I've never smoked simply because I've chosen not to. I have however been subject to the laws my city, state, and federal government despite the fact that I disagree with a good number of those laws. Corporations easy to avoid, advertising or no.
For all intents and purposes, they ARE in control. Yet the "liberals" (I put the word in quotes, because the meaning of liberal has been lost in the US) in this country believe freedom comes from massive government, not minimal government. Government keeps getting bigger and with it corruption, but in the mind of the US "liberal" the answer to greater corruption is greater government which leads to greater corruption, the answer to which is...
A tank is easy to stop with pistols. Just shoot the truckers that transport fuel. A tank without fuel isn't much use. Only a fool would attack the tank itself, which I suppose is why that's the only tactic you thought of.
Some shows which are dependent on music as a part of the plot completely lose the point due to contract fights. Two that come to mind are WKRP and Mission Hill. Because of music rights, some parts of those shows don't even make sense in the DVD releases because the dialog refers to music which has been replaced or removed entirely.
Another option is an IP tax. Owning physical property requires one to pay a tax on it. Why is IP different? The owner wants to have all the rights of ownership, let them pay for it. Property tax pays for local police and fire protection, then IP tax can cover the costs of defending their property that IP owners are currently attempting to foist onto the public.
The first year is free. Every year after that the tax on copyrighted material goes up. If it's worth it for the owner to pay the tax because they're making a signficant amount of money on it, they'll continue paying the tax until it's not economically viable at which point it falls into the public domain.
Remember, these companies are claiming that you're not buying a piece of software or a song. You're purchasing a license to use that software or listen to that song. That's why you're not allowed to resell it.
So if I'm purchasing a license, then you're damn right I own it forever, and when the physical media degrades I had better be able to get a new copy for free.
No, these greedy bastards want their product ot have the best of both the physical and intangible worlds. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
And the original social agreement was that we allow people to "own" an idea for a limited period of time in order to allow them to profit from that idea, after which point the idea becomes available to everybody.
That deal keeps changing. Something created today will still be copyrighted long after I'm dead.
In a zombie apocalypse situation, while every idiot out there was looting grocery stores, or even more intelligently, electronics stores, I'd be hitting the library or book stores.
Food from a grocery store might last you a little while, but long term survival is based on knowledge.
And it's funny how concerned they are about small business all of a sudden. They didn't seem to worried about the affects that their preferred legislation would have on small business.
Not to mention that apparently the Super Bowl is enough of a national treasure to spend tens of millions of dollars in law enforcement, but not enough of a national treasure that it belongs to the citizens of the USA.
So we all get to pay for protecting it but only a select few are allowed to profit off of it. More privatizing of profits while socializing the costs.
What about medical privacy. That's even enshrined in law. Does adhering to HIPAA rules make all doctors and patients terrorists? What are they hiding? Maybe a doctor implanted a bomb in his patients rectum!
I'm guessing because they frequently have sales and cost a few dollars, not $60. If console makers want to drop their price to $10 while instituting this no resale policy, I don't think they'll meet any opposition.
Think about what you just said. Charging more means would fewer people would buy the original.
Don't you think that people who sell the game after they're done with it have already factored their later resale into the price they're willing to pay for the game? If they can't sell it when they're done, they're essentially paying more money for the game. Meaning fewer people will buy it new.
Thanks for confirming the point of this whole argument.
Then because we're dealing with a licensed product that doesn't degrade, when the product does degrade (like a disc getting scratched in an Xbox 360 drive as they are known to do sometimes) then a new one should merely cost replacement value, right? $1 for replacement media sounds right. Oh, but they want you to buy a brand new copy.
Software companies seem to want the best of both worlds and none of the limitations of either.
So you think you're going to be able to take people who aren't currently willing to spend $60 for your game and convince them to do so by taking away their ability to buy it later at a lower price?
Do software companies truly believe they exist outside of the demand curve?
So by stealing a moon rock, you mean making an exact duplicate of the original moon rock down to the molecular level, and then leaving the original there for the owner to continue enjoying?
You can read them, just don't remember the page numbers. Yes, West tried to claim that their page numbers were creative output and protected by copyright. A startup I worked for back in the 90s had to fight West on this, so I'm intimately familiar with West douchebaggery.
And probably before that (because I've never heard of Happy Farm, don't know when it was created) was Harvest Moon.
And long before Tiny Tower was SimTower. Maxis should sue this little company out of existence, if we're going to be even handed about things.
The world is going to have to face the fact at some point that copyright is ridiculous because there's nothing new under the sun. Almost everything (almost being the keyword) has been done, and most "new" things are an old idea with a fresh coat of paint.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never smoked simply because I've chosen not to. I have however been subject to the laws my city, state, and federal government despite the fact that I disagree with a good number of those laws. Corporations easy to avoid, advertising or no.
My mod points ran out this morning or I'd have given you one. So instead here's an "Attaboy!"
For all intents and purposes, they ARE in control. Yet the "liberals" (I put the word in quotes, because the meaning of liberal has been lost in the US) in this country believe freedom comes from massive government, not minimal government. Government keeps getting bigger and with it corruption, but in the mind of the US "liberal" the answer to greater corruption is greater government which leads to greater corruption, the answer to which is...
A tank is easy to stop with pistols. Just shoot the truckers that transport fuel. A tank without fuel isn't much use. Only a fool would attack the tank itself, which I suppose is why that's the only tactic you thought of.
Some shows which are dependent on music as a part of the plot completely lose the point due to contract fights. Two that come to mind are WKRP and Mission Hill. Because of music rights, some parts of those shows don't even make sense in the DVD releases because the dialog refers to music which has been replaced or removed entirely.
Another option is an IP tax. Owning physical property requires one to pay a tax on it. Why is IP different? The owner wants to have all the rights of ownership, let them pay for it. Property tax pays for local police and fire protection, then IP tax can cover the costs of defending their property that IP owners are currently attempting to foist onto the public.
The first year is free. Every year after that the tax on copyrighted material goes up. If it's worth it for the owner to pay the tax because they're making a signficant amount of money on it, they'll continue paying the tax until it's not economically viable at which point it falls into the public domain.
Actually, buying it does mean owning it forever.
Remember, these companies are claiming that you're not buying a piece of software or a song. You're purchasing a license to use that software or listen to that song. That's why you're not allowed to resell it.
So if I'm purchasing a license, then you're damn right I own it forever, and when the physical media degrades I had better be able to get a new copy for free.
No, these greedy bastards want their product ot have the best of both the physical and intangible worlds. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
And the original social agreement was that we allow people to "own" an idea for a limited period of time in order to allow them to profit from that idea, after which point the idea becomes available to everybody.
That deal keeps changing. Something created today will still be copyrighted long after I'm dead.
Copyright owners are the real thieves.
In a zombie apocalypse situation, while every idiot out there was looting grocery stores, or even more intelligently, electronics stores, I'd be hitting the library or book stores.
Food from a grocery store might last you a little while, but long term survival is based on knowledge.
You're right, they're no KGB. More like violent versions of Inspector Clouseau.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57369821-504083/fbi-chainsaw-mistake-agents-raid-wrong-mass-apartment-cut-down-door/
And it's funny how concerned they are about small business all of a sudden. They didn't seem to worried about the affects that their preferred legislation would have on small business.
Not to mention that apparently the Super Bowl is enough of a national treasure to spend tens of millions of dollars in law enforcement, but not enough of a national treasure that it belongs to the citizens of the USA.
So we all get to pay for protecting it but only a select few are allowed to profit off of it. More privatizing of profits while socializing the costs.
What about medical privacy. That's even enshrined in law. Does adhering to HIPAA rules make all doctors and patients terrorists? What are they hiding? Maybe a doctor implanted a bomb in his patients rectum!
Hell, they couldn't even write properly, their Ses look like Fs. Congreff?
"They" just don't want you watching a movie about how an aspiring entrepreneur was crushed by big business and corruption. ;)
I see, so along with this technological solution, they've abandoned copyright?
Oh, so they still want all government granted monopoly status and protection, but also want to enforce their one time sale policy.
How nice for them.
And you do realize of course that authors frequently write about a fictional things which they do not necessarily advocate, right?
I'm guessing because they frequently have sales and cost a few dollars, not $60. If console makers want to drop their price to $10 while instituting this no resale policy, I don't think they'll meet any opposition.
Love it. You sir, win the discussion.
Think about what you just said. Charging more means would fewer people would buy the original.
Don't you think that people who sell the game after they're done with it have already factored their later resale into the price they're willing to pay for the game? If they can't sell it when they're done, they're essentially paying more money for the game. Meaning fewer people will buy it new.
Thanks for confirming the point of this whole argument.
Then because we're dealing with a licensed product that doesn't degrade, when the product does degrade (like a disc getting scratched in an Xbox 360 drive as they are known to do sometimes) then a new one should merely cost replacement value, right? $1 for replacement media sounds right. Oh, but they want you to buy a brand new copy.
Software companies seem to want the best of both worlds and none of the limitations of either.
Screw 'em says I.
So you think you're going to be able to take people who aren't currently willing to spend $60 for your game and convince them to do so by taking away their ability to buy it later at a lower price?
Do software companies truly believe they exist outside of the demand curve?
So by stealing a moon rock, you mean making an exact duplicate of the original moon rock down to the molecular level, and then leaving the original there for the owner to continue enjoying?
I don't see the problem with that.
You can read them, just don't remember the page numbers. Yes, West tried to claim that their page numbers were creative output and protected by copyright. A startup I worked for back in the 90s had to fight West on this, so I'm intimately familiar with West douchebaggery.
And probably before that (because I've never heard of Happy Farm, don't know when it was created) was Harvest Moon.
And long before Tiny Tower was SimTower. Maxis should sue this little company out of existence, if we're going to be even handed about things.
The world is going to have to face the fact at some point that copyright is ridiculous because there's nothing new under the sun. Almost everything (almost being the keyword) has been done, and most "new" things are an old idea with a fresh coat of paint.