Why, so all the people who don't play Quake can watch video of your latest LAN party?
Intrinsically,this would be a cool thing, but there are so many workarounds already that the need is marginal...which is why nVidia hasn't made the thing already.
Yeah, huge difference - telcos give out phone numbers. They can permanantly shut you down. Backbone companies are not in a regulatory position of the internet as telcos are of phones. Even if you believed in forced regulation, the group to go after would be whoever gives bandwidth and/or hosts the site in question. As it happens, both are Chinese, hence the RIAA are frustrated.
Better example: My local phone company is Pacbell. Let's say some chronic harasser has Bellsouth. Which is more logical, to hold him, Pacbell, or Bellsouth responsible for his actions?
Of course, said guy is responsible for his own actions. If you want to be really regulation happy, maybe you go for bellsouth, his local carrier. But is it even remotely logical to hold everyone else's phone company responsible? Should they have to use software to block every entity that hasn't even been convicted yet of a crime?
Same thing here. RIAA is totally grasping at straws.
Hopefully we'll get some judges on this thing that have any sense.
Anyone paying multimillion-dollar contracts for software generally gets custom software, so this isn't even comparable. I guarantee that id didn't completely give away their ability to market the engine how they see fit. Who has the upper hand - the company with the game engine or the developer who has nothing without it?
1. THe value of the Quake III engine will drop dramatically when the Doom III engine comes out.
2. id would get an easy way to increase their market share as a publisher. What better way than to tempt gamers with a free (or nearly free) engine?
3. Would keep the company who made Tribes from doing the above. Which would you rather use - QIII or tribes engine? Which sounds more prestigous on the promo?
4. Would be a great talent "minor-league" - virtually give the engine to anyone and it will encourage new up-and-coming developer teams, who will work with id.
All in all, there would be a number of advantages for id. QIII won't be worth as much in a year or so, why not do it?
Admittedly, I doubt they will. Companies have a kneejerk reaction to giving anything away, especially something they're selling for $250,000 now.
Can someone explain this? I mean, there are only 17576 possible 3-letter acronyms. What precedent allows for such a blatant and ridiculous claim? I mean, it's not like any of the standard arguments like confusability hold. And what happens if, I don't know, 18000 people want to use an acronym? Tough luck?
Also, how does British law hold when this is an american company broadcasting primarily in America? Does British law allow for international protection...of an acronym???? Can I also go to britain and copyright pi? Perhaps Planck's constant?
No offense to any Brits, but that is truly retarded. Another example of how we need trained judges and legislators for intellectual property cases.
At least the Mozilla case will be tried domestically, if it gets that far.
Why can't macs ship with multiple buttons? Are they really that afraid of confusing the hell out of their customers? Are their customers really that dumb? I mean, if you don't like that other button, just ignore it.
Cost of Mac : $1500
Cost of PC with equal processing power: $600
Cost of fans to cool PC : $30
Hmmm...I think I'll deal with the extra heat output.
Oh, and as for that "all in one-ness"...all that means is you have to upgrade your monitor as much as your PC. I know my monitor has made it through 3 PC's. Seems a bit wasteful to get the iMac.
....A non-server computer a STUPID FREAKING RETARD could actually use.
Remember, don't blame Linux. You're the one who couldn't figure out how to use it. The rest of us did. What does that say?
Apple should just port their moron-friendly software to the X86 architecture. The Motorola hardware can't compete on a MIPS/$ basis.
Really, in terms of un*x market share, the number of OS X machines sold is irrelevant. What is relevant is the user base, ie how many people are using OS X as a unix. Most of your twit mac users don't know what the hell BSD is, let alone how to use it. They don't know what GUI stands for, or even that there is more than one.
So, anyone have an estimate on how many drone mac users have attempted to download some source, compile it, and run it on their "unix" machine? I'm guessing about 3.
My favorite was when he said in the first paragraph that we need to take the internet back from the libertarians *and* Congressmen seeking to place all kinds of restrictions on the net.
Yeah, you always see libertarians and conservative congressmen together. I guess we (the US) really don't have a monopoly on stupidity.
Really, what it sounds like is a whole lot of jealousy. A lot of Europeans are still angry at being relegated to sub-superpower status for the last 60 years. Notice that much of the article dealt with other general things that he's pissed off about the U.S.
There are enough things to bash the US about - but this is silly.
Really, isn't the easiest way going to involve capturing the stream and saving it as a non-proprietary format on a CD or whatever? How long until someone comes out with a version of streamripper for this device? Long time, I'm sure. Not.
What it looks like M$ is doing is, like usual, extending their monopoly to force you to use new product X. Previously, they would just make it harder to use non-M$ things - programs would just work better with windows if it was M$ware as opposed to a competitor. Sometimes they had other schemes. Anyway, it was a product-by product battle. That you could win.
However, with Passport, they're becoming more insidious. Instead of using the OS-compatibility to leverage their monopolies, they're using passport to force you to do things. Want to install your OS? Need passport. Office? Passport. Hotmail? Passport.
Soon, they will make it hard not to non-Hotmail email. You already have to use Office if you use windoze. They'll force you to use IE. They'll kill realplayer.
You see where this leads - you pretty much have two options.
1) Live in a world where everything you use is M$. M$ owns your desktop (win media player, office, IE). M$ owns your software (.NET). M$ owns your info (passport). M$ owns your data (Hailstorm). M$ owns your soul (.SOUL)
2) Switch to something else. Switch to linux. Or BSD. Or if you aren't a geek, switch to (I swear to God, I never thought I'd utter this sentence) the Mac, and pray for someone other than M$ to prop it up with non-M$-ware.
It's up to you. It's your soul. Don't sell it. At least not to Bill.
Believe it or not, I think that the regular media is catching on to the fact that the RIAA is a bunch of SOB's. A local TV station was covering the hacking of the RIAA (or was it the MPAA? Same thing...) web page, and they kept saying things like "It's only surprising that it took this long considering how people feel about the RIAA (MPAA)."
Oh, by the way, this was in LA. So it looks like, believe it or not, it may actually be helping.
OK, then get some non-Americans with some servers, throw up some internet radio. Really, does anyone know how these sorts of contracts apply to foreign countries? Are there international treaties that deal with these issues?
Is there a lawyer in the house?
....in fact, I think pedophiles *have* tried this, or something similar, with kiddie porn, and they were convicted.
If you really want to make it to work, there are ways of encoding (hiding) data in pictures, and the picture still looks like a picture, so as to be undetected. Unfortunately,it would obscenely tank the bandwidth of the sound to damn near prevent streaming.
My opinion is that the best way to fight this is to listen to artists who promote themselves without an RIAA-affiliated label.
As a record store pointed out elsewhere, the RIAA likes the status quo of 10 years ago (ie, airwaves over internet) because there are fewer stations in each market and it's easier to control them all. They pay money to get certain songs and artists promoted. They can't do this with internet, so if internet flourishes, they will have virtually no control.
The RIAA needs to do this because they make less than NO money on most artists. They need the bulk of sales to come from a relative few artists or they will start losing lots of $$$. With internet radio free, consisting of many different formats, listners will get turned on to all kinds of new artists, so fewer people will buy the next Brittney or Dave Matthews album and will search out an indie artist. This will be bad for the RIAA under their current model. So they need to kill internet radio - their pricing scheme has nothing to do with them making money off net radio, they don't want to!
Of course, the non-Luddite method for the RIAA would be to embrace the internet as a great and new means of distribution and production that could actually help them cut out middlemen and such. How great for them would it be if they could get people legally burning their own CD's? Goodbye expensive fabrication plants. Goodbye shipping costs. Goodbye record stores. They could about double their profits this way. Hell, they could lead the way in internet radio - huge RIAA-sponsored internet radio stations dripping with bandwidth would be immensely successful, possibly even marginalizing the current indie internet radio stations just like they have the indie "airwaves" radio station.
But they won't do any of this because they fear technology - they and the MPAA always have. Always will. So have fun with your Top 40, so-called "alternative" (currently a talentless mixture of metal, distortion, and whining), and drum-machine hip-hop.
I went to send the riaa some fun hatemail, but I kept timing out. Did the/. flood work, or did something else take them down?;)
Fucking 'tards. They'll never get it.
You can stop looking any time you want. And you don't pay for the light (ie, bandwidth) that allows you to see. And they haven't tried to circumvent your methods of not seeing the billboard, ie they don't prop your eyelids open. Sorry, the billboard analogy isn't half as close as the phone analogy.
BTW, local jusrisdictions do have the right to ban or restrict billboards, so even that aspect of it doesn't hold up.
You can make the exact same argument for the spammers, and they're not as rich as the companies (so more relative impact). I'll still go after them. If we're talking about solving the problem (not necessarily who is the greater evil), that's who you hit. They're all American, so no extradiction issues either.
I can't really blame TiVo for not including features that will be damned near useless, and have no demand, for about 4-6 years. That's a reasonable product cycle for electronics.
Now, I will laugh at the nimrod who buys an analog TiVo in 2005.
This is the same guy that said VCRs would kill the TV and movie industry 15+ years ago. The same people that were worried that people would tape everything they wanted off of the radio.
There are, and always will be, tangiable benefits to being able to buy a copy, assuming they price them reasonably. If people are willing to have crappy, off-the-air (even digital) copies, with no bonus footage that comes with DVD's, then that says something about the price of DVD's, doesn't it?
And anyway, how long does it take for movies to get to broadcast anyway? 2 Years? Who waits that long?
This guy is as paranoid as those freaks who have bomb shelters and 2 years of rations in their basements.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, so all the people who don't play Quake can watch video of your latest LAN party?
Intrinsically,this would be a cool thing, but there are so many workarounds already that the need is marginal...which is why nVidia hasn't made the thing already.
Yeah, huge difference - telcos give out phone numbers. They can permanantly shut you down. Backbone companies are not in a regulatory position of the internet as telcos are of phones. Even if you believed in forced regulation, the group to go after would be whoever gives bandwidth and/or hosts the site in question. As it happens, both are Chinese, hence the RIAA are frustrated.
Better example: My local phone company is Pacbell. Let's say some chronic harasser has Bellsouth. Which is more logical, to hold him, Pacbell, or Bellsouth responsible for his actions?
Of course, said guy is responsible for his own actions. If you want to be really regulation happy, maybe you go for bellsouth, his local carrier. But is it even remotely logical to hold everyone else's phone company responsible? Should they have to use software to block every entity that hasn't even been convicted yet of a crime?
Same thing here. RIAA is totally grasping at straws.
Hopefully we'll get some judges on this thing that have any sense.
ANd if a webcrawler grabbed it? Put up a random page some time, don't publicize it, and it will eventually get hits.
What the hell do you call google? They cache every page they hit and they'll let me view it.
Anyone paying multimillion-dollar contracts for software generally gets custom software, so this isn't even comparable. I guarantee that id didn't completely give away their ability to market the engine how they see fit. Who has the upper hand - the company with the game engine or the developer who has nothing without it?
Actually, the suggestion makes sense.
1. THe value of the Quake III engine will drop dramatically when the Doom III engine comes out.
2. id would get an easy way to increase their market share as a publisher. What better way than to tempt gamers with a free (or nearly free) engine?
3. Would keep the company who made Tribes from doing the above. Which would you rather use - QIII or tribes engine? Which sounds more prestigous on the promo?
4. Would be a great talent "minor-league" - virtually give the engine to anyone and it will encourage new up-and-coming developer teams, who will work with id.
All in all, there would be a number of advantages for id. QIII won't be worth as much in a year or so, why not do it?
Admittedly, I doubt they will. Companies have a kneejerk reaction to giving anything away, especially something they're selling for $250,000 now.
There's no mozilla case...yet...but it smells like they're gearing up for it. So I'll assume there will be until proven otherwise.
Hey, I don't mind benefiting from bought justice once in a while, I get screwed by it most of the time.
Can someone explain this? I mean, there are only 17576 possible 3-letter acronyms. What precedent allows for such a blatant and ridiculous claim? I mean, it's not like any of the standard arguments like confusability hold. And what happens if, I don't know, 18000 people want to use an acronym? Tough luck?
Also, how does British law hold when this is an american company broadcasting primarily in America? Does British law allow for international protection...of an acronym???? Can I also go to britain and copyright pi? Perhaps Planck's constant?
No offense to any Brits, but that is truly retarded. Another example of how we need trained judges and legislators for intellectual property cases.
At least the Mozilla case will be tried domestically, if it gets that far.
Why can't macs ship with multiple buttons? Are they really that afraid of confusing the hell out of their customers? Are their customers really that dumb? I mean, if you don't like that other button, just ignore it.
Cost of Mac : $1500
Cost of PC with equal processing power: $600
Cost of fans to cool PC : $30
Hmmm...I think I'll deal with the extra heat output.
Oh, and as for that "all in one-ness"...all that means is you have to upgrade your monitor as much as your PC. I know my monitor has made it through 3 PC's. Seems a bit wasteful to get the iMac.
For God's sake, you have to be kidding.
....A non-server computer a STUPID FREAKING RETARD could actually use.
Let's amend your statement....
Remember, don't blame Linux. You're the one who couldn't figure out how to use it. The rest of us did. What does that say? Apple should just port their moron-friendly software to the X86 architecture. The Motorola hardware can't compete on a MIPS/$ basis.
Really, in terms of un*x market share, the number of OS X machines sold is irrelevant. What is relevant is the user base, ie how many people are using OS X as a unix. Most of your twit mac users don't know what the hell BSD is, let alone how to use it. They don't know what GUI stands for, or even that there is more than one. So, anyone have an estimate on how many drone mac users have attempted to download some source, compile it, and run it on their "unix" machine? I'm guessing about 3.
My favorite was when he said in the first paragraph that we need to take the internet back from the libertarians *and* Congressmen seeking to place all kinds of restrictions on the net.
Yeah, you always see libertarians and conservative congressmen together. I guess we (the US) really don't have a monopoly on stupidity.
Really, what it sounds like is a whole lot of jealousy. A lot of Europeans are still angry at being relegated to sub-superpower status for the last 60 years. Notice that much of the article dealt with other general things that he's pissed off about the U.S.
There are enough things to bash the US about - but this is silly.
Really, isn't the easiest way going to involve capturing the stream and saving it as a non-proprietary format on a CD or whatever? How long until someone comes out with a version of streamripper for this device? Long time, I'm sure. Not.
However, with Passport, they're becoming more insidious. Instead of using the OS-compatibility to leverage their monopolies, they're using passport to force you to do things. Want to install your OS? Need passport. Office? Passport. Hotmail? Passport.
Soon, they will make it hard not to non-Hotmail email. You already have to use Office if you use windoze. They'll force you to use IE. They'll kill realplayer.
You see where this leads - you pretty much have two options.
1) Live in a world where everything you use is M$. M$ owns your desktop (win media player, office, IE). M$ owns your software (.NET). M$ owns your info (passport). M$ owns your data (Hailstorm). M$ owns your soul (.SOUL)
2) Switch to something else. Switch to linux. Or BSD. Or if you aren't a geek, switch to (I swear to God, I never thought I'd utter this sentence) the Mac, and pray for someone other than M$ to prop it up with non-M$-ware.
It's up to you. It's your soul. Don't sell it. At least not to Bill.
Believe it or not, I think that the regular media is catching on to the fact that the RIAA is a bunch of SOB's. A local TV station was covering the hacking of the RIAA (or was it the MPAA? Same thing...) web page, and they kept saying things like "It's only surprising that it took this long considering how people feel about the RIAA (MPAA)."
Oh, by the way, this was in LA. So it looks like, believe it or not, it may actually be helping.
OK, then get some non-Americans with some servers, throw up some internet radio. Really, does anyone know how these sorts of contracts apply to foreign countries? Are there international treaties that deal with these issues?
Is there a lawyer in the house?
....in fact, I think pedophiles *have* tried this, or something similar, with kiddie porn, and they were convicted. If you really want to make it to work, there are ways of encoding (hiding) data in pictures, and the picture still looks like a picture, so as to be undetected. Unfortunately,it would obscenely tank the bandwidth of the sound to damn near prevent streaming. My opinion is that the best way to fight this is to listen to artists who promote themselves without an RIAA-affiliated label.
As a record store pointed out elsewhere, the RIAA likes the status quo of 10 years ago (ie, airwaves over internet) because there are fewer stations in each market and it's easier to control them all. They pay money to get certain songs and artists promoted. They can't do this with internet, so if internet flourishes, they will have virtually no control.
The RIAA needs to do this because they make less than NO money on most artists. They need the bulk of sales to come from a relative few artists or they will start losing lots of $$$. With internet radio free, consisting of many different formats, listners will get turned on to all kinds of new artists, so fewer people will buy the next Brittney or Dave Matthews album and will search out an indie artist. This will be bad for the RIAA under their current model. So they need to kill internet radio - their pricing scheme has nothing to do with them making money off net radio, they don't want to!
Of course, the non-Luddite method for the RIAA would be to embrace the internet as a great and new means of distribution and production that could actually help them cut out middlemen and such. How great for them would it be if they could get people legally burning their own CD's? Goodbye expensive fabrication plants. Goodbye shipping costs. Goodbye record stores. They could about double their profits this way. Hell, they could lead the way in internet radio - huge RIAA-sponsored internet radio stations dripping with bandwidth would be immensely successful, possibly even marginalizing the current indie internet radio stations just like they have the indie "airwaves" radio station.
But they won't do any of this because they fear technology - they and the MPAA always have. Always will. So have fun with your Top 40, so-called "alternative" (currently a talentless mixture of metal, distortion, and whining), and drum-machine hip-hop.
And hey, we should all be supporting our friendly local, independently-owned record store who supports indie and local artists.
Buy your CD's from this guy instead of frikkin' Tower or whatever.
I went to send the riaa some fun hatemail, but I kept timing out. Did the /. flood work, or did something else take them down? ;)
Fucking 'tards. They'll never get it.
You can stop looking any time you want. And you don't pay for the light (ie, bandwidth) that allows you to see. And they haven't tried to circumvent your methods of not seeing the billboard, ie they don't prop your eyelids open. Sorry, the billboard analogy isn't half as close as the phone analogy. BTW, local jusrisdictions do have the right to ban or restrict billboards, so even that aspect of it doesn't hold up.
You can make the exact same argument for the spammers, and they're not as rich as the companies (so more relative impact). I'll still go after them. If we're talking about solving the problem (not necessarily who is the greater evil), that's who you hit. They're all American, so no extradiction issues either.
I can't really blame TiVo for not including features that will be damned near useless, and have no demand, for about 4-6 years. That's a reasonable product cycle for electronics.
Now, I will laugh at the nimrod who buys an analog TiVo in 2005.
There are, and always will be, tangiable benefits to being able to buy a copy, assuming they price them reasonably. If people are willing to have crappy, off-the-air (even digital) copies, with no bonus footage that comes with DVD's, then that says something about the price of DVD's, doesn't it?
And anyway, how long does it take for movies to get to broadcast anyway? 2 Years? Who waits that long?
This guy is as paranoid as those freaks who have bomb shelters and 2 years of rations in their basements.