Call this what it is in the future, and exactly what it's been called in the past: a peering dispute. It's not the first time, especially for Level 3. The hyperbole seemed unwarranted, unless of course the goal is to incite rather than inform.
This is not news, because it's not new information. We've known this, at least academically, for decades. Getting that knowledge to filter down to the plebian masses being bombarded hourly with mis-education disguised as advertising, though, may be a nearly impossible job.
It would be easier to simply put a stop to the mis-education.
I hope they get wads of ill-gotten fines from allegedly guilty thieves. They'll need it to compensate for the loss of legitimate sales they now won't be getting at gog.com from disgusted people like me. I only learned about the site recently and was moderately impressed. Now I'm disgusted. There were two games I was planning to buy from the site next month; I haven't decided if I'll simply get them somewhere else or just not buy at all. The bad taste in my mouth has made me lose my appetite.
... no one really knows if a person that downloaded something for $0 would have bought it otherwise. This is the fundamental problem anytime anyone makes any claims about piracy affecting sales.
Yet Big Media claims to KNOW, and you give THEM the benefit of the doubt. What's your bias?
But people just keep making excuses and justifying piracy and refusing to acknowledge that it can be harmful.
Conversely, very rich and influential people - who happen to have our country's vice president in their back pocket - keep making excuses and vilifying "piracy" and insisting that it is harmful... when they have no objective proof at all. What's your bias?
That may certainly be true, but the decision to give away music for promotion lies (or, rather, should lie) with the copyright holder, not with random people who want to get things for $0.
It should be MY right to pay for only the minutes I use; it should be MY right to only pay for the specific music I want to hear; it should be MY right to only pay for the TV channels I actually value. I had those rights very deliberately taken away from me by greedy people to serve their selfish interest. What goes around comes around. What's your bias?
Musicians don't "lose". No one has ever actually PROVEN that so-called piracy affects sales. What the **AA have claimed as proof isn't proof at all... it's FUD. There is of course credible evidence that hints that even the exact opposite may in fact be true: that piracy is an unintuitive form of free advertising that has actually been increasing sales... or WOULD BE if they had been selling the art in a fashion that people now want. It's possible that without the extra exposure that piracy engendered the allegedly shocking sales loses might have been much worse. For instance, you and I both know that the majority of music buyers would ALWAYS have chosen to skip albums and choose the specific music they wanted, just as they would have eagerly chosen individual cable TV channels rather than the "bundles" they were offered, both in take-it-or-leave-it fashion.
Why didn't they demand those things earlier? They didn't know they had a choice. Now they DO. Well, at least with music.
I think what is really needed is legislation that outlaws this sort of attempted perversion of the words "theft" and "stealing".
Once we've put a stop to that perversion, the rest of Big Media's FUD campaigns will abruptly end. Since digital media by its very nature can be replicated endlessly with virtually no material cost, exactly what is being "stolen" here? NOTHING! Sure, packaging has material costs, but the "pirates" (infringers) aren't getting that packaging, are they? The cost of producing the "art" contained in the digital file was incurred ONCE, and the expectation of recouping those expenses is SPECULATIVE; the price of the packaging is a guesstimate, based on a hoped sales volume to result in some net profit. What if simply no one actually buys the package, even in the absence of "piracy"? There would have been no "theft" by this perverted definition, yet they still lose their shirts and don't get the desired profit. There's not a shred of certainty that denying people the ability to copy digital media will guarantee an equivalent increase in actual PACKAGING sales, so that argument is also FUD.
... this new generation of pioneering explorers will possess the technology to MAKE their own air and water from raw materials at hand (and some things brought along). Pioneers even a century ago could not do this. The concept is hardly new, though, because even the pioneers of old brought along not only simpler tools but also livestock and plants to help them colonize the new territory. It's been a LONG time since humans colonized a new area truly empty-handed.
My experience getting in extensive debates with many conservatives has been that they care about the Constitution until it protects something they don't like, and then they don't.
I think you might be thinking of Capitalists rather than Conservatives. Capitalists indulge their natural selfish urges, by definition. Could you find a Conservative Socialist? I dunno, but those two Cees aren't necessarily synonymous. I'm a literal "conservative", but I ain't never been a capitalist.
Ha! You think ANYONE of any party who can currently manage to get into office cares what's in the Constitution? Dennis Kucinich excepted, since he carries that mini-Constitution in his breast pocket, right next to his heart.
I do when I happen to actually read them. I'm not in the least bit tribal. I don't play favorites. We should be so lucky to have politicians who behave like that.
I "linked the OP" with that behavior because it's precisely how he was behaving. I didn't disparage the person, I criticized his behavior. Get your semantics straight.
Whether a source advertises a particular bias is largely irrelevant to its credibility. A source is in fact being more forthright by advertising it. Knowing the bias of a source in advance, it's easier to weigh the veracity of its statements. It's the ones that don't advertise it that are deserving of scorn. Regardless, ad hominem is NEVER ACCEPTABLE and NEVER WARRANTED.
Some people might perceive use of blanket terms like "hogwash" to describe EVERYTHING a person says as more deserving of the term ad hominem than anything I said in my previous comment.
Are we really linking to stories at the left-wing Huffington Post?
Right... rather than simply treat the article on its factual merits, go after the source of the article. Brilliant! Did you invent that strategy yourself?
Not: it's called ad hominem. It's also a debate tactic used to implement tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice: self-hypnotic words to delude yourself into believing your opponent is less-than-human; once you've managed that stunt, why bother to listen to any of his arguments, even the otherwise cogent ones? Even better if you can also delude and convince others at the same time, because there's great strength in delusional numbers.
Congratulations to you for learning another trick to maintain your bias and mislead others.
The site was effectively offline when I first saw this article yesterday, and as of right now the site is still dead; a server answers and demands a username and password (which might be "password", hmmm?).
Serves them right, I think. Somebody's learning a lesson, all right, and it's NOT the "intruders".
Slashdot Mirror
Call this what it is in the future, and exactly what it's been called in the past: a peering dispute. It's not the first time, especially for Level 3. The hyperbole seemed unwarranted, unless of course the goal is to incite rather than inform.
This is not news, because it's not new information. We've known this, at least academically, for decades. Getting that knowledge to filter down to the plebian masses being bombarded hourly with mis-education disguised as advertising, though, may be a nearly impossible job.
It would be easier to simply put a stop to the mis-education.
I hope they get wads of ill-gotten fines from allegedly guilty thieves. They'll need it to compensate for the loss of legitimate sales they now won't be getting at gog.com from disgusted people like me. I only learned about the site recently and was moderately impressed. Now I'm disgusted. There were two games I was planning to buy from the site next month; I haven't decided if I'll simply get them somewhere else or just not buy at all. The bad taste in my mouth has made me lose my appetite.
You must be right. Lord knows that corporations never robbed anybody and we have government to thank for that.
Why was the FBI and taxpayer money involved?
Yet Big Media claims to KNOW, and you give THEM the benefit of the doubt. What's your bias?
Conversely, very rich and influential people - who happen to have our country's vice president in their back pocket - keep making excuses and vilifying "piracy" and insisting that it is harmful... when they have no objective proof at all. What's your bias?
It should be MY right to pay for only the minutes I use; it should be MY right to only pay for the specific music I want to hear; it should be MY right to only pay for the TV channels I actually value. I had those rights very deliberately taken away from me by greedy people to serve their selfish interest. What goes around comes around. What's your bias?
Musicians don't "lose". No one has ever actually PROVEN that so-called piracy affects sales. What the **AA have claimed as proof isn't proof at all... it's FUD. There is of course credible evidence that hints that even the exact opposite may in fact be true: that piracy is an unintuitive form of free advertising that has actually been increasing sales... or WOULD BE if they had been selling the art in a fashion that people now want. It's possible that without the extra exposure that piracy engendered the allegedly shocking sales loses might have been much worse. For instance, you and I both know that the majority of music buyers would ALWAYS have chosen to skip albums and choose the specific music they wanted, just as they would have eagerly chosen individual cable TV channels rather than the "bundles" they were offered, both in take-it-or-leave-it fashion.
Why didn't they demand those things earlier? They didn't know they had a choice. Now they DO. Well, at least with music.
I think what is really needed is legislation that outlaws this sort of attempted perversion of the words "theft" and "stealing".
Once we've put a stop to that perversion, the rest of Big Media's FUD campaigns will abruptly end. Since digital media by its very nature can be replicated endlessly with virtually no material cost, exactly what is being "stolen" here? NOTHING! Sure, packaging has material costs, but the "pirates" (infringers) aren't getting that packaging, are they? The cost of producing the "art" contained in the digital file was incurred ONCE, and the expectation of recouping those expenses is SPECULATIVE; the price of the packaging is a guesstimate, based on a hoped sales volume to result in some net profit. What if simply no one actually buys the package, even in the absence of "piracy"? There would have been no "theft" by this perverted definition, yet they still lose their shirts and don't get the desired profit. There's not a shred of certainty that denying people the ability to copy digital media will guarantee an equivalent increase in actual PACKAGING sales, so that argument is also FUD.
... this new generation of pioneering explorers will possess the technology to MAKE their own air and water from raw materials at hand (and some things brought along). Pioneers even a century ago could not do this. The concept is hardly new, though, because even the pioneers of old brought along not only simpler tools but also livestock and plants to help them colonize the new territory. It's been a LONG time since humans colonized a new area truly empty-handed.
What, so now I'll have to lean over and drag my EAR across that infernal thing on my laptop?
Not really: they won't have anything to sink their teeth into.
... because I've always preferred my meat hot rather than lukewarm.
I think you might be thinking of Capitalists rather than Conservatives. Capitalists indulge their natural selfish urges, by definition. Could you find a Conservative Socialist? I dunno, but those two Cees aren't necessarily synonymous. I'm a literal "conservative", but I ain't never been a capitalist.
Ha! You think ANYONE of any party who can currently manage to get into office cares what's in the Constitution? Dennis Kucinich excepted, since he carries that mini-Constitution in his breast pocket, right next to his heart.
Please read more deliberately, including the subthread. Your criticism is a non sequitur.
I did that as I was writing it (you know, proofreading), and I still can't interpret it that way.
Ummm... better than your cocaine habit?
Mis-frame and mis-quote much? Apparently you do.
Ad hominem is always bad... for the actual Common Good, in any case. Certain minorities - tribes - no doubt actually do benefit from it.
He didn't question a website's credibility. He did something else.
I do when I happen to actually read them. I'm not in the least bit tribal. I don't play favorites. We should be so lucky to have politicians who behave like that.
I "linked the OP" with that behavior because it's precisely how he was behaving. I didn't disparage the person, I criticized his behavior. Get your semantics straight.
Whether a source advertises a particular bias is largely irrelevant to its credibility. A source is in fact being more forthright by advertising it. Knowing the bias of a source in advance, it's easier to weigh the veracity of its statements. It's the ones that don't advertise it that are deserving of scorn. Regardless, ad hominem is NEVER ACCEPTABLE and NEVER WARRANTED.
Some people might perceive use of blanket terms like "hogwash" to describe EVERYTHING a person says as more deserving of the term ad hominem than anything I said in my previous comment.
Right... rather than simply treat the article on its factual merits, go after the source of the article. Brilliant! Did you invent that strategy yourself?
Not: it's called ad hominem. It's also a debate tactic used to implement tribalism/partisanism/racism/sexism/prejudice: self-hypnotic words to delude yourself into believing your opponent is less-than-human; once you've managed that stunt, why bother to listen to any of his arguments, even the otherwise cogent ones? Even better if you can also delude and convince others at the same time, because there's great strength in delusional numbers.
Congratulations to you for learning another trick to maintain your bias and mislead others.
If corporations are indeed equivalent to aggregate persons, then why isn't it considered slavery when one corporation "acquires" another?
The site was effectively offline when I first saw this article yesterday, and as of right now the site is still dead; a server answers and demands a username and password (which might be "password", hmmm?).
Serves them right, I think. Somebody's learning a lesson, all right, and it's NOT the "intruders".