couldn't one also argue that an mp3 is not a copy of a cd track, an xvid file not a dvd copy, and a cam definitely not the film reel? derivitive works perhaps, but not copies.
it would be, but why isn't it happening? is directx like the office of apis, where learns the program (word) and not just the fundamentals (word processing)?
because plenty of people that pirate stuff also buy stuff? i'd say the this middle section is bigger than the freeloaders and the pay-for-alls combined.
how much of that $0.99 do you think goes towards bandwidth? you realize that you are also paying for the bandwidth (your connection). damn, double-dippers.
i wonder. what about reselling the mp3s, if you delete the originals? can i mark up the price if i want?
amazon.com had a deal awhile back where they gave away 11 mojo nixon albums for free. can i sell those if i delete them afterwords?
Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer.
except that the consumer should have a say in this. i should be able to watch on whatever system i want. i assume ads are embedded in the stream,
so they get the ad hits regardless. otherwise, you can't blame people for just torrenting the stuff.
except that time can't be copied. if employers found a way for people to work near infinite shifts in the same time as 1, but with little to no additional (physical, mental, emotional, monetary, etc.) overhead, do you think they'd pay people proportionately more? i know they wouldn't. if time did suddenly become copyable, it would definitely change the value we place on it, as well as many other things. hell, depending on how this copying was done, we would all live forever.
No, they're more easy to steal than physical objects because physical objects exist physically (therefor I have it and you do not), while content relies on the extremely shaky basis of distributing physical representations of something non-physical.
let's suppose mass replicators are a common thing. would you think that copying everything physical would be theft, too? like if i could press a button and now i have 2 tvs, i'd be stealing from samsung? i think not. with everything going digital, the values that were once placed on these things change forever. something that can be replicated instantly with a push of a button is nearly zero, or rather, what people will pay for it. what is sad, are all these industries trying to get laws passed because, "oh no, my stuff isn't worth what i say it is, please make them stop!". does this mean that innovation will die? of course not, humans are very resilient. sure, we can try to prolong the inevitable, but these companies are even fucking that up. for example, the phyiscal cost of lots of products is removed by digitization, but the prices is not going down in a very sane proportion. sure you have to pay for servers and shit, but that can't be more expensive than the physical route. the internet was supposed to make things cheaper and accessible, but now it's only a little bit easier to get. there are so many routes they could have taken. (a dvd oop? sell me the.iso for cheaper than retail, like $5), but instead they made the internet gods angry. now, these industries are suffering (or, at least they want you to think they are).
the obverse, of course, is to start applying all this silly stuff to everything else. having to pay for everything everytime it is used(and that indie stuff won't be usable), eulas preventing any modifications to cars, windows apps having to be approved before you can only buy them from microsoft's store. hell, we can start licensing everything from screws, nails and fasteners(use my screws in your product and i want a cut) to the home you live in (if you sell it, the construction company, architects, et. al. get a cut). these make as much sense as what we apply to digital goods, so i don't see how anyone can be for one and not the other.
the obvious solution is for the game publisher to make it as easy as possible to re-sell your game that you paid for. just have an account setting for transferring your keys to someone else's account. this should be mandatory.
killing off secondary markets only leads to more piracy.
why perpetuate this? granted, it CAN happen, but nowhere near the level that pop culture seems to imply.
do you also think that many guards are bribed regularly?
Frankly, I don't see what the uproar is all about, _unless_ you weren't getting something you were led to believe, or it would be reasonable to expect you would get. Or if the game cannot be said to be complete without the extra content.
>
one could say the the first game set a precedent by having all three campaigns in one product. that is what was expected with the sequel.
let's say lucas had originally released the first star wars trilogy as one super long movie, no episodes, and that what you had lived with for so long. then he announces the prequel trilogy (now, merely a sequel), which will be roughly the same scope and quality (/shudder), but then he says, "oh yeah, i am going to screen this one in 3 separate parts, each costing the same as 1 used to". you can bet people would be pissed.
maybe health insurance shouldn't be in the profits business in the first place. that is the sickening part of it. they want people to pay in and not to pay out.
really? this is the next big wireless thing to come? it doesn't sound too impressive, especially with the caps. this is not what consumers want. they want ONE connection that can go anywhere with similar speeds wherever they go. can we get rid of home/mobile barrier once and for all? maybe get that network working and leave the other stuff alone until it gets made? it's the same bullshit that doesn't allow for a simple $30/month unlimited voice/text/data(which should just be sold as one fucking thing, as its all 1s and 0s anyways) plan.
Nowadays, it is being lost because we don't own the keys to the digital locks.
also, the stuff that wasn't deemed profitable enough or had too much ownership dispute to even put on dvd. stuff that will never see the [legal] light of day again.
all doubts aside(and i do have many, many doubts), i think, if this works, it would be one of the biggest tech breakthroughs in recent years. perhaps, the games are not simply 'run' in the cloud, but ported to work on a much lower level with the hardware, perhaps with a custom os, and rendered directly to compressed video stream? regardless of how, it seems that they are really squandering this tech, if they want to use it just for this. if it can do 1080p(that's what i am guessing their hd stream is) with a 5mb connection, what can it do on-site? why not interactive cgi movies? what about some sort of vr system (or is that still dead)? so much cool stuff could come out of this and i think using it for remote gaming as first step seems like a total waste.
What this proves is that the USPTO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be scrapped. There's little legitimate point in having it at all anymore. The people it supposedly should protect (the small inventors) are the very people crushed by it. They and the rest of us would be better off if it no longer existed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
no kidding. so their flash dev tools would sell less, they'd still have dreamweaver (with new & improved html5 tools).
couldn't one also argue that an mp3 is not a copy of a cd track, an xvid file not a dvd copy, and a cam definitely not the film reel? derivitive works perhaps, but not copies.
if the person would have gone on a killing spree, would the group also be indicted?
so i've learned. if it is free to access over the air, then why start charging for online...
really? that is nice! where is my usabc?
the original hl1 actually had the option of opengl or diectx in the video settings. i remember it ran better in opengl for me.
it would be, but why isn't it happening? is directx like the office of apis, where learns the program (word) and not just the fundamentals (word processing)?
no shit. too had to volume license for a multi-puter home at a discount is it?
+2 Python Reference.
because plenty of people that pirate stuff also buy stuff? i'd say the this middle section is bigger than the freeloaders and the pay-for-alls combined.
how much of that $0.99 do you think goes towards bandwidth? you realize that you are also paying for the bandwidth (your connection). damn, double-dippers.
i wonder. what about reselling the mp3s, if you delete the originals? can i mark up the price if i want?
amazon.com had a deal awhile back where they gave away 11 mojo nixon albums for free. can i sell those if i delete them afterwords?
billable would be fine, if there wasn't any ads.
Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer.
except that the consumer should have a say in this. i should be able to watch on whatever system i want. i assume ads are embedded in the stream, so they get the ad hits regardless. otherwise, you can't blame people for just torrenting the stuff.
except that time can't be copied. if employers found a way for people to work near infinite shifts in the same time as 1, but with little to no additional (physical, mental, emotional, monetary, etc.) overhead, do you think they'd pay people proportionately more? i know they wouldn't. if time did suddenly become copyable, it would definitely change the value we place on it, as well as many other things. hell, depending on how this copying was done, we would all live forever.
No, they're more easy to steal than physical objects because physical objects exist physically (therefor I have it and you do not), while content relies on the extremely shaky basis of distributing physical representations of something non-physical.
let's suppose mass replicators are a common thing. would you think that copying everything physical would be theft, too? like if i could press a button and now i have 2 tvs, i'd be stealing from samsung? i think not. with everything going digital, the values that were once placed on these things change forever. something that can be replicated instantly with a push of a button is nearly zero, or rather, what people will pay for it. what is sad, are all these industries trying to get laws passed because, "oh no, my stuff isn't worth what i say it is, please make them stop!". does this mean that innovation will die? of course not, humans are very resilient. sure, we can try to prolong the inevitable, but these companies are even fucking that up. for example, the phyiscal cost of lots of products is removed by digitization, but the prices is not going down in a very sane proportion. sure you have to pay for servers and shit, but that can't be more expensive than the physical route. the internet was supposed to make things cheaper and accessible, but now it's only a little bit easier to get. there are so many routes they could have taken. (a dvd oop? sell me the .iso for cheaper than retail, like $5), but instead they made the internet gods angry. now, these industries are suffering (or, at least they want you to think they are).
the obverse, of course, is to start applying all this silly stuff to everything else. having to pay for everything everytime it is used(and that indie stuff won't be usable), eulas preventing any modifications to cars, windows apps having to be approved before you can only buy them from microsoft's store. hell, we can start licensing everything from screws, nails and fasteners(use my screws in your product and i want a cut) to the home you live in (if you sell it, the construction company, architects, et. al. get a cut). these make as much sense as what we apply to digital goods, so i don't see how anyone can be for one and not the other.
the obvious solution is for the game publisher to make it as easy as possible to re-sell your game that you paid for. just have an account setting for transferring your keys to someone else's account. this should be mandatory. killing off secondary markets only leads to more piracy.
getting pounding in the ass in Federal Prison
why perpetuate this? granted, it CAN happen, but nowhere near the level that pop culture seems to imply. do you also think that many guards are bribed regularly?
Frankly, I don't see what the uproar is all about, _unless_ you weren't getting something you were led to believe, or it would be reasonable to expect you would get. Or if the game cannot be said to be complete without the extra content.
>
one could say the the first game set a precedent by having all three campaigns in one product. that is what was expected with the sequel.
let's say lucas had originally released the first star wars trilogy as one super long movie, no episodes, and that what you had lived with for so long. then he announces the prequel trilogy (now, merely a sequel), which will be roughly the same scope and quality (/shudder), but then he says, "oh yeah, i am going to screen this one in 3 separate parts, each costing the same as 1 used to". you can bet people would be pissed.
maybe health insurance shouldn't be in the profits business in the first place. that is the sickening part of it. they want people to pay in and not to pay out.
really? this is the next big wireless thing to come? it doesn't sound too impressive, especially with the caps. this is not what consumers want. they want ONE connection that can go anywhere with similar speeds wherever they go. can we get rid of home/mobile barrier once and for all? maybe get that network working and leave the other stuff alone until it gets made? it's the same bullshit that doesn't allow for a simple $30/month unlimited voice/text/data(which should just be sold as one fucking thing, as its all 1s and 0s anyways) plan.
Nowadays, it is being lost because we don't own the keys to the digital locks.
also, the stuff that wasn't deemed profitable enough or had too much ownership dispute to even put on dvd. stuff that will never see the [legal] light of day again.
all doubts aside(and i do have many, many doubts), i think, if this works, it would be one of the biggest tech breakthroughs in recent years. perhaps, the games are not simply 'run' in the cloud, but ported to work on a much lower level with the hardware, perhaps with a custom os, and rendered directly to compressed video stream? regardless of how, it seems that they are really squandering this tech, if they want to use it just for this. if it can do 1080p(that's what i am guessing their hd stream is) with a 5mb connection, what can it do on-site? why not interactive cgi movies? what about some sort of vr system (or is that still dead)? so much cool stuff could come out of this and i think using it for remote gaming as first step seems like a total waste.
What this proves is that the USPTO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be scrapped. There's little legitimate point in having it at all anymore. The people it supposedly should protect (the small inventors) are the very people crushed by it. They and the rest of us would be better off if it no longer existed at all.
^^ this
in fact, in a sane world, he would have to release it in order to be protected by copyright.