Journalism can be trusted if they know they are presenting to an educated population (or educated competitors) who will call them on their lies and biases. Hell, journalism is crucial to maintaining an adequate education of citizens. Unfortunately, when the citizenry turns to journalism for *answers* rather than *facts* - it becomes the worst threat to a free society.
Might be because neither he nor parent (nor gp, nor ggp, gggp, or op) were talking about Apple. They were talking about Daisey claiming an event happening at Foxconn when it actually occurred at Wintek. Apple's involvement has been discussed at great lengths all over these threads, why try to change the subject here?
I don't know if I agree with that last statement... I'm assuming you listened to the original story and the retraction of it. They sounded pretty incensed that they were duped and went to great lengths to correct it. Re-interviewed Daisey, interviewed his translator. Found out what checked out and what didn't. There was more to it than a simple covering of the ass. I don't listen to TAL often, but I did hear the original broadcast and part of the retraction (I'll listen to the rest sometime this week). I haven't really heard any of their "fluff" entertainment pieces, but if these are the lengths they go to when they correct an educational piece, my hat's off to them.
It's not so much about enforcing "the truth." Much like a scientific theory, the truth is hard to pin down and prove. It can however be dis-proven - and that's the point. It's one thing to publish something that you believe to be accurate though turns out you were wrong. It's entirely another to publish something you know in advance is false and treat it as news. It saddens me that the population is too ignorant to see this and we still treat it as a a trustworthy news source.
You draw parallels to 1984, but only when the government steps into the picture. How is it any different from a private media company deciding to dictate the truth? Propaganda doesn't have to come from the government itself. Fundamentally it comes down to one argument: who do you trust? Your representative government or a private entertainment and news company.
Honestly I could argue either side of this one, and the only "right" solution I see would have been enough public outcry or pushback from the rest of the media industry that Fox retracted the story of their own volition - or knew in advance that their audience was smart enough that they couldn't get away with it in the first place.
I could be way off base here so do correct me where I'm wrong, but I had the impression murder suspects weren't often offered slap on the wrist plea deals and typically served heavier sentences?
That's the fun of hate crimes. After all, what better way to handle persecution of somebody for being unique by making that very persecution unique under the law? Alienate and isolate the crime to further alienate and isolate the victim.
"bias intimidation and spying" right there in tf-title. Of course, we'll keep arguing over it anyway but the jury found pretty much exactly as I'd expect. In most states it is illegal to record somebody without their knowledge (or the knowledge of at least one person being recorded). "Bias intimidation" sounds like a twist on harassment, and while we could argue until we're blue in the face about whether that distinction is necessary (hate crimes vs plain harassment), I don't think we'd have as much argument over Ravi harassing the other boy.
He was not found responsible for the death of the other kid. From a quick look at the linked articles, he was never even charged with manslaughter, wrongful death, or anything related.
That's because the US barely has anything resembling capitalism anymore. Sure, some small businesses can be set up and run on their own, but find me a large business that isn't in some way reliant on government loans, contracts, tax breaks, protectionist laws, or other handouts. Newcomers can't compete and the old guard is able to keep their position in the market. The quality of our tax accountants has become more important than the quality of our engineers to the point where it doesn't matter what you make, only when you make it and how you fund it.
You're still missing the point. How do those F2P games turn profits? Typically through microtransactions for item upgrades. Those item upgrades are kept artificially scarce by the developers in order to get people to buy them. What happens if somebody like you comes along with a method to copy your items that and give it away to everybody in the game? Everybody gets one, nobody buys them. It breaks the F2P model as well, doesn't it.
I went into this knowing I wasn't going to convince you of anything, so this is all I have to say on the matter.
I wonder how much rage we'll see in the discussion on this article... Now, not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device. Pretty much exactly what I would expect (and want!!) law enforcement to do while investigating a crime. I suppose it remains to be seen if the information they get allows them to unlock an arbitrary Android device or just this one.
You're making up rights entirely contrary to established copyright law which does you no favors if you're trying to argue the validity of those laws. Your rights to use your personal property as you see fit specifically ends at redistributing somebody else's work. This isn't about business models. A bad business model would be to rely on brick and mortar sales in the age of digital downloads and in turn buy legislation to keep your competitors out. There are no new laws here, copyright has been around since the dawn of the printing press and while it's certainly been far beyond abused, its core value is unchanged: allow an author to define distribution of their works for a short time to enable them to profit off of it. Remove the profit motive and what are you left with?
Copyrights aren't perfect but it's the solution we have. If you don't like it, come up with a better solution and try to market that. Hell, even pirate, I don't give a damn because plenty of people who pirate software and music *do* buy plenty. But trying to rationalize piracy as some sort of property right and insisting the creators change their business models while you continue to consume their creations is simply asinine.
I'm not saying the laws are right or wrong, I'm simply trying to find out how you think the games that you pirate and enjoy are going to be made if nobody pays for them? Is it "OK" because somebody else paid for it? So now one person can buy it and share with everybody else for free and that will somehow allow the continued development of these games? I won't say copyright is a perfect solution, but at least it's *a* solution.
Your postal worker example is irrelevant. If the post office is replaced by technology, fine. If game developers are replaced by technology, fine. Problem is game developers aren't being replaced by technology and unlike the post office, video games are still in demand. Show me a system where free redistribution of a game is the norm that still allows the game developer to earn a wage. Or better yet, implement that system and make your own money hand over fist. Any guess as to why people aren't doing it already?
You are right that pirates still buy plenty of stuff. That's because most of them accept that things still cost money to produce. I have no problem with them or with that attitude. The specific reason I'm replying to you is because you're equating piracy to gift-giving. Gift giving requires means once it's given, you don't have it anymore. It's a zero-sum game that doesn't dilute the value of whatever you're giving. Piracy isn't though, and if it's rampant enough it will no longer be cost effective to develop in the first place.
I've already said this - and maybe even to you - but I'll repeat. Nobody cares what you do with your own property. Nobody (at least nobody here) even cares if you give away your own games. However, when you're copying and *redistributing* you become a competitor to the original author and diluting the value of his works. Say you're an independent developer. You make a decent game and sell it for ten bucks a copy. Somebody else takes it, copies it, and redistributes it for free. Who exactly is going to spend that ten bucks on it anymore? How exactly are you going to afford to write games for a living? Can you show me a way for games to be given away for free and still enable the people who work on them to eat?
I don't have any big beef with piracy because you're right - it doesn't have as big of an impact on sales as most companies are portraying. But what is going to happen when enough people feel as you do - that copying and redistributing is the right thing to do? Entertainment budgets *are* going to drop because piracy has overcome that social block and is now a major competitor to the legitimate distributors.
Most slashdotters have pirated software. Hell, I've pirated software. But, most people on slashdot understand that developing these things costs money and ultimately we need to spend money to keep these things in development. I simply hope that when you are really enjoying a pirated game, you get that little pang and think "hey, maybe I'll buy the sequel."
For a single individual, perhaps there is no difference. As a group though, a culture were it's OK to pirate because other people do it will significantly dilute the value to anybody even considering piracy. I'd argue a great deal of people who pirate games (to play, not just to accumulate) *would* be paying customers if the price and ease of distribution were right. However, how can you determine a fair price for your products when an illicit distributor is giving it away?
Problem is there are both a limited number of dollars and a limited amount of *time* people can spend on the game. One AAA title selling cheap will sell like hotcakes because it's competing against $60 titles. Of course it's going to sell a metric assload. However, $2 is not a "stable middle ground" and games simply can't stay there. When other titles are competing at that price, not everybody is going to buy all of the games available at that price and you'll see a falloff in the huge volume you had before. Demand isn't unlimited and you can only make it up on volume if that volume is there. Look at the App Store for iDevices as real live proof: A few apps hit critical mass and make gobs of money. Most though are lost in a sea of like-priced games and only manage a handful of sales. Very few people are going to put up the initial investment required for a AAA title for those sort of odds.
I'm no business expert and I won't claim that $60 is the right price, but keep in mind these companies employ business experts whose very job is to find the right price. If a lower price point was a magical silver bullet, you would see it happen more. After all, there are plenty of independent titles out there at lower price points and how many can you think of have made their creators filthy stinking rich?
Slashdot Mirror
Journalism can be trusted if they know they are presenting to an educated population (or educated competitors) who will call them on their lies and biases. Hell, journalism is crucial to maintaining an adequate education of citizens. Unfortunately, when the citizenry turns to journalism for *answers* rather than *facts* - it becomes the worst threat to a free society.
It looks to me like you're trying to throw Wintek's skeletons into Foxconn's closet... Why?
Might be because neither he nor parent (nor gp, nor ggp, gggp, or op) were talking about Apple. They were talking about Daisey claiming an event happening at Foxconn when it actually occurred at Wintek. Apple's involvement has been discussed at great lengths all over these threads, why try to change the subject here?
I don't know if I agree with that last statement... I'm assuming you listened to the original story and the retraction of it. They sounded pretty incensed that they were duped and went to great lengths to correct it. Re-interviewed Daisey, interviewed his translator. Found out what checked out and what didn't. There was more to it than a simple covering of the ass. I don't listen to TAL often, but I did hear the original broadcast and part of the retraction (I'll listen to the rest sometime this week). I haven't really heard any of their "fluff" entertainment pieces, but if these are the lengths they go to when they correct an educational piece, my hat's off to them.
My kingdom for a mod point!
It's really pretty easy and really boils down to which store they shop at:
Conservatives buy their cheap imported crap from Wal Mart.
Liberals buy their cheap imported crap from Target.
I wish I knew your conservatives... It would give me great hope for the future of this nation.
It's not so much about enforcing "the truth." Much like a scientific theory, the truth is hard to pin down and prove. It can however be dis-proven - and that's the point. It's one thing to publish something that you believe to be accurate though turns out you were wrong. It's entirely another to publish something you know in advance is false and treat it as news. It saddens me that the population is too ignorant to see this and we still treat it as a a trustworthy news source.
You draw parallels to 1984, but only when the government steps into the picture. How is it any different from a private media company deciding to dictate the truth? Propaganda doesn't have to come from the government itself. Fundamentally it comes down to one argument: who do you trust? Your representative government or a private entertainment and news company.
Honestly I could argue either side of this one, and the only "right" solution I see would have been enough public outcry or pushback from the rest of the media industry that Fox retracted the story of their own volition - or knew in advance that their audience was smart enough that they couldn't get away with it in the first place.
I could be way off base here so do correct me where I'm wrong, but I had the impression murder suspects weren't often offered slap on the wrist plea deals and typically served heavier sentences?
That's the fun of hate crimes. After all, what better way to handle persecution of somebody for being unique by making that very persecution unique under the law? Alienate and isolate the crime to further alienate and isolate the victim.
...there were never any murder or manslaughter or wrongful death charges brought. I'm not sure where you're coming from on this statement.
"bias intimidation and spying" right there in tf-title. Of course, we'll keep arguing over it anyway but the jury found pretty much exactly as I'd expect. In most states it is illegal to record somebody without their knowledge (or the knowledge of at least one person being recorded). "Bias intimidation" sounds like a twist on harassment, and while we could argue until we're blue in the face about whether that distinction is necessary (hate crimes vs plain harassment), I don't think we'd have as much argument over Ravi harassing the other boy.
He was not found responsible for the death of the other kid. From a quick look at the linked articles, he was never even charged with manslaughter, wrongful death, or anything related.
Yup, we're going to encourage free enterprise by offering these government grants!
I thought the unemployment rate was caused by a lack of jobs... Are there heaps of unfulfilled openings out there we're unaware of?
That's because the US barely has anything resembling capitalism anymore. Sure, some small businesses can be set up and run on their own, but find me a large business that isn't in some way reliant on government loans, contracts, tax breaks, protectionist laws, or other handouts. Newcomers can't compete and the old guard is able to keep their position in the market. The quality of our tax accountants has become more important than the quality of our engineers to the point where it doesn't matter what you make, only when you make it and how you fund it.
He'll never make it. He's either with us, or he's with the terrorists! Or the socialists... or the fascists...
You're still missing the point. How do those F2P games turn profits? Typically through microtransactions for item upgrades. Those item upgrades are kept artificially scarce by the developers in order to get people to buy them. What happens if somebody like you comes along with a method to copy your items that and give it away to everybody in the game? Everybody gets one, nobody buys them. It breaks the F2P model as well, doesn't it.
I went into this knowing I wasn't going to convince you of anything, so this is all I have to say on the matter.
This made me cringe.
I wonder how much rage we'll see in the discussion on this article... Now, not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device. Pretty much exactly what I would expect (and want!!) law enforcement to do while investigating a crime. I suppose it remains to be seen if the information they get allows them to unlock an arbitrary Android device or just this one.
You're making up rights entirely contrary to established copyright law which does you no favors if you're trying to argue the validity of those laws. Your rights to use your personal property as you see fit specifically ends at redistributing somebody else's work. This isn't about business models. A bad business model would be to rely on brick and mortar sales in the age of digital downloads and in turn buy legislation to keep your competitors out. There are no new laws here, copyright has been around since the dawn of the printing press and while it's certainly been far beyond abused, its core value is unchanged: allow an author to define distribution of their works for a short time to enable them to profit off of it. Remove the profit motive and what are you left with?
Copyrights aren't perfect but it's the solution we have. If you don't like it, come up with a better solution and try to market that. Hell, even pirate, I don't give a damn because plenty of people who pirate software and music *do* buy plenty. But trying to rationalize piracy as some sort of property right and insisting the creators change their business models while you continue to consume their creations is simply asinine.
I'm not saying the laws are right or wrong, I'm simply trying to find out how you think the games that you pirate and enjoy are going to be made if nobody pays for them? Is it "OK" because somebody else paid for it? So now one person can buy it and share with everybody else for free and that will somehow allow the continued development of these games? I won't say copyright is a perfect solution, but at least it's *a* solution.
Your postal worker example is irrelevant. If the post office is replaced by technology, fine. If game developers are replaced by technology, fine. Problem is game developers aren't being replaced by technology and unlike the post office, video games are still in demand. Show me a system where free redistribution of a game is the norm that still allows the game developer to earn a wage. Or better yet, implement that system and make your own money hand over fist. Any guess as to why people aren't doing it already?
You are right that pirates still buy plenty of stuff. That's because most of them accept that things still cost money to produce. I have no problem with them or with that attitude. The specific reason I'm replying to you is because you're equating piracy to gift-giving. Gift giving requires means once it's given, you don't have it anymore. It's a zero-sum game that doesn't dilute the value of whatever you're giving. Piracy isn't though, and if it's rampant enough it will no longer be cost effective to develop in the first place.
Only on Slashdot do we compare the quality of entertainment from a video game against sex.
I've already said this - and maybe even to you - but I'll repeat. Nobody cares what you do with your own property. Nobody (at least nobody here) even cares if you give away your own games. However, when you're copying and *redistributing* you become a competitor to the original author and diluting the value of his works. Say you're an independent developer. You make a decent game and sell it for ten bucks a copy. Somebody else takes it, copies it, and redistributes it for free. Who exactly is going to spend that ten bucks on it anymore? How exactly are you going to afford to write games for a living? Can you show me a way for games to be given away for free and still enable the people who work on them to eat?
I don't have any big beef with piracy because you're right - it doesn't have as big of an impact on sales as most companies are portraying. But what is going to happen when enough people feel as you do - that copying and redistributing is the right thing to do? Entertainment budgets *are* going to drop because piracy has overcome that social block and is now a major competitor to the legitimate distributors.
Most slashdotters have pirated software. Hell, I've pirated software. But, most people on slashdot understand that developing these things costs money and ultimately we need to spend money to keep these things in development. I simply hope that when you are really enjoying a pirated game, you get that little pang and think "hey, maybe I'll buy the sequel."
For a single individual, perhaps there is no difference. As a group though, a culture were it's OK to pirate because other people do it will significantly dilute the value to anybody even considering piracy. I'd argue a great deal of people who pirate games (to play, not just to accumulate) *would* be paying customers if the price and ease of distribution were right. However, how can you determine a fair price for your products when an illicit distributor is giving it away?
Problem is there are both a limited number of dollars and a limited amount of *time* people can spend on the game. One AAA title selling cheap will sell like hotcakes because it's competing against $60 titles. Of course it's going to sell a metric assload. However, $2 is not a "stable middle ground" and games simply can't stay there. When other titles are competing at that price, not everybody is going to buy all of the games available at that price and you'll see a falloff in the huge volume you had before. Demand isn't unlimited and you can only make it up on volume if that volume is there. Look at the App Store for iDevices as real live proof: A few apps hit critical mass and make gobs of money. Most though are lost in a sea of like-priced games and only manage a handful of sales. Very few people are going to put up the initial investment required for a AAA title for those sort of odds.
I'm no business expert and I won't claim that $60 is the right price, but keep in mind these companies employ business experts whose very job is to find the right price. If a lower price point was a magical silver bullet, you would see it happen more. After all, there are plenty of independent titles out there at lower price points and how many can you think of have made their creators filthy stinking rich?