They didn't "turn him" into anything. He's a criminal. Period. I could write it off as misguided teenage mischief if he had changed his own grades. Maybe even a grade or two for a girl he was attempting to woo, but he changed grades for twelve people, stole tests and answers and distributed them, and burglarized his school to cover up the fact that - even after proving he could steal test and answers - he was still cheating.
Where's the "talent?" The only thing he did was read someone's password to initially "hack" the system, and I'll bet $20 that the "remote access program" was something he downloaded from some site with a name like "Teh Supar-3v1L Bl4ck Haxx0rZ La1r!" Giving him a pass because it's a nonviolent crime makes as much sense as letting off anybody who tunnels into a bank because they were clever. He's not talented, he's a sociopath. He should be expelled from school and they should staple a copy of the police report to any transcript they send to a college.
What's in a game? What's in a game? That which we call "Oblivion" by "Limbo of the Lost" would look as sweet. And so would "Thief 3", were it not "Thief 3" called, retain that beautiful-texture mapping which it owes without that title. "Limbo of the Lost," lose that name and for those graphical assets which are not original take more screenshots.
And by "unique CD-key," I mean "a serial number, unchanged on any copy of the game, that isn't really a serial number at all but just a key that lets the installer continue."
This is important because the labels own the recordings of the songs but the artists own the songs themselves. You have to pay the artist if you re-record their song, you don't have to pay the artist if you sample a recording. You're confusing a few things.
Most, not all labels own the recordings. (Very few exceptions, however.) Most, not all artists own the songs.
If you re-record the song you have to pay a percentage to whoever owns the song rights. If you sample a song you have to pay a percentage to the owner of the actual recording. If you perform cover songs live, someone (usually the venue owner) is liable for performance rights clearances. If a bar or other venue plays recorded music (no human performers,) then they're liable for mechanical rights.
Not to pile on here, but he absolutely *did* sample the "Under Pressure" riff. Go to Youtube and listen for yourself and you'll see that there is absolutely no difference between the two loops.
The only thing that he "changed" was to stutter the beginning of the loop on an off beat. I don't know if you're a musician, so I'll explain a little further.
Both songs are written in 4/4 time, which means 4 equally spaced beats to each measure (bar). Those beats can be broken down further into faster notes. You can do this yourself by counting along with each bar in eighth notes. Starting on the downbeat, count "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-1-2-3-4..." etc. Every time you say "1" you should be at the beginning of a new bar. Now do the same thing while listening to "Under Pressure." The Queen starts on 1 and ends on 7. Now listen to "Ice Ice Baby." What do you hear this time? Instead of "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-1" you hear "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1-1"
That's it.
That's all he changed.
The sample is the exact same, it's just that in alternate bars they start it on the "8," stop it, and immediately start it again on the "1." He was either lying or really believed that that was enough of a change to be legal, but in either case he was quite wrong. In his defense, this was in the early days of sampling where it really hadn't been tested in court, so saying "people who sample... pay for the right" didn't really apply at the time. It's more accurate to say that "people who sample *these days* pay for the right." Back then, that wasn't always the case.
House of the Dead grossed just under $14M and production costs were $12M. Subtract the cost of prints and advertising and it *may* have made money.
Alone in the Dark grossed $8M and cost $20M.
Bloodrayne? $3.5M against $25M.
Dungeon Siege made $12M - no budget available, but it didn't look cheap.
Postal cost $15M and only got shown on 15 screens in the US.
As I answered earlier, Boll got funding because tax laws in Germany made it very attractive to lose tons of money on his films. People were turning a profit off his films, but not because audiences were willing to pay to see them.
Actually, he got money because of a tax loophole in Germany that made it very profitable to invest millions of dollars in movies that utterly tanked. Now that that loophole has been closed we've probably seen the last of Boll in anything other than very small films.
...to testify on behalf of "Darwinia." Beautiful, moody, atmospheric, and emotionally engaging. Oh, it's also dirt cheap and a bargain at twice the price. Lovely, glowy, primitive "TRON"-esque graphics, swirly sounds, and easy to learn.
This is one developer that's definitely worth your time and few dollars. Skip the Starbucks for a day and try it out. Even though it's a linear-ish game, there's still replay value. Went all the way through it four or five times now and it's never the same twice.
I know I'm hella-late to this discussion, but you're exactly right. It's called "E&O" or "errors and omissions." Admittedly, this sort of coverage is more designed to cover things like accidental use of a real person's name or corporate claims of trademark infringement (e.g. - bar logos, someone holding a recognizable soft drink bottle in a shot), but it's still under that umbrella. Out-and-out plagiarization is a different claim, but they're all part of the same sliding scale.
I find it interesting how all of the trolls and flamers in this thread seem to be averaging a staggering number of typos and grammatical errors in every sentence they type. I know that correlation != causation, but it's still telling.
Re:Phoronix will pay to fix X
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If someone is going to pursue a task because the task is its own reward, and you entice them to pursue a different task that isn't its own reward by offering them money, that's bribery.
If someone is going to pursue a task because the task is its own reward, and you attempt to relieve them of outside pressures and distractions by offering them money so they can focus on the task they already intended to do, that's support. Aren't those two scenarios the *exact* same thing though? Given enough money / support doesn't any specific task become its own reward? We're not talking about coercion or duress here, we're simply talking about hobby programmers being offered money to prioritize one bug over another. I appreciate your argument, but you make it sound like this is some Dante-esque moral quandry that has the perilous capacity to eat a man's soul. In my eyes this is about as complex as "do you want the $20? No? Alrighty then."
Re:Phoronix will pay to fix X
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Bribery? I completely fail to see your logic here.
BattleCat needs to have a bug fixed. He approaches coders who, for free and in their spare time, code.
"Hey there, coderman. I see that you do this sort of thing for free and for fun, but what would you say to doing that coding thing that you love to do, hitting this one bug that I really need fixed, and ending up with all the satisfaction that you normally get from your work and a shiny nickel on top of it?"
"ZOMGBRIBERYYOUCALLOUSBASTARD!"
Really? Is that what you call bribery? Where I come from, bribery entails a breach of ethics. All BattleCat wanted was to add a little icing to the job that people were already doing for free in an effort to have something fixed that was a priority for him. That's about as straight-up, ethical, and non-bribery a way to get things done as I can imagine.
Can't we just outlaw being a teenager? I mean, if you look at all the major sources of cattiness, abuse, insults, hatefulness, and other means of emotional abuse it's goddamned nearly always teenagers. I think that a much more logical response to this problem would be to execute each and every American child found guilty of being over the age of twelve. Once they're twenty we can pardon them, and then the entire world will be happy, peaceful, and in no way unpleasant.
Welcome to Slashdot. If something is digitally based and easily pirated, then you have a right to it. Period. No moral or ethical gray area is allowed here. If your intellectual property is easily lifted then it's your problem, not ours. You can ask for money all you want, but it's not our responsibility to give it to you. Sure, we won't bother, y'know, doing without or just not having a copy of your work that we don't value enough to pay for, but that's because you're an evil, money-grubbing corporate overlord, man! FIGHT THE POWER!
WTF? Mythbusters created their own planet? Where the fuck do I sign up? I've been worshiping Kari for a long time now, but I didn't know her deity status had been made official!
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't "turn him" into anything. He's a criminal. Period. I could write it off as misguided teenage mischief if he had changed his own grades. Maybe even a grade or two for a girl he was attempting to woo, but he changed grades for twelve people, stole tests and answers and distributed them, and burglarized his school to cover up the fact that - even after proving he could steal test and answers - he was still cheating.
Where's the "talent?" The only thing he did was read someone's password to initially "hack" the system, and I'll bet $20 that the "remote access program" was something he downloaded from some site with a name like "Teh Supar-3v1L Bl4ck Haxx0rZ La1r!" Giving him a pass because it's a nonviolent crime makes as much sense as letting off anybody who tunnels into a bank because they were clever. He's not talented, he's a sociopath. He should be expelled from school and they should staple a copy of the police report to any transcript they send to a college.
Why thank you. Thank you so *very* much for a mental image that's going to haunt me to the very end of my days.
*ick*
At least you got the joke. The dogma patrol is already after me. Your sig is quite apt today. ;)
villager: Look, Slashdot, look! A heretic!
*rumblerumblerumble*
unix mob: BIND HIM TO A SERVER RACK WITH CAT-5 AND BURN HIM!
dissenter #1: We can't!
unix mob: Why not?
dissenter #2: Halon fire suppression system in the room!
*natternatternatter*
unix mob: Make him use Windows...
jeiler: Do your worst!
unix mob: ...VISTA!
jeiler: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
by "Limbo of the Lost" would look as sweet.
And so would "Thief 3", were it not "Thief 3" called,
retain that beautiful-texture mapping which it owes
without that title. "Limbo of the Lost," lose that name
and for those graphical assets which are not original
take more screenshots.
i feel i should begin apologizing now...
A unique CD-key for each game.
And by "unique CD-key," I mean "a serial number, unchanged on any copy of the game, that isn't really a serial number at all but just a key that lets the installer continue."
Not making that up.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=310683&page=14 Apparently they stole music, too.
From the HeXeN soundtract. Proven as of this morning. And the lead guy or his daughter posed as buyers to spam forums. Now *that's* a stabbin'...
Most, not all labels own the recordings. (Very few exceptions, however.)
Most, not all artists own the songs.
If you re-record the song you have to pay a percentage to whoever owns the song rights.
If you sample a song you have to pay a percentage to the owner of the actual recording.
If you perform cover songs live, someone (usually the venue owner) is liable for performance rights clearances.
If a bar or other venue plays recorded music (no human performers,) then they're liable for mechanical rights.
I know, I know. It's quite complicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties#Music_Royalties
Not to pile on here, but he absolutely *did* sample the "Under Pressure" riff. Go to Youtube and listen for yourself and you'll see that there is absolutely no difference between the two loops.
The only thing that he "changed" was to stutter the beginning of the loop on an off beat. I don't know if you're a musician, so I'll explain a little further.
Both songs are written in 4/4 time, which means 4 equally spaced beats to each measure (bar). Those beats can be broken down further into faster notes. You can do this yourself by counting along with each bar in eighth notes. Starting on the downbeat, count "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-1-2-3-4..." etc. Every time you say "1" you should be at the beginning of a new bar. Now do the same thing while listening to "Under Pressure." The Queen starts on 1 and ends on 7. Now listen to "Ice Ice Baby." What do you hear this time? Instead of "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-1" you hear "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1-1"
That's it.
That's all he changed.
The sample is the exact same, it's just that in alternate bars they start it on the "8," stop it, and immediately start it again on the "1." He was either lying or really believed that that was enough of a change to be legal, but in either case he was quite wrong. In his defense, this was in the early days of sampling where it really hadn't been tested in court, so saying "people who sample... pay for the right" didn't really apply at the time. It's more accurate to say that "people who sample *these days* pay for the right." Back then, that wasn't always the case.
...by lots of photos of amateur, um, "naturist" pics?
"Hey, Frank? Why are there giant palm trees in Washington D.C.? And why is the Washington Monument pink no...
Oh, never mind."
Profit? Not in the way you think.
House of the Dead grossed just under $14M and production costs were $12M. Subtract the cost of prints and advertising and it *may* have made money.
Alone in the Dark grossed $8M and cost $20M.
Bloodrayne? $3.5M against $25M.
Dungeon Siege made $12M - no budget available, but it didn't look cheap.
Postal cost $15M and only got shown on 15 screens in the US.
As I answered earlier, Boll got funding because tax laws in Germany made it very attractive to lose tons of money on his films. People were turning a profit off his films, but not because audiences were willing to pay to see them.
Actually, he got money because of a tax loophole in Germany that made it very profitable to invest millions of dollars in movies that utterly tanked. Now that that loophole has been closed we've probably seen the last of Boll in anything other than very small films.
Eyes, bowels... same thing, right?
...to testify on behalf of "Darwinia." Beautiful, moody, atmospheric, and emotionally engaging. Oh, it's also dirt cheap and a bargain at twice the price. Lovely, glowy, primitive "TRON"-esque graphics, swirly sounds, and easy to learn.
This is one developer that's definitely worth your time and few dollars. Skip the Starbucks for a day and try it out. Even though it's a linear-ish game, there's still replay value. Went all the way through it four or five times now and it's never the same twice.
I know I'm hella-late to this discussion, but you're exactly right. It's called "E&O" or "errors and omissions." Admittedly, this sort of coverage is more designed to cover things like accidental use of a real person's name or corporate claims of trademark infringement (e.g. - bar logos, someone holding a recognizable soft drink bottle in a shot), but it's still under that umbrella. Out-and-out plagiarization is a different claim, but they're all part of the same sliding scale.
http://www.google.com/search?q=errors+and+omissions
I find it interesting how all of the trolls and flamers in this thread seem to be averaging a staggering number of typos and grammatical errors in every sentence they type. I know that correlation != causation, but it's still telling.
If someone is going to pursue a task because the task is its own reward, and you attempt to relieve them of outside pressures and distractions by offering them money so they can focus on the task they already intended to do, that's support. Aren't those two scenarios the *exact* same thing though? Given enough money / support doesn't any specific task become its own reward? We're not talking about coercion or duress here, we're simply talking about hobby programmers being offered money to prioritize one bug over another. I appreciate your argument, but you make it sound like this is some Dante-esque moral quandry that has the perilous capacity to eat a man's soul. In my eyes this is about as complex as "do you want the $20? No? Alrighty then."
Bribery? I completely fail to see your logic here.
BattleCat needs to have a bug fixed. He approaches coders who, for free and in their spare time, code.
"Hey there, coderman. I see that you do this sort of thing for free and for fun, but what would you say to doing that coding thing that you love to do, hitting this one bug that I really need fixed, and ending up with all the satisfaction that you normally get from your work and a shiny nickel on top of it?"
"ZOMGBRIBERYYOUCALLOUSBASTARD!"
Really? Is that what you call bribery? Where I come from, bribery entails a breach of ethics. All BattleCat wanted was to add a little icing to the job that people were already doing for free in an effort to have something fixed that was a priority for him. That's about as straight-up, ethical, and non-bribery a way to get things done as I can imagine.
Can't we just outlaw being a teenager? I mean, if you look at all the major sources of cattiness, abuse, insults, hatefulness, and other means of emotional abuse it's goddamned nearly always teenagers. I think that a much more logical response to this problem would be to execute each and every American child found guilty of being over the age of twelve. Once they're twenty we can pardon them, and then the entire world will be happy, peaceful, and in no way unpleasant.
Welcome to Slashdot. If something is digitally based and easily pirated, then you have a right to it. Period. No moral or ethical gray area is allowed here. If your intellectual property is easily lifted then it's your problem, not ours. You can ask for money all you want, but it's not our responsibility to give it to you. Sure, we won't bother, y'know, doing without or just not having a copy of your work that we don't value enough to pay for, but that's because you're an evil, money-grubbing corporate overlord, man! FIGHT THE POWER!
I have some pictures of hot grits. Wanna hang out?
WTF? Mythbusters created their own planet? Where the fuck do I sign up? I've been worshiping Kari for a long time now, but I didn't know her deity status had been made official!