I have no plans to upgrade my current car to the bitching zero emission cars that we will have in 2015 either. I guess no one is ever going to own one according to the logic of the blurb.
it's merely an assertion of damages. Lost revenue? Prove it.
Courts assess damages based on no real proof every day. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much a human life is worth. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much the next 30-40-50 years of your life will be worth. If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.
As for a number? The RIAA is going to bring in marketing bean counters who will twist numbers in all sorts of methods and many, if not all, of these methods will likely be recognized by the courts as valid. You can try to pass down whatever Slashdottian logic you'd like on the verdict but the courts won't hear it and even if they did the lawyers would have a direct answer.
If these people were as lunkheaded as you all make them out to be the RIAA would have been some half assed collection of labels that haven't been heard of in decades. Granted, their days may be numbered but I bet you good money that today they're still profitable and they plan on staying that way. They're not going to collapse overnight anymore than Microsoft is.
I'm sorry, but Slashdotters have a way of overestimating some variables and underestimating others. After all, I've been hearing of the death of little rinky dinky SCO for years and it's only in the last few months has it been in it's real final days. Thinking that this organization can be brought down in a few court cases is laughable.
I guess you didn't see the last election turn outs. Parties had everything to do with it. And it certainly wasn't the first time in American politics that that has happened.
Yeah right, because having more than two parties just is the silver bullet that will fix democracy and civilisation. How about you guys actually look at countries with more than two large parties, realise that it doesn't make them any better and STFU?
How about you don't misrepresent me? Would it have killed you to include the "And even then it's a long shot." at the end? Oh, that's right, it would have invalidated your entire rant. Can't have that happening.
I'd bother to discuss this further with you but I see you're just like the politicians you support.
What? Were you really fooled into thinking that one administration was going to be heads and tails above another? If you were let me be the first to say I'm sorry.
Why is it that in a nation where we swing between two parties in power every decade or so that people really think that one has that much on the ball and the other is full of gimps and morons? The fact is that they're roughly the same entity and every couple voting cycles people get sick of hearing what one has to say and goes to the other to hear the same thing they were hearing from them the last time they got voted out of office. The difference is that most voters have an easier time remembering Terry Bradshaw's pass completion percentage from the 1975 season than the hollow promises made to them by politicians in the same time frame.
We will not see a truely progressive politician make it to the presidency until we get a viable third party. And even then it's a long shot.
With the downturn in the economy it only stands to figure that gizmos like GPS are falling off a lot of people's shopping lists. I won't deny that some are taking the cheaper route and using an existing device for their nav but how many are using it because they have it and not because they really wanted it to begin with?
Couple this with more and more cars coming equipped with these devices already installed.
Between these three factors I think it's a bit easier to see where the slide is happening. Simply assuming that it's all phone based is short sighted.
As nifty as your comparison is I've always found that the computing experience is based more on the ass in the chair than the box on the desk.
In other words: I knew how to get more out of my Commodore 64 at the age of 17 than my 17 year old nephew can get out of his Dell. At least as far as how to do it without Google support and a slew of gadgets and gimmicks.
That's not really the same. His comparison would be more like you putting your.22 rifle against my Heckler and Koch 91. Granted, the H&K 91 is a 1950s design based on a 1940s rifle but I bet you it will make things seem worlds apart.
Saying anyone who questions a theory should be heard might sound nice in theory, but in reality it means you have a bunch of people throwing out unsubstantiated garbage in order to muddy the waters and further their own agendas
Yeah, that's the same excuse they used to dismiss Galileo.
Who is to determine what is valid? You? The author of a theory? There is no high council of science to filter out the scientifically sound from the crap.
I'm not saying you have to take the time out to disprove every man, woman and child who comes to a research center claiming that God is the cause of XYZ and not biology, chemistry and physics. A simple one time answer works in that case.
If anything muddies the waters it's "scientists" passing off bad research in order to generate grant money. The agenda that is really bringing down research isn't a religious one, it's from within the community itself. And it's also the kinds of "research" that makes the public both confused and skeptical of sound scientific research. From where I sit I'm skeptical of any researcher who can't answer to data that can offset their theory.
like ANYTHING Fox News allegedly reports about the so-called "sun" would be worth listening to.
If you have to censor some from speaking out about science for fear of the scrutiny maybe your science isn't really science at all. Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard. I know that there will be those who will try to mock you but the science is the truth in and of itself, not a side effect of your belief in the science.
While I agree that this should not be under the protection of copyright today I must say that your post, while technically correct, also reeks of the omission of the most important fact in this matter: It wasn't copyrighted until 1935.
You're making it sound like it was published 45 years prior and still under copyright protection. If you're going to state the facts at least make it clean. Coming off with half-truths to support your argument just makes me feel that anything else you may have to say lacks credibility.
But I guess that's the way it is around here anymore.
When copyright is so messed up that a company is making $2 million per year on five minutes of work "composing" a 6-note tune ripped off from someone else, written by someone back in the 1890's who's been dead for over 60 years, with words written by no-one-knows-who, then it's no surprise that the public blatantly disregards it.
Care to become clear what you're talking about here?
As far as price? Why is it the fault of copyright law that someone is profiting from a performance of a non-copyrighted piece? At least that's what I'm reading into this. If this is the case it's the fault of people buying something that is still popular but could be performed, recorded and sold for less by anyone.
Basically, if what you say is really the truth than someone is being stupid for not doing the same thing for cheap... I would expect the open source crowd to see this for what it is but I'm guessing that there is more to the story than what you're saying.
So long as the basic realities of this situation remain unrecognized, it is always going to seem like a hopelessly insoluble problem. So long as that is the case, it will appear to many that more and more restrictions are the only way to handle it.
If you have some great insight into this situation we'd all like to hear it. You're shooting down 99% of what anyone who supports any form of copyright says but you're not backing it up with anything.
I think the real problem is that people who don't download copywritten (copyrighted?) works are also being affected. Just look at the legions of users, particularly of PC games, who find to their dismay that the people who pirated the game have an easier time using it than the people who purchased the game. That's just one side-effect of DRM. Look at some of the other side-effects of DRM, such as the possibility of killing off the first sale doctrine (this is properly called a power grab) and the generally unfriendly practice of telling you what you may do with media after you purchase it and use it legally.
DRM is a side effect of people who feel that theft is a valid response to copyright. It can be argued how effective it is but do you really think media producers enjoy producing DRM for their own amusement? And again, I agree that some aspects of copyright need redone, so let's redo it.
Do you have millions of dollars that you're willing to part with, a small army of lawyers and lobbyists, and perhaps also the ability to run a national media campaign? Because that's what it would take to even have a chance.
That's what lobby groups are for. EFF anyone? No one said it was easy. And is this any reason to justify theft? Again, I do not see copyright infringement as a valid form of protest. It only makes the case for harsher copyright laws appear more valid to those who already support copyright laws. And that's the crux of it really, you already said it was too hard to do, this means that the current model has a ton of support. And by breaking the existing laws with all of the protection of the law and the media itself by DRM you're showing those that support it that more needs to be done to protect copyright. By breaking the law in the name of convenience you're giving the opposition exactly what they need to justify their measures and then some.
That's much better than making something unworthy of respect and grossly out of balance and then threatening people into going along with it. That's what the system is doing today, and gee, I just can't imagine why it's not working out...
See my statement above. Media producers have gambled capital on the idea that someone is going to buy their goods and profits will be gained. They'd be idiots not to fight people who are deliberately trying to rip them off. In some cases (such as a publicly traded company) they can be sued for not pressing the issue. And no one is forcing anyone to embrace copyrighted media. If you feel that the task is too much to take on and you're still unwilling to play their game than you have the absolute right to not buy into it.
And don't give me this crap about respect. It has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is much simpler than that but people confuse the issue by bringing all kinds of false pretense to it. Respect for the customer is just one of those false pretenses. I know that if I feel a company doesn't respect me as a customer I stop buying from them. It's that simple and respect shouldn't be another crutch of defense for breaking the law.
If you want to get an idea of what kind of people you're dealing with and why there is increasing resistance against them, try this link.
If you think it's so offensive why do you deal with them or their product in the first place? The increasing resistance (ie, theft instead of legitimate forms of protest or trying to honestly change the law) is only going to cause them to push back harder. We've seen and heard this argument time and time again and each time it proves to be correct you guys all do the same thing by screaming that they're bullies and thugs for protecting their property. How many more times are we going to hear the same chatter and see the same results before we wise up and understand that the so-called downhill battle isn't working out.
The only people I feel bad for in all of this is the honest citizen who abides by the law but gets caught up in it all. Until
Getting paid when someone copies some content you once worked on is not your right nor do you have some special priviledge to it.
This is one of the kind of inane rants I was speaking of. While perhaps not an outright rant it's certainly not a valid defense.
And the fact that it got modded up also shows how pathetic the debate has gotten.
If you're going to take part in a civil society you need to play by the rules. If the rules aren't to your liking we have legal ways of changing them. If that still doesn't suit you than you're going to pay a price for being uncivil to the rest of the members who decide to abide by the law.
In some ways I'd like to think this was said tongue-in-cheek but given some of the rants I've seen on here in recent years...
You're not the victim. Downloading copywriten works is not your right nor do you have some special privilege to it. As the OP said, if you don't like the system, change the system. I agree that copyright is extended in a manor not fitting the original intent and that copywriten out of print works should have some way of being made available if the copyright holder allows without the copyright holder losing their rights to the distribution of the work. But I still do not see "ripping off the man" as a valid form of protest.
I know that these facts aren't going to stop a single download but an artist should have some limited rights to the use and distribution of their works. If a non-artist copyright holder pays for the privilege it should be upheld to the same standards as the original artist. If you think it's a rip off than, by all means, produce your own work and release it as public domain. People will love you for it and maybe if you follow through on the process and create works of high enough quality you'll understand the need for limited protection under the law. It's a lot of work and money to produce something worthwhile.
That sounds like most parties to me. One offsetting what the other has to say just to get the support of those blindly against another party.
The sad thing is that it hampers real progress since it's nothing more than who has what to sell this week. Party politics is a trap to keep the simpletons inline.
Thanks for the information. That actually puts some numbers to the question. Now, I just wonder how far 2.07 USD would go in renting some super computer time or other areas of expendature.
This is all fine and well but what about when some leave their PC on anyway? Savings would assume that people aren't using their PC for some other function while this is happening.
And it's odd that you bring up bittorrent... So if I have 3 days worth of torrents lined up and my PC is just sitting their at 2-3% CPU usage leeching and seeding, how much more is it really costing me to have it folding at the same time? And lets not even consider the number of users who leave their machines idling away for 20 hours a day because they're too lazy to do a shutdown. If the machine is on it may as well serve some useful purpose even if it's not as efficient as a supercomputer (dollar for dollar, that is).
I agree that there are going to be cases where powering down and putting a few bucks towards the project is better all around but most people just don't analyze their computer usage on that level. In that case F@H is a great alternative to simple waste.
You mean you actually enjoyed the content made by the people who originally envisioned the how the game should work and built the engine around that concept?
At that rate you may as well just sell programming books and IDEs instead of games. While I do enjoy some fan work it's rarely up to the same standards as the people who've spent hundreds or thousands of hours building a game and understand the full dynamics of the game engine.
I know someone is going to point out something like CounterStrike or Theif's Dark Loader but let's be honest, these are a bit more than simple level creation and they happen to be a small fraction of everything out there today. There's simply the ones that got it right in a sea of badly designed mods and maps.
I remember when Half Life 1 came out and we got a map pack with a few hundred maps it was fun to see some of the ideas out there but when it came right down to it there were more maps that were unplayable than ones that were just as good or better than the stock deathmatch maps. The rest of the maps in the pack were normally based on a gimmick and once you figured out their weakness it turned out to be a complete slaughter for whatever side was unfortunate enough to spawn in a particular area of a map.
So, I'm sure there is tons of great content for any game that allows mods and map creation but it's a pain to find it. Some sites do offer ratings on their offerings but, unless there is a large community to rate these releases, they're often not very insightful. The community is maturing. I'm sure that more content being released today for any given game is better than the stuff offered up even a few years ago. And it's good to see old favorite maps being ported to games with better engines and game play. It still doesn't mean that a few well designed maps/levels of a game aren't in order. The input of the game designers in way of their own vision on how the game should work is priceless to modders and map makers. It also makes those of us who just want to play a game much much happier.
For my part, a game shouldn't be a hobby. I just want to shoot someone in the head, not study a game engine. I'd code my own game if I wanted to put effort into it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no plans to upgrade my current car to the bitching zero emission cars that we will have in 2015 either. I guess no one is ever going to own one according to the logic of the blurb.
Fanatics are dangerous.
Fixed that for you.
it's merely an assertion of damages. Lost revenue? Prove it.
Courts assess damages based on no real proof every day. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much a human life is worth. Every single day judgments are handed down about how much the next 30-40-50 years of your life will be worth. If they can compress your health and your life down into a dollar amount don't think they can't do it in this case.
As for a number? The RIAA is going to bring in marketing bean counters who will twist numbers in all sorts of methods and many, if not all, of these methods will likely be recognized by the courts as valid. You can try to pass down whatever Slashdottian logic you'd like on the verdict but the courts won't hear it and even if they did the lawyers would have a direct answer.
If these people were as lunkheaded as you all make them out to be the RIAA would have been some half assed collection of labels that haven't been heard of in decades. Granted, their days may be numbered but I bet you good money that today they're still profitable and they plan on staying that way. They're not going to collapse overnight anymore than Microsoft is.
I'm sorry, but Slashdotters have a way of overestimating some variables and underestimating others. After all, I've been hearing of the death of little rinky dinky SCO for years and it's only in the last few months has it been in it's real final days. Thinking that this organization can be brought down in a few court cases is laughable.
"Parties" had nothing to do with it.
I guess you didn't see the last election turn outs. Parties had everything to do with it. And it certainly wasn't the first time in American politics that that has happened.
Yeah right, because having more than two parties just is the silver bullet that will fix democracy and civilisation. How about you guys actually look at countries with more than two large parties, realise that it doesn't make them any better and STFU?
How about you don't misrepresent me? Would it have killed you to include the "And even then it's a long shot." at the end? Oh, that's right, it would have invalidated your entire rant. Can't have that happening.
I'd bother to discuss this further with you but I see you're just like the politicians you support.
What? Were you really fooled into thinking that one administration was going to be heads and tails above another? If you were let me be the first to say I'm sorry.
Why is it that in a nation where we swing between two parties in power every decade or so that people really think that one has that much on the ball and the other is full of gimps and morons? The fact is that they're roughly the same entity and every couple voting cycles people get sick of hearing what one has to say and goes to the other to hear the same thing they were hearing from them the last time they got voted out of office. The difference is that most voters have an easier time remembering Terry Bradshaw's pass completion percentage from the 1975 season than the hollow promises made to them by politicians in the same time frame.
We will not see a truely progressive politician make it to the presidency until we get a viable third party. And even then it's a long shot.
With the downturn in the economy it only stands to figure that gizmos like GPS are falling off a lot of people's shopping lists. I won't deny that some are taking the cheaper route and using an existing device for their nav but how many are using it because they have it and not because they really wanted it to begin with?
Couple this with more and more cars coming equipped with these devices already installed.
Between these three factors I think it's a bit easier to see where the slide is happening. Simply assuming that it's all phone based is short sighted.
As nifty as your comparison is I've always found that the computing experience is based more on the ass in the chair than the box on the desk.
In other words: I knew how to get more out of my Commodore 64 at the age of 17 than my 17 year old nephew can get out of his Dell. At least as far as how to do it without Google support and a slew of gadgets and gimmicks.
That's not really the same. His comparison would be more like you putting your .22 rifle against my Heckler and Koch 91. Granted, the H&K 91 is a 1950s design based on a 1940s rifle but I bet you it will make things seem worlds apart.
Saying anyone who questions a theory should be heard might sound nice in theory, but in reality it means you have a bunch of people throwing out unsubstantiated garbage in order to muddy the waters and further their own agendas
Yeah, that's the same excuse they used to dismiss Galileo.
Who is to determine what is valid? You? The author of a theory? There is no high council of science to filter out the scientifically sound from the crap.
I'm not saying you have to take the time out to disprove every man, woman and child who comes to a research center claiming that God is the cause of XYZ and not biology, chemistry and physics. A simple one time answer works in that case.
If anything muddies the waters it's "scientists" passing off bad research in order to generate grant money. The agenda that is really bringing down research isn't a religious one, it's from within the community itself. And it's also the kinds of "research" that makes the public both confused and skeptical of sound scientific research. From where I sit I'm skeptical of any researcher who can't answer to data that can offset their theory.
like ANYTHING Fox News allegedly reports about the so-called "sun" would be worth listening to.
If you have to censor some from speaking out about science for fear of the scrutiny maybe your science isn't really science at all. Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard. I know that there will be those who will try to mock you but the science is the truth in and of itself, not a side effect of your belief in the science.
While I agree that this should not be under the protection of copyright today I must say that your post, while technically correct, also reeks of the omission of the most important fact in this matter: It wasn't copyrighted until 1935.
You're making it sound like it was published 45 years prior and still under copyright protection. If you're going to state the facts at least make it clean. Coming off with half-truths to support your argument just makes me feel that anything else you may have to say lacks credibility.
But I guess that's the way it is around here anymore.
When copyright is so messed up that a company is making $2 million per year on five minutes of work "composing" a 6-note tune ripped off from someone else, written by someone back in the 1890's who's been dead for over 60 years, with words written by no-one-knows-who, then it's no surprise that the public blatantly disregards it.
Care to become clear what you're talking about here?
As far as price? Why is it the fault of copyright law that someone is profiting from a performance of a non-copyrighted piece? At least that's what I'm reading into this. If this is the case it's the fault of people buying something that is still popular but could be performed, recorded and sold for less by anyone.
Basically, if what you say is really the truth than someone is being stupid for not doing the same thing for cheap... I would expect the open source crowd to see this for what it is but I'm guessing that there is more to the story than what you're saying.
So long as the basic realities of this situation remain unrecognized, it is always going to seem like a hopelessly insoluble problem. So long as that is the case, it will appear to many that more and more restrictions are the only way to handle it.
If you have some great insight into this situation we'd all like to hear it. You're shooting down 99% of what anyone who supports any form of copyright says but you're not backing it up with anything.
I think the real problem is that people who don't download copywritten (copyrighted?) works are also being affected. Just look at the legions of users, particularly of PC games, who find to their dismay that the people who pirated the game have an easier time using it than the people who purchased the game. That's just one side-effect of DRM. Look at some of the other side-effects of DRM, such as the possibility of killing off the first sale doctrine (this is properly called a power grab) and the generally unfriendly practice of telling you what you may do with media after you purchase it and use it legally.
...
DRM is a side effect of people who feel that theft is a valid response to copyright. It can be argued how effective it is but do you really think media producers enjoy producing DRM for their own amusement? And again, I agree that some aspects of copyright need redone, so let's redo it.
Do you have millions of dollars that you're willing to part with, a small army of lawyers and lobbyists, and perhaps also the ability to run a national media campaign? Because that's what it would take to even have a chance.
That's what lobby groups are for. EFF anyone? No one said it was easy. And is this any reason to justify theft? Again, I do not see copyright infringement as a valid form of protest. It only makes the case for harsher copyright laws appear more valid to those who already support copyright laws. And that's the crux of it really, you already said it was too hard to do, this means that the current model has a ton of support. And by breaking the existing laws with all of the protection of the law and the media itself by DRM you're showing those that support it that more needs to be done to protect copyright. By breaking the law in the name of convenience you're giving the opposition exactly what they need to justify their measures and then some.
That's much better than making something unworthy of respect and grossly out of balance and then threatening people into going along with it. That's what the system is doing today, and gee, I just can't imagine why it's not working out
See my statement above. Media producers have gambled capital on the idea that someone is going to buy their goods and profits will be gained. They'd be idiots not to fight people who are deliberately trying to rip them off. In some cases (such as a publicly traded company) they can be sued for not pressing the issue. And no one is forcing anyone to embrace copyrighted media. If you feel that the task is too much to take on and you're still unwilling to play their game than you have the absolute right to not buy into it.
And don't give me this crap about respect. It has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is much simpler than that but people confuse the issue by bringing all kinds of false pretense to it. Respect for the customer is just one of those false pretenses. I know that if I feel a company doesn't respect me as a customer I stop buying from them. It's that simple and respect shouldn't be another crutch of defense for breaking the law.
If you want to get an idea of what kind of people you're dealing with and why there is increasing resistance against them, try this link.
If you think it's so offensive why do you deal with them or their product in the first place? The increasing resistance (ie, theft instead of legitimate forms of protest or trying to honestly change the law) is only going to cause them to push back harder. We've seen and heard this argument time and time again and each time it proves to be correct you guys all do the same thing by screaming that they're bullies and thugs for protecting their property. How many more times are we going to hear the same chatter and see the same results before we wise up and understand that the so-called downhill battle isn't working out.
The only people I feel bad for in all of this is the honest citizen who abides by the law but gets caught up in it all. Until
Getting paid when someone copies some content you once worked on is not your right nor do you have some special priviledge to it.
This is one of the kind of inane rants I was speaking of. While perhaps not an outright rant it's certainly not a valid defense.
And the fact that it got modded up also shows how pathetic the debate has gotten.
If you're going to take part in a civil society you need to play by the rules. If the rules aren't to your liking we have legal ways of changing them. If that still doesn't suit you than you're going to pay a price for being uncivil to the rest of the members who decide to abide by the law.
But... but... Aren't we the victims?
In some ways I'd like to think this was said tongue-in-cheek but given some of the rants I've seen on here in recent years...
You're not the victim. Downloading copywriten works is not your right nor do you have some special privilege to it. As the OP said, if you don't like the system, change the system. I agree that copyright is extended in a manor not fitting the original intent and that copywriten out of print works should have some way of being made available if the copyright holder allows without the copyright holder losing their rights to the distribution of the work. But I still do not see "ripping off the man" as a valid form of protest.
I know that these facts aren't going to stop a single download but an artist should have some limited rights to the use and distribution of their works. If a non-artist copyright holder pays for the privilege it should be upheld to the same standards as the original artist. If you think it's a rip off than, by all means, produce your own work and release it as public domain. People will love you for it and maybe if you follow through on the process and create works of high enough quality you'll understand the need for limited protection under the law. It's a lot of work and money to produce something worthwhile.
Remember years back when the bulk of Slashdot could poke fun at Digg without being a bunch of hypocrites?
Yeah? Well...
Welcome to the new Digg.
As much as Digg was the punching bag of Slashdot for a number of years it seems that management went out of it's way to seem like Digg 2.0.
That sounds like most parties to me. One offsetting what the other has to say just to get the support of those blindly against another party.
The sad thing is that it hampers real progress since it's nothing more than who has what to sell this week. Party politics is a trap to keep the simpletons inline.
What they don't tell you is that a computer uses more electricity when it's at 100% load than when it is idling at 5%.
I'd like to think that's apparent to most users here. Another user actually put some numbers to it.
Thanks for the information. That actually puts some numbers to the question. Now, I just wonder how far 2.07 USD would go in renting some super computer time or other areas of expendature.
This is all fine and well but what about when some leave their PC on anyway? Savings would assume that people aren't using their PC for some other function while this is happening.
And it's odd that you bring up bittorrent... So if I have 3 days worth of torrents lined up and my PC is just sitting their at 2-3% CPU usage leeching and seeding, how much more is it really costing me to have it folding at the same time? And lets not even consider the number of users who leave their machines idling away for 20 hours a day because they're too lazy to do a shutdown. If the machine is on it may as well serve some useful purpose even if it's not as efficient as a supercomputer (dollar for dollar, that is).
I agree that there are going to be cases where powering down and putting a few bucks towards the project is better all around but most people just don't analyze their computer usage on that level. In that case F@H is a great alternative to simple waste.
Replace "motion controller" with "virtual reality" and see if you can remember reading this same article circa 1990.
You mean you actually enjoyed the content made by the people who originally envisioned the how the game should work and built the engine around that concept?
How does that work?
At that rate you may as well just sell programming books and IDEs instead of games. While I do enjoy some fan work it's rarely up to the same standards as the people who've spent hundreds or thousands of hours building a game and understand the full dynamics of the game engine.
I know someone is going to point out something like CounterStrike or Theif's Dark Loader but let's be honest, these are a bit more than simple level creation and they happen to be a small fraction of everything out there today. There's simply the ones that got it right in a sea of badly designed mods and maps.
I remember when Half Life 1 came out and we got a map pack with a few hundred maps it was fun to see some of the ideas out there but when it came right down to it there were more maps that were unplayable than ones that were just as good or better than the stock deathmatch maps. The rest of the maps in the pack were normally based on a gimmick and once you figured out their weakness it turned out to be a complete slaughter for whatever side was unfortunate enough to spawn in a particular area of a map.
So, I'm sure there is tons of great content for any game that allows mods and map creation but it's a pain to find it. Some sites do offer ratings on their offerings but, unless there is a large community to rate these releases, they're often not very insightful. The community is maturing. I'm sure that more content being released today for any given game is better than the stuff offered up even a few years ago. And it's good to see old favorite maps being ported to games with better engines and game play. It still doesn't mean that a few well designed maps/levels of a game aren't in order. The input of the game designers in way of their own vision on how the game should work is priceless to modders and map makers. It also makes those of us who just want to play a game much much happier.
For my part, a game shouldn't be a hobby. I just want to shoot someone in the head, not study a game engine. I'd code my own game if I wanted to put effort into it.
Sorry to be long winded about it...