Those who charge for "I.P." are doing it out of greed. It is time the human race grows up, and realizes there is more to life then money.
What a trite, mealy-mouthed platitude. Will you be the first to swear a vow of poverty and do without money or any other standard of exchange for goods & services? Or will you be one of the autocrats who "volunteers" to administer the system out of the goodness of your heart?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that UnknownSoldier meant for money or other standard of exchange to go away. He said that we should realize that "there is more to life then (sic) money." Your retort is that UnknownSoldier wouldn't give up money?! I don't follow.
There is a balanced path were we use money as a system of exchange but still find outlets for creativity that are not motivated by money. You appear to be advocating (by ignoring the middle) that money is the only motivator for humans. You seem to think UnknownSoldier is advocating absolution of money (the other extreme). What he actually did say was that money is not everything. There are other motivations.
It's about time humanity grew up and sought a more balanced path: money has it's uses in making society run, especially when we have specialization, but if we let it become our only motivator we're missing out on many of humanities other dreams and motivations to do interesting things.
The point is that when you have an active project with a shared repository that the world has read-access to and developers that constantly work with the code and hence look at changes made as they are made, then you would have to control or buy out every developer in order to sneak in a nefarious change. The odds of malicious code existing in an open environment as such are much lower than in a propriety closed-source environment.
Sorry for the double post, but I thought of a good way of putting this:
PayPal states in their TOS that illegal activity or support thereof is verboten. They then rule on the matter of what is or is not illegal internally rather than have a court of law do it. That's arbitrary.
I think the clarity of that violation is what's at dispute here. The fact that there's no recourse for WikiLeaks in this dispute is also telling.
Their terms of service are "don't support illegal activities." It is not clear that what WikiLeaks did was illegal. No court has ruled on this. The act of PayPal making a decision on the legality of WikiLeaks publication is a political one: by definition.
As for bias. I am stating a fact: PayPal froze the account of WikiLeaks because they feel, despite no court ruling, that WikiLeak's actions were illegal or support illegal activity. They may state it in "they broke our TOS" jargon, but the fact is the decision was arbitrary. Arguments could be made in both directions, but they picked one direction based not on legal ruling but on their agenda. They said WikiLeaks encouraged illegal activities but did not state what activities or in what jurisdiction; that's arbitrary.
PayPal (like any company) has the right to refuse to do business. They don't need to prove Wikileaks broke a law. Nor have they claimed Wikileaks broke a aw.
Once again, you answer your own question. PayPal, choosing to exercise its option to stop doing business with an account holder merely on the suggestion that they broke the law after they had deposited money into their service is *exactly* the reason people avoid PayPal like the plague. It may not have been on a whim, but the reason "someone said that they did something illegal (in which country we don't say, or what we don't say, or who told us this we don't say) and that's against our TOS so we're taking their money" is pretty arbitrary and the account holder has no recourse.
Is it really that hard to see that people don't want to deposit money into an organization that for arbitrary reasons takes your money away from you with no recourse for you to dispute their "reason"? Perhaps you are biased as you do work there; the reason they gave was political, arbitrary, and frightening.
That depends on what you mean by the phrase "data belonging to any other app".
You haven't heard people complaining about it because most programs have gotten pretty good at storing user data in non-world-readable directories. The mentality is finally becoming a bit more mainstream that "apps" store user data in the user's non-world-readable folder. When they deviate, people start to take notice. Contrast this with 10 years ago where on Windows--while such protections were available--they required knowledgeable configuration and many "apps" were written with assumptions that such protections were not exercised and could not run in sanely configured environments.
So, these days, on the desktop most "apps" can read "data belonging to any other app", but no one complains or cares because the data they *do* care about is stored in a location with more sane access controls. When "apps" deviate these days, they generally get called out on it.
Edge cases are what allows a vendor that says "we support X" to validate they support X. Deprecated stuff should also be tested, but perhaps in a different suite. Incompletely supported standards mean more edge cases for the implementers; standards should be small enough to manage a simple yes/no answer to "do you support X?"
Nope, that's a virtuous cycle. More DRM leading to lower profits. Despite their logical fallacy that we can all recognize and ignore, in the end they get what they deserve.
Sorry, about replying to myself, apparently the agreement is not as horrible as I thought. Yes, they can still revoke your access at any time; yes, your only remedy for any dispute is to cancel your account; yes, they can change the terms at any time and if you disagree you are free to cancel your account; but, they *do* in fact notify you that they change the terms! Sorry to have been wrong.
12. AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT
Valve may amend this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion. As a Subscriber, you agree that Valve may amend the terms of this Agreement. If Valve amends the Agreement, such amendment shall be effective thirty (30) days after your receiving notice of the amended Agreement, either via e-mail or as a notification within the Software. You can view the Agreement at any time at http://www.steampowered.com/. Your failure to cancel your Account thirty (30) days after receiving notification of an amended Agreement will mean that you accept all such amendments. If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or a particular Subscription.
Steam *is* scary. When someone wants to take my money in exchange for a game that they can revoke at any time without providing a reason or change the terms of my using the game at any time for any reason without notifying me; that's pretty fucking scary.
I don't think anyone was trying to make you feel bad. At least I wasn't. I was merely asking if they still had dropped the draconian DRM because I'd like to pick up a copy if they had.
The example you provided: Wikileaks. What dispute resolution did PayPal present to Wikileaks that did not involve Wikileaks needing to sue PayPal? When banks freeze money, there's judicial overview; in the PayPal case not so much.
PayPal doesn't randomly freeze account or randomly hold money. They don't do things on a whim.
No, it's probably not random, but it is an opaque process that leaves the customer and his or her money with no recourse that does not involve expensive lawsuits. Perhaps I'm cynical but when an organization says "we care about you trust us, here are our terms, we can change them at moment's notice whenever we like, and if random stranger X suggests you might have broken them we keep your money quite legally" I don't trust them.
it has been suggested that Wikileaks actively encourages people to steal and illegally leak data...That isn't a whim, or something they made up on the spot.
That right there is the perfect example of why I avoid PayPal like the plague. I will not entrust my money to an organization that will without due process freeze my account because someone suggested that I broke their terms of service.
The difference is that one's contract with the bank stipulates on what conditions and how they can reclaim their property while the content you "bought" has arbitrary conditions that involve no courts.
I've gone done a similar route, to some degree. Actually, now that I think about, not really.
1) I have a collection of books that are either reference works or works that have had a meaningful impact on my life and warrant rereading from time to time as a personal gauge of how my impression of them changes over time. These are usually thought provoking fiction and non-fiction. For leisure fiction, all of that is checked out of the library and read once. If it warrants a second reading then I'll buy it.
2) I have a collection of albums on LP and CD that are works that have had a meaningful impact on my life and warrant oft replays. They are usually thought provoking classical or meaningful modern works. For au currant pop, I have the local commercial-free radio station either over-the-air or streaming.
3) I have a collection of video games. This is where I diverge a bit in that I buy most of my games as direct downloads these days, mostly because I'll play through them once and then move on. For those that I anticipate replaying often, I will buy a physical DRM-free copy, but that's becoming more and more rare as those tend to not be available. Even more recently I find myself buying fewer games almost exclusively for that reason. Either it's good enough that I want a persistent copy that I can play for as long as I like, or it's only worth one play-through and I find other media more compelling than spending $50-60 on a game I don't think I'll like enough to get a persistent copy of.
4) I subscribe to one weekly news magazine for bed-time reading and I don't see that getting replaced with any online source unless they moved their publication online. Well, they do publish online, but the selection of topics and articles in their paper magazine is superior to their on-line publication.
5) TV shows get streamed via Netflix or Hulu if they are not available over-the-air, otherwise watched over-the-air. These hardly ever get re-watched so no purchases here.
I consume quite a bit of media, but my mantra is: if it's worth keeping, I want control over my copy; if it's transient in nature my standards are looser.
Slashdot Mirror
What a trite, mealy-mouthed platitude. Will you be the first to swear a vow of poverty and do without money or any other standard of exchange for goods & services? Or will you be one of the autocrats who "volunteers" to administer the system out of the goodness of your heart?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that UnknownSoldier meant for money or other standard of exchange to go away. He said that we should realize that "there is more to life then (sic) money." Your retort is that UnknownSoldier wouldn't give up money?! I don't follow.
There is a balanced path were we use money as a system of exchange but still find outlets for creativity that are not motivated by money. You appear to be advocating (by ignoring the middle) that money is the only motivator for humans. You seem to think UnknownSoldier is advocating absolution of money (the other extreme). What he actually did say was that money is not everything. There are other motivations.
It's about time humanity grew up and sought a more balanced path: money has it's uses in making society run, especially when we have specialization, but if we let it become our only motivator we're missing out on many of humanities other dreams and motivations to do interesting things.
That's not the point.
The point is that when you have an active project with a shared repository that the world has read-access to and developers that constantly work with the code and hence look at changes made as they are made, then you would have to control or buy out every developer in order to sneak in a nefarious change. The odds of malicious code existing in an open environment as such are much lower than in a propriety closed-source environment.
Sorry for the double post, but I thought of a good way of putting this:
PayPal states in their TOS that illegal activity or support thereof is verboten. They then rule on the matter of what is or is not illegal internally rather than have a court of law do it. That's arbitrary.
I think the clarity of that violation is what's at dispute here. The fact that there's no recourse for WikiLeaks in this dispute is also telling.
Their terms of service are "don't support illegal activities." It is not clear that what WikiLeaks did was illegal. No court has ruled on this. The act of PayPal making a decision on the legality of WikiLeaks publication is a political one: by definition.
As for bias. I am stating a fact: PayPal froze the account of WikiLeaks because they feel, despite no court ruling, that WikiLeak's actions were illegal or support illegal activity. They may state it in "they broke our TOS" jargon, but the fact is the decision was arbitrary. Arguments could be made in both directions, but they picked one direction based not on legal ruling but on their agenda. They said WikiLeaks encouraged illegal activities but did not state what activities or in what jurisdiction; that's arbitrary.
PayPal (like any company) has the right to refuse to do business. They don't need to prove Wikileaks broke a law. Nor have they claimed Wikileaks broke a aw.
Once again, you answer your own question. PayPal, choosing to exercise its option to stop doing business with an account holder merely on the suggestion that they broke the law after they had deposited money into their service is *exactly* the reason people avoid PayPal like the plague. It may not have been on a whim, but the reason "someone said that they did something illegal (in which country we don't say, or what we don't say, or who told us this we don't say) and that's against our TOS so we're taking their money" is pretty arbitrary and the account holder has no recourse.
Is it really that hard to see that people don't want to deposit money into an organization that for arbitrary reasons takes your money away from you with no recourse for you to dispute their "reason"? Perhaps you are biased as you do work there; the reason they gave was political, arbitrary, and frightening.
No; in fact they're part of the solution. That was my point: the industry is not all cancerous.
Are independent artists not considered part of their industry?
That depends on what you mean by the phrase "data belonging to any other app".
You haven't heard people complaining about it because most programs have gotten pretty good at storing user data in non-world-readable directories. The mentality is finally becoming a bit more mainstream that "apps" store user data in the user's non-world-readable folder. When they deviate, people start to take notice. Contrast this with 10 years ago where on Windows--while such protections were available--they required knowledgeable configuration and many "apps" were written with assumptions that such protections were not exercised and could not run in sanely configured environments.
So, these days, on the desktop most "apps" can read "data belonging to any other app", but no one complains or cares because the data they *do* care about is stored in a location with more sane access controls. When "apps" deviate these days, they generally get called out on it.
Edge cases are what allows a vendor that says "we support X" to validate they support X. Deprecated stuff should also be tested, but perhaps in a different suite. Incompletely supported standards mean more edge cases for the implementers; standards should be small enough to manage a simple yes/no answer to "do you support X?"
Nope, that's a virtuous cycle. More DRM leading to lower profits. Despite their logical fallacy that we can all recognize and ignore, in the end they get what they deserve.
Sorry, about replying to myself, apparently the agreement is not as horrible as I thought. Yes, they can still revoke your access at any time; yes, your only remedy for any dispute is to cancel your account; yes, they can change the terms at any time and if you disagree you are free to cancel your account; but, they *do* in fact notify you that they change the terms! Sorry to have been wrong.
12. AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT
Valve may amend this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion. As a Subscriber, you agree that Valve may amend the terms of this Agreement. If Valve amends the Agreement, such amendment shall be effective thirty (30) days after your receiving notice of the amended Agreement, either via e-mail or as a notification within the Software. You can view the Agreement at any time at http://www.steampowered.com/. Your failure to cancel your Account thirty (30) days after receiving notification of an amended Agreement will mean that you accept all such amendments. If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or a particular Subscription.
Steam *is* scary. When someone wants to take my money in exchange for a game that they can revoke at any time without providing a reason or change the terms of my using the game at any time for any reason without notifying me; that's pretty fucking scary.
I don't think anyone was trying to make you feel bad. At least I wasn't. I was merely asking if they still had dropped the draconian DRM because I'd like to pick up a copy if they had.
I'd prefer not to pirate software. I have plenty of non-DRMed but legal sources of games.
The example you provided: Wikileaks. What dispute resolution did PayPal present to Wikileaks that did not involve Wikileaks needing to sue PayPal? When banks freeze money, there's judicial overview; in the PayPal case not so much.
PayPal doesn't randomly freeze account or randomly hold money. They don't do things on a whim.
No, it's probably not random, but it is an opaque process that leaves the customer and his or her money with no recourse that does not involve expensive lawsuits. Perhaps I'm cynical but when an organization says "we care about you trust us, here are our terms, we can change them at moment's notice whenever we like, and if random stranger X suggests you might have broken them we keep your money quite legally" I don't trust them.
it has been suggested that Wikileaks actively encourages people to steal and illegally leak data...That isn't a whim, or something they made up on the spot.
That right there is the perfect example of why I avoid PayPal like the plague. I will not entrust my money to an organization that will without due process freeze my account because someone suggested that I broke their terms of service.
Still has draconian DRM though? Or have they done away with it. That's been the only thing holding me back from Mass Effect 1 and 2.
If your goal is maximize profit, then yes, this is a bad model. Somehow, I do not think this was the goal though.
The difference is that one's contract with the bank stipulates on what conditions and how they can reclaim their property while the content you "bought" has arbitrary conditions that involve no courts.
It's not a great situation, to be sure, but it's far better when a court is involved than if it's a private entity that gates your access.
I've gone done a similar route, to some degree. Actually, now that I think about, not really.
1) I have a collection of books that are either reference works or works that have had a meaningful impact on my life and warrant rereading from time to time as a personal gauge of how my impression of them changes over time. These are usually thought provoking fiction and non-fiction. For leisure fiction, all of that is checked out of the library and read once. If it warrants a second reading then I'll buy it.
2) I have a collection of albums on LP and CD that are works that have had a meaningful impact on my life and warrant oft replays. They are usually thought provoking classical or meaningful modern works. For au currant pop, I have the local commercial-free radio station either over-the-air or streaming.
3) I have a collection of video games. This is where I diverge a bit in that I buy most of my games as direct downloads these days, mostly because I'll play through them once and then move on. For those that I anticipate replaying often, I will buy a physical DRM-free copy, but that's becoming more and more rare as those tend to not be available. Even more recently I find myself buying fewer games almost exclusively for that reason. Either it's good enough that I want a persistent copy that I can play for as long as I like, or it's only worth one play-through and I find other media more compelling than spending $50-60 on a game I don't think I'll like enough to get a persistent copy of.
4) I subscribe to one weekly news magazine for bed-time reading and I don't see that getting replaced with any online source unless they moved their publication online. Well, they do publish online, but the selection of topics and articles in their paper magazine is superior to their on-line publication.
5) TV shows get streamed via Netflix or Hulu if they are not available over-the-air, otherwise watched over-the-air. These hardly ever get re-watched so no purchases here.
I consume quite a bit of media, but my mantra is: if it's worth keeping, I want control over my copy; if it's transient in nature my standards are looser.
That depends more on how cash greedy the carriers get than how bandwidth greedy the users get.
Than the minority of keyboard users could buy a non-standard specialty keyboard for their, well, special use-case.
Note: not saying that we should remove caps lock, only pointing out that we shouldn't let a minority dictate what's on a standard keyboard.
Do you mean SiteBlock for Chrome or BlockSite for Firefox, or something different altogether?