Seriously, this is another development that pushes up against the limits of the First Sale Doctrine. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Productivity software that comes in a box just isn't rented.
An update service is one thing; but in this case the use of the product relies solely on the customer's own resources. Legally I don't see how it can fly.
For his part, Obama issued a statement saying that the court had in effect endorsed his view that while "the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms" it does not preclude "the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."
2K games can be had from D2D, which isn't particularly obnoxious. Actually D2D has been zero-problem for me, even (as mentioned above) to the point of installing inside VMware VMs.
The game patches for d2d games are typically specific to the d2d packaging. If you have a downloaded d2d game and it needs a patch, you have to wait for the d2d version. (Usually it's not too far behind.) But the full downloads are typically at the latest patch.
I've never heard of a mod for Civ 4 that didn't work with the d2d version. Certainly, the SDK works just fine. I used BetterAI with Civ 4: Warlords for ages. But, I dunno, it's possible I guess.
Likewise I have had no problems with Direct2Drive. Perhaps surprisingly the DRM is from Macrovision, but Macrovision does actually take seriously the notion that DRM can be an enabling technology. No physical CD required? And good customer support (from the Trymedia backend)? Yup. And no activation hassles for multiple/reinstalls. It's surreal that Macrovision is now the "good guy" in the world of DRM.
DRM doesn't have to be evil. But of course it can be.
Spore is Will Wright's ten year labor of love; seriously, I don't know why he would let EA put such a bad taste in the mouth of customers who have been excited about the game ever since they saw its first demos.
Developers without fail will publicly blame the publishers, neatly "forgetting" to mention that they, the developers, agree to the terms in the contract when they sign it, thereby validating it. If they really didn't want this DRM crap then they wouldn't leave control of it to the publishers, but they do, time and time again. Then they try to shift the blame.
Also, DRM like this violates the Doctrine of First Sale - you know, that little concept that if you buy a book, recording, or copy of a computer program, you can let your friends read it, listen to it, libraries can lend it out, etc. Any DRM which prevents lawful re-use of a legally purchased copy should itself be illegal, but of course our corrupt congress which only cares about pandering to rich lobbyists don't care about flushing a century of copyright law down the toilet. The law and precedent is clearly present now, but EA will never come around on this voluntarily. If someone were to take them to court over their restrictive licensing/authorization practices, it would take a while, but that would put a stop to it. As far as I know, companies that sell software that is clearly sold, not rented, must follow the first sale doctrine; a shrinkwrap "license" that specifies otherwise is simply illegal.
But no one has really challenged this yet, and especially not in the case of games.
I really think this kind of bullshit violates the first sale doctrine. By and large the courts have never sympathized with the view that shrink-wrapped software is licensed and not bought; and this has been confirmed in some recent higher court rulings.
When you guy a game, you have bought it. The courts now *clearly* recognize this. (To wit the recent case involving auctions of Autodesk software on eBay in alleged violation of Autodesk licensing.) You definitively have the right to sell it. It seems that along with that right must come the right to use it yourself.
I wonder why Will Wright subjects us to this shit, or at the least, why he tolerates it. Why hasn't he gone the Sid Meier way and left his lame publisher? If EA wants guaranteed income, why not charge a reasonable subscription rate for online gameplay and content?
Meanwhile I don't see any way that EA will be made to stop this short of a boycott (not likely with Spore and Mass Effect) or legal intervention. EA already got the smackdown for its illegal employment practices; why not its illegal "licensing" practices?
For some incomprehensible reason our company (a prominent, publicly traded technology company) posts the videos of its all hands meetings in Real. W.T.F. I wouldn't install Real on any machine, mine or someone else's, not even if you paid me to.
The software you get when you install an HP AIO is mindbogglingly irritating, and has been buggy (the same bugs) for years. Not only does the user interface suck donkey sphincter, but it the "suite" spawns zillions of little processes, which hang and die. Again, W.T.F.
And the lame standard Quicktime. Why does Apple think anyone would pay for the ability to play in full screen? Are you kidding me? Annoyware all the way.
But, you know, that's really just scratching the surface.
Meanwhile, Flash, properly used, is great. I'm not sure why people continue hating on Flash. I do use FlashBlock to shut those irritating ads the hell up though.
Someone has been taking user interface lessons from the Gnome team. Why do people need to be reminded that sometimes the user really is right? Or that some users prefer doing things the "wrong" way. And why shouldn't they be allowed to?
The annual cost of health care in the US is currently about 2.25 trillion dollars per year.
The entire war in Iraq has cost something like $500 billion.
Increasing spending on health care in the US by 10% would certainly make a difference if the money was targeted appropriately. However, the cost will rise 10% all on its own in a couple of years anyway.
You can't discriminate on the basis of a wide range of pre-existing conditions already. You can't deny group coverage (or individual coverage, depending on the state/locality/plan) to someone who's black, someone who's Catholic, someone who's Hispanic. You can't deny coverage to someone all of whose female family members have contracted breast cancer at the age of 40, or to someone who drinks groundwater contaminated with mercury and arsenic, or to someone who has privately tested positive for Huntington's. You can't adjust a rate individually or deny someone group coverage based on those characteristics, despite the fact that you can know those characteristics, and many others, well in advance. (You could drop the entire group but that's a different thing.) You can deny someone individual coverage under a pre-existing conditions clause for some medical conditions, or require them to be qualified for a group; i.e., people over 65 only.
In some localities an employee is allowed - I believe - to deny an individual coverage in a group policy if it can be demonstrated conclusively that the person's coverage will affect the *employer's* ability to provide insurance. In other words, someone who would incur $1,000,000 in expenses over a year in a company of 20 employees could be denied coverage if it would endanger the coverage applied to the business at large.
Meanwhile, most states already do not allow discrimination based on genetic factors.
I have no idea why anyone thinks that officially banning discrimination based on genetic profiles is any kind of a big deal. Insurance companies of all kinds, not just health insurers, already have access to vast amounts of actuarial data that they can't use.
According to an article in the Washington Post, not only have red light cameras failed to reduce the number of accidents at intersections where they were installed, but in many cases the number of traffic accidents in those accidents actually increased dramatically.
The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame. Traffic specialists say broadside collisions are especially dangerous because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars.
The city of Baltimore has been under constant scrutiny for red light camera policies that appear to be unsafe and/or in financial conflict with the public interest. In the report mentioned here, Administrative Judge Keith "One T" Mathews wrote the following summary:
Red light cameras can work to protect the public. Unfortunately, the Baltimore City Red Light Camera Enforcement System (RLCES), as it is presently operated, can be seen as a revenue-producing measure instead of safety-oriented when examined against the following:
1. Contract between Baltimore City and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) 2. Contingency vs. Flat-fee Arrangement 3. Unclear Standards for Yellow Light Settings 4. Inconsistent and Short Yellow Light Times 5. Lack of Delay Times/Grace Period 6. Decreased Minimum Threshold Speed Limits 7. Lack of Clear Objectives and Measurement Data (especially accident data)
These concerns greatly reduce the credibility of the RLCES and the City governing its operability. Therefore, each of these concerns should be addressed in a timely manner to ensure citizen confidence in the use of the RLCES, the City, the police department, and the judicial body that enforces the citations.[2]
The one thing that red light cameras have always consistently accomplished, however, is revenue generation on a large scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"
RTFC? %-|
And punkin' chunkin.
Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm projectile slowly?
Firing rubber chickens. That must be it.
I'm pretty sure pieces of paper with "Wish List" written on top of them are okay.
They may also be okay if you scan them and post them online.
Anything beyond that, you're on your own.
I did manage to spend about 30 seconds reading the article though.
Seriously, this is another development that pushes up against the limits of the First Sale Doctrine. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Productivity software that comes in a box just isn't rented.
An update service is one thing; but in this case the use of the product relies solely on the customer's own resources. Legally I don't see how it can fly.
The rush is already underway.
That's where the ice went.
"Meier."
2K games can be had from D2D, which isn't particularly obnoxious. Actually D2D has been zero-problem for me, even (as mentioned above) to the point of installing inside VMware VMs.
The game patches for d2d games are typically specific to the d2d packaging. If you have a downloaded d2d game and it needs a patch, you have to wait for the d2d version. (Usually it's not too far behind.) But the full downloads are typically at the latest patch.
... d2d works in VMware VMs.
I've never heard of a mod for Civ 4 that didn't work with the d2d version. Certainly, the SDK works just fine. I used BetterAI with Civ 4: Warlords for ages. But, I dunno, it's possible I guess.
As far as DRM goes, d2d sucks less.
And
I wonder what effect a pile of non obscene letters and email would have at Maxis. Would "the word" get down to EA?
Likewise I have had no problems with Direct2Drive. Perhaps surprisingly the DRM is from Macrovision, but Macrovision does actually take seriously the notion that DRM can be an enabling technology. No physical CD required? And good customer support (from the Trymedia backend)? Yup. And no activation hassles for multiple/reinstalls. It's surreal that Macrovision is now the "good guy" in the world of DRM.
DRM doesn't have to be evil. But of course it can be.
Developers without fail will publicly blame the publishers, neatly "forgetting" to mention that they, the developers, agree to the terms in the contract when they sign it, thereby validating it. If they really didn't want this DRM crap then they wouldn't leave control of it to the publishers, but they do, time and time again. Then they try to shift the blame.
But no one has really challenged this yet, and especially not in the case of games.
I really think this kind of bullshit violates the first sale doctrine. By and large the courts have never sympathized with the view that shrink-wrapped software is licensed and not bought; and this has been confirmed in some recent higher court rulings.
When you guy a game, you have bought it. The courts now *clearly* recognize this. (To wit the recent case involving auctions of Autodesk software on eBay in alleged violation of Autodesk licensing.) You definitively have the right to sell it. It seems that along with that right must come the right to use it yourself .
I wonder why Will Wright subjects us to this shit, or at the least, why he tolerates it. Why hasn't he gone the Sid Meier way and left his lame publisher? If EA wants guaranteed income, why not charge a reasonable subscription rate for online gameplay and content?
Meanwhile I don't see any way that EA will be made to stop this short of a boycott (not likely with Spore and Mass Effect) or legal intervention. EA already got the smackdown for its illegal employment practices; why not its illegal "licensing" practices?
Is a headache the new RSD?
Dude, you are so right.
For some incomprehensible reason our company (a prominent, publicly traded technology company) posts the videos of its all hands meetings in Real. W.T.F. I wouldn't install Real on any machine, mine or someone else's, not even if you paid me to.
The software you get when you install an HP AIO is mindbogglingly irritating, and has been buggy (the same bugs) for years. Not only does the user interface suck donkey sphincter, but it the "suite" spawns zillions of little processes, which hang and die. Again, W.T.F.
And the lame standard Quicktime. Why does Apple think anyone would pay for the ability to play in full screen? Are you kidding me? Annoyware all the way.
But, you know, that's really just scratching the surface.
Meanwhile, Flash, properly used, is great. I'm not sure why people continue hating on Flash. I do use FlashBlock to shut those irritating ads the hell up though.
In what way exactly is Singapore a democracy?
First thing I thought was "Gnome."
Someone has been taking user interface lessons from the Gnome team. Why do people need to be reminded that sometimes the user really is right? Or that some users prefer doing things the "wrong" way. And why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Dream on dude.
The annual cost of health care in the US is currently about 2.25 trillion dollars per year.
The entire war in Iraq has cost something like $500 billion.
Increasing spending on health care in the US by 10% would certainly make a difference if the money was targeted appropriately. However, the cost will rise 10% all on its own in a couple of years anyway.
You can't discriminate on the basis of a wide range of pre-existing conditions already. You can't deny group coverage (or individual coverage, depending on the state/locality/plan) to someone who's black, someone who's Catholic, someone who's Hispanic. You can't deny coverage to someone all of whose female family members have contracted breast cancer at the age of 40, or to someone who drinks groundwater contaminated with mercury and arsenic, or to someone who has privately tested positive for Huntington's. You can't adjust a rate individually or deny someone group coverage based on those characteristics, despite the fact that you can know those characteristics, and many others, well in advance. (You could drop the entire group but that's a different thing.) You can deny someone individual coverage under a pre-existing conditions clause for some medical conditions, or require them to be qualified for a group; i.e., people over 65 only.
In some localities an employee is allowed - I believe - to deny an individual coverage in a group policy if it can be demonstrated conclusively that the person's coverage will affect the *employer's* ability to provide insurance. In other words, someone who would incur $1,000,000 in expenses over a year in a company of 20 employees could be denied coverage if it would endanger the coverage applied to the business at large.
Meanwhile, most states already do not allow discrimination based on genetic factors.
I have no idea why anyone thinks that officially banning discrimination based on genetic profiles is any kind of a big deal. Insurance companies of all kinds, not just health insurers, already have access to vast amounts of actuarial data that they can't use.
Death of health insurance, my ass.
Single payer in the US? Also my ass.
Do you mean the version of FreeDB that is missing the spelling errors and the duplicates?
The city of Baltimore has been under constant scrutiny for red light camera policies that appear to be unsafe and/or in financial conflict with the public interest. In the report mentioned here, Administrative Judge Keith "One T" Mathews wrote the following summary:
The one thing that red light cameras have always consistently accomplished, however, is revenue generation on a large scale.