At least it is for poor player. There aren't enough interesting ways to make money.
Anyone could easily offer a service where I go on quests for a player in order to gain level (at least I presume so. Don't play MMOs), but nobody would bother because it would be taking away their fun. Dennis made this clear himself. "I had essentially quit my job and grabbed for life's gusto". Why do people want to get home from a tedious job, and do another tedious job?
Blizzard need to address these gameplay issues and make it so that getting rich as as gratifying as being rich.
I have yet to see anyone anywhere give a sensible analogy with copyright. The usual one is comparing it to theft of physical property, which falls down when you consider that the legitimate owner still has his copy.
The justification for piracy being wrong is simply because society has agreed that creators should be compensated for their work. Not because it is stealing, or because it is similar to other crimes. You might as well say fraud is murder. they are not the same crimes, but both are still wrong.
And while we're at it, the law is an ass for failing to appreciate the difference between copying music for a friend for free, and for setting up a major CD duplication plant, and selling discs at a profit.
Naah. Whats she's saying is that if you don't mind lots of people seeing your paper, then its okay to share music. As long as we don't claim that we also wrote and performed the song.
Slashdot is biased and always has been. You will always find it pro-Linux, anti censorship, and a with general low opinion of Intellectual property law in its current form. Slashdot has always contained the stories that its authors wanted to post.
This bias is typically counterbalanced by the fact that people can post comments, pointing out the obvious bias or careless editorial misunderstanding.
Unfortunately the moderation system means that reasonable comments get modded down as flamebait, and the whole site is biased.
All companies have to pay for development, risks and market research. Whether they get to copyright their work or not. Everything does - Waffle irons, breakfast cereal, computer peripherals, furniture. None of these are ever copyrighted. We just let them take the risks. The difference is that when I buy one of these products, I own it. I've paid for it, so all rights transfer to me. With IP, once I've paid for it, the person I've bought it from still owns it.
Do they do market research purely in the interests of the sutomer? No, of course not. They do it to increase their sales, and to avoid spening money on something that won't be wanted. It actually reduces their risk. Nobody insisted that they have to develop their products. They can choose not to if they want. They just don't get any sales if they don't develop. All selling has risks associated.
The sellers should have to pay for their own marketing. The whole poit is to increase sales. It does the consumer no good at all. Since when has it become the consumers responsibility to pay for other people to sell them products?
The consumer did do something - They paid for the work. This is all a publisher has done when they are granted exclusive rights. Where do you think they get all their money from that they risk when producing a work?
I granted the monopoly indirectly by voting for the government that produced a copyright bill.
The fact that the movie industry, games industry, music industry and the rest are profitible provers that consumers spend more on this that the studios. The consumer is eventually funding everything. The consumer has no choice in the prices he pays apart from pay the full price or go without. Considering the rights that the original producer has, I feel that certain responsibilities should go with it - especially the responsibility to make sure that customers can actually buy this product.
Hines offers an analogy: Disney releases many of its classic animated films on VHS or DVD for a limited time and then doesn't sell any at retail for a considerable period. "Because it's not available at retail, does that mean Disney gives up the rights to Snow White and that it should be distributed for free over the Internet? Of course not. Disney paid to create the work, and it can determine how and when it will be offered for sale."
This is what we call a filthy lie. It was the consumer that paid for this work, not the producers. The prducer just made the initial investment, and sold it again and again. They charged us for it, and then kept it for themselves! Why should they have the right to withhold it from us after we've granted them a monopoly? If they want this monopoly, then they can bloody well supply it to us at a reasonable price.
To be fair, its only Richard Morrell who is the pain. The other people involved are just obliged to stick up for their friend. Some of the team have been very helpful and diplomatic on uk.comp.os.linux, even after some quite nasty hostility towards them.
As far as I can see, it's not selling out. It looks more like he was let off as long as he stays around to give testimony. Presumably he will make sure everything he says is totally objective, and just describe what the software does, what his role was in the company and so on. He would have done that anyway.
Granted - You can probably guess that Aliens Versus Predator will be a bit more greusome than the Sims, but the information on the box is not totally descriptive. It's quite useful to have a vaguely objectiveand immediate opionion on who this is suitable for
I'd suggest "The Cogwheel Brain" By Doron Swade (ISBN: 0 316 64847 7 ) for a very good history of the Difference Engine, as well as an account of the the Science Museum (London) building a replica.
For some nice hacker (i.e. cracker and phreaker) history, I'd suggest Approaching Zero by Brian Clough and Paul Mungo.
I don't think that hardware munufacturers have to support something. It just has to rely on them not actively trying to circumvent it. Macrovision works as long as you have an automatic gain control. This is beneficial to most people. They could find another way to do the same thing, but the number of peoiple who want to copy VHS tapes is small. If the customers didn't want it, they would change to accomodate.
I did a presentation skills course. One of the
rules was not to use slides at all
unless you really need them.
You simply don't need a slide that says we sold
100 000 units if you can just tell them.
Powerpoint - like a lot of modern software -
reverses this rule by making th euser subordinate to
the software.
According to the overview, there are "only three significant uses for operator overloading", and since these are all supported internally, there is no need to support it.
Is this wise? I can think of many uses - Vector arithmetic, area intersections and combinations, list concatenation. All of these can be achieved without operators, but matematical syntax is considerably faster.
And if you couldn't pay back the loan, you
would have to declare bankruptcy. However, the
lender may well realise that this would result
in him getting substantially less of his money
back, and will accept a reasonable offer of a reduced amount that
has the benefit of keeping you afloat.
I have no problem with a corporation owning
a copyright. But your suggestion would allow the
equivalent of this, so that doesn't really matter.
I'm not so sure about the copyright expiring
when the creator dies. A fixed time period after creation
(substantialy less than current one) would be
much more workable, would not suffer from
problems caused by extended life (Do we assume that someone who
has been frozen is alive or dead?), and would allow
the creator's next of kin to benefit if they
die immediately after publication.
Thirdly - I disagree that a government record
should be required. Proving the date of
publication is not hard.
I'd like to see some restrictions in what
copyright holders can prevent too. It is a constant
source of annoyance that out of print media is
hard to acquire, and it's still illegal to copy it.
Ignore it. It states that the customer (who does
not own the copyright) gives full IP rights to
Sony (who do not own the copyright). I'm sure
Sony would also accept that I can give you a copy
of any of their copyrighted material if you sign
a contract granting me exclusive rights to this.
Slashdot Mirror
This article probably covers the basics. Not sure if it's totally neutral but probably more so than you'll get from Slashdot commenters.
Because if it was fun, people would be playing it rather than buying their way up!
The game is dull.
At least it is for poor player. There aren't enough interesting ways to make money.
Anyone could easily offer a service where I go on quests for a player in order to gain level (at least I presume so. Don't play MMOs), but nobody would bother because it would be taking away their fun. Dennis made this clear himself. "I had essentially quit my job and grabbed for life's gusto". Why do people want to get home from a tedious job, and do another tedious job?
Blizzard need to address these gameplay issues and make it so that getting rich as as gratifying as being rich.
The justification for piracy being wrong is simply because society has agreed that creators should be compensated for their work. Not because it is stealing, or because it is similar to other crimes. You might as well say fraud is murder. they are not the same crimes, but both are still wrong.
And while we're at it, the law is an ass for failing to appreciate the difference between copying music for a friend for free, and for setting up a major CD duplication plant, and selling discs at a profit.
Naah. Whats she's saying is that if you don't mind lots of people seeing your paper, then its okay to share music. As long as we don't claim that we also wrote and performed the song.
These guys aren't copying the software, just the basic functionality. There are many sites that have identical functionality to Slashdot.
This bias is typically counterbalanced by the fact that people can post comments, pointing out the obvious bias or careless editorial misunderstanding.
Unfortunately the moderation system means that reasonable comments get modded down as flamebait, and the whole site is biased.
All companies have to pay for development, risks and market research. Whether they get to copyright their work or not. Everything does - Waffle irons, breakfast cereal, computer peripherals, furniture. None of these are ever copyrighted. We just let them take the risks. The difference is that when I buy one of these products, I own it. I've paid for it, so all rights transfer to me. With IP, once I've paid for it, the person I've bought it from still owns it.
Do they do market research purely in the interests of the sutomer? No, of course not. They do it to increase their sales, and to avoid spening money on something that won't be wanted. It actually reduces their risk. Nobody insisted that they have to develop their products. They can choose not to if they want. They just don't get any sales if they don't develop. All selling has risks associated.
The sellers should have to pay for their own marketing. The whole poit is to increase sales. It does the consumer no good at all. Since when has it become the consumers responsibility to pay for other people to sell them products?
The consumer did do something - They paid for the work. This is all a publisher has done when they are granted exclusive rights. Where do you think they get all their money from that they risk when producing a work?
I granted the monopoly indirectly by voting for the government that produced a copyright bill.
The fact that the movie industry, games industry, music industry and the rest are profitible provers that consumers spend more on this that the studios. The consumer is eventually funding everything. The consumer has no choice in the prices he pays apart from pay the full price or go without. Considering the rights that the original producer has, I feel that certain responsibilities should go with it - especially the responsibility to make sure that customers can actually buy this product.
Hines offers an analogy: Disney releases many of its classic animated films on VHS or DVD for a limited time and then doesn't sell any at retail for a considerable period. "Because it's not available at retail, does that mean Disney gives up the rights to Snow White and that it should be distributed for free over the Internet? Of course not. Disney paid to create the work, and it can determine how and when it will be offered for sale."
This is what we call a filthy lie. It was the consumer that paid for this work, not the producers. The prducer just made the initial investment, and sold it again and again. They charged us for it, and then kept it for themselves! Why should they have the right to withhold it from us after we've granted them a monopoly? If they want this monopoly, then they can bloody well supply it to us at a reasonable price.
To be fair, its only Richard Morrell who is the pain. The other people involved are just obliged to stick up for their friend. Some of the team have been very helpful and diplomatic on uk.comp.os.linux, even after some quite nasty hostility towards them.
As far as I can see, it's not selling out. It looks more like he was let off as long as he stays around to give testimony. Presumably he will make sure everything he says is totally objective, and just describe what the software does, what his role was in the company and so on. He would have done that anyway.
Granted - You can probably guess that Aliens Versus Predator will be a bit more greusome than the Sims, but the information on the box is not totally descriptive. It's quite useful to have a vaguely objectiveand immediate opionion on who this is suitable for
For some nice hacker (i.e. cracker and phreaker) history, I'd suggest Approaching Zero by Brian Clough and Paul Mungo.
I don't think that hardware munufacturers have to support something. It just has to rely on them not actively trying to circumvent it. Macrovision works as long as you have an automatic gain control. This is beneficial to most people. They could find another way to do the same thing, but the number of peoiple who want to copy VHS tapes is small. If the customers didn't want it, they would change to accomodate.
I did a presentation skills course. One of the
rules was not to use slides at all
unless you really need them.
You simply don't need a slide that says we sold
100 000 units if you can just tell them.
Powerpoint - like a lot of modern software -
reverses this rule by making th euser subordinate to
the software.
Some speculation: How many people do you think there is in Afghanistan who can Read?
According to the CIA factbook: 31.5% total, 47.2% male, 15% female (estimate).
Solution - Work for microsoft. Admittedly, you will still fly economy, but at least you will know that so does the boss.
Is this wise? I can think of many uses - Vector arithmetic, area intersections and combinations, list concatenation. All of these can be achieved without operators, but matematical syntax is considerably faster.
Youd don't exist. Go away.
There is proof. Go up there. There's a flag up there and some footprints around it.
Maybe the moderator was just agreeing with him.
And if you couldn't pay back the loan, you would have to declare bankruptcy. However, the lender may well realise that this would result in him getting substantially less of his money back, and will accept a reasonable offer of a reduced amount that has the benefit of keeping you afloat.
Gotta admit though - That would be pretty damn useful. How often have you wondered "What the hell is that tune?"?
I'm not so sure about the copyright expiring when the creator dies. A fixed time period after creation (substantialy less than current one) would be much more workable, would not suffer from problems caused by extended life (Do we assume that someone who has been frozen is alive or dead?), and would allow the creator's next of kin to benefit if they die immediately after publication.
Thirdly - I disagree that a government record should be required. Proving the date of publication is not hard.
I'd like to see some restrictions in what copyright holders can prevent too. It is a constant source of annoyance that out of print media is hard to acquire, and it's still illegal to copy it.
Ignore it. It states that the customer (who does not own the copyright) gives full IP rights to Sony (who do not own the copyright). I'm sure Sony would also accept that I can give you a copy of any of their copyrighted material if you sign a contract granting me exclusive rights to this.