Unmodified, can I create an original program for the device or must I go through a third party?
The roots and premise of that test are as follows...Back in the day, Activision was founded to create software for Atari's PC's. The judge ruled that since these were PC's, Activision could do whatever they wanted and there was nothing Atari could do. Though not Activision's fault per se(Atari's really for failing to do anything), this eventually led to the crash of '83-'84. So Nintendo comes along with the NES (in the US) and decides that they are not selling a PC but a set top box that plays games. The box is proprietary and so it was ruled that Nintendo can keep its controls over the system (anti-trust aside, they could decide who could make games for the system, at what price, etc).
This tradition continues to this day. So basically, if it runs code like a PC, has parts like a PC, tastes and smells and sounds like a PC, but the maker puts restrictions in place and calls it something else...its that something else. In the case of the XBOX I think its called a "video game system."
I am just going to post in every Valve article on here that I am not buying Half-life 2 nor patching any Valve product until Steam goes away. I don't need any of their games so much as to be forced to use one of their other products.
This stinks too much of Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. Hey, didn't the Valve founders come from MS?
Irregardless, I was more putting the previous poster in his place with regards to perspective of the issue.
You can apologize for whomever you want, but I am not playing Half-Life 2 until Steam goes away forever. If that means I never play Half-Life 2, so be it.
This is akin to activision deciding to release dod on 1 website exclusivly
How is this akin to that? Day of Defeat is totally free. Why does it matter where you get it from? Your concept of the importance of this matter appears to be minimal at best.
No this is terrible. Deceit, lies, cover-ups, buy-outs. I, for one, am not buying Half-Life 2. After Steam and all this baloney, I just don't need it. No, I'm not going to download it either. I also will not be patching any Half-life 1 products until Steam is made optional. I'll get my shooter fix from Doom III and, until then, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Also, coincidently, totally free to all.
Of course SUV drivers don't have a higher survival rate than other cars, they are just more likely to kill others, and not a single bit more likely to survive themselves.
And I will still be tooling around in the most practical vehicle I have ever owned...my motorcycle...
We'll see if you still feel that way when my stretch Expedition v10 runs your arse over.
Wow, I didn't know Nintendo fans were racists and homopohobes too! But its ok, you do not inspire emotion in me. Maybe one day you will register and be a big boy on slashdot.
Now, who do you think makes Nintendo look worse? Me or you? Family system my arse.
Cute. Continue to display your lack of understanding of the issue by debating my prose rather than my points. Whoops. But (gasp!) I'm glad you have your writer's handbook handy and infinite time to look up minor details. Now you can continue to bicker over minor points (nice AC flame post follow-up by the way), or you can take my point, and understand it in the context of this new article
posted on slashdot today
about who is really winning the PR war. Guess what? Its not guys like you.
Everyone who is going to try to say that using AOL is a good thing form one line right here.
In ANY other context the use of AOL would be a joke, but I'm sure a few people will want to apologize in advance for Nintendo. Please use this parent to do so.
Ah, but I was not speaking to logic. The point is that history has proven logic alone cannot win the day. PR will first, then we hit them with logic. Your whole post was lacking in logic (and a point or evidence, really) and could be construed exaclty as I described. I seek not to defend the RIAA but to make sure we portray a movement against them in the proper light to gather support. Your tone will do nothing but to turn people off.
But I'm glad you took freshman English and learned some simple logical fallacy terms! Congrats.
I agree with the sentiment, but this is a CA lawyer we are talking about.
Let me tell you about a power that CA lawyers have that is unique in the US. They can sue alledging fraud on behalf of consumers, without any actual fraud taking place or even alledged by a consumer who has done business with that company. Basically they can act as Attorney General and sue on behalf of "the people." How this plays out is a law firm sends out a bunch of random letters to random mom-and-pop businesses saying pay us $3000 not to sue you cause you commited fraud. The LATimes revently reported that one law firm finally got disbarred for this when they accidently sent a letter to a mom-and-pop-"like" business that was actually owned by Firestone, who was obviously able to fight. And again, this is something only possible in California.
Long story short, I would be much more comfortable if this originated in another state. This sounds too much like the pot calling the kettle black.
The random map generator in Soldier of Fortune II was pretty dope IMHO. For multiplayer. Some of the best CTF times I've had in an FPS were in that game because it was a different experience literally every time. Single player was not as good, however. Can anyone derive any useful insights from that?
I'd just like to point out that your response shows a general lack of understanding of the issue AND actually serves to back up the RIAA's mission.
From what you just said, it doesn't matter how many people they sue, you have already made up your irrational, vindictive little mind on the issue. I (and they) guess you haven't bought a CD in 3 years nor were likely to for the forseeable future anyway.
If you actually understood the issue, you would know that:
1. The RIAA does not represent all artists. This is a problem because they pretend to. Find out which of the bands/artists you like is represented indirectly by the RIAA and stop buying those CD's. Continue to buy CD's from independent bands. I do not download music, but I have bought CD's from my favorite bands online. These are often in the $6-$10 range. If the CD has 15 tracks, thats even better than iTunes.
2. Your tone and phrasing does not indicate you will stop listening to new music, only that you will stop buying CD's. This casts you in the light of someone who is not about what's right, but is instead about what you can get for free. By doing this you have marginalized yourself, potentially hurting the cause. The RIAA can point to your mentality and explain to people (as I saw them do on TechTV this morning) that because of people like YOU they have to sue. Is that true? Probably not, but by spouting off like this you move yourself to the fringe and drag the rest of us with you ever so slightly.
Please people, if we want to do something right here, we have to come across as educated adults and not spoiled children. Though I know Mr. Foreman is not in such a position currently, please keep that in mind if you are ever in a position to represent the group. (And bear that in mind when you mod someone like this up.)
My proposal? A no-CD && no-p2p week. A show of boycott AND good faith. If you stop buying CD's but keep trading songs online, you help the RIAA PR campaign. If you stop both, they can't point to p2p as your only reason for not buying CD's anymore.
Please everyone, know what the Constitution says before you spout off. I mean, you want to EARN that +4 modifier you are about to get for your rant by being factual don't you?
Taking a photograph of a copyrighted visual art is the act of making a copy. So, you cannot photograph it without copyright. BUT, you are not likely to get in trouble for this if you just take the picture home and look at it.
When you put it into a multi-million selling game (thereby making multi-millions of copies) you tend to gather attention. Thats the difference, not the legality, just the attention gathered.
They could already sue based solely on the use of the building, not the architect though, most likely the owner. The design of the building would be considered work-for-hire so copyright would pass to the one who payed for the work.
Um, it probably doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the increase of safety in cars since 1973, right?
I mean, I drove a 1973 Nova in high school. (I still own the thing, but I'm a big boy now and need a daily driver). My current sedan has: permanent shoulder seatbelts (wasnt that law passed since 1973?), airbags (front and side) for both front seat passengers, crumple zones, and a soft dashboard, among other safety devices that I probably don't even know about.
But I'm sure that you're right, because logically, going faster is safer. Are you actually trying to illustrate the bullsh*t nature of statistics? Maybe you're trying to give an example to the flawed logic flying around here like crazy?
Either way, this thread started with a car analogy and should have been dropped long ago.
As a side note, I agree the federal government raising money to pay for roads is unconstitutional, but your post illustrated for me exactly why its tough to believe anything anyone says in an/. RIAA item.
Nothing personal, but I get sick of the "If this-and-this happens, I'm leaving" crowd. They never really leave. See: Alec Baldwin. Go. You are wasting space, a job, and driving up housing costs. Go. Either help us change it, or leave.
And I can't figure out why everything thinks this is a Good ThingTM.
So lets say it actually went to court and the ebay reseller "wins". (You'll see why wins is in quotes in a minute.) So Apple is forced to provide a way for its iTunes customers to easily resell song keys purchased. Ok. Lets think what this will really do. Will Apple change it's iTunes service? Yes, and drastically too. This will probably (speculation, but we all know the RIAA here) render Apple's right to distribute the music online null and void. The iTunes ToS is invalid so the RIAA/Apple deal is invalid. Good night iTunes.
So where does that leave us? Apple will probably just shrug its shoulders. It didn't win or lose here, made a little money had some laughs, game over. The RIAA will come out pointing fingers talkin' bout, "See they don't want a fair way to do this, they just want free stuff." Will this make the case for digital copyright stronger for the user or for the copyright holder? Remember, public perception counts when it comes to elected officials (and even judges too), and I gotta tell ya I think the RIAA could spin this mighty negative against the online crowd.
So who "wins"? Well, I suppose the few people who purchased iTunes would have won the right to resell an item which cost US$0.99 in the first place. We will all have secured the RoFS for digital formats. But the RIAA wins in that they have one more reason not to offer their stuff online, and they can again portray the whole p2p/digital/geek crowd as a bunch of fringe arses who just want free stuff and only pretend to be about rights so they can get it.
I just don't see an upside to forcing Apple's hand here. What is the upside?
No it doesn't muddy anything. Selling a copy of a song that you purchased from a copyright holder (or a licensee thereof) is not copyright infringement. Creating a copy from that copy, selling the copy, and keeping the original, is copyright infringement. No muddy. Good game.
Just because you want this to be an issue, and Apple doesn't make it one...doesn't change a thing yet. Be patient.
It should absolutely be about what Congress can and can not do. How much of your life do you want them involved in?
As for the closed military trials, please understand that the Constitution is very clear in that all rights granted therein are for citizens only. Anyone who runs afoul of those citizens should not expect protection.
As for those other subsidies, I'm against all of them too. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone, only pointing out that, constitutionally, this is not the business the federal government should be in. Why not have a subsidy for getting out of bed in the morning? Oh wait, I guess some people already get that too...
I cannot back a federal government subsidy like this, at least not in the US.
#1 Its not a power of Congress to do this.
I could go on, but #1 is enough for me.
I'd just like to point out here, that for said boycott to be taken seriously by the public at large (which you need to be effective), that members actively participating in said lawsuit should probably not get caught sharing copyrighted files.
Continuing to share files and getting caught could be construed by the RIAA to show that you don't really care about whats "right" and that you just want free stuff. This would kill all of the positive publicity and could taint the whole group in the eyes of the public at large (see Greenpeace and some of their more fringe actions.) For this to be effective, the participants will need to show that what they are doing is unquestionably "right". Just look at (a grossly oversimplified) history in the US. Cop punches protester unprovoked = public sympathy and outcry = laws get changed, constitution gets amendments. Cop beats the sh*t out of protester after getting hit with a bottle = no sympathy = public becomes entrenched AGAINST said cause.
Slashdot Mirror
The ability to run compiled computer code
The real test to see if something is a PC is:
Unmodified, can I create an original program for the device or must I go through a third party?
The roots and premise of that test are as follows...Back in the day, Activision was founded to create software for Atari's PC's. The judge ruled that since these were PC's, Activision could do whatever they wanted and there was nothing Atari could do. Though not Activision's fault per se(Atari's really for failing to do anything), this eventually led to the crash of '83-'84. So Nintendo comes along with the NES (in the US) and decides that they are not selling a PC but a set top box that plays games. The box is proprietary and so it was ruled that Nintendo can keep its controls over the system (anti-trust aside, they could decide who could make games for the system, at what price, etc).
This tradition continues to this day. So basically, if it runs code like a PC, has parts like a PC, tastes and smells and sounds like a PC, but the maker puts restrictions in place and calls it something else...its that something else. In the case of the XBOX I think its called a "video game system."
Clearly, you are the ignorant one:Castle Wolfenstein.
And you can't spell ignorant without IGN!
I am just going to post in every Valve article on here that I am not buying Half-life 2 nor patching any Valve product until Steam goes away. I don't need any of their games so much as to be forced to use one of their other products.
This stinks too much of Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. Hey, didn't the Valve founders come from MS?
Irregardless, I was more putting the previous poster in his place with regards to perspective of the issue.
You can apologize for whomever you want, but I am not playing Half-Life 2 until Steam goes away forever. If that means I never play Half-Life 2, so be it.
This is akin to activision deciding to release dod on 1 website exclusivly
How is this akin to that? Day of Defeat is totally free. Why does it matter where you get it from? Your concept of the importance of this matter appears to be minimal at best.
No this is terrible. Deceit, lies, cover-ups, buy-outs. I, for one, am not buying Half-Life 2. After Steam and all this baloney, I just don't need it. No, I'm not going to download it either. I also will not be patching any Half-life 1 products until Steam is made optional. I'll get my shooter fix from Doom III and, until then, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Also, coincidently, totally free to all.
Of course SUV drivers don't have a higher survival rate than other cars, they are just more likely to kill others, and not a single bit more likely to survive themselves.
And I will still be tooling around in the most practical vehicle I have ever owned...my motorcycle...
We'll see if you still feel that way when my stretch Expedition v10 runs your arse over.
Wow, I didn't know Nintendo fans were racists and homopohobes too! But its ok, you do not inspire emotion in me. Maybe one day you will register and be a big boy on slashdot.
Now, who do you think makes Nintendo look worse? Me or you? Family system my arse.
Cute. Continue to display your lack of understanding of the issue by debating my prose rather than my points. Whoops. But (gasp!) I'm glad you have your writer's handbook handy and infinite time to look up minor details. Now you can continue to bicker over minor points (nice AC flame post follow-up by the way), or you can take my point, and understand it in the context of this new article posted on slashdot today about who is really winning the PR war. Guess what? Its not guys like you.
Everyone who is going to try to say that using AOL is a good thing form one line right here.
In ANY other context the use of AOL would be a joke, but I'm sure a few people will want to apologize in advance for Nintendo. Please use this parent to do so.
I'd most prefer to play on 1000+ different maps with any number of humans. Only SoFII has this right now, to my knowledge.
Ah, but I was not speaking to logic. The point is that history has proven logic alone cannot win the day. PR will first, then we hit them with logic. Your whole post was lacking in logic (and a point or evidence, really) and could be construed exaclty as I described. I seek not to defend the RIAA but to make sure we portray a movement against them in the proper light to gather support. Your tone will do nothing but to turn people off.
But I'm glad you took freshman English and learned some simple logical fallacy terms! Congrats.
I agree with the sentiment, but this is a CA lawyer we are talking about.
Let me tell you about a power that CA lawyers have that is unique in the US. They can sue alledging fraud on behalf of consumers, without any actual fraud taking place or even alledged by a consumer who has done business with that company. Basically they can act as Attorney General and sue on behalf of "the people." How this plays out is a law firm sends out a bunch of random letters to random mom-and-pop businesses saying pay us $3000 not to sue you cause you commited fraud. The LATimes revently reported that one law firm finally got disbarred for this when they accidently sent a letter to a mom-and-pop-"like" business that was actually owned by Firestone, who was obviously able to fight. And again, this is something only possible in California.
Long story short, I would be much more comfortable if this originated in another state. This sounds too much like the pot calling the kettle black.
The random map generator in Soldier of Fortune II was pretty dope IMHO. For multiplayer. Some of the best CTF times I've had in an FPS were in that game because it was a different experience literally every time. Single player was not as good, however. Can anyone derive any useful insights from that?
I'd just like to point out that your response shows a general lack of understanding of the issue AND actually serves to back up the RIAA's mission.
From what you just said, it doesn't matter how many people they sue, you have already made up your irrational, vindictive little mind on the issue. I (and they) guess you haven't bought a CD in 3 years nor were likely to for the forseeable future anyway.
If you actually understood the issue, you would know that:
1. The RIAA does not represent all artists. This is a problem because they pretend to. Find out which of the bands/artists you like is represented indirectly by the RIAA and stop buying those CD's. Continue to buy CD's from independent bands. I do not download music, but I have bought CD's from my favorite bands online. These are often in the $6-$10 range. If the CD has 15 tracks, thats even better than iTunes.
2. Your tone and phrasing does not indicate you will stop listening to new music, only that you will stop buying CD's. This casts you in the light of someone who is not about what's right, but is instead about what you can get for free. By doing this you have marginalized yourself, potentially hurting the cause. The RIAA can point to your mentality and explain to people (as I saw them do on TechTV this morning) that because of people like YOU they have to sue. Is that true? Probably not, but by spouting off like this you move yourself to the fringe and drag the rest of us with you ever so slightly.
Please people, if we want to do something right here, we have to come across as educated adults and not spoiled children. Though I know Mr. Foreman is not in such a position currently, please keep that in mind if you are ever in a position to represent the group. (And bear that in mind when you mod someone like this up.)
My proposal? A no-CD && no-p2p week. A show of boycott AND good faith. If you stop buying CD's but keep trading songs online, you help the RIAA PR campaign. If you stop both, they can't point to p2p as your only reason for not buying CD's anymore.
Amen!
Please everyone, know what the Constitution says before you spout off. I mean, you want to EARN that +4 modifier you are about to get for your rant by being factual don't you?
Taking a photograph of a copyrighted visual art is the act of making a copy. So, you cannot photograph it without copyright. BUT, you are not likely to get in trouble for this if you just take the picture home and look at it.
When you put it into a multi-million selling game (thereby making multi-millions of copies) you tend to gather attention. Thats the difference, not the legality, just the attention gathered.
They could already sue based solely on the use of the building, not the architect though, most likely the owner. The design of the building would be considered work-for-hire so copyright would pass to the one who payed for the work.
Um, it probably doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the increase of safety in cars since 1973, right?
/. RIAA item.
I mean, I drove a 1973 Nova in high school. (I still own the thing, but I'm a big boy now and need a daily driver). My current sedan has: permanent shoulder seatbelts (wasnt that law passed since 1973?), airbags (front and side) for both front seat passengers, crumple zones, and a soft dashboard, among other safety devices that I probably don't even know about.
But I'm sure that you're right, because logically, going faster is safer. Are you actually trying to illustrate the bullsh*t nature of statistics? Maybe you're trying to give an example to the flawed logic flying around here like crazy?
Either way, this thread started with a car analogy and should have been dropped long ago.
As a side note, I agree the federal government raising money to pay for roads is unconstitutional, but your post illustrated for me exactly why its tough to believe anything anyone says in an
See ya! Did you buy your ticket yet?
Nothing personal, but I get sick of the "If this-and-this happens, I'm leaving" crowd. They never really leave. See: Alec Baldwin. Go. You are wasting space, a job, and driving up housing costs. Go. Either help us change it, or leave.
And I can't figure out why everything thinks this is a Good ThingTM.
So lets say it actually went to court and the ebay reseller "wins". (You'll see why wins is in quotes in a minute.) So Apple is forced to provide a way for its iTunes customers to easily resell song keys purchased. Ok. Lets think what this will really do. Will Apple change it's iTunes service? Yes, and drastically too. This will probably (speculation, but we all know the RIAA here) render Apple's right to distribute the music online null and void. The iTunes ToS is invalid so the RIAA/Apple deal is invalid. Good night iTunes.
So where does that leave us? Apple will probably just shrug its shoulders. It didn't win or lose here, made a little money had some laughs, game over. The RIAA will come out pointing fingers talkin' bout, "See they don't want a fair way to do this, they just want free stuff." Will this make the case for digital copyright stronger for the user or for the copyright holder? Remember, public perception counts when it comes to elected officials (and even judges too), and I gotta tell ya I think the RIAA could spin this mighty negative against the online crowd.
So who "wins"? Well, I suppose the few people who purchased iTunes would have won the right to resell an item which cost US$0.99 in the first place. We will all have secured the RoFS for digital formats. But the RIAA wins in that they have one more reason not to offer their stuff online, and they can again portray the whole p2p/digital/geek crowd as a bunch of fringe arses who just want free stuff and only pretend to be about rights so they can get it.
I just don't see an upside to forcing Apple's hand here. What is the upside?
No it doesn't muddy anything. Selling a copy of a song that you purchased from a copyright holder (or a licensee thereof) is not copyright infringement. Creating a copy from that copy, selling the copy, and keeping the original, is copyright infringement. No muddy. Good game.
Just because you want this to be an issue, and Apple doesn't make it one...doesn't change a thing yet. Be patient.
It should absolutely be about what Congress can and can not do. How much of your life do you want them involved in? As for the closed military trials, please understand that the Constitution is very clear in that all rights granted therein are for citizens only. Anyone who runs afoul of those citizens should not expect protection. As for those other subsidies, I'm against all of them too. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone, only pointing out that, constitutionally, this is not the business the federal government should be in. Why not have a subsidy for getting out of bed in the morning? Oh wait, I guess some people already get that too...
I cannot back a federal government subsidy like this, at least not in the US.
#1 Its not a power of Congress to do this.
I could go on, but #1 is enough for me.
I'd just like to point out here, that for said boycott to be taken seriously by the public at large (which you need to be effective), that members actively participating in said lawsuit should probably not get caught sharing copyrighted files.
Continuing to share files and getting caught could be construed by the RIAA to show that you don't really care about whats "right" and that you just want free stuff. This would kill all of the positive publicity and could taint the whole group in the eyes of the public at large (see Greenpeace and some of their more fringe actions.) For this to be effective, the participants will need to show that what they are doing is unquestionably "right". Just look at (a grossly oversimplified) history in the US. Cop punches protester unprovoked = public sympathy and outcry = laws get changed, constitution gets amendments. Cop beats the sh*t out of protester after getting hit with a bottle = no sympathy = public becomes entrenched AGAINST said cause.
I'd participate under those conditions.
Did you, at least for an instance, consider that you might actually be an idiot?
I mean, if you can't come up with the money to gain access to a senator, how smart can you be?
Oh, you say you contributed to the linux kernel? You got payed handsomely for that right?
Yeah, mod me to hell. Or not. I'm sure at least one person on here will get it.