I actually wonder if Google planned on revoking the DRM movies the whole time. It's not hard for me to imagine myself thinking that way if I was the head of Google--give a first class lesson on why DRM sucks, that even normal people (albeit those who would buy movies via Google!) could understand.
It's like everything you buy has a long, long string literally attached to it; and at any time your new tv could start jerking toward your front door, outside, and back up the street to corporate headquarters.
I don't think anybody's suggesting that they should be "forced" to give "E for everyone" ratings to adult oriented games, but merely not to stigmatize games with more mature subject matter.
that they would choose HD-DVD, when Blu-Ray's the one that hasn't been totally pwned, yet.
But yeah, doesn't matter to me, I'll just download for free until they make the price more convenient than dealing with the piratebay. Not that hard to do, really. Three or four bucks? I'd go for that, every time.
I'd be interested how your benchmarks come out in Singularity FPS. On my core duo I average 20-30 fps. It's the biggest cpu killer game I know of (full disclosure, I'm the one developing it). http://www.singularityfps.com
The problem isn't that there aren't any technological workarounds to censorship. The problem is that the governments are allowed to get away with it, and users have to _know_ that they are breaking the law by circumventing it.
The problem can only be properly resolved by changing the law in those countries which do this.
Yes, but the problem is that idea is that you assume they have any right to be involved in your business. It is not your business, for example, what files me and my Dad exchange. Neither is it your business what files I exchange with another stranger. So if it's a bunch of strangers...what business is it of yours? Or, more importantly, the RIAA's?
Actually, I make the distinction between "copyright" and "right to make money". Just because you have the right to copy, doesn't mean you have the right to make money from it. To me, it's a subtle distinction.
What do you think someone is going to get out of free distribution in this case?
See, this is your problem. You think that someone has to "get" something and they have a "right" to get it. Speaking of horseshit. Nobody owes you jack squat just because you create a copyrighted work.
is the fingerpointing. I work at a major dedicated server hosting company in tech support. We see hacked Linux boxen all day long--usually just relatively harmless PHP hacks, as opposed to actual rooting. The usual solution is to "reprovision" the server and start from scratch--as opposed to analysing the attack vector, patching it, and THEN perhaps starting from scratch.
No internet server box can ever be 100% secure. The tale is told in how the owner reacts to the hack. Fingerpointing is not helpful or encouraging. Owning up to the problem and fixing it, is.
I get the distinct impression that everything you said is stuff you've learned by reading about it, as opposed to living through it.
I think anyone over 30 knows clearly that the net was the big spur to music "piracy". Sure, it was possible before, but never, never so easy to do so much so fast. It took Sean Fanning to make that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually wonder if Google planned on revoking the DRM movies the whole time. It's not hard for me to imagine myself thinking that way if I was the head of Google--give a first class lesson on why DRM sucks, that even normal people (albeit those who would buy movies via Google!) could understand.
It's like everything you buy has a long, long string literally attached to it; and at any time your new tv could start jerking toward your front door, outside, and back up the street to corporate headquarters.
That's the problem with the DMCA--it makes it illegal to be smart enough to "crack" the "effective protection".
Don't you know smart people are uncool? Well, now it's illegal, too.
I don't think anybody's suggesting that they should be "forced" to give "E for everyone" ratings to adult oriented games, but merely not to stigmatize games with more mature subject matter.
It sounds cool...so why did Enumera fail?
that they would choose HD-DVD, when Blu-Ray's the one that hasn't been totally pwned, yet.
But yeah, doesn't matter to me, I'll just download for free until they make the price more convenient than dealing with the piratebay. Not that hard to do, really. Three or four bucks? I'd go for that, every time.
All day long.
I'd be interested how your benchmarks come out in Singularity FPS. On my core duo I average 20-30 fps. It's the biggest cpu killer game I know of (full disclosure, I'm the one developing it). http://www.singularityfps.com
It worked in South Africa.
The problem isn't that there aren't any technological workarounds to censorship. The problem is that the governments are allowed to get away with it, and users have to _know_ that they are breaking the law by circumventing it.
The problem can only be properly resolved by changing the law in those countries which do this.
you have to have an internal passport. hey wait, that's not funny....
you have to have an internal passport.
Yes, but the problem is that idea is that you assume they have any right to be involved in your business. It is not your business, for example, what files me and my Dad exchange. Neither is it your business what files I exchange with another stranger. So if it's a bunch of strangers...what business is it of yours? Or, more importantly, the RIAA's?
That's it, just delightful!
The breathable atmosphere of the Earth is only 6.5 miles deep. When you drive 10 miles, you have driven further than that.
Think about it. And then think about how hard it really would be for us to affect the atmosphere in a big way.
oh, and I DO create lots of copyrightable things, hopefully of value. See my sig.
Actually, I make the distinction between "copyright" and "right to make money". Just because you have the right to copy, doesn't mean you have the right to make money from it. To me, it's a subtle distinction.
Not that I seriously disagree with you.
sounds like a personal problem to me.
See, this is your problem. You think that someone has to "get" something and they have a "right" to get it. Speaking of horseshit. Nobody owes you jack squat just because you create a copyrighted work.
is the fingerpointing. I work at a major dedicated server hosting company in tech support. We see hacked Linux boxen all day long--usually just relatively harmless PHP hacks, as opposed to actual rooting. The usual solution is to "reprovision" the server and start from scratch--as opposed to analysing the attack vector, patching it, and THEN perhaps starting from scratch.
No internet server box can ever be 100% secure. The tale is told in how the owner reacts to the hack. Fingerpointing is not helpful or encouraging. Owning up to the problem and fixing it, is.
I'm still baffled as to why an industry which has mastered Flash would want to switch to this new silverthingymajig. What's the win?
No, they're that lucky. MS's problem has always been that they don't know a good thing when they see it.
Bill G was in the right place at the right time with a wad of daddy's money. That was his genius.
You know, I wish they WOULD just charge me by the byte, and not charge extra for speed.
I mean, that's what really costs them money, right? The bytes, not the speed?
While this is a good first step, unfortunatley the BBC uses a set of known IP addresses.
The problem is in the brains of the content "owners". We will just have to wait for their dense minds to absorb the new reality.
Actually, all they need to do is provide a softare converter to an open format. Done.
I get the distinct impression that everything you said is stuff you've learned by reading about it, as opposed to living through it.
I think anyone over 30 knows clearly that the net was the big spur to music "piracy". Sure, it was possible before, but never, never so easy to do so much so fast. It took Sean Fanning to make that happen.