses their skill and talent to take a shot, and you want to just copy it willy-nilly because it was only a press of a button.
See that's what people like you don't get. Most labor that produces things of practical value takes a hell of a lot more skill, talent and equipment to produce than copyrighted works. An "artistic photographer" can easily get started for $3,000-$5,000. (And don't tell me I don't know - my sister IS one.) A band can also get sufficient equipment to get started for a similar amount of money. A book author needs even less (a $500 PC will usually be enough). Meanwhile, the electrician who starts his own business the same way to get paid about $20-$50 per hour doing real physical work? Yeah, just to get started he needs to buy a truck, tools, license, and the list goes on. His ticket to get started? At least $10,000, and that truck ain't gonna last you very long. The furniture builder? Well, you have no clue what goes into that so let me give you an idea: it creates a lot of dust, so you have to have a way to get rid of that. Not gonna do it in your house. So first item on the list: big shed to build your furniture in. Start at about $10K for something just big enough for yourself - assuming of course that you already have some land to put it on. But now you still need to buy the lathe, the sanders, the saws... looking at about $10,000-$20,000 minimum here. Let's see, how about a farmer... you'll probably want at least several hundred grand to start there on a small scale.
Do I really need to go on?
Quit spouting hot air about subjects you know little to nothing about.
Artists do deserve to be compensated for their work. Right now, many don't (or can't) get any compensation at all for their work, while many others are so vastly over-compensated it's way beyond ludicrous.
In both practical value and time and effort spent in creation, the handmade chair is far more valuable than any artistic photograph ever made. But guess which is more likely to make more money in the long run?
So no. The "time and effort spent" argument is complete bullshit.
In today's world, in order to balance out compensation for copyrighted works with other work produced by people, copyright would have to be limited to a maximum of 2 years after initial publication.
Yes, there is a difference, but it's a moot point - both works required your time and labor to create, the book obviously takes a LOT longer to create, yet a book, a paperback, sells for a tiny fraction of the cost of a well crafted, hand-made chair.
You focus on the one completely irrelevant part of the discussion: the time spent creating the book vs. the chair. It's completely irrelevant because "book" is not essential to this discussion. You can replace "book" with any other copyrighted creation, including one that took about 1 minute to "create".
Copyright only makes fabulously wealthy (by and large) those artists who have created compelling material... enough so that many people are willing to purchase, at a fraction of the cost it took to make the original product, the work of the artist. They're buying labor and talent and skill, which is the same thing you're buying when you buy a hand-made chair (I'd hope, anyway, as hand-made furniture tends to be quite expensive).
Not really, not any more. These days advertising and exposure has a lot more to do with it than how "compelling" the material is.
No, you're paying for the labor, skill, and talent... and people who put more effort, skill, and talent into their creations are rightfully awarded with more than those who put little effort into their work.
No, you're paying for the advertising. For an example, there's lots of bands out there who are better than the majority of "popular" bands and have put in a lot more time and effort - they simply haven't been able to get the right exposure.
I'm not arguing the system is great... publishers keep the lion's share of profits, which is wrong. Copyrights simply last too long, which is wrong. But the fundamental idea of copyright is well founded and well thought out.
Something I think every sane, rational individual would agree with.
In the digital age, that argument just doesn't hold water any more. The writing of the novel now can easily be the building of it as well. Whether or not you get a hard copy published more or less depends on how large you want your distribution to be.
So, what's your argument going to be once we have true 3D printing available in every house? No, it's not going to happen in the next 5 years, but it's coming, eventually. So what happens then when someone is able to buy a chair, have it scanned into the printer, and have a new one printed out for the equivalent of $.25 worth of plastic in a minute or two?
I personally have taken a different course and just don't buy what isn't worth buying. I'll do without. I'm not entitled to every song I kind of like but not enough to pay for.
Which provokes the RIAA as much as (if not more than) "people using p2p software to copy movies, music and software with no plans to ever pay the producers for what they use." People who make illegal copies at least help proliferate their products and therefore increase popularity and sales of said products. People like you don't do anything at all for them.
The RIAA doesn't care how they get their money. Nor do they care what the actual reason is that they're not getting as much as they believe they deserve.
Not only is your statement illogical and not informative, it's an outright lie.
Taken directly from the FAQ:
Redundant -- Redundant posts are ones which add no new information, but instead take up space with repeating information either in the Slashdot post, the attached links, or lots of previous comments. For instance, some posters cut and paste otherwise legitimate comments in multiple places in the same discussion; the pasted versions are Redundant.
In any case, you clearly haven't the slightest idea what the word "redundant" means. You should do some research before posting the next crap that comes out your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
And this demonstrates exactly why the MPAA is struggling against piracy. $14.99 to DOWNLOAD a movie that comes crippled with DRM? Are they really that disconnected from reality? (Yes, that is in fact a rhetorical question.)
Sadly, I guessed this is exactly what they would try to force if/when someone actually tried to offer such a service. And anyone here on /. could have told them it will be an abject failure.
If they actually want to be relevant in the digital age, they will need to sell their products at real market prices. Which would probably be about $8-10 for hot new releases, $5 for most movies, and $1-2 for older bargain-bin dross.
At $15 each they won't even sell enough to pay the electric bill for running the servers.
There's plenty of folding USB keyboards, like this one. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EU01GO/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=2380150919&ref=pd_sl_21k505pcmf_e
Well no, not cheaper with the particular chipset specified. But it's easy to get an AMD+motherboard combo cheaper than $81 that will blow the socks off the atom bundle you linked.
Sure is. http://www.directron.com/am2vcomb34s.html
Yeah, apparently they forgot to put in the actual content.
but it just lacks soul.
Yeah, I think that's because they sold that way back when they came up with UT2003.
This post needs some up-modding.
Ok, so after RTFA, I'm a bit confused. What exactly does this device do that you couldn't already do with a laptop using bitpim and bluetooth or the correct usb cable for the phone??
Sure, it's more portable, but it's still not so small that you wouldn't notice someone using it.
No, the steak is the same. It just didn't come with the house vegetables and mashed potatoes.
I have been playing off and on for over 3 years. But I'm pretty sure this craptastic next expansion will seal the deal for me. Looks like I'll be giving Warhammer a try.
It's not surprising though that the expansions are sucking compared to the original game, given how much of the original team has left.
Let's see... Video game, picture. Nope, not the same thing.
You might want to try actually reading entire posts before you respond to them.
Remember when cordless drill batteries took an hour or two for a full charge? Maybe not, but I do. Now you can get chargers that do a full charge in less than 15 minutes.
Typically technology has to start gaining some popularity before there's going to be these types of improvements made.
Sure, it'll take an overnight charge for now, but that will improve with time. I'd guess they can probably get it down to an hour or two within the next couple years. That's still not so short that you can just stop at a charging station on your way home from work, but it's short enough that you can recharge while you're grabbing groceries or shopping at the mall. And given the distribution system of electricity compared to petrol, I think it's fairly likely there will be options like that available.
What's funny though is the extreme irony in this thread. Video games can't be as "intellectually deep" as other art? Really? That's odd, considering you can build a video game that includes every one of those other pieces of art, in full detail, in 100% 3D.
Not everyone can make a profit in 5 years, especially if they are a person and not a corporation so a system with extensions allows for the possibility of giving you extra time to show a profit because you usually have to find somone who's willing to invest in your idea.
Yes, I suppose that's a good point. So what we should do then is allow an extension for an additional five years, if the author/artist can demonstrate that the work has not yet made a profit.
Any kind of fee system for extended copyrights is a bad bad bad idea. No matter how you set it up, the big corporations will find loopholes to make it work to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the small guy.
But regardless of that, it completely defeats the purpose of copyright.
The purpose of copyright is to give the author/artist/developer a short, time-limited period of no competition to profit from his work. In the digital age, copyright should be limited to around 5 years or less -- period.
Disagree? Think about this. From the production starts, how long does it take a (worthwhile) new movie to not only recoup production costs, but also make an obscene profit? How well do PC games usually sell after the first year or two? Music albums?
Fees for long extension periods are not the answer. Sane durations of copyright are.
If I'm wrong, please give an explanation why.
There are consequences for cheating, even if you're a kid and you're only cheating because mom/dad/the coach told you to -- even if you have no idea you're cheating.
If they are caught cheating, the medals need to be stripped. Simple as that.
Also, comparing it with the couple seconds of the actual person, the eyes are shaped wrong for the rest of the face. They're slanted up a bit too much for her face.
The eyes open too wide all the time, and as pointed out by someone else they don't change with the rest of her facial expressions.
I haven't played most of the games on the list, however I have played Mount and Blade. And it really is a great game. The graphics are a bit dated, but the gameplay is fantastic. It has easily the best melee combat I've ever played. (It puts Oblivion to shame in that regard.) I downloaded and tried the demo, and it wasn't long before I purchased a serial for it.
For folks who want a bit more detail, the melee combat system works thus: you control the direction of every swing as well as block, by how you move your mouse when you start the swing or block (but there are other options you can choose from, if that doesn't suit your style). The same works when fighting on horseback, and when you're using a pole-arm on horseback you can couch it and run enemies through with it for massive damage. Also, if you run over foot soldiers with your horse, they get knocked down and take damage.
No, it's not complete bullshit, it just depends where you put your values...
You really need to spend a little more time thinking these things through before you post.
No, you can't, because nobody is going to pay any significant amount for something that took you 1 minute to create
Yes yes, everyone who read my post you were going to say exactly that. I hoped you wouldn't, because that claim is so absurd all it does is make you look stupid. There's plenty of examples of 1-minute creations done by non-professionals that made boatloads of cash.
even an artistic photograph takes longer - and it takes a lot of knowledge and skill to get it right.
And you know what? It takes even MORE knowledge and skill to build a high-quality handmade chair and get it right. And the actual labor is a lot more than a simple press of a button. And when it's all said and done, you get to sell it exactly once.
But you know what the real irony here is? You can't even go to university to buy the knowledge to do that kind of work. It only comes from years of experience. And that's a lot more than 4 years.
By the same token, a much less-skilled person can be doing top-notch "artistic photographs" with a lot less experience. Not to say it takes none; it just takes a whole lot less.
So the problem is that someone spends time learning how to use the equipment, spends significant amounts on the equipment, then uses their skill and talent to take a shot, and you want to just copy it willy-nilly because it was only a press of a button.
See that's what people like you don't get. Most labor that produces things of practical value takes a hell of a lot more skill, talent and equipment to produce than copyrighted works. An "artistic photographer" can easily get started for $3,000-$5,000. (And don't tell me I don't know - my sister IS one.) A band can also get sufficient equipment to get started for a similar amount of money. A book author needs even less (a $500 PC will usually be enough). Meanwhile, the electrician who starts his own business the same way to get paid about $20-$50 per hour doing real physical work? Yeah, just to get started he needs to buy a truck, tools, license, and the list goes on. His ticket to get started? At least $10,000, and that truck ain't gonna last you very long. The furniture builder? Well, you have no clue what goes into that so let me give you an idea: it creates a lot of dust, so you have to have a way to get rid of that. Not gonna do it in your house. So first item on the list: big shed to build your furniture in. Start at about $10K for something just big enough for yourself - assuming of course that you already have some land to put it on. But now you still need to buy the lathe, the sanders, the saws... looking at about $10,000-$20,000 minimum here. Let's see, how about a farmer... you'll probably want at least several hundred grand to start there on a small scale.
Do I really need to go on?
Quit spouting hot air about subjects you know little to nothing about.
Artists do deserve to be compensated for their work. Right now, many don't (or can't) get any compensation at all for their work, while many others are so vastly over-compensated it's way beyond ludicrous.
In both practical value and time and effort spent in creation, the handmade chair is far more valuable than any artistic photograph ever made. But guess which is more likely to make more money in the long run?
So no. The "time and effort spent" argument is complete bullshit.
In today's world, in order to balance out compensation for copyrighted works with other work produced by people, copyright would have to be limited to a maximum of 2 years after initial publication.
Yes, there is a difference, but it's a moot point - both works required your time and labor to create, the book obviously takes a LOT longer to create, yet a book, a paperback, sells for a tiny fraction of the cost of a well crafted, hand-made chair.
You focus on the one completely irrelevant part of the discussion: the time spent creating the book vs. the chair. It's completely irrelevant because "book" is not essential to this discussion. You can replace "book" with any other copyrighted creation, including one that took about 1 minute to "create".
Copyright only makes fabulously wealthy (by and large) those artists who have created compelling material... enough so that many people are willing to purchase, at a fraction of the cost it took to make the original product, the work of the artist. They're buying labor and talent and skill, which is the same thing you're buying when you buy a hand-made chair (I'd hope, anyway, as hand-made furniture tends to be quite expensive).
Not really, not any more. These days advertising and exposure has a lot more to do with it than how "compelling" the material is.
No, you're paying for the labor, skill, and talent... and people who put more effort, skill, and talent into their creations are rightfully awarded with more than those who put little effort into their work.
No, you're paying for the advertising. For an example, there's lots of bands out there who are better than the majority of "popular" bands and have put in a lot more time and effort - they simply haven't been able to get the right exposure.
I'm not arguing the system is great... publishers keep the lion's share of profits, which is wrong. Copyrights simply last too long, which is wrong. But the fundamental idea of copyright is well founded and well thought out.
Something I think every sane, rational individual would agree with.
In the digital age, that argument just doesn't hold water any more. The writing of the novel now can easily be the building of it as well. Whether or not you get a hard copy published more or less depends on how large you want your distribution to be.
So, what's your argument going to be once we have true 3D printing available in every house? No, it's not going to happen in the next 5 years, but it's coming, eventually. So what happens then when someone is able to buy a chair, have it scanned into the printer, and have a new one printed out for the equivalent of $.25 worth of plastic in a minute or two?
I personally have taken a different course and just don't buy what isn't worth buying. I'll do without. I'm not entitled to every song I kind of like but not enough to pay for.
Which provokes the RIAA as much as (if not more than) "people using p2p software to copy movies, music and software with no plans to ever pay the producers for what they use." People who make illegal copies at least help proliferate their products and therefore increase popularity and sales of said products. People like you don't do anything at all for them.
The RIAA doesn't care how they get their money. Nor do they care what the actual reason is that they're not getting as much as they believe they deserve.
Not only is your statement illogical and not informative, it's an outright lie.
Taken directly from the FAQ:
Redundant -- Redundant posts are ones which add no new information, but instead take up space with repeating information either in the Slashdot post, the attached links, or lots of previous comments. For instance, some posters cut and paste otherwise legitimate comments in multiple places in the same discussion; the pasted versions are Redundant.
In any case, you clearly haven't the slightest idea what the word "redundant" means. You should do some research before posting the next crap that comes out your ass.