Wow, even throwing a toddler's tantrum will get you modded up around here, if it's related to piracy demands. Apparently you became grossly self-entitled and "spoiled" through no fault of your own, eh?
"Socially relevant?" That's how low we've fallen to justify stealing content? It's less than a year, and the content itself doesn't actually change over those months of course. I enjoy that content just fine, regardless its age. And I'd rather be an antisocial troll than a thief.
GoT is available on Netflix. Maybe not Netflix streaming, but it's certainly false you need a cable subscription to view it legit without purchasing it. I watched the first two seasons of GoT via Netflix.
Of course some of those pirates would purchase the content legit if piracy options were unavailable. The real question is, how many? What's the percentage?
Or perhaps they can sort it out just fine, but choose not to. It seems a lot of people are strongly vested in these partisan culture wars, and will answer surveys accordingly, even if it conflicts with their private beliefs.
Bingo. Quite a few people are answering surveys by choosing partisan answers, even if those answers conflict with their private beliefs, and even at risk of looking like idiots to the wider world.
Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations. I don't know if doing so should be illegal per se, just that doing so should hurt Google's bottom line, in such a way that they proactively try to prevent it.
I'm making no statement regarding how violators themselves should be handled. All I'm saying is, no legitimate enterprise should be rewarded for helping these violators, even if that help only amounts to putting on blindfolders. The cost of enforcement should be more evenly distributed, particularly if ad revenue is involved.
Google+YouTube benefit financially when they only minimally follow the DMCA rules, and put the cost of policing rights violations entirely on rights holders. This is especially galling when Google+YouTube "earn" ad revenue on pages alongside rights violations.
This model is wrong, and unfair. Google+YouTube should have a much stronger financial disincentive in place against facilitating rights violations, at least to the point where they are more proactive about it and don't simply wait for takedown notices to flow in. In other words, yes, the DMCA actually doesn't go far enough.
iPhones aren't significantly different in price from top-end Android phones from Samsung, HTC, etc. I know the Nexus phones are always quoted as proof that iPhones are over-priced, but the Nexus phones are an anomaly when compared to other similar Android phones as well.
How many of the mobile purchases were done in a standard browser versus native apps? I suspect the latter is responsible for a surprisingly large share.
Specifically, I'm more concerned with the lag between accel/gyro positional reading and screen update. If this lag gets too high, you get a tearing effect which can seriously degrade the overall VR experience.
Fully agreed. I'll be happy to trade off FOV and some PPI if it means we can keep screen refresh rate up, sensor latency down, and resulting rotational error low. Bonus if these things can be done on battery power, and not require being connected to a wall outlet all the time.
Playing devil's advocate here... Why is this result some failure of the judge/jury of this case? Like it or not, this patent has previously been granted by the patent office. Jurors and judges don't get to invalidate patent claims because of some flaky idea of who is trolling who. Rather, they have to follow a more or less established legal process, regardless the side they may otherwise be rooting for.
You want a "Bad Guy" for this event? Blame Congress, as current law incentivizes patent reviewers to accept questionable patent applications, and the number of years granted to these patents are too many.
I agree that some aspects of copyright law go too far. However, that doesn't in the least bit justify piracy. If obtaining a copy of something legally costs too much, I simply abstain.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, even throwing a toddler's tantrum will get you modded up around here, if it's related to piracy demands. Apparently you became grossly self-entitled and "spoiled" through no fault of your own, eh?
So not stealing stuff is considered too old-fashioned? (Just how many lame excuses for piracy are in this forum today??)
"Socially relevant?" That's how low we've fallen to justify stealing content? It's less than a year, and the content itself doesn't actually change over those months of course. I enjoy that content just fine, regardless its age. And I'd rather be an antisocial troll than a thief.
Citation? I'm skeptical.
Is it so terrible to wait until February? It's not like you'll ever be more than one season behind. I love the show, but I don't mind waiting myself.
In other words, you don't respect any of the content you're viewing or the people who produced it.
GoT is available on Netflix. Maybe not Netflix streaming, but it's certainly false you need a cable subscription to view it legit without purchasing it. I watched the first two seasons of GoT via Netflix.
Of course some of those pirates would purchase the content legit if piracy options were unavailable. The real question is, how many? What's the percentage?
Netflix does carry GoT, that's how I watched the first two seasons of it. I will watch the third season as well once they get it.
Your use of so many subjective adjectives ironically proves the GP's point.
Or perhaps they can sort it out just fine, but choose not to. It seems a lot of people are strongly vested in these partisan culture wars, and will answer surveys accordingly, even if it conflicts with their private beliefs.
Bingo. Quite a few people are answering surveys by choosing partisan answers, even if those answers conflict with their private beliefs, and even at risk of looking like idiots to the wider world.
Agreed that simply posting links to hosted content is less of an issue than hosting it on YouTube directly, but it still amounts to facilitating rights violations. I don't know if doing so should be illegal per se, just that doing so should hurt Google's bottom line, in such a way that they proactively try to prevent it.
I'm making no statement regarding how violators themselves should be handled. All I'm saying is, no legitimate enterprise should be rewarded for helping these violators, even if that help only amounts to putting on blindfolders. The cost of enforcement should be more evenly distributed, particularly if ad revenue is involved.
Google+YouTube benefit financially when they only minimally follow the DMCA rules, and put the cost of policing rights violations entirely on rights holders. This is especially galling when Google+YouTube "earn" ad revenue on pages alongside rights violations. This model is wrong, and unfair. Google+YouTube should have a much stronger financial disincentive in place against facilitating rights violations, at least to the point where they are more proactive about it and don't simply wait for takedown notices to flow in. In other words, yes, the DMCA actually doesn't go far enough.
iPhones aren't significantly different in price from top-end Android phones from Samsung, HTC, etc. I know the Nexus phones are always quoted as proof that iPhones are over-priced, but the Nexus phones are an anomaly when compared to other similar Android phones as well.
How many of the mobile purchases were done in a standard browser versus native apps? I suspect the latter is responsible for a surprisingly large share.
Specifically, I'm more concerned with the lag between accel/gyro positional reading and screen update. If this lag gets too high, you get a tearing effect which can seriously degrade the overall VR experience.
Fully agreed. I'll be happy to trade off FOV and some PPI if it means we can keep screen refresh rate up, sensor latency down, and resulting rotational error low. Bonus if these things can be done on battery power, and not require being connected to a wall outlet all the time.
I RTFA, but didn't see a latency (from sensor to screen redraw) spec. Isn't that supposed to be a pretty important criteria for these devices?
Playing devil's advocate here... Why is this result some failure of the judge/jury of this case? Like it or not, this patent has previously been granted by the patent office. Jurors and judges don't get to invalidate patent claims because of some flaky idea of who is trolling who. Rather, they have to follow a more or less established legal process, regardless the side they may otherwise be rooting for. You want a "Bad Guy" for this event? Blame Congress, as current law incentivizes patent reviewers to accept questionable patent applications, and the number of years granted to these patents are too many.
As if there is any difference whatsoever between '@yahoo.com' vs '@gmail.com'. Anyone who claims such is too superficial to take seriously.
Agreed. By mid next year we should have Watch Dogs, Destiny, and FFXV. I'll save my purchase for then.
Of course a pro-copyright message will get down-modded on Slashdot. That's like saying the sky is blue.
I agree that some aspects of copyright law go too far. However, that doesn't in the least bit justify piracy. If obtaining a copy of something legally costs too much, I simply abstain.