The scale of how much money goes back to the console maker is a sliding scale. Last generation, several high profile games came out on Gamecube for $40 instead of $50. Nintendo lowered their own royalties so that publishers would be more willing to take a smaller hit by offering the game cheaper, but likely be able to sell more units. If you have a $20 title, it pays less royalties because it's sold for cheaper than a $50 title.
Of course, there's also Virtual Console to deal with...
Rumble has been defined as a "Last Generation Feature" and that rumble and motion sensing do not work together by SCE (despite the existance of the Wii Remote). Now with the settlement of the patent infringement issue with Immersion, it seems set to have a SIXAXIS controller with rumble. If this does happen, how are you going to get past the perception that SCE cannot make up its mind about what it wants? Customers wanting rumble so adding it in for their sake can't be used as a valid answer since the impression has been given that customers don't care about rumble. Also, if you're going to do this, what about every PS3 owner who has a rumbleless SIXAXIS-- Will you offer a program allowing them to trade-up for the better controller?
No, not exactly. She's trying to recover the fees so that way she ends this with only a headache and no money lost or gained. They submitted how much her legal fees were, the RIAA complained and said it was too much, so the judge is saying, "And how much did you spend?"
It's very relevant if her fees were $10,000, the RIAA said it was too much, and then we find out they spent $50,000 suing her.
except you missed my point. Nintendo promised 1/6th the poly's that the PS2 or X-box did, because Nintendo even said that they were giving counts in in-game situations. And this is when Nintendo kept up with the graphics whoring to a decent extent. most places the Gamecube put out at least 12 mil poly's in actual games (two of the games regarded as the best looking of last generation were on the gamecube and fit this bill), whereas no game on PS2 or X-box got close to it's projections.
Nintendo did not use a theoretical max like Sony and Microsoft did. If you want a comparison, Microsoft and Sony did the equivalent of EPA Miles Per Gallon estimates, idealized under very specific test conditions. Nintendo gave real world results.
Actually no they weren't. If you remember, when Sony and Microsoft were in the arena of 75 million polys or more, Nintendo was laughed at when they said the gamecube could only push about 12 million. The difference was Nintendo was counting an in-game situation, with the full 8 layer texturing that the gamecube naturally allowed. So while the PS2's poly count was supposedly 6 times higher than Nintendo's, Nintendo was considered to be a close 2nd to the X-box in terms of graphical power, with the PS2 being 3rd or 4th in most books (4th if you believe the Dreamcast had better graphics than the PS2).
So no, not everybody else was using the same lie, just those who care about hype.
I mean, ever had a motherboard with a little LED on it letting you know it's getting power. If you unplug the computer, it doesn't go off that exact second. You either wait a minute, or you hit the power button, which drains out the residual charge (though probably isn't good for the system). So yes, it could theoretically do it
Re-read the article, turning on common sense. They didn't spend $1000+ worth to catch HIM, they did it to catch speeders in their neighborhood so that maybe their 2 1/2 year old won't end up accidentally be pasted to the asphalt at way over the speed limit.
The fact that it caught a cop is just funny.
And if the couple were emailing him at his work address instead of a private address, he might not have had much of a claim given his public profile.
Good thing you know how to use the currency converter.
I mean, come on. 150 pounds is not $97. 97 pounds is $150.
Besides, he could go after full penalties now, which is significantly more than 150 pounds. Sure, it's nothing to the MPAA, but still, it doesn't look good that they do so much to enforce IP then they lose in court for similar violations
Wow, someone drank the liberal kool-aid a little too much.
Did you never read the decision. Florida was conducting a state-wide recount. This means every county would get counted over once, or twice. The democrats were pushing for democratic counties to be counted 3,4,5,6 times until they got the results they wanted. Ironically enough, the election officials started doing just that. The Republican Party/Bush Lawyers argued that the same process had to be followed in every county, not just selected ones that the democrats wanted. The Supreme Court, interpreting both the constitution and election law, agreed. Florida said, "We don't have time to do that before our law says we have to certify the election," so they gave up counting anybody. Since Bush had a lead at that point, Bush won Florida.
Did you also not pay attention to the AP-recount that was concluded about 3 months later? They found (and remember, most of the media was already Anti-Bush) that Bush would have won Florida by 500 votes anyway.
And with the government, you can decide not to give them your money or your life. Move to Canada or Mexico if it's that bad for you.
If you read the actual summary even, people complained about those links, using the little link that youtube has for the purpose of reporting a video. Google looks at videos that get several reports to them. If they violate copyright, or Google doesn't like them, they remove them. And I'm sure that as long as a company reports a DMCA violation, as long as Google removes it, the safe harbor provisions still apply.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Where in there does it say that there's any freedom to criticize religion. It just says that the government won't make any laws in regards to establishing or prohibiting exercise of said religion. Just the same as the government can't make laws prohibiting free speech, press, peaceful assembly, and to petition the government.
I agree though that it's absurd that people call you anti-Islamic if you say anything bad about Islam.
Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about. Google and Amazon are not the government (yet at least). The first amendment protects you from the government taking away your rights, not corporations and individuals. So what if Google removed a video, it's their property that he's posting it on. If they don't like something, they have a right to remove it. To say they don't have this right, would be like saying if someone put up a political sign in your yard of someone from the party you don't support, that you don't have a right to remove it because you're violating someone else's free speech.
As for the Amazon case, sure, you have a right to call and complain. Nothing says that Amazon has to actually listen to you.
In the end, these aren't issues of free speech. These are people getting their panties in a knot because someone wouldn't listen to them.
Does TiVo's patent explicitly state that it's recording to, and reading from the same media at the same time? I was making a point that you could be recording one program with the DVR while watching another in normal TV mode. With Echostar's Satelite dish's, unless you have a dual tuner model, this is directly impossible within the same unit regardless.
I find it funny that you choose to argue an analogy (semantics in this case) instead of any other point.
And basically you're trying to tell me that TiVo patented the ability to read and write from the same media at the same time.
If you read the articles, it shows even more desperation by TiVo.
TiVo vs Echostar- Echostar is infringing on patents owned by TiVo that allow for the recording of one program while watching another program (aka, anything one can normally do with a VCR) on a DVR.
Echostar vs TiVo- Tivo is infringing on patents owned by Echostar that allow for the pausing, rewinding, and re-forwarding) of live TV on a DVR.
Personally I'd be more afraid for TiVo when the other lawsuit comes to a head. Echostar's violation isn't of the most critical nature of what a DVR does. TiVo's though, from their very first advertisements, is basing their core business around the idea of pausing live tv.
Technically they couldn't have turned every one of their DVRs off. Dish has two services in regards to the DVR. Ones where you pay almost a rental fee for the service, and ones where you actually own the machine. Those who purchased higher end Dish DVRs, instead of getting them free as part of service) would technically own their machines. Customers could claim that their property was damaged by Dish Network for disabling said functionality in those systems.
Actually, what's really funny about all this, is that there's another Echostar vs TiVo case out there. Apparently at the same time that Echostar is violating TiVo's patents, TiVo is violating Echostar's patents.
So it would be really funny if in light of this, a permanent injunction is granted against TiVo on the same grounds and TiVo is made to shut off all its units. The beauty of the situation is Echostar has a money stream without DVRs, TiVo is pretty much SOL and would have to settle
Depends on where you live. In my state (Washington), if you don't have enough time from when you got your schedule that you'd be working on election day, before then to get an absentee ballot, you're entitled to 2 hours paid leave.
The motion sensing controller, almost identical to the one Nintendo has made was done first on Dreamcast but never released.
Save for the uforce and power glove attempts for the NES.
Sega was the first to use the microphone as a gameplay device
You might want to back this up. Some of the original nintendo game and watch devices I believe used it, but the Japanese Famicom actually had a built in microphone. The point in Legend of Zelda (the original) where it refers to an enemy not liking noise, was a reference that you could blow into the microphone.
First console online (Genesis)
There was a modem device for the NES IIRC, and possibly even the TurboGraphx 16.
I hate to say this, but while the idea of security from the user instead of for the user, sounds insane, it's probably very needed and very valid.
I've done some freelance computer work for people who don't know all the technical stuff about computers. This normally relates to spyware/malware/virii/etc. The grand majority of the spyware and malware is self installed. Downloading cutesy screensavers or cursors or backgrounds that come with all manners of desktop search, search bars. When you have a Athlon 64 3800+ with 2 GB of Ram and 10,000 RPM SATA drives in a raid array slowed to a crawl because of too much crap (with antivirus and antispyware software installed, something is wrong.
I've even seen half the spyware removing programs that show up as spyware themselves in AdAware!
We're getting to a point where security FROM the user is almost if not more important than security FOR the user.
Well, it comes down to this. Is the money that Microsoft makes in a day in Europe more or less than what they are being fined. If it is more, they continue doing it, but try to comply more (though they've done much better at complying than the ruling would imply). Though I'd also wait to see what WGA tells them about government entities not using legal copies of windows. That could be embarassing politically if countries are prosecuting microsoft so extensively but it's determined that majority of the governments are breaking their own laws and not even using legal copies. If it is less, then obviously the market isn't profitable enough and they freeze all selling of Windows and other microsoft products in the European union.
If you really think about it, they're being fined because they're selling non-compliant software. Take away the selling, and yes, while Microsoft might still be around a billion in the hole, the EU faces pressure from all those others who make profit because of microsoft-- i.e. systems manufacturers and the like.
After the sale date, Microsoft refuses to authenticate any copy of any software that was not previously authenticated through Windows/Office/etc activation, that originates in Europe. Microsoft similarly stops offering patches to European versions, even for critial bugs. Of course, following this, they start with WGA, checking how many of those computers in Europe aren't using XP legally, and find a way to determine which ones are owned by various EU governments. Microsoft then goes to the same EU courts screwing them over, pressing for maximum fines against member governments, various large corporations, even the small fries. Microsoft recoups their money, possibly profits from the fines assessed, and of course, all those government computers not legally running windows? Too bad it isn't being sold anymore, because now they can't use windows on them.
Save for the fact that there's a much bigger reason that states limit drinking until 21. Several years ago, states such as Idaho still used to be only 18 for drinking age. Federal Government (under Clinton) said that if states don't make their drinking age 21, then they'd take away highway and other funding. A few million more in alcohol taxes doesn't make up for a few billion in Federal funds.
Though we should follow England example. Drink at 16, don't get your drivers license till 18. By 18, most people get the hint that drinking just isn't as awesome as it used to be.
Well, to be fair, it is somewhat disconcerting to see the Executive Branch (FBI) busting down the door of the legislature (Congress) because of the implications on the balance of powers. An overly strong executive branch can be a scary thing.
And who exactly is supposed to be policing congress anyway? This really isn't about seperation of powers in the end. Think about it. All Law enforcement comes down from the Executive Branch, so who is supposed to police congress?
Put another way. Who is in charge when a major official of the executive branch is in trouble? Hrm, the legislature. That sounds like an implication of the balance of powers to me. In the case where one branch is doing something illegal, the other two are involved. Congress can impeach either members of the executive branch, or the judicial branch (I.E. Supreme Court members CAN be removed). In this case, with the legisative branch having troubles, the Executive will handle law enforcement as usual, and the judicial will handle any trials that result from this. Just because you make the laws doesn't put you above them
I know it wasn't too long ago that there was a similar article that pointed out the fact that the RIAA groups are still charging for CD theft and defective CDs when people download the music legally.
It's kinda like how in Canada they want to institute DMCA type laws, even though people already pay for pirated music and movies by buying CDRs and the taxes on them up there. Makes me wonder if those laws pass, how many people will push for the repeal of the tax, saying that the law already covers it, why double pay?
Slashdot Mirror
They actually have.
The scale of how much money goes back to the console maker is a sliding scale. Last generation, several high profile games came out on Gamecube for $40 instead of $50. Nintendo lowered their own royalties so that publishers would be more willing to take a smaller hit by offering the game cheaper, but likely be able to sell more units. If you have a $20 title, it pays less royalties because it's sold for cheaper than a $50 title.
Of course, there's also Virtual Console to deal with...
Rumble has been defined as a "Last Generation Feature" and that rumble and motion sensing do not work together by SCE (despite the existance of the Wii Remote). Now with the settlement of the patent infringement issue with Immersion, it seems set to have a SIXAXIS controller with rumble. If this does happen, how are you going to get past the perception that SCE cannot make up its mind about what it wants? Customers wanting rumble so adding it in for their sake can't be used as a valid answer since the impression has been given that customers don't care about rumble. Also, if you're going to do this, what about every PS3 owner who has a rumbleless SIXAXIS-- Will you offer a program allowing them to trade-up for the better controller?
No, not exactly. She's trying to recover the fees so that way she ends this with only a headache and no money lost or gained. They submitted how much her legal fees were, the RIAA complained and said it was too much, so the judge is saying, "And how much did you spend?"
It's very relevant if her fees were $10,000, the RIAA said it was too much, and then we find out they spent $50,000 suing her.
except you missed my point. Nintendo promised 1/6th the poly's that the PS2 or X-box did, because Nintendo even said that they were giving counts in in-game situations. And this is when Nintendo kept up with the graphics whoring to a decent extent. most places the Gamecube put out at least 12 mil poly's in actual games (two of the games regarded as the best looking of last generation were on the gamecube and fit this bill), whereas no game on PS2 or X-box got close to it's projections.
Nintendo did not use a theoretical max like Sony and Microsoft did. If you want a comparison, Microsoft and Sony did the equivalent of EPA Miles Per Gallon estimates, idealized under very specific test conditions. Nintendo gave real world results.
Actually no they weren't. If you remember, when Sony and Microsoft were in the arena of 75 million polys or more, Nintendo was laughed at when they said the gamecube could only push about 12 million. The difference was Nintendo was counting an in-game situation, with the full 8 layer texturing that the gamecube naturally allowed. So while the PS2's poly count was supposedly 6 times higher than Nintendo's, Nintendo was considered to be a close 2nd to the X-box in terms of graphical power, with the PS2 being 3rd or 4th in most books (4th if you believe the Dreamcast had better graphics than the PS2).
So no, not everybody else was using the same lie, just those who care about hype.
Residual Charge?
I mean, ever had a motherboard with a little LED on it letting you know it's getting power. If you unplug the computer, it doesn't go off that exact second. You either wait a minute, or you hit the power button, which drains out the residual charge (though probably isn't good for the system). So yes, it could theoretically do it
Re-read the article, turning on common sense. They didn't spend $1000+ worth to catch HIM, they did it to catch speeders in their neighborhood so that maybe their 2 1/2 year old won't end up accidentally be pasted to the asphalt at way over the speed limit.
The fact that it caught a cop is just funny.
And if the couple were emailing him at his work address instead of a private address, he might not have had much of a claim given his public profile.
Good thing you know how to use the currency converter.
I mean, come on. 150 pounds is not $97. 97 pounds is $150.
Besides, he could go after full penalties now, which is significantly more than 150 pounds. Sure, it's nothing to the MPAA, but still, it doesn't look good that they do so much to enforce IP then they lose in court for similar violations
Wow, someone drank the liberal kool-aid a little too much.
Did you never read the decision. Florida was conducting a state-wide recount. This means every county would get counted over once, or twice. The democrats were pushing for democratic counties to be counted 3,4,5,6 times until they got the results they wanted. Ironically enough, the election officials started doing just that. The Republican Party/Bush Lawyers argued that the same process had to be followed in every county, not just selected ones that the democrats wanted. The Supreme Court, interpreting both the constitution and election law, agreed. Florida said, "We don't have time to do that before our law says we have to certify the election," so they gave up counting anybody. Since Bush had a lead at that point, Bush won Florida.
Did you also not pay attention to the AP-recount that was concluded about 3 months later? They found (and remember, most of the media was already Anti-Bush) that Bush would have won Florida by 500 votes anyway.
And with the government, you can decide not to give them your money or your life. Move to Canada or Mexico if it's that bad for you.
If you read the actual summary even, people complained about those links, using the little link that youtube has for the purpose of reporting a video. Google looks at videos that get several reports to them. If they violate copyright, or Google doesn't like them, they remove them. And I'm sure that as long as a company reports a DMCA violation, as long as Google removes it, the safe harbor provisions still apply.
Actually, no it doesn't.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Where in there does it say that there's any freedom to criticize religion. It just says that the government won't make any laws in regards to establishing or prohibiting exercise of said religion. Just the same as the government can't make laws prohibiting free speech, press, peaceful assembly, and to petition the government.
I agree though that it's absurd that people call you anti-Islamic if you say anything bad about Islam.
Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about. Google and Amazon are not the government (yet at least). The first amendment protects you from the government taking away your rights, not corporations and individuals. So what if Google removed a video, it's their property that he's posting it on. If they don't like something, they have a right to remove it. To say they don't have this right, would be like saying if someone put up a political sign in your yard of someone from the party you don't support, that you don't have a right to remove it because you're violating someone else's free speech.
As for the Amazon case, sure, you have a right to call and complain. Nothing says that Amazon has to actually listen to you.
In the end, these aren't issues of free speech. These are people getting their panties in a knot because someone wouldn't listen to them.
Does TiVo's patent explicitly state that it's recording to, and reading from the same media at the same time? I was making a point that you could be recording one program with the DVR while watching another in normal TV mode. With Echostar's Satelite dish's, unless you have a dual tuner model, this is directly impossible within the same unit regardless.
I find it funny that you choose to argue an analogy (semantics in this case) instead of any other point.
And basically you're trying to tell me that TiVo patented the ability to read and write from the same media at the same time.
If you read the articles, it shows even more desperation by TiVo.
TiVo vs Echostar- Echostar is infringing on patents owned by TiVo that allow for the recording of one program while watching another program (aka, anything one can normally do with a VCR) on a DVR.
Echostar vs TiVo- Tivo is infringing on patents owned by Echostar that allow for the pausing, rewinding, and re-forwarding) of live TV on a DVR.
Personally I'd be more afraid for TiVo when the other lawsuit comes to a head. Echostar's violation isn't of the most critical nature of what a DVR does. TiVo's though, from their very first advertisements, is basing their core business around the idea of pausing live tv.
Technically they couldn't have turned every one of their DVRs off. Dish has two services in regards to the DVR. Ones where you pay almost a rental fee for the service, and ones where you actually own the machine. Those who purchased higher end Dish DVRs, instead of getting them free as part of service) would technically own their machines. Customers could claim that their property was damaged by Dish Network for disabling said functionality in those systems.
Actually, what's really funny about all this, is that there's another Echostar vs TiVo case out there. Apparently at the same time that Echostar is violating TiVo's patents, TiVo is violating Echostar's patents.
So it would be really funny if in light of this, a permanent injunction is granted against TiVo on the same grounds and TiVo is made to shut off all its units. The beauty of the situation is Echostar has a money stream without DVRs, TiVo is pretty much SOL and would have to settle
Can't you just set the exception for cookies in firefox to not allow anything from the domain google.com and gmail.com to not allow cookies ever?
Lots of people think of the cherries. In fact, 90% of the internet is directly related to people's thinking about cherries, or lack thereof.
Depends on where you live. In my state (Washington), if you don't have enough time from when you got your schedule that you'd be working on election day, before then to get an absentee ballot, you're entitled to 2 hours paid leave.
The motion sensing controller, almost identical to the one Nintendo has made was done first on Dreamcast but never released.
Save for the uforce and power glove attempts for the NES.
Sega was the first to use the microphone as a gameplay device
You might want to back this up. Some of the original nintendo game and watch devices I believe used it, but the Japanese Famicom actually had a built in microphone. The point in Legend of Zelda (the original) where it refers to an enemy not liking noise, was a reference that you could blow into the microphone.
First console online (Genesis)
There was a modem device for the NES IIRC, and possibly even the TurboGraphx 16.
I hate to say this, but while the idea of security from the user instead of for the user, sounds insane, it's probably very needed and very valid.
I've done some freelance computer work for people who don't know all the technical stuff about computers. This normally relates to spyware/malware/virii/etc. The grand majority of the spyware and malware is self installed. Downloading cutesy screensavers or cursors or backgrounds that come with all manners of desktop search, search bars. When you have a Athlon 64 3800+ with 2 GB of Ram and 10,000 RPM SATA drives in a raid array slowed to a crawl because of too much crap (with antivirus and antispyware software installed, something is wrong.
I've even seen half the spyware removing programs that show up as spyware themselves in AdAware!
We're getting to a point where security FROM the user is almost if not more important than security FOR the user.
Well, it comes down to this. Is the money that Microsoft makes in a day in Europe more or less than what they are being fined. If it is more, they continue doing it, but try to comply more (though they've done much better at complying than the ruling would imply). Though I'd also wait to see what WGA tells them about government entities not using legal copies of windows. That could be embarassing politically if countries are prosecuting microsoft so extensively but it's determined that majority of the governments are breaking their own laws and not even using legal copies. If it is less, then obviously the market isn't profitable enough and they freeze all selling of Windows and other microsoft products in the European union.
If you really think about it, they're being fined because they're selling non-compliant software. Take away the selling, and yes, while Microsoft might still be around a billion in the hole, the EU faces pressure from all those others who make profit because of microsoft-- i.e. systems manufacturers and the like.
After the sale date, Microsoft refuses to authenticate any copy of any software that was not previously authenticated through Windows/Office/etc activation, that originates in Europe. Microsoft similarly stops offering patches to European versions, even for critial bugs. Of course, following this, they start with WGA, checking how many of those computers in Europe aren't using XP legally, and find a way to determine which ones are owned by various EU governments. Microsoft then goes to the same EU courts screwing them over, pressing for maximum fines against member governments, various large corporations, even the small fries. Microsoft recoups their money, possibly profits from the fines assessed, and of course, all those government computers not legally running windows? Too bad it isn't being sold anymore, because now they can't use windows on them.
Save for the fact that there's a much bigger reason that states limit drinking until 21. Several years ago, states such as Idaho still used to be only 18 for drinking age. Federal Government (under Clinton) said that if states don't make their drinking age 21, then they'd take away highway and other funding. A few million more in alcohol taxes doesn't make up for a few billion in Federal funds.
Though we should follow England example. Drink at 16, don't get your drivers license till 18. By 18, most people get the hint that drinking just isn't as awesome as it used to be.
Well, to be fair, it is somewhat disconcerting to see the Executive Branch (FBI) busting down the door of the legislature (Congress) because of the implications on the balance of powers. An overly strong executive branch can be a scary thing.
And who exactly is supposed to be policing congress anyway? This really isn't about seperation of powers in the end. Think about it. All Law enforcement comes down from the Executive Branch, so who is supposed to police congress?
Put another way. Who is in charge when a major official of the executive branch is in trouble? Hrm, the legislature. That sounds like an implication of the balance of powers to me. In the case where one branch is doing something illegal, the other two are involved. Congress can impeach either members of the executive branch, or the judicial branch (I.E. Supreme Court members CAN be removed). In this case, with the legisative branch having troubles, the Executive will handle law enforcement as usual, and the judicial will handle any trials that result from this. Just because you make the laws doesn't put you above them
I know it wasn't too long ago that there was a similar article that pointed out the fact that the RIAA groups are still charging for CD theft and defective CDs when people download the music legally.
It's kinda like how in Canada they want to institute DMCA type laws, even though people already pay for pirated music and movies by buying CDRs and the taxes on them up there. Makes me wonder if those laws pass, how many people will push for the repeal of the tax, saying that the law already covers it, why double pay?