Might it have been Stellar Seven? It was a vaguely Battlezone-esque game for the Apple II and C-64.
Heck, by that criteria, the old vector arcade game, Tail Gunner, counts, and it was out in the late 70's if memory serves...
Re:Product Placement? ("Spoilers")
on
Review: Evolution
·
· Score: 1
I guess I only see a problem with product placement when it seems we're being encouraged to buy the product or service, and not just because it appears in the film.
Stephen King used to get credit for including real-world product references in his books - it was something that made it seem like the events were happening in our world (when was the last time you saw a pack of Morley cigarettes for sale at the 7-11?)
Who is going to leave Evolution thinking "I've gotta get me some Head and Shoulders!"?
While regular GB and GBC games seem to be averaging $20 US, GBA games seem to be about $30 US each.
I don't know how bad that'll translate north of the border.
One big difference is that the Christian churches regard their doctrine as "revealed truth" - it can't be copyrighted because it was written by God. It's a goofy idea, but many of Christianity's leaders actually believe it.
Scientologists know full well their "religion" was invented in the mid-20th Century by L. Ron Hubbard. There's nothing eternal or truthful about it, and that's why they can use copyright law as a club - they know they made it up, and they can control how it's used.
The cost of PPV movies and all premium channels probably exceeds the cost of the hacked card in a few months.
It's a big expense up front, but the pirates probably figure as a one-time expense, it's not too bad. Also, like many warez traders keeping programs they'd never use, there's a thrill associated with merely having all the channels, even if they don't watch them much.
I can certainly agree that it is wrong to penalize people for earning money, and if that is indeed how you look at a progressive system of taxation, I understand your frustration. But...
Progressive taxation (and it shouldn't be onerous - not even Bill Gates should have to pay more than 50% of his income in income taxes) is designed so that those who benefit most from this wonderful nation's opportunities, as reflected by their increased economic prosperity, are those who pay a bit more in taxes, because they can better afford a slightly higher rate.
You can look at it as paying for the privilege of living in the US: everyone is getting what they are paying for. Those who have little or no money aren't paying much, those who are doing better pay a bit more, and those who do really well pay a bit more still. It's not perfect, but it approaches fairness.
I do not own a gun, and I can't imagine ever doing so, but the amendment states its intentions pretty clearly: the un-infringible right to keep and bear arms is not assigned to "a well-regulated militia", but to "the people".
Do I think that the results of the second amendment cause more harm than good in our society? Yes, but failing an actual repeal of the amendment itself, railing that it doesn't mean what it says just because it has had unforeseen effects is pointless. Not that such a repeal would be feasible today - there are far too many guns out there to put the metaphorical toothpaste back in the tube now.
The other important point is that all the gun violence in this country is illegal already. It's true, it's against the law to use a gun against any person not involved in the commision of a life-threatening felony!
Perhaps the law enforcement community might be able to actually make a dent in the gun-related crime statistics if they weren't so overextended fighting the pointless, ineffective, and largely racist War on Drugs. A war which, oddly enough, encourages the use of violence to defend the illicit marketplaces that have been artificially created by the intrusive and draconian anti-drug laws.
IMHO, most of the problem lies not with the 2nd amendment, but with the profiteering bottom-feeders who continue to manufacture huge quantities of inexpensive and very dangerous weaponry, and who, when confronted with the staggering human cost of their unabashed greed, respond with feeble "we were only filling a market void," as though profits, when high enough, can justify all the deaths.
"Handguns were made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else."
I think that if we want to promote innovation in intellectual property instead of giant corporate octopi, what we need is a complete re-vamping of IP law.
The current law gives copyright protection for far longer than would be required to promote innovation. If a musician had exclusive copyright protection over his work for five years (for example), after which the work entered the public domain, he would be able to profit from his work, while he would also be motivated to create more, rather than resting on his laurels (read: catalog sales royalties).
I fail to see how the current system (recently extended, no less) helps consumers, musicians, or innovation. Rather, it is used to maintain a brutal control over the distribution channels, and ensure a constant stream of income in perpetuity (mostly to the suits who run the record companies, anyway)
I can't claim to speak for anyone else, but I enjoyed the shallow RPG format - I could play for a bit and walk away, and still feel like I accomplished something in the game.
There were no puzzles so complex that they required a cheat guide, the monsters, weapons, and spells got better and/or more impressive as you progressed in the game, and besides, it reminded me of Dungeon of Doom, an old Mac game (Rogue clone) I used to love.
You want to ask about an inexplicably popular game - what about Myst? Ooh, a pretty slide-show!
Most of your points have been subjective - I didn't agree, but there was room for disagreement, but...
If you are seriously attempting to argue that a chicken (for example) is sentient, then you need to check a dictionary. If you think a single chicken's life is as valuable as a typical human's, then you are a seriously disturbed individual.
Animal rights activists would have a much better reputation if they stopped coming across as screaming radicals, you know.
This just might be the stupidest question ever posted on slashdot not involving hot grits or Natalie Portman, but since when does attorney-client privilege protect a lay witness from having to answer questions?
I was under the impression that the confidentiality was one-way - that is, that a lawyer could invoke the privilege when called as a witness to protect information about his client. I don't see how Valenti is exempted from answering questions about information he learned from lawyers about the case unless he was on the plaintiff's legal counsel team (if he's even a lawyer).
I said: Not only do you make that wonderfully stupid analogy of copyright infringement being equivalent to real property theft, --------------- You replied: The law treats it as such. I think its a perfectly valid analogy to make. --------------- Not even close - property theft is always punishable by law as a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the value of the item stolen. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a crime, unless the infringer is charging for the product.
No one has ever been sentenced to prison for sharing a data file over a network, and few have had a judgement handed down against them in a civil case.
This is not meant to be a defense of widespread copyright infringement, but there is a very real difference between theft of property, in which the original owner no longer possesses the item, and not-for-profit copyright infringement, in which the copyright holder suspects that he may have been deprived of potential income.
Definitely true. Perhaps if the labels made CD singles worth buying, they might alleviate some of the problem.
They could either make the prices extremely low or put extras on - Tori Amos, for instance, often includes videos and interesting B-sides on her singles that aren't available on albums. Consequently, I end up purchasing nearly all her singles, as well as the albums.
New bands who want to build a following (and not seem to be one-hit wonders) should probably find a really good album cut - it's not like most of 'em have to worry about cannibalizing future single sales - or put the video on the single.
Pricing is paramount - the labels need to find a price where conscience outweighs convienience. In other words, it needs to be cheap enough so the consumers would consider it as a reasonable throwaway purchase - if someone downloads an illegal copy, they should feel guilty about depriving the artist of a sale. The only way that'll happen is if they might actually be willing to buy the thing in the first place.
Not only do you make that wonderfully stupid analogy of copyright infringement being equivalent to real property theft, but you then try to imply that logic is on your side when you suggest that a person would be likely to own the same number of cars as CD's.
Just FYI, I own one car and 500 or so CD's. I've bought more CD's in the past year than I did the year before, although I may have bought fewer at stores near the University.
I have purchased albums after downloading and listening to mp3's, mostly because I wanted to verify that I might like some song other than just the one single played on the radio. Listening stations at some stores help, but they often have a limited selection.
Firstly, the studies you referred to are horribly flawed and unscientific - they essentially were created to reinforce the opinion that violent videogames increase violent tendencies. We all know how peaceful the world was before all those evil videogames came around, right?
Secondly, the idea that all videogames (films and animated films, comic books, etc.) need to be acceptable to toddlers is highly offensive. Different forms of entertainment are designed for different audiences. Just as adults have little or no interest in playing some ultra-cutesy N64 kids game, likewise small children have no business playing a game designed to be enjoyed by adults. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with creating entertainment for adults.
Thirdly, I'm not sure if you're serious, satirical, or just a troll - your attack on free speech does suggest the latter, but those of us who advocate personal responsibility do not accept that it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps if we enforce existing laws prohibiting violence and crime in the real world, we might see a beneficial societal change without the need for new legislation.
Lastly, I would recomment that parents take full responsibility for raising their own children. Just as I don't want a bunch of lunatics telling me how to raise my (future) children, I don't think you want this lunatic (me) telling you how to raise yours!
BTW - Anonymous Coward? Even more evidence in the "troll" column!
I agree - I was merely pointing out that the RIAA, in trying to shut down used CD sales, was arguing that such a licensing scheme existed.
In that light, they would be hypocritical to attack someone for downloading an mp3 of a song that was on a damaged CD they legitimately purchased (which was the original point I had responded to).
That does raise the question of how well they can guard their revenue stream. I keep seeing Napster clones for download on freshmeat and BeBits - if it's easy to make a napster clone, why would anyone use a version tha forced them to watch ads?
Why do you have to repeat the stupidest sound bite to come out of a rock star in a long while?
Let's put it simply for those who look up to the staggering intellect of Lars Ulrich:
There is nothing inherently commoditizing about people trading songs they love for free, and neither is there anything inherently artistic about collecting some money for the sale of a CD.
Ordinarily, that would make sense, but the Powers-That-Be in the realm of commercial intellectual property have been trying for years to separate the material you use from its physical shadow in the real world.
For instance, although you have bought a physical CD, the RIAA insists that you have merely purchased a license to listen to the songs, and they have repeatedly fought the used CD market on those grounds. It would be hypocritical (albeit unsurprising) for them to do an about-face and suddenly argue that you really are purchasing the physical manifestation of the songs, with all rights and risks that implies.
I have a really simple question - how is Napster making money (off the artists involved, or period)?
This isn't facetious - I've never used Napster, and I don't understand their business model. Do they sell banner ad space in their client program? I saw that Lars also said that Napster was making money off Metallica, but he seems to be a moron when it comes to the internet, so I didn't really take him seriously.
I had just assumed this is one of those IPO scams where a bunch of sheep buy the overinflated stock at the IPO even though the company can't possibly turn a profit - ever.
That makes much more sense than the other posts I've seen about this. At the very least, there should be a documented set of procedures used during the testing phase - maybe a new minimum standard, created by a group of software engineers?
The advantage to developers would be that they would be able to show documentation that their testing conformed to a minimum standard, insulating them to some extent from lawsuits of this nature if a bug did happen to slip through the cracks.
The consumer would benefit by being spared the indignity of paying for the privilege of becoming a beta tester (anyone for a game of Ultima IX?).
Generally speaking, most images are copyrighted unless specifically released to the public domain, but many graphic artists were dismayed to see their hard work illegally appropriated by thieving web designers.
If you knew for a fact that the image had been explicitly released to the public domain, I don't see that they'd have any reason or right to protest. I find that quite unlikely, though.
I imagine you could legally use a copyrighted linked image (but not necessarily a background image) on a not-for-profit site if you included a caption to the image attributing the source and acknowledging copyright (I'd suggest an informative ALT tag, as well), but some of the issues in this case might put even that in jeopardy, depending on the purpose of the websites involved.
Slashdot Mirror
2 out of 5? That seems about right to me.
Might it have been Stellar Seven? It was a vaguely Battlezone-esque game for the Apple II and C-64. Heck, by that criteria, the old vector arcade game, Tail Gunner, counts, and it was out in the late 70's if memory serves...
I guess I only see a problem with product placement when it seems we're being encouraged to buy the product or service, and not just because it appears in the film. Stephen King used to get credit for including real-world product references in his books - it was something that made it seem like the events were happening in our world (when was the last time you saw a pack of Morley cigarettes for sale at the 7-11?) Who is going to leave Evolution thinking "I've gotta get me some Head and Shoulders!"?
While regular GB and GBC games seem to be averaging $20 US, GBA games seem to be about $30 US each. I don't know how bad that'll translate north of the border.
One big difference is that the Christian churches regard their doctrine as "revealed truth" - it can't be copyrighted because it was written by God. It's a goofy idea, but many of Christianity's leaders actually believe it. Scientologists know full well their "religion" was invented in the mid-20th Century by L. Ron Hubbard. There's nothing eternal or truthful about it, and that's why they can use copyright law as a club - they know they made it up, and they can control how it's used.
The cost of PPV movies and all premium channels probably exceeds the cost of the hacked card in a few months.
It's a big expense up front, but the pirates probably figure as a one-time expense, it's not too bad. Also, like many warez traders keeping programs they'd never use, there's a thrill associated with merely having all the channels, even if they don't watch them much.
I can certainly agree that it is wrong to penalize people for earning money, and if that is indeed how you look at a progressive system of taxation, I understand your frustration. But...
Progressive taxation (and it shouldn't be onerous - not even Bill Gates should have to pay more than 50% of his income in income taxes) is designed so that those who benefit most from this wonderful nation's opportunities, as reflected by their increased economic prosperity, are those who pay a bit more in taxes, because they can better afford a slightly higher rate.
You can look at it as paying for the privilege of living in the US: everyone is getting what they are paying for. Those who have little or no money aren't paying much, those who are doing better pay a bit more, and those who do really well pay a bit more still. It's not perfect, but it approaches fairness.
Oh, come on!
I do not own a gun, and I can't imagine ever doing so, but the amendment states its intentions pretty clearly: the un-infringible right to keep and bear arms is not assigned to "a well-regulated militia", but to "the people".
Do I think that the results of the second amendment cause more harm than good in our society? Yes, but failing an actual repeal of the amendment itself, railing that it doesn't mean what it says just because it has had unforeseen effects is pointless. Not that such a repeal would be feasible today - there are far too many guns out there to put the metaphorical toothpaste back in the tube now.
The other important point is that all the gun violence in this country is illegal already. It's true, it's against the law to use a gun against any person not involved in the commision of a life-threatening felony!
Perhaps the law enforcement community might be able to actually make a dent in the gun-related crime statistics if they weren't so overextended fighting the pointless, ineffective, and largely racist War on Drugs. A war which, oddly enough, encourages the use of violence to defend the illicit marketplaces that have been artificially created by the intrusive and draconian anti-drug laws.
IMHO, most of the problem lies not with the 2nd amendment, but with the profiteering bottom-feeders who continue to manufacture huge quantities of inexpensive and very dangerous weaponry, and who, when confronted with the staggering human cost of their unabashed greed, respond with feeble "we were only filling a market void," as though profits, when high enough, can justify all the deaths.
"Handguns were made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else."
Not exactly. The record company doesn't pay jack unless the album tanks - you ever hear of "recoupment"?
I think that if we want to promote innovation in intellectual property instead of giant corporate octopi, what we need is a complete re-vamping of IP law.
The current law gives copyright protection for far longer than would be required to promote innovation. If a musician had exclusive copyright protection over his work for five years (for example), after which the work entered the public domain, he would be able to profit from his work, while he would also be motivated to create more, rather than resting on his laurels (read: catalog sales royalties).
I fail to see how the current system (recently extended, no less) helps consumers, musicians, or innovation. Rather, it is used to maintain a brutal control over the distribution channels, and ensure a constant stream of income in perpetuity (mostly to the suits who run the record companies, anyway)
I can't claim to speak for anyone else, but I enjoyed the shallow RPG format - I could play for a bit and walk away, and still feel like I accomplished something in the game.
There were no puzzles so complex that they required a cheat guide, the monsters, weapons, and spells got better and/or more impressive as you progressed in the game, and besides, it reminded me of Dungeon of Doom, an old Mac game (Rogue clone) I used to love.
You want to ask about an inexplicably popular game - what about Myst? Ooh, a pretty slide-show!
Most of your points have been subjective - I didn't agree, but there was room for disagreement, but...
If you are seriously attempting to argue that a chicken (for example) is sentient, then you need to check a dictionary. If you think a single chicken's life is as valuable as a typical human's, then you are a seriously disturbed individual.
Animal rights activists would have a much better reputation if they stopped coming across as screaming radicals, you know.
This just might be the stupidest question ever posted on slashdot not involving hot grits or Natalie Portman, but since when does attorney-client privilege protect a lay witness from having to answer questions?
I was under the impression that the confidentiality was one-way - that is, that a lawyer could invoke the privilege when called as a witness to protect information about his client. I don't see how Valenti is exempted from answering questions about information he learned from lawyers about the case unless he was on the plaintiff's legal counsel team (if he's even a lawyer).
What am I missing here?
I said:
Not only do you make that wonderfully stupid analogy of copyright infringement being equivalent to real property theft,
---------------
You replied:
The law treats it as such. I think its a perfectly valid analogy to make.
---------------
Not even close - property theft is always punishable by law as a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the value of the item stolen. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a crime, unless the infringer is charging for the product.
No one has ever been sentenced to prison for sharing a data file over a network, and few have had a judgement handed down against them in a civil case.
This is not meant to be a defense of widespread copyright infringement, but there is a very real difference between theft of property, in which the original owner no longer possesses the item, and not-for-profit copyright infringement, in which the copyright holder suspects that he may have been deprived of potential income.
Definitely true. Perhaps if the labels made CD singles worth buying, they might alleviate some of the problem.
They could either make the prices extremely low or put extras on - Tori Amos, for instance, often includes videos and interesting B-sides on her singles that aren't available on albums. Consequently, I end up purchasing nearly all her singles, as well as the albums.
New bands who want to build a following (and not seem to be one-hit wonders) should probably find a really good album cut - it's not like most of 'em have to worry about cannibalizing future single sales - or put the video on the single.
Pricing is paramount - the labels need to find a price where conscience outweighs convienience. In other words, it needs to be cheap enough so the consumers would consider it as a reasonable throwaway purchase - if someone downloads an illegal copy, they should feel guilty about depriving the artist of a sale. The only way that'll happen is if they might actually be willing to buy the thing in the first place.
What a completely illogical argument.
Not only do you make that wonderfully stupid analogy of copyright infringement being equivalent to real property theft, but you then try to imply that logic is on your side when you suggest that a person would be likely to own the same number of cars as CD's.
Just FYI, I own one car and 500 or so CD's. I've bought more CD's in the past year than I did the year before, although I may have bought fewer at stores near the University.
I have purchased albums after downloading and listening to mp3's, mostly because I wanted to verify that I might like some song other than just the one single played on the radio. Listening stations at some stores help, but they often have a limited selection.
Where should I start...
Firstly, the studies you referred to are horribly flawed and unscientific - they essentially were created to reinforce the opinion that violent videogames increase violent tendencies. We all know how peaceful the world was before all those evil videogames came around, right?
Secondly, the idea that all videogames (films and animated films, comic books, etc.) need to be acceptable to toddlers is highly offensive. Different forms of entertainment are designed for different audiences. Just as adults have little or no interest in playing some ultra-cutesy N64 kids game, likewise small children have no business playing a game designed to be enjoyed by adults. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with creating entertainment for adults.
Thirdly, I'm not sure if you're serious, satirical, or just a troll - your attack on free speech does suggest the latter, but those of us who advocate personal responsibility do not accept that it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps if we enforce existing laws prohibiting violence and crime in the real world, we might see a beneficial societal change without the need for new legislation.
Lastly, I would recomment that parents take full responsibility for raising their own children. Just as I don't want a bunch of lunatics telling me how to raise my (future) children, I don't think you want this lunatic (me) telling you how to raise yours!
BTW - Anonymous Coward? Even more evidence in the "troll" column!
Why don't you list some bands that you like, so we can make snide comments about them?
I agree - I was merely pointing out that the RIAA, in trying to shut down used CD sales, was arguing that such a licensing scheme existed.
In that light, they would be hypocritical to attack someone for downloading an mp3 of a song that was on a damaged CD they legitimately purchased (which was the original point I had responded to).
Fair enough, thanks.
That does raise the question of how well they can guard their revenue stream. I keep seeing Napster clones for download on freshmeat and BeBits - if it's easy to make a napster clone, why would anyone use a version tha forced them to watch ads?
Why do you have to repeat the stupidest sound bite to come out of a rock star in a long while?
Let's put it simply for those who look up to the staggering intellect of Lars Ulrich:
There is nothing inherently commoditizing about people trading songs they love for free, and neither is there anything inherently artistic about collecting some money for the sale of a CD.
Ordinarily, that would make sense, but the Powers-That-Be in the realm of commercial intellectual property have been trying for years to separate the material you use from its physical shadow in the real world.
For instance, although you have bought a physical CD, the RIAA insists that you have merely purchased a license to listen to the songs, and they have repeatedly fought the used CD market on those grounds. It would be hypocritical (albeit unsurprising) for them to do an about-face and suddenly argue that you really are purchasing the physical manifestation of the songs, with all rights and risks that implies.
I have a really simple question - how is Napster making money (off the artists involved, or period)?
This isn't facetious - I've never used Napster, and I don't understand their business model. Do they sell banner ad space in their client program? I saw that Lars also said that Napster was making money off Metallica, but he seems to be a moron when it comes to the internet, so I didn't really take him seriously.
I had just assumed this is one of those IPO scams where a bunch of sheep buy the overinflated stock at the IPO even though the company can't possibly turn a profit - ever.
That makes much more sense than the other posts I've seen about this. At the very least, there should be a documented set of procedures used during the testing phase - maybe a new minimum standard, created by a group of software engineers?
The advantage to developers would be that they would be able to show documentation that their testing conformed to a minimum standard, insulating them to some extent from lawsuits of this nature if a bug did happen to slip through the cracks.
The consumer would benefit by being spared the indignity of paying for the privilege of becoming a beta tester (anyone for a game of Ultima IX?).
Sounds like win-win, to me...
A fair question.
Generally speaking, most images are copyrighted unless specifically released to the public domain, but many graphic artists were dismayed to see their hard work illegally appropriated by thieving web designers.
If you knew for a fact that the image had been explicitly released to the public domain, I don't see that they'd have any reason or right to protest. I find that quite unlikely, though.
I imagine you could legally use a copyrighted linked image (but not necessarily a background image) on a not-for-profit site if you included a caption to the image attributing the source and acknowledging copyright (I'd suggest an informative ALT tag, as well), but some of the issues in this case might put even that in jeopardy, depending on the purpose of the websites involved.