It depends on the game. If killing and theft are a significant part of the game, a properly balanced game will make it so being on the receiving end of a kill isn't that bad. Either you respawn with a penalty, or characters are disposable enough not to matter.
If you have some sort of game where it takes extensive time or real money to build in-game advantages, and these advantages can be permanently "stolen" through brute theft or killing, an in-game punishment would not serve as a useful deterrent, unless it reflects the out-of-game investment lost by the victim. Unless steps are taken that involve real-life difficulty, restriction, or hardship, the "punished" player could just spawn a new disposable character and go on antother killing spree.
Granted, the power balances and mechanisms should be worked into the planning of any respectable game.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The auto workers aren't working, and that's why they aren't being paid. Granted, they lost the chance to work, and that's a big problem, but it's a different problem. The music industry people are working, but the work is not being fairly compensated.
And the class warfare bit really misses the mark as well. It's not like there aren't low-rung workers in the entertainment production chain as well. Hell, I'm sure a fair few of them do a lot worse than the auto workers have.
The only sticky point with something like that though, is making the out-of-game punishment equal to the out-of-game cost of the crime (which still exists, even if the "crime" is perpetrated in-game). You'd need to somehow restrict the real person behind the avatar from simply dumping their account and creating a new one to get around the punishment.
Unless, I suppose, wealth was easily regained, and getting robbed was all part of the ebb and flow of the game.
It's not so much fear as computers as covering all the bases, at least in the matter of having the law on the books. Okay, these folks were only using the computer cracking to change grades, but computer cracking can also be used for much more damaging ends. Given that intents and damages of those intents can span a wide range and be uncodifiably fuzzy, it make sense to have a law as given, that maxes out at a punishment fit for the more serious instances of that crime, but allows judicial discretion to allow for lesser offenses. Having a hundred degrees of "Computer cracking with intent to..." laws would just cause confusion, possible loopholes, and would likely still leave just as much judicial/prosecutorial discretion as far as which specific charge to select.
There might be something to be said later, if the judge slaps down the max, but that's an issue to take up once facts are in. At the moment, the article is really nothing but FUD and fumes.
Really, I'm surprised there haven't been cell-phone carriers giving more options on fronts like this. I'd like to have a couple things on a cell:
- Temporary, and quickly recordable/accessible "Away messages" for VM. Hit a button, and now my phone says "I'm in the car, I'll call you back shortly", instead of the usual VM.
- "Urgent Ring", where callers can have the option of ringing a silenced phone, or where only certain numbers will ring in (as set on the reciever's end)... Actually, I think this might exist.
For the "on-call doctor" thing, you could perhaps have an enhanced VM setup that would play a recorded message, then give the option of automatically forwarding the call to another number. Make this quick enough to set up, and you could have something like: "I'm in at the theater right now. If this is an emergency, press 1, and ask for me to be paged."
Considering the theater, especially: If you're expecting to be called, you can arrange it so you're reachable by other means, or forgo the activity until a better time. If you're not expecting it, your cellphone should be off already (like the nice announcement said), so as not to disturb other patrons by the nuisance of screening all your unimportant calls.
That's a monetary issue. An issue of impact that such wide distribution can have. But that doesn't change the fact that it should either be legal or illegal to make a copy of media that I own. Period.
Why doesn't it change the fact? Given the economic model of copyright that allows distributed cost recuperation (and distribution of affordable content), a proper hard-line decision would most likely favor abolishing mixtaping (personal sharing) rather than allowing wholesale copying. Practically, though, there's quite a difference in scale between sharing music with your friends and with "your 10,000 closest friends". Mixtaping, even if practiced universally, causes far less economic harm, and often has somewhat of a legitimate social or artistically transformative (in the case of mixes) aspect. Wholesale sharing, though, carries no redeeming social or artistic motives or byproducts, and has far greater economic effect.
As for "making available", I believe that you can only effectively fault the person that offered the unlicensed copies. I think it has to do mostly with the fact that the distributors are the ones knowingly making and distributing copies without permission. I think it's also in part that the copyright "right" is more geared toward distribution than reciept.
That's a situation that should be handled socially, not legally. If you legally restrict the rights of someone to comment truthfully about someone else, it breaks down any ability of trust or reputation.
You can't, and shouldn't, be able to legally strongarm true facts about yourself out of the public discussion, should they come to light. Otherwise, every person's reputation is moot-- it's just a positive-spun PR that's worthless in aiding any decisions at all. If your unsavory reputation precedes you, then you shouldn't engage in unsavory practices. If you would argue that your practices aren't unsavory, then be proud of them.
Citation? Information? I'm confused. Although there are issues such as transmitting power level and bandwidth that could be seen as "volume", once it's to the radio being demodulated, the volume of the demodulated output is completely a factor of your radio's volume knob and amplifier power, isn't it?
"Worst Buy" isn't even worthy of being deemed wordplay. It's like an "Oh yeah... well you're a... a... WORST Buy!" quip that a three-year-old would be ashamed of making up. At the very least, go for something remotely clever... Detest Buy, Busted Buy, anything... something that shows a spark, a glimmer, some sign of having composed for a moment.
Why, "M$" shines like a jewel, a glimmering beacon of wit in the face of "Worst Buy". (Although, I've got to say, "Bad Vista" does manage to sound a little bit dumber. That's about where it stands on the scale.)
There is, however, a right to control production of things which you have produced. You missed that one. A primary reason that "right" is inconsequential is because there's no ability to enforce. If it weren't for the security guards enforcing the gates of the venue, might we not be saying "There is no right to get rich simply because people can hear you singing. Get a day job."?
Somehow, I still think that Napster being completely free just helped somehow. Okay, yes, there were peripheral benefits, but if Napster had come about at the same time, neck-and-neck with a decent online music store, I still think piracy would have ended with a significant lead.
It's actually the "tax" sent to the music industry, an additional statutory fee levied on "Music" CDRs (which are just normal CDRs with some sort of tag written to them. The only time it makes a difference is using a standalone recorder... they require "Music CDRs") Still, justifying open-season piracy because of that is legally incorrect as well as generally shaky. IMHO, both practices are wrong.
I'm out of my realm of experience here, but I'd think that mounting them on trains would just be converting the air drag that the devices themselves created. Now, as for wall mounting, there might be something there.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the game. If killing and theft are a significant part of the game, a properly balanced game will make it so being on the receiving end of a kill isn't that bad. Either you respawn with a penalty, or characters are disposable enough not to matter.
If you have some sort of game where it takes extensive time or real money to build in-game advantages, and these advantages can be permanently "stolen" through brute theft or killing, an in-game punishment would not serve as a useful deterrent, unless it reflects the out-of-game investment lost by the victim. Unless steps are taken that involve real-life difficulty, restriction, or hardship, the "punished" player could just spawn a new disposable character and go on antother killing spree.
Granted, the power balances and mechanisms should be worked into the planning of any respectable game.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The auto workers aren't working, and that's why they aren't being paid. Granted, they lost the chance to work, and that's a big problem, but it's a different problem. The music industry people are working, but the work is not being fairly compensated.
And the class warfare bit really misses the mark as well. It's not like there aren't low-rung workers in the entertainment production chain as well. Hell, I'm sure a fair few of them do a lot worse than the auto workers have.
The only sticky point with something like that though, is making the out-of-game punishment equal to the out-of-game cost of the crime (which still exists, even if the "crime" is perpetrated in-game). You'd need to somehow restrict the real person behind the avatar from simply dumping their account and creating a new one to get around the punishment.
Unless, I suppose, wealth was easily regained, and getting robbed was all part of the ebb and flow of the game.
It's technically not so much "free" as an inverse lottery. So, will you accept the charges if you get sued?
That's not "information" so much as an access key. Completely different.
Typo: It's not so much fear of computers...
It's not so much fear as computers as covering all the bases, at least in the matter of having the law on the books. Okay, these folks were only using the computer cracking to change grades, but computer cracking can also be used for much more damaging ends. Given that intents and damages of those intents can span a wide range and be uncodifiably fuzzy, it make sense to have a law as given, that maxes out at a punishment fit for the more serious instances of that crime, but allows judicial discretion to allow for lesser offenses. Having a hundred degrees of "Computer cracking with intent to..." laws would just cause confusion, possible loopholes, and would likely still leave just as much judicial/prosecutorial discretion as far as which specific charge to select.
There might be something to be said later, if the judge slaps down the max, but that's an issue to take up once facts are in. At the moment, the article is really nothing but FUD and fumes.
Really, I'm surprised there haven't been cell-phone carriers giving more options on fronts like this. I'd like to have a couple things on a cell:
- Temporary, and quickly recordable/accessible "Away messages" for VM. Hit a button, and now my phone says "I'm in the car, I'll call you back shortly", instead of the usual VM.
- "Urgent Ring", where callers can have the option of ringing a silenced phone, or where only certain numbers will ring in (as set on the reciever's end)... Actually, I think this might exist.
For the "on-call doctor" thing, you could perhaps have an enhanced VM setup that would play a recorded message, then give the option of automatically forwarding the call to another number. Make this quick enough to set up, and you could have something like: "I'm in at the theater right now. If this is an emergency, press 1, and ask for me to be paged."
Considering the theater, especially: If you're expecting to be called, you can arrange it so you're reachable by other means, or forgo the activity until a better time. If you're not expecting it, your cellphone should be off already (like the nice announcement said), so as not to disturb other patrons by the nuisance of screening all your unimportant calls.
That's a monetary issue. An issue of impact that such wide distribution can have. But that doesn't change the fact that it should either be legal or illegal to make a copy of media that I own. Period.
Why doesn't it change the fact? Given the economic model of copyright that allows distributed cost recuperation (and distribution of affordable content), a proper hard-line decision would most likely favor abolishing mixtaping (personal sharing) rather than allowing wholesale copying. Practically, though, there's quite a difference in scale between sharing music with your friends and with "your 10,000 closest friends". Mixtaping, even if practiced universally, causes far less economic harm, and often has somewhat of a legitimate social or artistically transformative (in the case of mixes) aspect. Wholesale sharing, though, carries no redeeming social or artistic motives or byproducts, and has far greater economic effect.
As for "making available", I believe that you can only effectively fault the person that offered the unlicensed copies. I think it has to do mostly with the fact that the distributors are the ones knowingly making and distributing copies without permission. I think it's also in part that the copyright "right" is more geared toward distribution than reciept.
That's a situation that should be handled socially, not legally. If you legally restrict the rights of someone to comment truthfully about someone else, it breaks down any ability of trust or reputation.
You can't, and shouldn't, be able to legally strongarm true facts about yourself out of the public discussion, should they come to light. Otherwise, every person's reputation is moot-- it's just a positive-spun PR that's worthless in aiding any decisions at all. If your unsavory reputation precedes you, then you shouldn't engage in unsavory practices. If you would argue that your practices aren't unsavory, then be proud of them.
Well, let's see. Which ones have a Myspace account?
Nah. It's West Michigan, which is mostly in Holland... a century ago...
You're missing the other option, though-- detain these people in a fair, controlled, and transparent-as-possible procedure.
Citation? Information? I'm confused. Although there are issues such as transmitting power level and bandwidth that could be seen as "volume", once it's to the radio being demodulated, the volume of the demodulated output is completely a factor of your radio's volume knob and amplifier power, isn't it?
Perhaps it was returned as an "unopened", re-shrinkwrapped box.
Hear, hear.
"Worst Buy" isn't even worthy of being deemed wordplay. It's like an "Oh yeah... well you're a... a... WORST Buy!" quip that a three-year-old would be ashamed of making up. At the very least, go for something remotely clever... Detest Buy, Busted Buy, anything... something that shows a spark, a glimmer, some sign of having composed for a moment.
Why, "M$" shines like a jewel, a glimmering beacon of wit in the face of "Worst Buy". (Although, I've got to say, "Bad Vista" does manage to sound a little bit dumber. That's about where it stands on the scale.)
Government regulations? The feds are the cause of distortion and clipping?
There is, however, a right to control production of things which you have produced. You missed that one. A primary reason that "right" is inconsequential is because there's no ability to enforce. If it weren't for the security guards enforcing the gates of the venue, might we not be saying "There is no right to get rich simply because people can hear you singing. Get a day job."?
Yeah, it's pretty much a cash grab with a persecuted facade.
Somehow, I still think that Napster being completely free just helped somehow. Okay, yes, there were peripheral benefits, but if Napster had come about at the same time, neck-and-neck with a decent online music store, I still think piracy would have ended with a significant lead.
It's actually the "tax" sent to the music industry, an additional statutory fee levied on "Music" CDRs (which are just normal CDRs with some sort of tag written to them. The only time it makes a difference is using a standalone recorder... they require "Music CDRs") Still, justifying open-season piracy because of that is legally incorrect as well as generally shaky. IMHO, both practices are wrong.
How would that work? Would it be functionally that the air in front of the train is harder to move out of the way?
I'm out of my realm of experience here, but I'd think that mounting them on trains would just be converting the air drag that the devices themselves created. Now, as for wall mounting, there might be something there.