If they can all work together to fight payola, why not just stop doing it? It makes sense that no one company would fight it alone, because they would just die. But if they are willing to band together to rally against it, wouldn't it be easier to just band together and fix it?
This is all speculation, but the only answer I can come up with is that they are all untrustworthy cheats. If they made such an agreement the only real result would be a contest to see who could break the agreement first. These people don't want the problem fixed, they want media attention focused on someone elses illegal, immoral business practices so that it gets drawn away from their own.
RIAA offers bribe. "Look everyone, THEY ARE TAKING BRIBES!" Why are people so stupid?
The groups also criticized broadcasting giants, such as industry leader Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 stations nationwide, for flexing their "sheer market power" in ways that can "make or break a hit song."
Yeah, nobody wants industry giants to use "sheer market power" to determine the fate of others. Apparently it's bad if such an action crushes a song, but not an artist. Or maybe they should just come out and say that everything that doesn't result in profit for them should be illegal.
1. This is a good thing. Regardless of the underlying functionality, it allows people to use the computer the way they want rather than the way MS wants them to. It's not nearly enough, but it's a step in the right direction.
2. This small step in the right direction took a lot of court time and negative PR to accomplish. Unfortunately it's more of a strategic decision on MS than a concession. It's so hard to get even the smallest thing from them that when we do it feels like a victory. So they give up an inconsequential victory like this to appease people and things just keep rolling with MS deciding the rules of the game.
Let's all sign up for accounts with various Microsoft addresses as.net addresses. Then they can share in the bounty of spam they graciously offer their customers!;P
Well, if it makes the mods feel any better, I just learned my lesson. It was off topic, and I should have known better than to bother. Guess I just hate letting people get away with faulty logic.
Religion isn't a joke, these people are. I hate it when people equate good religion with bad religion. You don't make obviously stupid generalizations based on sex or race (I guess I might be assuming too much here), why do so based on religion?
If this works, which I hope it does, it will be one heck of a job sorting through all the ideas and organising them. A lot of people come up with good ideas for things like this, weeding them out and deciding which ones are feasable, and then which ones to use, will be a huge task.
Although seriously, it's not all that amazing an idea, I think it will amount to actually listening to the ideas of all the people who think about these types of issues. Most people that have an interest in these issues have ideas about how they would fix them, this may just be giving them direction in getting those ideas to people who might use them. (I'm not knocking the concept, it's great, just seems like it should have beeen more obvious)
In other news, a number of American corporations are filing a suit claiming that this new theory of 'amature thining' will almost surely infringe on their intellectual property.
Of course, I work at a college, so I might be a little biased. Anyhoo, you might be really good, but there are definately things you don't know. College is a good way to expand your knowledge. I know some people who are seriously above the curve in computer skills, and all of them benefited from college. And realistically, if you can get a part time tech job (especially in the CS department at the school) you will get almost as much practacle experience as if you had gone straight to working.
I don't know what exactly you're looking at, but respect might be another good reason to go to college. Being just out of high school you aren't likely to get much respect from business people. (I won't say that's the way it should be, but it's definately the way it it) A few years and a degree will get you a lot of credibility in the eyes of those above you. It's better than spending those four years struggling to prove you're as good as you are at your job.
You completely missed my point. Over the internet it is often impossible to view without copying something. Generally, if you can see it you can keep it, and that's what get's the holders of copyrights so upset. Do you think libraries would work if there was no difference between lending out books and giving them away?
What do they want next, cameras in peoples' houses in case they invite friends around to watch a rented video/DVD?
Also not what I meant. I'm talking about the fact that a dozen people with no connection at all can convieniently from the comfort of their own homes view the same file. Sharing something with a dozen friends is much different than sharing it with hundreds of strangers.
Don't over do the knee jerk reactions. The corporations are doing a LOT wrong right now, so it's easy to not notice that what they are saying has some vague hint of truth to it.
I'm glad somone finally realized that they actually can do something about Mircrosoft. And it's especially good that someone puts them in their place now, rather than waiting five years till they have monopolized the game industry as well.
First, that was a great post.
Second, part of the problem we're facing today is that unauthorized viewing, when the internet is involved, is often the same as unauthorized copying. Or at least indistinguishable from it. Also, when numerous people can simultaneously, and convieniently, view one thing at any time then copying becomes unnecessary.
I think that's why copyright is such a problem right now. Computers competely destroy all the rules that used to exist regarding how information was used, shared and accessed. And while the people in power see that and over react the people not in power see the over reaction and try to push the other way.
I'm not saying that the current situation is acceptable or that P2P things are wrong, I'm just saying there is a real reason for the current situation. I hope that a new system that more accurately considers the desires of the consumer and the rights of the content creator can be found.
(How in the world did the idea that all the rights of the content creator should be passed to the content distributor, and then held in precedence over the rihts and desires of the consumer ever get any weight?)
What you're talking about is COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE.
That is exactly the point. Microsoft is a monopoly, that means they are not a common business. It means that what other companies use as common business practice is unfair when used by them.
Your average business is competing on equal (or relatively similar) footing. Microsoft, on the other hand, is in an infinately better position than any other company. To the point that if any tech company wants to stay in business they need Microsofts good grace. That is not how business is supposed to work.
Always makes me think of the uncle Ben quote "With great power comes great responsibility." I know, it's kind of cheesy to apply it here, but it's true. No one in the industry has a fraction of the power Microsoft has, and only a small fraction of the industry has the lack of responsibility Microsoft displays.
The lawmakers were asked there. Their time is important, and they probably meant exactly what they said. It's an interesting topic, but all they are there for is to hear about ideas for legislation. He makes laws, and if the people didn't want a law made, why did they want him there? I don't think the problem in this case has anything to do with politicians, rather the problem would be people thinking that politicians are the people to solve their problems.
Tell me again why this is a big deal? Tell me again why this is news?
Because the decisions of some people effect the lives of others. Here's the deal. Something bad is happening, Yahoo is increasing how much crap advertising its users get. The majority of its users don't like this, but don't actually do anything about it. The minority who really don't like it and do something about it aren't enough to change the movement in big business to sell out their customers.
This means that every time someone says "I can't do anything about it" or "I'm only one person" or "It's not worth the effort" it gets easier for it to happen.
The problem is that it takes a great deal of energy to actually be informed and make good decisions like this. A vast majority of the basic users out there aren't interested in staying informed, because there are more important things in their lives to pay attnetion to. And when I say stay informed, I don't just mean seeing that things like this are happening, I mean placing them in the bigger picture and finding out what they should do about them. Not to mention the effort required to actually do something about them.
I think the technology is actually having a detrimental effect on games now. It's become such a big deal to make a game that games feel like they should be bigger and better. There isn't enough time for variety when it takes so long and so much effort to make one good game.
Of couse the 3D thing probably doesn't help anyway. If game makers would relalize that games don't have to have 3d cameras to be popular it would help things a lot.
Although if you want a next gen game that still has some roots in the good old days check out ICO for the PS2, or MDK2 for any system (I've only played it on PC, but I've seen it on consoles). Both have the feel of an older style game, but updated.
The internet will usually reflect the real world.
No, the internet will reflect real people. Like has been said above, the internet has no inherrant bias. It's just a communication tool, and as such it says whatever people want it to say.
Unfortunately people generally want to use for decieving people or promoting their own closed minded ideas. You should try and take a step back and look at what he's saying without getting all upset about who he is. Regardless of what you think of him, what he says has some merrit. The average person isn't interested in promoting truth or togetherness, they are interested in tricking people into giving them money, and the internet doesn't change that.
Quoting, "We never had any idea that there would be a reaction like this. Our two words for today are friendly and flexible."
That is exactly the problem. They don't try to decide if it's good or ok or ethical, they try to decide if they can get away with it. If they don't forsee money loss they don't see any reason not to do it.
Check out some of the works of CS Lewis for some amazing insight on myth. He understood how myth fits into reality better than anyone else I've ever heard. I can't find any direct references right now, but he has a number of essays on the topic.
Wouldn't the iMac fit the bill perfectly? I haven't used one, so I can't say for sure, but isn't the iMac just that, an appliance for web browsing and email? If so then maybe the average home user needs to start buying products like that rather than buying Mircrosoft because it's a business standard.
I've never been a big fan of the iMac, just because it's a diluted computer, and being a tech person I'm not in favor of the dummied down version. But a lot of people could use a dummied down version of a computer, and if it's already out there, maybe it should get used more.
No one is loosing rights here. The government is forcing parents to ok questionable content before their children are allowed access to it. This doesn't limit what games are allowed to be made, nor does it limit you buying them.
The problem is that is being passed as a law. The industry already has a self-imposed ratings system, just like movies.
And children aren't allowed in without a parent if they aren't old enough. It would essentially make the industry rule a law. I don't see anything wrong with that. If retailers aren't going to be responsible enough to enforce those rules, I don't see it as being a major problem that the government calls them to task.
It's not like this outlaws kids getting the stuff, just forces parents and retailers to be a bit more responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
If they can all work together to fight payola, why not just stop doing it? It makes sense that no one company would fight it alone, because they would just die. But if they are willing to band together to rally against it, wouldn't it be easier to just band together and fix it?
This is all speculation, but the only answer I can come up with is that they are all untrustworthy cheats. If they made such an agreement the only real result would be a contest to see who could break the agreement first. These people don't want the problem fixed, they want media attention focused on someone elses illegal, immoral business practices so that it gets drawn away from their own.
RIAA offers bribe. "Look everyone, THEY ARE TAKING BRIBES!" Why are people so stupid? The groups also criticized broadcasting giants, such as industry leader Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 stations nationwide, for flexing their "sheer market power" in ways that can "make or break a hit song." Yeah, nobody wants industry giants to use "sheer market power" to determine the fate of others. Apparently it's bad if such an action crushes a song, but not an artist. Or maybe they should just come out and say that everything that doesn't result in profit for them should be illegal.
Interesting. I had two initial reactions.
1. This is a good thing. Regardless of the underlying functionality, it allows people to use the computer the way they want rather than the way MS wants them to. It's not nearly enough, but it's a step in the right direction.
2. This small step in the right direction took a lot of court time and negative PR to accomplish. Unfortunately it's more of a strategic decision on MS than a concession. It's so hard to get even the smallest thing from them that when we do it feels like a victory. So they give up an inconsequential victory like this to appease people and things just keep rolling with MS deciding the rules of the game.
Let's all sign up for accounts with various Microsoft addresses as .net addresses. Then they can share in the bounty of spam they graciously offer their customers! ;P
You mean that within hours of it becoming public knowledge the problem seems to have never existsed? Wow, what a coincidence.
Well, if it makes the mods feel any better, I just learned my lesson. It was off topic, and I should have known better than to bother. Guess I just hate letting people get away with faulty logic.
Religion isn't a joke, these people are. I hate it when people equate good religion with bad religion. You don't make obviously stupid generalizations based on sex or race (I guess I might be assuming too much here), why do so based on religion?
If this works, which I hope it does, it will be one heck of a job sorting through all the ideas and organising them. A lot of people come up with good ideas for things like this, weeding them out and deciding which ones are feasable, and then which ones to use, will be a huge task.
Although seriously, it's not all that amazing an idea, I think it will amount to actually listening to the ideas of all the people who think about these types of issues. Most people that have an interest in these issues have ideas about how they would fix them, this may just be giving them direction in getting those ideas to people who might use them. (I'm not knocking the concept, it's great, just seems like it should have beeen more obvious)
In other news, a number of American corporations are filing a suit claiming that this new theory of 'amature thining' will almost surely infringe on their intellectual property.
Of course, I work at a college, so I might be a little biased. Anyhoo, you might be really good, but there are definately things you don't know. College is a good way to expand your knowledge. I know some people who are seriously above the curve in computer skills, and all of them benefited from college. And realistically, if you can get a part time tech job (especially in the CS department at the school) you will get almost as much practacle experience as if you had gone straight to working. I don't know what exactly you're looking at, but respect might be another good reason to go to college. Being just out of high school you aren't likely to get much respect from business people. (I won't say that's the way it should be, but it's definately the way it it) A few years and a degree will get you a lot of credibility in the eyes of those above you. It's better than spending those four years struggling to prove you're as good as you are at your job.
You completely missed my point. Over the internet it is often impossible to view without copying something. Generally, if you can see it you can keep it, and that's what get's the holders of copyrights so upset. Do you think libraries would work if there was no difference between lending out books and giving them away?
What do they want next, cameras in peoples' houses in case they invite friends around to watch a rented video/DVD?
Also not what I meant. I'm talking about the fact that a dozen people with no connection at all can convieniently from the comfort of their own homes view the same file. Sharing something with a dozen friends is much different than sharing it with hundreds of strangers.
Don't over do the knee jerk reactions. The corporations are doing a LOT wrong right now, so it's easy to not notice that what they are saying has some vague hint of truth to it.
I'm glad somone finally realized that they actually can do something about Mircrosoft. And it's especially good that someone puts them in their place now, rather than waiting five years till they have monopolized the game industry as well.
First, that was a great post. Second, part of the problem we're facing today is that unauthorized viewing, when the internet is involved, is often the same as unauthorized copying. Or at least indistinguishable from it. Also, when numerous people can simultaneously, and convieniently, view one thing at any time then copying becomes unnecessary.
I think that's why copyright is such a problem right now. Computers competely destroy all the rules that used to exist regarding how information was used, shared and accessed. And while the people in power see that and over react the people not in power see the over reaction and try to push the other way.
I'm not saying that the current situation is acceptable or that P2P things are wrong, I'm just saying there is a real reason for the current situation. I hope that a new system that more accurately considers the desires of the consumer and the rights of the content creator can be found.
(How in the world did the idea that all the rights of the content creator should be passed to the content distributor, and then held in precedence over the rihts and desires of the consumer ever get any weight?)
A Napster employee talking about ethics. Ah, the irony.
What you're talking about is COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE.
That is exactly the point. Microsoft is a monopoly, that means they are not a common business. It means that what other companies use as common business practice is unfair when used by them.
Your average business is competing on equal (or relatively similar) footing. Microsoft, on the other hand, is in an infinately better position than any other company. To the point that if any tech company wants to stay in business they need Microsofts good grace. That is not how business is supposed to work.
Always makes me think of the uncle Ben quote "With great power comes great responsibility." I know, it's kind of cheesy to apply it here, but it's true. No one in the industry has a fraction of the power Microsoft has, and only a small fraction of the industry has the lack of responsibility Microsoft displays.
The lawmakers were asked there. Their time is important, and they probably meant exactly what they said. It's an interesting topic, but all they are there for is to hear about ideas for legislation. He makes laws, and if the people didn't want a law made, why did they want him there? I don't think the problem in this case has anything to do with politicians, rather the problem would be people thinking that politicians are the people to solve their problems.
Tell me again why this is a big deal? Tell me again why this is news?
Because the decisions of some people effect the lives of others. Here's the deal. Something bad is happening, Yahoo is increasing how much crap advertising its users get. The majority of its users don't like this, but don't actually do anything about it. The minority who really don't like it and do something about it aren't enough to change the movement in big business to sell out their customers.
This means that every time someone says "I can't do anything about it" or "I'm only one person" or "It's not worth the effort" it gets easier for it to happen.
The problem is that it takes a great deal of energy to actually be informed and make good decisions like this. A vast majority of the basic users out there aren't interested in staying informed, because there are more important things in their lives to pay attnetion to. And when I say stay informed, I don't just mean seeing that things like this are happening, I mean placing them in the bigger picture and finding out what they should do about them. Not to mention the effort required to actually do something about them.
And right now, games with 3d are what people want.
So people ask for 2D games and you respond by saying that people don't want 2D, they want 3D. You work in advertising or marketing?
I think the technology is actually having a detrimental effect on games now. It's become such a big deal to make a game that games feel like they should be bigger and better. There isn't enough time for variety when it takes so long and so much effort to make one good game.
Of couse the 3D thing probably doesn't help anyway. If game makers would relalize that games don't have to have 3d cameras to be popular it would help things a lot.
Although if you want a next gen game that still has some roots in the good old days check out ICO for the PS2, or MDK2 for any system (I've only played it on PC, but I've seen it on consoles). Both have the feel of an older style game, but updated.
The internet will usually reflect the real world. No, the internet will reflect real people. Like has been said above, the internet has no inherrant bias. It's just a communication tool, and as such it says whatever people want it to say. Unfortunately people generally want to use for decieving people or promoting their own closed minded ideas. You should try and take a step back and look at what he's saying without getting all upset about who he is. Regardless of what you think of him, what he says has some merrit. The average person isn't interested in promoting truth or togetherness, they are interested in tricking people into giving them money, and the internet doesn't change that.
Quoting, "We never had any idea that there would be a reaction like this. Our two words for today are friendly and flexible."
That is exactly the problem. They don't try to decide if it's good or ok or ethical, they try to decide if they can get away with it. If they don't forsee money loss they don't see any reason not to do it.
Check out some of the works of CS Lewis for some amazing insight on myth. He understood how myth fits into reality better than anyone else I've ever heard. I can't find any direct references right now, but he has a number of essays on the topic.
I think that when big business says they have a good ballance they mean they've found the most rediculous thing they can get away with.
Wouldn't the iMac fit the bill perfectly? I haven't used one, so I can't say for sure, but isn't the iMac just that, an appliance for web browsing and email? If so then maybe the average home user needs to start buying products like that rather than buying Mircrosoft because it's a business standard.
I've never been a big fan of the iMac, just because it's a diluted computer, and being a tech person I'm not in favor of the dummied down version. But a lot of people could use a dummied down version of a computer, and if it's already out there, maybe it should get used more.
No one is loosing rights here. The government is forcing parents to ok questionable content before their children are allowed access to it. This doesn't limit what games are allowed to be made, nor does it limit you buying them.
The problem is that is being passed as a law. The industry already has a self-imposed ratings system, just like movies.
And children aren't allowed in without a parent if they aren't old enough. It would essentially make the industry rule a law. I don't see anything wrong with that. If retailers aren't going to be responsible enough to enforce those rules, I don't see it as being a major problem that the government calls them to task.
It's not like this outlaws kids getting the stuff, just forces parents and retailers to be a bit more responsible.