Which is precisely the problem with science. If you cherrypick your studies you can prove anything you like. (Think many so-called survey papers and metastudies. Not to imply they're all fake.)
You're right, because one major event happened everyone must discuss it in every single thread or else we're not supporting our troops. Thank you for showing me how sheltered my life is, kind stranger, I shall henceforth reform.
So both Viacom and Google uploaded Viacom copyrights without permission to drive traffic for their respective businesses? This shit just keeps getting more and more surreal.
While you have a point, consider that if you pay for it you make them think their DRM is acceptable. As a compromise, I suggest buying it, pirating it, and writing an angry letter explaining the situation. It'll be ignored of course, but it would make me feel better.
Seems to me like the correct solution (from their perspective) ought to be to release a game with tons of DRM, sell it for awhile, then disable the DRM once it's no longer profitable. This is, of course, if they intend to stay in business and wish to avoid alienating customers from future purchases.
Until all mobile phones suck a lot less or go down in price a lot, I'm not getting one. $2500 for two years? No thanks. Even if the devices available were polished, beautiful, powerful, and bug-free. And they're not.
Still it's only a matter of time. I said the same thing about cell phones, and then prices dropped and coverage improved, and now I have one.
Mr Tenenbaum got what he paid for. You take a prominent lawyer/law person as a pro bono lawyer they come with an agenda. This can be good for you if their agenda is similar, but you do need to take it into account.
Well there have been a few companies to add value with DRM, providing features in exchange for the lost utility (I'm thinking Steam here). In exchange for them managing their rights for you, you get to have...your rights managed, in terms of hard disk crashes, multiple computers, etc.
I admit Steam has its issues, but this is the sort of adaption I like to see...realizing that it's no longer all take and no give.
I can't help but wonder if the thing these studies are picking up on is that violent people are drawn to violent games, rather than that violent games make violent people.
Depends on whether he assigned ownership. I'd answer your question better, but that would involve reading TFA and that's not what/. is about. If I wanted to have informed opinions, I'd get back to work:P
We already lost the war for privacy. All we can hope for now is a society where no one has secrets from anyone, rather than a society where the police state government has everyone's secrets. Police states aren't where dissenters disappear for no reason. They're where they disappear for conveniently constructed reasons. All above board, in courts of law.
>> Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property *unless it's enforced by technical means, thus causing it to fall under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause* Fixed that for you.
> In my opinion, as a half-baked measure that moves a little in the right direction, browsers would do better to just > download the certificate from the website, and then warn you if the certificate ever changed when you went back to a > website that claimed the same identity. Then you'd have to trust a CA at most once. This is indeed hte correct approach. Though I'd also apprecaite an option for "I don't care" in the current mozilla, when I jus twant to read a page that won't let me access it through http. Instead I have to click through multiple dialogs full of misleading fud just to load the page.
They're trying to use weasel words to lump file sharing and counterfeiting together so they can take advantage of preexisting laws and treaties involving siezing goods that are "about" to have counterfeit logos put on them, property forfeiture, and the like.
Not to mention that it's far easier to make a case for counterfeit goods (think food, medicine, etc) to be a matter of national security (and thus above hte rule of law) than it is for a little unlicensed copying.
It's bullshit, of course, since a bit-identical copy is, in fact, bit-identical, but there you go.
I'm also somewhat reminded of that screwed up law in France where you can't sell name-brand things on eBay without violating "counterfeiting" laws because you're not a licensed dealer.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is precisely the problem with science. If you cherrypick your studies you can prove anything you like. (Think many so-called survey papers and metastudies. Not to imply they're all fake.)
You're right, because one major event happened everyone must discuss it in every single thread or else we're not supporting our troops. Thank you for showing me how sheltered my life is, kind stranger, I shall henceforth reform.
So both Viacom and Google uploaded Viacom copyrights without permission to drive traffic for their respective businesses? This shit just keeps getting more and more surreal.
I wonder how much of the cost is migrating away from Windows and how much is migrating to Linux.
1995 called. They want their opinions back.
I wonder if now we can finally find out what we were saved from. Perhaps we really don't want to know.
Well if that happens then they blame the pirates for lost sales, which is the current way game companies deal with poor sales.
It's ok since copyright in America (and most countries due to treaties) is perpetual.
While you have a point, consider that if you pay for it you make them think their DRM is acceptable. As a compromise, I suggest buying it, pirating it, and writing an angry letter explaining the situation. It'll be ignored of course, but it would make me feel better.
Seems to me like the correct solution (from their perspective) ought to be to release a game with tons of DRM, sell it for awhile, then disable the DRM once it's no longer profitable. This is, of course, if they intend to stay in business and wish to avoid alienating customers from future purchases.
I'm not really sure. I will tell you I'm 22 and grew up a nerd in Ann Arbor, MI if you want your first data point for a survey;)
Until all mobile phones suck a lot less or go down in price a lot, I'm not getting one. $2500 for two years? No thanks. Even if the devices available were polished, beautiful, powerful, and bug-free. And they're not.
Still it's only a matter of time. I said the same thing about cell phones, and then prices dropped and coverage improved, and now I have one.
Mr Tenenbaum got what he paid for. You take a prominent lawyer/law person as a pro bono lawyer they come with an agenda. This can be good for you if their agenda is similar, but you do need to take it into account.
Well there have been a few companies to add value with DRM, providing features in exchange for the lost utility (I'm thinking Steam here). In exchange for them managing their rights for you, you get to have...your rights managed, in terms of hard disk crashes, multiple computers, etc.
I admit Steam has its issues, but this is the sort of adaption I like to see...realizing that it's no longer all take and no give.
I can't help but wonder if the thing these studies are picking up on is that violent people are drawn to violent games, rather than that violent games make violent people.
Unlike most papers, where you have to read them to discern whether they cherrypicked their evidence, with metastudies you know right away.
Unwillingness to adapt fossilized business methods to the new economy. Happens every generation or two
Depends on whether he assigned ownership. I'd answer your question better, but that would involve reading TFA and that's not what /. is about. If I wanted to have informed opinions, I'd get back to work:P
Only if I pay you for it. That's a really nice picture btw.
...and that means heads are going to roll. We just have to wait to see whose.
We already lost the war for privacy. All we can hope for now is a society where no one has secrets from anyone, rather than a society where the police state government has everyone's secrets. Police states aren't where dissenters disappear for no reason. They're where they disappear for conveniently constructed reasons. All above board, in courts of law.
>> Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property *unless it's enforced by technical means, thus causing it to fall under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause*
Fixed that for you.
> In my opinion, as a half-baked measure that moves a little in the right direction, browsers would do better to just
> download the certificate from the website, and then warn you if the certificate ever changed when you went back to a
> website that claimed the same identity. Then you'd have to trust a CA at most once.
This is indeed hte correct approach. Though I'd also apprecaite an option for "I don't care" in the current mozilla, when I jus twant to read a page that won't let me access it through http. Instead I have to click through multiple dialogs full of misleading fud just to load the page.
They're trying to use weasel words to lump file sharing and counterfeiting together so they can take advantage of preexisting laws and treaties involving siezing goods that are "about" to have counterfeit logos put on them, property forfeiture, and the like.
Not to mention that it's far easier to make a case for counterfeit goods (think food, medicine, etc) to be a matter of national security (and thus above hte rule of law) than it is for a little unlicensed copying.
It's bullshit, of course, since a bit-identical copy is, in fact, bit-identical, but there you go.
I'm also somewhat reminded of that screwed up law in France where you can't sell name-brand things on eBay without violating "counterfeiting" laws because you're not a licensed dealer.
They just told me to buzz off and that my iPod mini (this was in like 2006) erasing itself every 48 hours was "within operating specifications".