My first thought was that this is a sneak attack on facebook.
First they buyout facebook's most popular app(s), then add them to Google products, and discontinue the facebook versions. Offer a 'bonus' for using it on Google if needed.
But if I had to guess, people who have spent $100+ on their farmville game etc, will have a strong desire to not throw away that "investment", including following it to a competitor's social network. Especially since google's buzz or wave is free, and it's not like they force you to give up your facebook account to join...
Even if a large chunk of those users come to the realization they can live without farmville but not facebook, it still seems like a pretty solid plan to steal a few million users from facebook...
Proof? No. Interesting story? I thought so. True? Who knows.
Iron Lore Entertainment develops a game called Titan Quest, Action-RPG, it was my Diablo 3 until that was actually announced. So supposedly the game gets leaked early somehow, but the leaked version has an unusual(?) form of DRM. If the game doesn't detect something (disk? code?) at the right time, it crashes to prevent the player from continuing.
Some of the earliest reviews of the game are done on this leaked DRMed version. The reviews aren't so great, claiming it's buggy, crashes etc. Likewise, the people who try first buy later, are discovering the same thing and not buying later, and telling all their friends to not buy also. End result, sales are miserable and the company goes out of business, unable to pay for development of their next game.
Some on slashdot would argue that this isn't an example of piracy making a project fail, but rather a bad choice of DRM making it fail. If you ask me however, that is really two sides of the same coin, if people didn't pirate, the DRM choice wouldn't have mattered.
[NOTE: I'm sure I'm getting some details wrong, perhaps it wasn't DRM but an early unfinished copy for example. That said, I doubt (hope) any incorrect details will change the message of the story]
My impression is that if you were to walk into YouTube's offices there would be hundreds of phones ringing, emails appearing on desktops, and no human beings anywhere. Like some post apocalyptic movie scene where all human flesh dissolved and the world was left turning without us. A completely automated system running happily on it's own. Like SkyNet, except mentally challenged.
"Any changes to the standard must be published in a preliminary draft within 20 working days, in order to allow broadcasters and manufacturers to adjust to the new changes."
And yet, I see zero evidence that they intended anything other than what they wrote. Oh well, Just a thought I had reading your post.
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
I don't mean to disagree with your post, but I want to ask : Are 'pirates' who most likely never purchase or rent said movies, still considered "customers"?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - I really doubt they planned on designing crappy DRM so that they can remove it and gain the good will of the fans.
I think it's much more likely a bunch of execs thinking they can do whatever they want and "those desperate suckers will buy it anyway".
...but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden...It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend...
Perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm, but I find it interesting that you refer to a nude photo as a "dirty picture". What makes it dirty? Except for perhaps the social norm you are chastising - that 'sex is all bad and must be hidden'.
It's interesting that this stigma about sex is so deep in our culture and ourselves that you use its slogans while condemning it.
Interesting post. All 3 of your cases make the point of (hopefully) charging less for stuff you aren't going to use.
- How much would it suck if a hotel charged you for eating everything out of the mini-bar, whether you did or not?
- If the company gave you a 4 core CPU with 4 disabled, and simply unlocked the other 4 when you decided to upgrade, no problem, makes upgrading a breeze. But, only if their price was for a 4 core, and not equivalent to an 8 core.
So I think the same should apply for DLC, if they are reducing the core cost of the game for everything they lock out, good to go. If they are charging us for what we might eat from the mini-bar, AND charging to unlock the mini-bar, we have a problem.
No clue if it's true or not, but I was told back then that the move from x86 to pentium was because they could not trademark a sequence of numbers. Their competitors could sell 80486 no problemo, but could not sell a pentium.
Um, I'm not really seeing the difference here. Its a bit like putting a work of art in a very popular publicly funded museum rather than opening up a separate one. Yes, some people's art may be different than your own, but its a lot easier, cheaper and nearly cost-free.
No, it's like putting up artwork in a museum, versus on a billboard. The billboard would get a ton more eyeballs, and be "cheaper", but the museum is actually respected as an art venue.
When you release a movie to theatres, have fans who want to see it, have easy ways to put it online for your fans to see, and don't. You aren't being artistic, you are being a dick.
If he feels it isn't standing up to the test of time, he has every right to not re-release it. Fact is this isn't public domain (yet - whether it should be or not is something to argue with disney and friends), therefore it's still his property to do what he wants with. Once his copyright is expired, then yes, take it from his dead hands and post it on youtube. Until then, or until copyright laws are changed, it's still his property, and right to choose what happens to it.
Um, it makes a lot more sense to put videos on YouTube. Why? Because A) You aren't paying for the bandwidth B) People are on YouTube, I can guarantee you there are more users of YouTube than any other video site out there.
Obviously he doesn't feel the need to find viewers of his films, they are seeking him out. So to release it into a proper channel, such as it's own website, would give it far more respect than youtubing it. As an artist, I wouldn't want a film released to theaters, before a Star Wars feature no less, shown on a site famous for baseballs to the crotch. (I realize there are legitimate artists on youtube, but again like I said originally, those artists are seeking out viewers.)
Why not?... Same thing with literature. You don't -gain- anything from keeping things hidden. Even if something is complete crap by one person's standards, it may provide a lot of insight and entertainment to some people. Look at Franz Kafka (author of The Metamorphosis) would we have gained anything by having all of his works burned as he requested?
YOU do not get to decide what I, as an artist, or anyone but yourself for that matter, consider good enough to release to the general public. That is for the artist to decide on their own. Slashdot is all about personal freedoms, and this should be just as important. As a photographer, 95% to 99% of my photography isn't worth uploading to the internet, let alone worth printing. I don't care how many people it may provide insight or entertainment to, if I think it's crap, I'm not releasing it. To me, it lessens the quality of the rest that are actually worth releasing.
What benefit does the world get by not having the art shown?
It makes it easier to find the works that the artist actually cared about. I would much rather watch something the artist stood behind 100% than something he had no desire to release because he himself didn't like it. I personally don't speak or type every thought I have. I filter them so that only the ones I think are worth sharing come out. If I shared every thought I had, no one would ever want to read it or listen to it. Frankly neither would I. Filtering is a good thing.
I assure you that I am quite capable of appreciating Kurosawa's Yojimbo and Sanjuro despite the fact that I had already seen Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy which massively borrows from them. I'm certain you were able to appreciate The Hidden Fortress after making the Star Wars Trilogy as well. So why do you doubt my ability to appreciate Black Angel?
Speak for yourself. I have a very hard time appreciating originals after seeing their remakes etc. For one, the pacing of older films is often insanely slow for todays standards. There's the video and audio quality which is usually fairly bad, not to mention decayed since apparently it's not worth preserving. The audio quality seems to be especially harsh in this regard.
I mean, if you choose not to release it then you have no intent to capitalize off of it and you should release it online via Veoh or YouTube or some video hosting site. Wouldn't the popularity and enjoyment from the film reward you in some way -- with it being your first film that you labored over?
I can't believe this is a serious suggestion. A professional artist isn't going to want his film on youtube unless he has no choice. It isn't exactly known for being the haven of known artists, more like the myspace of videos. I also can't imagine that he needs his ego stroked, but who knows.
I mean, even if it's just film snobs to appreciate it... even if it's just a reason for people to brag that they've seen one of the original fantasy films... even if it's just a chance for me to one up another person in conversation and promote my anti-social tendencies... why wouldn't you release it in someway for the general public to digest in their homes?
I don't understand how you can be so certain that you _deserve_ access to someone's artwork. I sure hope that last paragraph wasn't serious, because none of those are even remotely decent reasons to release something.
despite the promises by AT&T and Verizon that they're "rolling out" fiber to the home. Not my home.
Every local ad I see has an asterisk next to it explaining that the fiber stops at the last mile to my home. Makes me wonder how many people are signing up thinking they are getting fiber connections..
Revelations 11:18 (KJV) - And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless all Wang Chens are "processed" due to the actions of just one.
My first thought was that this is a sneak attack on facebook.
First they buyout facebook's most popular app(s), then add them to Google products, and discontinue the facebook versions. Offer a 'bonus' for using it on Google if needed.
But if I had to guess, people who have spent $100+ on their farmville game etc, will have a strong desire to not throw away that "investment", including following it to a competitor's social network. Especially since google's buzz or wave is free, and it's not like they force you to give up your facebook account to join...
Even if a large chunk of those users come to the realization they can live without farmville but not facebook, it still seems like a pretty solid plan to steal a few million users from facebook...
If it was intentional, I agree, defective by design. But who knows. I find it just as likely it was an unfinished version with no DRM.
I hate to defend her, but through forced exposure, I've come to the conclusion that there is a talented artist hidden under the shock pop veneer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CUYvWTd6oA
Proof? No.
Interesting story? I thought so.
True? Who knows.
Iron Lore Entertainment develops a game called Titan Quest, Action-RPG, it was my Diablo 3 until that was actually announced. So supposedly the game gets leaked early somehow, but the leaked version has an unusual(?) form of DRM. If the game doesn't detect something (disk? code?) at the right time, it crashes to prevent the player from continuing.
Some of the earliest reviews of the game are done on this leaked DRMed version. The reviews aren't so great, claiming it's buggy, crashes etc. Likewise, the people who try first buy later, are discovering the same thing and not buying later, and telling all their friends to not buy also. End result, sales are miserable and the company goes out of business, unable to pay for development of their next game.
Some on slashdot would argue that this isn't an example of piracy making a project fail, but rather a bad choice of DRM making it fail. If you ask me however, that is really two sides of the same coin, if people didn't pirate, the DRM choice wouldn't have mattered.
[NOTE: I'm sure I'm getting some details wrong, perhaps it wasn't DRM but an early unfinished copy for example. That said, I doubt (hope) any incorrect details will change the message of the story]
My impression is that if you were to walk into YouTube's offices there would be hundreds of phones ringing, emails appearing on desktops, and no human beings anywhere. Like some post apocalyptic movie scene where all human flesh dissolved and the world was left turning without us. A completely automated system running happily on it's own. Like SkyNet, except mentally challenged.
This made me think of Philip K Dick's Autofac.
Makes a whole lot more sense if you read it as:
"Any changes to the standard must be published in a preliminary draft within 20 working days, in order to allow broadcasters and manufacturers to adjust to the new changes."
And yet, I see zero evidence that they intended anything other than what they wrote. Oh well, Just a thought I had reading your post.
Two states ought to be enough for everybody?
First Person Tetris
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
I don't mean to disagree with your post, but I want to ask : Are 'pirates' who most likely never purchase or rent said movies, still considered "customers"?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - I really doubt they planned on designing crappy DRM so that they can remove it and gain the good will of the fans.
I think it's much more likely a bunch of execs thinking they can do whatever they want and "those desperate suckers will buy it anyway".
Of course, that's also a benefit since as far as solutions that tamper with biology go, self-limiting processes can't very well get out of control.
But my grandpa said all the dinosaurs were girls...
My tin foil hat suggested this was a deliberate leak by China to hurt Google. Although I'm not sure exactly what this would accomplish.
...but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden...It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend...
Perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm, but I find it interesting that you refer to a nude photo as a "dirty picture". What makes it dirty? Except for perhaps the social norm you are chastising - that 'sex is all bad and must be hidden'.
It's interesting that this stigma about sex is so deep in our culture and ourselves that you use its slogans while condemning it.
Not sure how you misunderstood.
The game would cost $5 less not $5 more.
Interesting post. All 3 of your cases make the point of (hopefully) charging less for stuff you aren't going to use.
- How much would it suck if a hotel charged you for eating everything out of the mini-bar, whether you did or not?
- If the company gave you a 4 core CPU with 4 disabled, and simply unlocked the other 4 when you decided to upgrade, no problem, makes upgrading a breeze. But, only if their price was for a 4 core, and not equivalent to an 8 core.
So I think the same should apply for DLC, if they are reducing the core cost of the game for everything they lock out, good to go. If they are charging us for what we might eat from the mini-bar, AND charging to unlock the mini-bar, we have a problem.
No clue if it's true or not, but I was told back then that the move from x86 to pentium was because they could not trademark a sequence of numbers. Their competitors could sell 80486 no problemo, but could not sell a pentium.
Um, I'm not really seeing the difference here. Its a bit like putting a work of art in a very popular publicly funded museum rather than opening up a separate one. Yes, some people's art may be different than your own, but its a lot easier, cheaper and nearly cost-free.
No, it's like putting up artwork in a museum, versus on a billboard. The billboard would get a ton more eyeballs, and be "cheaper", but the museum is actually respected as an art venue.
When you release a movie to theatres, have fans who want to see it, have easy ways to put it online for your fans to see, and don't. You aren't being artistic, you are being a dick.
If he feels it isn't standing up to the test of time, he has every right to not re-release it. Fact is this isn't public domain (yet - whether it should be or not is something to argue with disney and friends), therefore it's still his property to do what he wants with. Once his copyright is expired, then yes, take it from his dead hands and post it on youtube. Until then, or until copyright laws are changed, it's still his property, and right to choose what happens to it.
Um, it makes a lot more sense to put videos on YouTube. Why? Because A) You aren't paying for the bandwidth B) People are on YouTube, I can guarantee you there are more users of YouTube than any other video site out there.
Obviously he doesn't feel the need to find viewers of his films, they are seeking him out. So to release it into a proper channel, such as it's own website, would give it far more respect than youtubing it. As an artist, I wouldn't want a film released to theaters, before a Star Wars feature no less, shown on a site famous for baseballs to the crotch. (I realize there are legitimate artists on youtube, but again like I said originally, those artists are seeking out viewers.)
Why not? ... Same thing with literature. You don't -gain- anything from keeping things hidden. Even if something is complete crap by one person's standards, it may provide a lot of insight and entertainment to some people. Look at Franz Kafka (author of The Metamorphosis) would we have gained anything by having all of his works burned as he requested?
YOU do not get to decide what I, as an artist, or anyone but yourself for that matter, consider good enough to release to the general public. That is for the artist to decide on their own. Slashdot is all about personal freedoms, and this should be just as important. As a photographer, 95% to 99% of my photography isn't worth uploading to the internet, let alone worth printing. I don't care how many people it may provide insight or entertainment to, if I think it's crap, I'm not releasing it. To me, it lessens the quality of the rest that are actually worth releasing.
What benefit does the world get by not having the art shown?
It makes it easier to find the works that the artist actually cared about. I would much rather watch something the artist stood behind 100% than something he had no desire to release because he himself didn't like it. I personally don't speak or type every thought I have. I filter them so that only the ones I think are worth sharing come out. If I shared every thought I had, no one would ever want to read it or listen to it. Frankly neither would I. Filtering is a good thing.
I assure you that I am quite capable of appreciating Kurosawa's Yojimbo and Sanjuro despite the fact that I had already seen Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy which massively borrows from them. I'm certain you were able to appreciate The Hidden Fortress after making the Star Wars Trilogy as well. So why do you doubt my ability to appreciate Black Angel?
Speak for yourself. I have a very hard time appreciating originals after seeing their remakes etc. For one, the pacing of older films is often insanely slow for todays standards. There's the video and audio quality which is usually fairly bad, not to mention decayed since apparently it's not worth preserving. The audio quality seems to be especially harsh in this regard.
I mean, if you choose not to release it then you have no intent to capitalize off of it and you should release it online via Veoh or YouTube or some video hosting site. Wouldn't the popularity and enjoyment from the film reward you in some way -- with it being your first film that you labored over?
I can't believe this is a serious suggestion. A professional artist isn't going to want his film on youtube unless he has no choice. It isn't exactly known for being the haven of known artists, more like the myspace of videos.
I also can't imagine that he needs his ego stroked, but who knows.
I mean, even if it's just film snobs to appreciate it ... even if it's just a reason for people to brag that they've seen one of the original fantasy films ... even if it's just a chance for me to one up another person in conversation and promote my anti-social tendencies ... why wouldn't you release it in someway for the general public to digest in their homes?
I don't understand how you can be so certain that you _deserve_ access to someone's artwork. I sure hope that last paragraph wasn't serious, because none of those are even remotely decent reasons to release something.
+4 insightful? seriously?
despite the promises by AT&T and Verizon that they're "rolling out" fiber to the home. Not my home.
Every local ad I see has an asterisk next to it explaining that the fiber stops at the last mile to my home. Makes me wonder how many people are signing up thinking they are getting fiber connections..
Is "per" even an English word originally? Looks like something we pillaged from Latin or wherever.
Revelations 11:18 (KJV) - And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Fable was fine IIRC.
Fable had loading screens every 20 feet or so. Ridiculous by PC standards.
The scientists did the study on themselves? Okay, now I'm impressed! ;)