Yes, for my part I am not "purchasing" any DRM movies or music. I will stream from some services or even occasionally use a pay-per-view with full knowledge that I won't watch it a second time. For many things, I will wait until the price drops to what seems reasonable for a mere rental. Ie, I'm not paying full price for games. Occasionally I have paid GOG to get a DRM-free version of a game real cheap for an older game that game infected with Steam.
Morally and ethically you can make a backup. The law even supports this in most countries. However there are laws in some countries that forbid making copies. In other words, there exist countries in which there are laws that contradict each other. You really won't find a better armed force of lobbyists than those working for the big IP holders. Given that those big IP holders are also popular with the majority of potential customers there isn't much pushback in the market to discourage this behavior.
In my view, no one should feel guilty in any way by making a personal backup of a Disney movie that they purchased. I won't advocate for this though. This is not the same as piracy and governments should be smart enough to figure out the difference if they weren't all so corrupt.
Note that the EULA most often shows up only AFTER you have paid for a product. At which point getting a refund is incredibly difficult, and will typically be disallowed.
Licensing is more complicated these days, and the sorts of things included in todays licenses are nothing whatsoever like licenses in the past so the customer can make few assumptions about what may be in the license. You really do not know what you're getting until after you buy it.
The "more to the story" here is that sellers of content will say you can "buy" when in reality you can only rent the content. False advertising. If you buy anything with DRM, know that you will lose access to it someday if you don't take proactive measure to make fair use copies of it (even if technically illegal in some countries).
I generally play under 24fps just to keep costs of the space heater down. I don't really notice a big difference. I also don't have a full HD resolution monitor (it's 1650x1080 which still looks great). Are customers willing to give up the resolution, or frame rate, or both, just so that they can stream? Right now even 4K TV is a ridiculous waste of bandwidth given that most people can't detect the difference unless they move real close to the TV, 8K is just immensively stupid.
The idea of on-demand streaming itself is rather wasteful. Streaming to view offline later seems smarter to me. For games, streaming is just idiotic; at the very least client/server is a better choice so that the workload is distributed. I think there's a minority of customers who are lucky enough to have large bandwidth who assume that they're typical customers and everyone in the world should be able to do the same.
Big snag is that this will only be economically viable for big popular games. If you want to keep playing the game that isn't popular anymore then you'll be out of luck. Modern gaming, especially console gaming, seems to be oriented towards the fashion of the month, not Indie titles. It makes money, but it's targeting maybe 85% of the market only.
It should have been either a free service to do backups, or include local backup media. The fact that the player base didn't go immediately into a rage when learning that there weren't local backups says plenty about the types of players using that device.
And you think this is the case behind this article? Facebook only targets jobs to men only if these are stripper jobs? You're sure there were any other types of jobs which both men and women could do equally well that tried to advertise on Facebook but only to men?
In this particular case above, the jobs are available to both men and women, both men and women are equally qualified, the law forbids discrimination, and yet the ads were targeted only to younger men. It's pretty hard to justify that.
My older skills are in very high demand. C, embedded systems, firmware, RTOS, etc. What you do not want are the same skills that millions of other people also have. If someone learns only the fashionable stuff they may find themselves competing for junior level jobs against recent grads and foreign workers.
It seems obvious that it should be the FCCs jurisdiction. The internet is "telecommunications". And the bill passed in 1934 creating the FCC, it passed over responsibility for telecommunications that was originally the responsibility of the disbanded Interstate Commerce Commission.
And of course the internet is telecommunications. Most actual phone calls go over some of the same physical lines and media as commonly used in the internet, and using similar protocols and techniques. It should not need to go through congress, we should not have to go through congress for every new technical advance with communications. Just like we should not have to create a new bill for the EPA every time a new chemical is discovered either.
It is also not Pai's job to be suing here. He has no standing to sue, as he's said his agency doesn't have authority to regulate. He's only saying this as a private citizen.
The biggest advocates of states' rights in the past were with slave holding states and later segregationist states, which were Democrat at the time. Political parties, of course, change over time. And for a long time the Democrats were the opposition of the hated Republicans that eliminated slavery. This lasted a long time until the Democrats were the driving force behind the civili rights act, at which point most leading Democrats left the party en masse, often to join the Republicans and also to try and form the short-lived Dixiecrats. This was exploited by Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater in their "southern strategies" to woo white voters away from the Democrats.
Which is why I think it's absolutely absurd that some ex-segregationists proudly proclaimed to be in the party of Lincoln, when the parties today have so little resemblance to those in the past.
If it was so simple and the California law could be trivially overturned, why did the big telecom companies spend so much time and money trying to defeat this bill? Clearly there's a margin of doubt here.
Which laws are these? The FCC is not a legislative body, instead it creates regulations. It's an iffy line between the two. However this is moot, because the FCC said that it is NOT regulating and abdicated responsibility to the FTC.
For example here, the EPA never said "you must emit this percentage of hydrocarbons from autos, no more and no less", and so it was generally agreed with multiple administrations that states were allowed to to be stricter than the EPA requirements. That is, they meet the requirements and exceed them. This was an agreement with the EPA and never tested in courts I believe. But I suspect that since states have the responsibility to for offering auto licenses that they do have the authority to make their own rules in many areas. And do the original fuel efficiency laws forbid states from having stricter requirements or not?
For this case of FCC net neutrality, I don't know if there's any judicial precedent. Can the states have a "stricter" set of regulations than "zero"? And who sues, the FCC who abdicated, or the toothles and ineffective FTC?
Originally "states' rights" meant slavery. Later after the civil war it was changed to mean being allowed to have Jim Crow and segregation laws. After the civil rights act it was changed to mean "whatever we're pissed off about today."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, for my part I am not "purchasing" any DRM movies or music. I will stream from some services or even occasionally use a pay-per-view with full knowledge that I won't watch it a second time. For many things, I will wait until the price drops to what seems reasonable for a mere rental. Ie, I'm not paying full price for games. Occasionally I have paid GOG to get a DRM-free version of a game real cheap for an older game that game infected with Steam.
Morally and ethically you can make a backup. The law even supports this in most countries. However there are laws in some countries that forbid making copies. In other words, there exist countries in which there are laws that contradict each other. You really won't find a better armed force of lobbyists than those working for the big IP holders. Given that those big IP holders are also popular with the majority of potential customers there isn't much pushback in the market to discourage this behavior.
In my view, no one should feel guilty in any way by making a personal backup of a Disney movie that they purchased. I won't advocate for this though. This is not the same as piracy and governments should be smart enough to figure out the difference if they weren't all so corrupt.
I am not sure it's a felony. If it is, then it's really sad that these relatively civil issues have become criminal issues.
Note that the EULA most often shows up only AFTER you have paid for a product. At which point getting a refund is incredibly difficult, and will typically be disallowed.
Licensing is more complicated these days, and the sorts of things included in todays licenses are nothing whatsoever like licenses in the past so the customer can make few assumptions about what may be in the license. You really do not know what you're getting until after you buy it.
The "more to the story" here is that sellers of content will say you can "buy" when in reality you can only rent the content. False advertising. If you buy anything with DRM, know that you will lose access to it someday if you don't take proactive measure to make fair use copies of it (even if technically illegal in some countries).
I generally play under 24fps just to keep costs of the space heater down. I don't really notice a big difference. I also don't have a full HD resolution monitor (it's 1650x1080 which still looks great). Are customers willing to give up the resolution, or frame rate, or both, just so that they can stream? Right now even 4K TV is a ridiculous waste of bandwidth given that most people can't detect the difference unless they move real close to the TV, 8K is just immensively stupid.
The idea of on-demand streaming itself is rather wasteful. Streaming to view offline later seems smarter to me. For games, streaming is just idiotic; at the very least client/server is a better choice so that the workload is distributed. I think there's a minority of customers who are lucky enough to have large bandwidth who assume that they're typical customers and everyone in the world should be able to do the same.
Big snag is that this will only be economically viable for big popular games. If you want to keep playing the game that isn't popular anymore then you'll be out of luck. Modern gaming, especially console gaming, seems to be oriented towards the fashion of the month, not Indie titles. It makes money, but it's targeting maybe 85% of the market only.
Can you do a local save? If not, what sort of good single player games don't have a save game feature?
It should have been either a free service to do backups, or include local backup media. The fact that the player base didn't go immediately into a rage when learning that there weren't local backups says plenty about the types of players using that device.
Do you have to pay a fee to Microsoft in order to find patches for your games?
And you think this is the case behind this article? Facebook only targets jobs to men only if these are stripper jobs? You're sure there were any other types of jobs which both men and women could do equally well that tried to advertise on Facebook but only to men?
The case didn't reach a final judgement, they settled out of court.
Why not target both?
In this particular case above, the jobs are available to both men and women, both men and women are equally qualified, the law forbids discrimination, and yet the ads were targeted only to younger men. It's pretty hard to justify that.
I mean it should be obvious because congress has already granted the authority to regulate telecommunications.
My older skills are in very high demand. C, embedded systems, firmware, RTOS, etc. What you do not want are the same skills that millions of other people also have. If someone learns only the fashionable stuff they may find themselves competing for junior level jobs against recent grads and foreign workers.
"I" stands for Infernal.
It seems obvious that it should be the FCCs jurisdiction. The internet is "telecommunications". And the bill passed in 1934 creating the FCC, it passed over responsibility for telecommunications that was originally the responsibility of the disbanded Interstate Commerce Commission.
And of course the internet is telecommunications. Most actual phone calls go over some of the same physical lines and media as commonly used in the internet, and using similar protocols and techniques. It should not need to go through congress, we should not have to go through congress for every new technical advance with communications. Just like we should not have to create a new bill for the EPA every time a new chemical is discovered either.
It is also not Pai's job to be suing here. He has no standing to sue, as he's said his agency doesn't have authority to regulate. He's only saying this as a private citizen.
Reading the text of the bill (yet to be signed), I didn't see anything that showed this only applied to ISPs contracting with the state.
The biggest advocates of states' rights in the past were with slave holding states and later segregationist states, which were Democrat at the time. Political parties, of course, change over time. And for a long time the Democrats were the opposition of the hated Republicans that eliminated slavery. This lasted a long time until the Democrats were the driving force behind the civili rights act, at which point most leading Democrats left the party en masse, often to join the Republicans and also to try and form the short-lived Dixiecrats. This was exploited by Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater in their "southern strategies" to woo white voters away from the Democrats.
Which is why I think it's absolutely absurd that some ex-segregationists proudly proclaimed to be in the party of Lincoln, when the parties today have so little resemblance to those in the past.
If it was so simple and the California law could be trivially overturned, why did the big telecom companies spend so much time and money trying to defeat this bill? Clearly there's a margin of doubt here.
Which laws are these? The FCC is not a legislative body, instead it creates regulations. It's an iffy line between the two. However this is moot, because the FCC said that it is NOT regulating and abdicated responsibility to the FTC.
For example here, the EPA never said "you must emit this percentage of hydrocarbons from autos, no more and no less", and so it was generally agreed with multiple administrations that states were allowed to to be stricter than the EPA requirements. That is, they meet the requirements and exceed them. This was an agreement with the EPA and never tested in courts I believe. But I suspect that since states have the responsibility to for offering auto licenses that they do have the authority to make their own rules in many areas. And do the original fuel efficiency laws forbid states from having stricter requirements or not?
For this case of FCC net neutrality, I don't know if there's any judicial precedent. Can the states have a "stricter" set of regulations than "zero"? And who sues, the FCC who abdicated, or the toothles and ineffective FTC?
Originally "states' rights" meant slavery. Later after the civil war it was changed to mean being allowed to have Jim Crow and segregation laws. After the civil rights act it was changed to mean "whatever we're pissed off about today."
Sure, if we're comparing against the best Windows release.