you are absolutely right. I agree 100% HOWEVER If I ran a site that hosted free mp3s like you describe, I would make damn sure I had a clear terms of service and abuse policy, and be damned punctual about removing any links to copyrighted materials upon complaint. I don't that that's the case here.
when reporters report on illegal activity they dont give specifics. A reporter at a nazi gathering doesnt publish the date and time and handy hints on how to fastrack membership to the club. This site didnt link to a small sample of files and say "look at this, illegal file sharing is happening". They could have achieved that with just screenshots, or without hyperlinks. Trying to compare an index of copyrighted material being shared with the right to report on criminal activity is just silly.
well said. Im all for an open and free internet, but I'm all for copyright being enforced (within reason). If your website is linking to a dozen cracked games / apps or illegal copies of hollywood movies, and you are notified that this is the case, you should remove the links. Thats just common sense. If you refuse to remove them, you are effectively helping promote that site. There are sites that unknowingly link to some cracked files, and there are sites whose whole existance is based upon making it easy to get illegal stuff. The latter should not get peoples sympathy (unless you class yourself as a freeloader). Anyone who thinks that it should be ok to take other peoples stuff and openly advertise it for the taking on the web is just hopelessly nieve.
Some of this I like, some of this I am wary of. I LIKE the idea that it will be easier to match your PC against a games stated requirements, especially as mine will be attractively low. I also LIKE the idea that there is some centralised GUI (in the screenshot) for putting all the games in one place where they are easily played and uninstalled. Ease of use FTW. Some things I don't like: This twaddle about the xbox 360 controller is insane. I don't make games for consoles, I don't make multi-platform games. The idea that all games might be usable with a gamepad is laughable. Have fun with those text adventure games and mega-shortcut frenzy RTS and MMORPG games with that gamepad! Also, I have a horrid feeling the whole thing will be set up for BIG companies with BIG games. The beauty of the PC is its openess. Anyone can sit down in their living room with a compiler and develop a game (like me!). Something tells me that only games that have passed an expensive certification system, (to keep out smaller devs) will end up with their games in that shiny new interface.
If the price of an easier and user-friendly system for playing PC games is that microsoft start having a veto on what games are made, then I'd rather things stayed as they are.
agreed 100%. This is the sad state of big retail game development. Great to see Chris Delay (introversion) there, but he is the exception. Too many people at the 'top' of the games biz talk about 'products' and 'skus'. Most of them don't even play games, or know how they work. The finance director at the last big company I worked for wouldnt recognise one of the companies games if it smacked him in the face. We have big budget games now, but sadly none of the enthusiasm or passion makes it through to the end product in lots of those games. Worse still, the developers are kept at arms length from the actual gamers, not even allowed to chat freely about the games with those who buy them. Sad times.
I'm not saying the gameoplay is bad, but the extra 3d whizz-bangness added nothing. Except system requirements shot up, and no doubt laoding times did too. Wahey for progress.
civ is a great example of a good game spoiled by an obsession with making it as 3D looking as possible. WHY? its a 2D game design. Don't be so ashamed of that. Adding a 3D animated 'virtual sid' put me off buying the latest one. Pure techy willy-waving, and a map that was actually HARDER to use.
You are not a dinosaur, your just not seduced by the whizz bang flash of modern games. Good for you. I like some whizz-bang myself, but only on top of a decent, deep, well designed game. Sadly this is rarer and rarer. Oblivion was a good example of balancing the two. Generally, I prefer 2D games, more thought and care seems to go into them, and they tend to be more niche games, which I enjoy. And as a developer, I can assure you there *is* a market for 2D games, despite what the marketing droids and l33t k1dd13s think. If people didn't buy 2D games, I'd be starving.
Maybe I'm alone, but whenever something is being built / developed / undertaken, and the first you hear about it is a boast about how much it will cost, it gets on my nerves. It's like thsoe roadworks that cause you huge inconvenience that say "2 million pound bridge widening project".(especially there, as thats 2 mill of MY money they are wasting). I don't actually *care* how much ANY game / book / movie / play / tv show costs to make, all I care about is if it's actually any good. The only people who get a thrill out of this 75 mill figure are the CEOs and finance guys who get hard-ons when they boast about it "Yeah babe, I'm packing a 75 mill budget this time". A 75 mill MMORPG will cost the same to me as a 2 mill MMORPG. Theres scant evidence to suggest that the more expensive ones are the most successfull or playable. I doubt Star Wars galaxies had budget worries, but the game fell to pieces. Eve is a relatively small MMO by some standards, yet insanely popular. It's far more impressive to see a game/movie/tvshow that is a huge success and yet cost a pittance to make. that takes way more skill.
Stop boasting about the budget, tell me how your new game isn't a dull grind, and has flexible pricing options for light / heavy users, or has suprisingly low system requirements, or a revolutionary gameplay mechanic. ANYTING but penis-extension boasts about how much money your wasting on it.
"they don't engage our forces head on anymore. They'd all die and they know it."
very true. As I recall my history there was another army that was absolutely devestating when fought on its own terms. That was the british army in the days of cavalry and muskets. We even built a sizeable empire around it (and our navy). That army even defeated the supposudly unstoppable napoleon.
Then some people in one of our colonies learned to fight us on their terms. As I recall, they didnt march out with flags to meet us like gentlemen on the field of battle, but would ambush us. The effect was devestating, and that army won. In fact they kicked us back to our own country and declared independence. I believe its now called the united states of america.
Its amazing how many empires there have been, the greeks, the romans, the british, the french, we have all controlled vast empires through military might at one stage. And we have all learned the futility of relying purely on force of arms to maintain control of foreign countries. I guess it's impossible to accept that lesson when you *are* the current military top dog. It took humiliation of our army to learn that lesson. I'd rather the US learned it without having to lose any more of its own servicemen.
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people #32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Think again. you appear to have *twenty seven* times as many firearms murders as the UK. So it seems that despite all the arguments about how you can defend yourselves better, in practice, you are way more likely to be shot.
but you realise its just an arms race right? If someone breaks into your house, they will probably have a gun. if someone breaks into my house, they probably won't. In my case, arguabley its whoever punches hardest wins. In your case, its whoever shoots first. As the burglar is picking his moment, and your gun isn't always in your hands, I doubt you get first shot. Worst likely case for me is I get knocked out and robbed. Worst likely case for you is a bullet through your head (plus robbery)
I'm not saying there is no gun crime in the UK, there is *some* gun crime everywhere on earth. last time I checked, we had way less gun crime per capita than the USA, and I'm happy with that.
I've lived here for thirty seven years. I don't recall a time, ever, when you could just walk into the UK version of wal-mart and buy a gun. I've never seen a real gun that wasn't held by a police officer at the airport (only seen that once), I've never heard a shot fired, or known anyone who has been shot, or knows anyone whose been shot, or seen a real shot fired. So this huge rise in gun crime must still be pretty damned minimal. I'll take the UK gun crime rate over the US rate any day.
I'd feel so much *safer* if my neighbour had an apache helicopter gunship in his yard. Especially if his wife had just left him, he had a terminal disease, and was prone to drinking 20 beers every night. The internet shows us what mayhem is caused just by letting joe average own a PC without a proper firewall. And you want those same people to own rocket propelled grenades and heavy artillery.
I totally agree that a bunch of rich mega stars asking for copyright extension are fruitcakes who should be shot,. But theres nothing wrong with being paid for work you did years ago. The walmart employee gets paid for every hour he stacks those shelves. A musician gets paid if *and only if* any of the songs he writes turn out to be a success. He earns $0.00 for all those hours he is writing songs which are flops. That's the difference. Joseph heller probably still makes a packet for writing catch 22, which is cool because he probably doesnt earn a penny for all the time he wrote all his other books, which, frankly sucked big time:D
some products have that 'long tail' effect when they sell for a good few years. You are describing a blockbuster, but thankfully not everything is a blockbuster. Some ooks games and albums will sell modestly for maybe 5-10 years, and good luck to them.
Of course copyright has to be enforced against the ordinary person. its the ordinary person who is the customer. Who else do you think you enforce it against? I'd like to see better enforcement taken against websites that list copyrighted torrents and host illegal files knowingly. The premise that "the actual torrent isnt copyrighted" might be a great legal loophole, but it doesn't ring true as a moral defence against what you are doing. Site listing nothing but downloads of the latest songs and movies are just asking for trouble, and deserve to be prosecuted.
I understand your feelings, even though I'm a pro-copyright games developer who relies on the concept for a living. The thing is, you don't often hear from people who create content, and will defend it 'up to a point'. The only voices you hear are the 'everyone download my stuff' anti-copyright gang, and the 'its my property for the next thousand years' brigade. Judging how long something should remain copyrighted is tricky, and probably should vary depending on the content type. Some things are useless after a few years, some things cost megabucks to make and payoff slowly. The idea that ANYTHING should remain in copyright for over 50 years is just bullshit though. If, as a creative person, I can't come up with another good idea every 50 years, I need to find another flipping job. My own field is PC games, and I reckon 15 years is a reasonable length of time. Nobody is making real cash on games on older than this, and if they are, they probably made a shedload at release time. If theres a petition from content creators requesting that copyright NOT be lengthened, just point me at it. We need emphasis on shorter copyright periods, but better enforcement (and fair use for format-shifting etc). But U2 can just fuck off.
I agree copyright terms are WAY too long, there is no way they should extend for 50 years past the life of the author, thats insane. Much of current copyright law is insane. But the concept of copyright and IP is a valid, and useful one, and it should be strictly enforced. people who are against copryright extensions have a good point, but they make themselves look like idiots when they defend the rights of people to downlaod the latest hollywood movie on bit-torrent. Its weakens their case and gives ammunition to the RIAA, MPAA etc. The best thing anyone who wants copyright law reformed could do is to help clamp down on the 0day sharing of new creative works on p2p without the copryright holders permission. The thing is, the VAST majority of p2p trading of stuff is not stuff beyong 20-30 years or even 14 years of copyright. Its this years hits, this years music.
yes entertainment was around beforehand. We had minstrels strolling singing a few songs. whopeee. Now show me the pre-copyright Show me me the pre-copyright lord of the rings, or Matrix. Show me the pre-copyright recording studios. Dont kid yourself that if everyone downloaded free movies that any blockbusters would be made Pure simple economics for toddlers will tell you it aint gonna happen. Would new line cinema invest 100 million dollars knowing theyd get 1 sale. No. So basically you support a business model where either
nothing new gets made
or
some people (the 'mugs') pay for the stuff so that you and your buddies can take it for free.
You have no idea how the 'real fucking world' works, clearly. Sounds like you are opposed to any business model that involves a big up front investment on the basis of the chance of ongoing returns per copy. Maybe you want the same lunatic communist ideal applied to pharmaceutical patents too? Well done, you just wiped out the pharmaceutical industry. How about the movie business? whoosh, you just wrecked that too. You can dream up any twisted bullshit to justify taking peoples hard work for nothing, but if that system relies on other people paying for it to fund its development, you will always just be a freeloader. Grow up, and pay your way.
its not a free market. People are cirumventing the market by taking the product without paying. It's just pure bull to suggest that downloading pirated music is part of the free market. A market implies a meeting of supply and demand, where a price is agreed by negotiation. If the supplier has no control over the supply, there is no equilibrium, and no market. And whats that bull about 'a government granted mionopoly'? You dont need a government licence to start a band. go buy a guitar, nobody will physically stop you. In fact, the market for music is more open than most, requiring no qualifications and minimum startup costs.
I love the fact that one of your suggestions is that they change their proffesion. Way to go. Maybe all musicians should follow your advice, and we can all listen to the beatles forever.
"Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up "
WTF?
What free ride? Its called writing songs and learning to play an instrument, both of which take years and for which the pay is zero. This sounds like the people who think everyone is an overnight success, when they've been playing gigs in crappy clubs for no money for ten years. Before you mouth off about musicians getting a 'free ride' maybe you should go learn an instrument and spend a few years in their shoes? I don't think that 'rock star' is a simple ticket to easy money.
Slashdot Mirror
you are absolutely right. I agree 100%
HOWEVER
If I ran a site that hosted free mp3s like you describe, I would make damn sure I had a clear terms of service and abuse policy, and be damned punctual about removing any links to copyrighted materials upon complaint.
I don't that that's the case here.
when reporters report on illegal activity they dont give specifics. A reporter at a nazi gathering doesnt publish the date and time and handy hints on how to fastrack membership to the club.
This site didnt link to a small sample of files and say "look at this, illegal file sharing is happening". They could have achieved that with just screenshots, or without hyperlinks.
Trying to compare an index of copyrighted material being shared with the right to report on criminal activity is just silly.
well said.
Im all for an open and free internet, but I'm all for copyright being enforced (within reason).
If your website is linking to a dozen cracked games / apps or illegal copies of hollywood movies, and you are notified that this is the case, you should remove the links. Thats just common sense. If you refuse to remove them, you are effectively helping promote that site. There are sites that unknowingly link to some cracked files, and there are sites whose whole existance is based upon making it easy to get illegal stuff. The latter should not get peoples sympathy (unless you class yourself as a freeloader).
Anyone who thinks that it should be ok to take other peoples stuff and openly advertise it for the taking on the web is just hopelessly nieve.
Some of this I like, some of this I am wary of. I LIKE the idea that it will be easier to match your PC against a games stated requirements, especially as mine will be attractively low. I also LIKE the idea that there is some centralised GUI (in the screenshot) for putting all the games in one place where they are easily played and uninstalled. Ease of use FTW.
Some things I don't like:
This twaddle about the xbox 360 controller is insane. I don't make games for consoles, I don't make multi-platform games. The idea that all games might be usable with a gamepad is laughable. Have fun with those text adventure games and mega-shortcut frenzy RTS and MMORPG games with that gamepad!
Also, I have a horrid feeling the whole thing will be set up for BIG companies with BIG games. The beauty of the PC is its openess. Anyone can sit down in their living room with a compiler and develop a game (like me!). Something tells me that only games that have passed an expensive certification system, (to keep out smaller devs) will end up with their games in that shiny new interface.
If the price of an easier and user-friendly system for playing PC games is that microsoft start having a veto on what games are made, then I'd rather things stayed as they are.
agreed 100%. This is the sad state of big retail game development. Great to see Chris Delay (introversion) there, but he is the exception.
Too many people at the 'top' of the games biz talk about 'products' and 'skus'. Most of them don't even play games, or know how they work. The finance director at the last big company I worked for wouldnt recognise one of the companies games if it smacked him in the face.
We have big budget games now, but sadly none of the enthusiasm or passion makes it through to the end product in lots of those games. Worse still, the developers are kept at arms length from the actual gamers, not even allowed to chat freely about the games with those who buy them.
Sad times.
or greg bear. PLEASE
I'm not saying the gameoplay is bad, but the extra 3d whizz-bangness added nothing. Except system requirements shot up, and no doubt laoding times did too. Wahey for progress.
civ is a great example of a good game spoiled by an obsession with making it as 3D looking as possible.
WHY?
its a 2D game design. Don't be so ashamed of that. Adding a 3D animated 'virtual sid' put me off buying the latest one. Pure techy willy-waving, and a map that was actually HARDER to use.
You are not a dinosaur, your just not seduced by the whizz bang flash of modern games. Good for you. I like some whizz-bang myself, but only on top of a decent, deep, well designed game. Sadly this is rarer and rarer. Oblivion was a good example of balancing the two.
Generally, I prefer 2D games, more thought and care seems to go into them, and they tend to be more niche games, which I enjoy.
And as a developer, I can assure you there *is* a market for 2D games, despite what the marketing droids and l33t k1dd13s think.
If people didn't buy 2D games, I'd be starving.
no idea, but the modding on slashdot lately seems to have gone mental, plus mod points seem to never be available. what gives?
Maybe I'm alone, but whenever something is being built / developed / undertaken, and the first you hear about it is a boast about how much it will cost, it gets on my nerves. It's like thsoe roadworks that cause you huge inconvenience that say "2 million pound bridge widening project".(especially there, as thats 2 mill of MY money they are wasting).
I don't actually *care* how much ANY game / book / movie / play / tv show costs to make, all I care about is if it's actually any good. The only people who get a thrill out of this 75 mill figure are the CEOs and finance guys who get hard-ons when they boast about it "Yeah babe, I'm packing a 75 mill budget this time". A 75 mill MMORPG will cost the same to me as a 2 mill MMORPG. Theres scant evidence to suggest that the more expensive ones are the most successfull or playable. I doubt Star Wars galaxies had budget worries, but the game fell to pieces. Eve is a relatively small MMO by some standards, yet insanely popular.
It's far more impressive to see a game/movie/tvshow that is a huge success and yet cost a pittance to make. that takes way more skill.
Stop boasting about the budget, tell me how your new game isn't a dull grind, and has flexible pricing options for light / heavy users, or has suprisingly low system requirements, or a revolutionary gameplay mechanic. ANYTING but penis-extension boasts about how much money your wasting on it.
"they don't engage our forces head on anymore. They'd all die and they know it."
very true. As I recall my history there was another army that was absolutely devestating when fought on its own terms. That was the british army in the days of cavalry and muskets. We even built a sizeable empire around it (and our navy). That army even defeated the supposudly unstoppable napoleon.
Then some people in one of our colonies learned to fight us on their terms. As I recall, they didnt march out with flags to meet us like gentlemen on the field of battle, but would ambush us.
The effect was devestating, and that army won. In fact they kicked us back to our own country and declared independence.
I believe its now called the united states of america.
Its amazing how many empires there have been, the greeks, the romans, the british, the french, we have all controlled vast empires through military might at one stage. And we have all learned the futility of relying purely on force of arms to maintain control of foreign countries.
I guess it's impossible to accept that lesson when you *are* the current military top dog. It took humiliation of our army to learn that lesson. I'd rather the US learned it without having to lose any more of its own servicemen.
your gun crime is LOW?_ percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir
hmmm
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
Think again. you appear to have *twenty seven* times as many firearms murders as the UK. So it seems that despite all the arguments about how you can defend yourselves better, in practice, you are way more likely to be shot.
but you realise its just an arms race right? If someone breaks into your house, they will probably have a gun. if someone breaks into my house, they probably won't. In my case, arguabley its whoever punches hardest wins. In your case, its whoever shoots first. As the burglar is picking his moment, and your gun isn't always in your hands, I doubt you get first shot.
Worst likely case for me is I get knocked out and robbed. Worst likely case for you is a bullet through your head (plus robbery)
I'm not saying there is no gun crime in the UK, there is *some* gun crime everywhere on earth. last time I checked, we had way less gun crime per capita than the USA, and I'm happy with that.
I've lived here for thirty seven years. I don't recall a time, ever, when you could just walk into the UK version of wal-mart and buy a gun. I've never seen a real gun that wasn't held by a police officer at the airport (only seen that once), I've never heard a shot fired, or known anyone who has been shot, or knows anyone whose been shot, or seen a real shot fired.
So this huge rise in gun crime must still be pretty damned minimal. I'll take the UK gun crime rate over the US rate any day.
So presumably in the US, your government is kept in check and hasn't tried to infringe on peoples rights then?
I'd feel so much *safer* if my neighbour had an apache helicopter gunship in his yard. Especially if his wife had just left him, he had a terminal disease, and was prone to drinking 20 beers every night.
The internet shows us what mayhem is caused just by letting joe average own a PC without a proper firewall. And you want those same people to own rocket propelled grenades and heavy artillery.
I totally agree that a bunch of rich mega stars asking for copyright extension are fruitcakes who should be shot,. :D
But theres nothing wrong with being paid for work you did years ago. The walmart employee gets paid for every hour he stacks those shelves. A musician gets paid if *and only if* any of the songs he writes turn out to be a success. He earns $0.00 for all those hours he is writing songs which are flops. That's the difference.
Joseph heller probably still makes a packet for writing catch 22, which is cool because he probably doesnt earn a penny for all the time he wrote all his other books, which, frankly sucked big time
some products have that 'long tail' effect when they sell for a good few years. You are describing a blockbuster, but thankfully not everything is a blockbuster. Some ooks games and albums will sell modestly for maybe 5-10 years, and good luck to them.
Of course copyright has to be enforced against the ordinary person. its the ordinary person who is the customer. Who else do you think you enforce it against?
I'd like to see better enforcement taken against websites that list copyrighted torrents and host illegal files knowingly. The premise that "the actual torrent isnt copyrighted" might be a great legal loophole, but it doesn't ring true as a moral defence against what you are doing. Site listing nothing but downloads of the latest songs and movies are just asking for trouble, and deserve to be prosecuted.
I understand your feelings, even though I'm a pro-copyright games developer who relies on the concept for a living.
The thing is, you don't often hear from people who create content, and will defend it 'up to a point'. The only voices you hear are the 'everyone download my stuff' anti-copyright gang, and the 'its my property for the next thousand years' brigade.
Judging how long something should remain copyrighted is tricky, and probably should vary depending on the content type. Some things are useless after a few years, some things cost megabucks to make and payoff slowly. The idea that ANYTHING should remain in copyright for over 50 years is just bullshit though. If, as a creative person, I can't come up with another good idea every 50 years, I need to find another flipping job.
My own field is PC games, and I reckon 15 years is a reasonable length of time. Nobody is making real cash on games on older than this, and if they are, they probably made a shedload at release time.
If theres a petition from content creators requesting that copyright NOT be lengthened, just point me at it. We need emphasis on shorter copyright periods, but better enforcement (and fair use for format-shifting etc).
But U2 can just fuck off.
I agree copyright terms are WAY too long, there is no way they should extend for 50 years past the life of the author, thats insane.
Much of current copyright law is insane.
But the concept of copyright and IP is a valid, and useful one, and it should be strictly enforced.
people who are against copryright extensions have a good point, but they make themselves look like idiots when they defend the rights of people to downlaod the latest hollywood movie on bit-torrent. Its weakens their case and gives ammunition to the RIAA, MPAA etc.
The best thing anyone who wants copyright law reformed could do is to help clamp down on the 0day sharing of new creative works on p2p without the copryright holders permission. The thing is, the VAST majority of p2p trading of stuff is not stuff beyong 20-30 years or even 14 years of copyright. Its this years hits, this years music.
yes entertainment was around beforehand. We had minstrels strolling singing a few songs. whopeee. Now show me the pre-copyright Show me me the pre-copyright lord of the rings, or Matrix. Show me the pre-copyright recording studios.
Dont kid yourself that if everyone downloaded free movies that any blockbusters would be made Pure simple economics for toddlers will tell you it aint gonna happen. Would new line cinema invest 100 million dollars knowing theyd get 1 sale. No.
So basically you support a business model where either
nothing new gets made
or
some people (the 'mugs') pay for the stuff so that you and your buddies can take it for free.
Thats called freeloading. Nice attitude.
You have no idea how the 'real fucking world' works, clearly. Sounds like you are opposed to any business model that involves a big up front investment on the basis of the chance of ongoing returns per copy.
Maybe you want the same lunatic communist ideal applied to pharmaceutical patents too? Well done, you just wiped out the pharmaceutical industry. How about the movie business? whoosh, you just wrecked that too.
You can dream up any twisted bullshit to justify taking peoples hard work for nothing, but if that system relies on other people paying for it to fund its development, you will always just be a freeloader.
Grow up, and pay your way.
its not a free market. People are cirumventing the market by taking the product without paying. It's just pure bull to suggest that downloading pirated music is part of the free market. A market implies a meeting of supply and demand, where a price is agreed by negotiation. If the supplier has no control over the supply, there is no equilibrium, and no market.
And whats that bull about 'a government granted mionopoly'? You dont need a government licence to start a band. go buy a guitar, nobody will physically stop you. In fact, the market for music is more open than most, requiring no qualifications and minimum startup costs.
I love the fact that one of your suggestions is that they change their proffesion. Way to go. Maybe all musicians should follow your advice, and we can all listen to the beatles forever.
"Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up "
WTF?
What free ride? Its called writing songs and learning to play an instrument, both of which take years and for which the pay is zero. This sounds like the people who think everyone is an overnight success, when they've been playing gigs in crappy clubs for no money for ten years.
Before you mouth off about musicians getting a 'free ride' maybe you should go learn an instrument and spend a few years in their shoes? I don't think that 'rock star' is a simple ticket to easy money.