I'll preface this with the fact that I know nothing of what I speak.
The most likely explanation I've heard is similar to the diamond situation. If someone wants to start producing pharmaceuticals at a rate that would harm the big boys profits, they (would) simply lower the cost temporarily and drive the newbie out of business.
Combine that with a dab of conspiracy; they'll only continue selling the "good stuff" (new drugs) at semi-affordable prices if everyone plays ball and makes sure they still get a decent percentage of the old drug market (by limiting supply).
Given that neither scenario directly involves breaking (many) laws, and you can see the exact same stuff happening in other markets I tend to believe that explanation.
There are only a handful of sites that I frequent that actually allow for useful passwords (ie. longer than 30 characters). Most are "between 4 and 12" or something idiotic.
As long as the people designing sites are inept and stupid, passwords will continue to be shit.
Okay, so desktops get x clicks/1000 views, and because mobile devices get 0.2(x)/1000 views I'm supposed to believe that there is money there waiting to be grabbed?
Bullshit.
The use patterns on phones and tablets is fundamentally different than on a desktop. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the advertising done (no matter how) will provide the same results.
note: I'm not attempting to state that the money definitively isn't there, but comparing clicks between two completely different formats is hardly proof that there is.
I agree with almost everything you've just said. Two issues:
1) They can charge the same price for physical/electronic if they choose. Look no further than WoW/MS Points/PSN points/Gift Cards/etc.etc.etc. for examples of companies eating the physical distribution costs on a physical copy of something (MS Gold cards are actually cheaper physical last I checked). Whether or not they should is a question for the market to decide, but it's their product, their pricing.
2) You mention sharing with family and friends, since the method of DRM you suggest allows the file to be played in multiple locations simultaneously I feel like your version of "sharing" here is in fact pirating. I could be wrong, since you aren't explicit... but sending my friend a copy of a digital movie is no different/no more ethical than copying a DVD and giving it to him.
I don't like DRM either, I don't mind the conceptual nature of it but execution has historical been awful. However if I actually felt that DRM was interfering with my ability to use the product I would 1) write an email and a letter, and 2) not buy it. I would not pirate it.
Well as I said, format shifting is not piracy. So no, you doing it for someone else is not piracy (assuming you don't then take a copy for yourself).
As to downloading a copy after you own it, that's a bit of a grey area and here's why: You aren't doing anything wrong (unethical) by grabbing a copy of something you've already paid for. The person sharing most certainly is. Of course if there was a system in place to ensure you'd bought a copy before you could download then that'd be okay... But that would be that terrible evil DRM monster creeping in again wouldn't it?
1) That is the U.S. This is about Canada, I am Canadian and I don't care what stupid ass laws you guys allowed to pass.
2) Format shifting is not at discussion here, this is about piracy and format shifting is not piracy
3) You do not, and have never needed to have an internet connection for blu-rays to work at a basic level. There are some added bits that do require it but if your grandparents can't figure out an internet connection somehow I don't think they'll care.
If I pirate something, and make a donation to the artist, am I still an asshole in your book?
Yes. Like it or not, the artist signed on with a record label (likely) for a reason and by depriving the record label of money you are directly harming the artist. For artists that are selling directly, you are directly depriving them of their income.
Nothing can stop the sharing.
Nothing can stop racism, theft, rape, murder, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't make them right.
Prohibition was repealed
Prohibition was censorship, not allowing you to go behind artists back is not censorship, it's stopping you from being a dick.
People were shunned and punished for falling ill.
According to you, everyone is a pirate (which is amusingly false). So I'm not sure how this relates in any way.
here is no point declaring piracy "wrong".
On the contrary, for the some of the same reasons that declaring monopolistic behaviours (unfairly depriving profits) is considered wrong, piracy is wrong.
Basically, you're a moron who is rationalizing an unethical and illegal activity with terrible false analogies and fallacies.
You are the stereotypical pirate, and you are an asshole.
First: I pay a hell of a lot less for tv shows on iTunes than I would for cable.
Second: The studios have the right to choose the price, if you don't like it, don't pay it. I don't care that you think it's unfair; don't buy it, but don't pirate it.
Third: I never said pirating was stealing, you didn't even read my post. I said pirates are assholes and that piracy is wrong (it is).
If you don't like DRM, buy physical copies. Your paranoia that iTunes will suddenly stop letting you play purchased video is unreasonable, and a work around is readily available.
You are indeed wrong about everything you've just said.
The GPL is giving permission to use code, everyone here was outraged when people took the code (i.e. set top box, routers) and used it without the permissions granted therein.
You are an asshole, I don't care if you like it or not. You're also an idiot.
Well the only thing I said was that pirates were assholes. Now aside from the fact that they self-identify with the people who went around stealing and raping, their actions make them assholes too.
There's nothing self-righteous or special about calling people out when they're acting like scum. I respect people who produce things, pirates don't.
Nearly all of my friends and family buy their music. Probably because we're not assholes.
There's no excuse not to pay for the multimedia you use these days. I can get any show/song I want on iTunes. If I didn't want to pay $3 an episode or a buck a song, I just wouldn't bloody own it.
How about a measurement at some point that matters?
This just in: all children 6 months old are super geniuses! None of them can be accurately IQ tested!
Do one now, find out that yes, he's very gifted with work ethic and otherwise he's pretty run of the mill smart. I'd be shocked if he was over 200, and floored if he was substantially over it.
On a more serious note your post might have had some merit if you didn't fill it with such bias.
There are patent suits going on right now that shouldn't be (FRAND patents) and there are patent suits going on right now that should be (pretty much everything else).
If a patent is crap, as some of the patents are, they should get revoked in the process. The patents that aren't crap deserve to be defended.
If it (the number of lawsuits) becomes a problem for either the legal system or the companies then reform will happen. Until then, things are pretty much working as intended with the only people getting offended about it being people who can't leave their biases at the door.
I wondered where the OP got that impression too... It takes an unreasonably large amount of technical prowess to actually eradicate all of Google's tendrils.
I dunno, I think it's fairly likely that the knowledge that we came form Earth will still be available in a million years (assuming we don't go the died-out way).
I say that mostly because we don't seem to be losing much history these days, everything (no matter how trivial and stupid) is recorded somewhere. I definitely would agree that it would be considered special in any way, but I feel like it'll still be knowledge that's available to be had easily.
Slashdot Mirror
1) The fact that it's common sense does not mean the government is doing it
2) If it's common sense, why is it worthy of news?
I'll preface this with the fact that I know nothing of what I speak.
The most likely explanation I've heard is similar to the diamond situation. If someone wants to start producing pharmaceuticals at a rate that would harm the big boys profits, they (would) simply lower the cost temporarily and drive the newbie out of business.
Combine that with a dab of conspiracy; they'll only continue selling the "good stuff" (new drugs) at semi-affordable prices if everyone plays ball and makes sure they still get a decent percentage of the old drug market (by limiting supply).
Given that neither scenario directly involves breaking (many) laws, and you can see the exact same stuff happening in other markets I tend to believe that explanation.
There are only a handful of sites that I frequent that actually allow for useful passwords (ie. longer than 30 characters). Most are "between 4 and 12" or something idiotic.
As long as the people designing sites are inept and stupid, passwords will continue to be shit.
Okay, so desktops get x clicks/1000 views, and because mobile devices get 0.2(x)/1000 views I'm supposed to believe that there is money there waiting to be grabbed?
Bullshit.
The use patterns on phones and tablets is fundamentally different than on a desktop. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the advertising done (no matter how) will provide the same results.
note: I'm not attempting to state that the money definitively isn't there, but comparing clicks between two completely different formats is hardly proof that there is.
I agree with almost everything you've just said. Two issues:
1) They can charge the same price for physical/electronic if they choose. Look no further than WoW/MS Points/PSN points/Gift Cards/etc.etc.etc. for examples of companies eating the physical distribution costs on a physical copy of something (MS Gold cards are actually cheaper physical last I checked). Whether or not they should is a question for the market to decide, but it's their product, their pricing.
2) You mention sharing with family and friends, since the method of DRM you suggest allows the file to be played in multiple locations simultaneously I feel like your version of "sharing" here is in fact pirating. I could be wrong, since you aren't explicit... but sending my friend a copy of a digital movie is no different/no more ethical than copying a DVD and giving it to him.
I don't like DRM either, I don't mind the conceptual nature of it but execution has historical been awful. However if I actually felt that DRM was interfering with my ability to use the product I would 1) write an email and a letter, and 2) not buy it. I would not pirate it.
Well as I said, format shifting is not piracy. So no, you doing it for someone else is not piracy (assuming you don't then take a copy for yourself).
As to downloading a copy after you own it, that's a bit of a grey area and here's why: You aren't doing anything wrong (unethical) by grabbing a copy of something you've already paid for. The person sharing most certainly is. Of course if there was a system in place to ensure you'd bought a copy before you could download then that'd be okay... But that would be that terrible evil DRM monster creeping in again wouldn't it?
Thank you for putting on public record how stupid you are.
1) That is the U.S. This is about Canada, I am Canadian and I don't care what stupid ass laws you guys allowed to pass.
2) Format shifting is not at discussion here, this is about piracy and format shifting is not piracy
3) You do not, and have never needed to have an internet connection for blu-rays to work at a basic level. There are some added bits that do require it but if your grandparents can't figure out an internet connection somehow I don't think they'll care.
If I pirate something, and make a donation to the artist, am I still an asshole in your book?
Yes. Like it or not, the artist signed on with a record label (likely) for a reason and by depriving the record label of money you are directly harming the artist. For artists that are selling directly, you are directly depriving them of their income.
Nothing can stop the sharing.
Nothing can stop racism, theft, rape, murder, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't make them right.
Prohibition was repealed
Prohibition was censorship, not allowing you to go behind artists back is not censorship, it's stopping you from being a dick.
People were shunned and punished for falling ill.
According to you, everyone is a pirate (which is amusingly false). So I'm not sure how this relates in any way.
here is no point declaring piracy "wrong".
On the contrary, for the some of the same reasons that declaring monopolistic behaviours (unfairly depriving profits) is considered wrong, piracy is wrong.
Basically, you're a moron who is rationalizing an unethical and illegal activity with terrible false analogies and fallacies.
You are the stereotypical pirate, and you are an asshole.
First: I pay a hell of a lot less for tv shows on iTunes than I would for cable.
Second: The studios have the right to choose the price, if you don't like it, don't pay it. I don't care that you think it's unfair; don't buy it, but don't pirate it.
Third: I never said pirating was stealing, you didn't even read my post. I said pirates are assholes and that piracy is wrong (it is).
Here's the thing:
If you don't like DRM, buy physical copies. Your paranoia that iTunes will suddenly stop letting you play purchased video is unreasonable, and a work around is readily available.
The solution is not piracy.
You are indeed wrong about everything you've just said.
The GPL is giving permission to use code, everyone here was outraged when people took the code (i.e. set top box, routers) and used it without the permissions granted therein.
You are an asshole, I don't care if you like it or not. You're also an idiot.
Well the only thing I said was that pirates were assholes. Now aside from the fact that they self-identify with the people who went around stealing and raping, their actions make them assholes too.
There's nothing self-righteous or special about calling people out when they're acting like scum. I respect people who produce things, pirates don't.
If only there were other options
http://www.hmvdigital.ca/
http://www.puretracks.com/
http://music.scene.ca/
http://ca.7digital.com/
http://mp3caprice.com/
and of course
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Netflix_Instant_Watch_Devices/
Ah slashdot, home of the " Don't you dare copy my source code without my permission but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for what you produce" crowd.
That's okay, you can down mod the truth all you like I have plenty of Karma
We have incredibly lax laws compared to many places; the reason that such services don't tend to work here is simple.
Negotiating the licenses and contracts costs some money
Canada has 1/10th the population of the U.S. so it often isn't worth it.
Netflix, for instance, works perfectly well in Canada but has 1/10th the library of the U.S. version.
Nearly all of my friends and family buy their music. Probably because we're not assholes.
There's no excuse not to pay for the multimedia you use these days. I can get any show/song I want on iTunes. If I didn't want to pay $3 an episode or a buck a song, I just wouldn't bloody own it.
How about a measurement at some point that matters?
This just in: all children 6 months old are super geniuses! None of them can be accurately IQ tested!
Do one now, find out that yes, he's very gifted with work ethic and otherwise he's pretty run of the mill smart. I'd be shocked if he was over 200, and floored if he was substantially over it.
If you don't want your biases called out, then check them at the door.
You just made me miss Firefly again...
Bastard.
Just so we're clear, how long are you giving them to drop that lawsuit?
Never mind the fact that they signed off on the lawsuit as part of the acquisition.
Your Google employee badge is showing...
On a more serious note your post might have had some merit if you didn't fill it with such bias.
There are patent suits going on right now that shouldn't be (FRAND patents) and there are patent suits going on right now that should be (pretty much everything else).
If a patent is crap, as some of the patents are, they should get revoked in the process. The patents that aren't crap deserve to be defended.
If it (the number of lawsuits) becomes a problem for either the legal system or the companies then reform will happen. Until then, things are pretty much working as intended with the only people getting offended about it being people who can't leave their biases at the door.
I wondered where the OP got that impression too... It takes an unreasonably large amount of technical prowess to actually eradicate all of Google's tendrils.
I dunno, I think it's fairly likely that the knowledge that we came form Earth will still be available in a million years (assuming we don't go the died-out way).
I say that mostly because we don't seem to be losing much history these days, everything (no matter how trivial and stupid) is recorded somewhere. I definitely would agree that it would be considered special in any way, but I feel like it'll still be knowledge that's available to be had easily.
So in other words, you completely ignored everything I said. Good on you!
When was the last time you took a Dalvik app and compiled it against JVM?