i don't see how you can be for licensed development(like consoles, iphones, etc) and open development(like windows, linux, etc) at the same time.
one or the other people! or, what, i am just licensing the hardware now, too? then, maybe kill off all secondary markets? slippery slope! slippery slope!
this is one thing that is so retarded in wow. i'm a master in first aid, but i need a healer? wtf. maybe don't call my rogue a master of lockpicking and still require me to use keys to free kul and his comrads.
of course, there are other sucky things like portal and other technologies being available, but not implemented everywhere. i would really like to see a mmo that evolves, instead of putting this stuff in half-assed.
why the hell can 99% of all craftables be used by anyone, except that engineering is the obverse? it makes no sense.
he is obviously not judging games based solely on looks.
are you saying that, for example, serious sam hd's updated graphics in no way improve over the original, that they shouldn't affect the fun factor in any way?
if your precious doom was redone exactly the same, save updated graphics, it would only be equally as fun?
imo: (fun game + good graphics) > (fun game + not-as-good graphics)
there's been a history of entertainment you can't resell since before the internet even existed.
of course there has, but there has also been a history of a decent secondary market for video games, as well as movies and music. if we are going to throw that away because of entertainment's hitory, then we can go back to a time before copyright.
How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?
this is the big question. i guess we can try to put the shoe on the other foot. should a person who makes screws/nails for a living get residuals for anything that the screws/nails are used to build? should architects get a cut every time a building they designed is sold?
those sound exactly the same as studio engineer or singer getting a cut every time a song is sold or, if the powers that be have their way, played.
personally, i'd like to see the following added to any future copyright legislation:
1. make available. if you want protection, the work must be made available. in the digital age, nothing should ever go out of print. there is no reason i shouldn't be able to just buy&download the.iso if you won't sell it in stores, but don't price it like there is still a bunch of middlemen.
2. mandatory, global licensing. wasn't the internet supposed to get rid of all these bullshit boundaries/regions/etc. and level the playing field? in this day and age, shouldn't the works be globally and readily available upon creation? additional licensing streams be damned.
3. limited time. let's go back to the 14 +14 scenario. that is more than enough time. it sickens me that nothing made in my lifetime will ever be public domain in my lifetime. i'm surprised they haven't just made them forever by now.
well, those 3 to start.
what i liked about that link: "Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction."
so if a senator/representative read a copyrighted work, would the press (or anyone) be able to publish it?
i don't care if 99% use something for piracy, the other 1% should never be affected. i should be allowed to tinker with whatever i buy, and if i can do something myself, i should be able to pay someone else to do it for me, whether it be modding my own hardware(or am i licensing the hardware?) or archiving my legally purchased media to whatever format i choose(seeing as i am allowed to record and archive content off the tv, why can't i use the internet as a dvr?).
what's even more ridiculous is the bullshit development licensing consoles have in the first place. anyone for that system, would have to be for development licensing fees on windows, linux, mac, etc. they are all computers ffs!
exactly. although i would really like to see them disband the whole "tying certain phone to certain carriers" bs. just make everyone pay for the phone and have them choose whatever service. as for service, now if they could all just start offering unlimited plans at a decent rate (less than $50/month).
why can't the internet be one big library where any can be accessed through a monthly connection fee. oh wait, it is. now the lawmakers and content industry must come to terms with that harsh reality.
i'm sorry, but if entire industries have to be rebuilt from the ground up, so be it.
common sense, eh? the internet has lots of bad stuff, even more than there is of good stuff. that is well known, right? i used those examples because they have to live side by side with cybersquatting. i can't see a system that allows one and not the other. as for the barney thing, i'd probably blame myself for letting my kid use the internet with either unattended guidance or unlimited access. i wouldn't blame the cable company for running kids programming on one channel and adult content on another, even if it was one channel off. granted, i was half joking about the myriad of typos, but there wouldn't really be any other way to stop it. it always comes down to the end user.
So, if you built up an exclusive brand, and someone else took your name just to benefit off your brand-awareness (even, maybe a competitor) that would be ok?
No-one has the right to use their power to muscle in on a generic or a company who legitimately have a reason for the domain, but that's not cyber-squatting, is it?
ok. i'll play. the issue is completely grey area, but you seem to see it in black and white.
first off, what if the brand name is not exclusive to the brand? secondly, who is going to prioritize the legitimacy? should walgreens, rite-aid, or any other old brick and mortar company get drugstore.com? oh, because it is a legitimate online drugstore, drugstore.com gets to live? do i get royal.com (my family name) instead of royal supplies, the site it redirects to? that is why registering domains is first come, first serve. what next, a domain name oversight committee?
And, if you did manage to have a big online presence for your company, you'd be happy that anyone who accidentally mistypes one letter gets to my site advertising hardcore porn?
I think not.
well, i might not be happy but i would not be surprised or angry towards you. i'd be mad at my marketing staff, my tech staff, and myself.
then again, if i had such a large online presence, i'd have had the foresight to also get the typo domains.
i just know you have to take the bad with the good, and any altering of the way it works will only make a bigger mess. i'd love to hear what you suggest, though.
troll? really?? i am fucking serious here. so, when the next platform of communication gets made(whatever it may be), you think established companies should get first dibs, even after they dismiss it as passing trend or not financially viable or whatever lameshit excuse they will use? that, sir, is idiotic. "first come, first serve" should always be the case for things of this matter.
as for typos and the sites made to benefit from them, should we coddle every internet user and have browsers automatically fix typos to the more popular sites? should these typo-domains be given to the site owners that people were trying to get to? both sound rediculous. well, at least your name's right, you fucking git!
there is nothing wrong with domain-squatting. if you weren't smart enough to get the domain name in the first place or not quick enough to renew it (most of the time, the registrar give you first dibs with some amount of time), then so be it. i remember when starwars.com was just a "page coming soon" site, but if i'd have gotten it first to make a fansite or a reagan shrine, i think that should've been fine. it's even okay, if you know that someone else will need it for their business. they can pay up. what next? go after the ad sites that rely on people's typos?
responsibility goes out the window if/when the vendor doesn't immediately start working on a fix. if he tried in the past, and they weren't up to task: fuck 'em. the vendor's past irresponsibilty is what is at fault.
i don't get why the vendors don't have team of people doing exactly what this guy's firm does. i can see a smallish company not having a security team, but the names mentioned (ibm, sun, et al.) are big dogs ffs.
if they did have teams, time to get some new ones.
i shouldn't have used specifics. my bad. i was thinking more along the lines of things that could be packaged up and marketed as a competitor to directX. that is the only way it will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't see how you can be for licensed development(like consoles, iphones, etc) and open development(like windows, linux, etc) at the same time.
one or the other people! or, what, i am just licensing the hardware now, too? then, maybe kill off all secondary markets? slippery slope! slippery slope!
the standard tank/healer/damage dealer party
this is one thing that is so retarded in wow. i'm a master in first aid, but i need a healer? wtf. maybe don't call my rogue a master of lockpicking and still require me to use keys to free kul and his comrads.
of course, there are other sucky things like portal and other technologies being available, but not implemented everywhere. i would really like to see a mmo that evolves, instead of putting this stuff in half-assed.
why the hell can 99% of all craftables be used by anyone, except that engineering is the obverse? it makes no sense.
he is obviously not judging games based solely on looks.
are you saying that, for example, serious sam hd's updated graphics in no way improve over the original, that they shouldn't affect the fun factor in any way?
if your precious doom was redone exactly the same, save updated graphics, it would only be equally as fun?
imo: (fun game + good graphics) > (fun game + not-as-good graphics)
way too late?
there's been a history of entertainment you can't resell since before the internet even existed.
of course there has, but there has also been a history of a decent secondary market for video games, as well as movies and music. if we are going to throw that away because of entertainment's hitory, then we can go back to a time before copyright.
but what about your right to sell the game when you are done?
How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?
this is the big question. i guess we can try to put the shoe on the other foot. should a person who makes screws/nails for a living get residuals for anything that the screws/nails are used to build? should architects get a cut every time a building they designed is sold? those sound exactly the same as studio engineer or singer getting a cut every time a song is sold or, if the powers that be have their way, played.
.iso if you won't sell it in stores, but don't price it like there is still a bunch of middlemen.
personally, i'd like to see the following added to any future copyright legislation:
1. make available. if you want protection, the work must be made available. in the digital age, nothing should ever go out of print. there is no reason i shouldn't be able to just buy&download the
2. mandatory, global licensing. wasn't the internet supposed to get rid of all these bullshit boundaries/regions/etc. and level the playing field? in this day and age, shouldn't the works be globally and readily available upon creation? additional licensing streams be damned.
3. limited time. let's go back to the 14 +14 scenario. that is more than enough time. it sickens me that nothing made in my lifetime will ever be public domain in my lifetime. i'm surprised they haven't just made them forever by now.
well, those 3 to start.
or make them clean up their mess?
what i liked about that link: "Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction."
so if a senator/representative read a copyrighted work, would the press (or anyone) be able to publish it?
i don't care if 99% use something for piracy, the other 1% should never be affected. i should be allowed to tinker with whatever i buy, and if i can do something myself, i should be able to pay someone else to do it for me, whether it be modding my own hardware(or am i licensing the hardware?) or archiving my legally purchased media to whatever format i choose(seeing as i am allowed to record and archive content off the tv, why can't i use the internet as a dvr?).
what's even more ridiculous is the bullshit development licensing consoles have in the first place. anyone for that system, would have to be for development licensing fees on windows, linux, mac, etc. they are all computers ffs!
istill think instrument makers should copyright each note that their instruments make. easy money in licensing fees
should they be denied entrance into the digital world because they're not geeky enough
yes, yes they should.
4) punish carriers for crippling features on devices
exactly. although i would really like to see them disband the whole "tying certain phone to certain carriers" bs. just make everyone pay for the phone and have them choose whatever service. as for service, now if they could all just start offering unlimited plans at a decent rate (less than $50/month).
either have ads and let that pay for it wholly. or sell me the dead trees ad-free. your move nytimes.
Download the code a.s.a.p. before it goes back in the vault!
why can't the internet be one big library where any can be accessed through a monthly connection fee. oh wait, it is. now the lawmakers and content industry must come to terms with that harsh reality. i'm sorry, but if entire industries have to be rebuilt from the ground up, so be it.
common sense, eh? the internet has lots of bad stuff, even more than there is of good stuff. that is well known, right? i used those examples because they have to live side by side with cybersquatting. i can't see a system that allows one and not the other. as for the barney thing, i'd probably blame myself for letting my kid use the internet with either unattended guidance or unlimited access. i wouldn't blame the cable company for running kids programming on one channel and adult content on another, even if it was one channel off. granted, i was half joking about the myriad of typos, but there wouldn't really be any other way to stop it. it always comes down to the end user.
So, if you built up an exclusive brand, and someone else took your name just to benefit off your brand-awareness (even, maybe a competitor) that would be ok?
No-one has the right to use their power to muscle in on a generic or a company who legitimately have a reason for the domain, but that's not cyber-squatting, is it?
ok. i'll play. the issue is completely grey area, but you seem to see it in black and white. first off, what if the brand name is not exclusive to the brand? secondly, who is going to prioritize the legitimacy? should walgreens, rite-aid, or any other old brick and mortar company get drugstore.com? oh, because it is a legitimate online drugstore, drugstore.com gets to live? do i get royal.com (my family name) instead of royal supplies, the site it redirects to? that is why registering domains is first come, first serve. what next, a domain name oversight committee?
And, if you did manage to have a big online presence for your company, you'd be happy that anyone who accidentally mistypes one letter gets to my site advertising hardcore porn?
I think not.
well, i might not be happy but i would not be surprised or angry towards you. i'd be mad at my marketing staff, my tech staff, and myself. then again, if i had such a large online presence, i'd have had the foresight to also get the typo domains.
i just know you have to take the bad with the good, and any altering of the way it works will only make a bigger mess. i'd love to hear what you suggest, though.
troll? really?? i am fucking serious here. so, when the next platform of communication gets made(whatever it may be), you think established companies should get first dibs, even after they dismiss it as passing trend or not financially viable or whatever lameshit excuse they will use? that, sir, is idiotic. "first come, first serve" should always be the case for things of this matter.
as for typos and the sites made to benefit from them, should we coddle every internet user and have browsers automatically fix typos to the more popular sites? should these typo-domains be given to the site owners that people were trying to get to? both sound rediculous. well, at least your name's right, you fucking git!
there is nothing wrong with domain-squatting. if you weren't smart enough to get the domain name in the first place or not quick enough to renew it (most of the time, the registrar give you first dibs with some amount of time), then so be it. i remember when starwars.com was just a "page coming soon" site, but if i'd have gotten it first to make a fansite or a reagan shrine, i think that should've been fine. it's even okay, if you know that someone else will need it for their business. they can pay up. what next? go after the ad sites that rely on people's typos?
responsibility goes out the window if/when the vendor doesn't immediately start working on a fix. if he tried in the past, and they weren't up to task: fuck 'em. the vendor's past irresponsibilty is what is at fault. i don't get why the vendors don't have team of people doing exactly what this guy's firm does. i can see a smallish company not having a security team, but the names mentioned (ibm, sun, et al.) are big dogs ffs. if they did have teams, time to get some new ones.
maybe the cores could be the same, but with many different distributions?
i shouldn't have used specifics. my bad. i was thinking more along the lines of things that could be packaged up and marketed as a competitor to directX. that is the only way it will happen.
why not combine opengl, sdl, qt,etc into one package?