While that's true (other than the fact you're equating copyright infringement and stealing...), that's not what the poster was saying at all: what he said was, even if a lot of people stop buying games, regardless of the level or actual piracy or losses due to piracy, companies will still point to the pirates as the reason for their loss, not the fact they're over-charging for their product.
The GPL is not an end user license. It forces absolutely no terms on the user of the software. The terms of the GPL apply only to the distributor of the software. You don't have to agree to the terms of the GPL in order to use the software, only to distribute it.
You should know who makes free software look unappealing through rhetoric and monopolistic practices: Microsoft, Apple and friends. Apple does it even as they leech on the work of the BSD team.
I dislike Apple's locked-down nature. I dislike how they've taken a lot of open source and not contributed the changes back. But I don't know that I've heard anti-FOSS rhetoric from Apple, nor can someone without a monopoly use monopolistic practices--at least not successfully.
Not to mention that Apple has actually contributed back to the open source world with Webkit. That's actually a significant contribution, not just a driver released to meet licensing restrictions or a bit of code to make an open source project work with a proprietary service, which is the sum of Microsoft's "contributions."
Both Microsoft and Apple have despicable practices, but painting Apple as especially anti-open-source is dishonest. They aren't even in the same league as Microsoft.
Reading comprehension not your thing? He named a different business after a component "essential to the process" of pirating DirecTV's services. His business was not pirating DirecTV's services, people just assumed it was.
In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.
Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.
No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.
Have you ever driven on a gravel road? To visit one of my cousins, I have to drive down about 15 miles of gravel roads. There's nothing particularly wrong with these roads in comparison to other gravel roads (they're not especially badly maintained) but they're horrible to drive on. If you go over 25 mph, you're likely to end up in the ditch. And that's on the straight-aways. Going up and down hills and around curves drives the speed even lower. A trip that should take 15 to 20 minutes turns in to almost an hour-long ordeal.
I lived in the country until I graduated high school (my parents still live there.) All of our roads were paved with shale, which is a hell of a lot better than gravel in every way (other than maintenance, since I don't have any idea of the maintenance needs for shale roads.) You don't have the thrown-up rocks of gravel, and you can easily drive the speed limit of 55 without any danger, assuming no other hazards. Are the costs of shale so much higher than gravel that it's worth the horrible driving conditions? Or does the use of shale depend on the area you're in (I'm originally from northwest/north central Kansas.)
I think you're showing your own bias in how you interpreted that AC's post. You read it as bashing the Democrats, and point out that it's just a continuation of a Bush policy--which was exactly what he was criticizing!
Since when is "But the Republicans were doing it to!" a defense of the Democratic party? If anything, they should be doing absolutely nothing the Republicans were doing, but unfortunately we're just getting more of the same.
I imagine he mentioned only FTP or E-mail because in those days there was no World Wide Web, which is what Amazon uses for their business now. For graphical files, you'd have to have transferred them to your computer to view them at the time, meaning (for the most part) FTP or E-mail.
How is it capitalism if you don't have to compete with my product, but just give my product away and claim it is yours?
You are begging the question. You assume that so-called Intellectual Property is a product. That's exactly what is being disputed. It's only a "product" because the government says it is. In true capitalism, the government wouldn't create a false monopoly.
I'm glad CCP had to make eve on-line rather than just making Elite Online.
Pick a better example next time. Since most of the time the money made from an MMORPG is from selling the service (the server where you play), rather than the game itself, your example is a counterpoint to your argument.
Red Hat is able to "give away" their product with Fedora and even have it "stolen" by the distributors of CentOS, yet they keep on making money because they sell a service, not an imaginary product.
Pull an Apple and tell everyone to go out and buy the newest version of all of the software that was working just fine on the previous version of the OS?
I have a Linux box and a Windows box, each with dual monitors (not particularly big ones)
Maybe you need to work somewhere else away from Luddites. Where I work, I have a Linux box, a Windows box and a laptop that dual boots Windows and Linux. Both the desktops have dual monitors and the laptop has an external display.
One of my co-workers has a Windows XP box and a Windows Vista box, as well as a Vista laptop for a total of four monitors (two of them 24") plus a laptop screen. The VP of Technology has three desktops and one or two laptops (depending on which one he brings in on a particular day.) He has at least four monitors on his desk at all times. The VP of Operations just has a Vista laptop and an XP desktop. The laptop has an external display and the desktop has a normal 19" monitor and a 52" LCD TV.
Meanwhile, everyone else, from receptionists to the accountants, is jealous and constantly asking for extra monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow, I get the feeling you don't understand economies of scale.
You're right. Anything that criticizes Microsoft is always a Linux shill piece... Microsoft never does anything wrong.*
*Not saying Microsoft did anything wrong in this case.
The "Informative" moderation on this should itself be modded +5 Funny
While that's true (other than the fact you're equating copyright infringement and stealing...), that's not what the poster was saying at all: what he said was, even if a lot of people stop buying games, regardless of the level or actual piracy or losses due to piracy, companies will still point to the pirates as the reason for their loss, not the fact they're over-charging for their product.
people who have too much money and not enough sense buy those crappy games, nothing really changes.
So what you're saying is that it's exactly like the rest of the game industry?
Microsoft is DOING NOTHING WRONG
They're doing nothing illegal, which is quite a different thing--as you pointed out earlier in your post.
...In the way that meeting the guy who sings for the band playing at the mall on Labor Day is like meeting Bono.
Much less annoying?
If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends.
Yes, if only someone would demand software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends. Damn those hypocrites!
The GPL is not an end user license. It forces absolutely no terms on the user of the software. The terms of the GPL apply only to the distributor of the software. You don't have to agree to the terms of the GPL in order to use the software, only to distribute it.
Watch out! That sounds like slander against Slashdot!
You should know who makes free software look unappealing through rhetoric and monopolistic practices: Microsoft, Apple and friends. Apple does it even as they leech on the work of the BSD team.
I dislike Apple's locked-down nature. I dislike how they've taken a lot of open source and not contributed the changes back. But I don't know that I've heard anti-FOSS rhetoric from Apple, nor can someone without a monopoly use monopolistic practices--at least not successfully.
Not to mention that Apple has actually contributed back to the open source world with Webkit. That's actually a significant contribution, not just a driver released to meet licensing restrictions or a bit of code to make an open source project work with a proprietary service, which is the sum of Microsoft's "contributions."
Both Microsoft and Apple have despicable practices, but painting Apple as especially anti-open-source is dishonest. They aren't even in the same league as Microsoft.
Reading comprehension not your thing? He named a different business after a component "essential to the process" of pirating DirecTV's services. His business was not pirating DirecTV's services, people just assumed it was.
In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.
Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.
No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.
ABC
So Disney is considered a government now?!
my original Macbook Pro drank a glass of water as a stop gap measure
Did your Macbook Pro catch on fire? Otherwise, I don't see how drowning it would be a stop-gap measure.
major quality of life impact
Have you ever driven on a gravel road? To visit one of my cousins, I have to drive down about 15 miles of gravel roads. There's nothing particularly wrong with these roads in comparison to other gravel roads (they're not especially badly maintained) but they're horrible to drive on. If you go over 25 mph, you're likely to end up in the ditch. And that's on the straight-aways. Going up and down hills and around curves drives the speed even lower. A trip that should take 15 to 20 minutes turns in to almost an hour-long ordeal.
I lived in the country until I graduated high school (my parents still live there.) All of our roads were paved with shale, which is a hell of a lot better than gravel in every way (other than maintenance, since I don't have any idea of the maintenance needs for shale roads.) You don't have the thrown-up rocks of gravel, and you can easily drive the speed limit of 55 without any danger, assuming no other hazards. Are the costs of shale so much higher than gravel that it's worth the horrible driving conditions? Or does the use of shale depend on the area you're in (I'm originally from northwest/north central Kansas.)
it uses a proprietary mini-displayport connector I do not think that word means what you think it means.
... VESA announced that Mini DisplayPort would be included in the upcoming DisplayPort 1.2 specification."
"Apple announced that it would license the Mini DisplayPort connector with no fee.
I think you're showing your own bias in how you interpreted that AC's post. You read it as bashing the Democrats, and point out that it's just a continuation of a Bush policy--which was exactly what he was criticizing!
Since when is "But the Republicans were doing it to!" a defense of the Democratic party? If anything, they should be doing absolutely nothing the Republicans were doing, but unfortunately we're just getting more of the same.
I imagine he mentioned only FTP or E-mail because in those days there was no World Wide Web, which is what Amazon uses for their business now. For graphical files, you'd have to have transferred them to your computer to view them at the time, meaning (for the most part) FTP or E-mail.
a legitimate reason why bootlegging on the internet is A-OK while bootlegging on a street corner is not and never has been.
The fact that one is for-profit and the other is not seems like a legitimate reason to me.
How is it capitalism if you don't have to compete with my product, but just give my product away and claim it is yours?
You are begging the question. You assume that so-called Intellectual Property is a product. That's exactly what is being disputed. It's only a "product" because the government says it is. In true capitalism, the government wouldn't create a false monopoly.
I'm glad CCP had to make eve on-line rather than just making Elite Online.
Pick a better example next time. Since most of the time the money made from an MMORPG is from selling the service (the server where you play), rather than the game itself, your example is a counterpoint to your argument.
Red Hat is able to "give away" their product with Fedora and even have it "stolen" by the distributors of CentOS, yet they keep on making money because they sell a service, not an imaginary product.
GNU isn't the only Open Source (besides what the GNU people wants you to believe)
Are you a trolling or just ignorant? Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source"
Pull an Apple and tell everyone to go out and buy the newest version of all of the software that was working just fine on the previous version of the OS?
That seems to have worked pretty well for Apple.
If being made to comply is the only penalty for non-compliance, why would any ever comply until forced?
I have a Linux box and a Windows box, each with dual monitors (not particularly big ones)
Maybe you need to work somewhere else away from Luddites. Where I work, I have a Linux box, a Windows box and a laptop that dual boots Windows and Linux. Both the desktops have dual monitors and the laptop has an external display.
One of my co-workers has a Windows XP box and a Windows Vista box, as well as a Vista laptop for a total of four monitors (two of them 24") plus a laptop screen. The VP of Technology has three desktops and one or two laptops (depending on which one he brings in on a particular day.) He has at least four monitors on his desk at all times. The VP of Operations just has a Vista laptop and an XP desktop. The laptop has an external display and the desktop has a normal 19" monitor and a 52" LCD TV.
Meanwhile, everyone else, from receptionists to the accountants, is jealous and constantly asking for extra monitors.