Because somehow, someone, somewhere has to pay for making the content (movies cost a lot to make, no matter what technology they use). There needs to be a functioning business model somehow. Currently it's all rather nasty - buy my movies on DVD or I'll chase you, frighten you, and sue you. No fun (and watching "legit" movies is less pleasant because of all the "Don't pirate this movie" stuff at the beginning).
It's no good yelling "data wants to be free" - someone has to put the data together in the first place. And that someone, whether they be Madonna, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates - or me, deserves to be paid for their labour in doing that.
So where am I going with this? Well, the Internet has broken the business model of music, movies, and tv programs. Software and books are still hanging in there, surprisingly. You can argue they were bad business models, but they did work, and gave us some great works of entertainment (art?).
Times change, business models must change to keep up with the times. There are many instances in history of new innovation "breaking" business models for industries, did we try to legislate that business model into making sense? No, the members of that industry either found a new business model or they slowly died out.
The entertainment industry shouldn't get any special treatment here, they have ignored new innovation and tried to pretend it wouldn't affect them. Now, when they have been left behind and their business model is falling to pieces are they adapting and trying to figure out a new one? For the most part they're just whining to the government and trying to place their burden on the public. Some artists have already found effective models without the large publishers involvements. Let those who refuse to adapt fail and you'll see that we don't need them for people to make art.
I'm perfectly willing to pay for music I like... so long as not a single cent of it goes to the RIAA or their overseas counterparts. Plenty of smaller artists selling their own music or affiliated with small, decent labels have received payment from me.
I just enjoyed watching the whole debacle. As an auto enthusiast I dislike Toyota's bland and boring offerings so anything that gives the manufacturers of fun-to-drive cars more opportunities is good in my view.
I can't even remember the last time Flash crashed Firefox on me. In fact the last time it crashed was on an AJAX site. While I don't doubt Flash can cause issues too laying blanket blame on Adobe doesn't seem correct.
Well we'll see where that goes. Their backing off on forced RealID for the forums gives me some hope that Blizzard is still listening to their players.
Allow me to clarify my position. I don't like the current implementation of RealID and I don't think their plans for the forums are a good idea at all. That said, in its current incarnation I don't find it worth cancelling my subscription over.
I have only friended 3 friends using RealID and I've met all of their friends who play WoW so I'm not revealing my name to anyone who doesn't know it and I will avoid posting in the forums. I will (and have) let Blizzard know that I don't like the direction they're pushing this in and if they push too far my decision to keep my account open may change.
While I will grant them the current forums are saturated with trolls RealID is not the right way to approach that particular problem.
Yes but those people don't reasonably expect those handhelds to play Crisis. The parent chose to use that game as the qualifier which is what I was responding to.
I don't see the RealID issue as something many will cancel over. Keep in mind it's optional, you don't have to use it in game. If you're referring to the forum announcement a large majority of WoW players never post on the official forums and I doubt most would decide to cancel their account over the forums.
So even with an only 2 year old graphics card you have to reduce performance, 2 years is a way to frequent upgrade. This is the whole damn problem, if you want to keep up with games in the PC world you have to upgrade or have the game operating at less than the designed intent. I can afford to keep up with that, I actually upgrade at least once a year but I have friends that can't afford to upgrade there 3,4,5 year old machines and find it almost impossible to play newer games. the 360 came out in 2005, the PS3 came out in 2006. Even games purchased in 2011 or 2012 will work the same on a 2005 model as it will on a 2012 model. get a gaming machine from 2007 or 2008 even and you will find you have to turn down the graphics on modern games.
From the first sentence it's apparent you're looking at it wrong. You say you have to reduce performance looking at the maximum settings as a basis. On a console those settings never would have been there, the game would have been reduced performance right out of the box because console hardware is static. In reality you're getting the opportunity for a better experience provided you have the hardware to handle it. If not you're "stuck" with a similar level of performance as the game you bought a year ago, same as on a console.
Things are only going to get more closed. (snip) Consumers rule.
You forget that closed hurts consumers as well. Seeing as how I've been very busy at work (and somewhat lazy) lately I haven't developed anything for my Android phone yet, but the openness of the Android ecosystem has allowed me to install apps which let me do things I simply couldn't get on the iPhone. If you're going to claim that a closed system is better for consumers please provide evidence to back that up.
You'll notice that not all vehicles with speed limiters have the same limit. Most manufacturers set the speed limiter according to the tires supplied on the vehicle from the dealer, passenger tires have speed ratings on them which they are not recommended to be used above.
For example an 'S' rated tire is common equipment on your average family sedan. The S rating means the tire is good for up to 112mph. If Honda sold you an Accord with S rated tires and a speed limiter at 155mph you could sue them and probably win if one of the tires on your new car blew up while you were doing 130mph (this is assuming you survive of course). Thus most automakers set a speed limiter lower than the rating on the tires.
This would be where our viewpoints differ then. I don't have the perfect solution at hand, I'm sure that a team comprised of experts in different industry areas (Taken from multiple companies that are not in cooperation) working with a lawyer or two could come up with a better system.
Your outlook seems to be this is as good as we have now so it's better than nothing. My outlook is when something has as large of an effect as the patent system do it right or we're better off without it. While I don't agree on the issue, looking at it from your viewpoint your argument makes rational sense so let's just agree to disagree.
That is certainly unfortunate. My own experience with their customer service has been much better. If they tried that on me I would probably start shopping elsewhere as well but thus far they have pretty much bent over backwards to help me out on any issue.
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application
and contains a novel inventive step.
Yet many patents are admitted where there is prior art (thus the inventive step is not 'novel') and where the step and application are painfully obvious to anyone with a degree of understanding in the relevant field. The patent system needs to be overhauled, currently it is not serving the purpose which it was created for.
I for one am not happy about my ISP who I pay to provide me with internet access and who I expect to protect my privacy doling out my information to advertisers. Advertisers figuring it out with the help of third parties is one thing, I can't hold the ISP responsible for that but this is simply unacceptable.
Title III governs these areas as well. It prohibits any person from intentionally using or disclosing information knowingly intercepted by electronic surveillance, without the consent of the interested parties.
Since you've kindly emphasized the relevant information already perhaps you should read it. Google didn't use it or disclose it, they said "oh, we've collected more information than we intended to and we are going to delete it." Then the government stepped in and forced disclosure.
Even if a law is made explicitly saying you cannot utilize in any manner wireless networks without express permission of the owner it will still be effectively useless for protecting the public. Anyone looking to maliciously use your network traffic is not going to care about said law and will surreptitiously capture your data anyway, meanwhile the public thinks they are safe due to said law so the end result is even more dangerous.
First off, Google didn't go around with the purpose of collecting and analyzing your communications as you imply with your government and Microsoft examples. Google's goal was taking pictures for their streetview service and locating wifi networks to use for geolocation, a fairly common practice.
Were Microsoft doing the same thing for Bing maps I wouldn't fault them either. It has been said here time and time again you cannot expect privacy and security when you are openly broadcasting your network data out into the street and beyond. If the government actually wanted to serve the people and be useful in this situation they would start an educational campaign using this as an example (I'm sure Google would pitch in too) and educate the general public about the need to secure their wireless networks.
Slashdot Mirror
Because somehow, someone, somewhere has to pay for making the content (movies cost a lot to make, no matter what technology they use). There needs to be a functioning business model somehow. Currently it's all rather nasty - buy my movies on DVD or I'll chase you, frighten you, and sue you. No fun (and watching "legit" movies is less pleasant because of all the "Don't pirate this movie" stuff at the beginning). It's no good yelling "data wants to be free" - someone has to put the data together in the first place. And that someone, whether they be Madonna, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates - or me, deserves to be paid for their labour in doing that.
So where am I going with this? Well, the Internet has broken the business model of music, movies, and tv programs. Software and books are still hanging in there, surprisingly. You can argue they were bad business models, but they did work, and gave us some great works of entertainment (art?).
Times change, business models must change to keep up with the times. There are many instances in history of new innovation "breaking" business models for industries, did we try to legislate that business model into making sense? No, the members of that industry either found a new business model or they slowly died out.
The entertainment industry shouldn't get any special treatment here, they have ignored new innovation and tried to pretend it wouldn't affect them. Now, when they have been left behind and their business model is falling to pieces are they adapting and trying to figure out a new one? For the most part they're just whining to the government and trying to place their burden on the public. Some artists have already found effective models without the large publishers involvements. Let those who refuse to adapt fail and you'll see that we don't need them for people to make art.
I'm perfectly willing to pay for music I like... so long as not a single cent of it goes to the RIAA or their overseas counterparts. Plenty of smaller artists selling their own music or affiliated with small, decent labels have received payment from me.
I'll admit you have me there. I was mainly thinking of the cars at the time (for that category I will stand by bland and boring).
I just enjoyed watching the whole debacle. As an auto enthusiast I dislike Toyota's bland and boring offerings so anything that gives the manufacturers of fun-to-drive cars more opportunities is good in my view.
I can't even remember the last time Flash crashed Firefox on me. In fact the last time it crashed was on an AJAX site. While I don't doubt Flash can cause issues too laying blanket blame on Adobe doesn't seem correct.
Well we'll see where that goes. Their backing off on forced RealID for the forums gives me some hope that Blizzard is still listening to their players.
Allow me to clarify my position. I don't like the current implementation of RealID and I don't think their plans for the forums are a good idea at all. That said, in its current incarnation I don't find it worth cancelling my subscription over.
I have only friended 3 friends using RealID and I've met all of their friends who play WoW so I'm not revealing my name to anyone who doesn't know it and I will avoid posting in the forums. I will (and have) let Blizzard know that I don't like the direction they're pushing this in and if they push too far my decision to keep my account open may change.
While I will grant them the current forums are saturated with trolls RealID is not the right way to approach that particular problem.
Yes but those people don't reasonably expect those handhelds to play Crisis. The parent chose to use that game as the qualifier which is what I was responding to.
I don't see the RealID issue as something many will cancel over. Keep in mind it's optional, you don't have to use it in game. If you're referring to the forum announcement a large majority of WoW players never post on the official forums and I doubt most would decide to cancel their account over the forums.
That's worse than asking if you can play Assassin's Creed 2 at 1080p on a Wii... Nobody in their right mind views a netbook as a gaming machine.
So even with an only 2 year old graphics card you have to reduce performance, 2 years is a way to frequent upgrade. This is the whole damn problem, if you want to keep up with games in the PC world you have to upgrade or have the game operating at less than the designed intent. I can afford to keep up with that, I actually upgrade at least once a year but I have friends that can't afford to upgrade there 3,4,5 year old machines and find it almost impossible to play newer games. the 360 came out in 2005, the PS3 came out in 2006. Even games purchased in 2011 or 2012 will work the same on a 2005 model as it will on a 2012 model. get a gaming machine from 2007 or 2008 even and you will find you have to turn down the graphics on modern games.
From the first sentence it's apparent you're looking at it wrong. You say you have to reduce performance looking at the maximum settings as a basis. On a console those settings never would have been there, the game would have been reduced performance right out of the box because console hardware is static. In reality you're getting the opportunity for a better experience provided you have the hardware to handle it. If not you're "stuck" with a similar level of performance as the game you bought a year ago, same as on a console.
Recursive Slashdotting!
Things are only going to get more closed. (snip) Consumers rule.
You forget that closed hurts consumers as well. Seeing as how I've been very busy at work (and somewhat lazy) lately I haven't developed anything for my Android phone yet, but the openness of the Android ecosystem has allowed me to install apps which let me do things I simply couldn't get on the iPhone. If you're going to claim that a closed system is better for consumers please provide evidence to back that up.
You'll notice that not all vehicles with speed limiters have the same limit. Most manufacturers set the speed limiter according to the tires supplied on the vehicle from the dealer, passenger tires have speed ratings on them which they are not recommended to be used above.
For example an 'S' rated tire is common equipment on your average family sedan. The S rating means the tire is good for up to 112mph. If Honda sold you an Accord with S rated tires and a speed limiter at 155mph you could sue them and probably win if one of the tires on your new car blew up while you were doing 130mph (this is assuming you survive of course). Thus most automakers set a speed limiter lower than the rating on the tires.
This would be where our viewpoints differ then. I don't have the perfect solution at hand, I'm sure that a team comprised of experts in different industry areas (Taken from multiple companies that are not in cooperation) working with a lawyer or two could come up with a better system.
Your outlook seems to be this is as good as we have now so it's better than nothing. My outlook is when something has as large of an effect as the patent system do it right or we're better off without it. While I don't agree on the issue, looking at it from your viewpoint your argument makes rational sense so let's just agree to disagree.
Any time you write code you are violating patents. To be worthy of a law suite requires a certain fair context.
-paul
I find it hard to believe you can say something like this and argue that the patent system is fine.
That is certainly unfortunate. My own experience with their customer service has been much better. If they tried that on me I would probably start shopping elsewhere as well but thus far they have pretty much bent over backwards to help me out on any issue.
What makes a patent admissible is if it has particular application and contains a novel inventive step.
Yet many patents are admitted where there is prior art (thus the inventive step is not 'novel') and where the step and application are painfully obvious to anyone with a degree of understanding in the relevant field. The patent system needs to be overhauled, currently it is not serving the purpose which it was created for.
I for one am not happy about my ISP who I pay to provide me with internet access and who I expect to protect my privacy doling out my information to advertisers. Advertisers figuring it out with the help of third parties is one thing, I can't hold the ISP responsible for that but this is simply unacceptable.
If I had $1 for every time the weather forecast was wrong I'd be a rich man...
Title III governs these areas as well. It prohibits any person from intentionally using or disclosing information knowingly intercepted by electronic surveillance, without the consent of the interested parties.
Since you've kindly emphasized the relevant information already perhaps you should read it. Google didn't use it or disclose it, they said "oh, we've collected more information than we intended to and we are going to delete it." Then the government stepped in and forced disclosure.
Even if a law is made explicitly saying you cannot utilize in any manner wireless networks without express permission of the owner it will still be effectively useless for protecting the public. Anyone looking to maliciously use your network traffic is not going to care about said law and will surreptitiously capture your data anyway, meanwhile the public thinks they are safe due to said law so the end result is even more dangerous.
First off, Google didn't go around with the purpose of collecting and analyzing your communications as you imply with your government and Microsoft examples. Google's goal was taking pictures for their streetview service and locating wifi networks to use for geolocation, a fairly common practice.
Were Microsoft doing the same thing for Bing maps I wouldn't fault them either. It has been said here time and time again you cannot expect privacy and security when you are openly broadcasting your network data out into the street and beyond. If the government actually wanted to serve the people and be useful in this situation they would start an educational campaign using this as an example (I'm sure Google would pitch in too) and educate the general public about the need to secure their wireless networks.
Since many ISP's offer to come set everything up for you when you sign up.
Yet most people will likely still fail to secure their wireless networks...
Considering we've blown off extradition requests from far more important countries in the past I'm not worried in the slightest.