Fraud is not imaginary. When I have money in my bank today and none tomorrow, I can no longer use the money as if I still had it. How much is the damage of someone listening to a song he wouldn't buy? You can't sell it anymore 'cause that guy listened to it?
Sorry, but the idea to prop up a failing business model with laws is already bad enough as it is, we needn't throw taxpayer money behind it as well.
It's been going downhill since 2k. Win2k was maybe the best Windows OS ever. XP already had a few unsightly tidbits that I couldn't really warm up to, and ever since it's been one reduction of usability after another, culminating in the clusterfuck Win10 is.
Just today I had another "big" update that not only turned a few things back on, but reinstalled some of the things I got rid of after a lengthy struggle (and of course tacked them to my quicklaunch and shortcut bar, since I SURELY cannot live without the Windows Store, OneDrive, Groove-Music and XBox), for some curious reason my (non-Edge) Browser didn't work until I reinstalled it.
I kinda doubt I'll be compensated for the time it takes to get rid again of all the bloatware and to turn off all the snooping AGAIN.
It's a British organization, they are polite. They "ask" you "politely" to appear in court, which is not much different from your ass being hauled to the bench in the US, but it has a nicer ring to it.
How is the imaginary property of content more "crime-worthy" than the imaginary property of honor? To explain, if I am being slandered, I have to drag the slanderer to court myself, too, no general attorney gives a shit about it.
There's not that big a difference between getting a crippling debt tossed onto you and being locked up. Essentially, the second at least leaves you with food and shelter.
Just to ask the question again, you don't think it's a bit out of touch with reality to put the punishment for, say, doing physical harm to a person on the same level as imaginary financial damages?
And if you couldn't use it at the library, you would probably still go and try to find free or cheap alternatives, as long as they don't inconvenience you too much, I guess.
I'm dead serious: Enforcing copyright with a heavy hand only accomplishes that more and more people move towards cheaper alternatives that do what they need. Do you need MS Office? Unlikely, your chances are pretty good that LibreOffice can do what you need. Yes, MS-Office may have a few functions more (I honestly don't know, let's humor the MS devotees and say it does, ok?), but do you need them? Same for Photoshop or other programs. Yes, they can most likely do more than what free alternatives can offer, but if people don't need those functions, they will start looking for alternatives if you try to force them to buy your stuff.
Though they prefer using their own symbols. Jumping into your bowl of spaghetti means "my food dish is empty" and crapping in them means "my kitty litter is full". And them lying curled up in a corner means "no change necessary, slave!"
The public interest of copyright is in its limitation, not in its establishment. The establishment is, from a public point of view, the necessary evil to promote creation.
Then what does YouTube want? LOLcat videos? I don't need YouTube for that, you can't throw a dead cat over your shoulder without hitting a LOLcat page. Music Videos? Last time I checked most of them cost them more money than they eventually make due to deals with various rights holders. People playing song covers? I thought you wanted to REDUCE the policing overhead. Same goes for people posting snippets and cuts from their favorite shows. Ok, then how about people making movie and game reviews? Just wait 'til studios get the bright idea to sit their own shills into the "moderator" seats.
So what's left? Someone's pet doing tricks with double digit views, same for some babies throwing up or kids dancing. No, wait, that could be attractive to pedos, so that's controversial too.
There is very little "uncontroversial" content on YouTube that anyone is interested in.
I've been playing since 320x200 was high rez and graphics chips that could display 2D sprites were cutting edge high tech. And when I look back through my years of gaming, then what I can say with some credibility is that graphics don't make a game. Graphics may sell it, but they don't keep you playing.
Need proof? Ok. Pit System Shock II vs. Galactic Hitman. Similar genre, sci-fi first person shooter. SS2 is about 17 years old now and, in its original graphic, dated as fuck. GH now isn't the most perfect ultra-high-rez example of a game, but it sure beats SS2 in the graphics department, no later than when a resolution is chosen where SS2 ends at 800x600 as max rez.
Try them both and then tell me with a straight face that GH is the better game.
Not before you first of all prove that he does think at all.
He reminds me more and more of our populists here. He will say whatever causes a stink, so to be in the news and be discussed. If it caused too much of a stink, he'll simply take it back a day later or claim he's been quoted wrongly. What kind of behaviour is that for a politician? And how the fuck can you vote for something like this?
Oh. Wait, I forgot, Hillary is the alternative...
Yeah, it starts to make sense. Folks? You're fucked. Big time.
Dude, nowhere in the whole world you have as many SJW nutjobs as in the US. The stuff I get to see from US colleges couldn't fly here in a million times, with "safe spaces" and "microaggessions". The dean would simply kick you out and tell you to come back when you're willing to learn instead of trying to turn his university into a clown college.
War is only profitable if you can ensure that it's waged abroad, against an enemy that can't really hold a candle to your forces and preferably you have the means to keep it going infinitely.
That's ok. Your weird ass accent makes turning on the automatic subtitles so hilarious, we don't really listen to what you say, we only care about your lolcat-ish subtitles.
This is exactly the problem. It's not the price, it's the value. The problem legal content is facing that its value is LOWER to the consumer than the copied value. Why? Because it forces him to do things he does not want to do.
What would you value higher? A video that you can simply watch how you want, where you want, whenever you want, with the option to start, stop, forward, rewind and repeat whatever you please, or one that forces you to first sit through ads, only works on certain players and maybe doesn't allow you to stop or repeat scenes as you please, or even interrupts the movie for more ads? What would you value higher?
And now ponder that the first option is free, the second costs money.
And now tell me why it isn't insane that the one offering the second option really thinks that you'll buy his artificially devalued and more expensive stuff. Hello? Maybe take Capitalism 101 next semester?
Slashdot Mirror
Fraud is not imaginary. When I have money in my bank today and none tomorrow, I can no longer use the money as if I still had it. How much is the damage of someone listening to a song he wouldn't buy? You can't sell it anymore 'cause that guy listened to it?
Sorry, but the idea to prop up a failing business model with laws is already bad enough as it is, we needn't throw taxpayer money behind it as well.
It's been going downhill since 2k. Win2k was maybe the best Windows OS ever. XP already had a few unsightly tidbits that I couldn't really warm up to, and ever since it's been one reduction of usability after another, culminating in the clusterfuck Win10 is.
Just today I had another "big" update that not only turned a few things back on, but reinstalled some of the things I got rid of after a lengthy struggle (and of course tacked them to my quicklaunch and shortcut bar, since I SURELY cannot live without the Windows Store, OneDrive, Groove-Music and XBox), for some curious reason my (non-Edge) Browser didn't work until I reinstalled it.
I kinda doubt I'll be compensated for the time it takes to get rid again of all the bloatware and to turn off all the snooping AGAIN.
It's a British organization, they are polite. They "ask" you "politely" to appear in court, which is not much different from your ass being hauled to the bench in the US, but it has a nicer ring to it.
Come over here and you'll get a FREE kick to your gonads. Hell, make it two, I'm in a generous mood.
No thanks, I would much prefer a different show.
How is the imaginary property of content more "crime-worthy" than the imaginary property of honor? To explain, if I am being slandered, I have to drag the slanderer to court myself, too, no general attorney gives a shit about it.
There's not that big a difference between getting a crippling debt tossed onto you and being locked up. Essentially, the second at least leaves you with food and shelter.
Just to ask the question again, you don't think it's a bit out of touch with reality to put the punishment for, say, doing physical harm to a person on the same level as imaginary financial damages?
And if you couldn't use it at the library, you would probably still go and try to find free or cheap alternatives, as long as they don't inconvenience you too much, I guess.
I'm dead serious: Enforcing copyright with a heavy hand only accomplishes that more and more people move towards cheaper alternatives that do what they need. Do you need MS Office? Unlikely, your chances are pretty good that LibreOffice can do what you need. Yes, MS-Office may have a few functions more (I honestly don't know, let's humor the MS devotees and say it does, ok?), but do you need them? Same for Photoshop or other programs. Yes, they can most likely do more than what free alternatives can offer, but if people don't need those functions, they will start looking for alternatives if you try to force them to buy your stuff.
Though they prefer using their own symbols. Jumping into your bowl of spaghetti means "my food dish is empty" and crapping in them means "my kitty litter is full". And them lying curled up in a corner means "no change necessary, slave!"
The public interest of copyright is in its limitation, not in its establishment. The establishment is, from a public point of view, the necessary evil to promote creation.
Then what does YouTube want? LOLcat videos? I don't need YouTube for that, you can't throw a dead cat over your shoulder without hitting a LOLcat page. Music Videos? Last time I checked most of them cost them more money than they eventually make due to deals with various rights holders. People playing song covers? I thought you wanted to REDUCE the policing overhead. Same goes for people posting snippets and cuts from their favorite shows. Ok, then how about people making movie and game reviews? Just wait 'til studios get the bright idea to sit their own shills into the "moderator" seats.
So what's left? Someone's pet doing tricks with double digit views, same for some babies throwing up or kids dancing. No, wait, that could be attractive to pedos, so that's controversial too.
There is very little "uncontroversial" content on YouTube that anyone is interested in.
What leverage? All you'll get as a reward is being doxed and harassed (and don't you DARE defend yourself against it, you harassing bastard!).
You're welcome Timmy, now get offa my lawn!
I've been playing since 320x200 was high rez and graphics chips that could display 2D sprites were cutting edge high tech. And when I look back through my years of gaming, then what I can say with some credibility is that graphics don't make a game. Graphics may sell it, but they don't keep you playing.
Need proof? Ok. Pit System Shock II vs. Galactic Hitman. Similar genre, sci-fi first person shooter. SS2 is about 17 years old now and, in its original graphic, dated as fuck. GH now isn't the most perfect ultra-high-rez example of a game, but it sure beats SS2 in the graphics department, no later than when a resolution is chosen where SS2 ends at 800x600 as max rez.
Try them both and then tell me with a straight face that GH is the better game.
That's a pretty good summary, actually. With a lot of mumbo-jumbo around it all, personally I'd guess to create some sort of "us" feeling.
Already forgot the ridiculous fines for imaginary damages?
There is exactly one, and only one, reason for a person with a brain to support Trump:
Hillary.
I change my name to "Neither Oftheabove" and I will win that election in a landslide!
Not before you first of all prove that he does think at all.
He reminds me more and more of our populists here. He will say whatever causes a stink, so to be in the news and be discussed. If it caused too much of a stink, he'll simply take it back a day later or claim he's been quoted wrongly. What kind of behaviour is that for a politician? And how the fuck can you vote for something like this?
Oh. Wait, I forgot, Hillary is the alternative...
Yeah, it starts to make sense. Folks? You're fucked. Big time.
Dude, nowhere in the whole world you have as many SJW nutjobs as in the US. The stuff I get to see from US colleges couldn't fly here in a million times, with "safe spaces" and "microaggessions". The dean would simply kick you out and tell you to come back when you're willing to learn instead of trying to turn his university into a clown college.
Umm... money?
War is only profitable if you can ensure that it's waged abroad, against an enemy that can't really hold a candle to your forces and preferably you have the means to keep it going infinitely.
Mission accomplished, I'd say.
Youtube is dying. Time to leave the sinking ship, and I'm already looking for alternatives.
Suggestions welcome.
That's ok. Your weird ass accent makes turning on the automatic subtitles so hilarious, we don't really listen to what you say, we only care about your lolcat-ish subtitles.
I would gladly give every music exec exactly what he deserves, but murder is illegal in my country.
This is exactly the problem. It's not the price, it's the value. The problem legal content is facing that its value is LOWER to the consumer than the copied value. Why? Because it forces him to do things he does not want to do.
What would you value higher? A video that you can simply watch how you want, where you want, whenever you want, with the option to start, stop, forward, rewind and repeat whatever you please, or one that forces you to first sit through ads, only works on certain players and maybe doesn't allow you to stop or repeat scenes as you please, or even interrupts the movie for more ads? What would you value higher?
And now ponder that the first option is free, the second costs money.
And now tell me why it isn't insane that the one offering the second option really thinks that you'll buy his artificially devalued and more expensive stuff. Hello? Maybe take Capitalism 101 next semester?