Joe Consumer quite legally buys a used CD for about 50% of new price.
Joe takes the CD that he legally owns and makes backups and/or copies for his household and/or media shifts it, all of which have been ruled fair use by case law.
Joe then sells the CD back to the retailer for about 25% of new price.
Now wait just a minute, because until we reach step 3, everything is both legal and moral. The violation is that Joe is supposed to destroy all of the copies that he (quite legally) made. OK, argue on that point, but why assume his guilt at step 1? If anything, the tax should be on Joe selling the CD in step 3. And even that tax assumes guilt with no evidence other than supposition.
you can't "unlicense" a GPL license; and it's non-exclusive, so anybody that has it can keep it going even after you stop offering it...
We're in agreement about that, but the problem is that copyright law and patent law are different. Me and thee can continue to copy, modify and distribute their GPL'd source as much as we like (as long as we complt with GPL) because the GPL license they chose to put on their copyrighted source gives us an explicit license to do so. However, the GPL isn't as clear as it could be on asserting that licensees must explicitely license all patents in perpetuity.
There's only an implicit licensing of patents, and only as long as they're still distributing the GPL'd source. Now, it seems clear that if they do enforce patents, then they lose the right to distrubute further source derived from or linked with GPL source, but that doesn't effect the source that's already out there.
Rather, it effects it in as much as they (retroactively?) lose the right they had to use other people's copyrighted GPL'd source, so can be sued by the copyright owners on that basis, but that's a separate issue to their patent ownership. They can, effectively, stop releasing their product while at the same time leveraging their patent claim on anyone who keeps using the versions already out there. The GPL doesn't stop them from doing this, it just stops them from releasing further GPL source and perhaps leaves them open to copyright infringement for their past use of GPL'd code. But when they actually copied it it, they were complying with the license terms, so it's going to be a tough call.
If they decide to publish the patented code as GPLed software, then they must comply with the GPL
OK, but what I'm interested in is what happens to the source that's already out there, with a GPL license on it. If they now try and enforce their patent, they void their GPL compliance, and lose the right to continue distributing code based on or linked with GPL code. But it's already out there. So what happens to their (copyrighted) source that was distributed under the GPL and which is now in the hands of many individuals?
They can't retroactively remove the GPL granted rights from that source, but on the other hand, they can't apply the GPL to it now or continue to distribute it. So if I have a copy of it (and I do), can I continue to modify and distribute their source? I didn't violate the GPL, and I'm not applying patent restrictions, so why should I (and the potential recipients) suffer from their patent lockdown? But then it means that I can keep distributing their source with a GPL license on it, but they can't, which gives me more powers. But heck, they can still sue me for patent infringement, because patent law is separate from copyright law. The GPL gives me the right to copy, modify and distribute their source, but their patent stops me from using it!
This looks like a bit of a legal minefield. I'm usually fairly clear on where the GPL leaves me, but in this case I'm stumped.
That Tad - by his own admission - isn't that hot on writing to a schedule. And I agree with him on this; when left to his own devices, he produces seriously high quality work. When the deadlines kick in, he becomes much more generic and (dare I say it?) can border on the mediocre.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy his work, I just think this ticking-clock scheme was a bad idea for his style of uncompromising "it's done when it's done" creativity.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The situation that the FSF had in mind was a company taking GPL code, then injecting patented code in a attempt to de-GPL it and make it proprietary. The protection provided by copyright is the leverage that enforces this.
What they didn't apparently consider was a patent owner voluntarily providing code (that they have the copyright to) under the GPL license. However, I think (I hope) the license is clear enough that if the code is GPL, it can't be retracted (even by the copyright holder) or restricted by patents.
IANAL, but I bet this is giving some FSF lawyers pause to consider whether they need an explicit clause in the GPL to cover this.
Right. I'm not going to buy it, and I'm not going to play it, partly because I don't want to, but mostly because I don't have a machine that can play it. Are we clear on that? I am not going to give Blizzard $55.
But given Blizzard's treatement of bnetd, I'm damn well going to download a warez rip of the information that comprises it (which to my Linux machines look like a bunch of gibberish). Because that will reduce Blizzard's bank balance by $55, right? I mean, it does actually remove money from their account and puts it in, er,/dev/null, doesn't it? Because making unauthorised copies costs money, right? Maybe if enough of us do this (be sure to delete the information then download it again and again) we can leave Blizzard owing several billion dollars to... err... wait... isn't there a flaw in this argument?
The linked-to reasons are all fair reasons for not even asking for a counter offer (i.e. just leaving). But they're not reasons for not accepting one if it's offered. In particular, the concept of loyalty is pathetically outdated. It might be mutual in a very small company (under 10 people, say), but anything over that and you can be damn sure that the guy in charge will feign - hey, perhaps even feel - reciprocal loyalty to the staff... right up to the point where times get hard. Then the rationalising and self justification kicks in, and everybody starts to look like a drain on resources. And that's not just in huge companies: look at the way that Loki employees got screwed in return for their loyalty.
Hell, if it makes you feel better, knock 10% off of what they're offering you and tell them that's what you actually think you're worth. Are you going to do that? Of course you're not.
This must rank as one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen posted on Slashdot.
Anyone that thinks that appropriating another person's property without compensation or permission has no impact upon the victim is delusional even if that property is virtual/digital. Even if the lost is 1 penny, its still a loss, its still theft.
You're quite right. Now, explain how much Bertelsmann's bank balance drops if I download a bunch of data that a given application on a given OS might interpret as a "song" by Britney Spears. I want to know how much less money they have after I download that data, not how much more they might have gained if I had bought a license to obtain a copy of.
Is it a penny? Is their bank balance one penny less if I download that data? No, it isn't. But, hey, that might be a rounding error, so what if I download it ten times, a hundred times, ten million times? Does their bank balance drop every time that I do that? Gosh, you know, it doesn't. How about that.
The first part of your argument is flawed, but that's a common mistake. You are really arguing only that it's "right" that people should respect copyright law. Fine, let's argue that. Why? What "science or useful art" is being promotd by copyright law as applied to music?
Don't just assert it, argue it. Convince us that protecting Bertelsmann's profits (and indirectly that of their meat puppet, Britney Spears) is what the Constitution intends, or what copyright law is supposed to achieve. Because I am having a hard time understanding how a law explicitely and clearly intended to improve the quality of content produced by talented individuals has any relevance to the law as it stands now, which largely protects the profits of huge publishers who buy and sell those individuals as commodities, while confidently asserting that the purpose of copyright law is to protect quantity of sales.
Perhaps you believe that using DRM to leverage another few thousand sales of Britney Spears albums is "promoting the progress of a useful art", but I would argue (using your style of flat assertion) that it self evidently isn't. Convince me.
I'm sick and tired of people arguing that this doesn't hurt sales
Prove that it does. Find any evidence - any evidence - that it has reduced sales. Anecdotes don't count. Common sense doesn't count. Your opinion doesn't count.
Show us the evidence.
Also in other news I heard yesterday on the radio that a couple of the labels will be selling singles online for $.99
No, they will be renting you access to SDMI secured data stored on your hard drive. Download the Liquid Audio player and read the license. Access to the tracks is conditional on a renewable license tied to your credit card. It's a rental locker system, and they can take away the keys at any time. Wake us up when they actually offer mp3's, will you?
Here, effectively, is what Stan Liebowitz has just said.
I was talking complete horseshit in my last Cato institute paper. My theory was wrong, and didn't agree with figures that were available then that any idiot could have pointed me at. Incidentally, I still don't have any suggestion as to why sales haven't dropped as much as I shrieked that they would; my only real point is that I was totally wrong, and I don't know why.
But wait, I have a shiny new bunch of theories based on my latest insights and suppositions! And because I screwed up last time, I'm bound to be right this time! Law of averages, right?
And my theory is... wait for it... that rights holders should be able to charge whatever they want, and use any DRM that they want, and the market will take care of everything.
I'm done now. When do I get my check?
And I'm done with listening to egomaniacs like Liebowitz. I'll stick to my Magic 8 Ball for my predictions on how DRM and P2P will turn out. It might not be more accurate than chumps like Liebowitz, but at least it doesn't collect a fat fee every time it spouts a random prediction.
If you actually download the thirteen MB Liquid Audio player and read the clickthrough licence, you'll find the following juicy clause among the usual "w3 0wnZ j00" legaleze:
CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IN ORDER TO PURCHASE CONTENT, AND TO ACCESS AND PLAY THE SAME, INCLUDING CONTENT PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED BY CUSTOMER, CUSTOMER MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY A VALID TIME-LIMITED "PASSPORT" ISSUED PERIODICALLY BY LIQUID AUDIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LIQUID AUDIO'S THEN-CURRENT PASSPORT POLICY
Oh, and your passport contains your credit card number, and you agree that it's not their fault if you get scammed. And the player can disable itself any time it likes. By the way, if you want to convert to a sane format, you have to actually physically burn a CD as raw and then rip it, you can't just "save as".
This is just another "music locker" rental scheme, with a (grudgingly provided) tortuous method to get yourself out of it. Maybe. Perhaps.
Excuse me if I hold out for mp3 or ogg downloads that don't assume that I'm a thief who may have to be cut off at any time.
I'm not gonna criticize the system, I think it is perfect
Yes, yes, very insightful, but how exactly is the proprietary Liquid Audio format "perfect"? Is it more "perfect" than mp3 or ogg, or is it more likely that you're just spouting hyperbole? Looks to me like you're merely advocating an attitude that's comparable with the Soviet five year plans, i.e. "consumers will want what we tell them to want.". Peddle it elsewhere, please.
The X bug is very serious. It's possible to set up a web site that will cause any X based computer looking at it to crash
"Any"? Spurious assertion. I've just viewed the test site, and didn't get a crash. Mind you, I only tried Konqueror, Eudora and lynx. Should I keep trying all of the other browsers that I have available until one manages to achieve the specified behaviour, or should I go back to worrying about my work machine (NT4, mandatory and unpatched IE5.01 & Outlook Express) getting rooted out from under me?
You're right that we do bash Microsoft products more than they deserve. But not much more. I'd prefer if we bashed the clueless Microserfs and control freakish IT departments that tolerate and encourage this horridly vulnerable monoculture, but that's a separate debate.
besides, you spend 90% of the time in a car anyway, so [switching from keyboard to mouse is] really not that bad.
Well sure, I've got used to it as well, but I'd far rather be switching from wheel and pedals to mouse... I guess my point is really that we (as purchasers) do demonstrably put up with and work around developers skimping on control options. I don't see the advent of these devices as offering a compelling reason for developers to spend even more time developing and testing with yet another possible control device, when developers today don't have time to even support the most obvious devices.
Ummm that would probably be because steering wheels wouldn't be all that great for the total interface of the game....[GTA3]
How exactly do you use the steering wheel to aim the guns etc?
Same way you have to do it now. You have to switch from keyboard (or joystick) to the mouse when you get out of the car. I'm prepared to accept that, but I'd rather be switching from a good car controller (a wheel and pedals) than a mediocre one (keyboard).
It is if you buy one of these now. If you'd bought one of the early Microsoft FF sticks back in 1997, what are the chances that it would even still be working now? And FF implementation still isn't universal. That's a long wait to use a new toy. But if someone doesn't start buying them, the cycle of price drops and app support won't begin.
the reason that games don't use force-feedback is because the technology isn't out there
Er, thanks for supporting my point. Why will it be different for 6 dof devices? Where's the killer app that will push takeup that will down prices that will push apps...
Don't get me wrong, I do like the look of these things, but my budget for a controller - any controller - is $50 maximum, and only if there are already compelling apps. I don't think that I'm that unusual, and I can't see that these will reach that price quickly enough to trigger widescale adoption. I mean, how many gamers have force feedback sticks today? They're hardly ubiquitous.
I am interested in hearing about examples of corporations and government agencies, from around the world, using GPL software as part of an inhouse development effort.
Well, the NSA seems to be pretty keen on Linux. I know they're not that big or important, and they don't know much about technology or the law or anything...;-)
Non geeky, non SciFi? What does that leave? Jackie Collins?
Oh, history. If you want a nice blend of popular history and entertainment, try Nathaniel's Nutmeg, a fascinating story about the 17th century spice trade. And no, that's NOT geeky, it says a lot about humanity's ability to commit truly horrendous acts on each other for seemingly trivial things.
isn't one of the other stipulations of the GPL that anyone can redistribute the source/binaries as long as the follow the GPL? What is to stop someone within your organization from taking the source from your internal app and distributing it outside the company?
Hmm, very good point indeed, and 100% on topic, I think.
I was going to say that the company (and not the individual developer) owns the copyright on any new code, and that the extra rights of the GPL flow from the protection of copyright, so that the company could prohibit even its own employees from distributing this code.
But then I realised that you're absolutely right, that this is precisely the situation that the GPL is intended to avoid. If you add new source to a GPL utility, it becomes GPL licensed, and that means that anybody who gets their hands on it, however they get their hands on it, has an explicit license to copy and distribute it (if they follow the license terms).
Of course, in practical terms you can get sacked for it, but there's nothing in the GPL that prevents it. You can see why paranoid companies like Microsoft hate and fear the GPL so much.
How do you deal with the likes of serial goatse.cx posters? Mrs Angry Mother of America will launch a campaign (or lawsuit) against you the first time she's sees a goatse.cx post before it's moderated. She won't want to hear that you're a common carrier, or that it's her responsibility to "police" this community. She'll just want to know why you aren't taking reponsibility for protecting her children for her.
Likewise, what about UC spammers, people who will use it to advertise local services? Are these welcome? Unwelcome? Will you welcome plumbers but not prostitutes? Will you have a "no advertising" policy? If so, what about people who recommend (genuinely or otherwise) local businesses in response to questions?
Sadly, I think that if you're going to do this, it will run until the legal fund runs dry, then the paper will pull it. But hell, go for it. I'd like to be proved wrong.
the game industry will be jumping all over the idea of six-degree-of-freedom, precision-force-feedback video games
Limited market, limited appeal. And it's not just little no-name games that skimp on supporting clever devices. For example, Jedi Knight 2 only added force feedback mice in the 1.3 patch, and still doesn't (officially) support force feedback joysticks. GTA3 on the PC doesn't (at the moment) even support steering wheel pedals! I can't begin to tell you how surprised and disappointed I was about that.
I'm not saying I don't like the idea, just that it will take a long, long time (5+ years) before these things take off, if they take off.
can they control my time to get/find/make items? Can I sell that time?
Very good point. And how do they decide (in game!) that you are putting in that time because you want to, or because... no, wait, the second option is also "because you want to", only with the slight addition of "and you get paid".
Basically though, I can't understand what their problem is with item selling, beyond control freakery and a vague feeling that if there's money being made off of their game, they should be making it.
Well in the case of most EULA cases we would be talking about a criminal proceeding, a breach of contract. The company would be charging you with doing something illegal as per the contract.
Oh, please. If breach of contract was a criminal offence, 90% of the CEO's in America would be in jail right now. There are only a few specific situations where criminal codes apply to breaches of contract: namely hacking cable access, and breaking content lockdown technology, both of those being laws bought by content providers. Mythic isn't large enough to have bought itself a specific law to cover this (yet).
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what their argument is:
Now wait just a minute, because until we reach step 3, everything is both legal and moral. The violation is that Joe is supposed to destroy all of the copies that he (quite legally) made. OK, argue on that point, but why assume his guilt at step 1? If anything, the tax should be on Joe selling the CD in step 3. And even that tax assumes guilt with no evidence other than supposition.
We're in agreement about that, but the problem is that copyright law and patent law are different. Me and thee can continue to copy, modify and distribute their GPL'd source as much as we like (as long as we complt with GPL) because the GPL license they chose to put on their copyrighted source gives us an explicit license to do so. However, the GPL isn't as clear as it could be on asserting that licensees must explicitely license all patents in perpetuity.
There's only an implicit licensing of patents, and only as long as they're still distributing the GPL'd source. Now, it seems clear that if they do enforce patents, then they lose the right to distrubute further source derived from or linked with GPL source, but that doesn't effect the source that's already out there.
Rather, it effects it in as much as they (retroactively?) lose the right they had to use other people's copyrighted GPL'd source, so can be sued by the copyright owners on that basis, but that's a separate issue to their patent ownership. They can, effectively, stop releasing their product while at the same time leveraging their patent claim on anyone who keeps using the versions already out there. The GPL doesn't stop them from doing this, it just stops them from releasing further GPL source and perhaps leaves them open to copyright infringement for their past use of GPL'd code. But when they actually copied it it, they were complying with the license terms, so it's going to be a tough call.
OK, but what I'm interested in is what happens to the source that's already out there, with a GPL license on it. If they now try and enforce their patent, they void their GPL compliance, and lose the right to continue distributing code based on or linked with GPL code. But it's already out there. So what happens to their (copyrighted) source that was distributed under the GPL and which is now in the hands of many individuals?
They can't retroactively remove the GPL granted rights from that source, but on the other hand, they can't apply the GPL to it now or continue to distribute it. So if I have a copy of it (and I do), can I continue to modify and distribute their source? I didn't violate the GPL, and I'm not applying patent restrictions, so why should I (and the potential recipients) suffer from their patent lockdown? But then it means that I can keep distributing their source with a GPL license on it, but they can't, which gives me more powers. But heck, they can still sue me for patent infringement, because patent law is separate from copyright law. The GPL gives me the right to copy, modify and distribute their source, but their patent stops me from using it!
This looks like a bit of a legal minefield. I'm usually fairly clear on where the GPL leaves me, but in this case I'm stumped.
That Tad - by his own admission - isn't that hot on writing to a schedule. And I agree with him on this; when left to his own devices, he produces seriously high quality work. When the deadlines kick in, he becomes much more generic and (dare I say it?) can border on the mediocre.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy his work, I just think this ticking-clock scheme was a bad idea for his style of uncompromising "it's done when it's done" creativity.
I'll post the relevant section here:
The situation that the FSF had in mind was a company taking GPL code, then injecting patented code in a attempt to de-GPL it and make it proprietary. The protection provided by copyright is the leverage that enforces this.
What they didn't apparently consider was a patent owner voluntarily providing code (that they have the copyright to) under the GPL license. However, I think (I hope) the license is clear enough that if the code is GPL, it can't be retracted (even by the copyright holder) or restricted by patents.
IANAL, but I bet this is giving some FSF lawyers pause to consider whether they need an explicit clause in the GPL to cover this.
Right. I'm not going to buy it, and I'm not going to play it, partly because I don't want to, but mostly because I don't have a machine that can play it. Are we clear on that? I am not going to give Blizzard $55.
But given Blizzard's treatement of bnetd, I'm damn well going to download a warez rip of the information that comprises it (which to my Linux machines look like a bunch of gibberish). Because that will reduce Blizzard's bank balance by $55, right? I mean, it does actually remove money from their account and puts it in, er, /dev/null, doesn't it? Because making unauthorised copies costs money, right? Maybe if enough of us do this (be sure to delete the information then download it again and again) we can leave Blizzard owing several billion dollars to... err... wait... isn't there a flaw in this argument?
The linked-to reasons are all fair reasons for not even asking for a counter offer (i.e. just leaving). But they're not reasons for not accepting one if it's offered. In particular, the concept of loyalty is pathetically outdated. It might be mutual in a very small company (under 10 people, say), but anything over that and you can be damn sure that the guy in charge will feign - hey, perhaps even feel - reciprocal loyalty to the staff... right up to the point where times get hard. Then the rationalising and self justification kicks in, and everybody starts to look like a drain on resources. And that's not just in huge companies: look at the way that Loki employees got screwed in return for their loyalty.
Hell, if it makes you feel better, knock 10% off of what they're offering you and tell them that's what you actually think you're worth. Are you going to do that? Of course you're not.
This must rank as one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen posted on Slashdot.
You're quite right. Now, explain how much Bertelsmann's bank balance drops if I download a bunch of data that a given application on a given OS might interpret as a "song" by Britney Spears. I want to know how much less money they have after I download that data, not how much more they might have gained if I had bought a license to obtain a copy of.
Is it a penny? Is their bank balance one penny less if I download that data? No, it isn't. But, hey, that might be a rounding error, so what if I download it ten times, a hundred times, ten million times? Does their bank balance drop every time that I do that? Gosh, you know, it doesn't. How about that.
The first part of your argument is flawed, but that's a common mistake. You are really arguing only that it's "right" that people should respect copyright law. Fine, let's argue that. Why? What "science or useful art" is being promotd by copyright law as applied to music?
Don't just assert it, argue it. Convince us that protecting Bertelsmann's profits (and indirectly that of their meat puppet, Britney Spears) is what the Constitution intends, or what copyright law is supposed to achieve. Because I am having a hard time understanding how a law explicitely and clearly intended to improve the quality of content produced by talented individuals has any relevance to the law as it stands now, which largely protects the profits of huge publishers who buy and sell those individuals as commodities, while confidently asserting that the purpose of copyright law is to protect quantity of sales.
Perhaps you believe that using DRM to leverage another few thousand sales of Britney Spears albums is "promoting the progress of a useful art", but I would argue (using your style of flat assertion) that it self evidently isn't. Convince me.
Prove that it does. Find any evidence - any evidence - that it has reduced sales. Anecdotes don't count. Common sense doesn't count. Your opinion doesn't count.
Show us the evidence.
No, they will be renting you access to SDMI secured data stored on your hard drive. Download the Liquid Audio player and read the license. Access to the tracks is conditional on a renewable license tied to your credit card. It's a rental locker system, and they can take away the keys at any time. Wake us up when they actually offer mp3's, will you?
Here, effectively, is what Stan Liebowitz has just said.
And I'm done with listening to egomaniacs like Liebowitz. I'll stick to my Magic 8 Ball for my predictions on how DRM and P2P will turn out. It might not be more accurate than chumps like Liebowitz, but at least it doesn't collect a fat fee every time it spouts a random prediction.
Sorry, I meant Opera. Damn, there goes my snide Linux superiority. ;-)
If you actually download the thirteen MB Liquid Audio player and read the clickthrough licence, you'll find the following juicy clause among the usual "w3 0wnZ j00" legaleze:
Oh, and your passport contains your credit card number, and you agree that it's not their fault if you get scammed. And the player can disable itself any time it likes. By the way, if you want to convert to a sane format, you have to actually physically burn a CD as raw and then rip it, you can't just "save as".
This is just another "music locker" rental scheme, with a (grudgingly provided) tortuous method to get yourself out of it. Maybe. Perhaps.
Excuse me if I hold out for mp3 or ogg downloads that don't assume that I'm a thief who may have to be cut off at any time.
Yes, yes, very insightful, but how exactly is the proprietary Liquid Audio format "perfect"? Is it more "perfect" than mp3 or ogg, or is it more likely that you're just spouting hyperbole? Looks to me like you're merely advocating an attitude that's comparable with the Soviet five year plans, i.e. "consumers will want what we tell them to want.". Peddle it elsewhere, please.
"Any"? Spurious assertion. I've just viewed the test site, and didn't get a crash. Mind you, I only tried Konqueror, Eudora and lynx. Should I keep trying all of the other browsers that I have available until one manages to achieve the specified behaviour, or should I go back to worrying about my work machine (NT4, mandatory and unpatched IE5.01 & Outlook Express) getting rooted out from under me?
You're right that we do bash Microsoft products more than they deserve. But not much more. I'd prefer if we bashed the clueless Microserfs and control freakish IT departments that tolerate and encourage this horridly vulnerable monoculture, but that's a separate debate.
Well sure, I've got used to it as well, but I'd far rather be switching from wheel and pedals to mouse... I guess my point is really that we (as purchasers) do demonstrably put up with and work around developers skimping on control options. I don't see the advent of these devices as offering a compelling reason for developers to spend even more time developing and testing with yet another possible control device, when developers today don't have time to even support the most obvious devices.
Same way you have to do it now. You have to switch from keyboard (or joystick) to the mouse when you get out of the car. I'm prepared to accept that, but I'd rather be switching from a good car controller (a wheel and pedals) than a mediocre one (keyboard).
It is if you buy one of these now. If you'd bought one of the early Microsoft FF sticks back in 1997, what are the chances that it would even still be working now? And FF implementation still isn't universal. That's a long wait to use a new toy. But if someone doesn't start buying them, the cycle of price drops and app support won't begin.
Er, thanks for supporting my point. Why will it be different for 6 dof devices? Where's the killer app that will push takeup that will down prices that will push apps...
Don't get me wrong, I do like the look of these things, but my budget for a controller - any controller - is $50 maximum, and only if there are already compelling apps. I don't think that I'm that unusual, and I can't see that these will reach that price quickly enough to trigger widescale adoption. I mean, how many gamers have force feedback sticks today? They're hardly ubiquitous.
Well, the NSA seems to be pretty keen on Linux. I know they're not that big or important, and they don't know much about technology or the law or anything... ;-)
Non geeky, non SciFi? What does that leave? Jackie Collins?
Oh, history. If you want a nice blend of popular history and entertainment, try Nathaniel's Nutmeg, a fascinating story about the 17th century spice trade. And no, that's NOT geeky, it says a lot about humanity's ability to commit truly horrendous acts on each other for seemingly trivial things.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140292608/ qid=1023903130/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-2433064-31240 52
Why not just state that it's public domain? Isn't that "truly free"?
Or instead of the slightly wordy BSD say "© Naikrovek. You may freely use, copy, modify or distribute this text, as long as this copyright notice is preserved", which is functionally identical, a lot shorter, and shows respect for the intelligence and good faith of the recipient. Bearing in mind that anyone acting in bad faith isn't going to read the BSD anyway, you might as well not piss them off with a long preamble in each source file. ;-)
Hmm, very good point indeed, and 100% on topic, I think.
I was going to say that the company (and not the individual developer) owns the copyright on any new code, and that the extra rights of the GPL flow from the protection of copyright, so that the company could prohibit even its own employees from distributing this code.
But then I realised that you're absolutely right, that this is precisely the situation that the GPL is intended to avoid. If you add new source to a GPL utility, it becomes GPL licensed, and that means that anybody who gets their hands on it, however they get their hands on it, has an explicit license to copy and distribute it (if they follow the license terms).
Of course, in practical terms you can get sacked for it, but there's nothing in the GPL that prevents it. You can see why paranoid companies like Microsoft hate and fear the GPL so much.
How do you deal with the likes of serial goatse.cx posters? Mrs Angry Mother of America will launch a campaign (or lawsuit) against you the first time she's sees a goatse.cx post before it's moderated. She won't want to hear that you're a common carrier, or that it's her responsibility to "police" this community. She'll just want to know why you aren't taking reponsibility for protecting her children for her.
Likewise, what about UC spammers, people who will use it to advertise local services? Are these welcome? Unwelcome? Will you welcome plumbers but not prostitutes? Will you have a "no advertising" policy? If so, what about people who recommend (genuinely or otherwise) local businesses in response to questions?
Sadly, I think that if you're going to do this, it will run until the legal fund runs dry, then the paper will pull it. But hell, go for it. I'd like to be proved wrong.
Limited market, limited appeal. And it's not just little no-name games that skimp on supporting clever devices. For example, Jedi Knight 2 only added force feedback mice in the 1.3 patch, and still doesn't (officially) support force feedback joysticks. GTA3 on the PC doesn't (at the moment) even support steering wheel pedals! I can't begin to tell you how surprised and disappointed I was about that.
I'm not saying I don't like the idea, just that it will take a long, long time (5+ years) before these things take off, if they take off.
Very good point. And how do they decide (in game!) that you are putting in that time because you want to, or because... no, wait, the second option is also "because you want to", only with the slight addition of "and you get paid".
Basically though, I can't understand what their problem is with item selling, beyond control freakery and a vague feeling that if there's money being made off of their game, they should be making it.
Oh, please. If breach of contract was a criminal offence, 90% of the CEO's in America would be in jail right now. There are only a few specific situations where criminal codes apply to breaches of contract: namely hacking cable access, and breaking content lockdown technology, both of those being laws bought by content providers. Mythic isn't large enough to have bought itself a specific law to cover this (yet).