"Since when does Slashdot post Steam's technical issues"
This is of interest, because it shows the way "copy protection" doesn't actually protect against copying the game. It only inconveniences the customer. And with the indutry pushing for DRM and trying to lobby through laws that remove more and more our rights (punishment for cracking the encryption to view a DVD I bought? That's ridiculous).
The development is moving in a worrying direction. Customers are treated like dirt, and basically insulted. The customers pay for their non-working copy protection!
Think about it. This is of great interest to people who are worried about these things. It proves our points perfectly.
Keep posting these stories, Slashdot. We need to raise public awareness about these evil bastards, too, so people stop buying their crap.
Maybe if they didn't treat their customers like dirt, and maybe if they made it easier for legitimate customers, rather than forcing them to jump through hoops just to play the game offline, people would be happy to pay Valve for their games. As it is now, Valve deserves to run out of money and go out of business, because their treatment of their own customers is despicable at best.
The bottom line is that the customers have to pay for a copy protection scheme which doesn't prevent copying, but only causes problems for legitimate customers. This is an insult to Valve's customers.
You are defending terrible business practices. You are saying that if people stopped taking Valve's crap, and pirating their games instead, Valve would go out of business.
Well, duh. Companies that treat their customers like that deserve to go out of business.
I would have supported Valve with my money if they actually treated their customers well. As it is now, if I play Half-Life 2, it will probably be the warez version. At least I won't have to install their spyware, and I won't have to activate the product online to use it offline.
"Actually, without patents, you CAN build an exact replica of anyone's car and sell it. With patents, you can still build the car, but you cannot sell it."
I'm talking about listening to a CD I bought, not counterfeiting.
Re:Amazing! "Free pussy" and brains switch off!
on
MyDoom Strikes Again
·
· Score: 1
Sadly, this isn't even "free pussy". It's "free pictures of pussy".
"You bought the right to drive your own car, not to build an exact copy of this car and sell it."
Really! So I only have the right to drive my own car? I can't modify it? I can't change the tires when needed? Fill gasoline?
Building an exact copy of the car and selling it would be more like creating CDs with someone else's copyrighted work, and selling them. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I am simply talking about the right to do with my own CD as I damn well please.
You really should go back to analogy school and get your shit sorted out. Your analogies suck.
"Breaking into someone's copy-protected CD" is one thing, but I don't see the relevance. Why would I break into someone else's CD? The thing is, I'm breaking into my own copy-protected CD. I bought the CD, it's mine.
"Please check sources before modding informative. The original Mozilla suite was based off of Netscape code. Firefox was built from the ground up by the Mozilla foundation."
I think it is you who should check sources...:)
Firefox is built on Mozilla technology: Gecko, XUL, etc. It was not built from the ground up at all, but started off stripping features and getting down to a bare bones browser, and then expanding technology as necessary to produce Firefox.
"As you sit reading this, fully 2/3 of the energy being expended by your brain is going directly to maintaining a specific Na+/K+ concentration gradient."
So 2/3 of the energy is used to regulate one's internal environment? Got any more basic reading on this subject, for someone who doesn't know much about it?
"But, at some point I realized that as cool as Opera is, and as much as I think the company is a fine company, it's still not software that is terribly concerned with freedom."
I mean, how can the Mozilla spokesperson claim that Opera is not as portable as Mozilla? It's pure FUD.
"I find it amazing somebody points out that he makes the same choice on slashdot (of all places) and not only gets flack about it but gets modded down for it."
He gets modded down because he's talking nonsense. Preferring Firefox just because it's FOSS is one thing. Claiming that Opera isn't free is rubbish.
"as a desktop browser. It had a clear lead on Mozilla and IE for a while"
It most certainly did not. Opera has never had more users and a higher market share than it does right now. Quality wise, it did have a clear lead, and this is still the case. Just look at how Minimo requires ten times the amount of memory to run compared to Opera-embedded. But market wise, Opera has never been in a better position.
"Now they have made some inroads in the embedded market, but it looks like the Mozilla team has their sites set on this as well."
"I don't know if you know this, but before discovering the Symbian market (and discoverin g Google), Opera was actually making a loss."
Actually, no. The company was profitable the first few years, until they started expanding into the mobile market. So the losses were because of their move into new markets, but on the other hand, the money is flowing in now exactly because they did this. And they have several years of experience with real mobile web browsers, unlike anyone else.
"I agree with the other posts that said it is basically an act of desperation. Firefox surely is big threat to Opera."
Firefox is totally irrelevant, as Opera's main income is from the mobile market. An "act of desperation" would be trying to use patents to kill the competition or lying or otherwise doing stupid things. Offering Opera for free is a clever move, as it creates brand recognition in a new generation of workers.
Now, the good Firefox fan would of course be quick to mention Minimo on mobiles, but the problem is that Minimo requires a lot more memory than Opera, and Opera is well ahead of it already.
"You seem to forget that the BSA/**AA represent companies. These companies employ people. These people live off of the profits from copyrighted works. The BSA is lobying on behalf of all these people."
No, it is not. It is lobbying on behalf of the people who actually make the money - the major share holders and the management. In other words, richt people and other corporations again.
I don't think removing corporate rights and restoring power to the actual people would be a bad thing. And I'd rather see propaganda representing the people, rather than corporate interests.
"You really disagree that companies can spend millions of dollars in set design, computer animation, sound systems, camera equipment, actors, extras, and all the hundreds or thousands of other people, but they're not entitled to receive compensation for their work?"
They get paid once for one product, like everyone else. If I create a car, I don't expect people to send me money every time that car changes hands.
Oh, I get it. You are saying that because they only have to create this thing once, and can sell it an unlimited amount of times without spending a dime on duplication, they are somehow entitled to make money every time someone else duplicates it? That doesn't make sense.
Why should a musician be allowed to do his work once, and then magically profit for eternity without lifting a finger? I don't find that to be a good thing at all. A carpenter has to work to make money. He needs to constantly make new things in order to make a living. But a musician is only supposed to do some work once and then profit from it every time someone duplicates it?
I don't see why a musician should be able to do that. I fhe wants to make a living, he should damn well be working like the rest of us.
"They should have control over their creation, and that's exactly what the law provides for."
Why should they have control over their creation?
"If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it at all."
If you don't want to run out of money, do honest work, and don't think that creating a CD should allow you to stop working and just let the money flow in. Everyone else has tog get up every morning and go to work. If a musician wants to survive, he should do that as well. He can't expect to do his work once and then just sit back and let the money fill his greedy little hands.
"You are NOT entitled to free entertainment."
Sure I am.
Re:Question to people who donate
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"and the site is seriously expecting these people to cough up cash to fight a court case against the MPAA?"
You are missing the point.
People aren't necessarily opposed to paying for things. Now, some of the people downloading movies over BT will probably never pay, as long as they can get away with it. But others may be downloading movies because they are opposed to the way the MPAA behaves, or because they have to wait for ages until they get to watch the movie, and they want it right away, or they have bought the DVD, but it was region encoded, and couldn't be played on their player, and so on.
These "pirates" are not a group of homogenous people. The reasons for downloading movies for free and the willingness to pay for something worthwile differs from person to person.
You should also realize that this case does not appear to be only about this particular torrent site, but it could be an important case, since they are challenging the evil and customer/individuality hostile DMCA.
I can imagine that some of the most hardcore "pirates" will gladly pay to see the evil fuckers (excuse my French) who keep lobbying to remove individual rights getting their asses handed to them in court. I know I would be thrilled if the MPAA went straight to Hell. These organizations are nothing more than corporate propaganda machines working to make corporations more powerful, and remove the rights of individual human beings. They want to reduce you and I to mindles drones whose only purpose is to strenthen the corporations. I want to reduce them to rubble.
Slashdot Mirror
The development is moving in a worrying direction. Customers are treated like dirt, and basically insulted. The customers pay for their non-working copy protection!
Think about it. This is of great interest to people who are worried about these things. It proves our points perfectly.
Keep posting these stories, Slashdot. We need to raise public awareness about these evil bastards, too, so people stop buying their crap.
The bottom line is that the customers have to pay for a copy protection scheme which doesn't prevent copying, but only causes problems for legitimate customers. This is an insult to Valve's customers.
You are defending terrible business practices. You are saying that if people stopped taking Valve's crap, and pirating their games instead, Valve would go out of business.
Well, duh. Companies that treat their customers like that deserve to go out of business.
I would have supported Valve with my money if they actually treated their customers well. As it is now, if I play Half-Life 2, it will probably be the warez version. At least I won't have to install their spyware, and I won't have to activate the product online to use it offline.
Sadly, this isn't even "free pussy". It's "free pictures of pussy".
Building an exact copy of the car and selling it would be more like creating CDs with someone else's copyrighted work, and selling them. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I am simply talking about the right to do with my own CD as I damn well please.
You really should go back to analogy school and get your shit sorted out. Your analogies suck.
"Breaking into someone's copy-protected CD" is one thing, but I don't see the relevance. Why would I break into someone else's CD? The thing is, I'm breaking into my own copy-protected CD. I bought the CD, it's mine.
Is it wrong to "break into" my own car?
Firefox is built on Mozilla technology: Gecko, XUL, etc. It was not built from the ground up at all, but started off stripping features and getting down to a bare bones browser, and then expanding technology as necessary to produce Firefox.
Firefox is "Mozilla 2.0" in a way.
We have innumerable transitional forms. The thing is that the changes are so tiny, and things are so slow, that we don't really notice them.
Try Opera 8.
Mobile phones is where Opera makes most if its money. It is a good move to make students aware of Opera, so they can get more mindshare.
This does not show a struggling company, but a company with a clear strategy.
I mean, how can the Mozilla spokesperson claim that Opera is not as portable as Mozilla? It's pure FUD.
He gets modded down because he's talking nonsense. Preferring Firefox just because it's FOSS is one thing. Claiming that Opera isn't free is rubbish.Just because a company is small doesn't mean that it is dying. Opera is actually growing rapidly.
Now, the good Firefox fan would of course be quick to mention Minimo on mobiles, but the problem is that Minimo requires a lot more memory than Opera, and Opera is well ahead of it already.
I don't think removing corporate rights and restoring power to the actual people would be a bad thing. And I'd rather see propaganda representing the people, rather than corporate interests.
Oh, I get it. You are saying that because they only have to create this thing once, and can sell it an unlimited amount of times without spending a dime on duplication, they are somehow entitled to make money every time someone else duplicates it? That doesn't make sense.
Why should a musician be allowed to do his work once, and then magically profit for eternity without lifting a finger? I don't find that to be a good thing at all. A carpenter has to work to make money. He needs to constantly make new things in order to make a living. But a musician is only supposed to do some work once and then profit from it every time someone duplicates it?
I don't see why a musician should be able to do that. I fhe wants to make a living, he should damn well be working like the rest of us.
Why should they have control over their creation? If you don't want to run out of money, do honest work, and don't think that creating a CD should allow you to stop working and just let the money flow in. Everyone else has tog get up every morning and go to work. If a musician wants to survive, he should do that as well. He can't expect to do his work once and then just sit back and let the money fill his greedy little hands. Sure I am.People aren't necessarily opposed to paying for things. Now, some of the people downloading movies over BT will probably never pay, as long as they can get away with it. But others may be downloading movies because they are opposed to the way the MPAA behaves, or because they have to wait for ages until they get to watch the movie, and they want it right away, or they have bought the DVD, but it was region encoded, and couldn't be played on their player, and so on.
These "pirates" are not a group of homogenous people. The reasons for downloading movies for free and the willingness to pay for something worthwile differs from person to person.
You should also realize that this case does not appear to be only about this particular torrent site, but it could be an important case, since they are challenging the evil and customer/individuality hostile DMCA.
I can imagine that some of the most hardcore "pirates" will gladly pay to see the evil fuckers (excuse my French) who keep lobbying to remove individual rights getting their asses handed to them in court. I know I would be thrilled if the MPAA went straight to Hell. These organizations are nothing more than corporate propaganda machines working to make corporations more powerful, and remove the rights of individual human beings. They want to reduce you and I to mindles drones whose only purpose is to strenthen the corporations. I want to reduce them to rubble.
Whether Nigel is lying or not is not up to me to decide.