Uh, no. You don't own it, because your "property," the key essentially the "right to play", the account, is on their server. Their server goes bye-bye? Your "property" goes bye-bye.
Like buying a Ford which can only be remote activated... from the Ford headquarters. Ford goes under or changes its business plan, you now have a nice driveway ornament.
Blizzard is selling you a very expensive coaster with a hole in the middle, and giving you the privilege (which they can rescind) of using that coaster to play a game.
Unless of course they DON'T release a patch. Maybe because they at that point don't want to. Or maybe they are bought out by someone else who doesn't want to. Or maybe because they go bankrupt and there are simply no funds or willingness on the part of the company sweeping up the pieces to do so.
Copyright is NOT intended to protect media creators. It is intended to create public domain works by temporarily incentivising creators.
The deal is they get short term profits, humanity gets the product forever after. In addition there are fair use rights in the interim.
DRM breaks fair use, but not only that it breaks copyright itself.
Activation is DRM. DRM breaks copyright. By breaking their end of copyright yet taking advantage of OUR end of the bargain, they are stealing what does not belong to them. They are breaching a social contract.
What if they collect royalties for the many decades they're allowed to, and then just stiff us? What was supposed to be public domain is lost forever.
Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.
Actually I'd say it's more like those membership stores like Costco that make you pay a fee for the privilege of shopping there.
It's admittedly successful, but that's only because there are certain people that while a relatively small percentage of the total population, can be relied upon to be so stupid as to not only submit to such treatment but to do it happily and regularly.
Exactly. We're in a nanny state, paralyzed with regulations. We need to get rid of useless regulations that help nobody and I know just the place to start.
When you think about it, all mysticism is really generic. Sure the names change, but it all boils down to "explaining" things by saying "oh, the magic thingamajig did it through magic thingamajiggery."
All metaphysics is generic.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Why should we care about the island? Because it's a place that defies all logic, and what we know of science. I don't know about you, but those are the MOST exciting kinds of mysteries - scientific ones. An explanation of what the island was - a GOOD one, was worth waiting for.
What was NOT worth waiting for was sickeningly pathetic and maudlin scenes of countless people as strangers shaking hands, remembering that they are soul mates and falling into kisses and embraces. That was so bad it was nauseating.
So cliched it was laughable... and then they repeat the same cheesy scenario over and over and over in scene after scene.
Did we really need 6 seasons of intrigue and mystery NOT for the purpose of discovering the source of that intrigue and mystery, but merely so we could see a bunch of sappy romantic reunions? Shit, they could have dispensed with the island, the mystery, all of that. Just have a show about reunited lovers.
You said it yourself - the Island was unimportant. Well, you're right, which is why it was just a con... the whole show, the whole premise for 6 years was that the Island was the CENTER of things, the reason to keep watching, the thing to keep you hooked.
They did NOT keep us watching for 6 years by teasing about whether or not Kate would ever kiss Jack and admit she loved him. But that was the "payoff."
The whole series was a 6 year long con by people who had no idea how they were going to conclude things.
Oh shit. I have fairly slow DSL, and I didn't realize that this cut me off. I guess I'd better stop watching HD YouTube videos. (and uploading them, for that matter.)
Tangentially, you were talking about copyright, as the issues of copyright and DRM are all intertwined. Without the strange idea in EAs head that a string of 1s and 0s on my hard drive can be their personal property, they wouldn't have a motivation to use DRM, and there would be no notion of "piracy."
Your post about a business model that works (or doesn't) was a post about a business model that requires the artificial construct of "intellectual property."
Maybe a software publisher who doesn't give a shit about a million bucks, and who wastes that much in 15 minutes is not actually necessarily a good thing to have around, not necessarily a good thing to be designing laws to promote the creation and sustenance of?
I'm ok with hearing that, since I personally don't give a rat's ass what works for EA.
Would you believe copyright law and the business model it was intended to create when it was originally conceived was NOT designed with a mind towards what was best for the publisher? At least not exclusively?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. You don't own it, because your "property," the key essentially the "right to play", the account, is on their server. Their server goes bye-bye? Your "property" goes bye-bye.
Like buying a Ford which can only be remote activated... from the Ford headquarters. Ford goes under or changes its business plan, you now have a nice driveway ornament.
Blizzard is selling you a very expensive coaster with a hole in the middle, and giving you the privilege (which they can rescind) of using that coaster to play a game.
Unless of course they DON'T release a patch.
Maybe because they at that point don't want to.
Or maybe they are bought out by someone else who doesn't want to.
Or maybe because they go bankrupt and there are simply no funds or willingness on the part of the company sweeping up the pieces to do so.
Copyright is NOT intended to protect media creators. It is intended to create public domain works by temporarily incentivising creators.
The deal is they get short term profits, humanity gets the product forever after. In addition there are fair use rights in the interim.
DRM breaks fair use, but not only that it breaks copyright itself.
Activation is DRM. DRM breaks copyright. By breaking their end of copyright yet taking advantage of OUR end of the bargain, they are stealing what does not belong to them. They are breaching a social contract.
What if they collect royalties for the many decades they're allowed to, and then just stiff us? What was supposed to be public domain is lost forever.
Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.
Costco customers = stupid gullible consumer droids happy to be manipulated.
Fox News viewers = stupid gullible consumer droids happy to be manipulated.
Perfect analogy. Two business models relying on sheep.
...will the registration data be shared with Facebook?
He's a kingmaker AND and dinosaur.
Most US and UK voters are dinosaurs electing their true representatives.
Actually I'd say it's more like those membership stores like Costco that make you pay a fee for the privilege of shopping there.
It's admittedly successful, but that's only because there are certain people that while a relatively small percentage of the total population, can be relied upon to be so stupid as to not only submit to such treatment but to do it happily and regularly.
Similar business model when it comes to Fox News.
I don't consider it a threat, I consider it a gift.
But on the other hand, you have to live in Virginia.
Exactly. We're in a nanny state, paralyzed with regulations. We need to get rid of useless regulations that help nobody and I know just the place to start.
Offshore oil rigs.
When you think about it, all mysticism is really generic. Sure the names change, but it all boils down to "explaining" things by saying "oh, the magic thingamajig did it through magic thingamajiggery."
All metaphysics is generic.
Why should we care about the island? Because it's a place that defies all logic, and what we know of science. I don't know about you, but those are the MOST exciting kinds of mysteries - scientific ones. An explanation of what the island was - a GOOD one, was worth waiting for.
What was NOT worth waiting for was sickeningly pathetic and maudlin scenes of countless people as strangers shaking hands, remembering that they are soul mates and falling into kisses and embraces. That was so bad it was nauseating.
So cliched it was laughable... and then they repeat the same cheesy scenario over and over and over in scene after scene.
Did we really need 6 seasons of intrigue and mystery NOT for the purpose of discovering the source of that intrigue and mystery, but merely so we could see a bunch of sappy romantic reunions? Shit, they could have dispensed with the island, the mystery, all of that. Just have a show about reunited lovers.
You said it yourself - the Island was unimportant. Well, you're right, which is why it was just a con... the whole show, the whole premise for 6 years was that the Island was the CENTER of things, the reason to keep watching, the thing to keep you hooked.
They did NOT keep us watching for 6 years by teasing about whether or not Kate would ever kiss Jack and admit she loved him. But that was the "payoff."
The whole series was a 6 year long con by people who had no idea how they were going to conclude things.
Oh shit. I have fairly slow DSL, and I didn't realize that this cut me off. I guess I'd better stop watching HD YouTube videos. (and uploading them, for that matter.)
I refuse to use software that's been tested on animals.
I've seen video from hidden cameras of researchers stuffing javascript into bunnies eyes and ears. It's horrific.
But what if the twitterer ISN'T at all connected to the investigation?
What if they are just a person who reads the papers and is pissed off, or who hears rumors from others or whatever?
Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?
If you're in the movie...
Well, until recently (DirecTV and shit) TV at least didn't watch you back.
Come to think of it, the internet is kind of an Orwellian sort of TV, isn't it?
Those bastards shouldn't be holding meetings in secret, after all, this is about PRIVACY for god's sake!
"Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling?"
For a second I thought you were referring to the TV and Radio broadcast industry as it has existed for the last... oh,70 to 80 years?
of course, the founding fathers also enjoyed the freedom to enslave other people. Just sayin.
It is of course self-serving. But that doesn't mean it doesn't also happen to be true. Essentially coincidental, but still...
Tangentially, you were talking about copyright, as the issues of copyright and DRM are all intertwined. Without the strange idea in EAs head that a string of 1s and 0s on my hard drive can be their personal property, they wouldn't have a motivation to use DRM, and there would be no notion of "piracy."
Your post about a business model that works (or doesn't) was a post about a business model that requires the artificial construct of "intellectual property."
Maybe a software publisher who doesn't give a shit about a million bucks, and who wastes that much in 15 minutes is not actually necessarily a good thing to have around, not necessarily a good thing to be designing laws to promote the creation and sustenance of?
Just a thought.
I'm ok with hearing that, since I personally don't give a rat's ass what works for EA.
Would you believe copyright law and the business model it was intended to create when it was originally conceived was NOT designed with a mind towards what was best for the publisher? At least not exclusively?
It's true! Imagine that!
That's not brightness you're seeing, it's just an oily sheen.
In the US, you can't get codeine without acetaminophen. The government requires that all codeine preparations contain it.
The reason for this is NOT because acetaminophen makes it more effective, a better pain killer, safer, or anything at all.
The ENTIRE reason is because acetaminophen is toxic in high doses - so that the codeine cannot be abused.