1) Just because someone SAYS you have a copyright on something, doesn't mean that you legally do.
2) Spoken word conversation is not the same as written word when it comes to copyright. You can't copyright a vocal conversation that you have with someone. You could potentially copyright a specific recording, but the copyright would lie with whoever made the recording. The only trickiness is that the recording must have been made legally. In this case, a voicemail, he knew he was being recorded and thus the recording is completely legal.
If you openly record me saying something to you. You can copyright the recording, I can't copyright what I said. See the difference?
That might complicate things a little bit. And I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the specifics there. However, he didn't read him a poem, or otherwise say anything to the voicemail that could be even considered as "copyrighted". You can't copyright a conversation.
FACT: MOST of the "format-shifting" going on today is due to illegal activity, not due to a legitimate consumer who bought the product in format-A and now wants it in format-B.
Citation please? The "illegal activity" that you mention is, for a lot of people, a result of the inability for a legitimate customer who bought it in format-A and now wants it in format-B. I'd wager that this is mostly the case due to the fact that the "illegal activity" provides it in all the formats you want or in an already easily shiftable format. Anyone who got it "illegally" can just get it in the format they want, therefore it's mostly just legitimate customers who want to format shift and are pushed to piracy to get it in the format they want because they refuse to pay for it again
FACT: If we did not have rampant illegal movie sharing going on today, these companies would have NEVER invested the time or money to create "encryption" schemes to protect said content.
Yea, it has nothing at all to do with forcing people to pay again for content they've already paid for. If they wanted to curb some of the illegal movie sharing, most is caused by only a few reasons. They could offer online downloads of movies, not just rentals. They could allow people to format shift without claiming it's illegal, how bout they make it very EASY for legitimate customers to do? These are their customers who turn to "illegal sharing" just because the companies refuse (not can't) to provide what they want. I make no moral judgement on them, this is just the reality. For those who just download for the sake of downloading, cheapskates, those who wouldn't pay anyways even if these things were provided. They aren't the customers. They make no money off of them regardless.
FACT: A lot of movies are coming out today with digital copies of the movie included, so they do in fact "give me a way" to have it in another format.
I bet those aren't the movies that people complain about for format shifting:) Obviously the ones people complain about will be the ones that don't come out with the digital copy included.
The nerds don't bitch when the tickering doesn't work. The nerds bitch when companies artificially put a restriction on something that is unnecessary. They bitch when the only reason they "can't" do something is because the company says it's wrong/illegal and not because of any technological limitation. If it is possible that I can tinker and make it do what I want, and I bought it. Then I should be allowed to do it. I own the dvd and have a license to view the content. I should be able to put it on my hard drive and watch it from my computer. Nothing technologically stops me, just a company saying 'no, we'll sue you if you do that.'
Personally, most of the people I know who have downloaded movies "illegally", have done so due to a refusal to pay more than once for the same thing. Usually so they can have a digital copy of the movie, but also for other not as legitimate reasons such as something happening to the disk. Which wouldn't have been a problem if they were able to have a backup copy.
If you call me and leave a voicemail, you have no legal standing to prevent me from playing that voicemail for whoever I wish. However, I have complete legal standing to prevent you from forcing me to play the voicemail. You're free to state what you said though. See, the recording becomes my property to do what I wish, as long as it was made legally (you knew you were being recorded.)
I personally am very satisfied with Flash on my Android device. It's a little bit of a battery hog, but the ability to disable it and only use it when I want to makes it just like anything else on the phone. I really enjoy having my smooth flash video on my phone.:)
It's pretty sad when a show that is supposed to be dedicated comedy is considered a more trustworthy news source than CNN.
What makes it more sad, is that they are actually right to consider it more trustworthy. It's not just people believing it and wanting it to be true. They actually are more trustworthy. What does that say about the rest of our sources of "news"?
Arguing why you can't put your DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive is about as pointless as arguing why there is no football dispenser in your new car. Point being, it was never designed to.
I don't see your point. A car manufacturer is not going to sue me for copyright infringement if I decide to install a football dispenser in my car. So why should a movie production company be allowed to sue me if I put my DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive? I have as much right to modify my car to my liking as I do to format-shift my media. The problem is not, 'I can't do this, why don't they give me a way?' The problem is, 'I can do this, why is it illegal?' To go further into the topic, a car manufacturer does not take specific steps to prevent me from installing that football dispenser in my car. The DVD or Blu-Ray manufacturer does in fact take specific steps to prevent me from format shifting my media.
Not every product in this world is designed to work around you. If you don't like the way certain technology works, then don't fucking buy it.
Who cares if the product wasn't designed to do what I want? It can do what I want and the manufacturer has no right to stop me. I paid for the media + a license to view the content. I'm not asking the manufacturer or the movie company to provide me the tools to copy movie over. I can find those tools myself. I just don't see how it is in any way 'wrong' or 'immoral' enough to warrant it being worth a civil lawsuit for doing it.
Considering it's illegal to give alcohol to a minor, most parents would never give a child liquor. By the same reasoning, if they gave this Rated M the force of law rather than the honor system, the situations you describe would become far less likely.
The comparison to alcohol is accurate, you're simply confusing the comparison I made. I'm comparing the fact that alcohol is a controlled access substance, meaning a minor can't just walk into a store and buy it. The same is true if they passed legislation for games. The end result would be EXACTLY the same, requiring an adult to purchase them and for the same reason (to keep it out of the hands of minors), hence the comparison is valid.
But you right there proved the comparison is not valid. It is illegal for a parent to give the alcohol to a minor. It would not be illegal for a parent to buy the M rated game for a minor. That makes things a key difference. Currently, any game store requires the parent to purchase M rated games anyways thus this legislation would have absolutely no effect. Because it's not illegal to give the child the game, there is nothing that would stop the parent from giving their child the game as there would be with giving the child liquor. It is not accurate.
In your world view, no law would be useful if they can't be 100% infallible, which of course will never happen. Laws curb irresponsible behavior, but they can never stop it. In other words, laws against auto-theft might make you avoid stealing a car due to the consequences, but they can never prevent you from doing so.
I can see where you would get that idea, and I apologize because that was not my intention. I believe that there should be no law telling you the proper or improper way to raise your own child. That consumption of media is not inherently harmful, and if you believe that it would harm your child you need to discuss it with them. I don't believe that no law is useful if it can't be 100% infallible. I believe that if a law is utterly useless on its face, it is not useful. Giving the force of law to the ESRB makes the situation worse, not better. It will encourage children to keep what they play hidden from their parents rather than get them involved. Essentially, the exact opposite of the purpose. (Mind you, I'm someone who agrees the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Aside from other reasons, I think it's ridiculous that you can go off to war, but can't have a beer with your pals.)
That is up to the individual to choose whether to break it or not and whether the action is worth the risk. If there are no consequences of concern to the individual, of course they will break it. If you make the consequences worrisome enough, they are far more likely to comply. It is the basis of behavioral teaching for all children. Slap their hand hard enough, and they won't do something 'bad' again. Ignore them and they will continue to do so.
So why can't the parent do the parenting? Why do we need to have a law to do it for them?
Such a law would also give incentive and consequences to parents and 'friends' who would break such a law to help a buddy out. Any such law could easily be setup as a 'PG' law, meaning parents could give their children such if they deemed it appropriate.
I would love to see you advocate this in the case of movies and books too. Might show you how ridiculous it is. You have an 20 year old and a 16 year old sibling. They want to go see an R rated movie. The law says that the 16 year old can't see the movie, even with the 20 year old sibling. Or even better, say they had a significant other who was 17. They can't go see the movie because the 17 year old isn't their parent? Or maybe we shouldn't allow children to buy copies of the bible because it has scenes of gore, violence, and discussions of rape?
Aside from my original argument that the idea of the government passing a law to parent children instead of the parents is ridiculous. The idea that video games should be treated like a controlled substance while movies, books, and other media is not, just sickens me.
Then why do teenagers keep getting arrested for "sexting" on another? I think Jefferson said it best: "Rights are for the fully adult mind, not a plaything for children that do not yet comprehend their decisions or the consequences of same." The rights lie with the parents upto age 18.
There is currently an entire debate dealing with this. Some believe that it is right to arrest them some believe it is not. However if you pay any attention to what is going on, they are being arrested on charges of "distributing child pornography" when they send nude pictures of themselves. They are not being arrested for any words they place in the messages. Notice that the issue has nothing to do with the fact that the person sending the "sext" is underage, and everything to do with the fact that the subject of the picture is underage. An adult would be held to the same standard with the same restrictions.
Wrong. I was just reading an article of a 6th grade girl that was forced, by a judge, to quit a Christian school and attend the government school in order to "gain more exposure to other religions like Judaism and Islam". i.e. The judge was taking-away her right of religious practice of a Christ-centered education.
You read an article of one instance? Did the article mention the family appealing the decision? If they aren't, why not? Just because a single judge makes a decision does not mean they are correct and within their rights under the law. The girl should appeal, because the judge has no authority to take away her right of religious practice and thus should have respected her rights.
I didn't say that. If you go back and read more carefully, I clearly listed specific rights not "all" rights. I listed drinking, driving, and a few other specific examples.
As the parent pointed out, you did in fact state that non-adults have no rights.
Nonsense. non-adults DO have rights. Some of these rights are restricted, but they DO have rights. For example, the government can't restrict the speech of a child any more than they can restrict the speech of an adult. Same with respecting the right to practice their own religion, etc, and all the other rights adults have. It is only when it comes to certain situations/nanny state examples that their rights become restricted. Such as the sale of alcohol, porn, etc. Some of these I agree with and some I don't. However a non-adult DOES have rights. Being a ward of their parents just gives the parents the legal right to have a say on their child's behalf in all legal matters, and make certain decisions on their child's behalf. Such as medical decisions.
I'm REALLY sick and tired of people assuming that just because you are not 'legally' an adult, you do not have any rights. It's completely backwards and wrong. Turning 18 does not immediately bestow some magical knowledge to a person making them "an adult". I've met immature adults who were exactly the type of people the restrictions were meant to protect, and I've met highly mature non-adults who knew enough to be behave responsibly when it came to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Just like a 12 year old can walk into a movie theater and see an R rated movie? Oh right, they can't. Right now, a 12 year old cannot just walk into a Gamestop and buy GTAIV. Why? Because of self-regulation. Gamestop store policy, they will not sell it to them. The exact same thing that stops a 12 year old from seeing an R rated movie. Also, any minor can get access to liquor fairly easily if they want to/have the right friends.
Also, comparing video games to liquor is completely inaccurate. Considering that liquor is a drug and video games are an artistic medium. The argument is that there is no proof that video games are harmful in any way, only opinions.
Anyways, to prove my original point. What if the parents of the kid down the road buy gin? What if they are stupid parents and don't have a problem with their kid having some of this gin? What if he shares it with your kid? Oh my, that regulation that prohibits the sale of liquor to minors just took you, the parent, completely out of the equation because all your kid has to do is ask to hang out with the guy down the street. Not mention anything about the gin, and viola, they get access to it. No control at all. The only way this could be stopped is if you actually pay attention to your kid, who they associate with and where they go. Which of course has nothing to do with the regulations.
Not to mention the fact that, since games are very different than liquor or some controlled substance, unlike the above scenario there's a much higher chance that the parents would have bought their kid a "ultraviolent" video game than allow them to have gin. So in this situation, the regulation that you want so much would have done absolutely nothing.
What is the solution? Parental controls on consoles and computers is one. But that doesn't solve the problem about going to a friend's house if their parents don't use parental controls. Well then you'd have to prevent them going over to their friend's house. Hmm...that doesn't seem to work as well either because then they'd just subvert your authority by either lying or both going to some other friend's house. It's not like liquor or some other drug where you can test for it/other factors make it easy to notice it is happening. Perhaps the only solution is to TALK to your children, discuss this with them. Realize that there is actually nothing inherently wrong with video games, violent or otherwise. Maybe do some parenting and raise your kids correctly and you won't worry at all about them playing violent games because you can TRUST them? Government regulations won't give you any of this. All this restriction would do is give the children who are rebellious another thing to be rebellious about, give parents a new reason to have arguments with the parents of their children's friends, and waste police manpower in pursuing store clerks. There is no substitution for parenting. Try to trust your kids, it can make a huge difference in their life.
Wait...sorry. I forgot. Parenting is much much too difficult nowadays. We have to think of the children and protect them from everything....you should never put any amount of trust in them. They can be corrupted by the smallest little thing, make sure they are isolated from everything, or else....
I'd much rather a game was restricted to 18+s only than banned outright
That shouldn't be the issue. Banning outright should never even be a choice. Therefore the issue is to allow the current industry self-regulation that WORKS or create a new law that will put the force of law behind an industry self-regulation which won't make it work any better and will waste taxpayer money fining and arresting store clerks rather than other crimes that are more difficult to pursue but actually, ya know, are productive. The law restricting minors from buying "ultraviolent or sexual" games, will have no greater effect than the industry self-regulation has had.
Only misleading if they just glance at it. If they actually read the descriptors it's kinda obvious that "Early Childhood" was a mistake. Especially when the descriptors say blood, gore, violence, partial nudity, etc.
It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect[sic] of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"
Riiiight.....and movies should have a giant label that says "Hey, mom! This movie has beheading!", books should have giant labels that say "Hey, mom! This book has bad words in it!"
Give me a break. The back of the box says that there is violence, sexual themes, etc., if she doesn't know that the game might contain something violent then she's not paying attention at all.
If movies, books, comics, paintings, etc. don't need to have giant warning labels then games don't either.
I can agree on principal that yes, the less you tax the citizenry the more disposable income a person has to spend. However, when you're in a recession, people don't spend as much. When you lower taxes, the vast majority of people just SAVE extra money rather than spend it. Which decreases tax revenue, while giving no benefits to the economy. This is why tax cuts aren't the solution to a recession, they weren't the solution in the 20's and 30's they aren't the solution now. Go ask an economist. The problem with your argument here is you assume that the only factor is the tax rate, but there are many more factors than this.
The reverse argument is equally flawed because government debt is not the same as private debt. The point of government spending is to move numbers on a spreadsheet to numbers on a different spreadsheet. Or in better terms, to move money from the public sector into the private sector.
The example you talk about, businesses sitting on cash, etc., why do you not bring that up in your first scenario? Again, there are many more factors than simply how much comes or goes in taxes. When you're in a recession, businesses and families are the same. If you lower the taxes, they just save the excess money. Sure, SOME of it will be spent, but, as mentioned in many economic analysis', for every dollar in tax cuts (as of a few months ago) the government would get back I think it was around 65 cents. Whereas for every dollar in stimulus, the government was getting back around $1.20 or something. The problem is that people were saving the extra money from the tax cuts, not spending it. Now if we weren't in a recession, I might agree with you more. The difference is I am taking into account much more than just the tax rate.
Once again, lowering taxes does not magically increase revenue. If the other factors are in alignment then it's possible that it can. But currently, right now, it wouldn't.
If you have $100, and you buy a widget for $45 and pay a tax of $5, you can afford to buy two--giving the government $10.
If the government raises the tax on a widget to $10, you can no longer afford to buy two, so the government only gets $5.
Math, you don't have it. If the government raises the tax to $10, and you buy one. Then the government gets....lets see....$10. Your example is wrong on it's face, both examples the government gets the same amount of money. So really, this argument is more about raising taxes doesn't increase revenue, rather than lowering taxes doesn't lower revenue.
I agree with you that neither extreme works, but lowering taxes isn't the automatic increased revenue that you think it is. Otherwise all those economists wouldn't be saying that the tax cuts don't help. There are more variables than simply what the tax rate is. Such as the rate of people to save vs spend. If you lower taxes and everyone just saves the extra money, now you've just lowered the revenue with no benefits.
If this were to put parents back into the loop as to what their children were buying, then I think it's a good thing.
But this would take parents out of the loop completely. Parents would just be content to let their children go to the store on their own, confident in the idea that "they can't buy the game, it's against the law." Rather than actually taking an interest in what their children are doing in this case. Which then leads to the fact that little Timmy's Mom just bought GTA3 for him, Jhonny won't tell his mom that part, he'll just ask if he can go hang out with Timmy. Thus the parents are taken out of the equation because of a false sense of security. Meanwhile video games as a medium suffers.
they pretend like lowering taxes doesn't increase the federal government's revenues
Um....by definition, if you lower taxes the government gets less money. It's kinda how taxes work. I'm not saying whether money going to the government is good or bad, but logically the government doesn't get as much money if it isn't taking in as much taxes. It might make up for this elsewhere, but it still lowers the revenue. So where was this logic you said the right-wing had? Obviously you don't have it.
Because so much of the documentation and other information is freely online, an MSDN subscription is not required to develop for windows. It is completely free to develop an application for windows unless you want to buy specific tools, which is your choice to do but is not required in any way.
All the big companies change[sic] for developer access to their stuff.
I can name at least one that doesn't, Google. You are only charged to put something on the market (and it's a one-time charge if I remember correctly not an annual one). You can freely distribute, install, and develop without paying anything. In fact most companies don't charge for developer access at all, they charge for tools. You can freely develop for OS X without a developer fee. You can develop for Windows with no developer fee. Even developing for a console, the fee is to purchase a dev box that allows you to put stuff on it and the dev toolkit. If you got a dev box from someone else and got the tools to develop for free, you don't need to have paid for a specific key in order to be allowed to put your stuff on the dev box. (If I remember correctly anyways =P).
It's not that less than 10 bucks a month is too much. But for the person who is just starting to play with development, $100 entry fee (let alone annual if it takes them longer than 1 year to make a profitable app) is a bit much to sink in as a "I wonder if I'll enjoy this" or "I wonder if I can do this". It creates enough of a barrier to remove the hobbyist that just wants to toy with the tools and development unless they feel that it's enough of a value to invest the money. Developing for the iPhone/iPad, you're paying (in addition to the other stuff) for a key that allows you to install something you created yourself onto the device that you own. THAT is what I object to. Wanna charge a one-time fee for the dev tools? Go for it. I shouldn't need an annual subscription fee just to develop for the device I own. They should divorce the ability to develop from the other stuff. Pay the subscription for the early access, the videos, the tools. But if I don't want all that, let me develop for the device freely.
As for the simulator you describe, I've never heard of it. Could you provide a link? If you can develop freely and use the simulator freely and it's good. Then I accept that it's much better than what I thought. However a simulator is not a substitute for being able to develop on the actual device.
There are extremes, and a happy medium... I prefer being happy.
And sometimes theres no medium, there's either yes or no. Two extremes being the only choices. This is one of those cases. Either you have the choice to use flash or not. There is no medium. This is a completely different situation than distribution packaging tools or virus protection. This is the ability to have access to something or not to have access to it at all. Can you name me one way, one single way, that flash being ALLOWED on the iPhone is a bad thing? It's not like we have multiple competing versions and Apple is restricting you to only one single version.
Well, good thing the code is converted to native iPhone code since the iPhone still does not run flash.
Running an app that has been ported from flash will be no different than running any other native app that runs with a native abstraction library. ie. Will not use any more battery power than a non-flash equivalent app.
Android doesn't fully address the problem either... skills learned for android don't apply so well to iphone
It is not a failing of Android that the skills don't transfer well. They are different devices with different APIs for different reasons. In fact I would argue that the skills transfer just fine. The skills you learn from picking up the documentation and learning the API and learning how to code to the API and use the system transfer just as well when you pick up the documentation for the iPhone and have to spend the time to learn the API and how to code for it. Just because the API and language are different, does not mean that the skills don't transfer.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Just because someone SAYS you have a copyright on something, doesn't mean that you legally do.
2) Spoken word conversation is not the same as written word when it comes to copyright. You can't copyright a vocal conversation that you have with someone. You could potentially copyright a specific recording, but the copyright would lie with whoever made the recording. The only trickiness is that the recording must have been made legally. In this case, a voicemail, he knew he was being recorded and thus the recording is completely legal.
If you openly record me saying something to you. You can copyright the recording, I can't copyright what I said. See the difference?
Every self-checkout I've seen allows you to pay with cash....
That might complicate things a little bit. And I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the specifics there. However, he didn't read him a poem, or otherwise say anything to the voicemail that could be even considered as "copyrighted". You can't copyright a conversation.
FACT: MOST of the "format-shifting" going on today is due to illegal activity, not due to a legitimate consumer who bought the product in format-A and now wants it in format-B.
Citation please? The "illegal activity" that you mention is, for a lot of people, a result of the inability for a legitimate customer who bought it in format-A and now wants it in format-B. I'd wager that this is mostly the case due to the fact that the "illegal activity" provides it in all the formats you want or in an already easily shiftable format. Anyone who got it "illegally" can just get it in the format they want, therefore it's mostly just legitimate customers who want to format shift and are pushed to piracy to get it in the format they want because they refuse to pay for it again
FACT: If we did not have rampant illegal movie sharing going on today, these companies would have NEVER invested the time or money to create "encryption" schemes to protect said content.
Yea, it has nothing at all to do with forcing people to pay again for content they've already paid for. If they wanted to curb some of the illegal movie sharing, most is caused by only a few reasons. They could offer online downloads of movies, not just rentals. They could allow people to format shift without claiming it's illegal, how bout they make it very EASY for legitimate customers to do? These are their customers who turn to "illegal sharing" just because the companies refuse (not can't) to provide what they want. I make no moral judgement on them, this is just the reality. For those who just download for the sake of downloading, cheapskates, those who wouldn't pay anyways even if these things were provided. They aren't the customers. They make no money off of them regardless.
FACT: A lot of movies are coming out today with digital copies of the movie included, so they do in fact "give me a way" to have it in another format.
I bet those aren't the movies that people complain about for format shifting :) Obviously the ones people complain about will be the ones that don't come out with the digital copy included.
The nerds don't bitch when the tickering doesn't work. The nerds bitch when companies artificially put a restriction on something that is unnecessary. They bitch when the only reason they "can't" do something is because the company says it's wrong/illegal and not because of any technological limitation. If it is possible that I can tinker and make it do what I want, and I bought it. Then I should be allowed to do it. I own the dvd and have a license to view the content. I should be able to put it on my hard drive and watch it from my computer. Nothing technologically stops me, just a company saying 'no, we'll sue you if you do that.'
Personally, most of the people I know who have downloaded movies "illegally", have done so due to a refusal to pay more than once for the same thing. Usually so they can have a digital copy of the movie, but also for other not as legitimate reasons such as something happening to the disk. Which wouldn't have been a problem if they were able to have a backup copy.
If you call me and leave a voicemail, you have no legal standing to prevent me from playing that voicemail for whoever I wish. However, I have complete legal standing to prevent you from forcing me to play the voicemail. You're free to state what you said though. See, the recording becomes my property to do what I wish, as long as it was made legally (you knew you were being recorded.)
I personally am very satisfied with Flash on my Android device. It's a little bit of a battery hog, but the ability to disable it and only use it when I want to makes it just like anything else on the phone. I really enjoy having my smooth flash video on my phone. :)
Clearly flash has no documentation. Granted it's only recently that they've released the entire file format specification, but still. They did.
It's pretty sad when a show that is supposed to be dedicated comedy is considered a more trustworthy news source than CNN.
What makes it more sad, is that they are actually right to consider it more trustworthy. It's not just people believing it and wanting it to be true. They actually are more trustworthy. What does that say about the rest of our sources of "news"?
Arguing why you can't put your DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive is about as pointless as arguing why there is no football dispenser in your new car. Point being, it was never designed to.
I don't see your point. A car manufacturer is not going to sue me for copyright infringement if I decide to install a football dispenser in my car. So why should a movie production company be allowed to sue me if I put my DVD or Blu-Ray collection on a hard drive? I have as much right to modify my car to my liking as I do to format-shift my media. The problem is not, 'I can't do this, why don't they give me a way?' The problem is, 'I can do this, why is it illegal?' To go further into the topic, a car manufacturer does not take specific steps to prevent me from installing that football dispenser in my car. The DVD or Blu-Ray manufacturer does in fact take specific steps to prevent me from format shifting my media.
Not every product in this world is designed to work around you. If you don't like the way certain technology works, then don't fucking buy it.
Who cares if the product wasn't designed to do what I want? It can do what I want and the manufacturer has no right to stop me. I paid for the media + a license to view the content. I'm not asking the manufacturer or the movie company to provide me the tools to copy movie over. I can find those tools myself. I just don't see how it is in any way 'wrong' or 'immoral' enough to warrant it being worth a civil lawsuit for doing it.
I would like the link to the article. It seems to be something interesting.
It is wrong for the court to do this, and I hope that the parents are able to find some way to overturn this. It is ridiculous.
Considering it's illegal to give alcohol to a minor, most parents would never give a child liquor. By the same reasoning, if they gave this Rated M the force of law rather than the honor system, the situations you describe would become far less likely.
The comparison to alcohol is accurate, you're simply confusing the comparison I made. I'm comparing the fact that alcohol is a controlled access substance, meaning a minor can't just walk into a store and buy it. The same is true if they passed legislation for games. The end result would be EXACTLY the same, requiring an adult to purchase them and for the same reason (to keep it out of the hands of minors), hence the comparison is valid.
But you right there proved the comparison is not valid. It is illegal for a parent to give the alcohol to a minor. It would not be illegal for a parent to buy the M rated game for a minor. That makes things a key difference. Currently, any game store requires the parent to purchase M rated games anyways thus this legislation would have absolutely no effect. Because it's not illegal to give the child the game, there is nothing that would stop the parent from giving their child the game as there would be with giving the child liquor. It is not accurate.
In your world view, no law would be useful if they can't be 100% infallible, which of course will never happen. Laws curb irresponsible behavior, but they can never stop it. In other words, laws against auto-theft might make you avoid stealing a car due to the consequences, but they can never prevent you from doing so.
I can see where you would get that idea, and I apologize because that was not my intention. I believe that there should be no law telling you the proper or improper way to raise your own child. That consumption of media is not inherently harmful, and if you believe that it would harm your child you need to discuss it with them. I don't believe that no law is useful if it can't be 100% infallible. I believe that if a law is utterly useless on its face, it is not useful. Giving the force of law to the ESRB makes the situation worse, not better. It will encourage children to keep what they play hidden from their parents rather than get them involved. Essentially, the exact opposite of the purpose. (Mind you, I'm someone who agrees the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Aside from other reasons, I think it's ridiculous that you can go off to war, but can't have a beer with your pals.)
That is up to the individual to choose whether to break it or not and whether the action is worth the risk. If there are no consequences of concern to the individual, of course they will break it. If you make the consequences worrisome enough, they are far more likely to comply. It is the basis of behavioral teaching for all children. Slap their hand hard enough, and they won't do something 'bad' again. Ignore them and they will continue to do so.
So why can't the parent do the parenting? Why do we need to have a law to do it for them?
Such a law would also give incentive and consequences to parents and 'friends' who would break such a law to help a buddy out. Any such law could easily be setup as a 'PG' law, meaning parents could give their children such if they deemed it appropriate.
I would love to see you advocate this in the case of movies and books too. Might show you how ridiculous it is. You have an 20 year old and a 16 year old sibling. They want to go see an R rated movie. The law says that the 16 year old can't see the movie, even with the 20 year old sibling. Or even better, say they had a significant other who was 17. They can't go see the movie because the 17 year old isn't their parent? Or maybe we shouldn't allow children to buy copies of the bible because it has scenes of gore, violence, and discussions of rape?
Aside from my original argument that the idea of the government passing a law to parent children instead of the parents is ridiculous. The idea that video games should be treated like a controlled substance while movies, books, and other media is not, just sickens me.
To address your points:
Then why do teenagers keep getting arrested for "sexting" on another? I think Jefferson said it best: "Rights are for the fully adult mind, not a plaything for children that do not yet comprehend their decisions or the consequences of same." The rights lie with the parents upto age 18.
There is currently an entire debate dealing with this. Some believe that it is right to arrest them some believe it is not. However if you pay any attention to what is going on, they are being arrested on charges of "distributing child pornography" when they send nude pictures of themselves. They are not being arrested for any words they place in the messages. Notice that the issue has nothing to do with the fact that the person sending the "sext" is underage, and everything to do with the fact that the subject of the picture is underage. An adult would be held to the same standard with the same restrictions.
Wrong. I was just reading an article of a 6th grade girl that was forced, by a judge, to quit a Christian school and attend the government school in order to "gain more exposure to other religions like Judaism and Islam". i.e. The judge was taking-away her right of religious practice of a Christ-centered education.
You read an article of one instance? Did the article mention the family appealing the decision? If they aren't, why not? Just because a single judge makes a decision does not mean they are correct and within their rights under the law. The girl should appeal, because the judge has no authority to take away her right of religious practice and thus should have respected her rights.
I didn't say that. If you go back and read more carefully, I clearly listed specific rights not "all" rights. I listed drinking, driving, and a few other specific examples.
As the parent pointed out, you did in fact state that non-adults have no rights.
Nonsense. non-adults DO have rights. Some of these rights are restricted, but they DO have rights. For example, the government can't restrict the speech of a child any more than they can restrict the speech of an adult. Same with respecting the right to practice their own religion, etc, and all the other rights adults have. It is only when it comes to certain situations/nanny state examples that their rights become restricted. Such as the sale of alcohol, porn, etc. Some of these I agree with and some I don't. However a non-adult DOES have rights. Being a ward of their parents just gives the parents the legal right to have a say on their child's behalf in all legal matters, and make certain decisions on their child's behalf. Such as medical decisions.
I'm REALLY sick and tired of people assuming that just because you are not 'legally' an adult, you do not have any rights. It's completely backwards and wrong. Turning 18 does not immediately bestow some magical knowledge to a person making them "an adult". I've met immature adults who were exactly the type of people the restrictions were meant to protect, and I've met highly mature non-adults who knew enough to be behave responsibly when it came to drugs, alcohol, etc.
Just like a 12 year old can walk into a movie theater and see an R rated movie? Oh right, they can't. Right now, a 12 year old cannot just walk into a Gamestop and buy GTAIV. Why? Because of self-regulation. Gamestop store policy, they will not sell it to them. The exact same thing that stops a 12 year old from seeing an R rated movie. Also, any minor can get access to liquor fairly easily if they want to/have the right friends.
Also, comparing video games to liquor is completely inaccurate. Considering that liquor is a drug and video games are an artistic medium. The argument is that there is no proof that video games are harmful in any way, only opinions.
Anyways, to prove my original point. What if the parents of the kid down the road buy gin? What if they are stupid parents and don't have a problem with their kid having some of this gin? What if he shares it with your kid? Oh my, that regulation that prohibits the sale of liquor to minors just took you, the parent, completely out of the equation because all your kid has to do is ask to hang out with the guy down the street. Not mention anything about the gin, and viola, they get access to it. No control at all. The only way this could be stopped is if you actually pay attention to your kid, who they associate with and where they go. Which of course has nothing to do with the regulations.
Not to mention the fact that, since games are very different than liquor or some controlled substance, unlike the above scenario there's a much higher chance that the parents would have bought their kid a "ultraviolent" video game than allow them to have gin. So in this situation, the regulation that you want so much would have done absolutely nothing.
What is the solution? Parental controls on consoles and computers is one. But that doesn't solve the problem about going to a friend's house if their parents don't use parental controls. Well then you'd have to prevent them going over to their friend's house. Hmm...that doesn't seem to work as well either because then they'd just subvert your authority by either lying or both going to some other friend's house. It's not like liquor or some other drug where you can test for it/other factors make it easy to notice it is happening. Perhaps the only solution is to TALK to your children, discuss this with them. Realize that there is actually nothing inherently wrong with video games, violent or otherwise. Maybe do some parenting and raise your kids correctly and you won't worry at all about them playing violent games because you can TRUST them? Government regulations won't give you any of this. All this restriction would do is give the children who are rebellious another thing to be rebellious about, give parents a new reason to have arguments with the parents of their children's friends, and waste police manpower in pursuing store clerks. There is no substitution for parenting. Try to trust your kids, it can make a huge difference in their life.
Wait...sorry. I forgot. Parenting is much much too difficult nowadays. We have to think of the children and protect them from everything....you should never put any amount of trust in them. They can be corrupted by the smallest little thing, make sure they are isolated from everything, or else....
</rant> That felt good. =p
I'd much rather a game was restricted to 18+s only than banned outright
That shouldn't be the issue. Banning outright should never even be a choice. Therefore the issue is to allow the current industry self-regulation that WORKS or create a new law that will put the force of law behind an industry self-regulation which won't make it work any better and will waste taxpayer money fining and arresting store clerks rather than other crimes that are more difficult to pursue but actually, ya know, are productive. The law restricting minors from buying "ultraviolent or sexual" games, will have no greater effect than the industry self-regulation has had.
Only misleading if they just glance at it. If they actually read the descriptors it's kinda obvious that "Early Childhood" was a mistake. Especially when the descriptors say blood, gore, violence, partial nudity, etc.
It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect[sic] of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"
Riiiight.....and movies should have a giant label that says "Hey, mom! This movie has beheading!", books should have giant labels that say "Hey, mom! This book has bad words in it!"
Give me a break. The back of the box says that there is violence, sexual themes, etc., if she doesn't know that the game might contain something violent then she's not paying attention at all.
If movies, books, comics, paintings, etc. don't need to have giant warning labels then games don't either.
Wow, lets see if we can't shed some light here.
I can agree on principal that yes, the less you tax the citizenry the more disposable income a person has to spend. However, when you're in a recession, people don't spend as much. When you lower taxes, the vast majority of people just SAVE extra money rather than spend it. Which decreases tax revenue, while giving no benefits to the economy. This is why tax cuts aren't the solution to a recession, they weren't the solution in the 20's and 30's they aren't the solution now. Go ask an economist. The problem with your argument here is you assume that the only factor is the tax rate, but there are many more factors than this.
The reverse argument is equally flawed because government debt is not the same as private debt. The point of government spending is to move numbers on a spreadsheet to numbers on a different spreadsheet. Or in better terms, to move money from the public sector into the private sector.
The example you talk about, businesses sitting on cash, etc., why do you not bring that up in your first scenario? Again, there are many more factors than simply how much comes or goes in taxes. When you're in a recession, businesses and families are the same. If you lower the taxes, they just save the excess money. Sure, SOME of it will be spent, but, as mentioned in many economic analysis', for every dollar in tax cuts (as of a few months ago) the government would get back I think it was around 65 cents. Whereas for every dollar in stimulus, the government was getting back around $1.20 or something. The problem is that people were saving the extra money from the tax cuts, not spending it. Now if we weren't in a recession, I might agree with you more. The difference is I am taking into account much more than just the tax rate.
Once again, lowering taxes does not magically increase revenue. If the other factors are in alignment then it's possible that it can. But currently, right now, it wouldn't.
If you have $100, and you buy a widget for $45 and pay a tax of $5, you can afford to buy two--giving the government $10.
If the government raises the tax on a widget to $10, you can no longer afford to buy two, so the government only gets $5.
Math, you don't have it. If the government raises the tax to $10, and you buy one. Then the government gets....lets see....$10. Your example is wrong on it's face, both examples the government gets the same amount of money. So really, this argument is more about raising taxes doesn't increase revenue, rather than lowering taxes doesn't lower revenue.
I agree with you that neither extreme works, but lowering taxes isn't the automatic increased revenue that you think it is. Otherwise all those economists wouldn't be saying that the tax cuts don't help. There are more variables than simply what the tax rate is. Such as the rate of people to save vs spend. If you lower taxes and everyone just saves the extra money, now you've just lowered the revenue with no benefits.
If this were to put parents back into the loop as to what their children were buying, then I think it's a good thing.
But this would take parents out of the loop completely. Parents would just be content to let their children go to the store on their own, confident in the idea that "they can't buy the game, it's against the law." Rather than actually taking an interest in what their children are doing in this case. Which then leads to the fact that little Timmy's Mom just bought GTA3 for him, Jhonny won't tell his mom that part, he'll just ask if he can go hang out with Timmy. Thus the parents are taken out of the equation because of a false sense of security. Meanwhile video games as a medium suffers.
they pretend like lowering taxes doesn't increase the federal government's revenues
Um....by definition, if you lower taxes the government gets less money. It's kinda how taxes work. I'm not saying whether money going to the government is good or bad, but logically the government doesn't get as much money if it isn't taking in as much taxes. It might make up for this elsewhere, but it still lowers the revenue. So where was this logic you said the right-wing had? Obviously you don't have it.
Because so much of the documentation and other information is freely online, an MSDN subscription is not required to develop for windows. It is completely free to develop an application for windows unless you want to buy specific tools, which is your choice to do but is not required in any way.
All the big companies change[sic] for developer access to their stuff.
I can name at least one that doesn't, Google. You are only charged to put something on the market (and it's a one-time charge if I remember correctly not an annual one). You can freely distribute, install, and develop without paying anything. In fact most companies don't charge for developer access at all, they charge for tools. You can freely develop for OS X without a developer fee. You can develop for Windows with no developer fee. Even developing for a console, the fee is to purchase a dev box that allows you to put stuff on it and the dev toolkit. If you got a dev box from someone else and got the tools to develop for free, you don't need to have paid for a specific key in order to be allowed to put your stuff on the dev box. (If I remember correctly anyways =P).
It's not that less than 10 bucks a month is too much. But for the person who is just starting to play with development, $100 entry fee (let alone annual if it takes them longer than 1 year to make a profitable app) is a bit much to sink in as a "I wonder if I'll enjoy this" or "I wonder if I can do this". It creates enough of a barrier to remove the hobbyist that just wants to toy with the tools and development unless they feel that it's enough of a value to invest the money. Developing for the iPhone/iPad, you're paying (in addition to the other stuff) for a key that allows you to install something you created yourself onto the device that you own. THAT is what I object to. Wanna charge a one-time fee for the dev tools? Go for it. I shouldn't need an annual subscription fee just to develop for the device I own. They should divorce the ability to develop from the other stuff. Pay the subscription for the early access, the videos, the tools. But if I don't want all that, let me develop for the device freely.
As for the simulator you describe, I've never heard of it. Could you provide a link? If you can develop freely and use the simulator freely and it's good. Then I accept that it's much better than what I thought. However a simulator is not a substitute for being able to develop on the actual device.
There are extremes, and a happy medium... I prefer being happy.
And sometimes theres no medium, there's either yes or no. Two extremes being the only choices. This is one of those cases. Either you have the choice to use flash or not. There is no medium. This is a completely different situation than distribution packaging tools or virus protection. This is the ability to have access to something or not to have access to it at all. Can you name me one way, one single way, that flash being ALLOWED on the iPhone is a bad thing? It's not like we have multiple competing versions and Apple is restricting you to only one single version.
Well, good thing the code is converted to native iPhone code since the iPhone still does not run flash.
Running an app that has been ported from flash will be no different than running any other native app that runs with a native abstraction library. ie. Will not use any more battery power than a non-flash equivalent app.
Android doesn't fully address the problem either ... skills learned for android don't apply so well to iphone
It is not a failing of Android that the skills don't transfer well. They are different devices with different APIs for different reasons. In fact I would argue that the skills transfer just fine. The skills you learn from picking up the documentation and learning the API and learning how to code to the API and use the system transfer just as well when you pick up the documentation for the iPhone and have to spend the time to learn the API and how to code for it. Just because the API and language are different, does not mean that the skills don't transfer.