So you don't believe that making a copy hurts the original author, by reducing the work's sales potential?
Mind you, I don't believe the drivel that every unlicensed copy is a lost sale, but certainly the opposite end of the spectrum - that copying does no harm to the author - is incorrect as well.
So? That doesn't mean that the people who aren't willing to pay for it are somehow entitled to it anyway. If the product is not worth the asking price, then say "no" and walk away.
It's a shame that these places can't be partitioned somewhat, so that you can gravitate towards areas that are more conducive to out-of-office work, casual socialization, tabletop gaming, or quiet reading. Don't wall them off up to the ceiling, mind you, but just array the areas around the coffee bar in the center, and find some clever way of delineating space.
Then again, real estate isn't free. But it'd be pretty cool.
Simple. The net value of a single auto repair is whatever one consumer will pay for it - I mean, I like my friends and all, but I'm not paying for their tune-up, let alone some random guy. Therefore, the value of that tune-up, to the mechanic, is limited to what I'll pay for it. As such, if I'm not willing to pay him what he thinks it's worth, he won't do it.
Software, however, does not decrease in value as more people use it - in fact, one could argue that it actually increases in value. The developers obviously anticipated this when developing it, and are able to offer it at a price that reflects its value to you, rather than its value to them. If the software weren't sold in this manner, then the first purchaser would be required to pay for the entire cost of development, including the opportunity cost of not investing in a more profitable venture. Unless one of you is willing to pick up the multi-million-dollar tab, then this isn't going to be a viable business model.
You're not paying for the idea. You're paying for the fact that they put a lot of work into implementing that idea, especially if that resulting implementation is more valuable to you than its free competition.
If the post gets them to stop listening to crappy music, the poster is doing them a favor.
Then again, here in Lafayette, country is pretty much all people have to listen to, unless you want the one pop station (which is even worse - 50 Cent, which makes me want to vomit uncontrollaby).
Because the people who own that content have attached terms to their license of that content stating that you can only view it at full resolution if you use equipment that helps prevent copyright infringement. Since they own that content, it's certainly their right to do so, unless you're suggesting that content providers should be forced to license their intellectual property under terms dictated to them.
This isn't some moral issue. It's a contract. If the terms of the contract are unreasonable to you, don't enter into it. If you don't like DRM-protected content, only license your content from non-DRM providers. No one should be forced into buying or selling content under terms they don't agree to - if you don't like it, don't buy it, and it's not like you'll die if you don't get the latest Backstreet Boys album.
I agree that any sort of copy protection is eventually going to be stripped, and I'd also prefer that they came down on the side of usability instead of protection.
I'm sure, however, that component capture cards aren't long off (if they don't exist already).
You actually repeated my point - that Toshiba is obviously doing this only for copyright purposes, and that they are highly unlikely to allow an analog decoder to be sold, probably using the DMCA.
And since my TV only has one DVI+HDCP jack (and two component inputs, one of which is 1080i) I and others in the same position will have to choose one format over the other.
I would imagine that if Toshiba were going to allow a video processor that could output 720p/1080i from HD-DVD, they'd simply build one into the player.
Why should a fuck yeah moment be a sin? One of my favorites was ramping a sports car onto the el train tracks in GTA3. If it was my car, and I wasn't hurting anyone, why is that a sin?
Now, in reality, that's incredibly dangerous, so our society discourages that sort of behavior. But in a game, I'm not breaking any moral codes, I'm just doing something that would be incredibly dangerous in real life.
(Then again, I also love the crash tour mode in Burnout 3, so I've got no room to talk.)
No, not as long as you're not touching content provided by *AA members. If all you're doing is listening to or distributing content that's in the public domain, then there's nothing they can do to you.
Create advertising that I want to see, and I'll watch it.
If the advertisers could come up with ads for products that are relevant to me, are entertaining or informative, and are delivered in a manner that does not cause me to react negatively, then I won't mind sitting there for a few seconds. Don't lock me in, don't follow me around - tell me a story or give me informatoin, and let me out of the ad at any time.
Of course, if anyone knew a way to do all that, they'd be a marketing genius. It's not easy. So instead, we get crap, and they wonder why it annoys us.
So you're going to put code in MS' retail box that MS has not tested, has no control over, and cannot do anything about. And yet, when it breaks, they're going to call MS, because "it came in the box you sold me." You can show Joe Blow all the "This content not provided by Microsoft" dialogs in the world, and he's still going to bitch at Microsoft.
Even if MS does test this, they're going to have to start at least several weeks before the ship date of the product. So, you'll have MS' competitors whining about how "That's not the real latest version, and if you shipped our new version with one extra feature, then people wouldn't be able to control their animal lust for our product." And if MS were to decide to give their competitors a chance to update? Congratulations, you've just handed over control of the ship schedule to a third party, who probably would benefit from dragging their feet a little to make Longhorn even later.
A company run the way you describe would be torn to pieces by shareholder lawsuits.
The reason companies myopically pursue the almighty dollar is becaue the shareholders will sue seven shades of shit out of them if they fail to act in the best interests of the corporation at all times.
1. Whether it's Windows or Linux, computers are complex beasts that don't always work the way you expect them to, and therefore there will be issues to resolve regardless of OS.
And more importantly...
2. Roblimo is not ready for the desktop. I mean, come on, you can't get through a Windows install without problems? I fucking hate Linux, but at least I can install it and get shit working (not perfect, but working) without too much trouble. What kind of geek are you?
Given a survey that says people aren't interested in your product, the first thing you do is to blame it on the opposition's marketing. Not to point out your product's advantages, not to listen to what it is the customer actually wants, but just to whine about how the other guy isn't letting you compete.
Slashdot Mirror
So you don't believe that making a copy hurts the original author, by reducing the work's sales potential?
Mind you, I don't believe the drivel that every unlicensed copy is a lost sale, but certainly the opposite end of the spectrum - that copying does no harm to the author - is incorrect as well.
So? That doesn't mean that the people who aren't willing to pay for it are somehow entitled to it anyway. If the product is not worth the asking price, then say "no" and walk away.
It's a shame that these places can't be partitioned somewhat, so that you can gravitate towards areas that are more conducive to out-of-office work, casual socialization, tabletop gaming, or quiet reading. Don't wall them off up to the ceiling, mind you, but just array the areas around the coffee bar in the center, and find some clever way of delineating space.
Then again, real estate isn't free. But it'd be pretty cool.
Simple. The net value of a single auto repair is whatever one consumer will pay for it - I mean, I like my friends and all, but I'm not paying for their tune-up, let alone some random guy. Therefore, the value of that tune-up, to the mechanic, is limited to what I'll pay for it. As such, if I'm not willing to pay him what he thinks it's worth, he won't do it.
Software, however, does not decrease in value as more people use it - in fact, one could argue that it actually increases in value. The developers obviously anticipated this when developing it, and are able to offer it at a price that reflects its value to you, rather than its value to them. If the software weren't sold in this manner, then the first purchaser would be required to pay for the entire cost of development, including the opportunity cost of not investing in a more profitable venture. Unless one of you is willing to pick up the multi-million-dollar tab, then this isn't going to be a viable business model.
You're not paying for the idea. You're paying for the fact that they put a lot of work into implementing that idea, especially if that resulting implementation is more valuable to you than its free competition.
If the post gets them to stop listening to crappy music, the poster is doing them a favor.
Then again, here in Lafayette, country is pretty much all people have to listen to, unless you want the one pop station (which is even worse - 50 Cent, which makes me want to vomit uncontrollaby).
Because the people who own that content have attached terms to their license of that content stating that you can only view it at full resolution if you use equipment that helps prevent copyright infringement. Since they own that content, it's certainly their right to do so, unless you're suggesting that content providers should be forced to license their intellectual property under terms dictated to them.
This isn't some moral issue. It's a contract. If the terms of the contract are unreasonable to you, don't enter into it. If you don't like DRM-protected content, only license your content from non-DRM providers. No one should be forced into buying or selling content under terms they don't agree to - if you don't like it, don't buy it, and it's not like you'll die if you don't get the latest Backstreet Boys album.
I agree that any sort of copy protection is eventually going to be stripped, and I'd also prefer that they came down on the side of usability instead of protection.
I'm sure, however, that component capture cards aren't long off (if they don't exist already).
Doesn't fix the missing framework for Activity Monitor.
Anyone know how to extract that framework from the install DVD? My Google-fu fails me today.
You actually repeated my point - that Toshiba is obviously doing this only for copyright purposes, and that they are highly unlikely to allow an analog decoder to be sold, probably using the DMCA.
And since my TV only has one DVI+HDCP jack (and two component inputs, one of which is 1080i) I and others in the same position will have to choose one format over the other.
I would imagine that if Toshiba were going to allow a video processor that could output 720p/1080i from HD-DVD, they'd simply build one into the player.
And Blu Ray will probably do the same thing.
How many of us have more than one HDMI (or DVI+HDCP) jack on our TVs? Not me.
Why should a fuck yeah moment be a sin? One of my favorites was ramping a sports car onto the el train tracks in GTA3. If it was my car, and I wasn't hurting anyone, why is that a sin?
Now, in reality, that's incredibly dangerous, so our society discourages that sort of behavior. But in a game, I'm not breaking any moral codes, I'm just doing something that would be incredibly dangerous in real life.
(Then again, I also love the crash tour mode in Burnout 3, so I've got no room to talk.)
I consider myself a level-headed individual who is above arguing the minutiae of a fictional universe.
But in this case: man, did you even SEE the movie?
No, not as long as you're not touching content provided by *AA members. If all you're doing is listening to or distributing content that's in the public domain, then there's nothing they can do to you.
Create advertising that I want to see, and I'll watch it.
If the advertisers could come up with ads for products that are relevant to me, are entertaining or informative, and are delivered in a manner that does not cause me to react negatively, then I won't mind sitting there for a few seconds. Don't lock me in, don't follow me around - tell me a story or give me informatoin, and let me out of the ad at any time.
Of course, if anyone knew a way to do all that, they'd be a marketing genius. It's not easy. So instead, we get crap, and they wonder why it annoys us.
Linux can continue building upon stable codebases all it wants. When, however, will it produce an OS I actually want to use?
So you're going to put code in MS' retail box that MS has not tested, has no control over, and cannot do anything about. And yet, when it breaks, they're going to call MS, because "it came in the box you sold me." You can show Joe Blow all the "This content not provided by Microsoft" dialogs in the world, and he's still going to bitch at Microsoft.
Even if MS does test this, they're going to have to start at least several weeks before the ship date of the product. So, you'll have MS' competitors whining about how "That's not the real latest version, and if you shipped our new version with one extra feature, then people wouldn't be able to control their animal lust for our product." And if MS were to decide to give their competitors a chance to update? Congratulations, you've just handed over control of the ship schedule to a third party, who probably would benefit from dragging their feet a little to make Longhorn even later.
The sad part is, Chris Roberts directed the movie. If you make a shitty movie out of your own game, you've got no one to blame but yourself.
That depends. I take care of my weaker friends in online games all the time.
Of course, I use the phrase "take care of" in the Mob-movie sense (two in the back of the head), so perhaps that's not what you were thinking of.
A company run the way you describe would be torn to pieces by shareholder lawsuits.
The reason companies myopically pursue the almighty dollar is becaue the shareholders will sue seven shades of shit out of them if they fail to act in the best interests of the corporation at all times.
1. Whether it's Windows or Linux, computers are complex beasts that don't always work the way you expect them to, and therefore there will be issues to resolve regardless of OS.
And more importantly...
2. Roblimo is not ready for the desktop. I mean, come on, you can't get through a Windows install without problems? I fucking hate Linux, but at least I can install it and get shit working (not perfect, but working) without too much trouble. What kind of geek are you?
Yeah, but then you get some weird artifacts.
(I just lost everyone who hasn't seen the director's cut, didn't I?)
Sure, until some geek tries to cool them with liquid nitrogen, at which point they'll shatter.
Given a survey that says people aren't interested in your product, the first thing you do is to blame it on the opposition's marketing. Not to point out your product's advantages, not to listen to what it is the customer actually wants, but just to whine about how the other guy isn't letting you compete.
And you wonder why they have so much marketshare.