As a content creator, if there's no right for me to profit off of my work, I would give second thoughts of spending the time and effort to create it in the first place. I have to eat, I need a place to live. If I am to spend any significant amount of time creating something (and plenty of games have significant development cycles), I need money simply to live in order to do that. Therefore my creation has value, insofar as my cost of living while creating it. I need to recoup that cost somehow.
Yes, many people create content for fun and give it away for free, and that's certainly their right. Hell FOSS thrives under this model and I'm incredibly grateful for it (and hence give back in my own contributions). Most developers, even FOSS ones that aren't in school any longer, usually work for dev shops that produces some content of value that is sold or licensed. They make their living in that fashion so they can give other works away for free.
As a content creator, it should be up to me what the value of my content contributions are, and if I feel they warrant a price I should be able to set that and have the free market determine if others think it valuable.
Note I'm speaking in the general sense of piracy and copyright, not in the edge cases mentioned in various threads here like DRM preventing you playing an old game that doesn't work on a modern OS. Those are different scenarios entirely.
Some companies will label their food as such. Consumers who express an interest can then purchase those products. I still don't see why this needs to be an industry-wide mandate though.
Works entering the public domain provide an economic benefit to future generations.
Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Dickens works have been public domain for quite some time. What economic benefits have been gained so far? Nothing, other than getting those works for free.
Bullshit, people have been sampling and remixing public domain works for years and have created new works of value. To say the public domain has no economic benefit for new creators is terribly short-sighted.
Plenty of users of the BSDs contribute their changes back. Yahoo and Apple are both rather giving in this respect. Part of the reasoning is that once you make your change proprietary you then have to effectively fork the code and continue all maintenance yourself. For infrastructure changes its simply easier to contribute the change back. If someone keeps one bit proprietary and submits ten other bits back as a result of keeping that bit proprietary I still consider that a win.
See I choose not to be a dumb fuck and live in a state that is going to fall in the ocean if it doesn't burn to death before then. And because I choose better then you, I am going to make fun of you for your stupid fucking decision.
And the winner of the most insufferable little twat award goes to...
Slashdot Mirror
As a content creator, if there's no right for me to profit off of my work, I would give second thoughts of spending the time and effort to create it in the first place. I have to eat, I need a place to live. If I am to spend any significant amount of time creating something (and plenty of games have significant development cycles), I need money simply to live in order to do that. Therefore my creation has value, insofar as my cost of living while creating it. I need to recoup that cost somehow.
Yes, many people create content for fun and give it away for free, and that's certainly their right. Hell FOSS thrives under this model and I'm incredibly grateful for it (and hence give back in my own contributions). Most developers, even FOSS ones that aren't in school any longer, usually work for dev shops that produces some content of value that is sold or licensed. They make their living in that fashion so they can give other works away for free.
As a content creator, it should be up to me what the value of my content contributions are, and if I feel they warrant a price I should be able to set that and have the free market determine if others think it valuable.
Note I'm speaking in the general sense of piracy and copyright, not in the edge cases mentioned in various threads here like DRM preventing you playing an old game that doesn't work on a modern OS. Those are different scenarios entirely.
Didn't we see what happened the last time someone tried to build Galt's Gulch?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...
I'm glad that mentalities like yours are on their way out.
Towards the end of the article they specifically mention this scenario with NVDIMMs.
Wow, strawman much?
Says the anonymous coward
Free speech is lovely, and so are its consequences.
There are plenty of "Christians" who would love America to become a theocracy.
Some companies will label their food as such. Consumers who express an interest can then purchase those products. I still don't see why this needs to be an industry-wide mandate though.
professional victims/bullying experts are a real problem
Citation please?
Funny you should mention that...
Deterrent
Interesting... your theory and $1 will get you a cup of coffee
Or the Puppies' nominees simply weren't worthy of the award. The fans speak
Considering the number of writers that pulled their own nomination when the Puppies floated it, it was the Puppies that started this political war.
6 months is not "quite a while". Come back in 10 years...
He is right though, "boxen" is idiot-speak.
IF radical christians thought they could get away with murdering people they would do it in a heart beat.
Unless you're writing from the Middle Ages, I'm pretty sure that isn't true.
You don't say ?
Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Dickens works have been public domain for quite some time. What economic benefits have been gained so far? Nothing, other than getting those works for free.
Bullshit, people have been sampling and remixing public domain works for years and have created new works of value. To say the public domain has no economic benefit for new creators is terribly short-sighted.
Plenty of users of the BSDs contribute their changes back. Yahoo and Apple are both rather giving in this respect. Part of the reasoning is that once you make your change proprietary you then have to effectively fork the code and continue all maintenance yourself. For infrastructure changes its simply easier to contribute the change back. If someone keeps one bit proprietary and submits ten other bits back as a result of keeping that bit proprietary I still consider that a win.
See I choose not to be a dumb fuck and live in a state that is going to fall in the ocean if it doesn't burn to death before then. And because I choose better then you, I am going to make fun of you for your stupid fucking decision.
And the winner of the most insufferable little twat award goes to...
I have mixed feeling about this, it seems discriminatory against the good looking...
How so? Good looking people can still sell from a booth, they just need to be appropriately dressed.
Therapyst are the cancer of modern society
At least you parade your ignorance in your first sentence.
This is precisely why the OP mentioned it, as it would be reformatted with Linux. Slightly older ThinkPads work GREAT with Linux.
Unix.
I rest my case