Well, it certainly worked with the MiniDisc, didn't it? I love the wide selection of popular music I can buy for my MiniDisc player at my local music store... I say trust Sony on this regard!
Why would all resteraunt jobs go to robots (besides maybe fast food)?
I could see dishwashers and kitchen staff, but cooks - unlikely, because I doubt robots who can smell and taste are coming even on his timeline.
And waiters? Very unlikely, since there is no incentive for resteraunt owners to replace them : waiters only get paid like $2.50 an hour (making most of their money off tips). Why in the world would you buy a robot to replace a worker who only makes $2.50 an hour?
Also, polite and friendly waitstaff means repeat business - the difference between a fast food resteraunt and a real one is that the real one sells an experience, not just food.
Confidently saying that sales would have been higher on another console (one without the necessary graphics for Panzer Dragoon Orta or the better audio for the awesome soundtrack of JSRF) is nothing but empty speculation, no matter how authoritative you sound.
Well, since PS2 has a much, much larger installed base, and their game sales dwarf those of the other consoles, it's a _little_ more than empty speculation.
Well, the obvious difference is that id's track record is good, while Ion Storm's was nonexistant. Also, Ion Storm hyped their game endlessly. id is remaining mostly quiet.
You mean how they release a movie on DVD, wait 6 months, then screw the customer when they intentionally release a special edition of the DVD with never-before-seen footage, extra commentary, etc...
How is that "screwing" you? You don't have to buy either version, you know.
There was a modem for the Sega Genesis... Or perhaps the Saturn? My friend had it, whichever one it was for, and I believe you could play a few games online, though it was incredibly, incredibly lame in general.
Probably so... However, we aren't really "debating" since you don't address the majority of my points, nor do you respond to any direct questions that I bring up...
What was your point with that example? It has absolutely nothing to do with what this thread concerned : copyrighted works that WERE published and at one point being distributed, but are no longer being distributed.
I maintain, as does copyright law, that the creators of said works have the rights to stop distributing them.
I used the example of Kubrick and A Clockwork Orange before - the film had unintended consequences for Kubrick that he didn't anticipate (death threats on his family), so he stopped it's distribution. This was within his rights, and it did not mean that everyone suddenly had the legal right to make copies of the film and distribute it themselves. Do you feel that people should have had the _right_ to make (and distribute to others) copies of a Kubrick's film, against his express wishes? I do not.
Again, copyright gives creators control over their works, so that they can feel confident those works won't be used in ways they don't approve of, and thus be able to continue to create. If you take away their control of the things they make, then that confidence disappears, and less things will be made. Since these things eventually go into the public domain, everyone suffers if less things are made (and I think, as you probably do, that copyright times are too long).
That is the founding principle of copyright and you have yet to come up with any counter-argument to that that makes sense.
Also : your example is cute, but flawed even with the point it intends to make. Copyright starts from the date something is published (even self-published). If you have a poem bouncing in your head, and someone else coincidentally writes and actually publishes the same poem, then the copyright belongs to them. They published it. Unless, of course, you can produce proof they copied it - which you won't be able to, since they published it and you did not. That's your own fault for not stepping to the plate. (Also note that many copyright suits are because the works are considered too simple or universal.)
Again, however, this has NOTHING to do with what this thread has been about up to this point, so I don't know why you brought it up.
No, they actually say if you collect a FULL set of the cards, you can trade them in for a full set. I believe you also have to do it in a certain amount of time (while that set is active/in print).
As far as the compensation comment goes, you are stretching it a bit, at least in relation to the grandparent comment.
However, regardless : creators have the RIGHT to not distribute their work if they do not want to. Nowhere does it say that they HAVE to distribute it.
Again, copyright encourages creation by giving the creator control. If you are advocating not actually giving the creator control, then their is no encouragement.
I can think of plenty of very valid reasons why a creator might not want their work distributed. Without copyright, they would not be able to make that decision. Thus discouraging people from distributing their work.
Society's part of the bargain is to make it illegal for the work to be copied without compensation for the creator
Not true at all. The GPL is made possible copyright, where does "compensation for the creator" come in?
Answer : it doesn't. You can copy, use, and modify any GPL'd piece of software without paying any sort of compensation.
What Copyright does is allow the GPL to dictate control over code and how it's used in non-Open Source software, it does NOT ensure that the code authors (or anyone) will be compensated.
Society's part of the bargain is to cede control over the copyrighted materials for a period of time (a time I feel is currently too long, but that's a whole different debate).
If the creator does not make the work available he is not holding up his end of the bargain, not society.
Also wrong. Nothing in copyright law says a creator MUST continue to distribute his works forever, if he does not wish to. In fact the whole concept of copyright is what allows the creator to have control over such distribution.
Sorry, read up on the topic and try again.
Also, you didn't address my example about Kubrick. What is your opinion?
Being that the purpose of copyrights is to make works available to the public, why are creators surprised that the public disrepects them when they don't make their works available?
First of all : Copyright is not simply designed to make works available to the public, since works were available to the public BEFORE copyright existed. Copyright exists to offer creators and incentive to create works, which can then be made available to the public, and that is an important distinction.
Secondly : What is the point of a compromise if one side doesn't hold up to their part of the bargain?
Copyright is a compromise between creators and the public, giving creators control over their works so that they will be encouraged to make more.
If this control is simply an illusion - that is to say they don't actually have any control, the public doesn't stick to their side of the bargain - then where is the encouragement?
Little example : Stanley Kubrick, after much public outcry, controversy and even threats to his family after the release of A Clockwork Orange, decided to pull the film from UK release.
Do you feel that the man should not have had the right to control whether or not (and where) his movie was shown?
Personally, I feel that, as the creator and the person who ultimately bore responsibility for the film, as well as it's criticism, he was within his rights to not release it in the UK. Copyright law seems to back me up.
And anyone in the UK who had gone ahead and shown the movie, against his wishes, would have been disrespectful, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they could start selling more risque titles a la Playstation, but I don't think that's where they want to go.
The only console with an uncensored version of BMX XXX is the GC. Of course, that game is apparently terrible (I've never played it).
Here's hoping they just sell the ROM file from the cart alongside the cart itself.
This is a great idea. Or, even better, release the ROM as a seperate (and cheaper) purchase.
They could release the Cart first, for the collectors, then release the ROM download at a cheaper price, like a month later.
That would be cool.
Well, it certainly worked with the MiniDisc, didn't it? I love the wide selection of popular music I can buy for my MiniDisc player at my local music store... I say trust Sony on this regard!
This is the Minidisc Player of the 21st century, NOT the walkman of the 21st century.
Why would all resteraunt jobs go to robots (besides maybe fast food)?
I could see dishwashers and kitchen staff, but cooks - unlikely, because I doubt robots who can smell and taste are coming even on his timeline.
And waiters? Very unlikely, since there is no incentive for resteraunt owners to replace them : waiters only get paid like $2.50 an hour (making most of their money off tips). Why in the world would you buy a robot to replace a worker who only makes $2.50 an hour?
Also, polite and friendly waitstaff means repeat business - the difference between a fast food resteraunt and a real one is that the real one sells an experience, not just food.
Maybe you can play a game or watch a movie without seeing the sequel, but that isn't something I do.
Huh? Why do you have to enjoy (or even see) the sequels to enjoy a movie?
I haven't seen the last 2-3 Highlander sequels, but that doesn't affect my ability to enjoy the first one, for example.
Confidently saying that sales would have been higher on another console (one without the necessary graphics for Panzer Dragoon Orta or the better audio for the awesome soundtrack of JSRF) is nothing but empty speculation, no matter how authoritative you sound.
Well, since PS2 has a much, much larger installed base, and their game sales dwarf those of the other consoles, it's a _little_ more than empty speculation.
Well, the obvious difference is that id's track record is good, while Ion Storm's was nonexistant. Also, Ion Storm hyped their game endlessly. id is remaining mostly quiet.
To be fair, many people have probably bought used copies of Halo, or borrowed it from a friend who had already beaten it.
Grah, I meant CD-Rs not DVDs... Love that preview button.
If you buy the DVDs marked "data" I believe they do not get a share of those sales... I could be wrong, but I was told thats why they are cheaper.
You mean how they release a movie on DVD, wait 6 months, then screw the customer when they intentionally release a special edition of the DVD with never-before-seen footage, extra commentary, etc...
How is that "screwing" you? You don't have to buy either version, you know.
There was a modem for the Sega Genesis... Or perhaps the Saturn? My friend had it, whichever one it was for, and I believe you could play a few games online, though it was incredibly, incredibly lame in general.
Except that those 400,000 have a free year with their network adaptor... The real test is to see how many people re-up that subscription.
Computers have a future. Consoles do not.
Huh? You do know that computer game sales go down every year, and console game sales go up every year, right?
That said, I like BOTH computer AND console games. But they are very different things, and fun for different reasons.
Probably so... However, we aren't really "debating" since you don't address the majority of my points, nor do you respond to any direct questions that I bring up...
"many copyright suits are DISMISSED", I meant to say.
What was your point with that example? It has absolutely nothing to do with what this thread concerned : copyrighted works that WERE published and at one point being distributed, but are no longer being distributed.
I maintain, as does copyright law, that the creators of said works have the rights to stop distributing them.
I used the example of Kubrick and A Clockwork Orange before - the film had unintended consequences for Kubrick that he didn't anticipate (death threats on his family), so he stopped it's distribution. This was within his rights, and it did not mean that everyone suddenly had the legal right to make copies of the film and distribute it themselves. Do you feel that people should have had the _right_ to make (and distribute to others) copies of a Kubrick's film, against his express wishes? I do not.
Again, copyright gives creators control over their works, so that they can feel confident those works won't be used in ways they don't approve of, and thus be able to continue to create. If you take away their control of the things they make, then that confidence disappears, and less things will be made. Since these things eventually go into the public domain, everyone suffers if less things are made (and I think, as you probably do, that copyright times are too long).
That is the founding principle of copyright and you have yet to come up with any counter-argument to that that makes sense.
Also : your example is cute, but flawed even with the point it intends to make. Copyright starts from the date something is published (even self-published). If you have a poem bouncing in your head, and someone else coincidentally writes and actually publishes the same poem, then the copyright belongs to them. They published it. Unless, of course, you can produce proof they copied it - which you won't be able to, since they published it and you did not. That's your own fault for not stepping to the plate. (Also note that many copyright suits are because the works are considered too simple or universal.)
Again, however, this has NOTHING to do with what this thread has been about up to this point, so I don't know why you brought it up.
Protecting non-distribution encourages distribution how?
It's very simple:
If you give someone control over what they make, they are encouraged to make things.
If you don't allow someone control over what they make, then they are discouraged from making things.
If no one ever made anything, then there would be nothing to distribute.
By giving people who make things control over distribution of their works, the overall amount of distributed work is increased.
This is the principle behind copyright, and this is why the laws are written they way they are.
No, they actually say if you collect a FULL set of the cards, you can trade them in for a full set. I believe you also have to do it in a certain amount of time (while that set is active/in print).
As far as the compensation comment goes, you are stretching it a bit, at least in relation to the grandparent comment.
However, regardless : creators have the RIGHT to not distribute their work if they do not want to. Nowhere does it say that they HAVE to distribute it.
Again, copyright encourages creation by giving the creator control. If you are advocating not actually giving the creator control, then their is no encouragement.
I can think of plenty of very valid reasons why a creator might not want their work distributed. Without copyright, they would not be able to make that decision. Thus discouraging people from distributing their work.
This is a great idea.
I stopped playing around Ice Age... I'd love to be able to play a beta/revised game.
A Legends set would only be worth $100? Really?
Why are unopened boxes/packs of Legends worth so much then?
Or am I forgetting which set was which... I'm thinking of the first set that included the "gold" cards.
It's been awhile.
Society's part of the bargain is to make it illegal for the work to be copied without compensation for the creator
Not true at all. The GPL is made possible copyright, where does "compensation for the creator" come in?
Answer : it doesn't. You can copy, use, and modify any GPL'd piece of software without paying any sort of compensation.
What Copyright does is allow the GPL to dictate control over code and how it's used in non-Open Source software, it does NOT ensure that the code authors (or anyone) will be compensated.
Society's part of the bargain is to cede control over the copyrighted materials for a period of time (a time I feel is currently too long, but that's a whole different debate).
If the creator does not make the work available he is not holding up his end of the bargain, not society.
Also wrong. Nothing in copyright law says a creator MUST continue to distribute his works forever, if he does not wish to. In fact the whole concept of copyright is what allows the creator to have control over such distribution.
Sorry, read up on the topic and try again.
Also, you didn't address my example about Kubrick. What is your opinion?
Being that the purpose of copyrights is to make works available to the public, why are creators surprised that the public disrepects them when they don't make their works available?
First of all : Copyright is not simply designed to make works available to the public, since works were available to the public BEFORE copyright existed. Copyright exists to offer creators and incentive to create works, which can then be made available to the public, and that is an important distinction.
Secondly : What is the point of a compromise if one side doesn't hold up to their part of the bargain?
Copyright is a compromise between creators and the public, giving creators control over their works so that they will be encouraged to make more.
If this control is simply an illusion - that is to say they don't actually have any control, the public doesn't stick to their side of the bargain - then where is the encouragement?
Little example : Stanley Kubrick, after much public outcry, controversy and even threats to his family after the release of A Clockwork Orange, decided to pull the film from UK release.
Do you feel that the man should not have had the right to control whether or not (and where) his movie was shown?
Personally, I feel that, as the creator and the person who ultimately bore responsibility for the film, as well as it's criticism, he was within his rights to not release it in the UK. Copyright law seems to back me up.
And anyone in the UK who had gone ahead and shown the movie, against his wishes, would have been disrespectful, in my opinion.