The government stepping into a profit-motive is what gets us things like civil asset forfeiture. The government should not be engaging in profit-oriented behaviors for one basic reasons: They have the force of law behind them. A corporation (in an ideal situation) does not control the laws that they are subject to, and some laws may be for them with others against them. A government can make every law for itself without restrictions, as it can write the laws and executes them with the enforcement of the police. At that point, is there any respect for the laws? Is it any different than the worst corporation you can imagine? Would you want that as your governing entity?
Given I'm no copyright lawyer, I'm no expert. That said, my understanding is that the literal cartoon 'Steamboat Willie', copyright 1928, with Mickey Mouse in it would no longer be under copyright protection and anyone in possession of a copy of that work could begin to make their own copies of it for resale without Disney's permission. This may not cover derivative works that Disney (may have) released such as a digitally enhanced version or a re-released version of that same cartoon which may carry a more recent copyright.
Mickey Mouse is also trademarked, yes, so that would prohibit you from making your own 'Mickey Mouse' cartoon, merchandise, or other relevant items with that name and likeness.
Oh, to see this post posted by an AC with no mod points to give in response to blind observance of history outside of context. Came here to post this very same idea (The 'Democrats' and 'Republican' parties are not immutable in ideals through history) and find this better explained lesson. Bravo.
Does Disc Replay require a contract with every publisher for products they sell? They certainly sell in a commercial capacity, and I don't see on their site 'we only accept these products for resale'. I'm also reasonably certain, given their target merchandise, what they sell is copyrighted works. Don't think they've been sued for doing what they do, though, because no where in their business line do they clone, copy, or otherwise replicate the work being sold.
They're not selling digital copies. They're selling a code that grants the buyer access to a digital copy. Maybe that distinction means something here, because the implication in 'does not apply to digital copies' implies Redbox is copying the digital version. It is not.
In your example, is it important to note who the contract is with? In other words, the 'sale should be treated as if it was purchased without a contract' part is a contract of exchange (for lack of a better term) between the retail store and the customer. No where in there is the contract with the MAKER OF THE GOOD, in this case, Disney.
Somehow, I doubt that, without appropriate power of attorney or other legal documents, a retail store like Target could enter Disney into a contract with a customer in one of their stores.
I wouldn't hold my hopes up but the ISP might, just might, decide it can pass some of the savings on to you.
This has already been seen in another industry. Specifically, a tax was allowed to expire on airlines and rather than pass the savings onto customers, the base rates for the tickets increased by exactly the amount of the tax, meaning customers continued to pay the same amount. See, airlines realize that the market already is willing to bear that purchase price for the ticket (fees and taxes included) so there is literally no reason a company would pass on money they could collect unless they were not allowed to.
There was a brief stint in my company where we attempted to provision Intel vPro as a way to assist the Help Desk staff remotely support end user devices even through reboot cycles. We got through the whole process of configuration and provisioning. Required new objects in Active Directory, required us to abandon a disjointed DNS namespace, and provision certificates and then, at the end of the Proof of Concept, we got a site full of working remote management chipsets.
Then we asked the question: When we reimage the device, how do we re-provision the ME? It was determined that it wasn't possible to do it on-board even, that it had to be executed from the network/off board, which would require a sort of Rube Goldberg process to make happen in our imaging strategy.
The effort was abandoned after introducing far too much complexity in security to be feasible. It worked as advertised, but it was just too difficult to begin to work with. I can't imagine hacking it makes it any easier, given the restrictions configured in it.
Ayn Rand, misguided as she was, did not simply posit that 'greed is good' but it was that self-interest or selfishness was the highest and only moral behavior. That could mean a lot of things to different people. It could mean being greedy as it results in your self-aggrandizement. It could mean being altruistic if that is what you want to do. Regardless of what you do, you do it because YOU want to and not because you were told to do it by someone else.
Sadly, she also seemed to believe that people will perform at their best and that the brightest and best always won out. Even her protagonists would happily work for someone better than they if such a person existed. Rent-seeking or other greedy behaviors like patent-trolling are not likely very Rand-ian because they are not creators of anything and certainly are not doing their best at their job. They don't make (and get paid handsomely for it), they just take, as her antagonists do.
As to the notion that somehow, if the government had never gotten involved, we would be in a better place today, I think you may find yourself misguided as well. It seems quite the culture of the USA that we always want the most return for the least effort. That idea has given us such fun ideas as external cost to business. To maximize profits, I skip the cost of cleanup of my manufacturing process and instead dump waste back into the field. Is it toxic? Who cares, and when someone comes to tell me I need to clean it up, I'll cry bankrupt and move on with my money.
I have no high faith that, even if the government withdrew regulation in the best way possible (or even that hypothetical of never got involved in the first place) that we'd be any further ahead of where we are now. Comcast, in this case, doesn't want to provide the best service possible to all people possible. They're not being told they can't. Comcast is saying they don't want to be told what they have to do, even though they were only being told 'Wherever you see fit, run new lines.'
Ya. That's right. It's totally them darn kids and their phones.
I'm going on the assumption that you've been around an electric car before at low speeds to hear how quiet they are. I know I have. Frankly, all I heard was the quiet creaking of the tires as it moved over pebbles and a very faint whine of the electric motor(s). It would be entirely possible to miss those noises, in my opinion, face-in-smartphone not withstanding. And I say this as a person who is routinely very keenly aware of my surroundings.
I do find it a sort of ironic amusement though. Make electric cars too quiet, needs a noisemaker. Meanwhile, in my office, I'd beg them to turn off the white noise generator for just a moment's peace.
Microsoft has launched many new features of Windows. Some survive, some don't (SideShow, Gadgets to name a few). "effectively telling developers" isn't the same as "actually telling developers" which is required for malfeasance. It is also not mutually exclusive. It doesn't say "if you're a game studio and developing for Windows, we are not going to let you run your program on our OS unless you make it compatible with UWP." They're also not curtailing users' freedom, though I admit I don't even know what he means by that. Not every piece of software installed on your PC will take advantage of all features of the OS. Why would my game need to manage my drive encryption or be able to set my desktop background? Heck, some don't even care if they're network enabled.
Basically, the statements quoted, to me, do not stand up to the idea of proof. Game studios could go right on doing what they're doing and say nuts to UWP. Besides, after just a shred of thought and research, these criticisms of UWP and any technical limitations that discourage development of PC Games in UWP, Microsoft has already responded to.
The claim being made is that Microsoft will actively alter Windows so as to make alternate deployment platforms like Steam substandard and behave erratically. We are fully within our right to ask for proof of that activity being done. Besides, it seems like we're back to the age old Slashdot problem of reporting on old news.
I doubt they needed some Random Commenter on Slashdot, or even game studio co-founder, to suggest outlandish subversions of law. High level management seems to at times revel in coming up with stupid ways to screw over others, rather than focus on just making a better product everyone begs to use. If you've thought of it, you can pretty much be sure they already thought of it too.
Attributing personality to a legal construct is a little like believing a pet rock can bark at you. Good imagination, but doesn't bear practical results.
It is exactly because of history that I did suggest caution and scrutiny. I also realize that random accusations do not make fact, and if someone is accusing someone else of wrongdoing (breaking Steam, in this instance), I have to say to the person making the accusation 'Prove it'. Fairly simple request for them to provide their evidence, which is, literally, all I asked for.
I'd like to know what evidence there is to support this, rather than words on a page ranting about perception. Not that I don't agree caution, it's one thing to make big noise and proclaim persecution when none exists. Show the evidence and remove doubt about Microsoft's intention.
I can remember when AT&T decided to provide me that high speed 3 Mbps. In fact, that was when I quit it a year ago. Know when they offered me VDSL (U-verse)? Grand promises made starting near 3 years ago, I check now and it's still not in my area, despite repeated promises that it'd be there 'within 6 months'. I don't live in some rural area, either. I suppose being on the edge of the second largest city in my state might hamper my ability, though I'm only 3 miles from the downtown area. Just a mile closer to downtown in an apartment, I was able to get their 6 Mbps service reliably. Now in a house? Not so much.
So I'm bored with them. I had to bite my tongue and run with Comcast again, despite misgivings about it. And while there are still hiccups and promises, even on a business class line, at least there is speed to be had enough to do what I need on most days. Don't tell me for a second that AT&T has rushed right out to improve jack squat, though, because I'll ask you to go ahead and pull the other one too.
Apparently, as the individual bringing the 'questionable' item in, you can expect to be victim-shaming instead of the people that overreacted taking ownership of the mistake they made. And even when the people overreacting had it pointed out that they overreacted, an apology is simply too far for them to go. That's what you can expect.
HBO only has an online only subscription if you are using Apple TV or iOS devices, or are a subscriber for Optimum Broadband Service. I'm still waiting for a true stand-alone offering like Netflix has.
Someone who didn't read the article. One of the comments in the 'more serious of the two bugs' indicated that Microsoft INFORMED them that the patch was lined up for January, but was pulled and rescheduled for February. You lost your bet, by Google's own bookkeeping. Try for another?
And yet there are manufacturer coupons for things like food that grocers accept. Does the grocer accept the hit on that money that the manufacturer decided to entice the customer with, or does the grocer reclaim those funds from the manufacturers? Honestly, I don't know as I haven't worked in that business, but a little logic would seem to imply the grocer gets reimbursed from the manufacturer for discounting the item.
It's more about buying a $100 product at a store that has a $30 rebate, and forgetting or not filing the paperwork to get the money back, instead of, you know, just offering it as a direct rebate or coupon to the seller and allowing the customer to buy it at $70 out of pocket. I'm sure the claim rate of rebates is not 100%, and it probably isn't over 50% if I had to guess.
I made a mistake in my response. I was thinking 'religious slurs' and instead typed 'racial' confusing in my head how some religions are conflated or associated with a particular race of people. Additionally, yes, I also confused the straw man and ad hominem logical fallacies. Despite those mistakes of mine, I'm not sure that the intent of my comment was entirely out of line. My point was that, whether religion is a choice or not, it is not relevant to most discussions. Perhaps that may be where someone's morals are based, but unless it has direct bearing in a debate, it has no place in it.
For example, I would not disparage your religion or beliefs if we were having a discussion on what to do about abortion. If the argument being made by a religious person is factually wrong (an IUD is an abortifacient, a position not commonly held by anyone in the medical community) then that point can be refuted WITHOUT calling the person a dumb, blind sheeple. No where in that particular, religiously-charged argument is the position being held that religious adherents personally are being required to do something against their faith (i.e. not required to have an abortion). Other topics are subject to majority choice and Constitutional validation, such as "can a company have a religion?" or "can an employer push their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on employees through their compensation?"
Even if they don't accept commonly held facts, then it is STILL irrelevant what their religion is, because there are more than a few stubborn, atheist and agnostic individuals. Religion doesn't necessarily make you stubborn. They were stubborn before, They are just trying to validate that stubbornness with a reason (God says so). And whether or not the 'common state' is people insulting people, I find it necessary to be better than that, even if it currently fails.
Unless a subject's religion is the bearing of a discussion, I don't see where using racial slurs enhances a debate. All too often, though, slurs are used if that is one of the primary defining characteristics about the subject. What all these characteristics amount to is trying to avoid a Straw Man argument.
More simply put: Don't attack the messenger if you cannot refute the message.
The point of ISPs extorting money out of companies like Netflix is to serve one of two goals. 1) Gain more profit for doing less work or 2) kill off the services if such costs make them unprofitable. Then, the competing service said ISP offers (or "exclusive" service contracted in) will be the only one available for those ISP customers to purchase. Win/Win for the ISP, and a loss for all of us, since one often does NOT pick their provider.
Who makes the copy? Does the receiver go onto the physical hard drive of the offering server and read each of those relevant bits itself, or does the offering system, perhaps a web server or bit torrent client, read the file (or file segment(s)) and make the copy, sending them across the wire to the requesting system? Regardless whether or not the requester initiated the copy, the distributor's agent (be it program or person) made the copy to send. The requester (or requester's agent) received and recorded what was sent to it. At most you can say it was a two-party offence, though I would not see it that way.
It seems logical that the offending party is the one OFFERING and SENDING, not receiving, the copy.
Slashdot Mirror
The government stepping into a profit-motive is what gets us things like civil asset forfeiture. The government should not be engaging in profit-oriented behaviors for one basic reasons: They have the force of law behind them. A corporation (in an ideal situation) does not control the laws that they are subject to, and some laws may be for them with others against them. A government can make every law for itself without restrictions, as it can write the laws and executes them with the enforcement of the police. At that point, is there any respect for the laws? Is it any different than the worst corporation you can imagine? Would you want that as your governing entity?
Given I'm no copyright lawyer, I'm no expert. That said, my understanding is that the literal cartoon 'Steamboat Willie', copyright 1928, with Mickey Mouse in it would no longer be under copyright protection and anyone in possession of a copy of that work could begin to make their own copies of it for resale without Disney's permission. This may not cover derivative works that Disney (may have) released such as a digitally enhanced version or a re-released version of that same cartoon which may carry a more recent copyright.
Mickey Mouse is also trademarked, yes, so that would prohibit you from making your own 'Mickey Mouse' cartoon, merchandise, or other relevant items with that name and likeness.
Oh, to see this post posted by an AC with no mod points to give in response to blind observance of history outside of context. Came here to post this very same idea (The 'Democrats' and 'Republican' parties are not immutable in ideals through history) and find this better explained lesson. Bravo.
Does Disc Replay require a contract with every publisher for products they sell? They certainly sell in a commercial capacity, and I don't see on their site 'we only accept these products for resale'. I'm also reasonably certain, given their target merchandise, what they sell is copyrighted works. Don't think they've been sued for doing what they do, though, because no where in their business line do they clone, copy, or otherwise replicate the work being sold.
They're not selling digital copies. They're selling a code that grants the buyer access to a digital copy. Maybe that distinction means something here, because the implication in 'does not apply to digital copies' implies Redbox is copying the digital version. It is not.
In your example, is it important to note who the contract is with? In other words, the 'sale should be treated as if it was purchased without a contract' part is a contract of exchange (for lack of a better term) between the retail store and the customer. No where in there is the contract with the MAKER OF THE GOOD, in this case, Disney.
Somehow, I doubt that, without appropriate power of attorney or other legal documents, a retail store like Target could enter Disney into a contract with a customer in one of their stores.
I wouldn't hold my hopes up but the ISP might, just might, decide it can pass some of the savings on to you.
This has already been seen in another industry. Specifically, a tax was allowed to expire on airlines and rather than pass the savings onto customers, the base rates for the tickets increased by exactly the amount of the tax, meaning customers continued to pay the same amount. See, airlines realize that the market already is willing to bear that purchase price for the ticket (fees and taxes included) so there is literally no reason a company would pass on money they could collect unless they were not allowed to.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/2...
There was a brief stint in my company where we attempted to provision Intel vPro as a way to assist the Help Desk staff remotely support end user devices even through reboot cycles. We got through the whole process of configuration and provisioning. Required new objects in Active Directory, required us to abandon a disjointed DNS namespace, and provision certificates and then, at the end of the Proof of Concept, we got a site full of working remote management chipsets.
Then we asked the question: When we reimage the device, how do we re-provision the ME? It was determined that it wasn't possible to do it on-board even, that it had to be executed from the network/off board, which would require a sort of Rube Goldberg process to make happen in our imaging strategy.
The effort was abandoned after introducing far too much complexity in security to be feasible. It worked as advertised, but it was just too difficult to begin to work with. I can't imagine hacking it makes it any easier, given the restrictions configured in it.
Ayn Rand, misguided as she was, did not simply posit that 'greed is good' but it was that self-interest or selfishness was the highest and only moral behavior. That could mean a lot of things to different people. It could mean being greedy as it results in your self-aggrandizement. It could mean being altruistic if that is what you want to do. Regardless of what you do, you do it because YOU want to and not because you were told to do it by someone else.
Sadly, she also seemed to believe that people will perform at their best and that the brightest and best always won out. Even her protagonists would happily work for someone better than they if such a person existed. Rent-seeking or other greedy behaviors like patent-trolling are not likely very Rand-ian because they are not creators of anything and certainly are not doing their best at their job. They don't make (and get paid handsomely for it), they just take, as her antagonists do.
As to the notion that somehow, if the government had never gotten involved, we would be in a better place today, I think you may find yourself misguided as well. It seems quite the culture of the USA that we always want the most return for the least effort. That idea has given us such fun ideas as external cost to business. To maximize profits, I skip the cost of cleanup of my manufacturing process and instead dump waste back into the field. Is it toxic? Who cares, and when someone comes to tell me I need to clean it up, I'll cry bankrupt and move on with my money.
I have no high faith that, even if the government withdrew regulation in the best way possible (or even that hypothetical of never got involved in the first place) that we'd be any further ahead of where we are now. Comcast, in this case, doesn't want to provide the best service possible to all people possible. They're not being told they can't. Comcast is saying they don't want to be told what they have to do, even though they were only being told 'Wherever you see fit, run new lines.'
Ya. That's right. It's totally them darn kids and their phones.
I'm going on the assumption that you've been around an electric car before at low speeds to hear how quiet they are. I know I have. Frankly, all I heard was the quiet creaking of the tires as it moved over pebbles and a very faint whine of the electric motor(s). It would be entirely possible to miss those noises, in my opinion, face-in-smartphone not withstanding. And I say this as a person who is routinely very keenly aware of my surroundings.
I do find it a sort of ironic amusement though. Make electric cars too quiet, needs a noisemaker. Meanwhile, in my office, I'd beg them to turn off the white noise generator for just a moment's peace.
Microsoft has launched many new features of Windows. Some survive, some don't (SideShow, Gadgets to name a few). "effectively telling developers" isn't the same as "actually telling developers" which is required for malfeasance. It is also not mutually exclusive. It doesn't say "if you're a game studio and developing for Windows, we are not going to let you run your program on our OS unless you make it compatible with UWP." They're also not curtailing users' freedom, though I admit I don't even know what he means by that. Not every piece of software installed on your PC will take advantage of all features of the OS. Why would my game need to manage my drive encryption or be able to set my desktop background? Heck, some don't even care if they're network enabled.
Basically, the statements quoted, to me, do not stand up to the idea of proof. Game studios could go right on doing what they're doing and say nuts to UWP. Besides, after just a shred of thought and research, these criticisms of UWP and any technical limitations that discourage development of PC Games in UWP, Microsoft has already responded to.
http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...
The claim being made is that Microsoft will actively alter Windows so as to make alternate deployment platforms like Steam substandard and behave erratically. We are fully within our right to ask for proof of that activity being done. Besides, it seems like we're back to the age old Slashdot problem of reporting on old news.
I doubt they needed some Random Commenter on Slashdot, or even game studio co-founder, to suggest outlandish subversions of law. High level management seems to at times revel in coming up with stupid ways to screw over others, rather than focus on just making a better product everyone begs to use. If you've thought of it, you can pretty much be sure they already thought of it too.
Attributing personality to a legal construct is a little like believing a pet rock can bark at you. Good imagination, but doesn't bear practical results.
It is exactly because of history that I did suggest caution and scrutiny. I also realize that random accusations do not make fact, and if someone is accusing someone else of wrongdoing (breaking Steam, in this instance), I have to say to the person making the accusation 'Prove it'. Fairly simple request for them to provide their evidence, which is, literally, all I asked for.
I'd like to know what evidence there is to support this, rather than words on a page ranting about perception. Not that I don't agree caution, it's one thing to make big noise and proclaim persecution when none exists. Show the evidence and remove doubt about Microsoft's intention.
I can remember when AT&T decided to provide me that high speed 3 Mbps. In fact, that was when I quit it a year ago. Know when they offered me VDSL (U-verse)? Grand promises made starting near 3 years ago, I check now and it's still not in my area, despite repeated promises that it'd be there 'within 6 months'. I don't live in some rural area, either. I suppose being on the edge of the second largest city in my state might hamper my ability, though I'm only 3 miles from the downtown area. Just a mile closer to downtown in an apartment, I was able to get their 6 Mbps service reliably. Now in a house? Not so much.
So I'm bored with them. I had to bite my tongue and run with Comcast again, despite misgivings about it. And while there are still hiccups and promises, even on a business class line, at least there is speed to be had enough to do what I need on most days. Don't tell me for a second that AT&T has rushed right out to improve jack squat, though, because I'll ask you to go ahead and pull the other one too.
Apparently, as the individual bringing the 'questionable' item in, you can expect to be victim-shaming instead of the people that overreacted taking ownership of the mistake they made. And even when the people overreacting had it pointed out that they overreacted, an apology is simply too far for them to go. That's what you can expect.
HBO only has an online only subscription if you are using Apple TV or iOS devices, or are a subscriber for Optimum Broadband Service. I'm still waiting for a true stand-alone offering like Netflix has.
Someone who didn't read the article. One of the comments in the 'more serious of the two bugs' indicated that Microsoft INFORMED them that the patch was lined up for January, but was pulled and rescheduled for February. You lost your bet, by Google's own bookkeeping. Try for another?
And yet there are manufacturer coupons for things like food that grocers accept. Does the grocer accept the hit on that money that the manufacturer decided to entice the customer with, or does the grocer reclaim those funds from the manufacturers? Honestly, I don't know as I haven't worked in that business, but a little logic would seem to imply the grocer gets reimbursed from the manufacturer for discounting the item.
It's more about buying a $100 product at a store that has a $30 rebate, and forgetting or not filing the paperwork to get the money back, instead of, you know, just offering it as a direct rebate or coupon to the seller and allowing the customer to buy it at $70 out of pocket. I'm sure the claim rate of rebates is not 100%, and it probably isn't over 50% if I had to guess.
I made a mistake in my response. I was thinking 'religious slurs' and instead typed 'racial' confusing in my head how some religions are conflated or associated with a particular race of people. Additionally, yes, I also confused the straw man and ad hominem logical fallacies. Despite those mistakes of mine, I'm not sure that the intent of my comment was entirely out of line. My point was that, whether religion is a choice or not, it is not relevant to most discussions. Perhaps that may be where someone's morals are based, but unless it has direct bearing in a debate, it has no place in it.
For example, I would not disparage your religion or beliefs if we were having a discussion on what to do about abortion. If the argument being made by a religious person is factually wrong (an IUD is an abortifacient, a position not commonly held by anyone in the medical community) then that point can be refuted WITHOUT calling the person a dumb, blind sheeple. No where in that particular, religiously-charged argument is the position being held that religious adherents personally are being required to do something against their faith (i.e. not required to have an abortion). Other topics are subject to majority choice and Constitutional validation, such as "can a company have a religion?" or "can an employer push their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on employees through their compensation?"
Even if they don't accept commonly held facts, then it is STILL irrelevant what their religion is, because there are more than a few stubborn, atheist and agnostic individuals. Religion doesn't necessarily make you stubborn. They were stubborn before, They are just trying to validate that stubbornness with a reason (God says so). And whether or not the 'common state' is people insulting people, I find it necessary to be better than that, even if it currently fails.
I suppose that should've been 'religious slurs'. My mistake.
Unless a subject's religion is the bearing of a discussion, I don't see where using racial slurs enhances a debate. All too often, though, slurs are used if that is one of the primary defining characteristics about the subject. What all these characteristics amount to is trying to avoid a Straw Man argument.
More simply put: Don't attack the messenger if you cannot refute the message.
The point of ISPs extorting money out of companies like Netflix is to serve one of two goals. 1) Gain more profit for doing less work or 2) kill off the services if such costs make them unprofitable. Then, the competing service said ISP offers (or "exclusive" service contracted in) will be the only one available for those ISP customers to purchase. Win/Win for the ISP, and a loss for all of us, since one often does NOT pick their provider.
Who makes the copy? Does the receiver go onto the physical hard drive of the offering server and read each of those relevant bits itself, or does the offering system, perhaps a web server or bit torrent client, read the file (or file segment(s)) and make the copy, sending them across the wire to the requesting system? Regardless whether or not the requester initiated the copy, the distributor's agent (be it program or person) made the copy to send. The requester (or requester's agent) received and recorded what was sent to it. At most you can say it was a two-party offence, though I would not see it that way.
It seems logical that the offending party is the one OFFERING and SENDING, not receiving, the copy.