"No doubt, all those IP lawyers think this is a good thing..."
Hey, come on...as a law student who hates this as much as anyone here, that's just not fair.
Granted, it seems like there are plenty of lawyers willing to push for and litigate harsh copyright/trademark/(software )patent laws, but I don't actually know where they learn it. In colleges and unis, the IP professor/lawyers who are for expansive laws are few and far between. And in the 'wild,' the concentration appears higher than it is because, the software/entertainment pro-copyright-till-we-choke lawyers are the only ones who have control of the microphone (why do you think that is?).
Anyways, I have yet to meet a professor that supports the things we all complain about. In fact, I know such lawyers exist only looking at the amici briefs files for, say, Grokster. Most are shades of Lessig. And if they're having any effect, I guess I just don't see how there won't be floods of actual lawyers pouring out of the schools who advocate erring on the side of restrained law rather than expansive law.
I wonder if anyone expected Apple to actually go through with it, seeing as how the damage was already done and after Macworld, it would be moot times two.
The fact is they know they can scare off other websites in the future with legal action, and they'll continue to do so--that they ended up having to put their money where their mouth was here is simply to show that they'll actually take the first steps if necessary.
This site was an exception to the rule--the rule being, if you are a large corporation, you can send a takedown notice anywhere for any reason, no matter how spurious, and 99% of the people will comply. That is still true today, and the fact that Apple finally was called on one bluff really doesn't change much.
This would be important if the German National Bibliothek had somehow negotiated a way to ensure that non-DRMed copies will be made available to them for the library archives. As it is, they've only really negotiated the ability to archive for maybe another five to ten years, as by then content will more likely than not simply not be crackable.
I only need to point to the TCPA/Palladium/locked-bios architectures that pop up every so often--if you're someone who thinks DRM will 'always be crackable as long as the content can be seen,' I have to suggest that maybe you aren't fully taking in the DRM onslaught that is about to take place. If content decoding only takes place in your speakers, monitor, etc, with watermarked/recorder-distorting tech within the images themselves, are you really prepared to crack open your monitor and speaker, braving deadly electrical currents, to solder around a connection or two in order to get a clean signal? What about when it all happens within a single piece of silicon?
The German Bibliothek basically won the rights they already had before the EU/CD and which any logical person would argue they had as a matter of course. What they've lost in this 'victory' is the future.
Remember when EA built up its brand on the Sega Genesis platform, and then soon refused to make games for its successful Dreamcast? Nobody could figure out the deal at the time, since the PS2 was only announced, not due out for a year, and the Dreamcast was selling like hotcakes. Basically, EA gave Sega a good slap in the face and crack in the kneecaps for no apparent reason other than to butter up Sony who, collectively, the gaming world had already chosen as its new leader.
Fast forward to now, and ESPN built up its name thanks to Sega, gained marketshare and mindshare exponentially (ESPN 2K5 sales were almost on parity with Madden, albiet with the lower price and the game had gained cachet perhaps solely because of Sega's excellent development efforts), and then took a page from EA and crowbarred Sega in the solar plexus.
I know the question is itself fallacious, because at some level these were both business decisions, but: Why do successful companies who built their brands on Sega's success hate Sega? I mean, you'd think there'd be some goodwill and comradery between the Sega and ESPN execs that would at least make them think twice at 15-year-exclusive-deal time with the biggest competitor.
"You could have found that out if you'd read the link you clicked on, and the submission in general. It's only bait and switch if there was an attempt to hide something.
If you read *my* post, you'd know I did indeed read the whole article. Judging from the other posts available at the time I posted, I have to note that mine was the only one that referenced the article anyways. I didn't see you complaining about how relevant and referential those who treated an article containing the word "Miyazaki" as a general opinion repository with such patronizing contempt.
The point: 2/3rds of the submission is an advertisement for the whole article, of which no matter how good the interview, we can't read or gain any useful information about based on a link as tenuous as an interview with the interviewer.
"However, recognizing all this requires that you read and think, not react, click, and complain."
"The New Yorker issue of 17 January has an in-depth article on Hayao Miyazaki. It gives a nice look at the arc of his work, short interviews with him, and more extended interviews with his co-workers."
and clicked through. Pretty disappointing to find out that the actual article is an interview with somebody who interviewed Miyazaki, and includes no actual excerpts of interviews with him.
To sum it up, most of the article seems to be Margaret Talbot explaining her own opinions on and experiences with Miyazaki films to the New Yorkers Dan Cappello. She paraphrases something Miyazaki said in their actual interview maybe thrice throughout the story. Most of it is simply her personal opinion on his work or statistical/biographical info that is available to anyone-- which is fine if you've never heard of him, but rather boring if you have seen his works, already know that he is incredible, and would just like to hear what he has to say.
Disappointing to say the least! So where's the actual New Yorker article that the Slashdot story spent most of its time describing??
I reread my post three times, and I can't see what you mean. I guess I'll assume you're referring to 1,877 in the quote 'turning into' 4,877 in my totals. To clarify I was counting the additional 3,000 registry entries (mentioned directly after the 1,877 in the quote) in the summary numbers since it seemed to be the case that the other totals included registry entries.
That said, I guess it's possible that SpyBot removed some objects that counted as maybe 5 or 6 to AntiSpyware, but it certainly seems to be a big enough discrepancy so as to render that unlikely.
The first Ad-Aware scan revealed 1309 infected objects and a second scan immediately after a reboot resulted in 291 more infected objects reported. After removal of those objects, we ran Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta. AntiSpyware's scan revealed a whopping 1,877 infected files left over by the Ad-Aware not to mention the nearly 3,000 registry locations infected. One of the files which Ad-Aware failed to detect was WinTools which is suspected to be a Trojan with a maximum threat level.
It was time to pin Microsoft AntiSpyware against SpyBot S&D by first scanning with SpyBot then checking to see how many files SpyBot had left behind. SpyBot's initial scan resulted in 358 "problems" detected. After running SpyBot a second time to make sure it did not report any other "problems", we ran Microsoft AntiSpyware. AntiSpyware was able to detect 659 infected files on the machine with 2.223 registry keys infected.
So, to begin, Ad-Aware found 1,600 infected elements total. AntiSpyware found 4,877 more. Total: 6,477
SpyBot finds 358. AntiSpyware finds 2,882 more. Total: 3,240
Can anyone explain this? Even if the programs are giving false positives on spyware (and, considering that even having malicious spyware installed, 6,000+ detected compromised elements makes false positives almost a promise rather than a hunch), why would AntiSpyware inconsistently return false positives depending on what program scanned the PC first? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Just gotta get something off my chest reading this thread.
I get the feeling this guy just doesn't know how to argue, and thus, he is a troll. If you look, he seems to take a post which is generally against punishment by the DoJ in this story's comments section, and then respond with something completely unrelated to the points brought up in the parent post.
For this post, obviously he didn't so much as acknowledge Jefferson's ideas, just took a pot shot using race relations. You wanna talk about that, Shark72? Go find the thread on it.
In this post, the parent concerns the mentality of the average warez pup. The idea is, it's about collection. Not a very strong argument if you're going to consider acts, not intentions, to be the deciding factor in ethical (and legal) behavior. Of course, some of us have read Kant and see this is indeed important, but Shark72 just brings up some derisive, completely-out-of-left-field rant about open source software.
In summary, this guy is a troll. Reading his posts, he very likely thinks he has honest arguments and is too intelligent generally to be a bonafide, died-in-the-wool troll by intention; nonetheless, he is wasting all our time with posts like this. You on the other hand honestly want to have a substantive discussion, and he is just wasting your brain time. Ignore him please.
This is totally, 100% off topic, but I was wondering how you came to be teaching English in Japan, and what you think of it? It's something I've been considering doing as well, and I couldn't resist asking since I don't actually see many people who have done it.
"You have to make the executable first, and you can do that only if you can crack Sony's private signing key."
Well, I'm actually wondering--do you know this for a fact? I don't know either way, but since you can just drag and drop pictures and music (and movies?) into the memory stick file system, I don't think it's out of the question that you might do this for executables. I don't know, but it's not clear that it'll be impossible either (unless you know something I don't?).
"Are people really away from 110*n volts for more than 2 to 3 hours at a time, unless they're already making a decided effort to retreat from technology?"
Nope. But it is a pain in the ass to be forced to recharge every 2-3 hours when you're supposed to be able to take the damn thing with you whenever you want. And different genres are going to be affected in different ways, but I think most games will be noticably less fun for it.
One Example:
Imagine playing a 3D RPG, ala FFX (or, less theoretically, how about Ys VI), and having to recharge every 3 hours. For a 25 hour game, you'd recharge the thing 8 times. Now, I don't know about you, but I can easily imagine worrying more about my PSP's battery life than where my last save point is before that big boss battle. Heck, I've had boss battles in RPGs that have lasted 2 hours (and I've got my Proof of Omega to prove it!), to give the extreme example.
Anyways--I see your point, but in sum, the whole idea of buying a 'portable' is to not be tethered to an outlet.
Well, word on the street is that you can simply put executables on a memory stick and run 'em on your PSP (scroll halfway down).
So I really do like the PSP's hackability-factor, actually. Early on, Sony seemed like they'd lock it up tight--what with their DRM-heavy UMD format and encrypted Memory Sticks--, but maybe their early failure in the portable digital audio market (seems like their Walkman line didn't last two months before The Great MP3 Capitulation) made them rethink things a bit.
Anyways, yeah--I'll be a lot more interested in the PSP if someone comes up with some good emulator ports or even (gasp!) good homebrew software.
I admit, I didn't think the DS would do as well as it had, but Sony I can't really tell if Sony is going to be able to overtake the well-stocked and well-sought-after DS when they only launch with 200,000 systems and, as recently announced, can only deliver another 200,000 in the two weeks before christmas.
As a side note, I may not be as confident as Nintendo, but I certainly am a lot more interested in the DS than the PSP, despite the fact that the PSP technology is undoubtedly sexy and desirable.
Early reports are that the PSP has 5 hours of battery--and that's with a non-intensive (puzzle) game with no backlight or speaker or wireless connectivity-- and also slow loading times. 2-3 hours of battery life sounds more reasonable for the games everyone is interested in (3D heavy Ridge Racer, etc...), which is just not enough time. Couple this with launch titles that are almost totally sequels or so generic as to be indistinguishable from sequels, and even the still-somewhat-gimmicky DS just seems a lot more fun with a lot less headache.
As a blanket response to all those who have responded--thanks for pointing out the primary purpose of CSS, which I had indeed blanked on. While I don't contest that compared to each of your answers my own comment is at worst misleading and at best incomplete, I am curious how CSS can't be considered the primary DRM DVDs have.
I had always thought CSS served the dual purpose of scrambling the DVD to prevent unauthorized copying (end-user) *and* playback (manufacturer). Let's not revise history and forget that because we have DVD burners and P2P capable of DVD-sharing now that it was so when the CSS was developed. When DVDs first arrived, there were no DVD burners and it would have seemed absurd for anyone to transfer the whole DVD on P2P--having an iron lock on manufacturers also meant having an iron lock on consumers, and in case anyone were to break that, contract law could be used on the manufacturers and the DMCA could be used on the end-users.
The biggest example of the latter 'iron lock' and what it meant to Hollywood? Off the top of my head, how about the MPAA going after Jon Johansen for playing a DVD on Linux and the subsequent DMCA-blocking of 2600's link to DeCSS?
"Kaleidescape creates expensive consumer electronics networks that upload the full contents of as many as 500 DVDs to a home server, and allow the owner to browse through the movies without later using the DVDs themselves. That's exactly what the copy-protection technology on DVDs, called Content Scramble System (CSS) was meant to prevent, the Hollywood-backed group said."
I had to read that a couple times just to make sure that I was seeing what I was seeing. The CSS system was explicitly made to prevent people from exercising fair use backups of their legally purchased DVDs? I thought it was to prevent piracy? Moreover, after paying all those congressmen all that money, they just turn a cold shoulder to their darling, the DMCA.
Kinda seems lazy on their part. At least they could properly cite the corrupt, consumer-hostile law they explicitly created to castrate fair use.
"NGSCB won't prevent legacy apps, such as web browsers with SSL, from running on home computers. It just provides a separate "secure" environment. If the major labels stop offering their songs to people who don't have NGSCB, then watch people whose computers still run Windows XP stop buying from the major labels. And watch people not immediately upgrade to Longhorn; heck, it's 2004, XP has been out for three years, and some people still run Windows 98 and (ecch) ME."
Naturally, Longhorn must run legacy apps. I'm not talking about your MP3s now, which will still be playable according to most (rational) fortune tellers. And naturally, some people still run 98 and (double-ecch) ME--some, but certainly not most. Instead, I'm talking about what you will buy then--that is, at a time when the Longhorn base has reached a 'critical mass,' much like XP has compared to 98 and ME. At some point, the media companies will in all likelihood say, "70/80/90% of computers are running DRM-capable Longhorn. That's plenty." and put it as an upgrade-or-lose-out issue.
At that point, I'd be pretty surprised if I saw legacy XP users just quit buying music from major labels. More likely, they'll just upgrade, because computers are just like other traditional utilities to your average joe--damned if they know what's wrong, but they'll have to do whatever it takes to fix it: "The toilet broken? Gonna have to call a plumber, I guess"; "The car making noises? Guess I'll have to take it in"; "Computer isn't working? Well, I guess I'll need to upgrade my Windows."
Even under a worst case scenario, I don't see (active or incidental) boycotting even on the radar.
"I will be using Longhorn, DRM wont stop me from using it. I'll just use mp3 with longhorn. Longhorn like XP will tream DRM on DRM'ed media the same now as with 98/2K/XP.
Just dont buy DRM'ed content.
Well, true, right now you don't have to buy DRMed content and there's nothing to stop you from choosing because XP does not have any sort of iron-clad DRM built in. However, once Longhorn comes out with the NGSCB (or whatever they're calling it now), do you think that you will have the option to buy non-DRMed content? Having built in DRM support once the OS becomes dominant is going to quickly mean that any media the RIAA and MPAA release will be required to have it. This is not much of guess, seeing as how they have been pushing for this using every clean or dirty means available to them.
Then what? A consumer backlash is highly unlikely, since, again, most people will hear about this as a 'security feature' and, if you know anyone who isn't tech-saavy in America right now, they care a lot more about keeping things 'safe' and 'secure' than any principles of free access (in the unlikely chance they had even heard an argument for it). So you'll help establish the OS base, and everyone else will help establish the media base, and there goes your choice up in smoke.
Well, I've sort of taken a wallet-recommended break from online gaming since Quake 3 (a period which easily lasted 4 years anyways), but Q3 LANs always allowed you to join and create games from the same key. I thought I'd get back into it with HL2, but it sounds like I'm gonna have to stick to my principles here. A shame...
"From what I hear though the game's DRM is pretty lenient. You can install on as many PC's as you like, they just can't use the same key simultaneously. This isn't activation in the "Windows XP" sense of the word."
Two questions then:
1) Does this mean that it not only needs to check an internet database during installation, but also every time a game is loaded up (and closed, to affirm a time frame)?
2) Does this mean that you can't install a copy on your brother's computer for LAN play (i.e., you and your little brother have to buy their own copies just to play versus each other)?
People can argue about how under strict legal interpretation, you and your brother should have to buy their own copies to play against each other, but in actuality, I feel that that's pretty restrictive. Conversely, LAN-enabled games often were pretty consistent in allowing players to LAN with a single copy, even when the capability existed (heck, comparing CD keys could have been done any time LAN and CD Keys were both used).
So, if that's the case, it's one less reason for me to buy this game. If it's not the case, somebody tell me please!
"As for you people who are up in arms over how activation servers one day may be offline and - gasp - how will we play then? There is this thing called patch and it's a perfectly fine way to remove this feature."
Well, that was good for a laugh, anyways. I don't know if you realize how well you perfectly summed up the utter and complete absurdity of using activation to prevent piracy. In sum, your post and the last line in particular basically just said, "Activation is fair and good, as long as they remove it." You may have been referring to either a Valve-created patch (which they have zero incentive--in fact, a disincentive-- to produce, ever, if they believe in the first place that activation will protect any sales) or a user-created hack (which even you seem to agree is inevitable)-- either situation proves my point sufficiently: The legitimate user either suffers injury for being a legitimate user, or must engage in infringement simply to exercise their paid-for privileges (I'd like you to convince me that paying the posted retail price for a game does not implicitly suggest that they'll be able to use that game), while the illegitimate user suffers nothing and receives a superior, more accessible product.
And as for incentives in general--I don't know about you, but for me, the incentive to buy a game is considerably lessened when I need to ask permission just to play it, after I've already paid for it.
I and many here have downloaded cracked copies of games we own for play-convenience/necessity's sake. So what, do you suggest we just do that again for HL2 after we buy it? Is activation justified even though, in order to retain our legitimate rights as a buyer to actually use what we have bought, we have to engage in illegal behavior? Activation and other overzealous copy protection mechanisms really don't 'keep people honest,' whatever that means-- just punish the honest by giving everyone a sometimes overwhelming incentive to become a criminal.
So who exactly decided to force people to activate it over the Steam network anyways? Vivendi sounds like a pretty bad guy, but really, come on now--we flipped out when TurboTax, Adobe, and MS all started activation, but what? Now it's just an accepted part of using software to the point where Valve takes no blame even though they made the decision to exert total control over even the single player HL2 installations?
Thanks for the reply, but those statistics are a bit old. I did some research and came up with this article from July, 2004.
It turns out we were both right and both wrong. Although both youth and middle-age suicides are bad and getting worse, the highest number comes from the elderly, which is surprising considering they are only 19% of the population (2004 statistics)
Anyways, an excerpt on the youth rates:
"The latest NPA data confirm that suicide by elementary- and middle-school students is a serious social problem. The suicide rate for this group rose by a massive 57.6%, representing a total of 93 innocent lives lost, 34 more than in 2002. Among high-school students there was also a sharp rise of 29.3%. In total, 225 young lives were lost in this category. There was also an increase in the number of college students killing themselves. The overall suicide rate among people aged 19 or younger rose by 22%."
And generally:
"Based on provisional data for 2003, Japanese male and female suicide rates per 100,000 people are now roughly 40.2 for men and 14.9 for women, approaching levels normally witnessed in countries suffering severe economic hardships such as Russia, Latvia or Lithuania."
Anyways, here's another source for more up to date statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, come on...as a law student who hates this as much as anyone here, that's just not fair.
Granted, it seems like there are plenty of lawyers willing to push for and litigate harsh copyright/trademark/(software )patent laws, but I don't actually know where they learn it. In colleges and unis, the IP professor/lawyers who are for expansive laws are few and far between. And in the 'wild,' the concentration appears higher than it is because, the software/entertainment pro-copyright-till-we-choke lawyers are the only ones who have control of the microphone (why do you think that is?).
Anyways, I have yet to meet a professor that supports the things we all complain about. In fact, I know such lawyers exist only looking at the amici briefs files for, say, Grokster. Most are shades of Lessig. And if they're having any effect, I guess I just don't see how there won't be floods of actual lawyers pouring out of the schools who advocate erring on the side of restrained law rather than expansive law.
The fact is they know they can scare off other websites in the future with legal action, and they'll continue to do so--that they ended up having to put their money where their mouth was here is simply to show that they'll actually take the first steps if necessary.
This site was an exception to the rule--the rule being, if you are a large corporation, you can send a takedown notice anywhere for any reason, no matter how spurious, and 99% of the people will comply. That is still true today, and the fact that Apple finally was called on one bluff really doesn't change much.
I only need to point to the TCPA/Palladium/locked-bios architectures that pop up every so often--if you're someone who thinks DRM will 'always be crackable as long as the content can be seen,' I have to suggest that maybe you aren't fully taking in the DRM onslaught that is about to take place. If content decoding only takes place in your speakers, monitor, etc, with watermarked/recorder-distorting tech within the images themselves, are you really prepared to crack open your monitor and speaker, braving deadly electrical currents, to solder around a connection or two in order to get a clean signal? What about when it all happens within a single piece of silicon?
The German Bibliothek basically won the rights they already had before the EU/CD and which any logical person would argue they had as a matter of course. What they've lost in this 'victory' is the future.
Fast forward to now, and ESPN built up its name thanks to Sega, gained marketshare and mindshare exponentially (ESPN 2K5 sales were almost on parity with Madden, albiet with the lower price and the game had gained cachet perhaps solely because of Sega's excellent development efforts), and then took a page from EA and crowbarred Sega in the solar plexus.
I know the question is itself fallacious, because at some level these were both business decisions, but: Why do successful companies who built their brands on Sega's success hate Sega? I mean, you'd think there'd be some goodwill and comradery between the Sega and ESPN execs that would at least make them think twice at 15-year-exclusive-deal time with the biggest competitor.
If you read *my* post, you'd know I did indeed read the whole article. Judging from the other posts available at the time I posted, I have to note that mine was the only one that referenced the article anyways. I didn't see you complaining about how relevant and referential those who treated an article containing the word "Miyazaki" as a general opinion repository with such patronizing contempt.
The point: 2/3rds of the submission is an advertisement for the whole article, of which no matter how good the interview, we can't read or gain any useful information about based on a link as tenuous as an interview with the interviewer.
"However, recognizing all this requires that you read and think, not react, click, and complain."
You are mean.
Have a nice day.
"The New Yorker issue of 17 January has an in-depth article on Hayao Miyazaki. It gives a nice look at the arc of his work, short interviews with him, and more extended interviews with his co-workers."
and clicked through. Pretty disappointing to find out that the actual article is an interview with somebody who interviewed Miyazaki, and includes no actual excerpts of interviews with him.
To sum it up, most of the article seems to be Margaret Talbot explaining her own opinions on and experiences with Miyazaki films to the New Yorkers Dan Cappello. She paraphrases something Miyazaki said in their actual interview maybe thrice throughout the story. Most of it is simply her personal opinion on his work or statistical/biographical info that is available to anyone-- which is fine if you've never heard of him, but rather boring if you have seen his works, already know that he is incredible, and would just like to hear what he has to say.
Disappointing to say the least! So where's the actual New Yorker article that the Slashdot story spent most of its time describing??
That said, I guess it's possible that SpyBot removed some objects that counted as maybe 5 or 6 to AntiSpyware, but it certainly seems to be a big enough discrepancy so as to render that unlikely.
The first Ad-Aware scan revealed 1309 infected objects and a second scan immediately after a reboot resulted in 291 more infected objects reported. After removal of those objects, we ran Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta. AntiSpyware's scan revealed a whopping 1,877 infected files left over by the Ad-Aware not to mention the nearly 3,000 registry locations infected. One of the files which Ad-Aware failed to detect was WinTools which is suspected to be a Trojan with a maximum threat level.
It was time to pin Microsoft AntiSpyware against SpyBot S&D by first scanning with SpyBot then checking to see how many files SpyBot had left behind. SpyBot's initial scan resulted in 358 "problems" detected. After running SpyBot a second time to make sure it did not report any other "problems", we ran Microsoft AntiSpyware. AntiSpyware was able to detect 659 infected files on the machine with 2.223 registry keys infected.
So, to begin, Ad-Aware found 1,600 infected elements total. AntiSpyware found 4,877 more. Total: 6,477
SpyBot finds 358. AntiSpyware finds 2,882 more. Total: 3,240
Can anyone explain this? Even if the programs are giving false positives on spyware (and, considering that even having malicious spyware installed, 6,000+ detected compromised elements makes false positives almost a promise rather than a hunch), why would AntiSpyware inconsistently return false positives depending on what program scanned the PC first? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Beeep. Big problem, George. 'Intellectual property' not 'physical property,' 'intellectual space' not 'phsyical space.' DOES NOT COMPUTE. Beep.
I get the feeling this guy just doesn't know how to argue, and thus, he is a troll. If you look, he seems to take a post which is generally against punishment by the DoJ in this story's comments section, and then respond with something completely unrelated to the points brought up in the parent post.
For this post, obviously he didn't so much as acknowledge Jefferson's ideas, just took a pot shot using race relations. You wanna talk about that, Shark72? Go find the thread on it.
Another example: here.
In this post, the parent concerns the mentality of the average warez pup. The idea is, it's about collection. Not a very strong argument if you're going to consider acts, not intentions, to be the deciding factor in ethical (and legal) behavior. Of course, some of us have read Kant and see this is indeed important, but Shark72 just brings up some derisive, completely-out-of-left-field rant about open source software.
In summary, this guy is a troll. Reading his posts, he very likely thinks he has honest arguments and is too intelligent generally to be a bonafide, died-in-the-wool troll by intention; nonetheless, he is wasting all our time with posts like this. You on the other hand honestly want to have a substantive discussion, and he is just wasting your brain time. Ignore him please.
This is totally, 100% off topic, but I was wondering how you came to be teaching English in Japan, and what you think of it? It's something I've been considering doing as well, and I couldn't resist asking since I don't actually see many people who have done it.
Well, I'm actually wondering--do you know this for a fact? I don't know either way, but since you can just drag and drop pictures and music (and movies?) into the memory stick file system, I don't think it's out of the question that you might do this for executables. I don't know, but it's not clear that it'll be impossible either (unless you know something I don't?).
Nope. But it is a pain in the ass to be forced to recharge every 2-3 hours when you're supposed to be able to take the damn thing with you whenever you want. And different genres are going to be affected in different ways, but I think most games will be noticably less fun for it.
One Example:
Imagine playing a 3D RPG, ala FFX (or, less theoretically, how about Ys VI), and having to recharge every 3 hours. For a 25 hour game, you'd recharge the thing 8 times. Now, I don't know about you, but I can easily imagine worrying more about my PSP's battery life than where my last save point is before that big boss battle. Heck, I've had boss battles in RPGs that have lasted 2 hours (and I've got my Proof of Omega to prove it!), to give the extreme example.
Anyways--I see your point, but in sum, the whole idea of buying a 'portable' is to not be tethered to an outlet.
So I really do like the PSP's hackability-factor, actually. Early on, Sony seemed like they'd lock it up tight--what with their DRM-heavy UMD format and encrypted Memory Sticks--, but maybe their early failure in the portable digital audio market (seems like their Walkman line didn't last two months before The Great MP3 Capitulation) made them rethink things a bit.
Anyways, yeah--I'll be a lot more interested in the PSP if someone comes up with some good emulator ports or even (gasp!) good homebrew software.
As a side note, I may not be as confident as Nintendo, but I certainly am a lot more interested in the DS than the PSP, despite the fact that the PSP technology is undoubtedly sexy and desirable.
Early reports are that the PSP has 5 hours of battery--and that's with a non-intensive (puzzle) game with no backlight or speaker or wireless connectivity-- and also slow loading times. 2-3 hours of battery life sounds more reasonable for the games everyone is interested in (3D heavy Ridge Racer, etc...), which is just not enough time. Couple this with launch titles that are almost totally sequels or so generic as to be indistinguishable from sequels, and even the still-somewhat-gimmicky DS just seems a lot more fun with a lot less headache.
I had always thought CSS served the dual purpose of scrambling the DVD to prevent unauthorized copying (end-user) *and* playback (manufacturer). Let's not revise history and forget that because we have DVD burners and P2P capable of DVD-sharing now that it was so when the CSS was developed. When DVDs first arrived, there were no DVD burners and it would have seemed absurd for anyone to transfer the whole DVD on P2P--having an iron lock on manufacturers also meant having an iron lock on consumers, and in case anyone were to break that, contract law could be used on the manufacturers and the DMCA could be used on the end-users.
The biggest example of the latter 'iron lock' and what it meant to Hollywood? Off the top of my head, how about the MPAA going after Jon Johansen for playing a DVD on Linux and the subsequent DMCA-blocking of 2600's link to DeCSS?
I had to read that a couple times just to make sure that I was seeing what I was seeing. The CSS system was explicitly made to prevent people from exercising fair use backups of their legally purchased DVDs? I thought it was to prevent piracy? Moreover, after paying all those congressmen all that money, they just turn a cold shoulder to their darling, the DMCA.
Kinda seems lazy on their part. At least they could properly cite the corrupt, consumer-hostile law they explicitly created to castrate fair use.
Naturally, Longhorn must run legacy apps. I'm not talking about your MP3s now, which will still be playable according to most (rational) fortune tellers. And naturally, some people still run 98 and (double-ecch) ME--some, but certainly not most. Instead, I'm talking about what you will buy then--that is, at a time when the Longhorn base has reached a 'critical mass,' much like XP has compared to 98 and ME. At some point, the media companies will in all likelihood say, "70/80/90% of computers are running DRM-capable Longhorn. That's plenty." and put it as an upgrade-or-lose-out issue.
At that point, I'd be pretty surprised if I saw legacy XP users just quit buying music from major labels. More likely, they'll just upgrade, because computers are just like other traditional utilities to your average joe--damned if they know what's wrong, but they'll have to do whatever it takes to fix it: "The toilet broken? Gonna have to call a plumber, I guess"; "The car making noises? Guess I'll have to take it in"; "Computer isn't working? Well, I guess I'll need to upgrade my Windows."
Even under a worst case scenario, I don't see (active or incidental) boycotting even on the radar.
Just dont buy DRM'ed content.
Well, true, right now you don't have to buy DRMed content and there's nothing to stop you from choosing because XP does not have any sort of iron-clad DRM built in. However, once Longhorn comes out with the NGSCB (or whatever they're calling it now), do you think that you will have the option to buy non-DRMed content? Having built in DRM support once the OS becomes dominant is going to quickly mean that any media the RIAA and MPAA release will be required to have it. This is not much of guess, seeing as how they have been pushing for this using every clean or dirty means available to them.
Then what? A consumer backlash is highly unlikely, since, again, most people will hear about this as a 'security feature' and, if you know anyone who isn't tech-saavy in America right now, they care a lot more about keeping things 'safe' and 'secure' than any principles of free access (in the unlikely chance they had even heard an argument for it). So you'll help establish the OS base, and everyone else will help establish the media base, and there goes your choice up in smoke.
Well, I've sort of taken a wallet-recommended break from online gaming since Quake 3 (a period which easily lasted 4 years anyways), but Q3 LANs always allowed you to join and create games from the same key. I thought I'd get back into it with HL2, but it sounds like I'm gonna have to stick to my principles here. A shame...
You're right about that. All these comments about crappy Disney sequelsploitations makes the whole project sound straight to video to me.
Two questions then:
1) Does this mean that it not only needs to check an internet database during installation, but also every time a game is loaded up (and closed, to affirm a time frame)?
2) Does this mean that you can't install a copy on your brother's computer for LAN play (i.e., you and your little brother have to buy their own copies just to play versus each other)?
People can argue about how under strict legal interpretation, you and your brother should have to buy their own copies to play against each other, but in actuality, I feel that that's pretty restrictive. Conversely, LAN-enabled games often were pretty consistent in allowing players to LAN with a single copy, even when the capability existed (heck, comparing CD keys could have been done any time LAN and CD Keys were both used).
So, if that's the case, it's one less reason for me to buy this game. If it's not the case, somebody tell me please!
Well, that was good for a laugh, anyways. I don't know if you realize how well you perfectly summed up the utter and complete absurdity of using activation to prevent piracy. In sum, your post and the last line in particular basically just said, "Activation is fair and good, as long as they remove it." You may have been referring to either a Valve-created patch (which they have zero incentive--in fact, a disincentive-- to produce, ever, if they believe in the first place that activation will protect any sales) or a user-created hack (which even you seem to agree is inevitable)-- either situation proves my point sufficiently: The legitimate user either suffers injury for being a legitimate user, or must engage in infringement simply to exercise their paid-for privileges (I'd like you to convince me that paying the posted retail price for a game does not implicitly suggest that they'll be able to use that game), while the illegitimate user suffers nothing and receives a superior, more accessible product.
And as for incentives in general--I don't know about you, but for me, the incentive to buy a game is considerably lessened when I need to ask permission just to play it, after I've already paid for it.
I and many here have downloaded cracked copies of games we own for play-convenience/necessity's sake. So what, do you suggest we just do that again for HL2 after we buy it? Is activation justified even though, in order to retain our legitimate rights as a buyer to actually use what we have bought, we have to engage in illegal behavior? Activation and other overzealous copy protection mechanisms really don't 'keep people honest,' whatever that means-- just punish the honest by giving everyone a sometimes overwhelming incentive to become a criminal.
So who exactly decided to force people to activate it over the Steam network anyways? Vivendi sounds like a pretty bad guy, but really, come on now--we flipped out when TurboTax, Adobe, and MS all started activation, but what? Now it's just an accepted part of using software to the point where Valve takes no blame even though they made the decision to exert total control over even the single player HL2 installations?
It turns out we were both right and both wrong. Although both youth and middle-age suicides are bad and getting worse, the highest number comes from the elderly, which is surprising considering they are only 19% of the population (2004 statistics)
Anyways, an excerpt on the youth rates:
"The latest NPA data confirm that suicide by elementary- and middle-school students is a serious social problem. The suicide rate for this group rose by a massive 57.6%, representing a total of 93 innocent lives lost, 34 more than in 2002. Among high-school students there was also a sharp rise of 29.3%. In total, 225 young lives were lost in this category. There was also an increase in the number of college students killing themselves. The overall suicide rate among people aged 19 or younger rose by 22%."
And generally:
"Based on provisional data for 2003, Japanese male and female suicide rates per 100,000 people are now roughly 40.2 for men and 14.9 for women, approaching levels normally witnessed in countries suffering severe economic hardships such as Russia, Latvia or Lithuania."
Anyways, here's another source for more up to date statistics.