In reality it's about enforcement of national role distribution. That's how UK built the world as a world power. They wanted for Anglo-Saxons(that includes US) to be idea creators, organizers and researchers while other nationalities should be workers who do what they're told. Since most of world's population is located in China and India such role distribution isn't actually sustainable, but it can be forced via scams and military means for two or three centuries tops. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Romans and Mongols have fallen, and just like that Brits will fall too.
Yes. So always secure any high profile site you own using separate login/password combo kept in encrypted password db. And don't leave browser logged in there or something. Only log there as admin to perform actual admin work and immediately log out when done. No matter how "questionable" or not it seems.
How are they sure that the person even really checked her mail? She could just have lost password for one. Many people dislike email very much lately. Perhaps they switched to fb/whatsapp/discord/whatever.
Those accusations are not falsifiable. Pretty much everyone can get accused. As long as they can be called "Russian". I'm lucky that I'm not in US. Because I wouldn't survive in the coming night of long knives. I happen to be a Russian, and I'm a "hacker", at least according to one of definitions.
Former colonies of UK might crash like remnants of Roman Empire, but it might take centuries. Until then they still can do lot of damage. Hopefully not nuclear one. But possibility always remains.
Engine isn't hardest part. There's already enough of free or dirty cheap offerings around. But making enough graphic assets for a game is quite labor intensive. Also, design and scripting of gameplay elements. Also playtesting. Unless decidedly minimalistic, a modern game would require more than one person to collaborate. Not everyone can single handedly make a groundbreaking game, and someone who can for sure would know that offloading some of work to some collaborators would be still better.
To make something great you first and foremost need to make something that you like yourself and enjoy doing it. There is no going around it. Even if you listen to fans only you can decide what to take to heart and what to ignore. You can't respect them all since they're contradictory. Any work of art is reflection of people who make it, so perhaps this fan reaction is due to many old fans not liking what they see in it. Since people who made original star wars trilogy and current incarnations are different there could be no other outcome. Label "Star Wars" just confused people leading to expectations that couldn't be fulfilled, yet another case of trademark self-infringement.
All issues you pointed out are common among adventure games and story-heavy rpgs so it can't explain studio's closure alone. Adventure games in particular tend to have particularly light gameplay, basically ending up computerized variant of "choose your own adventure" book. Nonetheless, entire genre exists for decades and there always exist people looking for more games like this. In fact Telltale's original rise was caused by this lingering interest after previous mainstream adventure game producers died off during the 3D transition era. You can't expect game's reaction to player's action be both unrestricted and well-written at same time nonetheless exploring such poly-linear narrative can be great fun, even if you understand that it can't ever respond intelligently to everything due to the fact that the writing can't be auto-generated fully and merely consists of prepared discrete alternatives or some templates with some details filled in algorithmically.
Dependency on any sort of fiat currency is disadvantageous, either dollar or yuan. You wouldn't want to depend on some foreign moron's raisins, aka fiats.
Cost of living is different in US and China, so numerically same salary will be really good in China while being quite shitty in US. While such a situation exists there will always be economic incentive for transnational companies to move manufacturing and other jobs to China and India. Who will win? Trump or invisible hand of market?
The point is that US needs to be targeted by something like operation Ajax, not some trolls. A real government agency will realize it. Trolling is done purely for lulz and if you think that it can be considered in any way some form of political interference then you're a very naive person, food for trolls yourself.
As a Russian myself I see this as extremely hypocritical for Americans to be dismayed at this "election interference" considering that US never shied to meddle in politics of other countries, including Russia itself. In fact I don't even believe that it was Russian government agents who are responsible for events on those American elections, due to the fact that Russian gov has nothing to accomplish by this, they're more in bed with Clintons than with Trumps. And for sure Russian intelligence agencies would do something more effective than just making some flamewars using bot spewing nonsense that nobody with brains would take seriously. This looks more like handiwork of apolitical trolls who have history of doing stuff like that for the lulz, and they come from all national backgrounds. And all sources building up Russian interference narrative have lots reasons to lie. Entire America lives in this post truth era which entirely depends on building up narratives and hoping that they magically make themselves true.
1. Capitalism doesn't charge for effort. It charges what the market will bear. For software there is often an especially big disconnect between development cost and revenue. Free software shouldn't be forced into cost-plus pricing. If you developed Minecraft in six months work, would you forgo billions as an unfair payment?
Changing for something that doesn't take effort doesn't last for very long in real market economy. Market forces will push price to 0. If you try to make long term revenue stream from this you're essentially trying to bypass market economy. I kinda thought that capitalism is about worshipping market economy, not bypassing it. So from my point of view all schemes requiring payments for rights to use software, no matter whether for opensource or proprietary software are antithetical to capitalism.
Limiting software running in production is both illogical and logistically painful. Illogical because what actually is traded here is not running time of software but developer's effort. And there is no direct connection between number of running systems and developer effort, thus revenue being proportional to number of running systems makes no sense. Logistically painful because enforcement will consume both a lot of effort and money. Keeping it opensource and unrestricted can save on this, especially considering everyone pirate stuff anyway.
The main difference now is that the Web browser, in particular Chrome, grew to be an extremely powerful Graphical User Interface by itself, even capable of running games.
They weren't worse than Napoleon or Robespierre and were products of society of their countries. Also, black PR is part of arsenal of those imperialist powers, so we shouldn't take anything related to middle east at face value, including that statement that they were "brutal dictators". Only actions and outcomes matter, and practice shows that everyone who isn't blatantly incompetent "islamic" fanatic gets targeted by coups and assassinations. This must stop for there to be any chance of recovery.
(*) Much better economy, end of ISIS, getting our allies to pay more for their own defense, renegotiating trade deals with EU and Mexico (with Canada and China coming up), defunding terrorism by defunding Iran, tax rebates, the list goes on...)
US should stick solely to their own hemisphere. Only reason ISIS even appeared is that US and Britain toppled all more or less sane governments in middle east just so they could get a better deal on oil.
Actually some application might want to run user services too, that could apply to PS too. Currently systemd is the only distribution independent provider of some apis that are needed by modern applications. So it not only doesn't create more fragmentation but in fact lets applications have some features that were on all OSes except Linux before.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
I disagree. It doesn't show that. "more than one" clause can be considered to cover aggregation of work, not reuse of universe setting. Adaptation can be rewrite of a story in another medium but stretching it to any work in same universe is taking it too far.
Then who should should police it?
That depends on situation. This area changes too fast atm for written law to keep up and people will come up with own arrangements eventually. Only then they can be codified.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you repeat something that someone else said or wrote it's still speech. "Distribution" here is red herring.
People want to drive Ferraris too, courts interfere with this. What's your point? The claim you had above was that the Government was interfering with the people's will when they boycott something. At least that's how that sentence reads.
People didn't boycott Axanar but supported it via kickstarter instead. Interfering with its production isn't productive use of court's time. Only a censorship institution will be concerned with "unauthorized" works.
The abolition of copyright will occur right after universal income and the subsequent removal of money from society. So you might as well go tilt against those windmills first.
Honestly I don't see a connection here. Money are needed only to manage scarce resources, and they will always exist. But copies of works are no longer a scarce resource in any sort of way which results in even more disconnect of policy and reality than before. Some scare resources will still likely exist. Like, physical things. Even if we 3d print something raw mats are still scarce. But extending laws of physical property to (non physical part of)artwork was always invalid. Nothing changed here in principle.
Now, we've already successfully shortened patent terms, so there's precedent in the area of getting IP terms reduced. I personally believe that will happen long before any sort of abolition gains more than token support.
And why do you believe that? I simply don't know any person that would refuse to torrent something copyright restricted if they don't want to support authors for some reason or don't have money or out of convenience. I'm sure people will be up for legalizing status quo, because that's how laws work. They codify existing practices. If you make up some abstract greater good then it's just legalized utopia nobody conforms to in practice. And no way I'm going to support any laws if breaking them is widespread and required and not even honestly considered to be something bad. And even if we educate more people to be copyright respecting it will still make things worse, because "piracy" really is the only way for some people to access some things. Pretty much all businesses are moving in the direction of less restrictions. Only when money are directly exchanged for effort or physical goods economy can work.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
According to definition of derivative work in the law it must be some kind of adaptation of existing work, for example a movie or a novel. No such work in Star Trek universe exist which Axanar is adaptation of. The definition in the law clearly talks about particular works, not entire universes. And it gives very limited scope of what "is derivative work of" relation entails. All examples given are a lot stricter in scope than merely existing in same universe. And once again individual elements are not copyrightable.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
The thing is the government shouldn't really police this. Even if you just repeat some copyrighted work or your own adaptation of one you still are engaging in speech. And there need to be really good reason to block this. Protecting existing providers from competition isn't good reason. Helping authors enforcing their universe consistency isn't a good reason(Who's responsible for particular universe? People won't agree in many cases). Preventing plagiarism isn't a good reason(This is already being effectively self-policed). In fact there's very little need for state mandated censorship and it's hard to implement without causing worse issues.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
People wanted Axanar to be made and court interfered with this.
The government doesn't decide. The courts do when people file lawsuits, because we live in a civil society where we don't go out and have mob justice when someone feels aggrieved. They only decide based on laws that, for the most part, people have agreed to. Although I'll admit the length of term of current copyright law is ridiculous and goes against the intent of the original clause.
Court is a branch of government. Whenever it makes a decision based on law it's performing state function. Excessive copyright term merely exists because whole logical structure of copyright law is so contradictory it's really hard to argue against term extensions and very few of people who can organize their government presence have an incentive of arguing against long copyright and in favor of short copyright. Situation with any sort of copyright abuses will get worse with time, no work on the law was made with any purpose other than making terms higher. If you want to counteract this then the best platform would be abolition. Any other platform will be really hard to agree on due to too many variables in which ways to "improve" copyright causing a combinatorial explosion and no objective principle cutting off extra options.
Exactly, think about this: this very definition you cited doesn't include works merely made in same universe. And examples it gives all are solely some transformations of existing works, not from scratch new storylines at all. So this definition tells me loud and clear that that star trek film doesn't really belong among derivative works. And once again I reiterate that courts or government shouldn't be involved in determining what works should be made and how they should be distributed, because it's more or less essence of censorship. If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided. And I simply don't see a rational reason for government to decide which start trek movies get to be made and which do not. And for any other people that aren't Gene Roddenberry for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
In reality it's about enforcement of national role distribution. That's how UK built the world as a world power. They wanted for Anglo-Saxons(that includes US) to be idea creators, organizers and researchers while other nationalities should be workers who do what they're told. Since most of world's population is located in China and India such role distribution isn't actually sustainable, but it can be forced via scams and military means for two or three centuries tops. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Romans and Mongols have fallen, and just like that Brits will fall too.
Yes. So always secure any high profile site you own using separate login/password combo kept in encrypted password db. And don't leave browser logged in there or something. Only log there as admin to perform actual admin work and immediately log out when done. No matter how "questionable" or not it seems.
The way people communicate and collaborate didn't change over those years. Only means of communication did.
How are they sure that the person even really checked her mail? She could just have lost password for one. Many people dislike email very much lately. Perhaps they switched to fb/whatsapp/discord/whatever.
Those accusations are not falsifiable. Pretty much everyone can get accused. As long as they can be called "Russian". I'm lucky that I'm not in US. Because I wouldn't survive in the coming night of long knives. I happen to be a Russian, and I'm a "hacker", at least according to one of definitions.
Former colonies of UK might crash like remnants of Roman Empire, but it might take centuries. Until then they still can do lot of damage. Hopefully not nuclear one. But possibility always remains.
Engine isn't hardest part. There's already enough of free or dirty cheap offerings around. But making enough graphic assets for a game is quite labor intensive. Also, design and scripting of gameplay elements. Also playtesting. Unless decidedly minimalistic, a modern game would require more than one person to collaborate. Not everyone can single handedly make a groundbreaking game, and someone who can for sure would know that offloading some of work to some collaborators would be still better.
To make something great you first and foremost need to make something that you like yourself and enjoy doing it. There is no going around it. Even if you listen to fans only you can decide what to take to heart and what to ignore. You can't respect them all since they're contradictory. Any work of art is reflection of people who make it, so perhaps this fan reaction is due to many old fans not liking what they see in it. Since people who made original star wars trilogy and current incarnations are different there could be no other outcome. Label "Star Wars" just confused people leading to expectations that couldn't be fulfilled, yet another case of trademark self-infringement.
All issues you pointed out are common among adventure games and story-heavy rpgs so it can't explain studio's closure alone. Adventure games in particular tend to have particularly light gameplay, basically ending up computerized variant of "choose your own adventure" book. Nonetheless, entire genre exists for decades and there always exist people looking for more games like this. In fact Telltale's original rise was caused by this lingering interest after previous mainstream adventure game producers died off during the 3D transition era. You can't expect game's reaction to player's action be both unrestricted and well-written at same time nonetheless exploring such poly-linear narrative can be great fun, even if you understand that it can't ever respond intelligently to everything due to the fact that the writing can't be auto-generated fully and merely consists of prepared discrete alternatives or some templates with some details filled in algorithmically.
Resonance cascade. They got carried away re-enacting events of Half-life.
Compared to cryptocurrencies, gold or any inherently liquid trade good.
Dependency on any sort of fiat currency is disadvantageous, either dollar or yuan. You wouldn't want to depend on some foreign moron's raisins, aka fiats.
Cost of living is different in US and China, so numerically same salary will be really good in China while being quite shitty in US. While such a situation exists there will always be economic incentive for transnational companies to move manufacturing and other jobs to China and India. Who will win? Trump or invisible hand of market?
The point is that US needs to be targeted by something like operation Ajax, not some trolls. A real government agency will realize it. Trolling is done purely for lulz and if you think that it can be considered in any way some form of political interference then you're a very naive person, food for trolls yourself.
As a Russian myself I see this as extremely hypocritical for Americans to be dismayed at this "election interference" considering that US never shied to meddle in politics of other countries, including Russia itself. In fact I don't even believe that it was Russian government agents who are responsible for events on those American elections, due to the fact that Russian gov has nothing to accomplish by this, they're more in bed with Clintons than with Trumps. And for sure Russian intelligence agencies would do something more effective than just making some flamewars using bot spewing nonsense that nobody with brains would take seriously. This looks more like handiwork of apolitical trolls who have history of doing stuff like that for the lulz, and they come from all national backgrounds. And all sources building up Russian interference narrative have lots reasons to lie. Entire America lives in this post truth era which entirely depends on building up narratives and hoping that they magically make themselves true.
s/Capitalists/Aristocratic nobility/
1. Capitalism doesn't charge for effort. It charges what the market will bear. For software there is often an especially big disconnect between development cost and revenue. Free software shouldn't be forced into cost-plus pricing. If you developed Minecraft in six months work, would you forgo billions as an unfair payment?
Changing for something that doesn't take effort doesn't last for very long in real market economy. Market forces will push price to 0. If you try to make long term revenue stream from this you're essentially trying to bypass market economy. I kinda thought that capitalism is about worshipping market economy, not bypassing it. So from my point of view all schemes requiring payments for rights to use software, no matter whether for opensource or proprietary software are antithetical to capitalism.
Limiting software running in production is both illogical and logistically painful. Illogical because what actually is traded here is not running time of software but developer's effort. And there is no direct connection between number of running systems and developer effort, thus revenue being proportional to number of running systems makes no sense. Logistically painful because enforcement will consume both a lot of effort and money. Keeping it opensource and unrestricted can save on this, especially considering everyone pirate stuff anyway.
The main difference now is that the Web browser, in particular Chrome, grew to be an extremely powerful Graphical User Interface by itself, even capable of running games.
Chrome is spiritual successor to EMACS.
They weren't worse than Napoleon or Robespierre and were products of society of their countries. Also, black PR is part of arsenal of those imperialist powers, so we shouldn't take anything related to middle east at face value, including that statement that they were "brutal dictators". Only actions and outcomes matter, and practice shows that everyone who isn't blatantly incompetent "islamic" fanatic gets targeted by coups and assassinations. This must stop for there to be any chance of recovery.
(*) Much better economy, end of ISIS, getting our allies to pay more for their own defense, renegotiating trade deals with EU and Mexico (with Canada and China coming up), defunding terrorism by defunding Iran, tax rebates, the list goes on...)
US should stick solely to their own hemisphere. Only reason ISIS even appeared is that US and Britain toppled all more or less sane governments in middle east just so they could get a better deal on oil.
Actually some application might want to run user services too, that could apply to PS too. Currently systemd is the only distribution independent provider of some apis that are needed by modern applications. So it not only doesn't create more fragmentation but in fact lets applications have some features that were on all OSes except Linux before.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
I disagree. It doesn't show that. "more than one" clause can be considered to cover aggregation of work, not reuse of universe setting. Adaptation can be rewrite of a story in another medium but stretching it to any work in same universe is taking it too far.
Then who should should police it?
That depends on situation. This area changes too fast atm for written law to keep up and people will come up with own arrangements eventually. Only then they can be codified.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you repeat something that someone else said or wrote it's still speech. "Distribution" here is red herring.
People want to drive Ferraris too, courts interfere with this. What's your point? The claim you had above was that the Government was interfering with the people's will when they boycott something. At least that's how that sentence reads.
People didn't boycott Axanar but supported it via kickstarter instead. Interfering with its production isn't productive use of court's time. Only a censorship institution will be concerned with "unauthorized" works.
The abolition of copyright will occur right after universal income and the subsequent removal of money from society. So you might as well go tilt against those windmills first.
Honestly I don't see a connection here. Money are needed only to manage scarce resources, and they will always exist. But copies of works are no longer a scarce resource in any sort of way which results in even more disconnect of policy and reality than before. Some scare resources will still likely exist. Like, physical things. Even if we 3d print something raw mats are still scarce. But extending laws of physical property to (non physical part of)artwork was always invalid. Nothing changed here in principle.
Now, we've already successfully shortened patent terms, so there's precedent in the area of getting IP terms reduced. I personally believe that will happen long before any sort of abolition gains more than token support.
And why do you believe that? I simply don't know any person that would refuse to torrent something copyright restricted if they don't want to support authors for some reason or don't have money or out of convenience. I'm sure people will be up for legalizing status quo, because that's how laws work. They codify existing practices. If you make up some abstract greater good then it's just legalized utopia nobody conforms to in practice. And no way I'm going to support any laws if breaking them is widespread and required and not even honestly considered to be something bad. And even if we educate more people to be copyright respecting it will still make things worse, because "piracy" really is the only way for some people to access some things. Pretty much all businesses are moving in the direction of less restrictions. Only when money are directly exchanged for effort or physical goods economy can work.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
According to definition of derivative work in the law it must be some kind of adaptation of existing work, for example a movie or a novel. No such work in Star Trek universe exist which Axanar is adaptation of. The definition in the law clearly talks about particular works, not entire universes. And it gives very limited scope of what "is derivative work of" relation entails. All examples given are a lot stricter in scope than merely existing in same universe. And once again individual elements are not copyrightable.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
The thing is the government shouldn't really police this. Even if you just repeat some copyrighted work or your own adaptation of one you still are engaging in speech. And there need to be really good reason to block this. Protecting existing providers from competition isn't good reason. Helping authors enforcing their universe consistency isn't a good reason(Who's responsible for particular universe? People won't agree in many cases). Preventing plagiarism isn't a good reason(This is already being effectively self-policed). In fact there's very little need for state mandated censorship and it's hard to implement without causing worse issues.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
People wanted Axanar to be made and court interfered with this.
The government doesn't decide. The courts do when people file lawsuits, because we live in a civil society where we don't go out and have mob justice when someone feels aggrieved. They only decide based on laws that, for the most part, people have agreed to. Although I'll admit the length of term of current copyright law is ridiculous and goes against the intent of the original clause.
Court is a branch of government. Whenever it makes a decision based on law it's performing state function. Excessive copyright term merely exists because whole logical structure of copyright law is so contradictory it's really hard to argue against term extensions and very few of people who can organize their government presence have an incentive of arguing against long copyright and in favor of short copyright. Situation with any sort of copyright abuses will get worse with time, no work on the law was made with any purpose other than making terms higher. If you want to counteract this then the best platform would be abolition. Any other platform will be really hard to agree on due to too many variables in which ways to "improve" copyright causing a combinatorial explosion and no objective principle cutting off extra options.
Exactly, think about this: this very definition you cited doesn't include works merely made in same universe. And examples it gives all are solely some transformations of existing works, not from scratch new storylines at all. So this definition tells me loud and clear that that star trek film doesn't really belong among derivative works. And once again I reiterate that courts or government shouldn't be involved in determining what works should be made and how they should be distributed, because it's more or less essence of censorship. If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided. And I simply don't see a rational reason for government to decide which start trek movies get to be made and which do not. And for any other people that aren't Gene Roddenberry for that matter.