And this is fine. I just think that the creator should be able to decide if he wants his songs covered or not, and how much he should be compensated for the use. Along with that, copyright needs to expire within a sane amount of time to prevent abuse of those privilages.
Let me change my analogy. You write a really good book. the day after it's released, there are hundreds of people around the country reprinting your book and selling it themselves. Other people are making money off of YOUR work, without compensating you for your effort. AND you are selling less books because of their supply. Are you okay with that?
Lets take the analogy further. You cut an album. The same day it's released, someone rips it and posts it on IRC/Kaazaa/Usenet/Bittorrent. Suddenly it is instantly available FOR FREE to millions of people. There is no price competition here, because the other people distributing have no cost. Again, are you okay with that?
If that were the case, and it was legal to redistribute someone elses works without any kind of permission or compensation, why would anyone produce? Contrary to popular belief, most artists don't do it for the sake of art. They're in it for the money. Bach wouldn't have created his massive body of works if he wasn't contracted by the church to do it. Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. If creators have no protection, then creativity will be stifled. All the artists would be too busy working to survive to create.
You're walking down the street and some guy tries to sell you a William Shatner CD for $10. Would you take it? Probably not. You see the same guy the next day and this time he offers it to you for free. Would you take it? Probably.
Not even remotely the same thing. You're talking about a physical object. Once he gives a CD to you, he no longer has that CD. If he's a retailer, he is authorized to distribute those CD's. Giving them away is up to him. (Just not very smart) So yes, taking it is just fine.
A better analogy is this: Retailer is selling Shatner CDs for $10. Someone buys/steals/whatever one of those CD's from the retailer. He then makes 100 copies of it from a CDR and starts handing them out on the street. Now the retailer can't sell any of his Shatner CD's because the jackass out front is handing out copies. Is it still okay?
You're at a club and you meet a hot chick. The two of you dance, hang out and have fun. Later on while the two of you are making out, she asks if you want to go home with her. Do you go? Probably. Then she says it'll cost you $100. Do you go? Probably not.
Again, a flawed analogy. You're not talking about her giving away something that isn't hers to give. How about if she will only do you for $100 so you say no. But your buddy suggests that if he holds her down, you can do her for free. Is that okay then? You're taking her 'product' without her consent, which is more akin to copyright infringement. (I know it's a rather brutal analogy, but I'm not the one who compared copyright infringement to picking up women in the first place)
In both of your examples you showed someone giving away something that was in their right to give away. That would only be applicable if we were talking about the copyright holders deciding to give their work away for free.
Say you write a book. I get ahold of it, and start selling copies of it claiming I wrote it. You're cool with that? Because thats what you're saying. A creator should have no ability to prevent others from using their work.
You've nailed the complexity of the issue here. Copyright violation does not result in direct losses, simply decreased potential income. The question is, with the ability to copy and distribute on a massive scale at no cost, is copyright violation as damaging as outright theft?
Many people claim that "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" to justify copyright violations. However, I don't think you can assume that is the case for ALL violators. Your average teenage consumer probably WOULD buy the FOTM label crap if he couldn't get it free elsewhere. It's not about quality to them.
I hate the *AA's as much as the next guy. But I do feel that a content creator should have limited control on how his creation is used and distributed. There need to be rules.
However the old rules don't easily apply to new tecnology. There is no historical precedent that adapts easily to what we deal with now. It's not theft in the traditional definition of the word, but it is *something*. We just don't know what yet.
THe original intent of copyright is a good thing. Protect the creator in the short term, and the public in the long term. It's just been twisted to benefit the wrong people.
You nailed the complexity of the issue. Copyright violation does not incur a direct loss to the copyright holder, only loss of potential sales. The question is, when copies can be made and distributed on a mass scale, is copyright infringement any less damaging than direct theft?
YOU may only download songs that you have no intention of ever buying, but you can't say the same for everyone else who leeches off Kaazaa. Your average teenage consumer probably WOULD buy whatever FOTM album the labels churn out if they couldn't get it free online. It's not about quality to them.
Lets face it. There is no historical precedent for this. We can't apply the old rules directly here. But there need to be some kind of rules, otherwise there is no incentive to produce. I hate the recording industry as much as the next guy. However, I feel that a creator SHOULD have limited control over his work. Copyright law in theory is a good thing, it's just been twisted to benefit the wrong people.
It's not the same thing though, as copying a CD doesn't violate DMCA. There is no encryption on a standard music CD. (These new-fangled ones are another matter though)
I know you're attempting to be humorous, but as far as I'm concerned, the GBA SP is simply a better purchase
Cool, thats your opinion. Avoid the Micro. Personally I disagree. The SP gave me friggin hand cramps because it was too narrow to hold comfortably. The Micro looks alot more comfortable for me to use, and I'm seriously considering picking one up.
Perhaps this is why Nintendo has different handhelds: People don't always agree.
Re:it's all just rumor...
on
Video iPod Oct 12?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
At the moment I can get music from iTMS, or rip my own CDs. It wouldn't surprise me that if Apple plan for video distribution, it will include a nice two-step DVD rip as well.
I doubt that, given that breaking DVD encryption is a 'no-no'. They would need an online distribution method for this.
How many of the artists that are dropping records are writing their own stuff, instead of recording crap written by the labels stock writers?
Plus, if artists are expected to actually produce a full album of good music, the good artists will step up and the bad ones will die out. Thats cool with me.
Right, but the GP is talking about mindshare/marketshare, not profitability. Nintendo is the most financially successful by a strong margin, but Xbox gained a LOT of marketshare in a very short time, and is about even with Nintendo in that respect.
Someone mod this guy troll. Making a game for a niche market is not a fault, it's simply a design decision that is just as valid as any other. If every game were the same, and catered to the same players, then the game industry would be pretty damn boring.
WoW has never had 13k+ concurrent users on a shard. Eve has.
The fundamental problem with this approach is that it is absolutely impossible for someone starting the game now to ever catch up with a player that started the game a year or more ago.
This is not true. You are basically making the assumption that more Skill Points means they're better at everything. Many older players did not have the advanced skills we do now. I remember a time when training ANYTHING to level 5 was considered a waste of time. So most vets are a "jack of all trades" simply because they ran out of stuff to train for their first choice of profession.
I'll use my own character as an example. I started out as a production character, so I started with mining and manufacture, and the ships best associated with mining. (Gallente at the time)When tech II research began, I switched to sciences. Now I have a couple million SP dedicated to R+D. When those were at an acceptable level, I started looking at dedicated combat. Now, keep in mind that I had passable skills (lvl 3-4) in most combat related stuff, but I didn't start specializing until this point, which was about a year after I started. I changed what races ships I wanted to fly, which meant starting from the bottom again, and I've only just recently finished cruiser and battleship 5 for that race, as well as advanced energy weapon skills.
Essentally, I've near maxed several professions. Mining, production, research, trade, and just recently, combat.
Now, how can you catch up? Simple. Don't try and be everything at once. Pick a field, and you'll be as good as anyone in it in a few months. I have 27 million skillpoints on my character, But a large portion of that has NOTHING to do with combat. Mining skills, science skills, social and trade, corp management, industrial ship skills, etc. I have all these, and they do NOTHING in a fight. All the SP I dedicated to hybrid weapons and Gallente ships are useless when I'm in my Apocalypse using energy weapons.
Pick a role and specialize in it, and you'll catch up VERY quickly in that role. You just can't do everything.
Nah. A vast majority of the skills are shared. You'd just have to add the specific ship skills for each race. While time consuming, it's nowhere near the scope of years.
Now if there were race specific engineering, electronics, mechanic, and navigation trees, you'd be right.:)
You're right, I don't think the OP was being realistic either. But it is misleading to someone who doesn't know the game. It takes time to max out stuff in Eve. That is by design, and to me is actually a positive. There is a LOT of room for growth on the character level. It's just that unlike other MMO's, you don't have to be maxed to be competitive, and maxing out has a relatively small return compared to the time invested.
It can take a week to get a skill from level 1 to 4, giving say a total bonus of 20% to a stat. Level 5 alone can take a month for an additional 5% bonus. A new player can take 4 different skills from 1 to 4 in the time it takes me to get a single skill from 4 to 5. Thats a 20% bonus to 4 stats vs. a 5% bonus to a single stat.
The built in diminishing returns on skill training greatly favors newer players in that they get a much higher return on their time investment.
The OP's statement is like saying that before you can consider PvP'ing in WoW, you need to get all your tier 2 epic class gear. It just has no relation to the reality of the game.
I take that to mean more than just piloting, but many other skills as well. So, unless you can both come up with a specific list, I'll accept for now that it would take about 3 years to max out all the skills "for weapons use, piloting, and maneuvering."
Perhaps to get all related skills for all race ships to level 5, yeah. But to say that is overkill is an understatement. NOONE has been playing the game for three years. MANY are battleship pilots. 3 years to fly one is just stupid.
As for the matchups, when I was playing, many, if not most, BSes were equipped to kill frigs since that's what most other people were piloting. If you were in a frig and couldn't escape because of countermeasures that the BS was mounting, then you were dead. That simple.
They finally nerfed missiles against smaller ships. Ravens don't gank everyone anymore.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Okay I can accept that. But I still think the original creator is entitled to SOME control for a LIMITED time.
And this is fine. I just think that the creator should be able to decide if he wants his songs covered or not, and how much he should be compensated for the use. Along with that, copyright needs to expire within a sane amount of time to prevent abuse of those privilages.
Okay, I misunderstood a bit.
Let me change my analogy. You write a really good book. the day after it's released, there are hundreds of people around the country reprinting your book and selling it themselves. Other people are making money off of YOUR work, without compensating you for your effort. AND you are selling less books because of their supply. Are you okay with that?
Lets take the analogy further. You cut an album. The same day it's released, someone rips it and posts it on IRC/Kaazaa/Usenet/Bittorrent. Suddenly it is instantly available FOR FREE to millions of people. There is no price competition here, because the other people distributing have no cost. Again, are you okay with that?
If that were the case, and it was legal to redistribute someone elses works without any kind of permission or compensation, why would anyone produce? Contrary to popular belief, most artists don't do it for the sake of art. They're in it for the money. Bach wouldn't have created his massive body of works if he wasn't contracted by the church to do it. Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. If creators have no protection, then creativity will be stifled. All the artists would be too busy working to survive to create.
A better analogy is this: Retailer is selling Shatner CDs for $10. Someone buys/steals/whatever one of those CD's from the retailer. He then makes 100 copies of it from a CDR and starts handing them out on the street. Now the retailer can't sell any of his Shatner CD's because the jackass out front is handing out copies. Is it still okay? Again, a flawed analogy. You're not talking about her giving away something that isn't hers to give. How about if she will only do you for $100 so you say no. But your buddy suggests that if he holds her down, you can do her for free. Is that okay then? You're taking her 'product' without her consent, which is more akin to copyright infringement. (I know it's a rather brutal analogy, but I'm not the one who compared copyright infringement to picking up women in the first place)
In both of your examples you showed someone giving away something that was in their right to give away. That would only be applicable if we were talking about the copyright holders deciding to give their work away for free.
Say you write a book. I get ahold of it, and start selling copies of it claiming I wrote it. You're cool with that? Because thats what you're saying. A creator should have no ability to prevent others from using their work.
You've nailed the complexity of the issue here. Copyright violation does not result in direct losses, simply decreased potential income. The question is, with the ability to copy and distribute on a massive scale at no cost, is copyright violation as damaging as outright theft?
Many people claim that "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" to justify copyright violations. However, I don't think you can assume that is the case for ALL violators. Your average teenage consumer probably WOULD buy the FOTM label crap if he couldn't get it free elsewhere. It's not about quality to them.
I hate the *AA's as much as the next guy. But I do feel that a content creator should have limited control on how his creation is used and distributed. There need to be rules.
However the old rules don't easily apply to new tecnology. There is no historical precedent that adapts easily to what we deal with now. It's not theft in the traditional definition of the word, but it is *something*. We just don't know what yet.
THe original intent of copyright is a good thing. Protect the creator in the short term, and the public in the long term. It's just been twisted to benefit the wrong people.
You nailed the complexity of the issue. Copyright violation does not incur a direct loss to the copyright holder, only loss of potential sales. The question is, when copies can be made and distributed on a mass scale, is copyright infringement any less damaging than direct theft?
YOU may only download songs that you have no intention of ever buying, but you can't say the same for everyone else who leeches off Kaazaa. Your average teenage consumer probably WOULD buy whatever FOTM album the labels churn out if they couldn't get it free online. It's not about quality to them.
Lets face it. There is no historical precedent for this. We can't apply the old rules directly here. But there need to be some kind of rules, otherwise there is no incentive to produce. I hate the recording industry as much as the next guy. However, I feel that a creator SHOULD have limited control over his work. Copyright law in theory is a good thing, it's just been twisted to benefit the wrong people.
Does your internet have a beer volcano too?
It's not the same thing though, as copying a CD doesn't violate DMCA. There is no encryption on a standard music CD. (These new-fangled ones are another matter though)
Why do you think I need the smallest gameboy possible? My pocketspace is at a premium!
Perhaps this is why Nintendo has different handhelds: People don't always agree.
How many of the artists that are dropping records are writing their own stuff, instead of recording crap written by the labels stock writers?
Plus, if artists are expected to actually produce a full album of good music, the good artists will step up and the bad ones will die out. Thats cool with me.
Right, but the GP is talking about mindshare/marketshare, not profitability. Nintendo is the most financially successful by a strong margin, but Xbox gained a LOT of marketshare in a very short time, and is about even with Nintendo in that respect.
I think they're delaying Halo 2 on PC until it stops selling well on Xbox.
Halo: The Doll
Adorable.
No moat! Then it would be harder to get out!
/reluctant Floridian
So is having children out of wedlock copyright infringement?
Just askin...
If it were like "The Sims" then my recurrent house fires would be explained.
WoW has never had 13k+ concurrent users on a shard. Eve has.
And WoW is an excellent example.
I'll use my own character as an example. I started out as a production character, so I started with mining and manufacture, and the ships best associated with mining. (Gallente at the time)When tech II research began, I switched to sciences. Now I have a couple million SP dedicated to R+D. When those were at an acceptable level, I started looking at dedicated combat. Now, keep in mind that I had passable skills (lvl 3-4) in most combat related stuff, but I didn't start specializing until this point, which was about a year after I started. I changed what races ships I wanted to fly, which meant starting from the bottom again, and I've only just recently finished cruiser and battleship 5 for that race, as well as advanced energy weapon skills.
Essentally, I've near maxed several professions. Mining, production, research, trade, and just recently, combat.
Now, how can you catch up? Simple. Don't try and be everything at once. Pick a field, and you'll be as good as anyone in it in a few months. I have 27 million skillpoints on my character, But a large portion of that has NOTHING to do with combat. Mining skills, science skills, social and trade, corp management, industrial ship skills, etc. I have all these, and they do NOTHING in a fight. All the SP I dedicated to hybrid weapons and Gallente ships are useless when I'm in my Apocalypse using energy weapons.
Pick a role and specialize in it, and you'll catch up VERY quickly in that role. You just can't do everything.
Nah. A vast majority of the skills are shared. You'd just have to add the specific ship skills for each race. While time consuming, it's nowhere near the scope of years.
:)
Now if there were race specific engineering, electronics, mechanic, and navigation trees, you'd be right.
You're right, I don't think the OP was being realistic either. But it is misleading to someone who doesn't know the game. It takes time to max out stuff in Eve. That is by design, and to me is actually a positive. There is a LOT of room for growth on the character level. It's just that unlike other MMO's, you don't have to be maxed to be competitive, and maxing out has a relatively small return compared to the time invested.
It can take a week to get a skill from level 1 to 4, giving say a total bonus of 20% to a stat. Level 5 alone can take a month for an additional 5% bonus. A new player can take 4 different skills from 1 to 4 in the time it takes me to get a single skill from 4 to 5. Thats a 20% bonus to 4 stats vs. a 5% bonus to a single stat.
The built in diminishing returns on skill training greatly favors newer players in that they get a much higher return on their time investment.
The OP's statement is like saying that before you can consider PvP'ing in WoW, you need to get all your tier 2 epic class gear. It just has no relation to the reality of the game.
Noobie invasions! Now that is awesome.
If you do it again, I might just join up.
They finally nerfed missiles against smaller ships. Ravens don't gank everyone anymore.