Actually.. no. One side has put up at least on example with concrete numbers. Here it is: Prime Palaver #6. Sharing makes the copyright holder more money. Granted, this case is books not music where the experience rift between the downloaded version and the store version is greater but it is still the only hard and backed-up numbers we've seen to date.
Re:DVD extras cost money to produce
on
E3 Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
That's pretty much what the recording industry said about compact discs 20 years ago. You still paid more for that CD last week than the tape. Funny that.
Re:Mirrors! Mirrors! We NEED mirrors!
on
E3 Wrapup
·
· Score: 1
you'd DEMAND would you? I bet that'd impress the hell out of the studios and distributors. I'm sure that you'll get what you want eventually you stupid little boy
Yes, demand. As in "give me this or I don't buy your product". It's a simple way of demanding and quite frankly the only one any of these megacorps care about. The reason they are having to pass laws like the DMCA and the SSSCA are because the user are making their demands known and those do not match the plans of the industries involved. Thus they can meet those demands or regulate them out of viability. It's obvious which route an entrenched oligopoly with way too much money and influence would take.
Yep. They disobeyed the law, then stood out in the open and were publicly arrested.
A little different from being weaselboy with a HD or two full of MP3 files hidden in your 'room.' (parents basement)
I whole-heartedly agree. My point, however, was that simply saying "change the laws if you don't like them" is meaningless. It is obvious from the current path of legislation that our lawmakers are not operating in our interests. Therefore disobeying these unjust laws is what needs to be done to change them. Until people do start getting arrested for things most of the public feels should be legal nothing is likely to change.
If you disagree with the laws of the land, change them. Don't just break them then stand up proud saying "I meant well!".
Just to play the devils advocate..
Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? It can work wonders. Might have heard of a couple of guys who did some nifty stuff with it.. King and Ghandi I think were their names. Something like that.
Do you not think book publishers would be doing the same stuff the RIAA does if it all of a sudden became possible to easily and cheaply duplicate a book and distribute it over the internet? I know it's done now but the process to create them is not that easy and to a certain extent destroys the original copy if you take apart the book to run it through a sheet feeder.
Yes, in act I think they will. And I'll be raising hell about them doing it. Your point almost proves mine. The ease with which I can backup data I have purchased should have no barring on my legal right to do so. It's ok to copy so long as it hard to do it, but if it's trivial suddenly it's horrible and evil and needs to be eliminated at the hardware level? Huh?
yes the DMCA goes to far, and yes Copyright terms need to be limited to somthing far withing the liftime of the creator and the audience, but NO, you have no right to break the law and get away with it.
No right, no. But some would say you, in fact, have a duty to defy an unjust law. But that's getting into philosophy.
I again say that punishing those that traffic in music that is not designated to be shared over P2P services for free is a better solution to the problems that the music industry is having than trying to creep into my living room and take control of my electronic equipment.
I'm with you here though. This is what Metallica should have done to begin with.
Lets use this example. If I go to Borders and buy a book on P2P from O'Reilly and I decide to use it as home plate in a game of baseball, is Borders or O'Reilly responsible for replacing it?
No, not at all. Nor is anyone asking the record companies to to so. We're asking the record componaies to bugger off and let us take care of that for ourselves. They are trying to make that illegal.
I would be bitching just as loudly (maybe more so) if the book publishers were trying to make it illegal for me to copy a few important passages out of a book I bought.
[i]I love the last bit the best. Um, even if you are going to buy the CD you have no right to infringe copyright. Thats like downing a 1L of pepsi just to "test the market" first. Same goes for those pirate-game-but-only-for-24-hours-then-delete people. Copying game even for 10 mins is illegal in most countries. Just because you plan on buying a copy in no way makes that ok.[/i]
That depends on if you're talking about laws or morals. Legally, yeah.. the "sample it" idea doesn't fly. Morally.. well, that's another matter to be determined by ones own opinions.
Personally, I have no moral problem at all pulling down an album of MP3s, giving it a listen or two, then deleting it and using that to decide if I want to buy the work or not. It's just the same as having a friend copy the cd onto a tape and giving that to me (which is legal, btw). Yeah, you can say that's what the radio is for but the radio doesn't play what I want to hear it plays what the record company wants me to hear. Too many times have my friends and I been burned when the record execs pay for the two good songs from some album to be played then the other 11 songs are so bad the cd never even gets put in the player again.
[i]All that Napster has done for me in that regard is make my life hell if I want to continue doing that with new CDs. [/i]
Napster didn't do that. Overgorged and overpowered corporations who have far to much power in our government have done that. I didn't like Napster nor did I use Napster but place the blame where it belongs.
1. Users have the right to "time-shift" content that they have legally acquired. This gives you the right to record video or audio for later viewing or listening. For example, you can use a VCR to record a TV show and play it back later. 2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired. This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial). For example, you can copy a CD to a portable music player so that you can listen to the songs while you're jogging. 3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content. This gives you the right to make archival copies to be used in the event that your original copies are destroyed. 4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice. This gives you the right to listen to music on your Rio, to watch TV on your iMac, and to view DVDs on your Linux computer. 5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats. This gives you the right to modify content in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud. 6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned. This last right guarantees your ability to exercise your other rights. Certain recent copyright laws have paradoxical loopholes that claim to grant certain rights but then criminalize all technologies that could allow you to exercise those rights. In contrast, this Bill of Rights states that no technological barriers can deprive you of your other fair use rights.
[/i]Uh... they can't buy the game, it's not been released yet. So if they're playing WC3 on anything other than battle.net, they're not part of the beta, and are almost certainly playing a pirated copy.[/i]
They also [b]can't[/b] play the WC3 beta using bnetd. It does not support the beta for that every reason. Someone [b]else[/b] used the open source of bnetd to create another server software that would play the beta. You should at least read the news postings before you make arguments.
Of course it will result in lower sales! But it's gonna hurt the (comparatively) small and weak overseas companies that produce blank media, not the large and powerful music industry. So, as we keep seeing in the past few years, the media industry gets its laws passed for its benefit.
Nope, didn't say never.. I said "very difficult". You won't be able to just 'slap together' an emulator as the above person seemed to imply. It will be a full emulation job, just like any other console. Which means that in 8-10 years we will have the hardware to almost make them run right (see SNES emus).
Re:Rampant Problems, non-exclusive games, DOA3
on
Crashing Xbox Kiosks
·
· Score: 1
Yes, the screenshots are hi-res. Which you can get if you have an HDTV instead of a bad NTSC capture card. And how does any of that change the non-stop raves about the graphics the IGN people (the very site you sourced) and every other game site that has played it?
There are several reason why it most likely won't happen, as you would know if you did some homework before posting. First, the version of DirectX used is NOT the same as what you get on a PC. The APIs are different. And we know how much luck we've seen with people trying to reverse those. Second the OS itself is not the same as any other MS OS. It's 2k kernal based, but w/o memory protections, multiuser, allows client apps to run at ring 0, etc. etc. All of this means that even IF you got the Xbox APIs reversed, you would then have to reverse that kernal and run a Xbox2k emulator on top of windows/linux itself. Another big one is UMA - unified memory architecture. The main memory for the xbox IS the video memory, period. No AGP bus, no transfering, nothing. There are no routines in the XDK for moving textures to the video card. That would be a HUGE problem to deal with in emulation. Even if you used a 64meg video card to load it all there, you still can't run the program stuff from there which means you have propagation issues. Lastly, the graphics processor for the Xbox is not a GeForce3. It is a similar archetecture, but not the same. No card on will hit the market that has the same internals as the Xbox chip, Nvidia has stated as much and you can bet it's in their contract with Microsoft.
One can quite easily observe this devistation without being 'in the way'. It cover how many city blocks? And there are how many large buildings around from which you could get a good view of even the heart and still not be in the way? I would go so far as to possibly say the more 'legit' journalists have been far more 'in the way'. They are the ones stopping firefighters and policemen and asking them innane questions like how they feel and what it's like.
Yes, he provided unique and new information. His perspective and ideas about what is happening. Same thing every other journalist was doing since this whole thing started. I watched the networks and each showed 3-5 reporters and each were saying about the same things as far as facts went. The only thing that seperates them is their personal perspective.
His point was to see one of the most important events in human history with his own eyes. Then, as a service to us he decided to put his thoughts about those events down and share them. That's journalism. Where and how you publish doesn't matter. If you don't believe me, check some Supreme Court cases regarding protecting sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually.. no. One side has put up at least on example with concrete numbers. Here it is: Prime Palaver #6. Sharing makes the copyright holder more money. Granted, this case is books not music where the experience rift between the downloaded version and the store version is greater but it is still the only hard and backed-up numbers we've seen to date.
That's pretty much what the recording industry said about compact discs 20 years ago. You still paid more for that CD last week than the tape. Funny that.
That, sir, was cruel and unusual.
Thank you!
If he wanted to help grandma read, he would bring some books from the local library and get grandma some warm tea and a bright light.
My wife is blind. Completely and totally. Tell me how a bright light helps her read the ebook I just bought for her. Go ahead bright boy, tell me.
you'd DEMAND would you? I bet that'd impress the hell out of the studios and distributors. I'm sure that you'll get what you want eventually you stupid little boy
Yes, demand. As in "give me this or I don't buy your product". It's a simple way of demanding and quite frankly the only one any of these megacorps care about. The reason they are having to pass laws like the DMCA and the SSSCA are because the user are making their demands known and those do not match the plans of the industries involved. Thus they can meet those demands or regulate them out of viability. It's obvious which route an entrenched oligopoly with way too much money and influence would take.
Yep. They disobeyed the law, then stood out in the open and were publicly arrested.
A little different from being weaselboy with a HD or two full of MP3 files hidden in your 'room.' (parents basement)
I whole-heartedly agree. My point, however, was that simply saying "change the laws if you don't like them" is meaningless. It is obvious from the current path of legislation that our lawmakers are not operating in our interests. Therefore disobeying these unjust laws is what needs to be done to change them. Until people do start getting arrested for things most of the public feels should be legal nothing is likely to change.
If you disagree with the laws of the land, change them. Don't just break them then stand up proud saying "I meant well!".
Just to play the devils advocate..
Have you ever heard of civil disobedience? It can work wonders. Might have heard of a couple of guys who did some nifty stuff with it.. King and Ghandi I think were their names. Something like that.
Do you not think book publishers would be doing the same stuff the RIAA does if it all of a sudden became possible to easily and cheaply duplicate a book and distribute it over the internet? I know it's done now but the process to create them is not that easy and to a certain extent destroys the original copy if you take apart the book to run it through a sheet feeder.
Yes, in act I think they will. And I'll be raising hell about them doing it. Your point almost proves mine. The ease with which I can backup data I have purchased should have no barring on my legal right to do so. It's ok to copy so long as it hard to do it, but if it's trivial suddenly it's horrible and evil and needs to be eliminated at the hardware level? Huh?
Doublethink.
yes the DMCA goes to far, and yes Copyright terms need to be limited to somthing far withing the liftime of the creator and the audience, but NO, you have no right to break the law and get away with it.
No right, no. But some would say you, in fact, have a duty to defy an unjust law. But that's getting into philosophy.
I again say that punishing those that traffic in music that is not designated to be shared over P2P services for free is a better solution to the problems that the music industry is having than trying to creep into my living room and take control of my electronic equipment.
I'm with you here though. This is what Metallica should have done to begin with.
Lets use this example. If I go to Borders and buy a book on P2P from O'Reilly and I decide to use it as home plate in a game of baseball, is Borders or O'Reilly responsible for replacing it?
No, not at all. Nor is anyone asking the record companies to to so. We're asking the record componaies to bugger off and let us take care of that for ourselves. They are trying to make that illegal.
I would be bitching just as loudly (maybe more so) if the book publishers were trying to make it illegal for me to copy a few important passages out of a book I bought.
[i]I love the last bit the best. Um, even if you are going to buy the CD you have no right to infringe copyright. Thats like downing a 1L of pepsi just to "test the market" first. Same goes for those pirate-game-but-only-for-24-hours-then-delete people. Copying game even for 10 mins is illegal in most countries. Just because you plan on buying a copy in no way makes that ok.[/i]
That depends on if you're talking about laws or morals. Legally, yeah.. the "sample it" idea doesn't fly. Morally.. well, that's another matter to be determined by ones own opinions.
Personally, I have no moral problem at all pulling down an album of MP3s, giving it a listen or two, then deleting it and using that to decide if I want to buy the work or not. It's just the same as having a friend copy the cd onto a tape and giving that to me (which is legal, btw). Yeah, you can say that's what the radio is for but the radio doesn't play what I want to hear it plays what the record company wants me to hear. Too many times have my friends and I been burned when the record execs pay for the two good songs from some album to be played then the other 11 songs are so bad the cd never even gets put in the player again.
[i]All that Napster has done for me in that regard is make my life hell if I want to continue doing that with new CDs. [/i]
Napster didn't do that. Overgorged and overpowered corporations who have far to much power in our government have done that. I didn't like Napster nor did I use Napster but place the blame where it belongs.
Since when is it the government's job to save their failing businesses?
How about asking them to pass this:
1. Users have the right to "time-shift" content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to record video or audio for later viewing or listening. For example, you can use a VCR to record a TV show and play it back later.
2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired.
This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial). For example, you can copy a CD to a portable music player so that you can listen to the songs while you're jogging.
3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content.
This gives you the right to make archival copies to be used in the event that your original copies are destroyed.
4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.
This gives you the right to listen to music on your Rio, to watch TV on your iMac, and to view DVDs on your Linux computer.
5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats.
This gives you the right to modify content in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud.
6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned.
This last right guarantees your ability to exercise your other rights. Certain recent copyright laws have paradoxical loopholes that claim to grant certain rights but then criminalize all technologies that could allow you to exercise those rights. In contrast, this Bill of Rights states that no technological barriers can deprive you of your other fair use rights.
[/i]Uh... they can't buy the game, it's not been released yet. So if they're playing WC3 on anything other than battle.net, they're not part of the beta, and are almost certainly playing a pirated copy.[/i]
They also [b]can't[/b] play the WC3 beta using bnetd. It does not support the beta for that every reason. Someone [b]else[/b] used the open source of bnetd to create another server software that would play the beta. You should at least read the news postings before you make arguments.
Of course it will result in lower sales! But it's gonna hurt the (comparatively) small and weak overseas companies that produce blank media, not the large and powerful music industry. So, as we keep seeing in the past few years, the media industry gets its laws passed for its benefit.
Read the following:/ 03/14/payola /
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2001
Then come back and talk about payola.
Problem is, how to get those people who are sitting fat an happy for this very reason to go and cut off their meal-ticket.
"Sir, we would be much happier if you would make it where you can't get re-elected again, please?"
Sure... they'll go for that.
Nope, didn't say never.. I said "very difficult". You won't be able to just 'slap together' an emulator as the above person seemed to imply. It will be a full emulation job, just like any other console. Which means that in 8-10 years we will have the hardware to almost make them run right (see SNES emus).
Yes, the screenshots are hi-res. Which you can get if you have an HDTV instead of a bad NTSC capture card. And how does any of that change the non-stop raves about the graphics the IGN people (the very site you sourced) and every other game site that has played it?
As much as I hate MS, I won't allow who foots to bill to decide what games I play.
Oh, and btw, american citizens have lost far more rights & liberties to Sony and it's friends (RIAA and MPAA) than we ever have to MS.
Not to mention that there was a problem with a significant number of the at launch PS2 havint their fans die.
There are several reason why it most likely won't happen, as you would know if you did some homework before posting. First, the version of DirectX used is NOT the same as what you get on a PC. The APIs are different. And we know how much luck we've seen with people trying to reverse those. Second the OS itself is not the same as any other MS OS. It's 2k kernal based, but w/o memory protections, multiuser, allows client apps to run at ring 0, etc. etc. All of this means that even IF you got the Xbox APIs reversed, you would then have to reverse that kernal and run a Xbox2k emulator on top of windows/linux itself. Another big one is UMA - unified memory architecture. The main memory for the xbox IS the video memory, period. No AGP bus, no transfering, nothing. There are no routines in the XDK for moving textures to the video card. That would be a HUGE problem to deal with in emulation. Even if you used a 64meg video card to load it all there, you still can't run the program stuff from there which means you have propagation issues. Lastly, the graphics processor for the Xbox is not a GeForce3. It is a similar archetecture, but not the same. No card on will hit the market that has the same internals as the Xbox chip, Nvidia has stated as much and you can bet it's in their contract with Microsoft.
Hey retard, it's a bloody inappropriate greeting to use when you are adressing a nation under the cloud of a tragedy.
One can quite easily observe this devistation without being 'in the way'. It cover how many city blocks? And there are how many large buildings around from which you could get a good view of even the heart and still not be in the way? I would go so far as to possibly say the more 'legit' journalists have been far more 'in the way'. They are the ones stopping firefighters and policemen and asking them innane questions like how they feel and what it's like.
Yes, he provided unique and new information. His perspective and ideas about what is happening. Same thing every other journalist was doing since this whole thing started. I watched the networks and each showed 3-5 reporters and each were saying about the same things as far as facts went. The only thing that seperates them is their personal perspective.
His point was to see one of the most important events in human history with his own eyes. Then, as a service to us he decided to put his thoughts about those events down and share them. That's journalism. Where and how you publish doesn't matter. If you don't believe me, check some Supreme Court cases regarding protecting sources.