The commercial game developer doesn't have to be concerned with what other Windows developers are doing and whether changes going on in another area of the OS or applications being developed are going to effect their game development.
Ah... nail... head.
Distros, packages, rebuilds.
The only way to avoid these is a live CD. Build a custom build for your game; tweaked, trimmed and optimised. No dross, no unnecessary mailer daemons running in the background. Nononono. Just enough to run the game.
The best part of this? It doesn't care which OS you run normally. Windows boxes, Linux boxes, Macs... they're all the same beneath the lid now. 92% potential market share? Pshaw. This'd be more like 98%.
And that's not all -- my goodness: insert DVD then start the PC. Just like a console. How much more user friendly can you get?
That's not free. Tape tax is a cost to the public. CD tax is a cost to the public. Download tax would be another cost to the public. One you introduce the concept of ISPs paying for copyright materials, you can't restrict it to music -- that would be unbalanced and unfair. Suddenly page owners would have a mechanism for charging page access (web pages are creative works too) and everyone would be demanding money from the ISPs. This would lead to either miniscule rewrds for coyright holders or a massive hike in internet charges. No more unmetered access for you, my friend!
A GPL-like license for musical creations would be a good step forward, making music free for personal use, while still permitting fees to be collected for the commercial use of the creations. Artists could also be credited a part of ISP's revenues in function of how many downloads there would be of their creations, be it in the form of songs, partitions, etc...
Make up your mind. Are you talking about free music ("free for personal use", above) or paid downloads ("credited a part of ISPs' revenues"). They are very, very different things.
If you do mean music that is truly free for personal use, you screw over the majority of the artists. Why? How commercial are your favourite tunes? Can you imagine your personal favourite tunes on adverts or in TV programs? I can't, because my personal tastes aren't everyone elses. The vast majority of leftfield, outré and avant garde acts make their money from sales of music for personal use. It's personal entertainment.
This wouldn't solve the problem you mention about small acts in Belgium -- it would perpetuate it. Money to the commercially successful artists, and stuff the little guy.
The collection agencies certainly need reformed, but not copyright.
Justin could make good money selling DVDs. More power to him for chosing not to, but he doesn't have the right to make that choice on the songwriters' behalf.
Justin does sell DVDs, as you can see at his site. So really, these freebies are in part adverts for his products.
Essentially, he is using copyright material for his advertising campaign. It's no different from when Coca-Cola's marketing people ripped off 7 Seconds of Love's song Ninja for an Argentinian TV ad. Whose side was everybody on then?
People have figured out chords to songs from the radio for decades. Is playing the song for a friend, or teaching them the chords, a violation of copyright? Then I should be signing checks to the RIAA every other day, it seems. But that is silly; it's just simple sharing.
I've technically broken copyright laws almost every day of my life, because yes: we all tell each other lyrics, chords, stories we've read etc etc ad nauseum. Even when I took singing lessons, my teacher was always giving me copies lyrics that she probably hadn't got a license for. But the internet is an entirely different beast for one reason only: scale. The JustinSandercoeSongs channel has 1005 subscribers. One of his videos on the song Yesterday has already been viewed 3,827 times. And the channel has only existed for a week. That's reproduction on an industrial scale.
Songwriters make money on instructional materials. DVD producers pay royalties to them. If thousands of people can be taught the song for free, they'll have to stop making DVDs and the songwriters get less money.
Justin could make good money selling DVDs. More power to him for chosing not to, but he doesn't have the right to make that choice on the songwriters' behalf.
I won't buy anything from the first, second or third tier of record labels, period. If I want to hear the music, I'll download a copy, and if it's any good, I'll go see the artist when he comes to town.
Ooooooooh, you are cruel. That's just rubbing their noses in it. "Yeah -- I liked the CD I ripped off so much that I decided to come along and watch the advert."
Wait....
No....
You didn't think that artists made money out of live tours?!?!?!?
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought you were joking. Here's how it goes. Artist releases CD; artist goes on tour; ticket prices pay the costs of putting on the tour. The artist makes his money when people who came to see him live go out and buy his CD.
Tours are a marketing scheme. If no-one buys CDs, there will be no tours. You are not supporting the artist by downloading his music from an illegal torrent then going to see him live. OK, so if you buy a CD, several middlemen get a cut. Unless you know the guy's address and can pop a tenner in the post, buying a CD is the only way to support him.
Basically, wherever it is, you have to lift your finger and bend it. Your fingers are only controlled by two main muscles -- one bends, one straightens. To lift your finger you need to use the "straighten" muscle (extensor), and to bend you're using the opposing muscle (flexor). this means you're fighting with yourself and putting more tension on the tendons.
People keep trying to fix problems by making more fancy mice, but in the end, a decent keyboard interface can remove the need for most mouse-work. (eg PgUp/PgDn for scrolling).
I did some office ergonomics training after suffering a mousing injury, and I loathe Evoluent's mice. Unfortunately central H&S keep going over my head and bringing in outside consultants who keep selling us these pieces of cr*p (on a nice commission, too).
Why do I say pieces of cr*p? Well, you're supposed to grip stuff with your fingers. Everyone knows it -- doctors, physiotherapists, even ring-tailed lemurs. Unfortunately, when you're using one of these, your fingers are all sat on top of buttons. If you try to grip with your fingers, you end up clicking. So instead you grip with your palm. This introduces tension into the whole forearm and I reckon this is even worse than a standard mouse. After all, the palm has no muscles of its own and relies on the finger muscles to do everything. This means you're using the same muscles for gripping as clicking. That, my friends, is called "overuse", which leads to "overuse injuries"....
How about spending this money on ways to reduce the world's population growth?
Removing your dangly bits wouldn't cost much. I can borrow an elastrator from a local farmer -- there's no real difference between a bullock's b*ll*cks and yours. Or is it all "someone else's problem", hmm?
It's one thing for you to say "Allah doesn't exist" to a muslim in the street, it's another thing to say it to someone you've had under lock and key for five years. It's cruel and unnecessary to deny access to water for performing ablutions before prayers.
Mock your equals, but not those you have power over -- that's ritual humiliation.
While freedom of speech is undoubtedly stiffled in Cuba, it's a comparatively safe place. Opponents might be sent to jail, but they're not tortured. Women's right are respected. Religious rights are respected. No child labor. Education is good. There doesn't seem to be massive corruption, at least compared to similar countries.
No, you're wrong. People are tortured daily in Cuba. Their religions are mocked. They have no access to education.
Why the heck did he describe Revenge of the Mutant Camels when talking about Attack of the Mutant Camels? That ain't journalism, my friend. Or was he just on the same stuff as Jeff?
The face of the internet is a cute Zwinky or WeeMe saying "Yeah, lol, homewk sux."
Unfortunately, that's not always the face of the user.
Why is it everyone thinks the pinnacle of democracy and freedom of speech is an uncontrolled, unaudited system where predators, fraudsters and various crooks are allowed to operate anonymously? Isn't it time that us developed countries followed in on regulating on-line content? Right now, many small webshops fail to get any custom because of a lack of public confidence in eCommerce -- but everyone knows Amazon's OK so all the money goes there. In response, Amazon's marketplace opened up, and everyone opens their webshop through Amazon. Amazon gets a slice of everyone's pie.
I don't know about you lot, but I'd like a web where I could trust shops enough to give them my card details without going through a multinational monopoly as intermediary, and where my customers could trust me enough to do the same. I would also like to meet people on-line and not have to wonder whether they were foreign mafia agents looking for some dumb schmuck to rip off.
OK, so an abusive regime will abuse that power -- but given that they abuse their military and police to much more brutal effect, it's not really top of my list of crimes against humanity....
HAL.
PS. Have Amnesty ever spoken out against the BBFC?
Mind-controlled computers will last until all trained computer operators have been sacked for sending rude emails to the boss.
Worst part? They won't even know they've done it.
If the AK-47 was the property of the Soviet Union, why does Russia get the monopoly on it? Surely all the states of the former USSR have a proportional share of the assets of the former country...?
Words can be very subjective. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." That's not true. One of the core liberties many people shout about is free speech. Is calling someone a paedophile in public exercising free speech or is it slander?
I believe endemic copying would cause a tangible hardship to people: it would remove their ability to choose to earn a living through the production of creative works. OK, so we're not talking about endemic copying here, but copying will slowly but surely become endemic. People are slowly rationalising away each and every form of copying. For example in the video world:
First people taped things off the TV and kept them forever. Justification: "I paid for it with my TV subscription" No, you paid to see it once with your TV subscription. If I buy a cinema ticket, do I get to go back in as many times as I like?
Then people copied taped material:
Justification: "It's been on the TV so I've paid for it with my subscription, so why not copy the DVD? It's better quality than the broadcast I taped last week." No, seriously, you paid to see it once! And even more: you paid to see it at a particular time. If I buy a budget cinema ticket for a Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon, do I get to watch it on Saturday night during peak time? No! I've paid less precisely because the restrictions mean it has less utility -- and less utility means less value! And as for the better quality... what you paid for was a TV broadcast of TV broadcast quality!
Justification: "Well, John bought it, and said I could borrow it any time I wanted, so why not just copy it? It's so much easier." With a single copy, it can only be played in one location at any time, with two, you could be watching it simultaneously in two opposite corners of the world -- you just can't do that with borrowing. Again it's a question of value and utility. Copying increases the utility, so increases the value. John paid a price based on lower utility.
Justification: "Well I wasn't going to buy it, so they're not losing anything." Urr... you mean you're copying it because you don't want to see it? Thought not.
"It's not worth as much as they're asking." Well wait for it to end up in the special offers section -- or come on TV. "But that'll take ages!" You get what you pay for. More critically, if you copy every film that you "kind of" want to watch, but think is over-priced, you;re breaking the nearest mechanism we have to a buyer-determined price: full-price at first release with clearance/sale discounts increasing in magnitude and frequency with the life of the film; TV releases starting on pay-per-view, moving to premium "movies" channels then moving to the cheaper mainstream channels.
Justification: "But it isn't available here yet!" Ok, it's not very nice that they bring the film out in Country X six months before it comes out in Country Y (where X and Y speak the same language), but it's their work, so it's their choice!
Justification: "But it isn't available any more!" And will there be any demand to release it if everyone copies it?
It just snowballs. One exception, one special case, one justication just leads to another and another and another. These exceptions act as proof to an individual that music/video/software has no value and slowly but surely copying becomes the norm, not the exception.
Furthermore, the extreme notion of the outright removal of copyright could cause real emotional hurt. Imagine you wrote a protest song about some weapons your government had bought: We don't want them. Send them back! We don't need them. Send them back!. Now imagine your local white supremacist organisation took your chorus on as a racist chant. You become involuntarily associated with someone else's abhorrent agenda. Not fair.
There is no decision that you, me or anyone else can make that is entirely ind
The religious person believes in things that are made up, in fairytales that are easily shown to be fiction.
And precisely which religious tradition/mythology/folklore has been shown to be fiction? I've been shown that most (if not all) are extremely far-fetched, and where the prophet/high-priest has been shown to be of dubious character, but I've never seen conclusive proof that any is demonstrably false.
You don't further a debate by lying -- all you do is get re-elected!
There ain't nothin wrong with no double negatives -- they're a legitimate historical part of the language, and some overthinking idiots in the 18th century decided they were illogical. Well guess what? Language is illogical. Compare "b*ll*cks" (=bad/nonsense/rubbish) with "the dog's b*ll*cks" (=the best thing ever).
Well, half a cake is quantantively equal to two quarters of a cake, or four eighths, eight sixteenths etc. This doesn't mean that they are physically identical.
Half a cake can only be in one place. Two quarters of a cake can be in at most two places. Four eighths, up to four.
Two quarters of a cake cannot be recombined into half a cake: the cut is final and everyone knows this, but for some odd reason we abstract this out of our mathematical teaching models. Which is where the problem you highlight comes in: 2/2 is quantatively equivalent to 4/4, but not qualatively, and as we only consider fractions quantatively, talking fractions confuses musicians.
If the studies in TFA are not enough for you, are you asking for scientists to generate a homocidal maniac? Is that the only proof you'll accept?
'm sure I'm not the only one who, after a particularly intense multi-player session of burnout ponders the best way to force the slowpoke ahead of you off the road. But I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who has realized that this is not the proper way to deal with a slowpoke ahead of you blocking traffic.
This smacks of "user error" syndrome. A bad programmer writes an app with an unintuitive user interface, and when users mess up he blames them.
Any good programmer will indulge in user-oriented design. He would assume the user might hit Ctrl+F on autopilot, expecting a search box to pop up, so he wouldn't use Ctrl+F as the keycode for formatting the PC's hard drive and wiping all data.
You acknowledge that playing games makes you want to drive faster and more aggressively, and accept that this probably goes for others, but you say it's down to the user to control his urges and absolve the designer of all responsibility.
I sick fed up of people blaming the users.
Oh, and I don't believe that you keep all those negative feelings completely in control on the road. You must recall hearing of studies that show that people just off driving games end up driving closer to the car in front than they would otherwise...? And you know what? they aren't even aware they're doing it.
When the "blogosphere" got the bill killed, they killed Video-On-Demand. Yes, I'm sure companies would like to be able to block traffic to monopolise, but AFAIK that's not what the bill said! The bill was about guaranteeing bandwidth for time-sensitive data. No data gets blocked for non-payment, it just gets deprioritised too allow the time-sensitive (VOIP, streaming media etc) through.
Should Granny Smith, who only ever uses her computer for emailing her grandchildren at uni and hangin' in MSN/Yahoo with the geriatric posse be paying for the heavy users? No. I browse for a couple of hours here and there. Should I be paying for the upgrade to the infrastructure needed to stream HD? No.
The people who watch should pay. There are two ways to charge them -- monitor traffic and bill them directly, or make it a cost to the supplier. It then gets added on to the product cost.
It's like mail order (old-skool mail order). I pay the post office to deliver my order to Bob's Mail Order Bazaar, and Bob pays the post office or a courier firm to send me back my new oak wardrobe. The bill includes P&P, because the delivery cost is not a flat rate. All in all, I pay more to the post office/courier for big, heavy wardrobe than Granny Smith does for a couple of balls of wool and a new pair of knitting needles.
And if I need it quick, I pay more again. Why? Because it's me that's putting the strain on the infrastructure, not Granny Smith. I am the key demand, or (if you prefer) the largest cost.
This is exactly the same as net neutrality. Both networks provide a means of remote communication.
The telephone network is not neutral and I don't think it has been, since perhaps the earliest days. Two words: Peak Rate.
The phone networks use variable charging to discourage people from using the resources when they're in demand -- peak time -- so that the resources are available to those who need them; it's called demand management, and it's more efficient than increasing supply ad infinitum. Mobile networks in the UK have a longer peak period than fixed line, because while fixed-line phones peak during office hours, mobile peak usage continues throughout the commute period.
Fixed-line performance traditionally didn't degrade gracefully under strain -- in general connections were simply refused. (digital exchanges are changing this though) Mobile networks slice up traffic and degrade "gracefully", but will let it get to the point where neither party can hear the other due to lack of granularity.
In these cases, demand limits itself -- people put the phone down. The claim is that the same thing happens with the internet -- people will only connect when they have a useful speed. However, if I'm at work, I don't care what response I get on my home PC if I choose to download DVD images of Linux builds, service packs for Windows, HD video etc etc for later use.
Net neutrality, inasmuch as it advocates no peak rate, turns things upside-down: it discourages people who need to use it during peak demand from using it. The downloaders don't need to -- they can run overnight -- but it's more convenient for them.
Slashdot Mirror
The commercial game developer doesn't have to be concerned with what other Windows developers are doing and whether changes going on in another area of the OS or applications being developed are going to effect their game development.
Ah... nail... head.
Distros, packages, rebuilds.
The only way to avoid these is a live CD. Build a custom build for your game; tweaked, trimmed and optimised. No dross, no unnecessary mailer daemons running in the background. Nononono. Just enough to run the game.
The best part of this? It doesn't care which OS you run normally. Windows boxes, Linux boxes, Macs... they're all the same beneath the lid now. 92% potential market share? Pshaw. This'd be more like 98%.
And that's not all -- my goodness: insert DVD then start the PC. Just like a console. How much more user friendly can you get?
HAL.
That's not free. Tape tax is a cost to the public. CD tax is a cost to the public. Download tax would be another cost to the public. One you introduce the concept of ISPs paying for copyright materials, you can't restrict it to music -- that would be unbalanced and unfair. Suddenly page owners would have a mechanism for charging page access (web pages are creative works too) and everyone would be demanding money from the ISPs. This would lead to either miniscule rewrds for coyright holders or a massive hike in internet charges. No more unmetered access for you, my friend!
HAL.
A GPL-like license for musical creations would be a good step forward, making music free for personal use, while still permitting fees to be collected for the commercial use of the creations. Artists could also be credited a part of ISP's revenues in function of how many downloads there would be of their creations, be it in the form of songs, partitions, etc...
Make up your mind. Are you talking about free music ("free for personal use", above) or paid downloads ("credited a part of ISPs' revenues"). They are very, very different things.
If you do mean music that is truly free for personal use, you screw over the majority of the artists. Why? How commercial are your favourite tunes? Can you imagine your personal favourite tunes on adverts or in TV programs? I can't, because my personal tastes aren't everyone elses. The vast majority of leftfield, outré and avant garde acts make their money from sales of music for personal use. It's personal entertainment.
This wouldn't solve the problem you mention about small acts in Belgium -- it would perpetuate it. Money to the commercially successful artists, and stuff the little guy.
The collection agencies certainly need reformed, but not copyright.
HAL.
Justin could make good money selling DVDs. More power to him for chosing not to, but he doesn't have the right to make that choice on the songwriters' behalf.
Justin does sell DVDs, as you can see at his site. So really, these freebies are in part adverts for his products.
Essentially, he is using copyright material for his advertising campaign. It's no different from when Coca-Cola's marketing people ripped off 7 Seconds of Love's song Ninja for an Argentinian TV ad. Whose side was everybody on then?
HAL.
People have figured out chords to songs from the radio for decades. Is playing the song for a friend, or teaching them the chords, a violation of copyright? Then I should be signing checks to the RIAA every other day, it seems. But that is silly; it's just simple sharing.
I've technically broken copyright laws almost every day of my life, because yes: we all tell each other lyrics, chords, stories we've read etc etc ad nauseum. Even when I took singing lessons, my teacher was always giving me copies lyrics that she probably hadn't got a license for. But the internet is an entirely different beast for one reason only: scale. The JustinSandercoeSongs channel has 1005 subscribers. One of his videos on the song Yesterday has already been viewed 3,827 times. And the channel has only existed for a week. That's reproduction on an industrial scale.
Songwriters make money on instructional materials. DVD producers pay royalties to them. If thousands of people can be taught the song for free, they'll have to stop making DVDs and the songwriters get less money.
Justin could make good money selling DVDs. More power to him for chosing not to, but he doesn't have the right to make that choice on the songwriters' behalf.
HAL.
I won't buy anything from the first, second or third tier of record labels, period. If I want to hear the music, I'll download a copy, and if it's any good, I'll go see the artist when he comes to town.
Ooooooooh, you are cruel. That's just rubbing their noses in it. "Yeah -- I liked the CD I ripped off so much that I decided to come along and watch the advert."
Wait....
No....
You didn't think that artists made money out of live tours?!?!?!?
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought you were joking. Here's how it goes. Artist releases CD; artist goes on tour; ticket prices pay the costs of putting on the tour. The artist makes his money when people who came to see him live go out and buy his CD.
Tours are a marketing scheme. If no-one buys CDs, there will be no tours. You are not supporting the artist by downloading his music from an illegal torrent then going to see him live. OK, so if you buy a CD, several middlemen get a cut. Unless you know the guy's address and can pop a tenner in the post, buying a CD is the only way to support him.
HAL.
Scroll-wheels are bad for you. Full stop.
Basically, wherever it is, you have to lift your finger and bend it. Your fingers are only controlled by two main muscles -- one bends, one straightens. To lift your finger you need to use the "straighten" muscle (extensor), and to bend you're using the opposing muscle (flexor). this means you're fighting with yourself and putting more tension on the tendons.
People keep trying to fix problems by making more fancy mice, but in the end, a decent keyboard interface can remove the need for most mouse-work. (eg PgUp/PgDn for scrolling).
HAL.
I did some office ergonomics training after suffering a mousing injury, and I loathe Evoluent's mice. Unfortunately central H&S keep going over my head and bringing in outside consultants who keep selling us these pieces of cr*p (on a nice commission, too).
Why do I say pieces of cr*p? Well, you're supposed to grip stuff with your fingers. Everyone knows it -- doctors, physiotherapists, even ring-tailed lemurs. Unfortunately, when you're using one of these, your fingers are all sat on top of buttons. If you try to grip with your fingers, you end up clicking. So instead you grip with your palm. This introduces tension into the whole forearm and I reckon this is even worse than a standard mouse. After all, the palm has no muscles of its own and relies on the finger muscles to do everything. This means you're using the same muscles for gripping as clicking. That, my friends, is called "overuse", which leads to "overuse injuries"....
HAL.
How about spending this money on ways to reduce the world's population growth?
Removing your dangly bits wouldn't cost much. I can borrow an elastrator from a local farmer -- there's no real difference between a bullock's b*ll*cks and yours. Or is it all "someone else's problem", hmm?
HAL.
In Gitmo it's malicious.
It's one thing for you to say "Allah doesn't exist" to a muslim in the street, it's another thing to say it to someone you've had under lock and key for five years. It's cruel and unnecessary to deny access to water for performing ablutions before prayers.
Mock your equals, but not those you have power over -- that's ritual humiliation.
HAL.
While freedom of speech is undoubtedly stiffled in Cuba, it's a comparatively safe place. Opponents might be sent to jail, but they're not tortured. Women's right are respected. Religious rights are respected. No child labor. Education is good. There doesn't seem to be massive corruption, at least compared to similar countries.
No, you're wrong. People are tortured daily in Cuba. Their religions are mocked. They have no access to education.
Haven't you ever heard of Guantanamo Bay?
What? That's run by the USA? Oh.
HAL.
IANAL, obviously, but I'm the editor of a UK magazine which regularly prints pictures which happen to include people - without getting their consent.
What TFA failed to mention is that journalism is granted an exception in the legislation.
HAL.
The Google van is a vehicle and often takes pictures while moving. Slow shutter is not an option.
HAL.
Why the heck did he describe Revenge of the Mutant Camels when talking about Attack of the Mutant Camels? That ain't journalism, my friend. Or was he just on the same stuff as Jeff?
HAL.
The face of the internet is a cute Zwinky or WeeMe saying "Yeah, lol, homewk sux."
Unfortunately, that's not always the face of the user.
Why is it everyone thinks the pinnacle of democracy and freedom of speech is an uncontrolled, unaudited system where predators, fraudsters and various crooks are allowed to operate anonymously? Isn't it time that us developed countries followed in on regulating on-line content? Right now, many small webshops fail to get any custom because of a lack of public confidence in eCommerce -- but everyone knows Amazon's OK so all the money goes there. In response, Amazon's marketplace opened up, and everyone opens their webshop through Amazon. Amazon gets a slice of everyone's pie.
I don't know about you lot, but I'd like a web where I could trust shops enough to give them my card details without going through a multinational monopoly as intermediary, and where my customers could trust me enough to do the same. I would also like to meet people on-line and not have to wonder whether they were foreign mafia agents looking for some dumb schmuck to rip off.
OK, so an abusive regime will abuse that power -- but given that they abuse their military and police to much more brutal effect, it's not really top of my list of crimes against humanity....
HAL.
PS. Have Amnesty ever spoken out against the BBFC?
Mind-controlled computers will last until all trained computer operators have been sacked for sending rude emails to the boss. Worst part? They won't even know they've done it.
If the AK-47 was the property of the Soviet Union, why does Russia get the monopoly on it? Surely all the states of the former USSR have a proportional share of the assets of the former country...?
"and you're not hurting anyone"
Words can be very subjective. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." That's not true. One of the core liberties many people shout about is free speech. Is calling someone a paedophile in public exercising free speech or is it slander?
I believe endemic copying would cause a tangible hardship to people: it would remove their ability to choose to earn a living through the production of creative works. OK, so we're not talking about endemic copying here, but copying will slowly but surely become endemic. People are slowly rationalising away each and every form of copying. For example in the video world:
First people taped things off the TV and kept them forever.
Justification: "I paid for it with my TV subscription"
No, you paid to see it once with your TV subscription. If I buy a cinema ticket, do I get to go back in as many times as I like?
Then people copied taped material:
No, seriously, you paid to see it once! And even more: you paid to see it at a particular time. If I buy a budget cinema ticket for a Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon, do I get to watch it on Saturday night during peak time? No! I've paid less precisely because the restrictions mean it has less utility -- and less utility means less value! And as for the better quality... what you paid for was a TV broadcast of TV broadcast quality!
With a single copy, it can only be played in one location at any time, with two, you could be watching it simultaneously in two opposite corners of the world -- you just can't do that with borrowing. Again it's a question of value and utility. Copying increases the utility, so increases the value. John paid a price based on lower utility.
Urr... you mean you're copying it because you don't want to see it? Thought not.
"It's not worth as much as they're asking."
Well wait for it to end up in the special offers section -- or come on TV.
"But that'll take ages!"
You get what you pay for.
More critically, if you copy every film that you "kind of" want to watch, but think is over-priced, you;re breaking the nearest mechanism we have to a buyer-determined price: full-price at first release with clearance/sale discounts increasing in magnitude and frequency with the life of the film; TV releases starting on pay-per-view, moving to premium "movies" channels then moving to the cheaper mainstream channels.
Ok, it's not very nice that they bring the film out in Country X six months before it comes out in Country Y (where X and Y speak the same language), but it's their work, so it's their choice!
And will there be any demand to release it if everyone copies it?
It just snowballs. One exception, one special case, one justication just leads to another and another and another. These exceptions act as proof to an individual that music/video/software has no value and slowly but surely copying becomes the norm, not the exception.
Furthermore, the extreme notion of the outright removal of copyright could cause real emotional hurt. Imagine you wrote a protest song about some weapons your government had bought: We don't want them. Send them back! We don't need them. Send them back! . Now imagine your local white supremacist organisation took your chorus on as a racist chant. You become involuntarily associated with someone else's abhorrent agenda. Not fair.
There is no decision that you, me or anyone else can make that is entirely ind
The religious person believes in things that are made up, in fairytales that are easily shown to be fiction.
And precisely which religious tradition/mythology/folklore has been shown to be fiction? I've been shown that most (if not all) are extremely far-fetched, and where the prophet/high-priest has been shown to be of dubious character, but I've never seen conclusive proof that any is demonstrably false.
You don't further a debate by lying -- all you do is get re-elected!
HAL.
There ain't nothin wrong with no double negatives -- they're a legitimate historical part of the language, and some overthinking idiots in the 18th century decided they were illogical. Well guess what? Language is illogical. Compare "b*ll*cks" (=bad/nonsense/rubbish) with "the dog's b*ll*cks" (=the best thing ever).
HAL.
Well, half a cake is quantantively equal to two quarters of a cake, or four eighths, eight sixteenths etc. This doesn't mean that they are physically identical.
Half a cake can only be in one place. Two quarters of a cake can be in at most two places. Four eighths, up to four.
Two quarters of a cake cannot be recombined into half a cake: the cut is final and everyone knows this, but for some odd reason we abstract this out of our mathematical teaching models. Which is where the problem you highlight comes in: 2/2 is quantatively equivalent to 4/4, but not qualatively, and as we only consider fractions quantatively, talking fractions confuses musicians.
HAL.
Blimey, you young whippersnappers. What about the greatest game ever written, Bell & Braben's Elite?
Look I so old to young eyes?
HAL.
If the studies in TFA are not enough for you, are you asking for scientists to generate a homocidal maniac? Is that the only proof you'll accept?
'm sure I'm not the only one who, after a particularly intense multi-player session of burnout ponders the best way to force the slowpoke ahead of you off the road. But I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who has realized that this is not the proper way to deal with a slowpoke ahead of you blocking traffic.
This smacks of "user error" syndrome. A bad programmer writes an app with an unintuitive user interface, and when users mess up he blames them.
Any good programmer will indulge in user-oriented design. He would assume the user might hit Ctrl+F on autopilot, expecting a search box to pop up, so he wouldn't use Ctrl+F as the keycode for formatting the PC's hard drive and wiping all data.
You acknowledge that playing games makes you want to drive faster and more aggressively, and accept that this probably goes for others, but you say it's down to the user to control his urges and absolve the designer of all responsibility.
I sick fed up of people blaming the users.
Oh, and I don't believe that you keep all those negative feelings completely in control on the road. You must recall hearing of studies that show that people just off driving games end up driving closer to the car in front than they would otherwise...? And you know what? they aren't even aware they're doing it.
HAL.
FUD!
When the "blogosphere" got the bill killed, they killed Video-On-Demand. Yes, I'm sure companies would like to be able to block traffic to monopolise, but AFAIK that's not what the bill said! The bill was about guaranteeing bandwidth for time-sensitive data. No data gets blocked for non-payment, it just gets deprioritised too allow the time-sensitive (VOIP, streaming media etc) through.
Should Granny Smith, who only ever uses her computer for emailing her grandchildren at uni and hangin' in MSN/Yahoo with the geriatric posse be paying for the heavy users? No. I browse for a couple of hours here and there. Should I be paying for the upgrade to the infrastructure needed to stream HD? No.
The people who watch should pay. There are two ways to charge them -- monitor traffic and bill them directly, or make it a cost to the supplier. It then gets added on to the product cost.
It's like mail order (old-skool mail order). I pay the post office to deliver my order to Bob's Mail Order Bazaar, and Bob pays the post office or a courier firm to send me back my new oak wardrobe. The bill includes P&P, because the delivery cost is not a flat rate. All in all, I pay more to the post office/courier for big, heavy wardrobe than Granny Smith does for a couple of balls of wool and a new pair of knitting needles.
And if I need it quick, I pay more again. Why? Because it's me that's putting the strain on the infrastructure, not Granny Smith. I am the key demand, or (if you prefer) the largest cost.
HAL.
This is exactly the same as net neutrality. Both networks provide a means of remote communication.
The telephone network is not neutral and I don't think it has been, since perhaps the earliest days. Two words: Peak Rate.
The phone networks use variable charging to discourage people from using the resources when they're in demand -- peak time -- so that the resources are available to those who need them; it's called demand management, and it's more efficient than increasing supply ad infinitum. Mobile networks in the UK have a longer peak period than fixed line, because while fixed-line phones peak during office hours, mobile peak usage continues throughout the commute period.
Fixed-line performance traditionally didn't degrade gracefully under strain -- in general connections were simply refused. (digital exchanges are changing this though) Mobile networks slice up traffic and degrade "gracefully", but will let it get to the point where neither party can hear the other due to lack of granularity.
In these cases, demand limits itself -- people put the phone down. The claim is that the same thing happens with the internet -- people will only connect when they have a useful speed. However, if I'm at work, I don't care what response I get on my home PC if I choose to download DVD images of Linux builds, service packs for Windows, HD video etc etc for later use.
Net neutrality, inasmuch as it advocates no peak rate, turns things upside-down: it discourages people who need to use it during peak demand from using it. The downloaders don't need to -- they can run overnight -- but it's more convenient for them.
HAL.