Re:Piracy Helps, someday they will notice that.
on
Piracy and the PSP
·
· Score: 1
Fanatics like you really need to stop seeing the world as black and white. If you were being honest:
It's funny how some pirates sometimes claim some of the games they have cracked are not worth buying.
It's easy to assign something as of lesser value when you got a copy for for minimal cost isn't it?
Less people are making psp games because some people [emotional nonsense] pirate.
Why would any sensible dev make a game that not as many people would buy? Do you work for less too?
---
Copyrights and patents are privileges, not rights.
It's good to see at least one company making sure that employees representing the company are identified as such regardless of the media.
However, this should be universal.
Astroturfing and all forms of anonymous marketing and advertising should be illegal. Company legal structures require accountability and accountability is impossible when company agents act anonymously. There should be serious consequences, including fines and jail terms, for egregious offenders.
That includes talking on social media sites, fake letters to the editor, conversations in bars, mystery advertising and sponsorship. Everywhere.
Anonymous marketing destroys social trust, and over the long term that's a very bad thing.
---
The USA is <5% of the world's population. It is statistically insignificant.
Fingerprints contain very minimal medical data about you. DNA is a CODE, its a huge repository of the information that makes you what you are physicaly. The two things are not analogous AT ALL.
I wonder if fingerprint cards pick up sufficient skin cells to be DNA sequenced?
---
An unobtrusive ad is a non-functional ad. It is a non-sustainable business model.
Every person who has downloaded and used it has stolen 9 dollars from me.
You are dishonestly pretending that the vast majority of downloaders would have paid for your product if they didn't have the opportunity to download for free.
Next time have a valid argument and stop pretending.
I wrote and distributed some binary shareware once. It was written in assembly language, had some relatively clever technical tricks in it, no crippling or nag screens and had a few thousand users. I provided two payment options, one binary only registration for $10 and one source supplied registration for $50. I got about 50 registrations, all source and no binary at all. It was about the level of registration that I expected but was surprised to get no binary registrations. Seems like people, if they go to the effort of paying at all, regard $10 as not worth their time.
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
Why do people feel entitled to "free" content that other people have invested significant amounts of time and money in creating?
Why do you feel they are not entitled? "Copyright" is a privilege, an arbitrary transfer of power from one person to another. It is not at all clear that giving 1 person copyright is a greater good than allowing 6,774,000,000+ people to copy and share as needed. Copyright is just an additional incentive to create, one among many incentives, and it is not at all clear that society-at-large should accept that price, particularly when we so massively overloaded with media as we are now.
Not liking the price is NOT justification for taking it anyway.
It is when we're talking about artificial scarcity.
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
Slashdot nerds do have a depressing tendency to justify their desire for free stuff with a lot of complex rationalizations.
No they don't. You just have a lot of copyright fanatics (many probably astroturfing marketing lowlifes) who point blank refuse to acknowledge that copyrights are a fairly arbitrary transfer of rights from one person to another and have conveniently selective memories about what has been previously discussed on slashdot so they can repeatedly spam their unchanging propaganda. And people try to argue with those maliciously brain-dead idiots.
I don't pirate much because I have what I need and I simply can't be bothered. No free stuff and yet I fully support piracy and am disappointed at this decision. And I even make a comfortable living from software. Fancy that. And I am not atypical of many on slashdot whatever you might like to claim.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
All the arguments you see on/. repeatedly duck the ethical issues
No they don't, you're just pretending they do. Ethics is a value judgement. Stop pretending your ethical judgments should apply to others without question.
I for example have zero problem pirating any large scale IP distributors because the way the copyright system is currently setup they get disproportionate rewards. On the other hand I do not share the software of smaller producers because their rewards are more justified.
**By reducing the potential revenues of a product you risk making it non-viable for development, meaning it is never made. Everyone loses from this scenario.
Since we are grossly information overloaded and information can be duplicated at minimal cost that POV is nonsense. In addition it is a broken window fallacy.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work. It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons. Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
why do you feel the need to dictate to that person how other people can reproduce his work
Please stop being so childishly simplistic. It is not at all clear that 1 person should be given the privilege of an additional copyright based financial incentive to publish something by blocking the free speech rights of 6,774,000,000+ people.
In addition "His work" is being used to justify any ethical position is circular reasoning. Ownership, by definition, is the right to control something. The interesting question is, who owns it?
Because of course they have zero expenses. It's more appropriate to point out it's $3.7 billion in net income. (I'm not claiming $3.7 billion is a trivial amount.)
Any assessment of the net income of companies that generate/process large amounts of "IP" needs to take Hollywood accounting into account. The amorphousness of "IP" makes it far too easy to hide huge amounts of money as payoffs for the pigs at the trough. Even very successful bands and movies often make very little money for tax reasons and to shaft those who have vulnerable, percent of profit contracts.
I'd regard "expenses" as a very rubbery concept and $3.7B as a strict lower bound.
What the hell are you talking about? did you expect then to take a microscopic look at all MS OSs forever?
Yes. All monopolies must be regulated because market forces do not apply. At the very least they should be monitored and there should be price controls.
seriously, that would be completly asinine.
So you think we should trust M$ and other companies do the right thing when they have a strong business imperative not to and no checks and balances? How asinine.
but that has long-term implications that are much less positive.
Possibly. I'm still trying to figure the numbers on deliberately stopping 6,774,000,000+ people from copying/sharing, from free speech, so that 1 person will have an additional incentive to create something. Note that copyright based monetary incentive is only one of many possible reasons to create and in a population of billions it is a statistical certainty that a small percentage of the population (say millions) will have good reasons to create with no copyright at all. Methinks the current incentive to publish is far too high because individuals are currently grossly information/entertainment overloaded. There's also an incredible amount of waste with a very large percentage of all "IP" created not being used by a very large percentage of the total population. That's economically wasteful when copying costs almost nothing.
---
The USA is <5% of the world's population. It is statistically insignificant.
Numerous studies have shown that people attempt to rationally allocate their time and attention.
There are millions of businesses in this world. It is not humanly possible to opt-out of all their marketing drivel even when there a cost-benefit in doing so.
Marketers steal the time and attention of many people to make a sale to one person and then act all surprised when those people get pissed. Spam is just the extreme example of that, unfortunately becoming less extreme all the time.
"Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that you've got it made."
Old but good.
---
For web applications a web browser is little more than a multi-language, non-portable graphics+networking library mess, far less consistent than other graphics+networking libraries.
Yes it does. Many popular web sites do exactly that. e.g. Google. And there are any number of memes and other things on the net that have become popular. Only shitty or derivative "me too" products require significant marketing.
So far I still didn't see a single case of true grassroots movement that didn't at some sort gain a lot weight either by media coverage (ya know, the kind that the real people out there watch and read, like newspapers or even TV) or by being picked up by someone who has a lot of media presence.
Yep, people, not marketing parasites, being told by people they trust about things. Not marketing though often marketing parasites try to fraudulently pretend to be trustworthy.
Word of mouth is fine and nice, if you want to get famous inside a certain circle. It works very well if you're, say, a scientist and want to be known amongst your peers, it works to some degree for underground bands. It fails when your audience does not really "hunt" for what you offer but needs to be told that it's there.
No, it's needed when the product is derivative and offers no significant advantage to the potential purchaser. People don't hunt for derivative or unneeded products. No surprises there.
You could make an argument for people needing to be educated about what's to their advantage however 1. mass marketing almost never educates, just emotionally manipulates and 2. people tell and educate their circle of friends, for kudo's if nothing else, and paid marketers add no value to that process.
Note that there is a very sharp distinction between emotional manipulation (e.g. almost all mass market advertising. Very costly) and serious attempts to help the potential customer become fully informed (e.g. detailed downloadable information on websites. Relatively cheap). The former is despicable and should be controlled. The latter is good business, win-win for everybody except those trying to sell crappy products. Marketers endlessly try to conflate the two for their own advantage.
The average ("casual") gamer doesn't read game mags, and he certainly doesn't dig through blogs and game pages.
They don't need to. Their friends will tell them if they come across something they think they will like.
I have to admit, I turned "casual" not long ago, lacking the time I had during my college days when I did actually spend some time on such pages. You know where casual games get my attention? Steam. Steam offers World of Goo for (IIRC) 15 bucks, I heard somewhere something about it and I dimly remember it was positive for some reason (it was on TV, a show about the indie game market), so I thought what the heck, 15 bucks, no loss, buy. Flock was offered, it looked cute, 10 bucks, what the heck... bought. And so on.
Your loss is the many thousands of hours you've had to sit through advertising drivel to get that possibly fraudulent "positive", orders of magnitude more costly than the benefit you derived from those games. You're just fooling yourself if you think that's a reasonable tradeoff.
So word of mouth, while free and the best kind of ad,
It's not an ad. Calling it advertising is merely a marketing parasite's way of trying to justify their existence though I realize you're trying to make a point.
does not really work for Indie games IMO. Simply because those that play them the most talk the least about them.
Not true. People tell friends about what they're doing and what they enjoy all the time. In real life and in social sites.
And I didn't say mass marketing didn't work. I said that it is a net loss. And in a saturated market most mass paid marketing is essentially parasitic because in a saturated market when one product wins another product must lose. Marketing equals un-marketing and a drag on society at large. Wasting millions of hours of people's lives on crap.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
No, but there is one in selling more copies. It's called marketing and advertising. You can make the best game of all times, if nobody knows it exists you won't sell it.
There is this amazing thing called word-of-mouth. Make a decent product and you know what? People will tell each other about it. Remarkable, isn't it? And no paid "marketers" involved at all.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Since they didn't give numbers, they didn't compare in any way to the change in illegal downloads and it's a highly biased source I have to assume the number of legal downloaders has gone up from some small number to two times some small number. Probably only a fraction of the illegal downloads.
They're trying to create the standard "everybody's doing it and you should too" dishonest marketing BS. Similar to the recent windows netbook "stories".
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
That really depends on what one happens to be searching for. In a lot of cases, yes, it means "I need to try another search engine".
Every now and then I try other search engines just to make sure I'm not missing anything. They always fail because they:
are too slow.
are overloaded with advertising drivel.
don't find what I'm looking for.
find too many things I'm not looking for.
cover a uselessly small domain.
don't allow expressive search expressions.
make elementary interface errors.
confuse trendiness with usefulness.
Sometimes all eight. And lets not forget all the internal search engines such as slashdot's. I've yet to come across even a single one that wasn't designed by people with the IQ's of gerbils.
---
Any large public or private organisation paying recurring, per-seat licensing for software is being economically stupid.
Not true. Patents and the patent system have very real costs associated associated with them. Not just the sticker price but the chilling effect and the "guilty until proven innocent" legal minefield.
Patent law can be useful, but it needs to be far more carefully controlled than it is right now.
There is very little scientific evidence for patent law being useful. Mostly it's just self-serving PTO handwaving. Did you know they spend huge sums of money on marketing themselves, sorry "awareness raising" (gack)? See Dutch PTO interview. Large areas of intellectual work are not covered by "IP" law (e.g. deciding where to site a business or domestic architectural design) and yet seem to get along just fine.
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Fanatics like you really need to stop seeing the world as black and white. If you were being honest:
It's funny how some pirates sometimes claim some of the games they have cracked are not worth buying.
It's easy to assign something as of lesser value when you got a copy for for minimal cost isn't it?
Less people are making psp games because some people [emotional nonsense] pirate.
Why would any sensible dev make a game that not as many people would buy? Do you work for less too?
---
Copyrights and patents are privileges, not rights.
Here's a neutral amicus curiæ: tell the court I said "Hello."
You are obviously biased towards friendliness and are clearly against the RIAA!
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
In what possible way can that matter?
The justice department has limited resources. What they choose to focus those resources on matters a lot.
Ex-RIAA lawyers are likely to focus on RIAA concerns, if for no other reason than that's what they're familiar with.
That's a very bad thing and a form of regulatory capture.
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
It's good to see at least one company making sure that employees representing the company are identified as such regardless of the media.
However, this should be universal.
Astroturfing and all forms of anonymous marketing and advertising should be illegal. Company legal structures require accountability and accountability is impossible when company agents act anonymously. There should be serious consequences, including fines and jail terms, for egregious offenders.
That includes talking on social media sites, fake letters to the editor, conversations in bars, mystery advertising and sponsorship. Everywhere.
Anonymous marketing destroys social trust, and over the long term that's a very bad thing.
---
The USA is <5% of the world's population. It is statistically insignificant.
Fingerprints contain very minimal medical data about you. DNA is a CODE, its a huge repository of the information that makes you what you are physicaly. The two things are not analogous AT ALL.
I wonder if fingerprint cards pick up sufficient skin cells to be DNA sequenced?
---
An unobtrusive ad is a non-functional ad. It is a non-sustainable business model.
The debris in low orbits where the Shuttle operates will return within just a few years. Higher than that means it stays up longer.
Do you know how much of a difference the size of the debris makes? The wikipedia orbital debris entry doesn't say.
---
Don't be a programmer-bureaucrat; someone who substitutes marketing buzzwords and software bloat for verifiable improvements.
Every person who has downloaded and used it has stolen 9 dollars from me.
You are dishonestly pretending that the vast majority of downloaders would have paid for your product if they didn't have the opportunity to download for free.
Next time have a valid argument and stop pretending.
I wrote and distributed some binary shareware once. It was written in assembly language, had some relatively clever technical tricks in it, no crippling or nag screens and had a few thousand users. I provided two payment options, one binary only registration for $10 and one source supplied registration for $50. I got about 50 registrations, all source and no binary at all. It was about the level of registration that I expected but was surprised to get no binary registrations. Seems like people, if they go to the effort of paying at all, regard $10 as not worth their time.
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
Why do people feel entitled to "free" content that other people have invested significant amounts of time and money in creating?
Why do you feel they are not entitled? "Copyright" is a privilege, an arbitrary transfer of power from one person to another. It is not at all clear that giving 1 person copyright is a greater good than allowing 6,774,000,000+ people to copy and share as needed. Copyright is just an additional incentive to create, one among many incentives, and it is not at all clear that society-at-large should accept that price, particularly when we so massively overloaded with media as we are now.
Not liking the price is NOT justification for taking it anyway.
It is when we're talking about artificial scarcity.
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
Slashdot nerds do have a depressing tendency to justify their desire for free stuff with a lot of complex rationalizations.
No they don't. You just have a lot of copyright fanatics (many probably astroturfing marketing lowlifes) who point blank refuse to acknowledge that copyrights are a fairly arbitrary transfer of rights from one person to another and have conveniently selective memories about what has been previously discussed on slashdot so they can repeatedly spam their unchanging propaganda. And people try to argue with those maliciously brain-dead idiots.
I don't pirate much because I have what I need and I simply can't be bothered. No free stuff and yet I fully support piracy and am disappointed at this decision. And I even make a comfortable living from software. Fancy that. And I am not atypical of many on slashdot whatever you might like to claim.
---
Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.
All the arguments you see on /. repeatedly duck the ethical issues
No they don't, you're just pretending they do. Ethics is a value judgement. Stop pretending your ethical judgments should apply to others without question.
I for example have zero problem pirating any large scale IP distributors because the way the copyright system is currently setup they get disproportionate rewards. On the other hand I do not share the software of smaller producers because their rewards are more justified.
**By reducing the potential revenues of a product you risk making it non-viable for development, meaning it is never made. Everyone loses from this scenario.
Since we are grossly information overloaded and information can be duplicated at minimal cost that POV is nonsense. In addition it is a broken window fallacy.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
why do you feel the need to dictate to that person how other people can reproduce his work
Please stop being so childishly simplistic. It is not at all clear that 1 person should be given the privilege of an additional copyright based financial incentive to publish something by blocking the free speech rights of 6,774,000,000+ people.
In addition "His work" is being used to justify any ethical position is circular reasoning. Ownership, by definition, is the right to control something. The interesting question is, who owns it?
---
Monopolies = Industrial feudalism
Because of course they have zero expenses. It's more appropriate to point out it's $3.7 billion in net income. (I'm not claiming $3.7 billion is a trivial amount.)
Any assessment of the net income of companies that generate/process large amounts of "IP" needs to take Hollywood accounting into account. The amorphousness of "IP" makes it far too easy to hide huge amounts of money as payoffs for the pigs at the trough. Even very successful bands and movies often make very little money for tax reasons and to shaft those who have vulnerable, percent of profit contracts.
I'd regard "expenses" as a very rubbery concept and $3.7B as a strict lower bound.
---
Monopolies = Industrial feudalism
What the hell are you talking about? did you expect then to take a microscopic look at all MS OSs forever?
Yes. All monopolies must be regulated because market forces do not apply. At the very least they should be monitored and there should be price controls.
seriously, that would be completly asinine.
So you think we should trust M$ and other companies do the right thing when they have a strong business imperative not to and no checks and balances? How asinine.
---
Monopolies = Industrial feudalism
but that has long-term implications that are much less positive.
Possibly. I'm still trying to figure the numbers on deliberately stopping 6,774,000,000+ people from copying/sharing, from free speech, so that 1 person will have an additional incentive to create something. Note that copyright based monetary incentive is only one of many possible reasons to create and in a population of billions it is a statistical certainty that a small percentage of the population (say millions) will have good reasons to create with no copyright at all. Methinks the current incentive to publish is far too high because individuals are currently grossly information/entertainment overloaded. There's also an incredible amount of waste with a very large percentage of all "IP" created not being used by a very large percentage of the total population. That's economically wasteful when copying costs almost nothing.
---
The USA is <5% of the world's population. It is statistically insignificant.
If the economy requires regulation, it's because people are not thinking when they are patronizing companies.
Please grow up.
Numerous studies have shown that people are lazy
Numerous studies have shown that people attempt to rationally allocate their time and attention.
There are millions of businesses in this world. It is not humanly possible to opt-out of all their marketing drivel even when there a cost-benefit in doing so.
Marketers steal the time and attention of many people to make a sale to one person and then act all surprised when those people get pissed. Spam is just the extreme example of that, unfortunately becoming less extreme all the time.
---
The USA is
"Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that you've got it made."
Old but good.
---
For web applications a web browser is little more than a multi-language, non-portable graphics+networking library mess, far less consistent than other graphics+networking libraries.
Oh yeah, that works great.
Yes it does. Many popular web sites do exactly that. e.g. Google. And there are any number of memes and other things on the net that have become popular. Only shitty or derivative "me too" products require significant marketing.
So far I still didn't see a single case of true grassroots movement that didn't at some sort gain a lot weight either by media coverage (ya know, the kind that the real people out there watch and read, like newspapers or even TV) or by being picked up by someone who has a lot of media presence.
Yep, people, not marketing parasites, being told by people they trust about things. Not marketing though often marketing parasites try to fraudulently pretend to be trustworthy.
Word of mouth is fine and nice, if you want to get famous inside a certain circle. It works very well if you're, say, a scientist and want to be known amongst your peers, it works to some degree for underground bands. It fails when your audience does not really "hunt" for what you offer but needs to be told that it's there.
No, it's needed when the product is derivative and offers no significant advantage to the potential purchaser. People don't hunt for derivative or unneeded products. No surprises there.
You could make an argument for people needing to be educated about what's to their advantage however 1. mass marketing almost never educates, just emotionally manipulates and 2. people tell and educate their circle of friends, for kudo's if nothing else, and paid marketers add no value to that process.
Note that there is a very sharp distinction between emotional manipulation (e.g. almost all mass market advertising. Very costly) and serious attempts to help the potential customer become fully informed (e.g. detailed downloadable information on websites. Relatively cheap). The former is despicable and should be controlled. The latter is good business, win-win for everybody except those trying to sell crappy products. Marketers endlessly try to conflate the two for their own advantage.
The average ("casual") gamer doesn't read game mags, and he certainly doesn't dig through blogs and game pages.
They don't need to. Their friends will tell them if they come across something they think they will like.
I have to admit, I turned "casual" not long ago, lacking the time I had during my college days when I did actually spend some time on such pages. You know where casual games get my attention? Steam. Steam offers World of Goo for (IIRC) 15 bucks, I heard somewhere something about it and I dimly remember it was positive for some reason (it was on TV, a show about the indie game market), so I thought what the heck, 15 bucks, no loss, buy. Flock was offered, it looked cute, 10 bucks, what the heck... bought. And so on.
Your loss is the many thousands of hours you've had to sit through advertising drivel to get that possibly fraudulent "positive", orders of magnitude more costly than the benefit you derived from those games. You're just fooling yourself if you think that's a reasonable tradeoff.
So word of mouth, while free and the best kind of ad,
It's not an ad. Calling it advertising is merely a marketing parasite's way of trying to justify their existence though I realize you're trying to make a point.
does not really work for Indie games IMO. Simply because those that play them the most talk the least about them.
Not true. People tell friends about what they're doing and what they enjoy all the time. In real life and in social sites.
And I didn't say mass marketing didn't work. I said that it is a net loss. And in a saturated market most mass paid marketing is essentially parasitic because in a saturated market when one product wins another product must lose. Marketing equals un-marketing and a drag on society at large. Wasting millions of hours of people's lives on crap.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
No, but there is one in selling more copies. It's called marketing and advertising. You can make the best game of all times, if nobody knows it exists you won't sell it.
There is this amazing thing called word-of-mouth. Make a decent product and you know what? People will tell each other about it. Remarkable, isn't it? And no paid "marketers" involved at all.
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
Like, for instance, the NSA...
The NSA doesn't need an opportunistic vulnerability. They just secretly order one put in.
---
Windows and closed source software. The US intelligence agencies back door to every network connected country and business on earth.
numbers provided by torrentfreak and thepiratebay are absolutely fucking trustworthy.
They're a lot more trustworthy than typical marketer's numbers. Most marketers are paid zealots who act as if honesty is optional.
*snigger*
?
---
You communist! Breathing shared air!
and so SOME started buying legally
SOME is the operative word.
Since they didn't give numbers, they didn't compare in any way to the change in illegal downloads and it's a highly biased source I have to assume the number of legal downloaders has gone up from some small number to two times some small number. Probably only a fraction of the illegal downloads.
They're trying to create the standard "everybody's doing it and you should too" dishonest marketing BS. Similar to the recent windows netbook "stories".
---
The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".
That really depends on what one happens to be searching for. In a lot of cases, yes, it means "I need to try another search engine".
Every now and then I try other search engines just to make sure I'm not missing anything. They always fail because they:
Sometimes all eight. And lets not forget all the internal search engines such as slashdot's. I've yet to come across even a single one that wasn't designed by people with the IQ's of gerbils.
---
Any large public or private organisation paying recurring, per-seat licensing for software is being economically stupid.
Why does the combination not work out?
C. P. Snow's The Two Cultures. Each needs to make overtures to the other.
The problem isn't really patents per se
Not true. Patents and the patent system have very real costs associated associated with them. Not just the sticker price but the chilling effect and the "guilty until proven innocent" legal minefield.
Patent law can be useful, but it needs to be far more carefully controlled than it is right now.
There is very little scientific evidence for patent law being useful. Mostly it's just self-serving PTO handwaving. Did you know they spend huge sums of money on marketing themselves, sorry "awareness raising" (gack)? See Dutch PTO interview. Large areas of intellectual work are not covered by "IP" law (e.g. deciding where to site a business or domestic architectural design) and yet seem to get along just fine.
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.