As opposed to the traditional job market where you may work between 1 and 10 different jobs throughout your entire working life (and getting bored in the process)? By comparison, E-giggers can work dozens or up to a hundred different jobs.
That's basically why I still have Windows. Yes, the Linux support with games gets better but we're still far, far away from the level you see in Windows.
With more and more games breaking in Win10 now, though, this may change. At least for those among us that are not always looking for the latest eye candy but enjoy playing the games we love.
Typical for open source, I bet I get some hodgepodge instructions and have to make my own and find out how to use it properly, only to end up stuffing it into your ass instead.
Release? Who wants to release? We're just announcing something forever so nobody else bothers to build one or if they do, nobody buys it because they're waiting for the Microsoft one.
The landlord example shows me that you never tried to be one. But be it as it may.
The original copyright was an incentive, allright. The current one is a travesty. Where the FUCK is an incentive to create from the right to reap rewards for three generations after your DEATH? Are you aware that even if both remaining Beatles died today their hits would go into public domain over 125 years after they have been created?
You have to be big into reincarnation to consider this an "incentive to create".
The same laws? Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever. When was the last time you saw a bricklayer getting to charge everyone moving into a house he ever built? Or a plumber being paid every time someone flushes a toilet he connected?
Sorry, but the content industry HAS its very special laws that everyone and their grandchildren up to 70 years after their death can at best DREAM of.
Your original posting came across as if the creator of something is entitled to being rewarded for the mere creation of whatever he did, and this he is not. Only when he finds someone who considers the creation valuable enough he will be rewarded, not by the mere feat of creating something.
Not that easy, some ROMs straight don't exist except in some display or sales-pitch cartridges.
And yes, as you can imagine, they command insane prices. Collectors are kinda nuts that way. There are generally 3 kinds of games that are rare and hence valuable: Those that only exist in low number because they were just produced for events or to pitch them to investors (e.g. Nintendo World Championships), those that were produced so late that nobody gave half a shit about NES games anymore (e.g. Little Samson) and those that are SO bad that even without the internet word got around that they suck (e.g. Action 52).
So believe it or not, the most valuable games are those that are simply too bad to even play them. Nobody gives you a cent for Mario 3, but you don't even want to know what you'd have to pay to get a real stinker.
Laws apply universally, so saying that I care about a law protecting MY property is pointless. It protects everyone's property, I do not enjoy personal protection laws. Unlike a certain group of "property" holders.
You see, that's the problem with the examples presented too many times by proponents of insane copyright laws: Most of them are far fetched and don't translate well into reality. I once, in a discussion, had someone argue that it's "impossible" to produce content the way the users want, despite exactly that being offered by those that copy the content. One really has to wonder whether the reality distortion field comes free with the conviction or whether it already has to be in place to become part of the copyright cult.
Sorry, but just 'cause you invest a lot of time and effort doesn't make something valuable. By that logic any sandcastle built by the average 5 year old costs millions. And don't make me ask for money for the space station I built with Lego when I was 10!
Value is what someone who wants something gives it. By definition. You can ask for a price, but if that price is below what I value it, there will be no sale.
What you, as the creator, can attach to a commodity is its cost. Not its value.
I want to buy. I really do. But what's offered simply is not good enough.
Take a show. Just choose one. You will not be able to see it here, not even for any sort of money you'd be willing to throw at the makers, until after it's been on local TV. Ok, you may say, that's understandable, so you get it a month later. Nope. Half a year to a year later. Why? Dubbing.
TV shows get dubbed around here. Invariably. And 9 out of 10 times they get dubbed badly. The dialogues are stale and it seems they go out of their way to take out any kind of joke or mood the original tried to convey, the lip syncing is hilariously bad (think old Eastern movies) and the sync actors seem to be whatever actor is currently out of luck and in dire need of work.
And when it finally gets available, hope and pray that you're lucky to get the original version instead of just the dubbed atrocity.
Can anyone imagine why people reach for torrents and other less legal sources? Why is it that I cannot simply buy the same DVDs that are available in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
Along with the idiots that bought them.
Why don't you elaborate and enlighten us all?
When you thought it couldn't get any worse than Western Union...
As opposed to the traditional job market where you may work between 1 and 10 different jobs throughout your entire working life (and getting bored in the process)? By comparison, E-giggers can work dozens or up to a hundred different jobs.
...that are boring right from the beginning.
What world do you come from? And, more important, how do I get there?
1) Can I disable it?
2) Does it remove the spyware?
Microsoft, please get it: NOTHING ELSE matters to us concerning your Windows 10 updates.
Sounds like a publicity stunt you could expect from the Tea Party.
That's basically why I still have Windows. Yes, the Linux support with games gets better but we're still far, far away from the level you see in Windows.
With more and more games breaking in Win10 now, though, this may change. At least for those among us that are not always looking for the latest eye candy but enjoy playing the games we love.
Old joke: How do you get a Russian to the legal alcohol limit?
Sober him up for a week or two.
Hey, I use LInux, where's my big, black cock?
Typical for open source, I bet I get some hodgepodge instructions and have to make my own and find out how to use it properly, only to end up stuffing it into your ass instead.
Release? Who wants to release? We're just announcing something forever so nobody else bothers to build one or if they do, nobody buys it because they're waiting for the Microsoft one.
The landlord example shows me that you never tried to be one. But be it as it may.
The original copyright was an incentive, allright. The current one is a travesty. Where the FUCK is an incentive to create from the right to reap rewards for three generations after your DEATH? Are you aware that even if both remaining Beatles died today their hits would go into public domain over 125 years after they have been created?
You have to be big into reincarnation to consider this an "incentive to create".
Channeling Canada here?
On one hand, it's not a good thing to see that the international bully gets its way again.
On the other hand, it's Kimmie getting it up the ass...
No matter what side I root for it feels just wrong.
In the US, the golden rule applies. He with the gold makes the rules.
The same laws? Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever. When was the last time you saw a bricklayer getting to charge everyone moving into a house he ever built? Or a plumber being paid every time someone flushes a toilet he connected?
Sorry, but the content industry HAS its very special laws that everyone and their grandchildren up to 70 years after their death can at best DREAM of.
That we can agree on.
Your original posting came across as if the creator of something is entitled to being rewarded for the mere creation of whatever he did, and this he is not. Only when he finds someone who considers the creation valuable enough he will be rewarded, not by the mere feat of creating something.
Dolls have had eyes and ears for as long as they existed. Until now, though, those eyes and ears weren't telling someone what they see and hear.
Echo isn't aimed at children. And it's hardly a secret how it works, basically the whole internet connectivity is the selling point.
Not that easy, some ROMs straight don't exist except in some display or sales-pitch cartridges.
And yes, as you can imagine, they command insane prices. Collectors are kinda nuts that way. There are generally 3 kinds of games that are rare and hence valuable: Those that only exist in low number because they were just produced for events or to pitch them to investors (e.g. Nintendo World Championships), those that were produced so late that nobody gave half a shit about NES games anymore (e.g. Little Samson) and those that are SO bad that even without the internet word got around that they suck (e.g. Action 52).
So believe it or not, the most valuable games are those that are simply too bad to even play them. Nobody gives you a cent for Mario 3, but you don't even want to know what you'd have to pay to get a real stinker.
Laws apply universally, so saying that I care about a law protecting MY property is pointless. It protects everyone's property, I do not enjoy personal protection laws. Unlike a certain group of "property" holders.
You see, that's the problem with the examples presented too many times by proponents of insane copyright laws: Most of them are far fetched and don't translate well into reality. I once, in a discussion, had someone argue that it's "impossible" to produce content the way the users want, despite exactly that being offered by those that copy the content. One really has to wonder whether the reality distortion field comes free with the conviction or whether it already has to be in place to become part of the copyright cult.
Sorry, but just 'cause you invest a lot of time and effort doesn't make something valuable. By that logic any sandcastle built by the average 5 year old costs millions. And don't make me ask for money for the space station I built with Lego when I was 10!
Value is what someone who wants something gives it. By definition. You can ask for a price, but if that price is below what I value it, there will be no sale.
What you, as the creator, can attach to a commodity is its cost. Not its value.
Well, I guess then it's a good thing disc-based media are on the way out, that way people can't steal content so easily anymore.
You have to admit it is VERY obvious that there is little, if any, support for this law. And such laws are actually very dangerous.
I want to buy. I really do. But what's offered simply is not good enough.
Take a show. Just choose one. You will not be able to see it here, not even for any sort of money you'd be willing to throw at the makers, until after it's been on local TV. Ok, you may say, that's understandable, so you get it a month later. Nope. Half a year to a year later. Why? Dubbing.
TV shows get dubbed around here. Invariably. And 9 out of 10 times they get dubbed badly. The dialogues are stale and it seems they go out of their way to take out any kind of joke or mood the original tried to convey, the lip syncing is hilariously bad (think old Eastern movies) and the sync actors seem to be whatever actor is currently out of luck and in dire need of work.
And when it finally gets available, hope and pray that you're lucky to get the original version instead of just the dubbed atrocity.
Can anyone imagine why people reach for torrents and other less legal sources? Why is it that I cannot simply buy the same DVDs that are available in the US?