Now if this image is a representation of temperature difference, and the shape colored like Pac-Man represents a warmer area... one might say that Mimas has "Pac-Man Fever".
It's too bad with all these things you "heard" that you didn't happen to hear that programs are written for environments other than Windows (or Linux, Mac OS, etc), and for devices other than PCs. It's unfortunate that you are so in the dark that you don't realize that there are entire industries that rely on devices that have tiny fractions of the memory and processor speed that you ignorantly assume that we all have access too. You probably have no idea how often you are affected by devices that run 100 times slower than the desktop PC you gave as an example, or also have 1,000 times less RAM. On some of these devices C is the most advanced language you can get short of writing a compiler or interpreter yourself.
Sure, pissing away storage space and waving a hand at execution efficiency is fine for some circumstances, but sometimes it's a luxury you can't afford. The world of software development is far bigger than the tiny little niche of programming you've been exposed to.
I suggest you use some "real" perspective, and reevaluate what a "real language" is.
You know, an 'Orphaned Work' isn't just works where the copyright holder doesn't make themselves known. There are examples of where an organization has spent a great deal of time and effort to just follow the trail of ownership of copyright where the ownership has changed hands several times, and apparently has been forgotten even by the other owner. Many times even with great effort to establish the owner, it simply can't be found.
Really? Headlines with "owned" and summaries with "ownage"?
Did we go from "News for Nerds" to "News for Teenage Online Gamers" recently, or would that require taking it one step further and using the "Pwn" form of the word. Maybe we should sprinkle in a "MiFi Fail!" in there somewhere too.
My guess would be that the physical costs are a small part of the overall cost. If a music CD only costs $0.25 to manufacture, why do you pay $10 for one? If the silicon in that CPU is only worth $5, why do you pay $200 for one?
I think you are assuming that by "physical costs", he just means the materials to make the CD. I think that it's reasonable to interpret "physical costs" as including everything from raw goods to make the product, to the fuel, materials, and man hours and all of the other normal costs of doing business that are involved with physical production, physical distributing, and selling of physical goods.
OK, but why is it still legal to own and view media (books, games, movies, TV) that not only depict violence, murder, and drug use, but often even glamorize it? Do we believe that media only encourages deviant sexual behavior, but not other anti-social and destructive behaviors? Do we have science to back this up?
I believe in protecting minors, there's no doubt about it. We began with good intentions, however, when it comes to protecting them from exploitation and anything to do with sexuality, we are so vigilant that logic and reason just fly out the window.
Men are being made into sex offenders because of public urination. We have teens becoming sex offenders for being just 1 or 2 years older than another consenting teen partner. We have teenage girls being prosecuted for producing and distributing child pornography for taking inappropriate photos of themselves. You can be arrested for Photoshopping the head of a 17 year actress onto the body of a porn star. I'm waiting for the case where an 18-year old boy marries a 17 year old girl, and then gets arrested for making a sex video with his wife.
Not only do we make absurd catches with these wide and poorly thought out legal nets, we also make it so big of a pain in the ass for sex offenders (both the *real* ones, and those that are victims of the system) to live anywhere legitimately, we have many of them end up dropping off the grid.
It's not just thought crime, it's a witch hunt. Nobody really wants to stand up for such people. If we hear porn, molestation, exploitation and sex charges dealing with a minor, we automatically assume guilty. We simply don't want to take the chance that it's true.
All that said, it could have been a lot worse. 9/11 gave us new witches to burn.
I grew up in a very small town in rural Georgia, not that far from where the movie Deliverance was filmed... and even I was able to watch Doctor Who on a local Georgia PBS television station as a kid, and am quite familiar with Tom Baker (and somewhat with some of the others). That's not even counting the countless pop culture references to Baker, who has largely been portrayed as the iconic Doctor.
Without Baker, I probably wouldn't have even thought to watch Eccleston and Tennant.
If they were going to go to TPB, they'd likely have gone there before the actual DVD was released anyway... Perspective, please... They are still getting the movies, just a few weeks later, and as a bonus there will be better streaming content (possibly including this month old DVD releases).
It's not a bad trade-off for consumers that aren't so impatient or obsessive that they have to rent a new release as soon as it comes out... And if you are one of those, then you either skip Warner Bros films or go to Blockbuster instead.
I watch more streaming movies than DVDs, so increasing their streaming collection is far more important to me than rushing to get brand new DVDs that I may have to wait a week or two already to get already because of initial demand.
Exactly. I'm a Netflix customer, and I was pleased to see this news. When there's a movie I absolutely have to see as soon as it's released, I'd likely be buying it anyway.
Waiting an extra month to get a DVD in exchange for a better streaming movie selection is trade I'm happy to make.
These have existed since Win95. I remember in Win95 using these tricks to put a Control Panel and Dial-Up Networking shortcuts on my Start Bar that expanded out just like later became in option in I think 98 or XP. I haven't done this in years, but I do recall that in '95, you could find all the correct values to use for these "tricks" by searching RegEdit.
We all know that nobody bothered to write books or other works until the development of copyright. It was a waste of time, and everyone realized there was absolutely no reason to write if you couldn't guarantee that a lucky hit could provide you financial security for the rest of your life, plus 70 years more for the family.
It's amazing that our culture actually managed to rise to the level that it did before we figured this out.
I had heard the term tank and healer before MMO's, but for the most part they were simply called "Fighter" and "Cleric". The term "DPS" wasn't around, but you always wanted a Wizard (and possibly a Rogue). Those have always been the four core, and picking one of the hybrid classes usually a very poor substitute for the real things.
At least the "Trinity" has become roles rather than specific classes. That's at least some progress.
Note that I said, "That's not the way it is legally, but it's the way it should be."
I firmly believe that if I buy a piece of software legally, I should be allowed to modify it and change it as I see fit, if I have the ability to do so, as long as I'm not doing it to redistribute additional copies or to use it for illegal copies that go beyond the realm of fair use, regardless of the EULA says.
I also firmly believe that I should have the absolute right to resell (transfer ownership) software that I buy legally, regardless of what a EULA says
And yes, I'd even go as far as to say I don't think it should be illegal to buy a legal copy of software, modify it, and then transfer your ownership of that software to a third party, provided that you do not retain any copies of the software, and the third party is aware that it is modified and agrees to make the purchase with whatever limitations might result. I strongly suspect that anyone buying a "Hackintosh" realizes there are hacks involved.
No in summary, no, I don't see what the problem is other than copyright holders wanting to maintain control of published works after the first sale appears, and beyond the natural protections against illegal copies being made and someone else publishing and selling the software and cutting them out. Isn't that what copyright is supposed to be for?
There is a difference between requiring 7 of your friends to have an 8 player game of counter-strike, and having to have 7 friends so you're allowed to get a shotgun.
Of course enjoyment of a game can be limited by how many people play it, however Zynga ties advancement to how many friends you get to play, and that's the difference. You yourself admitted to creating a dummy account just to help your advancement in one of your games.
Also, many of the deals from their partners don't necessarily look like scams at all, and seem to be legit to the average person. The scam factor is often well hidden, and lots of people aren't aware of seedy many of the companies going through Facebook are. Being within Facebook gives them a false sense of security. I know to look out for this stuff, and you do too, but you are naive if you don't think there are some seemingly legitimate offers that could fool an average (non-paranoid like slashdotters) person.
Sure, you may be "smart enough" to not get suckered in by scams and their special offers from the partner companies and shady advertisers, but these games are inherently viral. Even when you don't pay money, they encourage (or force) you to expand your game social network (mafia size, number of neighbors, etc) in order to get past certain points of the game.
Unless you are playing in a bubble, and don't invite other friends or post links to the game and do other things to encourage more people to play, you are still promoting it as you play and helping it spread further and to help more people get duped. To say they should just be smart enough not to get duped is pretty naive. The average person is probably not as smart as the average slashdotter... and that's a scary thought some days.;-)
This is one of the ways Copyright has gone so off track.
It has ceased to be simply a way of protecting a copyright holder from their work being published so that someone else doesn't try to publish it and cut the copyright holder out of the picture. It was a legal tool to protect copyright holders from companies.
It's increasingly moving towards the Copyright holder retaining ownership of the work even after the sale.
Frankly, if Psystar paid for the OS copies legally, and made it clear that the OS that he was reselling was modified, there shouldn't be a copyright issue. That's not the way it is legally, but it's the way it should be.
Of all the analogies I see here, I think that it's more in line with someone selling used college textbooks with notes written and additional information marking up the book. Is that a derivative work?
We need people in rural areas for agriculture, logging, mining, and many other industries. What do you think will happen if you did increase their costs of their utilities, shipping, and telecommunication for those in these rural areas?
The likely answers are that you would start creating a lot of poor people, people with far lower standards of living, or shortages in the goods that we need in the city, or we'll have to subsidize them anyway in the form of increased prices.
Your viewpoint is extremely naive and shortsighted.
After being TV free (only watching shows digitally on my PC for several years) and going back to Cable and Satellite TV was a shocker. I had forgotten how bad this could be. There were commercials that would distort on the television speakers because they were so loud.
It may seem like a small problem, but constantly fidgeting with the volume every commercial in order to prevent waking up other family members, or falling asleep during a show and being startled awake by a very loud commercial is a huge nuisance.
I wonder if some advertisers just make their commercials really loud to stand out, or if broadcasters are paid extra in order to allow the ads to be loud.
Fear mongers like to paint "cost effective" conditions as being about whether if you get cancer, some bureaucrat decides if you get the cure or not.
They completely skirt how this would most commonly be applied, and that is with drug companies that release new versions of an old drug that is the exact same drug as before, but with some slight variation (such as making the exact same drug as a time-release capsule so you only take it once a day instead of twice), and then take the prescription price from $50 to $500. This is not an exaggeration, it happens all the time.
There are many procedures and medications that are no better (and sometimes worse) than older treatments, but with a higher price tag. Quite often these are marketed to Doctors by the pharms and the Doctors will hear their pitches, start prescribing them, while at the same time being completely being out of touch with what the actual costs are.
Are you seriously suggesting that the solution is that everyone just move to the city, and anyone who doesn't is either wanting to be subsidized for their lifestyle or should be forced to pay more for basic utilities?
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that some industries only exist in rural areas? Farming and agriculture, for example, is not going to happen in urban areas. It's not just about a bunch of people wanting to live like country folk. Economics, education, opportunity, feasibility of certain industries, security and yes sometimes cultural inclinations are among the many factors of why someone would live in rural areas.
To say we can solve the problem by everyone moving out of rural areas is just boneheaded.
The problem with a business like Pandora struggling is not it couldn't make it's model work originally, but the fact that new regulations were put in place to stop it from working.
In the US, we actually tried to create regulations to prevent music publishers from paying radio stations to play their songs for free to listeners. The funny thing is that they find ways to skirt these rules and pay the radio stations anyway.
On the other hand, they trying to stop internet radio at all stops and squeeze them harder for royalties than what even traditional radio broadcasters had to pay per audience member. (At least that's how it was looking the last time I checked, unless this was changed!).
The industry is losing relevance, attacking it's customers, it's promoters, takes their products that have diminished demand and then make them even less appealing by putting in even more restrictions, hijacking not just our media but our media playing devices, and then they have the audacity to start blaming everyone but themselves for losing market share.
Yeah, remember that old technology they tried where they used to broadcast electromagnetic waves into the air and allow people to use archaic devices called "Radios" to pick up the signal and listen to music? They didn't charge the listeners and it was a total flop. Nobody even remembers it anymore.
It's impossible to have a business model that involves not charging the users of a service a subscription fee.
The number of players cited above is far and away much "bigger" than World of WarCraft has ever had, and it was certainly big enough for gold farmers. It's not about the fact it's not big enough.
The fact is, it's simply not necessary since Zynga already sells in game items, money, and upgrades for real money. Through their own business model, they've weeded out the "Chinese farmers".
Slashdot Mirror
Now if this image is a representation of temperature difference, and the shape colored like Pac-Man represents a warmer area... one might say that Mimas has "Pac-Man Fever".
It's too bad with all these things you "heard" that you didn't happen to hear that programs are written for environments other than Windows (or Linux, Mac OS, etc), and for devices other than PCs. It's unfortunate that you are so in the dark that you don't realize that there are entire industries that rely on devices that have tiny fractions of the memory and processor speed that you ignorantly assume that we all have access too. You probably have no idea how often you are affected by devices that run 100 times slower than the desktop PC you gave as an example, or also have 1,000 times less RAM. On some of these devices C is the most advanced language you can get short of writing a compiler or interpreter yourself.
Sure, pissing away storage space and waving a hand at execution efficiency is fine for some circumstances, but sometimes it's a luxury you can't afford. The world of software development is far bigger than the tiny little niche of programming you've been exposed to.
I suggest you use some "real" perspective, and reevaluate what a "real language" is.
You know, an 'Orphaned Work' isn't just works where the copyright holder doesn't make themselves known. There are examples of where an organization has spent a great deal of time and effort to just follow the trail of ownership of copyright where the ownership has changed hands several times, and apparently has been forgotten even by the other owner. Many times even with great effort to establish the owner, it simply can't be found.
Really? Headlines with "owned" and summaries with "ownage"?
Did we go from "News for Nerds" to "News for Teenage Online Gamers" recently, or would that require taking it one step further and using the "Pwn" form of the word. Maybe we should sprinkle in a "MiFi Fail!" in there somewhere too.
My guess would be that the physical costs are a small part of the overall cost. If a music CD only costs $0.25 to manufacture, why do you pay $10 for one? If the silicon in that CPU is only worth $5, why do you pay $200 for one?
I think you are assuming that by "physical costs", he just means the materials to make the CD. I think that it's reasonable to interpret "physical costs" as including everything from raw goods to make the product, to the fuel, materials, and man hours and all of the other normal costs of doing business that are involved with physical production, physical distributing, and selling of physical goods.
OK, but why is it still legal to own and view media (books, games, movies, TV) that not only depict violence, murder, and drug use, but often even glamorize it? Do we believe that media only encourages deviant sexual behavior, but not other anti-social and destructive behaviors? Do we have science to back this up?
I believe in protecting minors, there's no doubt about it. We began with good intentions, however, when it comes to protecting them from exploitation and anything to do with sexuality, we are so vigilant that logic and reason just fly out the window.
Men are being made into sex offenders because of public urination. We have teens becoming sex offenders for being just 1 or 2 years older than another consenting teen partner. We have teenage girls being prosecuted for producing and distributing child pornography for taking inappropriate photos of themselves. You can be arrested for Photoshopping the head of a 17 year actress onto the body of a porn star. I'm waiting for the case where an 18-year old boy marries a 17 year old girl, and then gets arrested for making a sex video with his wife.
Not only do we make absurd catches with these wide and poorly thought out legal nets, we also make it so big of a pain in the ass for sex offenders (both the *real* ones, and those that are victims of the system) to live anywhere legitimately, we have many of them end up dropping off the grid.
It's not just thought crime, it's a witch hunt. Nobody really wants to stand up for such people. If we hear porn, molestation, exploitation and sex charges dealing with a minor, we automatically assume guilty. We simply don't want to take the chance that it's true.
All that said, it could have been a lot worse. 9/11 gave us new witches to burn.
I grew up in a very small town in rural Georgia, not that far from where the movie Deliverance was filmed... and even I was able to watch Doctor Who on a local Georgia PBS television station as a kid, and am quite familiar with Tom Baker (and somewhat with some of the others). That's not even counting the countless pop culture references to Baker, who has largely been portrayed as the iconic Doctor.
Without Baker, I probably wouldn't have even thought to watch Eccleston and Tennant.
If they were going to go to TPB, they'd likely have gone there before the actual DVD was released anyway... Perspective, please... They are still getting the movies, just a few weeks later, and as a bonus there will be better streaming content (possibly including this month old DVD releases).
It's not a bad trade-off for consumers that aren't so impatient or obsessive that they have to rent a new release as soon as it comes out... And if you are one of those, then you either skip Warner Bros films or go to Blockbuster instead.
I watch more streaming movies than DVDs, so increasing their streaming collection is far more important to me than rushing to get brand new DVDs that I may have to wait a week or two already to get already because of initial demand.
Exactly. I'm a Netflix customer, and I was pleased to see this news. When there's a movie I absolutely have to see as soon as it's released, I'd likely be buying it anyway.
Waiting an extra month to get a DVD in exchange for a better streaming movie selection is trade I'm happy to make.
These have existed since Win95. I remember in Win95 using these tricks to put a Control Panel and Dial-Up Networking shortcuts on my Start Bar that expanded out just like later became in option in I think 98 or XP. I haven't done this in years, but I do recall that in '95, you could find all the correct values to use for these "tricks" by searching RegEdit.
We all know that nobody bothered to write books or other works until the development of copyright. It was a waste of time, and everyone realized there was absolutely no reason to write if you couldn't guarantee that a lucky hit could provide you financial security for the rest of your life, plus 70 years more for the family.
It's amazing that our culture actually managed to rise to the level that it did before we figured this out.
And will this "Unique Copyright" be registered by God, protected by Lifetime + 70 years?
I had heard the term tank and healer before MMO's, but for the most part they were simply called "Fighter" and "Cleric". The term "DPS" wasn't around, but you always wanted a Wizard (and possibly a Rogue). Those have always been the four core, and picking one of the hybrid classes usually a very poor substitute for the real things.
At least the "Trinity" has become roles rather than specific classes. That's at least some progress.
Note that I said, "That's not the way it is legally, but it's the way it should be."
I firmly believe that if I buy a piece of software legally, I should be allowed to modify it and change it as I see fit, if I have the ability to do so, as long as I'm not doing it to redistribute additional copies or to use it for illegal copies that go beyond the realm of fair use, regardless of the EULA says.
I also firmly believe that I should have the absolute right to resell (transfer ownership) software that I buy legally, regardless of what a EULA says
And yes, I'd even go as far as to say I don't think it should be illegal to buy a legal copy of software, modify it, and then transfer your ownership of that software to a third party, provided that you do not retain any copies of the software, and the third party is aware that it is modified and agrees to make the purchase with whatever limitations might result. I strongly suspect that anyone buying a "Hackintosh" realizes there are hacks involved.
No in summary, no, I don't see what the problem is other than copyright holders wanting to maintain control of published works after the first sale appears, and beyond the natural protections against illegal copies being made and someone else publishing and selling the software and cutting them out. Isn't that what copyright is supposed to be for?
There is a difference between requiring 7 of your friends to have an 8 player game of counter-strike, and having to have 7 friends so you're allowed to get a shotgun.
Of course enjoyment of a game can be limited by how many people play it, however Zynga ties advancement to how many friends you get to play, and that's the difference. You yourself admitted to creating a dummy account just to help your advancement in one of your games.
Also, many of the deals from their partners don't necessarily look like scams at all, and seem to be legit to the average person. The scam factor is often well hidden, and lots of people aren't aware of seedy many of the companies going through Facebook are. Being within Facebook gives them a false sense of security. I know to look out for this stuff, and you do too, but you are naive if you don't think there are some seemingly legitimate offers that could fool an average (non-paranoid like slashdotters) person.
Sure, you may be "smart enough" to not get suckered in by scams and their special offers from the partner companies and shady advertisers, but these games are inherently viral. Even when you don't pay money, they encourage (or force) you to expand your game social network (mafia size, number of neighbors, etc) in order to get past certain points of the game.
Unless you are playing in a bubble, and don't invite other friends or post links to the game and do other things to encourage more people to play, you are still promoting it as you play and helping it spread further and to help more people get duped. To say they should just be smart enough not to get duped is pretty naive. The average person is probably not as smart as the average slashdotter... and that's a scary thought some days. ;-)
This is one of the ways Copyright has gone so off track.
It has ceased to be simply a way of protecting a copyright holder from their work being published so that someone else doesn't try to publish it and cut the copyright holder out of the picture. It was a legal tool to protect copyright holders from companies.
It's increasingly moving towards the Copyright holder retaining ownership of the work even after the sale.
Frankly, if Psystar paid for the OS copies legally, and made it clear that the OS that he was reselling was modified, there shouldn't be a copyright issue. That's not the way it is legally, but it's the way it should be.
Of all the analogies I see here, I think that it's more in line with someone selling used college textbooks with notes written and additional information marking up the book. Is that a derivative work?
We need people in rural areas for agriculture, logging, mining, and many other industries. What do you think will happen if you did increase their costs of their utilities, shipping, and telecommunication for those in these rural areas?
The likely answers are that you would start creating a lot of poor people, people with far lower standards of living, or shortages in the goods that we need in the city, or we'll have to subsidize them anyway in the form of increased prices.
Your viewpoint is extremely naive and shortsighted.
After being TV free (only watching shows digitally on my PC for several years) and going back to Cable and Satellite TV was a shocker. I had forgotten how bad this could be. There were commercials that would distort on the television speakers because they were so loud.
It may seem like a small problem, but constantly fidgeting with the volume every commercial in order to prevent waking up other family members, or falling asleep during a show and being startled awake by a very loud commercial is a huge nuisance.
I wonder if some advertisers just make their commercials really loud to stand out, or if broadcasters are paid extra in order to allow the ads to be loud.
Fear mongers like to paint "cost effective" conditions as being about whether if you get cancer, some bureaucrat decides if you get the cure or not.
They completely skirt how this would most commonly be applied, and that is with drug companies that release new versions of an old drug that is the exact same drug as before, but with some slight variation (such as making the exact same drug as a time-release capsule so you only take it once a day instead of twice), and then take the prescription price from $50 to $500. This is not an exaggeration, it happens all the time.
There are many procedures and medications that are no better (and sometimes worse) than older treatments, but with a higher price tag. Quite often these are marketed to Doctors by the pharms and the Doctors will hear their pitches, start prescribing them, while at the same time being completely being out of touch with what the actual costs are.
Are you seriously suggesting that the solution is that everyone just move to the city, and anyone who doesn't is either wanting to be subsidized for their lifestyle or should be forced to pay more for basic utilities?
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that some industries only exist in rural areas? Farming and agriculture, for example, is not going to happen in urban areas. It's not just about a bunch of people wanting to live like country folk. Economics, education, opportunity, feasibility of certain industries, security and yes sometimes cultural inclinations are among the many factors of why someone would live in rural areas.
To say we can solve the problem by everyone moving out of rural areas is just boneheaded.
How are the judges going to succeed in establishing their illegal money laundering operations in Russia if you start whittling away at their Mafia?
The problem with a business like Pandora struggling is not it couldn't make it's model work originally, but the fact that new regulations were put in place to stop it from working.
In the US, we actually tried to create regulations to prevent music publishers from paying radio stations to play their songs for free to listeners. The funny thing is that they find ways to skirt these rules and pay the radio stations anyway.
On the other hand, they trying to stop internet radio at all stops and squeeze them harder for royalties than what even traditional radio broadcasters had to pay per audience member. (At least that's how it was looking the last time I checked, unless this was changed!).
The industry is losing relevance, attacking it's customers, it's promoters, takes their products that have diminished demand and then make them even less appealing by putting in even more restrictions, hijacking not just our media but our media playing devices, and then they have the audacity to start blaming everyone but themselves for losing market share.
They are so out of touch...
Yeah, remember that old technology they tried where they used to broadcast electromagnetic waves into the air and allow people to use archaic devices called "Radios" to pick up the signal and listen to music? They didn't charge the listeners and it was a total flop. Nobody even remembers it anymore.
It's impossible to have a business model that involves not charging the users of a service a subscription fee.
The number of players cited above is far and away much "bigger" than World of WarCraft has ever had, and it was certainly big enough for gold farmers. It's not about the fact it's not big enough.
The fact is, it's simply not necessary since Zynga already sells in game items, money, and upgrades for real money. Through their own business model, they've weeded out the "Chinese farmers".