The PS3 uses Blu-ray discs, which hold WAY more than your standard PS2 DVD or Wii disc. For a comparison, note that the game was also released on the Xbox 360 in multi-disc DVD format, and that DVDs hold about 8GB of data, while Blu-ray discs usually hold around 50GB (dual-layer). The problem with XIII's linearity wasn't the disc space, but rather mis-guided direction. Prettiness over playability, storytelling over customization, linearity over non-linearity.
...this game just never made sense to me the very moment I heard about it, as well as FFXI. I've played I, II, V, VI, VII, IX, X, and the incredibly awesome XII (which people didn't like for being "too different" and "too non-linear"; peh), and it has always boggled me how they could ever translate the Final Fantasy experience to an online game; you can't! You can have the general look-and-feel, but it just isn't a Final Fantasy game, nor a good RPG in general, if the game's an eternal grind-fest. XII, for example, had so much strategy that I rarely saw in real-time-ish RPGs that it didn't feel like a grind-fest at all; I wanted to level up because there were more challenging boss fights and hunts ahead, and that alone, besides the awesome (and thankfully non-overly-melodramatic) storyline, was worth the money for buying the game.
I've tried many MMORPGs, and they're all the same to me. Loosly-jointed quests, repetitive grinding, almost no strategy whatsoever, and high monthly fees that add up to a lot of money compared to your usual $50 100-200-hour single-purchase RPG. If you remove everything that makes a Final Fantasy game good and make it a needlessly-expensive grind-fest with no redeeming value whatsoever (not even a linear storyline), how would you ever expect it to be a good game?
Very interesting! However if I use this Linux Mint Debian Edition am I really using Debian?
For example, do they fork their code like Ubuntu does? If I report bugs in this will Debian accept them? If the answer is no then what is the point in switching from one Debian derivative to another.
The answer is yes. It's the exact same thing as debian with Mint's default customizations and extra repositories for Mint-specific applications, like mintDesktop, mintBackup, mintNanny, etc.
Linux Mint IS Ubuntu, just with a different theme.
And default programs... and default plugins... and default window button order... and default repositories (Ubuntu + Mint's own)... and the fact that there's a Debian Sid-based rolling edition of the distribution, which is awesome.
Just FYI, Linux Mint is Ubuntu, different skins, same beast. Any how-to I have tried for Ubuntu just worked on LM. I must be very lucky eh ?
I know that. Just because they're based on Ubuntu doesn't mean it's the exact same thing. You still have Mint's repositories, the default backgrounds/customizations are very different from Ubuntu (one panel by default, different theme by default, different [and better IMO] default program selection, different installer slideshow, different button order, etc.). It's only natural that tutorials that only apply to Ubuntu work on Linux Mint because it uses the exact same package repositories (and then some) as Ubuntu. And even still, most of those "Ubuntu tutorials" you read are applicable for almost any Linux distribution, and if not, they usually require a small tweak, like replacing aptitude with yum/pacman.
Well, Ubuntu, like it or not, is the most popular linux distribution (that, or its users just have very loud mouths). I honestly don't see what the big deal about Ubuntu is anymore. Linux Mint does a much better job at being easy-to-use right out of the box (and doesn't make stupid design decisions involving window buttons... cough cough). For the more geek-inclined, Fedora is a very un-assuming distribution and makes for a much less awkward first experience compared to Ubuntu. And for the extremely geek-inclined, Arch Linux and just plain-ol-Debian are awesomeness. I'm using Arch right now, and if you can get it set up right the first time (thanks to their awesome documentation), you get a rolling release system with constant updates and a gigantic user repository of packages (I even maintain some packages for them, and it is to stupidly easy to make a pacman package that I'm never going back to deb/rpm)!
Thankfully, it's incredibly easy to distro-hop if you don't like the current distribution you're using enough;)
Simple enough, and if you think about it, it's the Christian thing to do.
What I mean, so you're not confused, is that making this legal would be the Christian thing to do, not to actually use these substances. As long as other people aren't infringing on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why would they ever be criminally punished?
Legality != moral approval. I wouldn't touch these substances with a ten-foot pole, but I believe they should be legal for the fact that we should have the legal right to harm ourselves. If you think that's crazy, replace the word "illegal" with "criminally punishable" and see if that changes your thinking. Why would we clog up jails, wasting money and harming the innocent drug-users, with people who don't harm anyone else with the use of their drugs? Second-hand smoke in public places? All depends whether or not the town/business allows it (I'm completely against it; harms passers-by). Raping or killing or hurting somebody while you were under the influence of these awful substances? Whatever you take into yourself willingly (un-willingly would be an exception here), whether it makes you high or not, you are/should be completely liable for all consequences because you willingly agreed to lose yourself to the substances. Simple enough, and if you think about it, it's the Christian thing to do.
How do you think kids feel now. On one hand you have the government, parents and everyone saying that marijuana is not good for you. And on the other hand you have a Facebook founder telling them its ok and should be legal.
Legality != moral approval. I think all of these substances, legal or not, are awful and I wouldn't want to willfully use them any day unless I absolutely had to for my health. But why would that make it excusable to clog our jails with/give fines to people who willingly decide to hurt themselves with these substances, not hurting anybody else in the process? Of course, if you stabbed someone or raped someone while you were high or something, it only makes sense for you to be 100% liable for your actions since you willingly accepted the fact that the drug would make you lose your reasoning ability due to being "high".
I know of a story a friend told me where one of his high-school friends tried LSD once, and he had a "flashback" while driving home from school a long time later and ran a paper boy over. Would a situation like that mean that LSD and other "high-inducing" drugs should be illegal? Of course not! What it means is that people should be well-educated about the potential effects of these drugs and that if they try them willingly and bad things happen, it's their responsible for any consequences. Simple enough; if that doesn't deter you and anybody else from taking these awful substances, may God help them.
You forgot to mention how we should have the right to harm ourselves, thus being able to take in knowingly-harmful drugs. All of these substances, illegal or not, are absolutely awful IMO, and I wouldn't even touch them with a ten-foot pole. However, why would that mean that hurting yourself and nobody else with these substances should be illegal? Exactly why would it be criminally punishable to harm yourself in any way (including killing yourself; wow, sure is helpful to the family who lost someone due to suicide when you tell them it's illegal)? Legality != moral approval; it's aggravating how often people think that allowing something to be legal means you think it's "okay"...
Re-releasing old gameboy games is pretty useless now. Not only has the entire gameboy catalog (at the very least, 99.9% of it) been released online, but you can download/rip and play them all with little fuss on an emulator with almost 100% accuracy to the original experience. Heck, even there were Gameboy emulators for the DS! Not only that, but they're only offering old GB games, no Gameboy Advance games? What a rip-off; not only will the games be tainted with DRM, but the product and effort to make it is so immensely small that GBA games could have been easily supported.
I'll stick to backing up my own games here. All of the emulators on the Wii/DS that are homebrew compared to Nintendo's official solutions have so many more features than Nintendo does: save states, no DRM, WAY better controller support, customizable controls, speed-up/slow-down modes, etc. If you really think you can compete with free here, you're hugely mistaken, Nintendo, unless you make a better effort....That all isn't to say that I'd never get a 3DS; it looks awesome! With that said, however, it's only worth that price if I can use a flashcart on it to run my own backups/homebrew;)
1. Telephone companies can and do routinely trangulate from towers or use GPS-enabled smartphones to establish the position of a cellular phone. It's not rocket science to integrate those measurements over time and obtain the velocity of a cellular phone.
2. Add some code to phone company messaging servers that disables sending and receiving of text messages while the mobile phone is in motion.
3. New phones should have some code that notices the situation and disables reading old messages and typing new messages in advance. Perhaps they won't allow you to dial anything but 911 or even receive calls unless you have bluetooth.
Yes, this means that we take away some convenience to be safer. Yes, the phone companies won't make as much money. I'm sorry. People are behaving like children and we need to take their toy away.
What about passengers that are texting? I'm sure they wouldn't enjoy being forcibly locked-down like that for no reason...
The real issue is that IPv6 was horribly badly misconceived and misdesigned right from the start, in such a way that it was doomed to become the epic fail we know and love today. I am very skeptical that ipv6 can be fixed.
I'd love to believe you but you give no evidence as to why I should. You could very well be right, but how do I know that? [citation needed]
Stop acting like GOG screwed you over for no reason; they HAD to shut down the website for a little bit so they could update the interface! How is that so hard to understand? Why would you ever be upset at them going out of beta? I bought things from them before and just because they closed down the day you wanted to buy something you hate them? Just wait until they come back, no big deal!
The way we do things has evolved to a stable point. At this point I want improvements to that, not a new method entirely.
No doubt you've seen this in many-a-Slashdot signature, but it must be said again... “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse” -Henry Ford
The problem isn't that innovation is bad, but rather that innovation is becoming a buzzword. That's not to say that current ideas can't be improved on and/or succeeded, but it does show that not every "innovation" is better.
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi here, but "Intel Threatens DMCA Using HDCP Crack"? Really? The DMCA must feel so threatened because of Intel threatening it with the HDCP crack... More like "Intel Threatens HDCP Crack With DMCA".
And given the vast variation in Linux distros, you're probably better off releasing Windows games that are Wine-compatible than a Linux binary that won't run on Ubuntu 12.04 or Redhat 6.3.
I currently use Arch Linux, and I've previously used Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Every single Linux game I've tried, even the Humble Indie Bundle as well as windows games using Wine, they all work exactly the same on each platform. Linux distributions aren't all that different as you'd think; they all have the same basic things like ALSA, X, some desktop environment like GNOME or KDE or XFCE, usually OpenGL/SDL support, and Python. Have all of that, and virtually every game for Linux will run on any type of setup you have so long as you have these basic things.
The answer isn't to keep cracking these "protection" schemes, it's to stop buying into them at all until the companies behind them realize that customers are tired of paying for hardware that actively works against their interests.
I agree with your post except for this sentence. The problem with that argument is that most people, quite frankly and quite unfortunately, don't care whether or not something has "DRM or GPL or whatever crap you're trying to convince me to have or not have" (in the paraphrased words of everyone else). Most people don't care about region-lockout, SecuROM-style DRM, HDCP or any of that so long as it "works" for the time being. Most people, instead of caring whether or not their media will play on some out-there FOSS player, just buy whatever player can so they can watch it right then without caring or even thinking about whether or not that DRM will be around long enough for them to not have to re-buy all of their media. I'm almost as anti-DRM as you can get, and it's the depressing truth from what I've found.
>>>If you absolutely need money to want to make something (besides production costs), then it's not art
I notice you still accept a paycheck for the "art" you create every single week (random guess: technology hardware or software). Why is it that you think you should be paid for your labors, but not book writers? Hmmmm. Maybe we ought to stop paying you too. I'll just steal whatever you produce w/o paying you.
Copying is not theft! If I had a bicycle that I made with my bare hands and you somehow magically copied that bycicle, I wouldn't say you stole it, I'd be glad that we both have a bicycle. Or what if you modified your copy of my bicycle to make it cooler (in your opinion) and more people copied that. I wouldn't feel like people "stole" from me at all, I'd be happy for you.*
I said that if money's the #1 reason you're making something then it's not art. If you read my post at all you'll see that I'm not against earning money; I'm against it being a #1 priority. I've purchased indie music before because I like supporting them. The issue isn't accepting money, it's making money the entire reason it exists.
*I'd like to credit Nina Paley for this awesome analogy.
I bought my first book on my iPad. Told a friend about it and they said "oh, I'd love to borrow that when you're finished'. Immediately it is clear that I have rented the book and I have to say sorry. The user experience is crap. Users are losing a right they have held for centuries.
This reminds me of a 3-part video that's exactly what you said but in video form, including the creator of Potter Puppet Pals and the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny as the "Mac": Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
And with zero scarcity driving the cost down to zero for all books, publishing will will go from dying to dead. This is not the RIAA here, authors need book sales to get paid. Rant all you want about free information, but unless you have a real solution for the business model, the only authors you'll see dedicating themselves to the art are cranks writing manifestos and dilettantes who are already well-off enough to do it as a hobby.
Frankly, I don't care if the book industry is dying as-is, and you shouldn't either. What do you think happened when the printing press was invented? When the phonograph was invented? The camera? The video recorder/camcorder? And now, the Internet? It's all the same thing; "our outdated business is dying" and it's because something better is just around the corner. "People won't buy music/books/movies if you give it away for free", huh? Look at Jonathan Coulton, Binaerpilot, Renard, Lemon Demon (who made The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny), Brad Sucks*, Cory Doctorow, Lawrence Lessig, Randall Munroe**, Flattr, Jamendo***, etc. There's an infinite amount of ways to make money on something besides directly selling it. People will always be making art because it's human nature to do so; people will always give money for things because it's human nature to help out. If you absolutely need money to want to make something (besides production costs), then it's not art, and if the Internet helps get rid of that then good riddance.
* All five of which are successful indie artists that give away most of their music and don't care if people "pirate" it; I highly recommend checking them out by the way.
** These three are successful indie authors that I also recommend checking out; Randall, you might know, is the author of XKCD and the book sales from XKCD Vol. 0 helped to build a school in Laos.
*** These are websites that let people give away things for free, while still allowing artists/authors to make money.
Slashdot Mirror
The PS3 uses Blu-ray discs, which hold WAY more than your standard PS2 DVD or Wii disc. For a comparison, note that the game was also released on the Xbox 360 in multi-disc DVD format, and that DVDs hold about 8GB of data, while Blu-ray discs usually hold around 50GB (dual-layer). The problem with XIII's linearity wasn't the disc space, but rather mis-guided direction. Prettiness over playability, storytelling over customization, linearity over non-linearity.
...this game just never made sense to me the very moment I heard about it, as well as FFXI. I've played I, II, V, VI, VII, IX, X, and the incredibly awesome XII (which people didn't like for being "too different" and "too non-linear"; peh), and it has always boggled me how they could ever translate the Final Fantasy experience to an online game; you can't! You can have the general look-and-feel, but it just isn't a Final Fantasy game, nor a good RPG in general, if the game's an eternal grind-fest. XII, for example, had so much strategy that I rarely saw in real-time-ish RPGs that it didn't feel like a grind-fest at all; I wanted to level up because there were more challenging boss fights and hunts ahead, and that alone, besides the awesome (and thankfully non-overly-melodramatic) storyline, was worth the money for buying the game.
I've tried many MMORPGs, and they're all the same to me. Loosly-jointed quests, repetitive grinding, almost no strategy whatsoever, and high monthly fees that add up to a lot of money compared to your usual $50 100-200-hour single-purchase RPG. If you remove everything that makes a Final Fantasy game good and make it a needlessly-expensive grind-fest with no redeeming value whatsoever (not even a linear storyline), how would you ever expect it to be a good game?
Very interesting! However if I use this Linux Mint Debian Edition am I really using Debian?
For example, do they fork their code like Ubuntu does? If I report bugs in this will Debian accept them? If the answer is no then what is the point in switching from one Debian derivative to another.
The answer is yes. It's the exact same thing as debian with Mint's default customizations and extra repositories for Mint-specific applications, like mintDesktop, mintBackup, mintNanny, etc.
Linux Mint IS Ubuntu, just with a different theme.
And default programs... and default plugins... and default window button order... and default repositories (Ubuntu + Mint's own)... and the fact that there's a Debian Sid-based rolling edition of the distribution, which is awesome.
Just FYI, Linux Mint is Ubuntu, different skins, same beast. Any how-to I have tried for Ubuntu just worked on LM. I must be very lucky eh ?
I know that. Just because they're based on Ubuntu doesn't mean it's the exact same thing. You still have Mint's repositories, the default backgrounds/customizations are very different from Ubuntu (one panel by default, different theme by default, different [and better IMO] default program selection, different installer slideshow, different button order, etc.). It's only natural that tutorials that only apply to Ubuntu work on Linux Mint because it uses the exact same package repositories (and then some) as Ubuntu. And even still, most of those "Ubuntu tutorials" you read are applicable for almost any Linux distribution, and if not, they usually require a small tweak, like replacing aptitude with yum/pacman.
Well, Ubuntu, like it or not, is the most popular linux distribution (that, or its users just have very loud mouths). I honestly don't see what the big deal about Ubuntu is anymore. Linux Mint does a much better job at being easy-to-use right out of the box (and doesn't make stupid design decisions involving window buttons... cough cough). For the more geek-inclined, Fedora is a very un-assuming distribution and makes for a much less awkward first experience compared to Ubuntu. And for the extremely geek-inclined, Arch Linux and just plain-ol-Debian are awesomeness. I'm using Arch right now, and if you can get it set up right the first time (thanks to their awesome documentation), you get a rolling release system with constant updates and a gigantic user repository of packages (I even maintain some packages for them, and it is to stupidly easy to make a pacman package that I'm never going back to deb/rpm)!
Thankfully, it's incredibly easy to distro-hop if you don't like the current distribution you're using enough ;)
Simple enough, and if you think about it, it's the Christian thing to do.
What I mean, so you're not confused, is that making this legal would be the Christian thing to do, not to actually use these substances. As long as other people aren't infringing on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why would they ever be criminally punished?
Legality != moral approval. I wouldn't touch these substances with a ten-foot pole, but I believe they should be legal for the fact that we should have the legal right to harm ourselves. If you think that's crazy, replace the word "illegal" with "criminally punishable" and see if that changes your thinking. Why would we clog up jails, wasting money and harming the innocent drug-users, with people who don't harm anyone else with the use of their drugs? Second-hand smoke in public places? All depends whether or not the town/business allows it (I'm completely against it; harms passers-by). Raping or killing or hurting somebody while you were under the influence of these awful substances? Whatever you take into yourself willingly (un-willingly would be an exception here), whether it makes you high or not, you are/should be completely liable for all consequences because you willingly agreed to lose yourself to the substances. Simple enough, and if you think about it, it's the Christian thing to do.
How do you think kids feel now. On one hand you have the government, parents and everyone saying that marijuana is not good for you. And on the other hand you have a Facebook founder telling them its ok and should be legal.
Legality != moral approval. I think all of these substances, legal or not, are awful and I wouldn't want to willfully use them any day unless I absolutely had to for my health. But why would that make it excusable to clog our jails with/give fines to people who willingly decide to hurt themselves with these substances, not hurting anybody else in the process? Of course, if you stabbed someone or raped someone while you were high or something, it only makes sense for you to be 100% liable for your actions since you willingly accepted the fact that the drug would make you lose your reasoning ability due to being "high".
I know of a story a friend told me where one of his high-school friends tried LSD once, and he had a "flashback" while driving home from school a long time later and ran a paper boy over. Would a situation like that mean that LSD and other "high-inducing" drugs should be illegal? Of course not! What it means is that people should be well-educated about the potential effects of these drugs and that if they try them willingly and bad things happen, it's their responsible for any consequences. Simple enough; if that doesn't deter you and anybody else from taking these awful substances, may God help them.
You forgot to mention how we should have the right to harm ourselves, thus being able to take in knowingly-harmful drugs. All of these substances, illegal or not, are absolutely awful IMO, and I wouldn't even touch them with a ten-foot pole. However, why would that mean that hurting yourself and nobody else with these substances should be illegal? Exactly why would it be criminally punishable to harm yourself in any way (including killing yourself; wow, sure is helpful to the family who lost someone due to suicide when you tell them it's illegal)? Legality != moral approval; it's aggravating how often people think that allowing something to be legal means you think it's "okay"...
It is not just the illegal filesharers that have problems sharing with NAT.
I work for a company that uses P2P for legal content distribution
Try explaining that to the RIAA & Co...
It's simply amazing that they thought charging more for items than the game itself could make sense.
Farmville.
Re-releasing old gameboy games is pretty useless now. Not only has the entire gameboy catalog (at the very least, 99.9% of it) been released online, but you can download/rip and play them all with little fuss on an emulator with almost 100% accuracy to the original experience. Heck, even there were Gameboy emulators for the DS! Not only that, but they're only offering old GB games, no Gameboy Advance games? What a rip-off; not only will the games be tainted with DRM, but the product and effort to make it is so immensely small that GBA games could have been easily supported.
I'll stick to backing up my own games here. All of the emulators on the Wii/DS that are homebrew compared to Nintendo's official solutions have so many more features than Nintendo does: save states, no DRM, WAY better controller support, customizable controls, speed-up/slow-down modes, etc. If you really think you can compete with free here, you're hugely mistaken, Nintendo, unless you make a better effort. ...That all isn't to say that I'd never get a 3DS; it looks awesome! With that said, however, it's only worth that price if I can use a flashcart on it to run my own backups/homebrew ;)
1. Telephone companies can and do routinely trangulate from towers or use GPS-enabled smartphones to establish the position of a cellular phone. It's not rocket science to integrate those measurements over time and obtain the velocity of a cellular phone.
2. Add some code to phone company messaging servers that disables sending and receiving of text messages while the mobile phone is in motion.
3. New phones should have some code that notices the situation and disables reading old messages and typing new messages in advance. Perhaps they won't allow you to dial anything but 911 or even receive calls unless you have bluetooth.
Yes, this means that we take away some convenience to be safer. Yes, the phone companies won't make as much money. I'm sorry. People are behaving like children and we need to take their toy away.
What about passengers that are texting? I'm sure they wouldn't enjoy being forcibly locked-down like that for no reason...
The real issue is that IPv6 was horribly badly misconceived and misdesigned right from the start, in such a way that it was doomed to become the epic fail we know and love today. I am very skeptical that ipv6 can be fixed.
I'd love to believe you but you give no evidence as to why I should. You could very well be right, but how do I know that? [citation needed]
Stop acting like GOG screwed you over for no reason; they HAD to shut down the website for a little bit so they could update the interface! How is that so hard to understand? Why would you ever be upset at them going out of beta? I bought things from them before and just because they closed down the day you wanted to buy something you hate them? Just wait until they come back, no big deal!
The way we do things has evolved to a stable point. At this point I want improvements to that, not a new method entirely.
No doubt you've seen this in many-a-Slashdot signature, but it must be said again... “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse” -Henry Ford
The problem isn't that innovation is bad, but rather that innovation is becoming a buzzword. That's not to say that current ideas can't be improved on and/or succeeded, but it does show that not every "innovation" is better.
Small error with you link: fixed that for you ;)
I don't mean to be a grammar nazi here, but "Intel Threatens DMCA Using HDCP Crack"? Really? The DMCA must feel so threatened because of Intel threatening it with the HDCP crack... More like "Intel Threatens HDCP Crack With DMCA".
And given the vast variation in Linux distros, you're probably better off releasing Windows games that are Wine-compatible than a Linux binary that won't run on Ubuntu 12.04 or Redhat 6.3.
I currently use Arch Linux, and I've previously used Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Every single Linux game I've tried, even the Humble Indie Bundle as well as windows games using Wine, they all work exactly the same on each platform. Linux distributions aren't all that different as you'd think; they all have the same basic things like ALSA, X, some desktop environment like GNOME or KDE or XFCE, usually OpenGL/SDL support, and Python. Have all of that, and virtually every game for Linux will run on any type of setup you have so long as you have these basic things.
Hence why I used quotes; I completely agree.
The answer isn't to keep cracking these "protection" schemes, it's to stop buying into them at all until the companies behind them realize that customers are tired of paying for hardware that actively works against their interests.
I agree with your post except for this sentence. The problem with that argument is that most people, quite frankly and quite unfortunately, don't care whether or not something has "DRM or GPL or whatever crap you're trying to convince me to have or not have" (in the paraphrased words of everyone else). Most people don't care about region-lockout, SecuROM-style DRM, HDCP or any of that so long as it "works" for the time being. Most people, instead of caring whether or not their media will play on some out-there FOSS player, just buy whatever player can so they can watch it right then without caring or even thinking about whether or not that DRM will be around long enough for them to not have to re-buy all of their media. I'm almost as anti-DRM as you can get, and it's the depressing truth from what I've found.
>>>If you absolutely need money to want to make something (besides production costs), then it's not art
I notice you still accept a paycheck for the "art" you create every single week (random guess: technology hardware or software). Why is it that you think you should be paid for your labors, but not book writers? Hmmmm. Maybe we ought to stop paying you too. I'll just steal whatever you produce w/o paying you.
Copying is not theft! If I had a bicycle that I made with my bare hands and you somehow magically copied that bycicle, I wouldn't say you stole it, I'd be glad that we both have a bicycle. Or what if you modified your copy of my bicycle to make it cooler (in your opinion) and more people copied that. I wouldn't feel like people "stole" from me at all, I'd be happy for you.*
I said that if money's the #1 reason you're making something then it's not art. If you read my post at all you'll see that I'm not against earning money; I'm against it being a #1 priority. I've purchased indie music before because I like supporting them. The issue isn't accepting money, it's making money the entire reason it exists.
*I'd like to credit Nina Paley for this awesome analogy.
I bought my first book on my iPad. Told a friend about it and they said "oh, I'd love to borrow that when you're finished'. Immediately it is clear that I have rented the book and I have to say sorry. The user experience is crap. Users are losing a right they have held for centuries.
This reminds me of a 3-part video that's exactly what you said but in video form, including the creator of Potter Puppet Pals and the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny as the "Mac":
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
And with zero scarcity driving the cost down to zero for all books, publishing will will go from dying to dead. This is not the RIAA here, authors need book sales to get paid. Rant all you want about free information, but unless you have a real solution for the business model, the only authors you'll see dedicating themselves to the art are cranks writing manifestos and dilettantes who are already well-off enough to do it as a hobby.
Frankly, I don't care if the book industry is dying as-is, and you shouldn't either. What do you think happened when the printing press was invented? When the phonograph was invented? The camera? The video recorder/camcorder? And now, the Internet? It's all the same thing; "our outdated business is dying" and it's because something better is just around the corner. "People won't buy music/books/movies if you give it away for free", huh? Look at Jonathan Coulton, Binaerpilot, Renard, Lemon Demon (who made The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny), Brad Sucks*, Cory Doctorow, Lawrence Lessig, Randall Munroe**, Flattr, Jamendo***, etc. There's an infinite amount of ways to make money on something besides directly selling it. People will always be making art because it's human nature to do so; people will always give money for things because it's human nature to help out. If you absolutely need money to want to make something (besides production costs), then it's not art, and if the Internet helps get rid of that then good riddance.
* All five of which are successful indie artists that give away most of their music and don't care if people "pirate" it; I highly recommend checking them out by the way.
** These three are successful indie authors that I also recommend checking out; Randall, you might know, is the author of XKCD and the book sales from XKCD Vol. 0 helped to build a school in Laos.
*** These are websites that let people give away things for free, while still allowing artists/authors to make money.