"There is something wrong though with people taking a moral stand against RIAA and at the same time illegaly distributing copyrighted materials."
Again, I point the finger at the RIAA. People want digital music on their computes, the RIAA says "no you all are thieves". Attempts are made to show this is a mass-market product. Nope, "you all are thieves". People who've never downloaded music before are thieves simply for owning a CD burner. Anybody who has an MP3 even though he owns the CD it came from is a thief. Music services today use proprietary formats because everybody is a thief.
The RIAA ignored the people who throw money at them, and then called them thieves on top of it. I don't see the 'people taking a moral stand against the RIAA and illegally distributing copyrighted materials' something wrong after watching what put people in the position to do that.
The RIAA figured that they could legally lock people into purchasing complete albums for a premium. The people are fighting that. Why would they fight if their demand was being supplied?
Microsoft doesn't have the power to lock people in that the Slashdot Community imagines. You guys brag all the time about how you have Linux and Open Office and a bunch of other stuff.
I won't deny that it could happen after Longhorn. DRM, a new version of Office, etc, could be rather powerful lock-in weapons. But that ain't happenin today.
"If it's as simple as that, then how come the original didn't enjoy success? How did MS edge ahead?"
Let it go dude. He's going to bring up the example where Microsoft ripped off some company and was inexplicably popular though the product was inferior. You'll counter with an example of where Microsoft borrowed an idea and actually made it useful to people unlike the company who introduced it. The problem is that Microsoft has released soooooo many products over the years that niether of you will settle on what your view of MS is. At that point, it'll boil down to your own experiences with their various products and biases.
Long story short, niether of you will arrive at an agreement. Microsoft simply has a track record of doing numerous good and bad things. People who hate Microsoft remember Windows 95, people who don't hate Microsoft (note: they don't necessarily have to like them) will remember Windows 2000.
"I think you and Cringeley are making the same point. M$ has just repackaged and changed these ideas in a way they can profit from but which doesn't necessarily add much value."
If that were true, Windows 95 would have been long forgotten in 1996. Obviously there was some value there. Otherwise, we'd all be using Macs.
"An example of good innovation: GNU/Linux. An example of bad innovation: Microsoft. "
You have it backwards. Karma whore attempt maybe?;)
Microsoft was the good innovator. Windows 95, and all the hype that came with it, made the PC arena explode. Shortly after its release, the PC became a common household appliance. Microsoft is 'bad' for this? Down the road, maybe. Their monopoly is nasty stuff. However, the market rose them to that power.
Linux is a good innovator? Maybe down the road history will remember it that way. But right now,where is Linux innovating as opposed to flat out copying? What has Linux actually innovated in? I'm seriously asking, not trying to subtely say they haven't. I'm sure in the server space they get some credit. I'll grant them that. I could be completely wrong about my comments about Linux here, but if I am I'd like to be tactfully corrected.
It's fun to hate Microsoft and all. It makes you cool to bash them at every point. I understand that. But man, don't let that cloud your understanding of history.
"They can steal ideas, for example, and pawn them off as their own."
Steal? Bit harsh, don't you think? An idea's only as good as its implementation. If the original idea needed to be tweaked to have a bigger appeal, then the general populous benefits from that.
I agree that credit should be given where credit is due. However, it's nowhere near as black and white as this article implies. The Newton was around long before Palm Pilot, yet Palm gets the credit for making it mass market. "It is inferior to the Newton!" the zealots cried. But the Palm Pilot had some distinguishing features. It was pocket-sized, it talked to your PC and got relevant info out of it, and it was direct and to the point.
Apple gets some credit for generating the idea, Palm gets the credit for taking it and making it useful. Innovative? I think so.
"Yes, Microsoft is an innovator and I don't think that is good. I'd have to disagree that microsoft is an innovator. What has microsoft done? 1. Created the first OS? Far from it. Not much of an innovation. 2. Created the first GUI? Also not true, the Apple Lisa was the first true GUI. 3. Created easy PnP? Definitley not right, OS/2, Amiga, Linux, and a slew of other OS's had PnP support. And to be fair, Windows 95 wasn't really Plug'n'Play. Microsoft's innovations are limited to trying something someone else does, and hoping it works. "
As damning as this sounds, Microsoft's success totally eclipsed everybody else they 'stole' from. Either these companies have all had a nasty run of bad luck, or Microsoft put everything together into something the market wanted. Whatever your take is on it, the market wanted Microsoft provided. Learn to live with it.
"DRM-tastic you can't watch it on any other PC than the one you downloaded it on. Until you've cracked it naturally. You've effectively paid your money to 'rent' the movie on that machine (in fairness the download fee is about the same as a 2 night DVD/VHS movie rental, which you have to return)."
The movie's only $4. That's far cheaper than a one-time/I-better-schedule-around-it movie at a theater.
I don't know why you guys are picking on them about that, at least they're not time-bombing it. Lighten up.
"Why not wait and get the movie on dvd for the same price and a much better qaulity movie. "
Why pay more for the movie if it sucks? It's not a special effects movie, the visual quality increase wouldn't be worth paying $20 or so. A few minutes into the movie, you won't even notice the quality.
"..Are we supposed to be excited that we can "watch it as many times as we want" because it's infected with DRM, and we can only copy it as many times as *they* want?"
I got news for ya buddy, the other movie sites have a "pay $4 to watch it within 24 hours" policy. This is a step above the previous attempts. If it's successful, then it'll force other struggling movie sites to change their policy.
I understand and agree with what you're saying, but you have to understand the PoV that the parent poster was coming from.
"They need to ditribute this in multiple formats if they want a chance in hell of making this work. It seems that the same people that go to see indy movies are the same people using linux and Mac."
Uh right. The subject of the movie will attract the audience, not who clicks buttons on the computer. By far, most people are running Windows, and there's enough broadband for this to work.
This movie could potentially be successful, but if it's not, it's because the movie's not worth watching. Putting it on Windows is not the mistake here.
"If this is the future of film distribution where MS leads (and to hell with the EU antitrust violations) then ill stick with stealing movies from hollywood in DVDRip.DIVX format"
Seems to me you should be helping the Open Source Community to develop a better alternative that works in Windows.
Come to think of it, where is the OSS Community on this topic?
"Same thing for music--BECAUSE it's a unique creation, the creator can charge whatever the hell they want--and if we want to go elsewhere for cheaper music, we can."
Odd, I never thought I'd see slavery used to defend price fixing.
Pretty crummy analogy anyway. In the case of trading slaves (couldn't you have come up with a better example than that? Yeesh.) the simple fact of the matter is that you can charge what you want, but you'll lower your price if nobody's buying. In the case of the RIAA, all the prices stay artificially high. Good/Bad/Ugly slaves would all go for the same price.
" If anything, I sometimes wish they would make the gore MORE realistic so maybe it WOULD gross kids out."
Robocop and Full Metal Jacket sure scred the hell out of me as a kid. Well Robocop didn't exactly scare me in a "eeek keep the lights on!" kinda way. It scared me in a "man, I dont ever want to be around guns" way.
" What does it have to do with the fact that RIAA labels still have to protect their copyrighted materials? "
They aren't exactly protecting their copyrighted materials by making people want to trade them with each other. If they had settled that demand, they wouldn't need to be issuing court orders.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another dupe complaining of dupes. Never mind that the frequency of dupes has gone way down lately...
""general populace". "Populous" is an adjective, not a noun. "
:P
It was a game reference.
"There is something wrong though with people taking a moral stand against RIAA and at the same time illegaly distributing copyrighted materials."
Again, I point the finger at the RIAA. People want digital music on their computes, the RIAA says "no you all are thieves". Attempts are made to show this is a mass-market product. Nope, "you all are thieves". People who've never downloaded music before are thieves simply for owning a CD burner. Anybody who has an MP3 even though he owns the CD it came from is a thief. Music services today use proprietary formats because everybody is a thief.
The RIAA ignored the people who throw money at them, and then called them thieves on top of it. I don't see the 'people taking a moral stand against the RIAA and illegally distributing copyrighted materials' something wrong after watching what put people in the position to do that.
The RIAA figured that they could legally lock people into purchasing complete albums for a premium. The people are fighting that. Why would they fight if their demand was being supplied?
"Helooo, lock-in!"
Microsoft doesn't have the power to lock people in that the Slashdot Community imagines. You guys brag all the time about how you have Linux and Open Office and a bunch of other stuff.
I won't deny that it could happen after Longhorn. DRM, a new version of Office, etc, could be rather powerful lock-in weapons. But that ain't happenin today.
"If it's as simple as that, then how come the original didn't enjoy success? How did MS edge ahead?"
Let it go dude. He's going to bring up the example where Microsoft ripped off some company and was inexplicably popular though the product was inferior. You'll counter with an example of where Microsoft borrowed an idea and actually made it useful to people unlike the company who introduced it. The problem is that Microsoft has released soooooo many products over the years that niether of you will settle on what your view of MS is. At that point, it'll boil down to your own experiences with their various products and biases.
Long story short, niether of you will arrive at an agreement. Microsoft simply has a track record of doing numerous good and bad things. People who hate Microsoft remember Windows 95, people who don't hate Microsoft (note: they don't necessarily have to like them) will remember Windows 2000.
"I think you and Cringeley are making the same point. M$ has just repackaged and changed these ideas in a way they can profit from but which doesn't necessarily add much value."
If that were true, Windows 95 would have been long forgotten in 1996. Obviously there was some value there. Otherwise, we'd all be using Macs.
"An example of good innovation: GNU/Linux. An example of bad innovation: Microsoft. "
;)
You have it backwards. Karma whore attempt maybe?
Microsoft was the good innovator. Windows 95, and all the hype that came with it, made the PC arena explode. Shortly after its release, the PC became a common household appliance. Microsoft is 'bad' for this? Down the road, maybe. Their monopoly is nasty stuff. However, the market rose them to that power.
Linux is a good innovator? Maybe down the road history will remember it that way. But right now,where is Linux innovating as opposed to flat out copying? What has Linux actually innovated in? I'm seriously asking, not trying to subtely say they haven't. I'm sure in the server space they get some credit. I'll grant them that. I could be completely wrong about my comments about Linux here, but if I am I'd like to be tactfully corrected.
It's fun to hate Microsoft and all. It makes you cool to bash them at every point. I understand that. But man, don't let that cloud your understanding of history.
"They can steal ideas, for example, and pawn them off as their own."
Steal? Bit harsh, don't you think? An idea's only as good as its implementation. If the original idea needed to be tweaked to have a bigger appeal, then the general populous benefits from that.
I agree that credit should be given where credit is due. However, it's nowhere near as black and white as this article implies. The Newton was around long before Palm Pilot, yet Palm gets the credit for making it mass market. "It is inferior to the Newton!" the zealots cried. But the Palm Pilot had some distinguishing features. It was pocket-sized, it talked to your PC and got relevant info out of it, and it was direct and to the point.
Apple gets some credit for generating the idea, Palm gets the credit for taking it and making it useful. Innovative? I think so.
As damning as this sounds, Microsoft's success totally eclipsed everybody else they 'stole' from. Either these companies have all had a nasty run of bad luck, or Microsoft put everything together into something the market wanted. Whatever your take is on it, the market wanted Microsoft provided. Learn to live with it.
"DRM-tastic you can't watch it on any other PC than the one you downloaded it on. Until you've cracked it naturally. You've effectively paid your money to 'rent' the movie on that machine (in fairness the download fee is about the same as a 2 night DVD/VHS movie rental, which you have to return)."
The movie's only $4. That's far cheaper than a one-time/I-better-schedule-around-it movie at a theater.
I don't know why you guys are picking on them about that, at least they're not time-bombing it. Lighten up.
"Why not wait and get the movie on dvd for the same price and a much better qaulity movie. "
Why pay more for the movie if it sucks? It's not a special effects movie, the visual quality increase wouldn't be worth paying $20 or so. A few minutes into the movie, you won't even notice the quality.
"..Are we supposed to be excited that we can "watch it as many times as we want" because it's infected with DRM, and we can only copy it as many times as *they* want?"
I got news for ya buddy, the other movie sites have a "pay $4 to watch it within 24 hours" policy. This is a step above the previous attempts. If it's successful, then it'll force other struggling movie sites to change their policy.
I understand and agree with what you're saying, but you have to understand the PoV that the parent poster was coming from.
"They need to ditribute this in multiple formats if they want a chance in hell of making this work. It seems that the same people that go to see indy movies are the same people using linux and Mac."
Uh right. The subject of the movie will attract the audience, not who clicks buttons on the computer. By far, most people are running Windows, and there's enough broadband for this to work.
This movie could potentially be successful, but if it's not, it's because the movie's not worth watching. Putting it on Windows is not the mistake here.
"If this is the future of film distribution where MS leads (and to hell with the EU antitrust violations) then ill stick with stealing movies from hollywood in DVDRip.DIVX format"
Seems to me you should be helping the Open Source Community to develop a better alternative that works in Windows.
Come to think of it, where is the OSS Community on this topic?
"The project lead didn't manage to show up for the project class presentation however; he'd wiped out on the way to school."
:)
I wonder if I'll find this story on snopes.com...
"I have nothing to say about the game itself. It looks strange, but nothing mind-blowing."
What about if you travel back in time a few years? It's all relative.
- You're not seeing it in motion. Part of the surprise was that it probably did more than what was expected of the TG-16.
- It's being compared to games of the time. Today it's probably not a big deal.
- The artist that did the artwork was well respected.
Food for thought.
That's what I thought, bitch.
"Same thing for music--BECAUSE it's a unique creation, the creator can charge whatever the hell they want--and if we want to go elsewhere for cheaper music, we can."
Odd, I never thought I'd see slavery used to defend price fixing.
Pretty crummy analogy anyway. In the case of trading slaves (couldn't you have come up with a better example than that? Yeesh.) the simple fact of the matter is that you can charge what you want, but you'll lower your price if nobody's buying. In the case of the RIAA, all the prices stay artificially high. Good/Bad/Ugly slaves would all go for the same price.
" If anything, I sometimes wish they would make the gore MORE realistic so maybe it WOULD gross kids out."
:)
Robocop and Full Metal Jacket sure scred the hell out of me as a kid. Well Robocop didn't exactly scare me in a "eeek keep the lights on!" kinda way. It scared me in a "man, I dont ever want to be around guns" way.
So yep, I can see your point.
" What does it have to do with the fact that RIAA labels still have to protect their copyrighted materials? "
They aren't exactly protecting their copyrighted materials by making people want to trade them with each other. If they had settled that demand, they wouldn't need to be issuing court orders.
Bet you don't have the balls to tell me that with your registerred nick.
"You just gave out my root password! "
Liar. I've seen your password. It's eight asterisks.
... it still scares the shit out of me.
Buahaha that's classic!
I can't tell if that's because it's funny or because it's not another of the three Simpsons references.
"Thats PC for terrorist isnt it ? "
They changed their story. Now it's a Puerto Rican man.