I used the hydrogen peroxide in the ear bit when I had earaches too. Don't recommend gargling with hydrogen peroxide, but gargling with salt water helps.
First, you do crowdfunding and maybe even some crowdsourcing. At some point, you may want to do some early access. Put as much or as little DRM as you want, but it shouldn't be illegal to crack it. Spyro 3 had notable DRM. [1][2] Get your game on GamersGate, GOG, and/or Steam. Steam has some early access features, and puts reviews right on the software's store page. Also, there are many websites that resell Steam keys. There are software bundle sites for when sales are lagging. Not that popular, but product placement, like a racing game having actual ads on billboard can happen. Then there are the free-to-play, pay to unlock shiny objects, MMOs. Skylanders and amiibo and Disney Infinity show another way to earn money. When trademarks actually involve a confusion of source the confusion of source should be prosecuted, but putting a large swish that looks like Nike's logo as a decoration on a shirt should not be prosecuted, but on a tag that is designed to prove source should. I was reviewing my philosophy of key generators, but if you go to the company's website, like Steam or Playstation Network to redeem a key, that should be prosecutable as you are misrepresenting your situation to those sites. Now that may sound like EULA's but you are usually presented with a EULA after you already bought the software, and there is some room to argue that the person who clicks on accept might be liable, but the people he enabled to use a copy of it without seeing the EULA didn't agree to it, so are not liable. Now that can be gotten around by cracking the installer too, but that means that there's more time to sell your product without the pressure of unauthorized copies.
You just got telling me that you knew of no one who would make those choices.
If you don't like the prices are the restaurant you don't eat there.
But where is "there" for intellectual property. I never even left the house, and I don't go to the people who claim intellectual property to get the stuff that they insist should be theirs.
Something you can purchase as it's own entity or a group of entities.
No, that's what makes it a product, not a particular company's product. By that definition, if I buy it from anyone, then it becomes their product.
That's a different debate.
We're not having the debate you think we are having then. The debate from my perspective, is over what obligates me to agree to someone else's terms to acquire something that the cost to reproduce is negligible, when we made no agreement before some work was done to have that item exist.that I would pay them something.
I have no idea what you mean by "legal hard media. Bing turned up zero results of those words used together like that on the first page of results.
Oh, I don't have too much trouble with what a "sellable good" is; what I do have trouble with is what makes a company think something is their sellable good.
Sellable good. Something two people can agree on a price for exchange of that something.
Now what's your definition of a "sellable good"?
You don't seem to understand what a copy is. A copy is not the thing that the first person made.
Darwin only applies to whether or not he breeds. Skin cancer frequently doesn't become a problem until after the specimen has had its chance. Not to eliminate the possibility that there's something else that will catch up with him.
Copyright inflates the apparent demand for goods, Thus people enter into the supply side too much and the correct demand is lower, resulting in oversupply.
An internet search turns up On your own head be it, which is defined as used to âtell someone that they will have to take âfull âresponsibility for what they âplan to do.
You go first: prove that the second wrong is actually a wrong, and that the first person to do the work to produce something should be allowed to keep the end result even if the second person took similar steps to make a similar product.
Why should copyright be allowed to exist in the first place? What does being essential or not have to do with anything? One could argue that unless you are making something that is essential, you don't have the right to anything.
I don't know one developer that isn't paid for their work.
How much software does one have to write to be a "developer"? Is it just writing software, or is there some other criteria that makes a person a developer, in your eyes?
I've written several programs that I haven't expected to get paid for. http://www.qb64.net/forum/inde... has plenty of programs none of the writers expect payment for. I could show you more, but that should suffice. Galleon who makes QB64 itself, does not get paid for it.
I doubt you speak to very many people who write software about whether or not they write any programs for free.
Also, you ignore the fact that the people writing software to break DRM usually do it for free, though I'm not sure about what your definition of developer is, so in your mind they may not be developers.
Indie devs are different as they put up the work up front hoping to get paid later (identical model to self employment).
No, that's never how I worked freelance. We agree on the payment up front. Sure, the agreed upon money is paid upon services rendered, but there are restaurants that work on the same principal, agree to the price first and then pay at the end of the meal.
I think's that's a valid way of functioning.
You seem to think that it is the only valid way of functioning, but on contemplation I don't think it is a valid way of functioning, because it says that copyright is not your problem when wearing a customer hat. I also don't think the value you place in ensuring obeying the law is not a valid way of thinking. http://www.academia.edu/115138... is a relevant read, though it interferes with copy and paste. In it, he argues that people always have the right to disobey the law on two accounts. First obedience of the law does not follow as a necessity from the reasons we might choose to obey it and second the law infringes on our autonomy in making moral judgments. http://plato.stanford.edu/entr... says some philosophers now deny that law is entitled to all the authority it claims for itself, even when the legal system is legitimate and reasonably just.
I'm afraid the Wikipedia article on mercy does not explain how you connect mercy with paying someone a minimum wage for what they do. The article on an honor system is more illuminative on your way of thinking, but this line:
A person engaged in an honor system has a strong negative concept of breaking or going against it. The negatives may include community shame, loss of status, loss of a personal sense of integrity and pride or in extreme situations, banishment from one's community.
would seem to indicate that we are not on an honor system.
I did not say that mercy always has better outcomes than other things, just that it sometimes does and is always unfair. which is sufficient to prove your assertion, not playing fair = worst experience down the road false. I also said fairness is a broken concept, which you chose to ignore, but is more to the heart of the problem, which is that any decision making based on the concept of fairness is invalid.
I totally agree that copyrights are a huge issue
Except when you are a customer apparently.
If you don't agree with the companies practices you can avoid their products.
I'm trying to understand what makes something a company's product in your mind. If a company chooses to sell something after it has entered the public domain, is it still their product? A lot of food products completely wrapped get thrown in the dumpster. Is it still their product and therefore stealing to go dumpster diving? What about
The reason that Slashdot can both be made up of software developers and have a view that encourages not paying for software and entertainment, is that when money is on the line for them, they get paid as the work is made, and then don't get paid more unless they do more work. The situation with entertainment materials is that for whatever reason, they do the work and then expect to get paid after the fact over and over again without doing more work.
Furthermore, the software developers do software work in addition to the work they get paid to do, for free, and copyright interferes by saying that even if you do work to make something, if someone else did something similar first, they have the wherewithal to stop you from doing things with the results of your work.
You also have a view of how mercy works that I am completely unfamiliar with. Also, your concept of a honor system.
People don't go breaking into dealerships because they want to get the car they can't afford.
People do however go to third parties that have already bought a car, had used it for awhile and then for whatever reason decided to sell it. Copyright protection can interfere with ability though, so no, it's not the same at all.
The argument is not that copyright holders make too much money but that they are stealing from the public domain, and society would be better off if they stop making stuff and using copyright to force others to stop making stuff that is similar.
I countered your assertion that "Not playing fair = worst experience down the road." with the statement that fairness is a broken concept and gave an example and you have yet to refute that statement choosing instead to focus on the mercy bit.
Not playing fair = worst experience down the road.
No, there are plenty of examples where not playing fair yields better outcomes. Mercy, for example. Fairness is a broken concept anyways. Some people think it's completely fair for everyone to go to hell. Just as long as everyone is treated the same, the worst outcome is completely fair.
Once all games are DRM you'll either quit using their products or you'll start paying.
I don't force companies to adopt DRM, that may be an option for them, but an equally valid option is not to produce anything, which I endorse for people who want to make what I do illegal. I don't infringe on copyright on games so much as I do on video and audio. However, there are plenty of people out there to get around DRM for a lot of things. If I really feel that the best way to get something that is a duplicate of something somebody is selling, which is a more correct description, by going somewhere else, I do it.
I buy lots of games in bundles from places like Humble Bundle and Indie Gala. There are many things that buying, (sometimes used, and some copyright holders want money from that sale as well) is the right way to go for me, but I have not heard any convincing reason to take infringement off the table. I now have enough things obtained legally that I may not ever get around to using them.
Then there's the MIT/BSD licensing model, which seems to get ignored by people.
But there's lots of legally free stuff out there: QB64.net has a lot of people in forums uploading stuff they made with it for free, and I think FreeBASIC has the same situation. Steam even has a whole section of single player games available for free. Entire massively multiplayer games are free to play and make money off of in-game trinkets. YouTube, broadcast TV and radio has commercials but they're essentially for free. Amazon and iTunes even have free sections.
Our society is plague with rules and blockages because of people who care about some people more than others, is an improvement but the situation is a lot more complicated than that.
So who do you think you are telling someone that they have no moral ground to stand on? You think your morals are the only game in town? I don't see how the only ethical response when a company produces a bad product is to decline to give them your money, because very often, the only way to figure out if the company has produced a bad product is to hand over your money first. As for Steam DRM, it comes with the ability for you to get all your games back if everything goes south and you lose your hard drives and backups.
I don't get what you mean by anything else you do is on your head, because everything you do is on your head, so to speak.
No, how about you get back to me when you can demonstrate to me that my morals are somehow insufficient to ensure the best outcome, and are therefore wrong. I don't deal with the concept of "rights" very much, just what is the most efficient way of getting me what I want, which is an ongoing process. If people focused more on what the most efficient way of getting themselves what they want instead of trying to convince others they are somehow wrong, I think we would all be better off. Instead you want to convince me I should be the one to change because someone else might not be getting what they want out of life.
And if they want to get paid it is up to them to figure out how to do so. Why should anybody else be responsible for whether or not they get paid. You say don't buy it, but what you really mean is don't acquire it. Won't they either lower their prices or make games that are more affordable whether or not you acquire whatever on your terms? I acquire a lot of things for free without infringing on copyright, I acquire things that I feel like shelling out money is a reasonable part of the process of acquiring it, and I do some copyright infringement. Nowhere in my consideration for all of this is whether or not other people in the chain are getting anything. That is for them to figure out. All these people need to take responsibility for themselves.
I don't see a link nor a one sentence summary in your previous post. I tried to see if a malformed link ate it, but got caught in Slashdot's page rendering scheme that doesn't show the actual post when I select inspect element in Chrome, though between the two I'm not sure where the fault lies.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though I tell Windows 10 to do nothing when the laptop is closed it still acts groggy when I have it closed for awhile and open it back up.
I don't know. Given past situations, people will manage to miss all the signs and post it as fact anyways.
I voted this article down for the use of the term "Hilarious" but it got in anyways.
I was being sacastic,
The cost of development should be covered in the crowdfunding stage in my verson.
Because every time Facebook acquires something it can only be used in what's seen as it's core business ever.
I used the hydrogen peroxide in the ear bit when I had earaches too. Don't recommend gargling with hydrogen peroxide, but gargling with salt water helps.
I defend copyright infringement in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
First, you do crowdfunding and maybe even some crowdsourcing. At some point, you may want to do some early access. Put as much or as little DRM as you want, but it shouldn't be illegal to crack it. Spyro 3 had notable DRM. [1][2] Get your game on GamersGate, GOG, and/or Steam. Steam has some early access features, and puts reviews right on the software's store page. Also, there are many websites that resell Steam keys. There are software bundle sites for when sales are lagging. Not that popular, but product placement, like a racing game having actual ads on billboard can happen. Then there are the free-to-play, pay to unlock shiny objects, MMOs. Skylanders and amiibo and Disney Infinity show another way to earn money. When trademarks actually involve a confusion of source the confusion of source should be prosecuted, but putting a large swish that looks like Nike's logo as a decoration on a shirt should not be prosecuted, but on a tag that is designed to prove source should. I was reviewing my philosophy of key generators, but if you go to the company's website, like Steam or Playstation Network to redeem a key, that should be prosecutable as you are misrepresenting your situation to those sites. Now that may sound like EULA's but you are usually presented with a EULA after you already bought the software, and there is some room to argue that the person who clicks on accept might be liable, but the people he enabled to use a copy of it without seeing the EULA didn't agree to it, so are not liable. Now that can be gotten around by cracking the installer too, but that means that there's more time to sell your product without the pressure of unauthorized copies.
But where is "there" for intellectual property. I never even left the house, and I don't go to the people who claim intellectual property to get the stuff that they insist should be theirs.
No, that's what makes it a product, not a particular company's product. By that definition, if I buy it from anyone, then it becomes their product.
We're not having the debate you think we are having then. The debate from my perspective, is over what obligates me to agree to someone else's terms to acquire something that the cost to reproduce is negligible, when we made no agreement before some work was done to have that item exist.that I would pay them something.
I have no idea what you mean by "legal hard media. Bing turned up zero results of those words used together like that on the first page of results.
Oh, I don't have too much trouble with what a "sellable good" is; what I do have trouble with is what makes a company think something is their sellable good.
Sellable good. Something two people can agree on a price for exchange of that something.
Now what's your definition of a "sellable good"?
You don't seem to understand what a copy is. A copy is not the thing that the first person made.
Darwin only applies to whether or not he breeds. Skin cancer frequently doesn't become a problem until after the specimen has had its chance. Not to eliminate the possibility that there's something else that will catch up with him.
I don't think he'd be as bad as Nixon:
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/p...
I don't see your post as flamebait, a little naive, maybe, but how do you expect to pay for protection of your freedom?
Copyright inflates the apparent demand for goods, Thus people enter into the supply side too much and the correct demand is lower, resulting in oversupply.
An internet search turns up On your own head be it, which is defined as used to âtell someone that they will have to take âfull âresponsibility for what they âplan to do.
There's also the property of digital media that it is harder to steal than physical media. I've had physical media stolen from me a number of times.
You go first: prove that the second wrong is actually a wrong, and that the first person to do the work to produce something should be allowed to keep the end result even if the second person took similar steps to make a similar product.
Why should copyright be allowed to exist in the first place? What does being essential or not have to do with anything? One could argue that unless you are making something that is essential, you don't have the right to anything.
How much software does one have to write to be a "developer"? Is it just writing software, or is there some other criteria that makes a person a developer, in your eyes?
I've written several programs that I haven't expected to get paid for.
http://www.qb64.net/forum/inde... has plenty of programs none of the writers expect payment for. I could show you more, but that should suffice. Galleon who makes QB64 itself, does not get paid for it.
I doubt you speak to very many people who write software about whether or not they write any programs for free.
Also, you ignore the fact that the people writing software to break DRM usually do it for free, though I'm not sure about what your definition of developer is, so in your mind they may not be developers.
No, that's never how I worked freelance. We agree on the payment up front. Sure, the agreed upon money is paid upon services rendered, but there are restaurants that work on the same principal, agree to the price first and then pay at the end of the meal.
You seem to think that it is the only valid way of functioning, but on contemplation I don't think it is a valid way of functioning, because it says that copyright is not your problem when wearing a customer hat. I also don't think the value you place in ensuring obeying the law is not a valid way of thinking.
http://www.academia.edu/115138... is a relevant read, though it interferes with copy and paste. In it, he argues that people always have the right to disobey the law on two accounts. First obedience of the law does not follow as a necessity from the reasons we might choose to obey it and second the law infringes on our autonomy in making moral judgments.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr... says some philosophers now deny that law is entitled to all the authority it claims for itself, even when the legal system is legitimate and reasonably just.
I'm afraid the Wikipedia article on mercy does not explain how you connect mercy with paying someone a minimum wage for what they do. The article on an honor system is more illuminative on your way of thinking, but this line:
A person engaged in an honor system has a strong negative concept of breaking or going against it. The negatives may include community shame, loss of status, loss of a personal sense of integrity and pride or in extreme situations, banishment from one's community.
would seem to indicate that we are not on an honor system.
I did not say that mercy always has better outcomes than other things, just that it sometimes does and is always unfair. which is sufficient to prove your assertion, not playing fair = worst experience down the road false. I also said fairness is a broken concept, which you chose to ignore, but is more to the heart of the problem, which is that any decision making based on the concept of fairness is invalid.
Except when you are a customer apparently.
I'm trying to understand what makes something a company's product in your mind. If a company chooses to sell something after it has entered the public domain, is it still their product? A lot of food products completely wrapped get thrown in the dumpster. Is it still their product and therefore stealing to go dumpster diving? What about
Furthermore, the software developers do software work in addition to the work they get paid to do, for free, and copyright interferes by saying that even if you do work to make something, if someone else did something similar first, they have the wherewithal to stop you from doing things with the results of your work.
You also have a view of how mercy works that I am completely unfamiliar with. Also, your concept of a honor system.
People do however go to third parties that have already bought a car, had used it for awhile and then for whatever reason decided to sell it. Copyright protection can interfere with ability though, so no, it's not the same at all.
The argument is not that copyright holders make too much money but that they are stealing from the public domain, and society would be better off if they stop making stuff and using copyright to force others to stop making stuff that is similar.
I countered your assertion that "Not playing fair = worst experience down the road." with the statement that fairness is a broken concept and gave an example and you have yet to refute that statement choosing instead to focus on the mercy bit.
No, there are plenty of examples where not playing fair yields better outcomes. Mercy, for example. Fairness is a broken concept anyways. Some people think it's completely fair for everyone to go to hell. Just as long as everyone is treated the same, the worst outcome is completely fair.
I don't force companies to adopt DRM, that may be an option for them, but an equally valid option is not to produce anything, which I endorse for people who want to make what I do illegal. I don't infringe on copyright on games so much as I do on video and audio. However, there are plenty of people out there to get around DRM for a lot of things. If I really feel that the best way to get something that is a duplicate of something somebody is selling, which is a more correct description, by going somewhere else, I do it.
I buy lots of games in bundles from places like Humble Bundle and Indie Gala. There are many things that buying, (sometimes used, and some copyright holders want money from that sale as well) is the right way to go for me, but I have not heard any convincing reason to take infringement off the table. I now have enough things obtained legally that I may not ever get around to using them.
Then there's the MIT/BSD licensing model, which seems to get ignored by people.
But there's lots of legally free stuff out there: QB64.net has a lot of people in forums uploading stuff they made with it for free, and I think FreeBASIC has the same situation. Steam even has a whole section of single player games available for free. Entire massively multiplayer games are free to play and make money off of in-game trinkets. YouTube, broadcast TV and radio has commercials but they're essentially for free. Amazon and iTunes even have free sections.
Our society is plague with rules and blockages because of people who care about some people more than others, is an improvement but the situation is a lot more complicated than that.
So who do you think you are telling someone that they have no moral ground to stand on? You think your morals are the only game in town? I don't see how the only ethical response when a company produces a bad product is to decline to give them your money, because very often, the only way to figure out if the company has produced a bad product is to hand over your money first. As for Steam DRM, it comes with the ability for you to get all your games back if everything goes south and you lose your hard drives and backups.
I don't get what you mean by anything else you do is on your head, because everything you do is on your head, so to speak.
No, how about you get back to me when you can demonstrate to me that my morals are somehow insufficient to ensure the best outcome, and are therefore wrong. I don't deal with the concept of "rights" very much, just what is the most efficient way of getting me what I want, which is an ongoing process. If people focused more on what the most efficient way of getting themselves what they want instead of trying to convince others they are somehow wrong, I think we would all be better off. Instead you want to convince me I should be the one to change because someone else might not be getting what they want out of life.
And if they want to get paid it is up to them to figure out how to do so. Why should anybody else be responsible for whether or not they get paid. You say don't buy it, but what you really mean is don't acquire it. Won't they either lower their prices or make games that are more affordable whether or not you acquire whatever on your terms? I acquire a lot of things for free without infringing on copyright, I acquire things that I feel like shelling out money is a reasonable part of the process of acquiring it, and I do some copyright infringement. Nowhere in my consideration for all of this is whether or not other people in the chain are getting anything. That is for them to figure out. All these people need to take responsibility for themselves.
Just because people have different morals from you doesn't make it immoral.
I don't see a link nor a one sentence summary in your previous post. I tried to see if a malformed link ate it, but got caught in Slashdot's page rendering scheme that doesn't show the actual post when I select inspect element in Chrome, though between the two I'm not sure where the fault lies.