Okay, first of all, as far as I know you can buy music with the label no matter how old you are. I remember not having a problem when I was younger. But let's just assume you're right: there's a huge difference between a law that limits speech and just plain corporate policy. There is no precedent for the goverment restricting things commonly viewed as speech, and is also not technically obscene. So my point: sure you can limit a lot of things, like alcohol or cigarettes, but speech is very different, and will not likely be held up on appeal.
While I am inclinded to agree with you, the constitution specifically allows congress to impose IP priveleges "to promote progress in the arts and sciences." It's been established by the court that this doesn't violate the first amendment, especially considering that this enumerated power has a higher permission, or at least equal to, the first amendment, because it is in the constitution.
Now, something that most people forget is that the constitution says these priveleges last for "limited time." So, in my view, any copyright enforced beyond 20 years (just like patents) are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, Sonny Bono, and Friends doesn't agree with me.
The supreme court has *never* placed any limits on movies. Television and radio, apparently is different since it is broadcast. Maybe a compulsory movie rating system would hold up in the US supreme court, but just as a matter of fact, the rating system is a voluntary self-imposed effort by the movie industry.
Anyone can buy *any* music. Alcohol and cigarettes are not speech. Porn is not a protected form of speech. That's pretty much the whole point of this discussion: "should violent video games be put in the same catergory as porn, when violence has never been established by the court as "obscene," an important criterion for labeling something as being a non-protected form of speech. Are you saying that just because porn is not a protected form of speech it's okay to put anything in that catergory?
That's not true. Working models were originally required, but they scrapped that when they ran into space and logistical limitations. Plus, requiring a working model conflicts with the business model of the patent office.
That's so true. That makes me want to go and watch Law & Order now.
It's kind of interesting the affect that show has on me, and I'd imagine many people: it makes me, one of the staunchest constitutionalists around, say to myself "god damn that judge, why can't he just give that warrant already." When the show is from the perspective of cops it makes you think like them.
The article mentions that critics of this type of study point out that people often don't give honest answers to such controversial questions.
I once remember reading a study that said that abortions in the 70's led to the crime drop of the 90's. The study started out without trying to prove anything specific, except what caused the crime drop. The idea that it was the legalization of abortion hadn't even occured to them, and only after studying the data and applying very advanced statistical, demographic and trend mathematics did they realize and conclude what caused it.
I bet they could use the same kind of approach to show a direct relationship between changes in file sharing usage and changes in CD sales.
I read this article which talks about Dick Wolf's (creator of Law & Order) philosophy about paying TV actors. According to him, people don't watch TV shows for stars, they watch it for the good writing, and he claims this is different than movies. But the studios don't believe it and are willing to pay the actors on friends 1 million dollars each. I'm not saying friends would still be popular if they were all suddenly replaced, but the fact is, TV studios, even now have pretty slim profit margins, so if ad revenues went down across the board, most likely actors' salaries would go down too, because profits couldn't get any lower. I think it's pretty sick how the government thinks they need to baby the TV and movie industries, as if they'd suddenly collapse without sticking to their age-old business model.
I realized something interesting. While you're right, Human Intelligence is way beyond AI, that's not what makes online multiplayer fun. What makes it fun is that you believe you're playing another person, a person you can talk to afterwards. It's the little quirks that real people do that convince you you're playing a person which is fun. But it's not the little quirks themselves, it's the knowledge that you're playing a person. I believe that if AI matched HI, sure it would be more fun that shitty AI, but it wouldn't be as much fun as the mere belief that you are playing a real person.
Here's a little story. I was telling my cousing how great Halo was. And he's like, oh that games like doom right? My point is that, sure it's hard to say exactly what makes Halo better than other FPSs, but I haven't played any FPS, PC or console, as much as I've played Halo. Despite all it's flaws, the game is really great, it has some unquantifiable quality that many other games lack, called fun. Halo is a really great game.
You make it sound like they slashed the prices to bargain basement levels, but the fact is, when it was released it was overpriced, and now it's at a reasonable level (9 USD less than the price in the US). I haven't heard any sales figures from the UK, but if australia is any indication, it will do very well, at least initially, after the price is dropped. After the price drop sales were incredibly high in the land down under, and I expect the same from Europe (I don't know what to think about japan tho).
That's right. But after being developed by Sony and Philips for 4 years, Nintendo weaseled out of the contract. Sony being determined to not be screwed over, decided to go ahead anyway, which eventually led to their own console.
The launch of PlayStation was the culmination of a long-term plan to take a lead in the burgeoning videogames market. In 1988 Sony had entered into a arrangement with Nintendo to develop a CD-ROM drive for the 16bit Super Famicom, a console that was due on the market in 18 months time.
The technology that was responsible for this deal was Sony's and Philips CD-ROM/XA, an extension of the CD-ROM format that combines compressed audio, visual and computer data, allowing all to be accessed simultaneously with the aid of extra hardware. Sony also had plans to develop another Nintendo compatible machine, a self-contained entertainment system that would play both SFC cartridges and a new CD format designed and solely licensed by Sony. Called SuperDisc this proprietary format would also form the basis of Nintendo's own CD-ROM drive - PlayStation was born!
Sony had long recognised the potential to create a new kind of videogame on CD-ROM through its vast entertainment resources within Sony Music and Sony Pictures. As the PlayStation began to take shape, Nintendo felt increasingly sidelined and less relevant to Sony's plans. Nintendo perceived that Sony's success could threaten its survival and to the surprise and annoyance of Sony announced in 1991 that it had entered an agreement with Philips to develop a CD-ROM platform for Super Nintendo. After much legal wrangling Nintendo succeeded in extricating itself from the contract previously signed with Sony but the development of PlayStation continued on the basis that an agreement on the licensing of Nintendo CD Software would be reached.
At the end of 1992 Sony, Nintendo and Philips signed a deal whereby PlayStation would be able to run SNES CD-ROMs but left Nintendo with the sole rights to all its games. The version of PlayStation being developed at that time never made it into production.
But, having come so far Sony were not about to abandon the idea completely and the engineers and designers went back to their drawing boards and started again. When the PS-X surfaced in 1993 it took the industry pundits by storm. Sony had created its own thoroughbred games machine and advanced beyond existing formats. Sony had already learned the lesson that in addition to the best hardware it needed the support and recognition of the best Software developers. The company recruited the best and ensured that companies like Konami and Namco were involved from the earliest days. Sony knew that it would be a good move to use PlayStation as a breeding ground for Arcade products.
Maybe standard industry practice is changing because console games are becoming much more mainstream. But if you went by what history says is standard industry practice, we won't see another Playstation for at least about four years after the previous Playstation was released (PS2), which in the US was about a 1.5 years ago. So I guess that leaves about 2.5 years left till we see PS3 in the US. Sorry, but I don't call that "advanced stages of develop[ment]".
What do you mean by "functionality". If you said the Dreamcast had better looking graphics than the PS2 I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you (I might tho), but is that what you're saying? Can you back it up?
Well, how does this sound for criteria: price, ease of development, raw capability. In the US Xbox has PS2 matched on price, and it beats it on ease of development and raw capability.
Yes, I understand that the ultimate criterion for a gaming console is it's software, but the quality of software available is usually a function of the first three criteria I listed.
It seems like you meant to say "left == liberal == free thinking == open minded == does the right thing." Maybe you should rethink that, and realize that maybe "left == liberal == free thinking == open minded == willing to sacrifice the integrity of our constitution."
I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't you at least have to transmit to each other exactly what time you'd start and stop recording the random numbers? Couldn't anyone intercept that transmission?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, first of all, as far as I know you can buy music with the label no matter how old you are. I remember not having a problem when I was younger. But let's just assume you're right: there's a huge difference between a law that limits speech and just plain corporate policy. There is no precedent for the goverment restricting things commonly viewed as speech, and is also not technically obscene. So my point: sure you can limit a lot of things, like alcohol or cigarettes, but speech is very different, and will not likely be held up on appeal.
While I am inclinded to agree with you, the constitution specifically allows congress to impose IP priveleges "to promote progress in the arts and sciences." It's been established by the court that this doesn't violate the first amendment, especially considering that this enumerated power has a higher permission, or at least equal to, the first amendment, because it is in the constitution.
Now, something that most people forget is that the constitution says these priveleges last for "limited time." So, in my view, any copyright enforced beyond 20 years (just like patents) are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, Sonny Bono, and Friends doesn't agree with me.
The supreme court has *never* placed any limits on movies. Television and radio, apparently is different since it is broadcast. Maybe a compulsory movie rating system would hold up in the US supreme court, but just as a matter of fact, the rating system is a voluntary self-imposed effort by the movie industry.
Anyone can buy *any* music. Alcohol and cigarettes are not speech. Porn is not a protected form of speech. That's pretty much the whole point of this discussion: "should violent video games be put in the same catergory as porn, when violence has never been established by the court as "obscene," an important criterion for labeling something as being a non-protected form of speech. Are you saying that just because porn is not a protected form of speech it's okay to put anything in that catergory?
Well, I think he's talking about the laws which apply to freedom of expression, and not the laws requiring a license to drive.
maybe we're just excited to get a screener from kazaa or something
That's not true. Working models were originally required, but they scrapped that when they ran into space and logistical limitations. Plus, requiring a working model conflicts with the business model of the patent office.
Yeah, but "xraser" is just so damn hard to pronounce.
That's so true. That makes me want to go and watch Law & Order now.
It's kind of interesting the affect that show has on me, and I'd imagine many people: it makes me, one of the staunchest constitutionalists around, say to myself "god damn that judge, why can't he just give that warrant already." When the show is from the perspective of cops it makes you think like them.
The article mentions that critics of this type of study point out that people often don't give honest answers to such controversial questions.
I once remember reading a study that said that abortions in the 70's led to the crime drop of the 90's. The study started out without trying to prove anything specific, except what caused the crime drop. The idea that it was the legalization of abortion hadn't even occured to them, and only after studying the data and applying very advanced statistical, demographic and trend mathematics did they realize and conclude what caused it.
I bet they could use the same kind of approach to show a direct relationship between changes in file sharing usage and changes in CD sales.
I read this article which talks about Dick Wolf's (creator of Law & Order) philosophy about paying TV actors. According to him, people don't watch TV shows for stars, they watch it for the good writing, and he claims this is different than movies. But the studios don't believe it and are willing to pay the actors on friends 1 million dollars each. I'm not saying friends would still be popular if they were all suddenly replaced, but the fact is, TV studios, even now have pretty slim profit margins, so if ad revenues went down across the board, most likely actors' salaries would go down too, because profits couldn't get any lower. I think it's pretty sick how the government thinks they need to baby the TV and movie industries, as if they'd suddenly collapse without sticking to their age-old business model.
Then try kazaa lite, with no spyware aftertaste
You're damn right. Xbox doesn't crash!
I realized something interesting. While you're right, Human Intelligence is way beyond AI, that's not what makes online multiplayer fun. What makes it fun is that you believe you're playing another person, a person you can talk to afterwards. It's the little quirks that real people do that convince you you're playing a person which is fun. But it's not the little quirks themselves, it's the knowledge that you're playing a person. I believe that if AI matched HI, sure it would be more fun that shitty AI, but it wouldn't be as much fun as the mere belief that you are playing a real person.
Half-Life has been out for *four* years. Not two.
Here's a little story. I was telling my cousing how great Halo was. And he's like, oh that games like doom right? My point is that, sure it's hard to say exactly what makes Halo better than other FPSs, but I haven't played any FPS, PC or console, as much as I've played Halo. Despite all it's flaws, the game is really great, it has some unquantifiable quality that many other games lack, called fun. Halo is a really great game.
You make it sound like they slashed the prices to bargain basement levels, but the fact is, when it was released it was overpriced, and now it's at a reasonable level (9 USD less than the price in the US). I haven't heard any sales figures from the UK, but if australia is any indication, it will do very well, at least initially, after the price is dropped. After the price drop sales were incredibly high in the land down under, and I expect the same from Europe (I don't know what to think about japan tho).
from http://www.absolute-playstation.com/api_faqs/faq22 . tm:
Maybe standard industry practice is changing because console games are becoming much more mainstream. But if you went by what history says is standard industry practice, we won't see another Playstation for at least about four years after the previous Playstation was released (PS2), which in the US was about a 1.5 years ago. So I guess that leaves about 2.5 years left till we see PS3 in the US. Sorry, but I don't call that "advanced stages of develop[ment]".
What do you mean by "functionality". If you said the Dreamcast had better looking graphics than the PS2 I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you (I might tho), but is that what you're saying? Can you back it up?
Well, how does this sound for criteria: price, ease of development, raw capability. In the US Xbox has PS2 matched on price, and it beats it on ease of development and raw capability.
Yes, I understand that the ultimate criterion for a gaming console is it's software, but the quality of software available is usually a function of the first three criteria I listed.
It's no legal precedent, because WIPO has nothing to do with the United States, or any government's, legal system.
It seems like you meant to say "left == liberal == free thinking == open minded == does the right thing." Maybe you should rethink that, and realize that maybe "left == liberal == free thinking == open minded == willing to sacrifice the integrity of our constitution."
Maybe that would be science fiction, if the use of technology allowed them to do that. Otherwise, it's fantasy.
Since when is crouching tiger, hidden dragon science fiction?
I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't you at least have to transmit to each other exactly what time you'd start and stop recording the random numbers? Couldn't anyone intercept that transmission?