commercial viability shouldn't factor into it. after the copyright expires, it's not like they wouldn't continue to make money from it.
anyone would be able to put out their 'version', but don't you think some people would still buy the original creator's version?
copyright was always about getting protection while you get to be the benefactor for a limited time, after that: public domain.
whether or not you make any money is not a part of the deal. just because it is easier to copy (it is also easier to create) stuff,
should also NOT factor into the deal.
like when limp bizkit payed the radio station $1000 to play them over and over and ended up making it bigtime?(or whatever i remember hearing about them) also, making deals, such as 'our artist will record a promo for your station if you play said artist', is a payoff. same with exclusive interviews. just because it isn't money exchanging hands, doesn't make it less of a payment, and this shit happens all the time.
this is why copyright law should have something about mandatory licensing. you want the benefit of having your work protected? well, seeing that it is becoming less and less "for a limited time", there should have to be a standardized licensing option to all protected works.
i likened the your rationale that "people up in arms about Battle.net being required for SCII are just mad that Blizzard has solved the piracy problem"
to "people up in arms about privacy are just mad because they have something to hide". the arguments are analogous. i was just wondering if you are on the same side in both
situations.
the problem is that when they only have very few advertisers. i expect to see a coke machine next to a pepsi machine. i don't want to see the same poster more than 1 time in a room. that, and i don't want an intel ad int the middle of the fucking desert.
maybe the academic community and their journals can just start a free, one-stop web site for all academia-related, peer-reviewed papers. that, or they can fuck off.
yours are way too high. i'm just a realist. it has been that way since i've been alive(1977), except it is now easier to copy(as a whole) and content creators are making more money(as a whole). how is that possible?
like all the people that didn't pay for the music(nin, radiohead, etc) when it was offered for free, as well as for sale? oh, wait... some people will always pay and others never will, with an unknown amount somewhere in between. not that hard to understand, is it? it will always be that way. sure, they might not make as much, but they were never guaranteed anything in the first place, right? shouldn't they be happy to get anything at all, especially when nearly anything can be pirated?
they need to realize that if this 'global economy' thing is to work, global releases AND global pricing is a must. fuck different licensing schemes/region codes/etc. same rules should to games, movies, cds, etc. if you can't do it, get the fuck out of the game.
i did that. i bought the same model motorolla box that comcast was using at the time but they refused to allow it access to the cable. then they had the nerve to ask why on earth i would want to own my own cable box.
Slashdot Mirror
commercial viability shouldn't factor into it. after the copyright expires, it's not like they wouldn't continue to make money from it.
anyone would be able to put out their 'version', but don't you think some people would still buy the original creator's version?
copyright was always about getting protection while you get to be the benefactor for a limited time, after that: public domain.
whether or not you make any money is not a part of the deal. just because it is easier to copy (it is also easier to create) stuff,
should also NOT factor into the deal.
like when limp bizkit payed the radio station $1000 to play them over and over and ended up making it bigtime?(or whatever i remember hearing about them)
also, making deals, such as 'our artist will record a promo for your station if you play said artist', is a payoff. same with exclusive interviews. just because it isn't money exchanging hands, doesn't make it less of a payment, and this shit happens all the time.
this is why copyright law should have something about mandatory licensing. you want the benefit of having your work protected? well, seeing that it is becoming less and less "for a limited time", there should have to be a standardized licensing option to all protected works.
Some standards body should come up with a strict keyboard mapping protocol.
i'm looking at you IEEE
hasn't wads been the standard control pattern for sometime? before that, wasn't it the arrow keys(which my roommate STILL uses)?
i likened the your rationale that "people up in arms about Battle.net being required for SCII are just mad that Blizzard has solved the piracy problem" to "people up in arms about privacy are just mad because they have something to hide". the arguments are analogous. i was just wondering if you are on the same side in both situations.
reminds me of the 7up spot game
the problem is that when they only have very few advertisers. i expect to see a coke machine next to a pepsi machine. i don't want to see the same poster more than 1 time in a room. that, and i don't want an intel ad int the middle of the fucking desert.
do you also think that proponents of privacy have something to hide?
womonk, femonk, monkette, monkress
i know what you mean. i stopped drinking Nestle Quick after it was portmanteaued to NesQuick.
maybe the academic community and their journals can just start a free, one-stop web site for all academia-related, peer-reviewed papers. that, or they can fuck off.
is 1080p still a movie industry mastering format? don't they master at 2k and 4k nowadays?
yours are way too high. i'm just a realist. it has been that way since i've been alive(1977), except it is now easier to copy(as a whole) and content creators are making more money(as a whole). how is that possible?
like all the people that didn't pay for the music(nin, radiohead, etc) when it was offered for free, as well as for sale? oh, wait... some people will always pay and others never will, with an unknown amount somewhere in between. not that hard to understand, is it? it will always be that way. sure, they might not make as much, but they were never guaranteed anything in the first place, right? shouldn't they be happy to get anything at all, especially when nearly anything can be pirated?
except the moonwalk did not originate with michael jackson
so, in 50 years, we'll have swine-hiv?
this is the shit i am sick of. the internet is global, so regions be damned. license globally or don't fucking play. you are hurting the internets!!
i activated 'demo mode' to not have to rtfa, yet i still commented. did i cheat?
They want you to buy the shampoo and toothpaste when you land, preferably at an over-priced airport shop.
most local/state/regional buyer's remorse laws supercede a company's return policy.
deatils here
don't your local/state/region's buyer's remorse laws override said company's return policies?
they need to realize that if this 'global economy' thing is to work, global releases AND global pricing is a must. fuck different licensing schemes/region codes/etc. same rules should to games, movies, cds, etc. if you can't do it, get the fuck out of the game.
i did that. i bought the same model motorolla box that comcast was using at the time but they refused to allow it access to the cable. then they had the nerve to ask why on earth i would want to own my own cable box.