This is what the various copyright industries never seem to get: if you don't give a fuck when it's not your ass on the line, don't except anyone else to give a fuck when it is.
Hey, slashbots are the same way. They'll argue day and night that they're EVIL for enforcing their copyrights, but will scream blue murder if someone violates the GPL.
Is it worse that you made the joke, or that I got it? (and i'm not even a model train fan!)
Re:I'm thinking of contributing to GCC...
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
prove it works, and it doesn't infringe on any patents, submit your code.
Hypothetically, I could prove it works. I cannot prove it doesn't infringe on any patents without:
- opening myself up to willful violation - hope to possibly find said patent - expect it be something unique enough that I wouldn't run across it ANYWAY in the course of coding (really making the patent worthless...)
When I call for the end of copyright, people say that creation would die if the artist couldn't protect their income. How much do artists today get from the cartels? Nearly 0. Thanks to copyright and those who "own" that right.
When you call for the end of copyright you ignorantly assume that artists are never the ones who hold that copyright.
The problem is that those very companies that exploit copyright would be damn quick to turn around and exploit the work of others were there no copyright. Or maybe they'd just be cut off by the CD stamping companies, who'd churn out tons of copies of games, music, and movies at minimal expense to themselves but at full expense to the creators.
The simple fact is that the eliminiation of copyright wouldn't kill creation. It would, however, choke it to damn near a standstill, as the artists would be forced to work some other job and force their art to part-time hobby status.
While you may be fine with subjugating art like that, I'm sure the world is better off when people can focus on what they enjoy and have the means to do so.
It may not be protectable, but since you see it as such a problem I invite you to create other methods by which the creator can be compensated.
Certainly many people contribute without expecting anything in return, but such attitudes can only reach so far, especially when creation of an "idea" requires the involvement of material goods that aren't cheap.
Never mind the time aspect, and that people need to eat.
The only killer feature of P2P networks is free content.
Because people are greedy and would rob you blind if you gave them half a chance. Now that many people have the chance, they're definitely doing it.
I'd like to see a movie/music company go once and spend a chunk of change on something and release it unrestricted on P2P. Even have them promote the fact. Instruct people on how to get it. I'd like to see if they'd ever make their money back.
Somehow I bet it'd be a money losing venture even if they were conservative with their expenditure.
That magic 4 letter word that everyone on p2p enjoys.
Even if a pay service eliminated all of those and -fairly- compensated the creators, it'd still be super-tiny. In fact I doubt such a service could survive, considering how quickly a torrent would pop up on thepiratebay with their entire catalog.
Many of the people who download stuff illegally do it because there isn't a convenient legal alternative. Nono. You mistake being a cheapskate for an ideal.
The only reason they download it for free, is because they can't get it for free in stores. More likely than not, the majority of people warezing stuff on line wouldn't pay for it. Ever. But they enjoy it.
The web's easy access to millions of commercial (ie, for profit) copyright works "for free" proves why copyright is outdated: people still buy content they could download freely.
Oops. Except that if copyright is gone, anytime someone makes something of value that people would want to buy, there'd be 100 companies that would pop up to duplicate and sell it. It'd be like hong kong where works made there generally don't make their money back cause for every store that sells legit copies priced to recoup costs, it sits along with a pile of bootleg copies sold by people who only had to pay to press the disc.
Without copyright no one will pay a fair price. They'll either pay someone unrelated to the work that's leeching off of it or not pay at all.
I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either. I hear them wailing about what a crackpot so-called religion Scientology is and how it bilks emotionally vulnerable people out of their money.
Considering they're tax exempt and classified as a religion, they should be required to give up their copyrights and allow their fundamental literature to be freely read.
However, they use copyright as a cudgel to hide the truth and silence those who criticize them, and to force their followers to surrender more and more money just to be allowed to continue. It's akin to a private, profit-oriented corporation being allowed to operate tax free.;p
Well it won't look like swiss cheese unless you blow holes clear through it. Mass reduction of that factor would be dangerous, so I don't see it happening (when we can go after the Asteroid belt if need be...) And some day yes, you'll see great expanses of light across its dark edges, but you know what?
It won't make a bit of difference.
It'll happen and eventually it will be that way from the day a person is born to the day they die. And for them, a dark moon would be a scary sight.
Even better, thanks for making USING the iPod on the go inconvenient. Now just to pause or switch tracks I'd have to pull my iPod out of my pocket, instead of just hitting a button.
Thanks for slowly stripping away every nice addon for it, and charging $40+ for small ones.
My iPod upgrade is perpetually on hold, until they add a remote control option (preferrably wireless) back.
It's not "grey," Rockstar discarded something stupid, it was found and Hillary rode it like a horse.
To say that modders added the content (instead of unlocking it) and everyone got upset about it only because it was sex is a strawman, and blatantly incorrect.
Not once did I say that. But then your argument is built on a farce so I guess I could ignore that. They -only- got fussy cause it was SEX. There's never been THIS much of a shitfest over GTA before.
You can't get to it without modifying a save game. If you don't do that, you'll never run across it during the course of killing, robbing, and associated violence.
Someone else found a discarded bit, and the media threw a shitfest over it because it was SEX.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what the various copyright industries never seem to get: if you don't give a fuck when it's not your ass on the line, don't except anyone else to give a fuck when it is.
Hey, slashbots are the same way. They'll argue day and night that they're EVIL for enforcing their copyrights, but will scream blue murder if someone violates the GPL.
TRAIN JOKES?!
Is it worse that you made the joke, or that I got it? (and i'm not even a model train fan!)
prove it works, and it doesn't infringe on any patents, submit your code.
Hypothetically, I could prove it works. I cannot prove it doesn't infringe on any patents without:
- opening myself up to willful violation
- hope to possibly find said patent
- expect it be something unique enough that I wouldn't run across it ANYWAY in the course of coding (really making the patent worthless...)
Attitudes and sites like those of thepiratebay are exactly what gives them excuses to throw at lawmakers when demanding new laws.
That and they're happy to effectively piss on the face of everyone who's ever created something that ended up listed on their site.
Personally, I just think they're freeloading pricks who are their own, and our, worst enemy. They're the perfect excuse for bad laws.
Right, and violent movies will go the way of the drug wars too.
So will violent sports and violent tv shows.
When I call for the end of copyright, people say that creation would die if the artist couldn't protect their income. How much do artists today get from the cartels? Nearly 0. Thanks to copyright and those who "own" that right.
When you call for the end of copyright you ignorantly assume that artists are never the ones who hold that copyright.
The problem is that those very companies that exploit copyright would be damn quick to turn around and exploit the work of others were there no copyright. Or maybe they'd just be cut off by the CD stamping companies, who'd churn out tons of copies of games, music, and movies at minimal expense to themselves but at full expense to the creators.
The simple fact is that the eliminiation of copyright wouldn't kill creation. It would, however, choke it to damn near a standstill, as the artists would be forced to work some other job and force their art to part-time hobby status.
While you may be fine with subjugating art like that, I'm sure the world is better off when people can focus on what they enjoy and have the means to do so.
It may not be protectable, but since you see it as such a problem I invite you to create other methods by which the creator can be compensated.
Certainly many people contribute without expecting anything in return, but such attitudes can only reach so far, especially when creation of an "idea" requires the involvement of material goods that aren't cheap.
Never mind the time aspect, and that people need to eat.
That would suck.
It'd give cable companies the perfect means of making sure they bill you for every PC you put on your network.
I'd like to keep my network seperate from theirs as much as possible, thank you very much.
The only killer feature of P2P networks is free content.
Because people are greedy and would rob you blind if you gave them half a chance. Now that many people have the chance, they're definitely doing it.
I'd like to see a movie/music company go once and spend a chunk of change on something and release it unrestricted on P2P. Even have them promote the fact. Instruct people on how to get it. I'd like to see if they'd ever make their money back.
Somehow I bet it'd be a money losing venture even if they were conservative with their expenditure.
Bittorrent, at last check, used SHA-1.
This will change too, eventually, but not as quickly if it were using MD5.
What mods on steam would you be referring to?
The only things I see that you can buy via STEAM are Valve backed things, Gearbox, or that game Ragdoll Kung-Fu.
I'm trying to see these $25-$35 prices you claim exist, but I can't find any.
Unless you refer to DoD: Source and CS: Source. But those are by Valve anyway.
But you forgot the big thing.
It's "free."
That magic 4 letter word that everyone on p2p enjoys.
Even if a pay service eliminated all of those and -fairly- compensated the creators, it'd still be super-tiny. In fact I doubt such a service could survive, considering how quickly a torrent would pop up on thepiratebay with their entire catalog.
"overcompensated"
Right. What gives you the right to determine what fair compensation is?
"Fair" to most p2p warez fans seems to be $0, no matter who made it or what it cost them in terms of time and effort.
The problem is not that computers can copy easily.
It's that current P2P attitudes also include an affinity for not compensating the creator.
Basically, if they can get it for free, fuck the creator.
That things are being shared electronically is not simply for the convenience, but the fact that at the same time it's FREE.
You'll notice that the pay options are significantly smaller than the free options.
Japan knows the gesture, same connotation too.
Truly portable code is like flipping someone the bird.
No matter what country (OS) you're working in, everyone understands it!
Many of the people who download stuff illegally do it because there isn't a convenient legal alternative.
Nono. You mistake being a cheapskate for an ideal.
The only reason they download it for free, is because they can't get it for free in stores. More likely than not, the majority of people warezing stuff on line wouldn't pay for it. Ever. But they enjoy it.
Didn't notice this faulty gem:
The web's easy access to millions of commercial (ie, for profit) copyright works "for free" proves why copyright is outdated: people still buy content they could download freely.
Oops. Except that if copyright is gone, anytime someone makes something of value that people would want to buy, there'd be 100 companies that would pop up to duplicate and sell it. It'd be like hong kong where works made there generally don't make their money back cause for every store that sells legit copies priced to recoup costs, it sits along with a pile of bootleg copies sold by people who only had to pay to press the disc.
Without copyright no one will pay a fair price. They'll either pay someone unrelated to the work that's leeching off of it or not pay at all.
I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either. I hear them wailing about what a crackpot so-called religion Scientology is and how it bilks emotionally vulnerable people out of their money.
;p
Considering they're tax exempt and classified as a religion, they should be required to give up their copyrights and allow their fundamental literature to be freely read.
However, they use copyright as a cudgel to hide the truth and silence those who criticize them, and to force their followers to surrender more and more money just to be allowed to continue. It's akin to a private, profit-oriented corporation being allowed to operate tax free.
Well it won't look like swiss cheese unless you blow holes clear through it. Mass reduction of that factor would be dangerous, so I don't see it happening (when we can go after the Asteroid belt if need be...) And some day yes, you'll see great expanses of light across its dark edges, but you know what?
It won't make a bit of difference.
It'll happen and eventually it will be that way from the day a person is born to the day they die. And for them, a dark moon would be a scary sight.
Interesting.
So if I upgrade I have to buy an entirely new Air Click.
Well I guess that makes griffin happy, now that I'd have to buy an entirely new airclick despite this one not being broken at all...
Thanks for rendering my AirClick useless.
Even better, thanks for making USING the iPod on the go inconvenient. Now just to pause or switch tracks I'd have to pull my iPod out of my pocket, instead of just hitting a button.
Thanks for slowly stripping away every nice addon for it, and charging $40+ for small ones.
My iPod upgrade is perpetually on hold, until they add a remote control option (preferrably wireless) back.
Possession of child porn is largely a crime.
What Rockstar did is not.
It's not "grey," Rockstar discarded something stupid, it was found and Hillary rode it like a horse.
To say that modders added the content (instead of unlocking it) and everyone got upset about it only because it was sex is a strawman, and blatantly incorrect.
Not once did I say that. But then your argument is built on a farce so I guess I could ignore that. They -only- got fussy cause it was SEX. There's never been THIS much of a shitfest over GTA before.
It wasn't included in the game.
You can't get to it without modifying a save game. If you don't do that, you'll never run across it during the course of killing, robbing, and associated violence.
Someone else found a discarded bit, and the media threw a shitfest over it because it was SEX.
It's all stupid.
I assume we'll also get Chinese style freedoms to go along with it, right?
Oh that's right, no freedom.