This does not make Apple the same as "any other company." No data is stored (it's already been proven that none is stored), you can turn it off as easily as it was turned on, and it does not tag uniquely identifiable information to you any more than using Amazon.com does if you have never bought anything from them. The WMP stuff was still buried deep in a configuration page and was not "turn off collecting personal data." So the purpose and removal of such items made MS look sneaky and underhanded. The mini store does not make Apple look the same.
The mini store itself is on the front of the iTunes program with the button to turn it off. Totally different agendas if you ask me. What's in the comment field of a mp3 ripped by iTunes? Mine's blank for every one of them (I use AAC). (With the exception of what program encoded it.) Mine go back as far as 4.1, so I must be missing something. If there was something in the mp3 version, why not put it in the AAC version too? If it were some sort of plot against your privacy, it would show up under both. I guess I'll rip something to MP3 to see what's there.
The 'fanboyism' you think you see is nothing more than people pointing out that the grudge some people have for Apple is unfounded in this case, because this does not make them the same as Sony or MS when it comes to spyware or malware. It's not an attempt to show how much "better" Apple is than any other company, it is just showing that people are overreacting in this case (if it were Microsoft I would say the same thing.) This is not an example of malware/spyware. Not even if you squint.
I do not defend Apple when it does not warrant it, but this hysteria is nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to the other malware/spyware issues that have occured recently.
Or perhaps Apple's not as lame as Microsoft or Sony when it comes to this sort of thing. Windows Media Player had a "feature" that allowed MS to mine your listening habits that you had to specifically go deep into the configuration pages to disable. On the iTunes program, the 'OFF' button is right on the front. Not to mention this doesn't tag your stuff with identifiable information like the WMP stuff did.
The RootKit by Sony was installed EVEN if you said NO. This is far from that. Turn it off, and you are as you were in 6.0.1. Simple. It's on the site, prominently displayed... there is no "big secret" like MS and Sony have done in the past. So, the "Apple Love" is merely a lack of hatred of a company because said company is not out to screw you. (In this instance, of course.) I don't see so much Apple love, but then again, I'm not holding some grudge against Apple for whatever reason either. I am however holding a grudge against Sony and MS for doing exactly the opposite. When Apple does the same thing as Sony and MS, I will hold a grudge against them too. This is not one of those cases.
If you hate Apple so much, why are you reading this thread? Just filter out Apple posts and things will be fine. You don't have to see how ridiculous everyone is.
Good point. The truth is, infringement isn't theft by any stretch of the word, and should not be treated as such. Not that the average Joe Sixpack has any idea what that means, but having the *AA's shove their party line down his throat at every step is bound to get some backlash. I'm shocked that the *AA's are surprised when it happens. Tell someone they are a thief long enough, and they will push back. This is precisely where we were at the founding of the country. The Rule of Law v. Fairness and equal representation under the law. It's been quite some time since we've actually had equal representation under the law, when corporations are allowed to line the coffers of candidates without much oversight.
The very concept of Copyright has been hijacked by a small minority of holders (not creators) who insist that their way of life (making money off perpetually renewed copyright at the expense of the Public Domain) should be guaranteed. Simply put, they want to have their cake and eat it too. And Congress allows, enables, and encourages it. "For a Limited time" is not, and never has been, Life+90 years. The Supreme Court erred in their determination that Congress can perpetually extend copyright at the expense of the Constitution. We have lost legislative, Executive, AND Judicial in this fight. We no longer feel represented. And if we don't speak up, we will lose what little fair use we have left.
Why? Because a few privileged individuals feel entitled to perpetual revenue? How much of the *AA's label catalogs exist to purchase? Given the history of it all and the amount of music/radio/drama/etc recorded, it's most likely a minimal amount. They simply sit on the copyrights of music, movies, and TV. They no longer make any money off of them. Baffling.
I for one have taken my fair use back by backing up my DVDs, using my computer to rip my CDs, and whenever I want "new" items, I buy them used or not at all. I deprive them of their revenue. So they call me a pirate. I really don't care. What matters is that I refuse to go along with their way of doing things. Their precious "content" is nothing more than entertainment. It won't be missed. Their overestimated self-importance will be their undoing.
You say that distributors need to make it easier/cheaper to buy the content than to copy it. This is not possible to do if there is no legislation against sites/programs which allow you to download the material with the click of a mouse.
I'm not knocking your premise, but these laws already exist. Copyright law protects them already. The DMCA, etc. protect their interests more than at any point in history. What new law do they need to protect themselves against something that is already illegal? "It's not illegal! It's now SUPER-illegal!" Criminalize it? Check. They did that already. (Read the "Warning" on DVD movies recently?) Make the punishments very harsh? Check. Been there for quite some time. Make the copyright nearly perpetual with the help of the government? Check. So where are our cheaper, less cumbersome downloads that the market has been demanding since the internet age became mature enough to handle the bandwidth?
Seems like they've got all their ducks in a row, yet they refuse to make it easier/cheaper. Wonder why that is?
Could it be that their intent was never to do this, but to thwart any advancement of technology that makes their job obsolete? Do you still get milk in glass bottles delivered by a milkman? Do you still use a horse and buggy to get to work? If not, where was the legislation that protected milkmen and horse & buggy whip makers?
The *AA's are using legislation not to "protect their content", but to prop up their aging, dying, decomposing business model. Pure and simple. And our bought-and-sold legislators are more than happy to do it.
So, I don't care if Russia or China thumbs their nose at our copyrights. Let them. We are in the same position Great Britain was at the time of the Revolutionary War. We are the old economy, and China/Russia are the new economies who are going to make us pretty irrelevant since our own laws do nothing but cripple our ability to adapt to a changing world market, simply to satisfy a bunch of rich fuckers who can't accept their demise gracefully.
I'm 35 and it still matters to me. And no, this is not just a debacle, a fiasco, or a mixup. This is criminal behavior from a corporation that thinks it can just do anything.
Sorry, no matter how old you are, it should matter to you. Otherwise what's the point? Why are you reading Slashdot if you just don't care?
My parents have sworn off Sony products long before this happened, simply because Sony's quality has been in the toilet for a while now. They've had trouble with 2 televisions (27" and 32") within 4 years of purchase that pissed them off. Now they ignore Sony.
I for one am out. Sony's off my list of corps to buy from. I don't care if they have 80" TVs for $50, Sony is done in my book. (Like Disney and their constant assault on the public domain...)
I was going to give the PS3 a chance to see how it performed, but now I won't even bother. Sony's rootkit AND their response had everything to do with it. The PS3 may be a great console, but I don't care. They're not getting another dime from me.
No more TVs, no more DVD players, no more movies from Sony Corp's movie holdings. They have screwed the pooch. It's done. I'm finished. They can rot. I really don't care what their "excuse of the day" press release says. They are criminals.
If anyone thinks that this is too harsh, note that I am not advocating anyone else to follow in my footsteps. I leave that decision to the individual. Something Sony is incapable of doing.
Having played on at Best Buy, I must say the controller on the 360 is nice. But I am increasingly feeling alienated from the "big two" when it comes to games. Sure they still produce games, but the idea of the console being a "set top box" that does so much more is just not appealing to me. I guess it's old age setting in, but I prefer a console to be simply a console. I have never used the DVD portion of the Xbox or PS2. I just play games.
That being said, I appreciate others who are interested in the community and whatnot that the 360 is trying to create, but to me, I think they could've shaved off 50% of that online junk and made the games less expensive per title. $60 for a game is pushing it... after the maturity of the market allowed for cheaper games, we are coming full circle again, for whatever reason. It doesn't bode well for buying many titles at once, that is for sure.
I look forward to the Revolution, because Nintendo still has me in mind....someone who just wants to play games.
(Forget the PS3. Sony's RootKit debacle has soured me from ever buying another thing from them.)
Now, did I say you were? Did I say everyone would be disappointed? Thanks for reading... I said people who hold Canada on this pedestal that is impossible to meet with reality. NOT everyone. I even qualified my statement. I should've put "but not you, oh great and enlightened person." so you could follow along.
People != just you, pal. The world doesn't revolve around you, the US, or Canada. I didn't say anything ill towards Canada, and was being quite nice about the whole thing, but you seem to hate and loathe the United States so much, you can't see that and turn a nice conversation into a "boy am I glad I made it out alive" speech that just makes you look paranoid and delusional.
Glad you like Canada. My advice. Stay there. I couldn't give two monkeys if you hate America. It's people like you who's "gift of overstatement" makes me ill. I couldn't give two monkeys what other people think, period. But then again, that must make me an "angry, ugly, American."
Some people don't hold your hyperbolic diaper-wetting view of their home country. If you feel you are in the majority... it's you who have hit the iceberg. The US has been in worse situations and has done quite well for itself. It's not in a total tailspin... but you can't see that.... because you hate it so much.
Good for you. Now move along.
Don't bother responding. You've killed this thread.
I didn't say violating copyright was "doing their part" I implied boycott or not purchasing.
Content holders will not embrace new technology because they fear a lack of control. They want their old-world controls in place before they release their precious "content" into the wild, but it's a catch-22. No one wants that control foisted on them. Treating people like criminals is the surest way to lose your customer base. And the *AA's are doing a bang-up job. They will ALWAYS raise the specter of piracy. No matter if it is a recession, double-digit unemployment, or a famine, the media conglomerates will cry foul when they don't make a double-digit percentage increase in revenue from year to year. Economics be damned, because the news (controlled by said media) won't interject that no business can sustain growth like that each and every year. But, people keep feeding the machine...
You act like people are enjoying their "spree" at the expense of copyright holders, yet revenue is up in some entertainment markets (when there isn't a recession or $3 gasoline.) Somebody must be buying their crap. But to listen to you, no one buys anything... they just have a penchant for copyright violation.
If people ("consumers" is a shitty word... I hate it) are somehow on a piracy spree, how can the entertainment conglomerates make any money? Even the movie studios themselves admitted that their slump in ticket sales was due to poor movies. Revenue will never slide low enough that they cannot blame piracy. Sorry, they'll find a way. They are already pointing their finger at everyone else (that would include you and I). And guess what? They will never develop a new business model, because fearmongering and whining to the bought-and-paid-for officials works so well for them. Why don't they go after the big piracy-laden countries like China and the like who ignore our precious copyright? Why do they pick on people who share songs? Because bullies only pick on those weaker than them. The enterainment moguls are nothing more than well-dressed bullies. They'd rather hit you over the head with stupid commercials about "stealing" (it's NOT stealing. Sorry), than try to find a way to make the system better.
The only way to win is FIX the system. The system has been hijacked by people who HOLD copyrights, not creators, nor the public. It has been stolen by the middle man. Until we break the back of the middle man, we will never see any relief. Stopping purchases, boycotts, sit-ins, letter-writing campaigns... nothing will work. The system needs an enema. Whether it be political, or outright social upheaval, the system is broken. (The Copyright system). Reason won't work, because these people don't adhere to reason. They are reactionary scrooges who worship the almighty dollar (or euro, or yen, or whatever.) The only solution is a restoration of purity into copyright. Until that happens, this argument will never be over. WE need to take the argument back from their court. Stop them from getting away with their specious revenue loss claims, their misuse of the word "stealing", their characterization of the internet as a haven for hippies and anti-capitalist monsters, their labeling of people as merely vats of fat that "consume" things. We need to stop them from de-humanizing the opposition to oppressive copyright before it is too late. We need to take back the public domain. These companies (Disney *cough*) got rich off it, and now they won't replenish it because of their greed. Take them to task. Make the world see just how wrong they are. And make them see that the Founding Fathers didn't mean for copyright to turn out this way.
"Life + 90 years" is NOT a "limited time".... THAT is the tragedy of copyright. Have you done your part buy not buying anything?
It's funny... but every argument can be used for (or against) any country. That's the beauty of the world... it's more vast than we perceive it to be.
"It's not perfect, but it's better than X"... The problem is (as people have noted already in the thread), people think it _IS_ perfect in Canada. For whatever reason, they hate where they live now (US, Europe, whathaveyou), and the entire country looks inviting based on brochures and anecdotal evidence from residents (or those wishing they were... this is the internet, you can't always be sure...heh) The trouble with that is, obviously, people will be disappointed beyond measure when their idealistic view of Canada doesn't jive with the reality. I am not saying Canada's horrible, in fact, I'm sure it's a nice place to live... but like every place on the planet, there are warts. The US isn't perfect, but I like living here (and yes, I've lived elsewhere... I travel quite a bit, and there are a few places I'd still like to visit before I die..) I still firmly believe in our Constitution, and I will do all that is in my power to protect it from harm. I am not jingoistic, but I do cherish the freedoms that document puts into writing.
Did Canada support the French occupation of Vietnam? (I'm just curious...)
When consumers "do their part", they are accused of wrongdoing. Their part is not participating in a broken system of copyright. The media conglomerates cry foul when sales dip. They blame piracy. There is no way to stamp it out 100%, just like any offense. So the media companies have their scapegoat. The electorate cannot help, because those we elect do not hold the interests of the common man when they arrive in D.C.
So what are we to do? We can legitimately point our fingers now, but no one listens.
Do you actually believe "for a limited time" is life + 90 years? And it keeps getting retroactively applied by Congress, in direct violation of the Constitution (with the help of the judiciary)... so that our public domain is thoroughly raped. The Founding Fathers had no intention of our copyright system turning into Great Britain's, but we are close with near perpetual copyright, no registration requirements for copyrighting anything, and stiff (unjust) punishments for infringement.
The system is indeed broken, and if you can't see that, I'm sorry.
While it's true that most of the time the concept of infringement vs. theft is abused to one side or the other's gain, the truth is that infringement is, and always should be, a civil issue. Turning it into a criminal offense with multi-millions in damages and jail time (for sharing files? Come on...) is more repugnant than any entitlement mentality either side clings to.
If the *AA monopoly succeeds in criminalizing something that has no business in the criminal court system, we have lost the basis of what copyright is for. "For a limited time" has been bastardized and marginalized by the holders (not creators) of copyrighted works. The system is broken. It has been stolen by the middlemen in the copyright issue, the *AA's. The future is what loses out. Not the *AA's.
P2P is just a symptom of the stranglehold the *AA's have on copyright and the public domain.
I said _I_ didn't care about a box that the entire reason the box "matters" is HDTV. I said a console whose sole selling point requires an HDTV is not as "big" a deal as you make it out to be. The people buying into the console are going to be disappointed if an HDTV is required to view what's so "special" about it... You know when the great unwashed get their shiny 360 home and plug it into their analog NTSC TV, they will be disappointed if the sole selling point is HDTV.
I'm not going to buy a console which requires a $2000 accessory. When did I say I owned an XBox? Nice assumption. You have an HDTV, and everyone you know has one. Good for you. Have fun with all that. I'm sure you're very proud of it. They have gotten cheaper over the years, but not THAT cheap. I paid $99 for my last TV 3 years ago. It still works fine, and HDTV "content" is not a priority in everyone's life, in spite of your contention.
But again, thanks for still saying YOU think its still a big deal. When I spoke about the 360, I was giving my opinion. I was not speaking for others. You however seem to think that you speak for the planet when you say it is a big deal....and thanks for missing my point.
Great, we're sorry we missed that you think it's impressive.;) But hey, when the rest of the planet buys their super-duper HDTV to play Dead or Alive (more boobies!!!!) we'll all be suitably as impressed as you are.:)
Seriously though... think about the market penetration of HDTV right now... it's not that huge, and if that is the defining moment of this console... most of the early adopters are going to miss it, tell their friends it might not be as super as Microsoft said, and people will not scoop this wonderful console up in droves because it just doesn't offer much to the average consumer who hasn't spent $2K on a TV. (The "huge drop" in HDTV prices hasn't come yet. It's a big gamble to think it will soon, too. They're still pretty expensive, just no longer prohibitively so for 99% of the population. Now it's more like 70%.)
Sorry, I saw it on HDTV and it looked like a computer game. I've got a computer. I don't need another $400 one, which requires a $2000 accessory to make it better than the consoles I have.
Well, as far as backwards compatibility goes... it's a short list for now (since apparently, it's all on some sort of emu-basis... with each game having its own "compatibility" portion). As for the future, they didn't rule out adding more backwards compatibility available on Live! (Wow, a Windows update for your console... what fun.)
I bet they'll do a few more via Live! and then stop bothering once the base gets accustomed to their stack of unplayable XBox 1 games.:) But, you never know...
It's good that these things get put on the public record. Sherman's response reflects another in a long list of reasons why the RIAA and its affiliate labels are just a few short lawsuits away from being as relevant as the wagon in today's society. Sure, some other nefarious organization will come up behind them and be much, much worse, but these dinosaurs are languishing in their own tarpits from their own ignorance. They did this to themselves. They can't blame piracy for their own stupidity.
The fact that this made the evening news is not a good thing for Sony, DRM, or the RIAA. People are aware of this, and this has set back unfettered "we're going to blow up your computer if you infringe" DRM by years (if not completely... but that's wishful thinking...)
The great unwashed know that Sony is out to break their computers. The genie's out of the bottle and raping cheerleaders. All we have to do is sit back and watch them try to spin their way out of it. At the very least, it's going to be funny.:)
I am willing to bet that soon after the 360 hits the shelves, we'll see the XBox price drop to $99... and I wouldn't be surprised if the PS2 hit $99 "just in time for the holiday thunder-grab" by Sony.
So, make that $200, and it DOES make a difference. You don't have to be a tightwad to realize $150-$200 is not "pocket change..."
Of course, not all of us can be independently wealthy like yourself.:)
I dunno... in a few years maybe. Look at the Atari Flashback. It's up to a 2.0 with more games... (granted the 2600 is much older, but the point being, there's some market, however small for nostalgia gaming....)
And as the system gets older and older, perhaps the nostalgia crowd will want an NES like they did the old 2600. (The NES being very popular as well..)
For it to be the same, I would have to claim you tried to kill me with that punch (as stated elswhere in the thread). Then I'd be just as silly as the MPAA and their claims.
Now, legally, they do not claim they are going under... but publicly they do... (as stated elswhere also.) A reasonable person would have to surmise that if they claim near-death in the public forum and "harm" in the legal forum... somewhere they're lying.
And since we cannot determine exactly where they are lying... then nothing they say can be believed. No case... no money.:) Too bad it doesn't work that way.:)
That was my point. I was referring to actual losses. Statutory losses can be bought and paid for by lobbyists (and have, to smashing success... remember, you used to have to re-sell it to qualify for the worst fines and sentences... now you just have to "share it" because "even without monetary gain" constitutes their "statutory" losses.)
Actual losses are nowhere near that, which is why you don't see them flittering into thin air after a few P2P transfers.
They are losing nothing by this infringement. Actual losses, I mean. They've been able to use Enron-style accounting for years in their claims of damage, statutory and actual, and with great effect to the laws regarding infringement.
First, make copyright nearly perpetual... get the courts to agree with you. Then start going after people who violate copyright and attempt to extort the entire maximum statutory damage per infringed item out of people who cannot defend themselves (who may or may not be the actual infringer...)
Look at their bottom line. Look at their balance sheets. Look at their bank account with all those big piles of cash. Look at their increases in profits year to year. (the RIAA says in one press release they're at poverty's doorstep, but on their very website, they post profit increases in the double digit percentages. When the economy does bad, they don't gain in sales... imagine that! Basic economics DOES make sense... except to them. IT's all you damn pirates' fault.)
So, it stands to reason that if piracy is indeed hurting them, we'd see their money shrivel up and disappear.... making them destitute and on the street corner begging for change. After all, that's what their core argument is. The industry is "fighting for its very survival" to paraphrase the good ol' MPAA. So if they are making money, how can they claim lost revenue? It's a specious argument to begin with, and with their "calculated" damages, it's delusional. (After all, a lost sale is what $20 per DVD? $8.50 per ticket? $1 per song?)
So if piracy cannot be proven to cause harm.... why do we even need to prove it provides benefit? If it does nothing, then there is no need to bother. If it provides benefit, great. Either way, since it does no harm, THERE IS NO CASE.
All they want to do is "rent" their "content" to you. That way, they can make money forever on something that should've been in the public domain decades ago.
Slashdot Mirror
This does not make Apple the same as "any other company." No data is stored (it's already been proven that none is stored), you can turn it off as easily as it was turned on, and it does not tag uniquely identifiable information to you any more than using Amazon.com does if you have never bought anything from them. The WMP stuff was still buried deep in a configuration page and was not "turn off collecting personal data." So the purpose and removal of such items made MS look sneaky and underhanded. The mini store does not make Apple look the same.
The mini store itself is on the front of the iTunes program with the button to turn it off. Totally different agendas if you ask me. What's in the comment field of a mp3 ripped by iTunes? Mine's blank for every one of them (I use AAC). (With the exception of what program encoded it.) Mine go back as far as 4.1, so I must be missing something. If there was something in the mp3 version, why not put it in the AAC version too? If it were some sort of plot against your privacy, it would show up under both. I guess I'll rip something to MP3 to see what's there.
The 'fanboyism' you think you see is nothing more than people pointing out that the grudge some people have for Apple is unfounded in this case, because this does not make them the same as Sony or MS when it comes to spyware or malware. It's not an attempt to show how much "better" Apple is than any other company, it is just showing that people are overreacting in this case (if it were Microsoft I would say the same thing.) This is not an example of malware/spyware. Not even if you squint.
I do not defend Apple when it does not warrant it, but this hysteria is nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to the other malware/spyware issues that have occured recently.
Or perhaps Apple's not as lame as Microsoft or Sony when it comes to this sort of thing. Windows Media Player had a "feature" that allowed MS to mine your listening habits that you had to specifically go deep into the configuration pages to disable. On the iTunes program, the 'OFF' button is right on the front. Not to mention this doesn't tag your stuff with identifiable information like the WMP stuff did.
The RootKit by Sony was installed EVEN if you said NO. This is far from that. Turn it off, and you are as you were in 6.0.1. Simple. It's on the site, prominently displayed... there is no "big secret" like MS and Sony have done in the past. So, the "Apple Love" is merely a lack of hatred of a company because said company is not out to screw you. (In this instance, of course.) I don't see so much Apple love, but then again, I'm not holding some grudge against Apple for whatever reason either. I am however holding a grudge against Sony and MS for doing exactly the opposite. When Apple does the same thing as Sony and MS, I will hold a grudge against them too. This is not one of those cases.
If you hate Apple so much, why are you reading this thread? Just filter out Apple posts and things will be fine. You don't have to see how ridiculous everyone is.
Good point. The truth is, infringement isn't theft by any stretch of the word, and should not be treated as such. Not that the average Joe Sixpack has any idea what that means, but having the *AA's shove their party line down his throat at every step is bound to get some backlash. I'm shocked that the *AA's are surprised when it happens. Tell someone they are a thief long enough, and they will push back. This is precisely where we were at the founding of the country. The Rule of Law v. Fairness and equal representation under the law. It's been quite some time since we've actually had equal representation under the law, when corporations are allowed to line the coffers of candidates without much oversight.
The very concept of Copyright has been hijacked by a small minority of holders (not creators) who insist that their way of life (making money off perpetually renewed copyright at the expense of the Public Domain) should be guaranteed. Simply put, they want to have their cake and eat it too. And Congress allows, enables, and encourages it. "For a Limited time" is not, and never has been, Life+90 years. The Supreme Court erred in their determination that Congress can perpetually extend copyright at the expense of the Constitution. We have lost legislative, Executive, AND Judicial in this fight. We no longer feel represented. And if we don't speak up, we will lose what little fair use we have left.
Why? Because a few privileged individuals feel entitled to perpetual revenue? How much of the *AA's label catalogs exist to purchase? Given the history of it all and the amount of music/radio/drama/etc recorded, it's most likely a minimal amount. They simply sit on the copyrights of music, movies, and TV. They no longer make any money off of them. Baffling.
I for one have taken my fair use back by backing up my DVDs, using my computer to rip my CDs, and whenever I want "new" items, I buy them used or not at all. I deprive them of their revenue. So they call me a pirate. I really don't care. What matters is that I refuse to go along with their way of doing things. Their precious "content" is nothing more than entertainment. It won't be missed. Their overestimated self-importance will be their undoing.
You say that distributors need to make it easier/cheaper to buy the content than to copy it. This is not possible to do if there is no legislation against sites/programs which allow you to download the material with the click of a mouse.
I'm not knocking your premise, but these laws already exist. Copyright law protects them already. The DMCA, etc. protect their interests more than at any point in history. What new law do they need to protect themselves against something that is already illegal? "It's not illegal! It's now SUPER-illegal!" Criminalize it? Check. They did that already. (Read the "Warning" on DVD movies recently?) Make the punishments very harsh? Check. Been there for quite some time. Make the copyright nearly perpetual with the help of the government? Check. So where are our cheaper, less cumbersome downloads that the market has been demanding since the internet age became mature enough to handle the bandwidth?
Seems like they've got all their ducks in a row, yet they refuse to make it easier/cheaper. Wonder why that is?
Could it be that their intent was never to do this, but to thwart any advancement of technology that makes their job obsolete? Do you still get milk in glass bottles delivered by a milkman? Do you still use a horse and buggy to get to work? If not, where was the legislation that protected milkmen and horse & buggy whip makers?
The *AA's are using legislation not to "protect their content", but to prop up their aging, dying, decomposing business model. Pure and simple. And our bought-and-sold legislators are more than happy to do it.
So, I don't care if Russia or China thumbs their nose at our copyrights. Let them. We are in the same position Great Britain was at the time of the Revolutionary War. We are the old economy, and China/Russia are the new economies who are going to make us pretty irrelevant since our own laws do nothing but cripple our ability to adapt to a changing world market, simply to satisfy a bunch of rich fuckers who can't accept their demise gracefully.
I'm 35 and it still matters to me. And no, this is not just a debacle, a fiasco, or a mixup. This is criminal behavior from a corporation that thinks it can just do anything.
:)
Sorry, no matter how old you are, it should matter to you. Otherwise what's the point? Why are you reading Slashdot if you just don't care?
My parents have sworn off Sony products long before this happened, simply because Sony's quality has been in the toilet for a while now. They've had trouble with 2 televisions (27" and 32") within 4 years of purchase that pissed them off. Now they ignore Sony.
Either way, it's a win for the anti-Sony crowd.
I for one am out. Sony's off my list of corps to buy from. I don't care if they have 80" TVs for $50, Sony is done in my book. (Like Disney and their constant assault on the public domain...)
I was going to give the PS3 a chance to see how it performed, but now I won't even bother. Sony's rootkit AND their response had everything to do with it. The PS3 may be a great console, but I don't care. They're not getting another dime from me.
No more TVs, no more DVD players, no more movies from Sony Corp's movie holdings. They have screwed the pooch. It's done. I'm finished. They can rot. I really don't care what their "excuse of the day" press release says. They are criminals.
If anyone thinks that this is too harsh, note that I am not advocating anyone else to follow in my footsteps. I leave that decision to the individual. Something Sony is incapable of doing.
Having played on at Best Buy, I must say the controller on the 360 is nice. But I am increasingly feeling alienated from the "big two" when it comes to games. Sure they still produce games, but the idea of the console being a "set top box" that does so much more is just not appealing to me. I guess it's old age setting in, but I prefer a console to be simply a console. I have never used the DVD portion of the Xbox or PS2. I just play games.
That being said, I appreciate others who are interested in the community and whatnot that the 360 is trying to create, but to me, I think they could've shaved off 50% of that online junk and made the games less expensive per title. $60 for a game is pushing it... after the maturity of the market allowed for cheaper games, we are coming full circle again, for whatever reason. It doesn't bode well for buying many titles at once, that is for sure.
I look forward to the Revolution, because Nintendo still has me in mind....someone who just wants to play games.
(Forget the PS3. Sony's RootKit debacle has soured me from ever buying another thing from them.)
Now, did I say you were? Did I say everyone would be disappointed? Thanks for reading... I said people who hold Canada on this pedestal that is impossible to meet with reality. NOT everyone. I even qualified my statement. I should've put "but not you, oh great and enlightened person." so you could follow along.
People != just you, pal. The world doesn't revolve around you, the US, or Canada. I didn't say anything ill towards Canada, and was being quite nice about the whole thing, but you seem to hate and loathe the United States so much, you can't see that and turn a nice conversation into a "boy am I glad I made it out alive" speech that just makes you look paranoid and delusional.
Glad you like Canada. My advice. Stay there. I couldn't give two monkeys if you hate America. It's people like you who's "gift of overstatement" makes me ill. I couldn't give two monkeys what other people think, period. But then again, that must make me an "angry, ugly, American."
Some people don't hold your hyperbolic diaper-wetting view of their home country. If you feel you are in the majority... it's you who have hit the iceberg. The US has been in worse situations and has done quite well for itself. It's not in a total tailspin... but you can't see that.... because you hate it so much.
Good for you. Now move along.
Don't bother responding. You've killed this thread.
I didn't say violating copyright was "doing their part" I implied boycott or not purchasing.
Content holders will not embrace new technology because they fear a lack of control. They want their old-world controls in place before they release their precious "content" into the wild, but it's a catch-22. No one wants that control foisted on them. Treating people like criminals is the surest way to lose your customer base. And the *AA's are doing a bang-up job. They will ALWAYS raise the specter of piracy. No matter if it is a recession, double-digit unemployment, or a famine, the media conglomerates will cry foul when they don't make a double-digit percentage increase in revenue from year to year. Economics be damned, because the news (controlled by said media) won't interject that no business can sustain growth like that each and every year. But, people keep feeding the machine...
You act like people are enjoying their "spree" at the expense of copyright holders, yet revenue is up in some entertainment markets (when there isn't a recession or $3 gasoline.) Somebody must be buying their crap. But to listen to you, no one buys anything... they just have a penchant for copyright violation.
If people ("consumers" is a shitty word... I hate it) are somehow on a piracy spree, how can the entertainment conglomerates make any money? Even the movie studios themselves admitted that their slump in ticket sales was due to poor movies. Revenue will never slide low enough that they cannot blame piracy. Sorry, they'll find a way. They are already pointing their finger at everyone else (that would include you and I). And guess what? They will never develop a new business model, because fearmongering and whining to the bought-and-paid-for officials works so well for them. Why don't they go after the big piracy-laden countries like China and the like who ignore our precious copyright? Why do they pick on people who share songs? Because bullies only pick on those weaker than them. The enterainment moguls are nothing more than well-dressed bullies. They'd rather hit you over the head with stupid commercials about "stealing" (it's NOT stealing. Sorry), than try to find a way to make the system better.
The only way to win is FIX the system. The system has been hijacked by people who HOLD copyrights, not creators, nor the public. It has been stolen by the middle man. Until we break the back of the middle man, we will never see any relief. Stopping purchases, boycotts, sit-ins, letter-writing campaigns... nothing will work. The system needs an enema. Whether it be political, or outright social upheaval, the system is broken. (The Copyright system). Reason won't work, because these people don't adhere to reason. They are reactionary scrooges who worship the almighty dollar (or euro, or yen, or whatever.) The only solution is a restoration of purity into copyright. Until that happens, this argument will never be over. WE need to take the argument back from their court. Stop them from getting away with their specious revenue loss claims, their misuse of the word "stealing", their characterization of the internet as a haven for hippies and anti-capitalist monsters, their labeling of people as merely vats of fat that "consume" things. We need to stop them from de-humanizing the opposition to oppressive copyright before it is too late. We need to take back the public domain. These companies (Disney *cough*) got rich off it, and now they won't replenish it because of their greed. Take them to task. Make the world see just how wrong they are. And make them see that the Founding Fathers didn't mean for copyright to turn out this way.
"Life + 90 years" is NOT a "limited time".... THAT is the tragedy of copyright. Have you done your part buy not buying anything?
It's funny... but every argument can be used for (or against) any country. That's the beauty of the world... it's more vast than we perceive it to be.
;) I use both. :P
"It's not perfect, but it's better than X"... The problem is (as people have noted already in the thread), people think it _IS_ perfect in Canada. For whatever reason, they hate where they live now (US, Europe, whathaveyou), and the entire country looks inviting based on brochures and anecdotal evidence from residents (or those wishing they were... this is the internet, you can't always be sure...heh) The trouble with that is, obviously, people will be disappointed beyond measure when their idealistic view of Canada doesn't jive with the reality. I am not saying Canada's horrible, in fact, I'm sure it's a nice place to live... but like every place on the planet, there are warts. The US isn't perfect, but I like living here (and yes, I've lived elsewhere... I travel quite a bit, and there are a few places I'd still like to visit before I die..) I still firmly believe in our Constitution, and I will do all that is in my power to protect it from harm. I am not jingoistic, but I do cherish the freedoms that document puts into writing.
Did Canada support the French occupation of Vietnam? (I'm just curious...)
Metric schmetric.
When consumers "do their part", they are accused of wrongdoing. Their part is not participating in a broken system of copyright. The media conglomerates cry foul when sales dip. They blame piracy. There is no way to stamp it out 100%, just like any offense. So the media companies have their scapegoat. The electorate cannot help, because those we elect do not hold the interests of the common man when they arrive in D.C.
So what are we to do? We can legitimately point our fingers now, but no one listens.
Do you actually believe "for a limited time" is life + 90 years? And it keeps getting retroactively applied by Congress, in direct violation of the Constitution (with the help of the judiciary)... so that our public domain is thoroughly raped. The Founding Fathers had no intention of our copyright system turning into Great Britain's, but we are close with near perpetual copyright, no registration requirements for copyrighting anything, and stiff (unjust) punishments for infringement.
The system is indeed broken, and if you can't see that, I'm sorry.
While it's true that most of the time the concept of infringement vs. theft is abused to one side or the other's gain, the truth is that infringement is, and always should be, a civil issue. Turning it into a criminal offense with multi-millions in damages and jail time (for sharing files? Come on...) is more repugnant than any entitlement mentality either side clings to.
If the *AA monopoly succeeds in criminalizing something that has no business in the criminal court system, we have lost the basis of what copyright is for. "For a limited time" has been bastardized and marginalized by the holders (not creators) of copyrighted works. The system is broken. It has been stolen by the middlemen in the copyright issue, the *AA's. The future is what loses out. Not the *AA's.
P2P is just a symptom of the stranglehold the *AA's have on copyright and the public domain.
I said _I_ didn't care about a box that the entire reason the box "matters" is HDTV. I said a console whose sole selling point requires an HDTV is not as "big" a deal as you make it out to be. The people buying into the console are going to be disappointed if an HDTV is required to view what's so "special" about it... You know when the great unwashed get their shiny 360 home and plug it into their analog NTSC TV, they will be disappointed if the sole selling point is HDTV.
...and thanks for missing my point.
I'm not going to buy a console which requires a $2000 accessory. When did I say I owned an XBox? Nice assumption. You have an HDTV, and everyone you know has one. Good for you. Have fun with all that. I'm sure you're very proud of it. They have gotten cheaper over the years, but not THAT cheap. I paid $99 for my last TV 3 years ago. It still works fine, and HDTV "content" is not a priority in everyone's life, in spite of your contention.
But again, thanks for still saying YOU think its still a big deal. When I spoke about the 360, I was giving my opinion. I was not speaking for others. You however seem to think that you speak for the planet when you say it is a big deal.
Great, we're sorry we missed that you think it's impressive.;) But hey, when the rest of the planet buys their super-duper HDTV to play Dead or Alive (more boobies!!!!) we'll all be suitably as impressed as you are. :)
Seriously though... think about the market penetration of HDTV right now... it's not that huge, and if that is the defining moment of this console... most of the early adopters are going to miss it, tell their friends it might not be as super as Microsoft said, and people will not scoop this wonderful console up in droves because it just doesn't offer much to the average consumer who hasn't spent $2K on a TV. (The "huge drop" in HDTV prices hasn't come yet. It's a big gamble to think it will soon, too. They're still pretty expensive, just no longer prohibitively so for 99% of the population. Now it's more like 70%.)
Sorry, I saw it on HDTV and it looked like a computer game. I've got a computer. I don't need another $400 one, which requires a $2000 accessory to make it better than the consoles I have.
Well, as far as backwards compatibility goes... it's a short list for now (since apparently, it's all on some sort of emu-basis... with each game having its own "compatibility" portion). As for the future, they didn't rule out adding more backwards compatibility available on Live! (Wow, a Windows update for your console... what fun.)
:) But, you never know...
I bet they'll do a few more via Live! and then stop bothering once the base gets accustomed to their stack of unplayable XBox 1 games.
It's good that these things get put on the public record. Sherman's response reflects another in a long list of reasons why the RIAA and its affiliate labels are just a few short lawsuits away from being as relevant as the wagon in today's society. Sure, some other nefarious organization will come up behind them and be much, much worse, but these dinosaurs are languishing in their own tarpits from their own ignorance. They did this to themselves. They can't blame piracy for their own stupidity.
:)
The fact that this made the evening news is not a good thing for Sony, DRM, or the RIAA. People are aware of this, and this has set back unfettered "we're going to blow up your computer if you infringe" DRM by years (if not completely... but that's wishful thinking...)
The great unwashed know that Sony is out to break their computers. The genie's out of the bottle and raping cheerleaders. All we have to do is sit back and watch them try to spin their way out of it. At the very least, it's going to be funny.
I am willing to bet that soon after the 360 hits the shelves, we'll see the XBox price drop to $99... and I wouldn't be surprised if the PS2 hit $99 "just in time for the holiday thunder-grab" by Sony.
:)
So, make that $200, and it DOES make a difference. You don't have to be a tightwad to realize $150-$200 is not "pocket change..."
Of course, not all of us can be independently wealthy like yourself.
I dunno... in a few years maybe. Look at the Atari Flashback. It's up to a 2.0 with more games... (granted the 2600 is much older, but the point being, there's some market, however small for nostalgia gaming....)
And as the system gets older and older, perhaps the nostalgia crowd will want an NES like they did the old 2600. (The NES being very popular as well..)
That's why you're in college. To go to school to get a decent paying job so you can buy the Mac and use OS X.
:)
Why else would you be going to a university?
At least don't look at goatse without your peril-sensitive sunglasses! .... oh man, I feel old now. :)
True, but the two situations are not the same.
:) Too bad it doesn't work that way. :)
For it to be the same, I would have to claim you tried to kill me with that punch (as stated elswhere in the thread). Then I'd be just as silly as the MPAA and their claims.
Now, legally, they do not claim they are going under... but publicly they do... (as stated elswhere also.) A reasonable person would have to surmise that if they claim near-death in the public forum and "harm" in the legal forum... somewhere they're lying.
And since we cannot determine exactly where they are lying... then nothing they say can be believed. No case... no money.
That was my point. I was referring to actual losses. Statutory losses can be bought and paid for by lobbyists (and have, to smashing success... remember, you used to have to re-sell it to qualify for the worst fines and sentences... now you just have to "share it" because "even without monetary gain" constitutes their "statutory" losses.)
Actual losses are nowhere near that, which is why you don't see them flittering into thin air after a few P2P transfers.
They are losing nothing by this infringement. Actual losses, I mean. They've been able to use Enron-style accounting for years in their claims of damage, statutory and actual, and with great effect to the laws regarding infringement.
First, make copyright nearly perpetual... get the courts to agree with you. Then start going after people who violate copyright and attempt to extort the entire maximum statutory damage per infringed item out of people who cannot defend themselves (who may or may not be the actual infringer...)
It's quite a scam.
I was referring to ACTUAL losses. But that's okay... you don't read too well either.
Look at their bottom line. Look at their balance sheets. Look at their bank account with all those big piles of cash. Look at their increases in profits year to year. (the RIAA says in one press release they're at poverty's doorstep, but on their very website, they post profit increases in the double digit percentages. When the economy does bad, they don't gain in sales... imagine that! Basic economics DOES make sense... except to them. IT's all you damn pirates' fault.)
So, it stands to reason that if piracy is indeed hurting them, we'd see their money shrivel up and disappear.... making them destitute and on the street corner begging for change. After all, that's what their core argument is. The industry is "fighting for its very survival" to paraphrase the good ol' MPAA. So if they are making money, how can they claim lost revenue? It's a specious argument to begin with, and with their "calculated" damages, it's delusional. (After all, a lost sale is what $20 per DVD? $8.50 per ticket? $1 per song?)
So if piracy cannot be proven to cause harm.... why do we even need to prove it provides benefit? If it does nothing, then there is no need to bother. If it provides benefit, great. Either way, since it does no harm, THERE IS NO CASE.
All they want to do is "rent" their "content" to you. That way, they can make money forever on something that should've been in the public domain decades ago.
Wow. Are you that jealous of OS X?
Seriously, though. Civ 3 complete and Civ 4 are welcome additions to my now Windows-free environment.