There are so many bullshit posts in this thread from anti-dressup types that I decided to pick one near the top. Don't take it personally, I just picked the first self-important, self-proclaimed geek who was full of crap.
It's not about 'professionalism' at all. It's as much about professionalism from the busniess side as it is about comfort from the geek side (t-shirts and cutoffs aren't very comfortable compared to well-made, ironed clothing). It's about laziness. They see you as too lazy to make yourself look good, and let's face it you (and I) are too lazy to do the work. Business clothes aren't any more expensive than jeans, and if you don't count trade show handouts, button down shirts can be had for the same price as a printed tee. But you have to iron, and wash properly, and button, and groom. You'd rather pull on whatever is lying around and go about your day. That speaks to your attitude. There are things you are going to decide aren't worth your time, and your clothes show it. Subconsionsly, everybody else knows it too.
Ok, so it pisses your off when you have a dress code. Dress codes *are* stupid for grown adults. Choosing to dress nicer does make a difference though. I still can't get myself to do it every day, but it's obvious the way people's attitudes change towards you when you put in the effort. It also makes you feel better about yourself once you get over the rightous rebel bullshit. Also, a nice cotton button down with a color (even if it's plaid) and some ironed pants are more comfortable than jeans and a crappy big-seamed tee with huge silk-screening any day. Semi-related, since hair matters a bit less as long as it's washed and combed... Also only a subset of techies are culprits: Cut off the damned pony tail when the hair has fallen out on top already. You look like an idiot, and combined with the smell of your t-shirt, it's why you never get laid.
It used to be that there were all sorts of interesting technical discussions at these sort of events. Now it's a bunch of people re-hashing what's already on their website. There aren't even any good freebies at the booths anymore.
It used to be that I went out of my way to try and get my employer to send me to things like ALS and LinuxExpo. Now I'm trying to figure out how to get out of being sent to LinuxWorld so I can stay behind and get some code written.
Marketing departments are only negative if they drive the technical decision process. If they have to figure out how to market the correct technical decisions instead of making poor technical decisions for the sake of (perceived) marketablity, there's nothing wrong with them.
Sprint will give any customer who's contract has expired a $150 rebate towards a new phone for signing a new contract. No questions asked, and no number change necessary.
All that is really desired in this segment is a secure online connection for email, and internet.
People explicitly *don't* want something that is just a really good internet appliance. Even if they never take full advantage of all the other things a PC can do, they want to know that it can do them. Also, don't underestimate the demand for photo management and home videos.
A subscription software model in combination with a thin OS is exactly what people want.
Why, then, has every attempt at such a model failed? (And there have been many over the last 6 years) People don't want a subscription model to *anything*. And they want to know they bought something powerful even if they never use the power. Not only that, but there is no such thing as a 'thin' OS anymore. There are only fat OSs that are crippled to allow running of only remote apps. The key isn't some thin OS, it's discounts and marketing.
I would add another flaw: Lack of consistent vision. [etc]
You don't get anywhere by assuming people are stupid (even if you're right).
Linux's desktop failings are 100% business related. There doesn't need to be one unified *anything* except an ABI. The app the user wants has to work, the user needs to know that, and it all needs to come in a pretty package that tells the user how great of a decision they're making. End of story. It doesn't matter if the user has to stand on their head and whack the 'p' key over and over again with a chopstick stuck up their nose to get it to work. They'll do it.
People suffered through Windows 3.0, and *liked it*. Have you used Windows XP? It sucks! But the apps are there. Consistency? You must be speaking a foreign language. Every program has a different menu layout, window shape, color scheme, etc.. But the apps are there.
Several Linux distributions could be taken today with zero code changes and be market winners that users would enjoy, but witout marketing and business development departments with billion dollar budgets behind them it'll never happen.
Some people see the range of software, which ranges in quality from unusable to fantastic and often contains a dizzying array of choices in any one area, as an advantage. Others see it as a setback.
But how hard would it be for Google to get a thin OS that "Just Works" to market?
It would be easy, and it would fail utterly.
It takes years to woo developers over to your platform. No developers, no business apps. I'm not talking Office here, I'm talking banking apps, manufacturing apps, insurance apps, etc... The stuff Microsoft has been working for years on, and the kind of stuff that makes Microsoft the market share leader.
After that they'd have to convince stores to carry systems with their OS, or OEMs to manufacture systems with their OS. Good luck. See the goons from my previous comment.
Once people start developing for a browser as a platform, it might happen. That has barely started yet, and the best of breed examples suck. They suck a *lot*. (Yes I've seen the ajax crap). Not only do they suck, but they reside somewhere remote. People use their apps disconnected. That has to work.
There are smart guys over at Google. They know they can't just jump into the OS market and succeed. Nobody gets in in under 5 years. Period.
Yes, look at Apple, and you'll see the real reason why Microsoft is missing deadlines. Really. I'm not being sarcastic.
The guy who wrote that blog post yesterday hit on it too and he didn't even realize it:
"I was upset at missing the back-to-school market. Now we're missing the holiday sales market. All of those laptops and PCs are going to have XP on it."
Yup. What's the price for Microsoft's failure to deliver? Nothing. They get the cash anyway. The only downside to this latest slip is the unusually high amount of publicity it's getting.
But, you say, if they keep slipping competition will catch up... Well, maybe, but not this decade. There is nobody even close.
Apple? Please. Businesses won't pick a platform that locks them into a single vendor's hardware anymore, and most home users won't buy anything without a 35% sticker on it (does Dell ever sell stuff at full price?). Even if they found a way around those problems, history will show that they're really good at blowing it.
Desktop Linux? Nope. It's got two permanant and fatal flaws. No huge marketing department, and no goons breathing down OEM and channel partner throats.
Microsoft's development model, their schedule, their everything is based on the fact that there is no financial incentive for success, and no financial disincentive for failure. They'll fire people, or whatever, but nothing will prompt the kind of change that needs to happen there until they have some serious competition. And we should be glad. Their failure to deliver creates jobs for software and operating system engineers outside the Redmond area.
The shelf life may be longer on hard drives, but the chance of the tape surviving the move to the offsite storage facility is way higher. The infrastructure for connecting a large number of hard drives (switch ports, backplanes, caddys, etc...) ends up costing more than the drive (BTW, 400GB drives cost between five and ten times more than an LTO2 tape), and the automation just doesn't exist (changer robots, barcoding, etc...).
Virtual tape is great, but it's not archival, and it's not offsite. If you're not already tied to tape and tape software, there is no point in using those solutions when you could do snapshotting or CDP instead.
It's hard for a small business to keep offsites with a VTL. For a big business with a dedicated circuit to a remote datacenter, it's just fine, but most companies can't afford that. He'll still need a tape solution. It would certainly be faster and cheaper to use the VTL for nightlies and only produce a single set of tapes per week though. It may even make a cheaper tape solution more tolerable.
If he doesn't care to continue using a legacy backup software package, then a VTL is useless, because there is no need to maintain the tape paradigm and the virtualization layer, and he could start using snapshoting instead.
Many towns want you to call 911 instead of the police office number for anything that isn't bureaucratic. It wouldn't be very unusual for you to call the main number and have them tell you to hang up and call 911 if you're not looking for a specific officer or a copy of a police report. I'm not sure why, but I think it has something to do with the paperwork being semi-automated if calls are handled through the 911 system. In areas where this is the case, the first thing you will hear when you dial 911 is "Is this call regarding an emergency?" and if the answer is "No" then you almost certainly end up on hold.
The recent screenshots I've seen give it this parody feel. It looks like a cross between Everquest and Unreal Tournament, except they didn't actually cross them, they just cut and pasted graphics from each in there. Not only that, but all the stuff they were saying originally about how content was going to be player created seems to be gone. So why is it still called Tabula Rasa? Are they just trying to capatalize on the original hype? What they were originally planning sounded like fun. What they've got now looks like something they threw together so they had something to show for all the money they spent.
A compelling plot of for the development of a game might make for an interesting documentary, but it doesn't make me want to run out and give them $50.
Flour, like most things that explode due to combustion, is only explosive if mixed with of oxygen in a narrow range of concentration. A big handful of flour won't explode. You should be glad that it won't or kitchens with gas stoves would be blowing up every time somebody made a cream sauce.
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
That's a rediculous comparison.
One of those two things only hurts you if you choose to purchase their product.
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, you're right. I read your comment incorrectly.
Re:You obviously don't have children
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
Given that both fair use law and common sense suggest that I should be able to make backups, where is there more than one wrong?
Well, given the capatalistic nature of our society, shouldn't it be the market that dictates whether these companies make backup friendly media, and not a regulation? Unlike the other things that are considered fair use, backups are a personal benefit, and not a public good...
Why should backups not be fair use? I guess that's what I'm missing here. Why shouldn't they be?
Because it leaves for shaky ground when you want to take to position that companies have to go out of their way to allow fair use.
as long as they have all these copy controls, and take the stance that they're selling you one copy of the physical media, and one license for the content, then I should definitely have a right to make a backup copy
If you're trying to tweak the current system to be more fair, I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we have to take the curent system as carved in stone. Don't think of it as 'as long as they're doing...', think of it as 'instead of the current way of doing things...'.
Companies say they need copy controls to have justification to create and publish content. Since the goal of copyright is to encourage the creation of content, there should be some room for negotiation there. If they want controls, fine, give them controls, but if they're going to have a DMCA like rule that says we can't break their protection, we should also have rules that say their protection can't protect against people doing things which would otherwise be legal. Additionally, the law should be specific enough that a 'license' for copyrighted content can only be a license to copy. If they want to sell a copy, you should own the copy. Allowing backups circumvents all that though. It's allowing you to make a copy for personal benefit. It's an unplugable hole in their protection. If we're not going to give them the incentive they seek, and we're not going to try to meet them halfway, why not just do away with the system entirely (This may also be a reasonable idea).
Reform doesn't happen unless at least one side is willing to take a flexable stance. If both sides of a debate that involves all of a society are insistant on standing their ground, things continue to progress in the direction they are moving until a breaking point is reached. I don't know what the breaking point is for this issue, but it's never pretty. Without some fresh perspectives into these issues, and given how things are currently going, you're going to end up on the dissappointed side in the near and mid-term though. Think long and hard. Are backups really a fundamental right that you're not willing to use in negotiations?
Additionally, if backups really are such a pressing need, why does the market keep rejecting technologies that add durability? Is it really more convenient to make a backup than it is to have your media be slightly thicker and square because it's enclosed?
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
The fact that you chose to ignore those arguments probably says something about you.
Who's ignoring what now?...
The very first (and, I'm assuming most important in your eyes) argument you made was that we don't have a right to make backup copies of other media (books, etc...). As the first resonse stated, this is patently false.
I explicitly did not make that argument. I would prefer to engage in depat with people who have listened to my arguments and not people who are making asumptions about my arguments because something I said doesn't correspond with their views. I think if you actually read the things I've said in this thread you'll find we agree more than you expect.
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
The third reason given: It is already the law. This is not a good reason, since we can change laws that don't make sense.
Actually backups are allowed under the law as it stands, not disallowed.
As to the rest of your points, I believe I've spoken to them elsewhere in the thread.
Re:You obviously don't have children
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
Because they're finding ways to prevent me from exercising my fair use law rights and other mediums aren't.
And two wrongs suddenly make a right?
I would argue that technologies which prevent us from exercising these rights should be illegal
I agree with that, which is part of why I think backups shouldn't be considered 'fair use'. They don't have to be illegal, but I don't think the publishers should have to go out of their way to allow them, while they should be required to go out of their way to allow everything else that is 'fair use'. If a publisher implements something to prevent you from making a backup, why should you have any recourse other than choosing not to purchase from that publisher? At the same time, the publisher should be legally obligated not to prevent their work from being used to promote public interest since, after all, that's the real purpose of both copyright and fair use.
And the older gamers who worship him would do well to listen to the people looking at his current work without the rose colored glasses... And I *am* old enough to know all about him.
Past awesomeness is not an indication of future performance. Everything about this game makes me wonder what the hell they're smoking. Have you looked at the screenshots? (and I don't mean for the graphics)
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
There's no reason that archival copies shouldn't be fair use.
Fair use is something that you shouldn't be denied by design. In other words, publishers should have to go out of their way to make fair use a possibility for you. Publishers shouldn't have to go out of their way to make it possible for you to make a backup. It shoudn't necessarily be illegal, but if some other aspect of their technology makes backups difficult or impossible, then so be it. If publishers want to design their media to be difficult to backup, that's their perogative too. Nobody is forcing you to buy their product. (Bypassing their protection shouldn't be criminal though)
Slashdot Mirror
Preclaimer: I'm a semi-sloppy dressing engineer.
Second, It's about percieved professionalism
There are so many bullshit posts in this thread from anti-dressup types that I decided to pick one near the top. Don't take it personally, I just picked the first self-important, self-proclaimed geek who was full of crap.
It's not about 'professionalism' at all. It's as much about professionalism from the busniess side as it is about comfort from the geek side (t-shirts and cutoffs aren't very comfortable compared to well-made, ironed clothing). It's about laziness. They see you as too lazy to make yourself look good, and let's face it you (and I) are too lazy to do the work. Business clothes aren't any more expensive than jeans, and if you don't count trade show handouts, button down shirts can be had for the same price as a printed tee. But you have to iron, and wash properly, and button, and groom. You'd rather pull on whatever is lying around and go about your day. That speaks to your attitude. There are things you are going to decide aren't worth your time, and your clothes show it. Subconsionsly, everybody else knows it too.
Ok, so it pisses your off when you have a dress code. Dress codes *are* stupid for grown adults. Choosing to dress nicer does make a difference though. I still can't get myself to do it every day, but it's obvious the way people's attitudes change towards you when you put in the effort. It also makes you feel better about yourself once you get over the rightous rebel bullshit. Also, a nice cotton button down with a color (even if it's plaid) and some ironed pants are more comfortable than jeans and a crappy big-seamed tee with huge silk-screening any day.
Semi-related, since hair matters a bit less as long as it's washed and combed... Also only a subset of techies are culprits: Cut off the damned pony tail when the hair has fallen out on top already. You look like an idiot, and combined with the smell of your t-shirt, it's why you never get laid.
It used to be that there were all sorts of interesting technical discussions at these sort of events. Now it's a bunch of people re-hashing what's already on their website. There aren't even any good freebies at the booths anymore.
It used to be that I went out of my way to try and get my employer to send me to things like ALS and LinuxExpo. Now I'm trying to figure out how to get out of being sent to LinuxWorld so I can stay behind and get some code written.
You realize that you just said you were delighted to have your eye put into a device that resembles a cigar cutter, right?
You broke my brain.
Marketing departments are only negative if they drive the technical decision process. If they have to figure out how to market the correct technical decisions instead of making poor technical decisions for the sake of (perceived) marketablity, there's nothing wrong with them.
Sprint will give any customer who's contract has expired a $150 rebate towards a new phone for signing a new contract. No questions asked, and no number change necessary.
I've done it three times.
All that is really desired in this segment is a secure online connection for email, and internet.
People explicitly *don't* want something that is just a really good internet appliance. Even if they never take full advantage of all the other things a PC can do, they want to know that it can do them. Also, don't underestimate the demand for photo management and home videos.
A subscription software model in combination with a thin OS is exactly what people want.
Why, then, has every attempt at such a model failed? (And there have been many over the last 6 years) People don't want a subscription model to *anything*. And they want to know they bought something powerful even if they never use the power. Not only that, but there is no such thing as a 'thin' OS anymore. There are only fat OSs that are crippled to allow running of only remote apps. The key isn't some thin OS, it's discounts and marketing.
I would add another flaw: Lack of consistent vision. [etc]
You don't get anywhere by assuming people are stupid (even if you're right).
Linux's desktop failings are 100% business related. There doesn't need to be one unified *anything* except an ABI. The app the user wants has to work, the user needs to know that, and it all needs to come in a pretty package that tells the user how great of a decision they're making. End of story. It doesn't matter if the user has to stand on their head and whack the 'p' key over and over again with a chopstick stuck up their nose to get it to work. They'll do it.
People suffered through Windows 3.0, and *liked it*. Have you used Windows XP? It sucks! But the apps are there. Consistency? You must be speaking a foreign language. Every program has a different menu layout, window shape, color scheme, etc.. But the apps are there.
Several Linux distributions could be taken today with zero code changes and be market winners that users would enjoy, but witout marketing and business development departments with billion dollar budgets behind them it'll never happen.
Some people see the range of software, which ranges in quality from unusable to fantastic and often contains a dizzying array of choices in any one area, as an advantage. Others see it as a setback.
What OS are you talking about here?
But how hard would it be for Google to get a thin OS that "Just Works" to market?
It would be easy, and it would fail utterly.
It takes years to woo developers over to your platform. No developers, no business apps. I'm not talking Office here, I'm talking banking apps, manufacturing apps, insurance apps, etc... The stuff Microsoft has been working for years on, and the kind of stuff that makes Microsoft the market share leader.
After that they'd have to convince stores to carry systems with their OS, or OEMs to manufacture systems with their OS. Good luck. See the goons from my previous comment.
Once people start developing for a browser as a platform, it might happen. That has barely started yet, and the best of breed examples suck. They suck a *lot*. (Yes I've seen the ajax crap). Not only do they suck, but they reside somewhere remote. People use their apps disconnected. That has to work.
There are smart guys over at Google. They know they can't just jump into the OS market and succeed. Nobody gets in in under 5 years. Period.
The Hobbit musical kicked ass! If they get the same guy...
Now, maybe they could get in touch with RMS instead?
Right. He can takes some time off now that HURD is finished. Oh, wait...
Yes, look at Apple, and you'll see the real reason why Microsoft is missing deadlines. Really. I'm not being sarcastic.
The guy who wrote that blog post yesterday hit on it too and he didn't even realize it:
"I was upset at missing the back-to-school market. Now we're missing the holiday sales market. All of those laptops and PCs are going to have XP on it."
Yup. What's the price for Microsoft's failure to deliver? Nothing. They get the cash anyway. The only downside to this latest slip is the unusually high amount of publicity it's getting.
But, you say, if they keep slipping competition will catch up... Well, maybe, but not this decade. There is nobody even close.
Apple? Please. Businesses won't pick a platform that locks them into a single vendor's hardware anymore, and most home users won't buy anything without a 35% sticker on it (does Dell ever sell stuff at full price?). Even if they found a way around those problems, history will show that they're really good at blowing it.
Desktop Linux? Nope. It's got two permanant and fatal flaws. No huge marketing department, and no goons breathing down OEM and channel partner throats.
Microsoft's development model, their schedule, their everything is based on the fact that there is no financial incentive for success, and no financial disincentive for failure. They'll fire people, or whatever, but nothing will prompt the kind of change that needs to happen there until they have some serious competition. And we should be glad. Their failure to deliver creates jobs for software and operating system engineers outside the Redmond area.
Why bother virtualizing tape then? Why not do snapshoting with replication, or CDP.
VTLs are only interesting for interfacing with legacy software.
Yes, you really need tapes for archival backup.
The shelf life may be longer on hard drives, but the chance of the tape surviving the move to the offsite storage facility is way higher. The infrastructure for connecting a large number of hard drives (switch ports, backplanes, caddys, etc...) ends up costing more than the drive (BTW, 400GB drives cost between five and ten times more than an LTO2 tape), and the automation just doesn't exist (changer robots, barcoding, etc...).
Virtual tape is great, but it's not archival, and it's not offsite. If you're not already tied to tape and tape software, there is no point in using those solutions when you could do snapshotting or CDP instead.
VTLs are great, but...
It's hard for a small business to keep offsites with a VTL. For a big business with a dedicated circuit to a remote datacenter, it's just fine, but most companies can't afford that. He'll still need a tape solution. It would certainly be faster and cheaper to use the VTL for nightlies and only produce a single set of tapes per week though. It may even make a cheaper tape solution more tolerable.
If he doesn't care to continue using a legacy backup software package, then a VTL is useless, because there is no need to maintain the tape paradigm and the virtualization layer, and he could start using snapshoting instead.
Many towns want you to call 911 instead of the police office number for anything that isn't bureaucratic. It wouldn't be very unusual for you to call the main number and have them tell you to hang up and call 911 if you're not looking for a specific officer or a copy of a police report. I'm not sure why, but I think it has something to do with the paperwork being semi-automated if calls are handled through the 911 system. In areas where this is the case, the first thing you will hear when you dial 911 is "Is this call regarding an emergency?" and if the answer is "No" then you almost certainly end up on hold.
The recent screenshots I've seen give it this parody feel. It looks like a cross between Everquest and Unreal Tournament, except they didn't actually cross them, they just cut and pasted graphics from each in there. Not only that, but all the stuff they were saying originally about how content was going to be player created seems to be gone. So why is it still called Tabula Rasa? Are they just trying to capatalize on the original hype? What they were originally planning sounded like fun. What they've got now looks like something they threw together so they had something to show for all the money they spent.
A compelling plot of for the development of a game might make for an interesting documentary, but it doesn't make me want to run out and give them $50.
Flour, like most things that explode due to combustion, is only explosive if mixed with of oxygen in a narrow range of concentration. A big handful of flour won't explode. You should be glad that it won't or kitchens with gas stoves would be blowing up every time somebody made a cream sauce.
That's a rediculous comparison.
One of those two things only hurts you if you choose to purchase their product.
Sorry, you're right. I read your comment incorrectly.
Given that both fair use law and common sense suggest that I should be able to make backups, where is there more than one wrong?
Well, given the capatalistic nature of our society, shouldn't it be the market that dictates whether these companies make backup friendly media, and not a regulation? Unlike the other things that are considered fair use, backups are a personal benefit, and not a public good...
Why should backups not be fair use? I guess that's what I'm missing here. Why shouldn't they be?
Because it leaves for shaky ground when you want to take to position that companies have to go out of their way to allow fair use.
as long as they have all these copy controls, and take the stance that they're selling you one copy of the physical media, and one license for the content, then I should definitely have a right to make a backup copy
If you're trying to tweak the current system to be more fair, I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we have to take the curent system as carved in stone. Don't think of it as 'as long as they're doing...', think of it as 'instead of the current way of doing things...'.
Companies say they need copy controls to have justification to create and publish content. Since the goal of copyright is to encourage the creation of content, there should be some room for negotiation there. If they want controls, fine, give them controls, but if they're going to have a DMCA like rule that says we can't break their protection, we should also have rules that say their protection can't protect against people doing things which would otherwise be legal. Additionally, the law should be specific enough that a 'license' for copyrighted content can only be a license to copy. If they want to sell a copy, you should own the copy. Allowing backups circumvents all that though. It's allowing you to make a copy for personal benefit. It's an unplugable hole in their protection. If we're not going to give them the incentive they seek, and we're not going to try to meet them halfway, why not just do away with the system entirely (This may also be a reasonable idea).
Reform doesn't happen unless at least one side is willing to take a flexable stance. If both sides of a debate that involves all of a society are insistant on standing their ground, things continue to progress in the direction they are moving until a breaking point is reached. I don't know what the breaking point is for this issue, but it's never pretty. Without some fresh perspectives into these issues, and given how things are currently going, you're going to end up on the dissappointed side in the near and mid-term though. Think long and hard. Are backups really a fundamental right that you're not willing to use in negotiations?
Additionally, if backups really are such a pressing need, why does the market keep rejecting technologies that add durability? Is it really more convenient to make a backup than it is to have your media be slightly thicker and square because it's enclosed?
The fact that you chose to ignore those arguments probably says something about you.
Who's ignoring what now?...
The very first (and, I'm assuming most important in your eyes) argument you made was that we don't have a right to make backup copies of other media (books, etc...). As the first resonse stated, this is patently false.
I explicitly did not make that argument. I would prefer to engage in depat with people who have listened to my arguments and not people who are making asumptions about my arguments because something I said doesn't correspond with their views. I think if you actually read the things I've said in this thread you'll find we agree more than you expect.
The third reason given: It is already the law. This is not a good reason, since we can change laws that don't make sense.
Actually backups are allowed under the law as it stands, not disallowed.
As to the rest of your points, I believe I've spoken to them elsewhere in the thread.
Because they're finding ways to prevent me from exercising my fair use law rights and other mediums aren't.
And two wrongs suddenly make a right?
I would argue that technologies which prevent us from exercising these rights should be illegal
I agree with that, which is part of why I think backups shouldn't be considered 'fair use'. They don't have to be illegal, but I don't think the publishers should have to go out of their way to allow them, while they should be required to go out of their way to allow everything else that is 'fair use'. If a publisher implements something to prevent you from making a backup, why should you have any recourse other than choosing not to purchase from that publisher? At the same time, the publisher should be legally obligated not to prevent their work from being used to promote public interest since, after all, that's the real purpose of both copyright and fair use.
And the older gamers who worship him would do well to listen to the people looking at his current work without the rose colored glasses... And I *am* old enough to know all about him.
Past awesomeness is not an indication of future performance. Everything about this game makes me wonder what the hell they're smoking. Have you looked at the screenshots? (and I don't mean for the graphics)
There's no reason that archival copies shouldn't be fair use.
Fair use is something that you shouldn't be denied by design. In other words, publishers should have to go out of their way to make fair use a possibility for you. Publishers shouldn't have to go out of their way to make it possible for you to make a backup. It shoudn't necessarily be illegal, but if some other aspect of their technology makes backups difficult or impossible, then so be it. If publishers want to design their media to be difficult to backup, that's their perogative too. Nobody is forcing you to buy their product. (Bypassing their protection shouldn't be criminal though)