Ok, I don't think I was clear enough in my first post. Let me re-state. Lets say, hypothetically, that my computer sent back data about every movie I watch, every TV show I watch, and every little thing I do on the web to MS. What could they do with it?
Just curious. This issue's new to me and I'm curious what the privacy advocates are worried about.
I'm a little concerned that MS might detect that I ripped a DVD so I could use a particular clip as reference footage for an animation I'm working on, perhaps use the DMCA to fine me for it. Other than that I don't really care if they know what I'm watching or not.
Is there a larger problem I should be aware of? Could somebody explain to me what MS or anybody else could do with data about what movies I watch, or what websites I visit, or whether I'm attracted to either T or A that would be bad?
I never said they were illegal. The reason I brought that up is that Nintendo's Lawyer is going to say "Emulators are primarily downloaded to pirate games, and by linking this site from the product that can play said games on the GBA." Nintendo's lawyer is going to paint that picture. "They're trying to get the emulator audience to buy this product."
I would agree with Nintendo, too. Wanna know why? Because I've seen the community that trades ROMs. They don't play them legally. They don't even pretend to. They just don't want to pay for games. They'd buy this device just to play these games on their GBA instead of on their PC. If you've ever talked to these guys on IRC, you'd probably know exactly what I'm talking about. A lawyer for Nintendo's going to paint the picture that they're targeting that ROM community. I think it's a valid point and I can see Nintendo's side of it. Seeing is not the same as agreeing, what I'm saying is that they can take that to court. That's all. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that if I were a judge I'd probably agree with their point. I wouldn't rule that emulators are illegal. I wouldn't even rule that all devices that allow one to play roms downloaded from a PC are illegal. I'd consider blocking this particular device because it doesn't even make any attempt to protect Nintendo's IP.
I'd really like to hear their defense on this topic too.
Yep, I see it now. Didn't seem all that obvious tho. I appreciate you pointing that out.
"Were your eyes seized for contravening the DMCA?"
I'm NOT PRO DMCA. Why's everybody assume I'm on their side?
What part of 'NINTENDO HAS A GOOD CASE' didn't anybody read? Why does everybody read it as "Nintendo's clearly in the right." or "Emulation is Illegal" or "Every single person in the world who uses an EMU is commiting a crime" or "There is no non-pirate use for the system" or "It should be banned for sale"? I never said ANY of that?
This is getting really pathetic. Obviously the guy who modded me up understood I had a point, but a bunch of people who responded to this made a worst case bastardization of what I said.
Let me restate it... AGAIN...
If/When this goes to court, Nintendo's case could go something like:
"You honor, this site clearly intended to sell a device that allows people to play GBA games illegally. Look at their site! They immediately link to several emulators sites. "
Now I made the mistake of thinking that everybody knew that Nintendo assumes Emus are simply there for piracy. That's the way all these companies act. It doesn't matter if every single person in the world uses the EMU for legitimate uses, that's Nintendo's view. That's Sony's View. That's all major game company's views. I thought people would understand this instinctively, but instead I was interpreted as a pro DMCA, EMU hating bastard. Personally, I think people were so hyped about defending their precius Emu's, that they didn't stop and think what I meant is that a lawyer would say that. Hence the subject "Nintendo has a good case."
"Your honor, they even have patches to run copyrighted games on this product."
They do. Right under 'software'. They have no mention of SDK's here (yes they do have it under the emulator's page, and I appreciate that being brought up.) , but you'd think that if it was a developer's tool, it'd do SOMETHING here to show itself as a tool. But it really doesn't. I'm sorry, it doesn't. It does NOT. And a Laywer for Nintendo is going to say that.
In any case, I'm ONLY talking about WHAT THE LAWYER WOULD SAY. -- see that? See? Is that so hard to understand? Do you get it now? Huh? If not, reread the beginning of this paragraph again. Heck, do it anyway. Nobody else seems to stick this point. Well I want you to stick this point because if you dont, you'll develop the idea that I am on Nintendo's side. If you think Im anti-Emu, pro DMCA, or even against this company making this product, then don't bother replying. My response will immediately be "Fuck you" followed by "you didn't read what I said. Reread it and leave me alone."
It is really frustrating that I tried to provide an insight that nobody has brought up before. I suppose I could have made it clearer. But I'm still surprised that everybody who responded wildly misinterpreted me. I can understand the 'not everybody uses emu's are doing so illegally', but not the 'you are a moron', or the 'you seem to be in love with the DMCA'. I tried to explain that I never said the Emus were illegal, Nintendo thinks they're piracy tools. And to a degree, they'd be right. There's a huge area of the net dedicted to illegally obtained roms. By associating this product with that community, they never ever had a chance at getting on Nintendo's good side. I could have clarified that a bit early on, I regret that I didn't.
Oh well. This is the last I'm saying on this subject. If you still think that I'm a Pro-DMCA whatever, then I suggest you take a look at my last 20 or so posts flaming the RIAA for their lousy business practices. Then, if you still think I'm a pro DMCA advocate, or an anti-EMU person, then all I have to say is "Fuck You."
You misunderstood me. I said Nintendo had a good case i.e. they had a good argument in court. I never said that Emulators were bad or inherently illegal. I said the primary use for emulators around the web is for playing downloaded ROMs. That's they way Nintendo's gonna see it, and that's they way they're gonna to present it. i.e. that is their CASE.
I personally think emulators are great. I don't want to see them ruled against. Heck, I'd even love to have one of these little devices. But the WHOLE POINT of my post was NOT that they're ILLEGAL, but that they didn't present themselves as anything but a tool to copy games.
My point has been perverted into claiming that they're illegal and so on, but I don't think anybody ever actually read what I said.
I guess it was moronic of me to illustrate somebody else's point of view on this. Obviously I'm a moron for not going with the 'Nintendo is evil' camp and saying the same thing everybody else is.
X-Files was dragged along a little too long. I think the whole 'alien conspiracy' thing went on for too long, and really didn't tie up anything. It's like the show was grasping so hard to keep that little secret, it was unwilling to give it up for fear of prematurely ending the show.
They really would have been better off ending it after the movie. Or maybe even ending it with a movie, I don't know.
I would have been hyped about seeing it's finale in Season 5, but today it's like "uhh... people are excited about it?"
I'm not trying to bash X-Files, I like the show. But now I understand why some series are ended with the explanation of 'we want to stop while it is still exciting.", kind of like they did with Deep Space Nine.
Oh damn. That's a bummer. When I saw that product I read the packaging and thought "ooo i could write my own little app or something for the GBA". I even thought about picking it up. The only reason I didn't was that I have no f'in clue how to engineer a GBA title. The package didn't say anything about coming with tools to write and compile code for it. The only real value it had was downloading pirated ROMS.
Marijuana has medicinal value, but it's still illegal. THANK YOU.
Instead of trying to fault the point I'm making, try to understand it. It is up to a court of law to judge whether or not this is a tool of piracy or not, all I was saying was NINTENDO HAS A GOOD CASE. You may have noticed in the subject of my original post that I believe "Nintendo has a good case". I did not write my subject to say "Emulators are Illegal." Nor did I say "Everybody who uses an Emulator is a pirate."
Here's what a Nintendo Lawyer could say:
"Look, your honor, these guys have a link to an emulators site to play illegal images of copyrighted games. They also have patches available for download to fix some copyrighted games so they work on this system. Yet there are absolutely 0 links that talk about how to write your own software for it. There is no evidence that all this product does is play copyrighted games. Anybody who'd use it to actually write new apps for the GBA would have to really dig around the net to make it useful as a developer's tool. It is clearly marketed as a tool for playing copyrighted games "
I am in no position to say they are right or wrong, I was making a point that they do have a good argument. It is pretty embarrasing for this company to link to an emulators site because it will likely be used against them. You can make all the arguments that emus aren't necessarily used for piracy and that PocketPC's work this way and yadda yadda yadda. That's all for the judge to decide.
"...that someone might want to buy a video game for the GBA, load it onto his computer, and play it on his big monitor, with emulator features like saving and restoring multiple states at any time. Or to have a backup and working platform to show his kids 30 years later, long after his GBA is lost or broken."
Yep. Heaven forbid buying a portable system that you want to play on your big screen. Heh.
Seriously tho, I'm not anti emulator, I'm saying Nintendo has a good case for saying this tool promotes piracy. Heck, they even have patches to fix games that don't work right away on it right there on the site.
Yet I don't see an SDK for it. I don't see links to how to develop games on it. Just a link to a bunch of emulators, one of them called 'BoyCott'.
I think Emus are a wonderful thing, but the point I'm making is that this product looks a hell of a lot more like a piracy tool than a developer's tool. If the site had been "Here's the product you need to run your GBA apps on your GBA, and here's documentation on how to program for it, and here's some samples of code", then I'd accept that it is a developer's tool. But there's no evidence of any of that.
If this goes to court, I don't see how these guys could come out on it.
The difference here is that Palm doesn't make money on each bit of software sold. If Joe Schmo writes an App for Palm and makes it available for download, he doesn't owe Palm anything. However, Nintendo's revenue on the GBA is dependent on developers paying royalties/licenses to Nintendo. Any game released on Nintendo means $$$ being funneled into Nintendo's account.
By bypassing the cartridge format, ie downloading of ROMS, you are hurting Nintendo's revenue stream. Before you say 'So what?', understand that Nintendo went to great expense to not only develop the GBA and the cartridge medium, but they also create wonderful games for it.
As for emulators, there is a HUGE 'market' (hard to call it a market when no money's being made...) of people trading illegal copies of ROMS. There may be a handful of people legitimately using the GBA Emulator for development or educational purposes, but who's ever heard of a game/app being released as a result of this? Am I saying all people using the EMU are using it illegally? Nope. But it's hard to deny that there's TONS of piracy going on. If you don't believe me, do a Google search for ROMS and hunt around a bit. What you'll find is that the ROM area of the net is just as annoying as the Porn area.
This is the developer's site of the product in question, and right on the same page it links to a page on various Nintendo Emulators. Anything that could have implied "developer's tool" flew out the window just by having that link there. It'll be really tough for them to prove it's not a device intended for piracy.
There *is* a legal product out there for uninitiated developers out there. Check out this page:
http://www.mp3games.net/demo.htm
Basically, this is a product you can buy at Software Etc that allows you to write programs for the GBA and download them into a little cartridge. This device claims it won't play 'copyrighted games'. Once you write apps for the GBA, you can trade them on the net etc. To the best of my knowledge, it's still for sale. I don't think Nintendo is fighting this one because it's clearly a developer's device.
I'm against the DMCA, I think it's poorly executed. I've been very vocal about that here. But this is a case where I think Nintendo is in the right. If this product did have legit uses, it was VERY BONEHEADED to link to an emulator's site on the product page. I'm with Nintendo on this one.
One idea I really like is that they can now run movies at higher frame rates. When I was in Brazil, they used a TV projector with a video tape to run local commercials. Since it was NTSC, it was done at 60 fields a second. That looked really cool on the screen! Ever since then I've been aching to see movies at a higher frame rate.
It seems to me that nickle and diming the customers on a per-stream basis for what they download is a very quick way to kill VoD on the internet. Seems like the Television Network approach would be much better suited. "This content comes from our sponsors."
Then they can go as far as to order merchandise for that show. "Click here to purchase a Transformers: Robots in Disguise Optimus Prime Toy for your kids." The can reward me for watching commercials. "Click now and we'll give you $1.00 off your next burger." They can even do things like broadcast a show live, just like TV does today for free. But if you want to see earlier episodes, you have to pay for a subscription to access them.
The idea of saying 'your time on the net is metered' scares me. Using the Internet for entertainment is a luxury, not a need. If the market thinks the price is unfair, then programs like Morpheus will suddenly reign supreme.
What offends me most about copy-restricting CD's... (copy restriction sounds far more accurate than 'protection', I'd like to thank whoever it was from Slashdot that coined that term.)...is that they're punishing the legitimate customer, but not the people 'pirating' the music.
Now first let me clarify: Ripping an MP3 is not piracy. By definition it couldn't possibly be. You need the CD to rip. Though I'm sure a small # of people rip from borrowed or copied CD's, the vast majority are likely to be from legitimately owned CD's. Piracy happens when somebody gives away this MP3 to people who haven't paid for the song.
Here are two legitimate uses of ripped MP3's:
1.) Use in a portable system that is far more compact than a CD player
2.) Backup copy. Example: If my CD gets destroyed, the RIAA won't replace it. Well now I can keep my CD in a safe place and listen to the MP3 version.
By preventing these two uses, you are preventing the user from legitimately protecting and enjoying their investment. The worst part is, there's nothing to soften the blow of it.
What if the RIAA were to offer a couple of incentives to buy the restricted product? "Well, since these copy restricted CD's will help combat piracy, we'll take $2 off these titles. It's our way of showing how grateful we are for your support." I'd have more respect for the RIAA then, but it wouldn't be enough for me personally.
They still need to address the issue of fair use. If they won't let us make MP3's of our songs, can they at least provide WMA versions of the song with Digital Rights enabled if we have the CD?
So far, the legitimate users have been punished severely. But what about the pirates? Now this time I'm talking about the guy who rips his songs for the express purpose of distributing them for free. Ok, so he can't rip the song directly from the CD. Yah, I bet that will last long. All he has to do is hook up the analog out to the line in and boom he an just record it to a.WAV file, and then encode it.
If that's what it boils down to in order to make the MP3's, then people willing to do that will be in demand. When people like that are in demand, then they become internet-celebrities. "Oh I know this guy, he ripped that song." As long as somebody can achieve celebrity status, they'll be willing to jump through all sorts of hoops.
So to summarize, the RIAA is putting piracy into demand, and punishing the legit customers for it. Wonderful business practice! If this succeeds, next Disney will open a ride called 'The Wedgie".
How is the RIAA making money by preventing people from listening to music? Seems silly to me that they'd close a market instead of ivesting in a new one.
Heh in SQ4 you could travel back into SQ1. There were a couple of dudes there that were in Monochrome. "Well if it isn't Mr. 'Look at Me in Vee Gee Ay...." Hehe that cracked me up. If I remember correctly, in SQ1 there was a circuit you could pull in a starship that would disable VGA, so the game was in EGA then.
Assuming it has a touch screen and an OS that takes advantage of that touch screen, then what you have here is much better than an ordinary laptop.
Frankly, laptops are uncomfortable to use in your lap. A tablet's form factor would work much better for doing things like browsing the web while you're watching TV.
As an artist, I use a sketch pad with an array of pencils and markers. With a sufficiently designed tablet, I could run Photoshop on it and use that as my sketchpad. Since all the work I do is digital, being able to save the step of scanning my sketches is a big time saver. Not to mention that with Photoshop, I could start with a real photo (PCMCIA camera?) and draw on top of that. Plus, I would need a lot fewer art supplies, and those aren't cheap. Heck, if I really wanted to get fancy (and I do...) I could get an 802.11 card and have it automatically upload my sketches to my website. Since I post my artwork on forums alot, this would be a time saver too.
The execs where I work have expressed interest in replacing their laptops with tablets. One of them actually said "I wish my PDA was about 8.5 by 11 inches." On a plane and in meetings, its far more convenient to use in that form factor.
If you oversimplify anything, it can sound dull. The revolution comes from how it's used, not how it's designed. If one teeny weeny little change to a system makes people use it in a whole new way, then that's all it needs to be interesting. You know that little wheel on your mouse? Those didn't always used to be there. Now that it's there, I can't stand mice that don't have that wheel.
Re:My company wants these features.
on
Palm OS 5.0 Preview
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I travel alot, and I find planes to be extremely boring. Heh I never intended to use this to replace my 27" TV at home.
I downloaded an episode of Quantum Leap to my PocketPC on my last trip. The resolution was like 160 by 120, the screen ghosted, the frame rate was 7fps, and the idiot next to me who, saw me watching this show, didn't realize that his questions were interrupting my experience.
Despite these limitations, it worked surprisingly well. A spacebattle wouldn't work too well here, but for watching a character based show, the story came across just fine. The best thing is, the entire trip my laptop stayed in the overhead bin.
Now if I could bring a 25 inch TV on a plane, I'd agree that'd be a better solution. In the mean time, this solution worked pretty well. My only complaint was that I only had enough RAM for one episode.
When I can get a 400mhz PDA with a 1gig Microdrive, I'll have one hell of an entertainment option for airplane travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I don't think I was clear enough in my first post. Let me re-state. Lets say, hypothetically, that my computer sent back data about every movie I watch, every TV show I watch, and every little thing I do on the web to MS. What could they do with it?
Lightwave isn't available on Linux. Until it does, I'm a Windows user. Lightwave is what my living is based on.
Just curious. This issue's new to me and I'm curious what the privacy advocates are worried about.
I'm a little concerned that MS might detect that I ripped a DVD so I could use a particular clip as reference footage for an animation I'm working on, perhaps use the DMCA to fine me for it. Other than that I don't really care if they know what I'm watching or not.
Is there a larger problem I should be aware of? Could somebody explain to me what MS or anybody else could do with data about what movies I watch, or what websites I visit, or whether I'm attracted to either T or A that would be bad?
Don't forget that it's way cool to hate MS. Once you're in that crowd, you's instantly popular.
I never said they were illegal. The reason I brought that up is that Nintendo's Lawyer is going to say "Emulators are primarily downloaded to pirate games, and by linking this site from the product that can play said games on the GBA." Nintendo's lawyer is going to paint that picture. "They're trying to get the emulator audience to buy this product."
I would agree with Nintendo, too. Wanna know why? Because I've seen the community that trades ROMs. They don't play them legally. They don't even pretend to. They just don't want to pay for games. They'd buy this device just to play these games on their GBA instead of on their PC. If you've ever talked to these guys on IRC, you'd probably know exactly what I'm talking about. A lawyer for Nintendo's going to paint the picture that they're targeting that ROM community. I think it's a valid point and I can see Nintendo's side of it. Seeing is not the same as agreeing, what I'm saying is that they can take that to court. That's all. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that if I were a judge I'd probably agree with their point. I wouldn't rule that emulators are illegal. I wouldn't even rule that all devices that allow one to play roms downloaded from a PC are illegal. I'd consider blocking this particular device because it doesn't even make any attempt to protect Nintendo's IP.
I'd really like to hear their defense on this topic too.
In any case, I'm done playing Devil's Advocate.
Yep, I see it now. Didn't seem all that obvious tho. I appreciate you pointing that out.
"Were your eyes seized for contravening the DMCA?"
I'm NOT PRO DMCA. Why's everybody assume I'm on their side?
What part of 'NINTENDO HAS A GOOD CASE' didn't anybody read? Why does everybody read it as "Nintendo's clearly in the right." or "Emulation is Illegal" or "Every single person in the world who uses an EMU is commiting a crime" or "There is no non-pirate use for the system" or "It should be banned for sale"? I never said ANY of that?
This is getting really pathetic. Obviously the guy who modded me up understood I had a point, but a bunch of people who responded to this made a worst case bastardization of what I said.
Let me restate it... AGAIN...
If/When this goes to court, Nintendo's case could go something like:
"You honor, this site clearly intended to sell a device that allows people to play GBA games illegally. Look at their site! They immediately link to several emulators sites. "
Now I made the mistake of thinking that everybody knew that Nintendo assumes Emus are simply there for piracy. That's the way all these companies act. It doesn't matter if every single person in the world uses the EMU for legitimate uses, that's Nintendo's view. That's Sony's View. That's all major game company's views. I thought people would understand this instinctively, but instead I was interpreted as a pro DMCA, EMU hating bastard. Personally, I think people were so hyped about defending their precius Emu's, that they didn't stop and think what I meant is that a lawyer would say that. Hence the subject "Nintendo has a good case."
"Your honor, they even have patches to run copyrighted games on this product."
They do. Right under 'software'. They have no mention of SDK's here (yes they do have it under the emulator's page, and I appreciate that being brought up.) , but you'd think that if it was a developer's tool, it'd do SOMETHING here to show itself as a tool. But it really doesn't. I'm sorry, it doesn't. It does NOT. And a Laywer for Nintendo is going to say that.
In any case, I'm ONLY talking about WHAT THE LAWYER WOULD SAY. -- see that? See? Is that so hard to understand? Do you get it now? Huh? If not, reread the beginning of this paragraph again. Heck, do it anyway. Nobody else seems to stick this point. Well I want you to stick this point because if you dont, you'll develop the idea that I am on Nintendo's side. If you think Im anti-Emu, pro DMCA, or even against this company making this product, then don't bother replying. My response will immediately be "Fuck you" followed by "you didn't read what I said. Reread it and leave me alone."
It is really frustrating that I tried to provide an insight that nobody has brought up before. I suppose I could have made it clearer. But I'm still surprised that everybody who responded wildly misinterpreted me. I can understand the 'not everybody uses emu's are doing so illegally', but not the 'you are a moron', or the 'you seem to be in love with the DMCA'. I tried to explain that I never said the Emus were illegal, Nintendo thinks they're piracy tools. And to a degree, they'd be right. There's a huge area of the net dedicted to illegally obtained roms. By associating this product with that community, they never ever had a chance at getting on Nintendo's good side. I could have clarified that a bit early on, I regret that I didn't.
Oh well. This is the last I'm saying on this subject. If you still think that I'm a Pro-DMCA whatever, then I suggest you take a look at my last 20 or so posts flaming the RIAA for their lousy business practices. Then, if you still think I'm a pro DMCA advocate, or an anti-EMU person, then all I have to say is "Fuck You."
Thanks for the info, that's really useful to know about.
Certainly much more useful than calling me a moron because you don't understand what it is I said. *glares at HamNRye*
ooo This is a neat site. Gonna look at that tonight. Thanks again man!
You misunderstood me. I said Nintendo had a good case i.e. they had a good argument in court. I never said that Emulators were bad or inherently illegal. I said the primary use for emulators around the web is for playing downloaded ROMs. That's they way Nintendo's gonna see it, and that's they way they're gonna to present it. i.e. that is their CASE.
I personally think emulators are great. I don't want to see them ruled against. Heck, I'd even love to have one of these little devices. But the WHOLE POINT of my post was NOT that they're ILLEGAL, but that they didn't present themselves as anything but a tool to copy games.
My point has been perverted into claiming that they're illegal and so on, but I don't think anybody ever actually read what I said.
I guess it was moronic of me to illustrate somebody else's point of view on this. Obviously I'm a moron for not going with the 'Nintendo is evil' camp and saying the same thing everybody else is.
X-Files was dragged along a little too long. I think the whole 'alien conspiracy' thing went on for too long, and really didn't tie up anything. It's like the show was grasping so hard to keep that little secret, it was unwilling to give it up for fear of prematurely ending the show.
They really would have been better off ending it after the movie. Or maybe even ending it with a movie, I don't know.
I would have been hyped about seeing it's finale in Season 5, but today it's like "uhh... people are excited about it?"
I'm not trying to bash X-Files, I like the show. But now I understand why some series are ended with the explanation of 'we want to stop while it is still exciting.", kind of like they did with Deep Space Nine.
I originally said this:
:)
"There is no evidence that all this product does is play copyrighted games"
It was supposed to read:
"There is no evidence that this product is intended to do anything but play copyrighted games."
For some reason I missed that in the preview. Sorry dudes.
Oh damn. That's a bummer. When I saw that product I read the packaging and thought "ooo i could write my own little app or something for the GBA". I even thought about picking it up. The only reason I didn't was that I have no f'in clue how to engineer a GBA title. The package didn't say anything about coming with tools to write and compile code for it. The only real value it had was downloading pirated ROMS.
Marijuana has medicinal value, but it's still illegal. THANK YOU.
Instead of trying to fault the point I'm making, try to understand it. It is up to a court of law to judge whether or not this is a tool of piracy or not, all I was saying was NINTENDO HAS A GOOD CASE. You may have noticed in the subject of my original post that I believe "Nintendo has a good case". I did not write my subject to say "Emulators are Illegal." Nor did I say "Everybody who uses an Emulator is a pirate."
Here's what a Nintendo Lawyer could say:
"Look, your honor, these guys have a link to an emulators site to play illegal images of copyrighted games. They also have patches available for download to fix some copyrighted games so they work on this system. Yet there are absolutely 0 links that talk about how to write your own software for it. There is no evidence that all this product does is play copyrighted games. Anybody who'd use it to actually write new apps for the GBA would have to really dig around the net to make it useful as a developer's tool. It is clearly marketed as a tool for playing copyrighted games "
I am in no position to say they are right or wrong, I was making a point that they do have a good argument. It is pretty embarrasing for this company to link to an emulators site because it will likely be used against them. You can make all the arguments that emus aren't necessarily used for piracy and that PocketPC's work this way and yadda yadda yadda. That's all for the judge to decide.
"...that someone might want to buy a video game for the GBA, load it onto his computer, and play it on his big monitor, with emulator features like saving and restoring multiple states at any time. Or to have a backup and working platform to show his kids 30 years later, long after his GBA is lost or broken."
Yep. Heaven forbid buying a portable system that you want to play on your big screen. Heh.
Seriously tho, I'm not anti emulator, I'm saying Nintendo has a good case for saying this tool promotes piracy. Heck, they even have patches to fix games that don't work right away on it right there on the site.
Yet I don't see an SDK for it. I don't see links to how to develop games on it. Just a link to a bunch of emulators, one of them called 'BoyCott'.
I think Emus are a wonderful thing, but the point I'm making is that this product looks a hell of a lot more like a piracy tool than a developer's tool. If the site had been "Here's the product you need to run your GBA apps on your GBA, and here's documentation on how to program for it, and here's some samples of code", then I'd accept that it is a developer's tool. But there's no evidence of any of that.
If this goes to court, I don't see how these guys could come out on it.
The difference here is that Palm doesn't make money on each bit of software sold. If Joe Schmo writes an App for Palm and makes it available for download, he doesn't owe Palm anything. However, Nintendo's revenue on the GBA is dependent on developers paying royalties/licenses to Nintendo. Any game released on Nintendo means $$$ being funneled into Nintendo's account.
By bypassing the cartridge format, ie downloading of ROMS, you are hurting Nintendo's revenue stream. Before you say 'So what?', understand that Nintendo went to great expense to not only develop the GBA and the cartridge medium, but they also create wonderful games for it.
As for emulators, there is a HUGE 'market' (hard to call it a market when no money's being made...) of people trading illegal copies of ROMS. There may be a handful of people legitimately using the GBA Emulator for development or educational purposes, but who's ever heard of a game/app being released as a result of this? Am I saying all people using the EMU are using it illegally? Nope. But it's hard to deny that there's TONS of piracy going on. If you don't believe me, do a Google search for ROMS and hunt around a bit. What you'll find is that the ROM area of the net is just as annoying as the Porn area.
I still side with Nintendo here.
Look on the lower left of this site:
http://www.visoly.com/
This is the developer's site of the product in question, and right on the same page it links to a page on various Nintendo Emulators. Anything that could have implied "developer's tool" flew out the window just by having that link there. It'll be really tough for them to prove it's not a device intended for piracy.
There *is* a legal product out there for uninitiated developers out there. Check out this page:
http://www.mp3games.net/demo.htm
Basically, this is a product you can buy at Software Etc that allows you to write programs for the GBA and download them into a little cartridge. This device claims it won't play 'copyrighted games'. Once you write apps for the GBA, you can trade them on the net etc. To the best of my knowledge, it's still for sale. I don't think Nintendo is fighting this one because it's clearly a developer's device.
I'm against the DMCA, I think it's poorly executed. I've been very vocal about that here. But this is a case where I think Nintendo is in the right. If this product did have legit uses, it was VERY BONEHEADED to link to an emulator's site on the product page. I'm with Nintendo on this one.
One idea I really like is that they can now run movies at higher frame rates. When I was in Brazil, they used a TV projector with a video tape to run local commercials. Since it was NTSC, it was done at 60 fields a second. That looked really cool on the screen! Ever since then I've been aching to see movies at a higher frame rate.
Because with streaming you can start watching right away. Downloading from other users is slow and unreliable.
It seems to me that nickle and diming the customers on a per-stream basis for what they download is a very quick way to kill VoD on the internet. Seems like the Television Network approach would be much better suited. "This content comes from our sponsors."
Then they can go as far as to order merchandise for that show. "Click here to purchase a Transformers: Robots in Disguise Optimus Prime Toy for your kids." The can reward me for watching commercials. "Click now and we'll give you $1.00 off your next burger." They can even do things like broadcast a show live, just like TV does today for free. But if you want to see earlier episodes, you have to pay for a subscription to access them.
The idea of saying 'your time on the net is metered' scares me. Using the Internet for entertainment is a luxury, not a need. If the market thinks the price is unfair, then programs like Morpheus will suddenly reign supreme.
What offends me most about copy-restricting CD's... (copy restriction sounds far more accurate than 'protection', I'd like to thank whoever it was from Slashdot that coined that term.) ...is that they're punishing the legitimate customer, but not the people 'pirating' the music.
.WAV file, and then encode it.
Now first let me clarify: Ripping an MP3 is not piracy. By definition it couldn't possibly be. You need the CD to rip. Though I'm sure a small # of people rip from borrowed or copied CD's, the vast majority are likely to be from legitimately owned CD's. Piracy happens when somebody gives away this MP3 to people who haven't paid for the song.
Here are two legitimate uses of ripped MP3's:
1.) Use in a portable system that is far more compact than a CD player
2.) Backup copy. Example: If my CD gets destroyed, the RIAA won't replace it. Well now I can keep my CD in a safe place and listen to the MP3 version.
By preventing these two uses, you are preventing the user from legitimately protecting and enjoying their investment. The worst part is, there's nothing to soften the blow of it.
What if the RIAA were to offer a couple of incentives to buy the restricted product? "Well, since these copy restricted CD's will help combat piracy, we'll take $2 off these titles. It's our way of showing how grateful we are for your support." I'd have more respect for the RIAA then, but it wouldn't be enough for me personally.
They still need to address the issue of fair use. If they won't let us make MP3's of our songs, can they at least provide WMA versions of the song with Digital Rights enabled if we have the CD?
So far, the legitimate users have been punished severely. But what about the pirates? Now this time I'm talking about the guy who rips his songs for the express purpose of distributing them for free. Ok, so he can't rip the song directly from the CD. Yah, I bet that will last long. All he has to do is hook up the analog out to the line in and boom he an just record it to a
If that's what it boils down to in order to make the MP3's, then people willing to do that will be in demand. When people like that are in demand, then they become internet-celebrities. "Oh I know this guy, he ripped that song." As long as somebody can achieve celebrity status, they'll be willing to jump through all sorts of hoops.
So to summarize, the RIAA is putting piracy into demand, and punishing the legit customers for it. Wonderful business practice! If this succeeds, next Disney will open a ride called 'The Wedgie".
How is the RIAA making money by preventing people from listening to music? Seems silly to me that they'd close a market instead of ivesting in a new one.
That's why I run-length encoded it by not using the space bar!! =D
Hmm...
r lasitisanoriginalcopyrightedwork.com ....
I wonder what would happen if I went to http://www.iexplicitlyprohibittherecordingofthisu
Heh in SQ4 you could travel back into SQ1. There were a couple of dudes there that were in Monochrome. "Well if it isn't Mr. 'Look at Me in Vee Gee Ay...." Hehe that cracked me up. If I remember correctly, in SQ1 there was a circuit you could pull in a starship that would disable VGA, so the game was in EGA then.
I love little gags like that.
Assuming it has a touch screen and an OS that takes advantage of that touch screen, then what you have here is much better than an ordinary laptop.
Frankly, laptops are uncomfortable to use in your lap. A tablet's form factor would work much better for doing things like browsing the web while you're watching TV.
As an artist, I use a sketch pad with an array of pencils and markers. With a sufficiently designed tablet, I could run Photoshop on it and use that as my sketchpad. Since all the work I do is digital, being able to save the step of scanning my sketches is a big time saver. Not to mention that with Photoshop, I could start with a real photo (PCMCIA camera?) and draw on top of that. Plus, I would need a lot fewer art supplies, and those aren't cheap. Heck, if I really wanted to get fancy (and I do...) I could get an 802.11 card and have it automatically upload my sketches to my website. Since I post my artwork on forums alot, this would be a time saver too.
The execs where I work have expressed interest in replacing their laptops with tablets. One of them actually said "I wish my PDA was about 8.5 by 11 inches." On a plane and in meetings, its far more convenient to use in that form factor.
If you oversimplify anything, it can sound dull. The revolution comes from how it's used, not how it's designed. If one teeny weeny little change to a system makes people use it in a whole new way, then that's all it needs to be interesting. You know that little wheel on your mouse? Those didn't always used to be there. Now that it's there, I can't stand mice that don't have that wheel.
I travel alot, and I find planes to be extremely boring. Heh I never intended to use this to replace my 27" TV at home.
I downloaded an episode of Quantum Leap to my PocketPC on my last trip. The resolution was like 160 by 120, the screen ghosted, the frame rate was 7fps, and the idiot next to me who, saw me watching this show, didn't realize that his questions were interrupting my experience.
Despite these limitations, it worked surprisingly well. A spacebattle wouldn't work too well here, but for watching a character based show, the story came across just fine. The best thing is, the entire trip my laptop stayed in the overhead bin.
Now if I could bring a 25 inch TV on a plane, I'd agree that'd be a better solution. In the mean time, this solution worked pretty well. My only complaint was that I only had enough RAM for one episode.
When I can get a 400mhz PDA with a 1gig Microdrive, I'll have one hell of an entertainment option for airplane travel.