Part 4 pretty much is a single-paragraph decrying the entire concept of IP.
No. IP allows you to use your copyright, license it to someone else to use, or sit on it and not use it. Paragraph 4 only asks to eliminate the last part.
f I own something, because I made it or bought the rights to it, it's my decision if I put it in a box in a graveyard to rot for all eternity.
And that's the problem. If you have no intention of ever using it, you don't lose anything if someone else has the right to pay to license it and use it themselves. But the consumers that demand the product do.
First, we must acknowledge that downloading ROMs is illegal. There is no argument to the contrary.
However, let's look at how ROM "piracy" is different from, say, MP3 "piracy".
1. These titles are not available through retail. - Limiting the discussion to 8-bit and 16-bit era console systems, there is no way to get any of these games through retail in their original form, except used.
2. The vast majority of these games are not available in non-original forms. Certainly, Nintendo and a few others have released a handful of games in GBA form, or bonuses in other retail products. Even a couple of "anthologies" have made it to market (there are many for old arcade games, most of which never had a complete, arcade-perfect home translation, but there are far fewer anthologies of games that were home-console titles). However, MOST titles are not available in any way, shape, or form.
3. Used games are subject to availability, wear/damage, pricing, and profit the copyright holders $0. I walked into FuncoLand a couple of days ago, and saw a used Kid Icarus game in the used "old games" bin. The price tag? $14.99. I have also bought used cartridge games that flat out did not work. And most of the old games I'd like to get aren't available in local used stores. Do I want to go on to eBay and buy a cartridge where the shipping cost would almost double the final price, and I'd still be getting a used cartridge that isn't guaranteed to function beyond today? In some cases, yes, but mostly no. ROMs allow us to play the games without worrying about the integrity of 15-20 year old equipment.
4. The flaw of copyrights - "it's mine and I don't have to use it if I don't wanna". Nintendo, Sega, and all the other publishers of the era do not have to make their old titles available in any way if they don't want to. This is where copyrights are a hinderance. If Nintendo and the others refuse to make use of their copyrighted material, some 3rd party should have the right to be able to license the material for some baseline fee, and use it, whether Nintendo/Sega/etc. like it or not. Allowing copyright holders to sit on their copyrights and do absolutely nothing with them hurts the consumer, and doesn't benefit the holder either.
Comparable is in the eye of the beholder. I, like many other Mac users I know, wouldn't trade an OS X box for a Windows or Linux machine no matter how much faster it is. To me, paying the extra money for an Apple machine is worth it as it allows me to use the OS where I can be most productive. It doesn't matter how fast your processor is if you don't like working on your machine.
These are good points. But so was his point.
Whether paying more for the OS X environment is worth it to you or not is a judgement call.
What is NOT a judgement call is the fact that a PC of comparable power/performance CAN indeed be built for much less than the Apple machine would cost. Arguments about this feature or that app stability can be thrown around forever, but in terms of baseline performance, this is true.
The two don't cancel each other out. OS X and closed-platform hardware is worth it for some (it will be for me come the end of summer, as I'm getting an Apple laptop and highly desire the advantages that come with it). At the same time, a PC of considerable power can be built very cheaply, and that's a real feather in the PC platform's cap.
Isn't it "ironic" that the vast majority of users that argue over benchmarks are NOT people that run tasks where the +/- 5% differences would make a difference?
You translate "Its my property, I use my property as I please" into "How dare microsoft release a closed system". The second statement accuses microsoft of wrongdoing, something that ws never evident in the first statement. The first statement is positive, the second negative.
The missing piece that was implied is the fact that people are faulting Microsoft for not releasing a digitally-signed Linux bootloader.
Tough shit. It's called capitalism and it cuts both ways. Everyone can attempt to make a profit, but no one's entitled to a profit, even Microsoft. Thus, if they didn't think out their entry into the console market well enough and have to fold, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.
They DID think it out. Wanna know what they thought?
THEY MADE IT A CLOSED SYSTEM! Problem solved.
So who is "hurt" by this move? Only the geeks that have no intention on buying the software anyway.
Plus, as you fail to note, every game console is financed by the games they sell. Not all of them actually take a loss on the hardware, but all would die out completely if not for software sales. So your argument fails on all fronts.
Redmond's business model in this case is analagous to GM trying to make it illegal for anyone to use anything but genuine AC-Delco parts in their Corvettes.
This fails on a number of levels.
Cars come with parts that tend to work for a long time. So purchasing parts is not really very high on the "where we make money" totem pole.
A better comparison would be equating games to gasoline, but the car manufacturers don't get that gas money.
MS and all the other console manufacturers COULD follow the car manufacturer's business model. But then you'd get $700 consoles that you're only expected to buy about 1 game for.
Lots of replies about "it's my Xbox, I should be able to do what I want with it!"
Or, in translated form, "how dare MS released a closed system!"
On what grounds does Microsoft NOT have the right to release a closed piece of hardware?? Why should they HAVE to support all the geeks that want the hardware but do NOT want to buy the software that basically finances the hardware??
Answer: they don't. They have every right to release a closed system. People talk about all the goodies that come in that $200 box. Those goodies are paid for by the game software purchases that are supposed to follow.
If a not-insignificant amount of Xboxes sell without any of those game purchases following, the price point would be hard to maintain.
But of course, none of that matters, because "MS is bad", "bomb Redmond", and other similar bullshit.
The problem with that is that they could "hack" all they want and have fun with it, WITHOUT turning it into some kind of Microsoft "how dare you have a closed system" ultimatum.
The ESRB ratings were there before Lieberman even realized there were violent video games out there
Not true. Lieberman's big torch to wave - Night Trap - was released in 1992. The ESRB was not established until 1994. And late in 1994, Lieberman stated that the ESRB was "the most comprehensive system of any entertainment medium in this country."
In case your math sucks, 1994 is WELL before Lieberman was anywhere in the VP picture.
And yes, he has *continued* that stance since then.
But don't let me confuse you with facts.
And for the record, I'm a Republican that would probably vote for any Republican candidate before dreaming of voting for Lieberman.
Why should Microsoft allow running Linux on their Xbox?
Better question: why does anyone care??
You want to run Linux on a $200 device? Buy an e-Machine and shut the fuck up. Linux on the Xbox serves no purpose except for "huh huh, Linux on a Microsoft machine, huh huh huhuhuhuh, I'm a super l33t geex0r!"
Stuff like this is an embarrassment. I hope they get slapped silly with lawsuits.
1. Game goes "live".
2. Players flood the servers.
3. Shit breaks.
4. Impatient nerds flood every line of communication with complaints.
5. More shit breaks. The nerds become as problematic as the original tech problems
6. Stuff starts to work again.
7. GOTO 2 (repeat a few times)
8. A month passes, and then the not-so-nerdy players sign up with no problem, and cruise into the game painlessly.
(waits for someone to mod "Troll" before even reading)
It's too bad that licensing has been so difficult for Apple in Europe. It seems like this will be a roadblock for any kind of digital content distribution service.
If you accept flat-rate, simple click-and-download content distribution as the future, then it is obviously necessary to re-think the "every little European country is licensed differently" international licensing model.
Otherwise, imagine some of the weirdness you could pull off... imagine remotely accessing a machine in Finland, using that machine to download from Apple's store at a cheaper rate than your home country, and then downloading from the Finland machine to yours. I'm not familiar with the security measures that might combat this, but I imagine any that are in place could probably be circumvented.
Video gaming's ESRB ratings are more complete and descriptive than any other industry's. And the gaming industry has voluntarily submitted to having a ratings board. It took motion pictures many years to get to the point of decent industry-regulated ratings, and even still, they're vague and non-descriptive.
One reason Lieberman and torch-waving "me too" followers called off the dogs was because of how complete and detailed the ESRB ratings have become. To Liebermen's credit, he admits and praises this publically.
I am not a parent yet, but in a few years, I will appreciate having a tool like that to judge content by. This is what content control needs to be like - non-intrusive and voluntary, but complete and descriptive. As most children can tell you, rules like "no R rated movies, period" become embarrassing when all of their friends get to watch certain R-rated movies on a case-by-case basis. A descriptive rating system makes it easier to make better judgement calls. It's not a be-all end-all, and some people will always think it's too harsh/lenient, but it's far better than nothing.
What if there was only 1 car company, and they owned all the roads?
The consumers would revolt. You can only abuse the consumer so much before they will not take it any longer.
That's how Microsoft's lock-in with Windows and Office works. All documents in office format, that all other businesses use, and Office only runs on windows.
All businesses have to do is use other formats. And now, open software exists on a number of platforms that reads those Microsoft formats.
Thankfully that is changing slowly, but 3 years ago it was almost that bad.
That's true. It should also be expected. Especially in the relatively new industry of computer software. The software world is still finding its way.
I don't consider Microsoft to have been incredibly abusive to consumers. Certainly some questionable and even some outright dirty practices against some competitors, but they have yet to truly rape the consumer. What worries me about Microsoft is the FUTURE stuff that has been talked about (Palladium, etc). It is for that reason that I am working on breaking the Microsoft dependency in people close to me (parents, girlfriend, etc). That is me, as a customer, revolting against what is coming. Should MS move in a different direction than what is planned, my stance will soften as well.
As for this article, it's an example of how the market (OEMs, other OSs, etc) is meeting customer demand for Java, in lieu of legal forcing of Microsoft to meet that need. That is how the need should have been met anyway.
As someone who, across CD, vinyl, and digital formats, owns (possesses?) well over 1000 albums, I can say with all honesty that I have little desire to buy more compact discs.
Why? Well, I will always own a high volume of music, and having a ton of CD cases takes up a bunch of space in my apartment. Not to mention that it becomes progressively harder to quickly access music from the mass of music.
That's why all of my music makes it to MP3 format, whether I rip it myself or I download it that way. I carried around my Archos jukebox everywhere until it broke (needs a little solder to fix it - gotta get me a soldering iron). I have a hard time justifying buying another CD to add to the pile.
At the same time, I have a hard time justifying paying 99 cents a song for lossy compressed audio. I'm still waiting for more aggressive pricing in digital music, but it's not likely to happen anytime soon. At least not to music I'm very interested in.
In the meantime, I'll still buy CDs of stuff I really want, and download the rest.
A lot is made about the console's size, but if the next PlayStation is the size of an Xbox, I guarantee that it will still be bought in droves. Not to mention the fact that the Xbox is not significantly larger than the PS2. It's heavy as a brick, but it's only an extra half-inch taller, about 3/4" wider, and maybe a full inch deeper. Larger, to be sure, but it's ridiculous to think that the rather modest difference in size means anything at all. (Now, before you check my sig and complain about hypocricy, the thing about the Xbox is that it's heavy as a brick. Which really means nothing when it's sitting on a shelf, but makes for a good thrown weapon nonetheless).
The Xbox does nothing to cater to the Japanese market. It caters to the US market, which is a prime reason why it outpaces Nintendo's offering. Sony is too big for anyone to take on in their first shot, but remember, Nintendo once was too.
Slashdot Mirror
No. IP allows you to use your copyright, license it to someone else to use, or sit on it and not use it. Paragraph 4 only asks to eliminate the last part.
And that's the problem. If you have no intention of ever using it, you don't lose anything if someone else has the right to pay to license it and use it themselves. But the consumers that demand the product do.
However, let's look at how ROM "piracy" is different from, say, MP3 "piracy".
1. These titles are not available through retail. - Limiting the discussion to 8-bit and 16-bit era console systems, there is no way to get any of these games through retail in their original form, except used.
2. The vast majority of these games are not available in non-original forms. Certainly, Nintendo and a few others have released a handful of games in GBA form, or bonuses in other retail products. Even a couple of "anthologies" have made it to market (there are many for old arcade games, most of which never had a complete, arcade-perfect home translation, but there are far fewer anthologies of games that were home-console titles). However, MOST titles are not available in any way, shape, or form.
3. Used games are subject to availability, wear/damage, pricing, and profit the copyright holders $0. I walked into FuncoLand a couple of days ago, and saw a used Kid Icarus game in the used "old games" bin. The price tag? $14.99. I have also bought used cartridge games that flat out did not work. And most of the old games I'd like to get aren't available in local used stores. Do I want to go on to eBay and buy a cartridge where the shipping cost would almost double the final price, and I'd still be getting a used cartridge that isn't guaranteed to function beyond today? In some cases, yes, but mostly no. ROMs allow us to play the games without worrying about the integrity of 15-20 year old equipment.
4. The flaw of copyrights - "it's mine and I don't have to use it if I don't wanna". Nintendo, Sega, and all the other publishers of the era do not have to make their old titles available in any way if they don't want to. This is where copyrights are a hinderance. If Nintendo and the others refuse to make use of their copyrighted material, some 3rd party should have the right to be able to license the material for some baseline fee, and use it, whether Nintendo/Sega/etc. like it or not. Allowing copyright holders to sit on their copyrights and do absolutely nothing with them hurts the consumer, and doesn't benefit the holder either.
Barring this, however, ROM use will proliferate.
These are good points. But so was his point.
Whether paying more for the OS X environment is worth it to you or not is a judgement call.
What is NOT a judgement call is the fact that a PC of comparable power/performance CAN indeed be built for much less than the Apple machine would cost. Arguments about this feature or that app stability can be thrown around forever, but in terms of baseline performance, this is true.
The two don't cancel each other out. OS X and closed-platform hardware is worth it for some (it will be for me come the end of summer, as I'm getting an Apple laptop and highly desire the advantages that come with it). At the same time, a PC of considerable power can be built very cheaply, and that's a real feather in the PC platform's cap.
The missing piece that was implied is the fact that people are faulting Microsoft for not releasing a digitally-signed Linux bootloader.
Add that back into the equation.
They DID think it out. Wanna know what they thought?
THEY MADE IT A CLOSED SYSTEM! Problem solved.
So who is "hurt" by this move? Only the geeks that have no intention on buying the software anyway.
Plus, as you fail to note, every game console is financed by the games they sell. Not all of them actually take a loss on the hardware, but all would die out completely if not for software sales. So your argument fails on all fronts.
This fails on a number of levels.
Cars come with parts that tend to work for a long time. So purchasing parts is not really very high on the "where we make money" totem pole.
A better comparison would be equating games to gasoline, but the car manufacturers don't get that gas money.
MS and all the other console manufacturers COULD follow the car manufacturer's business model. But then you'd get $700 consoles that you're only expected to buy about 1 game for.
Or, in translated form, "how dare MS released a closed system!"
On what grounds does Microsoft NOT have the right to release a closed piece of hardware?? Why should they HAVE to support all the geeks that want the hardware but do NOT want to buy the software that basically finances the hardware??
Answer: they don't. They have every right to release a closed system. People talk about all the goodies that come in that $200 box. Those goodies are paid for by the game software purchases that are supposed to follow.
If a not-insignificant amount of Xboxes sell without any of those game purchases following, the price point would be hard to maintain.
But of course, none of that matters, because "MS is bad", "bomb Redmond", and other similar bullshit.
When you spent the money, you knew you were buying a closed system.
Nope, because I buy the Dell knowing it's an open system. I bought the Xbox knowing it is a closed system.
And if you were too dumb to make the purchases without knowing that, then too bad for you.
Not true. Lieberman's big torch to wave - Night Trap - was released in 1992. The ESRB was not established until 1994. And late in 1994, Lieberman stated that the ESRB was "the most comprehensive system of any entertainment medium in this country."
In case your math sucks, 1994 is WELL before Lieberman was anywhere in the VP picture.
And yes, he has *continued* that stance since then.
But don't let me confuse you with facts.
And for the record, I'm a Republican that would probably vote for any Republican candidate before dreaming of voting for Lieberman.
Better question: why does anyone care??
You want to run Linux on a $200 device? Buy an e-Machine and shut the fuck up. Linux on the Xbox serves no purpose except for "huh huh, Linux on a Microsoft machine, huh huh huhuhuhuh, I'm a super l33t geex0r!"
Stuff like this is an embarrassment. I hope they get slapped silly with lawsuits.
(takes a peek at "Sobig")
Too beaucoup!
1. Game goes "live".
2. Players flood the servers.
3. Shit breaks.
4. Impatient nerds flood every line of communication with complaints.
5. More shit breaks. The nerds become as problematic as the original tech problems
6. Stuff starts to work again.
7. GOTO 2 (repeat a few times)
8. A month passes, and then the not-so-nerdy players sign up with no problem, and cruise into the game painlessly.
LAST POST!
But that's the point! And you transfer those fractions of cents (that just get rounded off anyway) into an account you control!
"back up in your ass with the resurrection...."
Geez, we should mod the story post as Troll.
It's too bad that licensing has been so difficult for Apple in Europe. It seems like this will be a roadblock for any kind of digital content distribution service.
If you accept flat-rate, simple click-and-download content distribution as the future, then it is obviously necessary to re-think the "every little European country is licensed differently" international licensing model.
Otherwise, imagine some of the weirdness you could pull off... imagine remotely accessing a machine in Finland, using that machine to download from Apple's store at a cheaper rate than your home country, and then downloading from the Finland machine to yours. I'm not familiar with the security measures that might combat this, but I imagine any that are in place could probably be circumvented.
One reason Lieberman and torch-waving "me too" followers called off the dogs was because of how complete and detailed the ESRB ratings have become. To Liebermen's credit, he admits and praises this publically.
I am not a parent yet, but in a few years, I will appreciate having a tool like that to judge content by. This is what content control needs to be like - non-intrusive and voluntary, but complete and descriptive. As most children can tell you, rules like "no R rated movies, period" become embarrassing when all of their friends get to watch certain R-rated movies on a case-by-case basis. A descriptive rating system makes it easier to make better judgement calls. It's not a be-all end-all, and some people will always think it's too harsh/lenient, but it's far better than nothing.
The consumers would revolt. You can only abuse the consumer so much before they will not take it any longer.
All businesses have to do is use other formats. And now, open software exists on a number of platforms that reads those Microsoft formats.
That's true. It should also be expected. Especially in the relatively new industry of computer software. The software world is still finding its way.
I don't consider Microsoft to have been incredibly abusive to consumers. Certainly some questionable and even some outright dirty practices against some competitors, but they have yet to truly rape the consumer. What worries me about Microsoft is the FUTURE stuff that has been talked about (Palladium, etc). It is for that reason that I am working on breaking the Microsoft dependency in people close to me (parents, girlfriend, etc). That is me, as a customer, revolting against what is coming. Should MS move in a different direction than what is planned, my stance will soften as well.
As for this article, it's an example of how the market (OEMs, other OSs, etc) is meeting customer demand for Java, in lieu of legal forcing of Microsoft to meet that need. That is how the need should have been met anyway.
It's nothing new to either side.
Why? Well, I will always own a high volume of music, and having a ton of CD cases takes up a bunch of space in my apartment. Not to mention that it becomes progressively harder to quickly access music from the mass of music.
That's why all of my music makes it to MP3 format, whether I rip it myself or I download it that way. I carried around my Archos jukebox everywhere until it broke (needs a little solder to fix it - gotta get me a soldering iron). I have a hard time justifying buying another CD to add to the pile.
At the same time, I have a hard time justifying paying 99 cents a song for lossy compressed audio. I'm still waiting for more aggressive pricing in digital music, but it's not likely to happen anytime soon. At least not to music I'm very interested in.
In the meantime, I'll still buy CDs of stuff I really want, and download the rest.
Music distribution still has a ways to go.
A lot is made about the console's size, but if the next PlayStation is the size of an Xbox, I guarantee that it will still be bought in droves. Not to mention the fact that the Xbox is not significantly larger than the PS2. It's heavy as a brick, but it's only an extra half-inch taller, about 3/4" wider, and maybe a full inch deeper. Larger, to be sure, but it's ridiculous to think that the rather modest difference in size means anything at all. (Now, before you check my sig and complain about hypocricy, the thing about the Xbox is that it's heavy as a brick. Which really means nothing when it's sitting on a shelf, but makes for a good thrown weapon nonetheless).
The Xbox does nothing to cater to the Japanese market. It caters to the US market, which is a prime reason why it outpaces Nintendo's offering. Sony is too big for anyone to take on in their first shot, but remember, Nintendo once was too.