Also trying to point out that the vast majority of Slashdotters, including the one to whom I replied, produce nothing in the way of copyrightable content, let alone make it their primary occupation, yet want to sit on the sidelines and offer advice as to how the actual producers should conduct themselves in their business.
Hi, I'm a professional content creator. The majority of my income is from creating copyrighted works. Does that somehow make my opinions more logical or factual?
All the while we the producers are happy with the current arrangement, as are most normals.
Are you joking? Most of "we the producers" are not happy or sad or much of anything because we're long since dead. The majority of copyrighted works are not available to the public, at all. They are not for sale. Take a look at motown records, for example. I think something like 5% of their catalogue of copyrighted music is available for sale, and they own the majority of the works in an entire genre of American music. I don't know about you, but I doubt those artists would be too happy about that and those of us that would like to listen to it sure aren't.
As for the previous poster, he's entirely right. Copyright costs most musicians money, rather than makes it for them. In order to reach a mainstream audience they have to go through the RIAA, and for most artists that means they pay money for the privilege of handing over all their copyrights. They make their money with live performances and merchandise. For the average musician, no copyright at all would probably increase their revenue.
The point of all of this is not to say that copyright is not a useful incentive in some cases, it is to make you aware that the current implementation of copyright in conjunction with cartels that have monopolized the distribution channels is broken and needs to be fixed.
The NAPA analogy is shockingly accurate in my opinion.
Why is it that whenever a monopolist abuses their position everyone immediately presents an analogy using a company that does not have a monopoly and calls it the same thing? Here's an analogy that is actually apt. The electric company has a monopoly on local power distribution. For years, third party companies have been selling power converters to get around the low voltage of power delivered by the power company and allow a significant number of appliances to work. All of this is because the power company refused to provide higher power services. Now, the power company is still refusing to provide higher power services, but saw how much these companies were making and figured out a way to break their power converters by sending power spikes at pre-designated intervals they won't disclose. They have also entered into the power converter business, selling converters that know when the spikes are coming and can thus handle them, Gee, why would the existing companies complain?
I didn't like Star Wars:Episode I very much. Episode 4 was great though.
Right, so you might mark episode I, (technically number 4 by release order and prequels generally suck so I think this should be the ordering mechanism) as 2 stars or even 1. You wouldn't mark it as not interested, since from your comment you were interested enough to watch it. If, however, you were so disinterested in episode I so as to mark it as not interested (meaning you did not watch it and don't ever want to) then the chances are you probably would not be very interested in seeing episode 4 either.
Just a nitpick... If I mark, say, season 1 of series X as Not Interested, maybe it means I already own it and have no need to rent it, but still might want to see season 2. Of course, if I marked it as 1-star (Which I assume means "Utter crap"), then as you said, it should shut the hell up about the rest of the series.
I disagree. If you have it, you presumably have watched it and should give it a rating. You do have interest in it, or you would not have bought it. So things you mark as 1 star should probably reduce the chances that you want to see later seasons, but marking it is not interested should reduce it even further.
Does a fleeing criminal always know a cop isn't allowed to shoot, or might he pull a gun and go to shoot the cop, thereby giving the cop an excuse to pull his gun?
It is the law in every jurisdiction across the whole US, as far as I know, and it is general knowledge for anyone who watches TV. Anyone with a clue knows, but that does not mean everyone will always know or remember. Does it matter? If a criminal is willing to pull a gun instead of surrender, then shooting them is probably not the worst thing that can happen. They are obviously violent and dangerous.
The only real problem comes when someone pulls something that looks like a gun and isn't or the cops make a mistake. Also, the cops can hit you with a non-lethal weapon, like a taser, and do so far to often, IMHO.
American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would. Me: That's dumber.
This is a real and serious problem. There are just too many stupid people in the world. Cops, even in the US, are not allowed to shoot fleeing shoplifters, or pretty much any other fleeing suspect that is not pointing a gun at them at the same time. Personally, I don't have a strong stance on whether or not police should carry guns. The US system is broken as we have no punishments for violating the authority given to a police officer. That is to say if a cop here breaks the law and uses his badge to do it, he will likely get a lesser punishment than an average citizen, rather than a stricter one. As for the UK, they seem to have an obsession with weapons, rather than actions. Their police seem to be carrying guns more and more from what I've heard.
As a NetFlix user I have one suggestion for their recommendation system that can make it much better. Make it aware of the connection between series. That is to say, If you rent season 1 of something, suggest season 2, not season 4 (even if season 4 has better review ratings). If I mark season 1 of something as "not interested" instead of giving it a user rating, don't suggest every other season of that same show at the top of my recommendations. I mean how many times do I have to tell you I don't want to see any season of "Friends" ever, even if you pay me?
If that's the case, Apple is just as guilty with their iTunes/iPod DRM crap that locks you into their system.
Apple may or may not be guilty of anti-trust tying, depending upon whether or not they wield monopoly influence in the portable music player market. This is a close call at this point, but it is under investigation right now. If they are found to have a monopoly, then they are guilty of tying, without question. At that point it will be very interesting to see what remedies are ordered by the courts that convicted MS and then ordered almost no remedy at all.
I take it you had a business law class in high school and are now an expert in this area of the law.
No, I passed Econ 101 a decade ago and can read. Pick up any book on economics and read the section on anti-trust, or read the wikipedia link I provided. This isn't rocket science. I have been astounded again and again how many people here on Slashdot don't have any clue at all what antitrust law is all about or what it says. They go off half-cocked ranting about it, but don't bother to read even the short summary on wikipedia that explains what the hell they're ranting about.
I have two theories. The first is that technically people have a fear of anything legal or business related and thus avoid learning even the basics. The second (supported by the number of ACs) is that their are a lot of paid astro-turfers out there trying to confuse the issue and spread misinformation.
Not at all. You're probably confused with the Netscape case - but there, they strongarmed OEMs to *not* include Netscape. That's the "leverage" part. Simply competing in multiple markets, when you have a monopoly in one, is absolutely not illegal.
The leverage part, is making the purchase of Windows conditional on the purchase of WMP. That is to say, in order to buy Windows, you have to also buy WMP. And don't give me any fictions about WMP being free. That is just marketing. Engineers are paid to work on it and their money comes from you buying copies of Windows. This is the single most common form of tying and there is so much precedent that no one even bothers to argue it.
It's not illegal for those products to work well together to the point that they make a compelling combination either. That's fair competition, doing something better than someone else.
This part is true, with one caveat. The interface between the two products that work together has to be open and documented so that products that compete with the one that is not monopolized can build the same level of integration. Otherwise, those secret interface constitute an illegal tie, where the monopolized product is being leveraged. This was demonstrated in the EU case against MS when they ruled the secret protocols between Windows desktop and Windows server constituted an illegal tie between them and ordered MS to document those protocols so that others could compete fairly.
Now, if they start forcing OEMs to include their player and not iTunes (as if any OEMs included iTunes now), that would be illegal.
True, but that does not make the current bundling any less illegal. You'll note the law is almost exactly the same in the EU and they were convicted of this there. If it goes to trial in the US, they will lose here too.
Making music software is *not* illegal, nor is including it in Windows free of charge.
The first part is correct, the second part is a fiction. In terms of economics, nothing is truly free. It is either offered as a separate product(free or paid) or it is part of a bundle that is being paid for. In the current instance, it is part of a bundle and that is illegal in the US.
No, it's not, especially since MS won't have a monopoly in music players.
It does not matter. They do have a monopoly on desktop OS's and thus anything that those programs can do relating to Windows, that other makers of music players cannot (not don't, can't) is illegal tying.
It's true, but your argument puts it as exactly that - a technicality, where one law is rendered virtually unenforcable by another. In this case, privacy wins, and it would make sense for Sweden to simply remove the law from the books, since it's unenforcable clutter at this point in time.
I disagree. The law makes copyright infringement illegal, but not a serious crime. People may still be convicted of it, it is just that the evidence needs to come from something other than an invasion of privacy. People can still be convicted of this, just not en masse by some sort of automated system like the music distribution representatives would like. For yet another analogy, it may be illegal to smoke pot, but the cops can't invade your home to check without evidence. This does not mean the law can't be enforced, it just means they have to bust you in public places or when they break in with a different warrant.
So, you mean that it would be illegal to design a music store that only works with your MP3 player, which only works with your music software?
Nope. Designing something is not illegal. Even creating such a bundle is not illegal... right up until the point when one of the products in that bundle gains monopoly influence in the market. Apple is close to that position now and under investigation as to whether or not that is the case. If they do have significant influence in the portable music player market, tehn they are breaking this same law.
It never ceases to amaze me how Macheads can hold Apple to a completely different standard than the rest of the industry.
Umm, what? How is holding Apple responsible for following the same laws a "different standard?"
DRM is suddenly OK when it's part of QuickTime, iTunes, and the iPod - but you had better not bring up how Vista has WM-DRM support.
I don't approve of DRM at all, but it is legal, so long as it is not bundled with a monopolized product. Windows is a monopoly, thus it is illegal to bundle anything with it. IPods may be a monopoly and it may be illegal to bundle anything with it.
Oh, and the first person who says "they're a convicted monopolist" gets their head smacked.
MS is a convicted monopolist (bring it on) thus it is obvious to everyone involved, including MS that there is no way what they are doing is legal.
It is Apple has a monopoly in the MP3 player market. You only have to look at the market share to see that.
70% market share is the share where many laws start to examine what influence a company has in the market. Their influence is by no means a foregone conclusion, certainly not as much as a company where numerous courts have already issued legal convictions, upheld throughout the appeals process.
It is Apple who is using their player monopoly to push their desktop software and their music store.
Both Apple and MS are using their large market shares to push other products. The difference is, for MS this is clearly illegal and for Apple is may or may not be illegal.
Whether or not including WMP in Windows fits that definition is debatable and, IIRC has yet to be brought before any US court.
Yeah, just because it is a very clear cut case, with no real facts in debate, clear precedent, and they've been convicted of the exact same act in the EU courts is no reason to think what they are doing might be illegal.
I guess, then, that it's illegal for Microsoft to sell mice and keyboards according to you.
Are you being paid to write this crap? It is illegal to tie the sale of one product to the sale of a product they have monopolized. They can sell mice and keyboards. They can bundle mice and keyboards. They can bundle Zune and mice and keyboards and Frontpage. They can't legally bundle them with Windows.
Technicalities like that always amuse me, especially when they work out in favour of "the little guy". We have a few laws like that here in Canada, and I hope they don't change.
I don't consider this to be a technicality. I consider this to be the law working exactly as designed. Swedes consider privacy important, thus the police violating your privacy (seriously infringing your rights) in an attempt to find evidence of a much less serious matter is pretty idiotic. It would be like the police being allowed to shoot people they see speeding. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Have they been indicted or sued by the Justice Department for bundling Windows Media Player yet?
Nope. They were convicted of it in the EU though, which has nearly identical antitrust laws.
If not, when do you expect that to happen?
Just as soon as we elect a president for whom MS is not one of the largest contributors for their election campaign, i.e. not Republican or Democrat.
They also bundle Internet Explorer and WordPad. Are they illegal too?
MS was convicted of illegal tying for IE, but their punishment was negligible, as all the people in charge of the case were replaced right after Bush was elected and the new justice department officials though "nothing" was an appropriate punishment for someone who gave them so much money in bribes, err I mean, legal lobbying funds.
Wordpad does not compete in an existing, market and as such is probably not a violation of anti-trust law.
Antitrust. Perhaps the relevant quote in the section titles "Prohibited Anti-competitive Behavior" would be, "Tying - The practice of making the sale of one good conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good." It has been illegal since the Sherman antitrust act in 1890.
Leveraging a monopoly to gain market share in another market is illegal. In this case, MS has bundled their software music player with Windows, which is illegal in and of itself. That player plays a DRM-ladem music format owned by Microsoft. If their hardware and software players play it and that ability is not offered to all other software player and hardware player manufacturers, free of charge, then that too is illegal.
Yeah, right. And does it resurrect people? Not yet;)
What's your point? You're proposing we punish the innocent under the assumption that that will protect still other innocent people, but you've provided no evidence of that. So you have no argument either in principal or in demonstration.
Not the same. A gun is a WEAPON. Can't you understand that point?
Nope. "Weapon" is a label. Just like "violent digital image." Neither makes any difference.
There is no other LEGITIMATE usage other than to harm or kill.
First, why do you assume there needs to be a reason not to take away a person's rights? Second, sport shooting is a legitimate, nonviolent usage. Third, harming and killing are useful and legitimate uses by themselves in many instances.
Only crazy people go on a killing spree after having played a game, or for any reason triggering their decompensation. However, non-crazy people (not talking about criminals yet) kill with guns because of accidents or because of pressure; they regret it, lives are lost, it's bad for everybody.
I see, so you're in favor of banning things that can cause accidental deaths. Like motorcycles? How about speedboats? Hang gliders? Does anyone really need a butcher knife? What an, umm, interesting, view.
Well, I don't advocate unlimited free speech, so I'm consistent with my views.
So to be consistent with your views do you favor banning any speech that might incite harm and cannot be demonstrated to you to be necessary?
But GTA is definitely OK.
But like guns it is not necessary and it might cause some nutty kid to go kill people with a car. Please explain why we should not ban it just in case? Where is the necessary, legitimate use?
Parents with mentally disturbed and abused children are often themselves mentally disturbed, what can you expect?
I'm sorry, what is your argument here? What about this does not apply equally to guns and video games?
And did I say that the few legitimate usages for guns shouldn't be allowed (ie for farmers mostly)? Nope, I was talking of the "general case".
I see, the default ban argument again. I've seen how well that works. And who decides what is a legitimate use? Who is better able to decide the government or the person planning on using it? And if you don't have a reason to deny them the right, why are you presupposing their guilt in opposition to the constitution? Hmm, I don't think there are any bears in those woods, so no I'd better not let you have a gun just in case you're a homicidal maniac that is going to go kill people." Brilliant!
There's no reason anyone should have a gun in cities.
Really? Remember my girlfriend I was talking about earlier? Someone tried to force her into a truck a few years ago. And the guy standing next to her was shot in a drive by shooting. They arrested the guy and he'd bought the gun illegally. Tell me how her being unarmed is a good thing. Tell me that it is better for her being about 5'5" and walking home in the dark from the bus station through a bad neighborhood is a good thing.
You know what, I've got a better idea. You just move down to my old neighborhood and walk the streets disguised like an old, feeble man every night for one year, to and from the bus station. If you live, I'll concede that there is a good chance most people don't need a gun. Are you willing to do that? I hope you have good insurance because some of those guys like to throw bricks at old people.
And you can say I'm wrong in practice and principle if you want, but I think you are! Surprise, different people have different opinions.
Yeah, but my opinion is called "freedom" and yours is called government control.
Oh yeah, because in Japan and Western Europe, who have among the lowest murder rates in the world, people have guns? Oh wait, no, they don't.
Ok, I can agree with that, however, it is an entirely different thing to point that gun at a human being and pull the trigger. I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. Target practice at that time was a simple bullseye. When the target was changed to the sillouitte of a human, the percentage of those able to fire a gun at another human increased greatly.
Do you have a citation for this? From my reading the military does a whole lot more than use man shaped targets. There are three components to military training that touch on this. The first, which video games are good at but which does not apply to shooting people, is operant conditioning. This is basically repetition with rewards. A man shaped target pops up you quickly aim and fire, you hit it, you feel good, the drill sergeant does not yell at you. Rinse and repeat. For video games you're being trained to repetitively move your controller and push buttons. This doesn't help a lot in the real world since you don't have a controller and the movement is completely different.
The second component of military training to address this is ethical. In boot camp they intentionally destroy your self esteem and faith in your own judgement. Then they instill in you a reliance on the judgment of others and obeying orders. This is designed to make effective soldiers that follow orders and submit to the judgement of others. This is primarily designed to address the willingness to kill and obey.
The third component is aggressiveness. Basically they teach you to react with aggression, harnessing the basic instinct towards fight and flight. Being taught to obey is vital for this as well, since a bunch of overly aggressive people who don't obey are a liability.
You see them moan, hold thier abdomen, and cry out in agony. If you see that in a video game continously, what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap? Now, instead of feeling remorse at the first dead victim, they feel like they can keep going because their brain is used the hearing the painfull pleas of a dying person.
The truth is, while this can desensitize people it in no way impairs their judgement and is not a component of the military training to make people better killers. They do use video games, but for tactics and teamwork training, not to try to desensitize them, which is more effectively accomplished by breaking their self esteem.
Not really. The typical American has a bias towards a belief in personal responsibility over government authority. That is the reason a lot of Americans favor gun ownership. They don't trust the government to protect them (rightfully so) so they take responsibility for their own safety.
I, on the other hand, apply a bit more rigorous logic to topics and make decisions less influenced by said bias. For example, due to this bias towards personal responsibility, most americans think any socialism that does not already exist is bad idea. People, not the government should get their own health care and donate to charities to feed the poor. After looking at the numbers, however, it becomes clear that socialized healthcare and progressive inheritance taxes would greatly reduce violence and increase the quality of living. Thus, I favor those programs, which is very atypical for the average American.
In fact, looking at the numbers an objective researcher will soon see that public gun ownership and socialized healthcare both increase quality of living and decrease violent crime. Americans favor the former and not the latter because they tend towards personal responsibility as a cultural trait. Britons favor the latter and not the former because they have a cultural bias towards centralized, government control. I like to think that I can take a more objective, logical stance than the norm by favoring both. But then, I've actually researched both topics, unlike most people with an opinion.
Nope, this is a bad analogy. And you're implying that I say that the shooter isn't responsible. He is, but in the end who cares who is responsible?
The legal system, which is designed to punish those responsible and not the innocent.
There are lost lives.
How does this not apply to video games. Some unstable kids plays one constantly, goes nuts and emulates it. Lives are lost. It's the same thing.
You're comparing a ban on free speech (videogames) and a ban on a weapon (guns), which are clearly more than "just a tool".
So, lots of free speech is clearly more than just harmless political discussion someone might say, "I think you should all kill a person if you want to be called a man." So someone goes and does it.
I'm not denying that in the end, the one who does the stupid thing is responsible, but the society as a whole is responsible for letting weapons such as guns slip in the hands of children.
Yeah, and society as a whole is responsible for letting violent video games get into the hands of and be constantly played by mentally disturbed children. But in both instances it would be more accurate to say that the parents are responsible for allowing their mentally disturbed and abused child have access to guns and violent imagery.
Unless, some day, the US finally become responsible and not completely fooled by the desire to own guns, itself resulting from a typically american fantasy involving fake security feelings, power and bandits (preferrably not white, or at least from abroad) coming to rape your wife and kill your children.
This is a straw man argument. You make many implicit and unsupportable statements disguised as a question. This particular child lived on a working ranch. What exactly do you expect him to use to kill cattle before butchering them? What exactly do you expect him to use when coyotes attack the family dog? What exactly do you expect him to use when a bear spooks his horse and he is thrown to the ground and then it decides to chew on him a bit? Have you ever lived in a really bad neighborhood and been too poor to move? I mean one where people are beaten to death regularly and the police don't bother to show up most of the time? Have you ever lived in a rural enough area where you regularly encountered bears that may or may not charge you? I've lived in both and your assumption that I don't need a firearm is arrogant and offensive. You really believe you should have the right to decide for others what they do and do not need for their own protection because you're so much smarter than those dumb, deluded twits that have guns? I'm sorry but you're just wrong, both in practice and in principal. Lie to yourself all you want, but both of these are simply an issue of personal responsibility.
Of course, if guns were banned, people would use knifes or find something else. But at least they would kill fewer people before they're stopped.
Are you kidding? Take a look at the numbers. Banning guns increases violent crime and incidental deaths. You see first, criminals still get the guns because they're willing to break the law. Second, when they can't they use a molotov cocktail or pipe bomb for their drive by attacks, resulting in more incidental deaths. Third, it creates a whole class of people who are easy victims, simply because they are small or old or weak and criminals know they won't be armed.
I was saying that I don't want to take part in this debate because it's been done and done again.
Fine then. Stop responding. The truth is, you don't seem to have any logical argument. You want guns banned and are grasping for reasons. It isn't the same issue because umm, video game consoles are blue and most guns aren't. Or it will stop the killing, even though statistics show it increases the killing. Why don't you try looking at the principals and the facts, and then making a decision, instead of the other way around?
How? Last time I used a gun, it was not "point and press X".
The police and military use video games to train in tactics. Now I wouldn't recommend using a grenade launcher to try to propel yourself onto a roof, but there is an argument for video games being a training tool. What this has to do with why they should be banned, on the other hand, is rather less clear.
True, but guns and video games are not similar at all - games are designed for fun, guns are designed to injure and kill. They are completely different things and so the same arguments do not apply.
Are you seriously arguing the intent of the maker is justification for banning something? That is an unknowable quantity. How do you know the video game maker did not make the game for the purpose of training kids to kill their parents?
Furthermore, you implicitly assume that killing and injuring is wrong and undesirable, when in fact it is often very necessary. When a rapist tries to rape, beat, kidnap, and kill my girlfriend should your moral belief that killing is wrong trump her right to defend herself? When I go berry picking should your moral belief that killing is wrong and guns lead to killing trump my right to kill a bear that attacks me? Injuring and killing is both necessary and laudable in certain instances. Guns facilitate those legal instances just as much as they facilitate illegal ones. It is still banning an object in an attempt to stop a person from making a decision and taking an action. It is opposed to the concept of personal responsibility and just plain stupid.
...would this mean vans should be banned, all cars in general, or should I be forced to take responsibility for my action?
The typical response to such a question that I have heard, is that vans are needed and useful, while guns are only for killing. So I'll save someone some space and just debunk that argument before it is made. Guns are useful for non-illegal acts and killing is often justifiable, needed, and laudable. Uses of this include hunting for food, slaughtering farm raised food, defense against criminals, defense against animals, and simply for entertainment. More importantly, such an argument implies that all things should be banned by default, since all things can be used to kill, and only those things which are deemed more useful or necessary than they are dangerous should be allowed to be owned by the average person. This is a dangerous ideal that is a foundation of totalitarianism.
So let me ask, does anyone have a reason in the above scenario that vans should not be banned, guns should, and that does not make the same obvious mistake I just pointed out?
Tsss. No need to have this silly debate again. I only wanted to point out that guns being banned is not a bad thing.
I find the above two statements to be contradictory. The concept of gun bans and video game bans are similar in many ways. It is the basic argument of personal responsibility versus outside influence. Which is responsible, the person who commits an act or the things that influence that decision and outcome? The people in this case are arguing that video games trained the child to be a better killer, making him better at and more likely to kill those he murdered. Gun control proponents argue that guns make it easier and more likely that a person will kill another. In both cases, they're claiming access to a physical object is responsible for the end result and we need to remove access to that object.
Slashdot Mirror
Also trying to point out that the vast majority of Slashdotters, including the one to whom I replied, produce nothing in the way of copyrightable content, let alone make it their primary occupation, yet want to sit on the sidelines and offer advice as to how the actual producers should conduct themselves in their business.
Hi, I'm a professional content creator. The majority of my income is from creating copyrighted works. Does that somehow make my opinions more logical or factual?
All the while we the producers are happy with the current arrangement, as are most normals.
Are you joking? Most of "we the producers" are not happy or sad or much of anything because we're long since dead. The majority of copyrighted works are not available to the public, at all. They are not for sale. Take a look at motown records, for example. I think something like 5% of their catalogue of copyrighted music is available for sale, and they own the majority of the works in an entire genre of American music. I don't know about you, but I doubt those artists would be too happy about that and those of us that would like to listen to it sure aren't.
As for the previous poster, he's entirely right. Copyright costs most musicians money, rather than makes it for them. In order to reach a mainstream audience they have to go through the RIAA, and for most artists that means they pay money for the privilege of handing over all their copyrights. They make their money with live performances and merchandise. For the average musician, no copyright at all would probably increase their revenue.
The point of all of this is not to say that copyright is not a useful incentive in some cases, it is to make you aware that the current implementation of copyright in conjunction with cartels that have monopolized the distribution channels is broken and needs to be fixed.
The NAPA analogy is shockingly accurate in my opinion.
Why is it that whenever a monopolist abuses their position everyone immediately presents an analogy using a company that does not have a monopoly and calls it the same thing? Here's an analogy that is actually apt. The electric company has a monopoly on local power distribution. For years, third party companies have been selling power converters to get around the low voltage of power delivered by the power company and allow a significant number of appliances to work. All of this is because the power company refused to provide higher power services. Now, the power company is still refusing to provide higher power services, but saw how much these companies were making and figured out a way to break their power converters by sending power spikes at pre-designated intervals they won't disclose. They have also entered into the power converter business, selling converters that know when the spikes are coming and can thus handle them, Gee, why would the existing companies complain?
I didn't like Star Wars:Episode I very much. Episode 4 was great though.
Right, so you might mark episode I, (technically number 4 by release order and prequels generally suck so I think this should be the ordering mechanism) as 2 stars or even 1. You wouldn't mark it as not interested, since from your comment you were interested enough to watch it. If, however, you were so disinterested in episode I so as to mark it as not interested (meaning you did not watch it and don't ever want to) then the chances are you probably would not be very interested in seeing episode 4 either.
Just a nitpick... If I mark, say, season 1 of series X as Not Interested, maybe it means I already own it and have no need to rent it, but still might want to see season 2. Of course, if I marked it as 1-star (Which I assume means "Utter crap"), then as you said, it should shut the hell up about the rest of the series.
I disagree. If you have it, you presumably have watched it and should give it a rating. You do have interest in it, or you would not have bought it. So things you mark as 1 star should probably reduce the chances that you want to see later seasons, but marking it is not interested should reduce it even further.
Does a fleeing criminal always know a cop isn't allowed to shoot, or might he pull a gun and go to shoot the cop, thereby giving the cop an excuse to pull his gun?
It is the law in every jurisdiction across the whole US, as far as I know, and it is general knowledge for anyone who watches TV. Anyone with a clue knows, but that does not mean everyone will always know or remember. Does it matter? If a criminal is willing to pull a gun instead of surrender, then shooting them is probably not the worst thing that can happen. They are obviously violent and dangerous.
The only real problem comes when someone pulls something that looks like a gun and isn't or the cops make a mistake. Also, the cops can hit you with a non-lethal weapon, like a taser, and do so far to often, IMHO.
American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would. Me: That's dumber.
This is a real and serious problem. There are just too many stupid people in the world. Cops, even in the US, are not allowed to shoot fleeing shoplifters, or pretty much any other fleeing suspect that is not pointing a gun at them at the same time. Personally, I don't have a strong stance on whether or not police should carry guns. The US system is broken as we have no punishments for violating the authority given to a police officer. That is to say if a cop here breaks the law and uses his badge to do it, he will likely get a lesser punishment than an average citizen, rather than a stricter one. As for the UK, they seem to have an obsession with weapons, rather than actions. Their police seem to be carrying guns more and more from what I've heard.
As a NetFlix user I have one suggestion for their recommendation system that can make it much better. Make it aware of the connection between series. That is to say, If you rent season 1 of something, suggest season 2, not season 4 (even if season 4 has better review ratings). If I mark season 1 of something as "not interested" instead of giving it a user rating, don't suggest every other season of that same show at the top of my recommendations. I mean how many times do I have to tell you I don't want to see any season of "Friends" ever, even if you pay me?
If that's the case, Apple is just as guilty with their iTunes/iPod DRM crap that locks you into their system.
Apple may or may not be guilty of anti-trust tying, depending upon whether or not they wield monopoly influence in the portable music player market. This is a close call at this point, but it is under investigation right now. If they are found to have a monopoly, then they are guilty of tying, without question. At that point it will be very interesting to see what remedies are ordered by the courts that convicted MS and then ordered almost no remedy at all.
I take it you had a business law class in high school and are now an expert in this area of the law.
No, I passed Econ 101 a decade ago and can read. Pick up any book on economics and read the section on anti-trust, or read the wikipedia link I provided. This isn't rocket science. I have been astounded again and again how many people here on Slashdot don't have any clue at all what antitrust law is all about or what it says. They go off half-cocked ranting about it, but don't bother to read even the short summary on wikipedia that explains what the hell they're ranting about.
I have two theories. The first is that technically people have a fear of anything legal or business related and thus avoid learning even the basics. The second (supported by the number of ACs) is that their are a lot of paid astro-turfers out there trying to confuse the issue and spread misinformation.
Not at all. You're probably confused with the Netscape case - but there, they strongarmed OEMs to *not* include Netscape. That's the "leverage" part. Simply competing in multiple markets, when you have a monopoly in one, is absolutely not illegal.
The leverage part, is making the purchase of Windows conditional on the purchase of WMP. That is to say, in order to buy Windows, you have to also buy WMP. And don't give me any fictions about WMP being free. That is just marketing. Engineers are paid to work on it and their money comes from you buying copies of Windows. This is the single most common form of tying and there is so much precedent that no one even bothers to argue it.
It's not illegal for those products to work well together to the point that they make a compelling combination either. That's fair competition, doing something better than someone else.
This part is true, with one caveat. The interface between the two products that work together has to be open and documented so that products that compete with the one that is not monopolized can build the same level of integration. Otherwise, those secret interface constitute an illegal tie, where the monopolized product is being leveraged. This was demonstrated in the EU case against MS when they ruled the secret protocols between Windows desktop and Windows server constituted an illegal tie between them and ordered MS to document those protocols so that others could compete fairly.
Now, if they start forcing OEMs to include their player and not iTunes (as if any OEMs included iTunes now), that would be illegal.
True, but that does not make the current bundling any less illegal. You'll note the law is almost exactly the same in the EU and they were convicted of this there. If it goes to trial in the US, they will lose here too.
Making music software is *not* illegal, nor is including it in Windows free of charge.
The first part is correct, the second part is a fiction. In terms of economics, nothing is truly free. It is either offered as a separate product(free or paid) or it is part of a bundle that is being paid for. In the current instance, it is part of a bundle and that is illegal in the US.
No, it's not, especially since MS won't have a monopoly in music players.
It does not matter. They do have a monopoly on desktop OS's and thus anything that those programs can do relating to Windows, that other makers of music players cannot (not don't, can't) is illegal tying.
It's true, but your argument puts it as exactly that - a technicality, where one law is rendered virtually unenforcable by another. In this case, privacy wins, and it would make sense for Sweden to simply remove the law from the books, since it's unenforcable clutter at this point in time.
I disagree. The law makes copyright infringement illegal, but not a serious crime. People may still be convicted of it, it is just that the evidence needs to come from something other than an invasion of privacy. People can still be convicted of this, just not en masse by some sort of automated system like the music distribution representatives would like. For yet another analogy, it may be illegal to smoke pot, but the cops can't invade your home to check without evidence. This does not mean the law can't be enforced, it just means they have to bust you in public places or when they break in with a different warrant.
So, you mean that it would be illegal to design a music store that only works with your MP3 player, which only works with your music software?
Nope. Designing something is not illegal. Even creating such a bundle is not illegal... right up until the point when one of the products in that bundle gains monopoly influence in the market. Apple is close to that position now and under investigation as to whether or not that is the case. If they do have significant influence in the portable music player market, tehn they are breaking this same law.
It never ceases to amaze me how Macheads can hold Apple to a completely different standard than the rest of the industry.
Umm, what? How is holding Apple responsible for following the same laws a "different standard?"
DRM is suddenly OK when it's part of QuickTime, iTunes, and the iPod - but you had better not bring up how Vista has WM-DRM support.
I don't approve of DRM at all, but it is legal, so long as it is not bundled with a monopolized product. Windows is a monopoly, thus it is illegal to bundle anything with it. IPods may be a monopoly and it may be illegal to bundle anything with it.
Oh, and the first person who says "they're a convicted monopolist" gets their head smacked.
MS is a convicted monopolist (bring it on) thus it is obvious to everyone involved, including MS that there is no way what they are doing is legal.
It is Apple has a monopoly in the MP3 player market. You only have to look at the market share to see that.
70% market share is the share where many laws start to examine what influence a company has in the market. Their influence is by no means a foregone conclusion, certainly not as much as a company where numerous courts have already issued legal convictions, upheld throughout the appeals process.
It is Apple who is using their player monopoly to push their desktop software and their music store.
Both Apple and MS are using their large market shares to push other products. The difference is, for MS this is clearly illegal and for Apple is may or may not be illegal.
Whether or not including WMP in Windows fits that definition is debatable and, IIRC has yet to be brought before any US court.
Yeah, just because it is a very clear cut case, with no real facts in debate, clear precedent, and they've been convicted of the exact same act in the EU courts is no reason to think what they are doing might be illegal.
I guess, then, that it's illegal for Microsoft to sell mice and keyboards according to you.
Are you being paid to write this crap? It is illegal to tie the sale of one product to the sale of a product they have monopolized. They can sell mice and keyboards. They can bundle mice and keyboards. They can bundle Zune and mice and keyboards and Frontpage. They can't legally bundle them with Windows.
Technicalities like that always amuse me, especially when they work out in favour of "the little guy". We have a few laws like that here in Canada, and I hope they don't change.
I don't consider this to be a technicality. I consider this to be the law working exactly as designed. Swedes consider privacy important, thus the police violating your privacy (seriously infringing your rights) in an attempt to find evidence of a much less serious matter is pretty idiotic. It would be like the police being allowed to shoot people they see speeding. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Says who?
The Sherman Anti-trust act of 1890 in the US.
Have they been indicted or sued by the Justice Department for bundling Windows Media Player yet?
Nope. They were convicted of it in the EU though, which has nearly identical antitrust laws.
If not, when do you expect that to happen?
Just as soon as we elect a president for whom MS is not one of the largest contributors for their election campaign, i.e. not Republican or Democrat.
They also bundle Internet Explorer and WordPad. Are they illegal too?
MS was convicted of illegal tying for IE, but their punishment was negligible, as all the people in charge of the case were replaced right after Bush was elected and the new justice department officials though "nothing" was an appropriate punishment for someone who gave them so much money in bribes, err I mean, legal lobbying funds.
Wordpad does not compete in an existing, market and as such is probably not a violation of anti-trust law.
No it's not.
Antitrust. Perhaps the relevant quote in the section titles "Prohibited Anti-competitive Behavior" would be, "Tying - The practice of making the sale of one good conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good." It has been illegal since the Sherman antitrust act in 1890.
What, precisely, is illegal about this?
Leveraging a monopoly to gain market share in another market is illegal. In this case, MS has bundled their software music player with Windows, which is illegal in and of itself. That player plays a DRM-ladem music format owned by Microsoft. If their hardware and software players play it and that ability is not offered to all other software player and hardware player manufacturers, free of charge, then that too is illegal.
Yeah, right. And does it resurrect people? Not yet ;)
What's your point? You're proposing we punish the innocent under the assumption that that will protect still other innocent people, but you've provided no evidence of that. So you have no argument either in principal or in demonstration.
Not the same. A gun is a WEAPON. Can't you understand that point?
Nope. "Weapon" is a label. Just like "violent digital image." Neither makes any difference.
There is no other LEGITIMATE usage other than to harm or kill.
First, why do you assume there needs to be a reason not to take away a person's rights? Second, sport shooting is a legitimate, nonviolent usage. Third, harming and killing are useful and legitimate uses by themselves in many instances.
Only crazy people go on a killing spree after having played a game, or for any reason triggering their decompensation. However, non-crazy people (not talking about criminals yet) kill with guns because of accidents or because of pressure; they regret it, lives are lost, it's bad for everybody.
I see, so you're in favor of banning things that can cause accidental deaths. Like motorcycles? How about speedboats? Hang gliders? Does anyone really need a butcher knife? What an, umm, interesting, view.
Well, I don't advocate unlimited free speech, so I'm consistent with my views.
So to be consistent with your views do you favor banning any speech that might incite harm and cannot be demonstrated to you to be necessary?
But GTA is definitely OK.
But like guns it is not necessary and it might cause some nutty kid to go kill people with a car. Please explain why we should not ban it just in case? Where is the necessary, legitimate use?
Parents with mentally disturbed and abused children are often themselves mentally disturbed, what can you expect?
I'm sorry, what is your argument here? What about this does not apply equally to guns and video games?
And did I say that the few legitimate usages for guns shouldn't be allowed (ie for farmers mostly)? Nope, I was talking of the "general case".
I see, the default ban argument again. I've seen how well that works. And who decides what is a legitimate use? Who is better able to decide the government or the person planning on using it? And if you don't have a reason to deny them the right, why are you presupposing their guilt in opposition to the constitution? Hmm, I don't think there are any bears in those woods, so no I'd better not let you have a gun just in case you're a homicidal maniac that is going to go kill people." Brilliant!
There's no reason anyone should have a gun in cities.
Really? Remember my girlfriend I was talking about earlier? Someone tried to force her into a truck a few years ago. And the guy standing next to her was shot in a drive by shooting. They arrested the guy and he'd bought the gun illegally. Tell me how her being unarmed is a good thing. Tell me that it is better for her being about 5'5" and walking home in the dark from the bus station through a bad neighborhood is a good thing.
You know what, I've got a better idea. You just move down to my old neighborhood and walk the streets disguised like an old, feeble man every night for one year, to and from the bus station. If you live, I'll concede that there is a good chance most people don't need a gun. Are you willing to do that? I hope you have good insurance because some of those guys like to throw bricks at old people.
And you can say I'm wrong in practice and principle if you want, but I think you are! Surprise, different people have different opinions.
Yeah, but my opinion is called "freedom" and yours is called government control.
Oh yeah, because in Japan and Western Europe, who have among the lowest murder rates in the world, people have guns? Oh wait, no, they don't.
What! You really believe that
Ok, I can agree with that, however, it is an entirely different thing to point that gun at a human being and pull the trigger. I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. Target practice at that time was a simple bullseye. When the target was changed to the sillouitte of a human, the percentage of those able to fire a gun at another human increased greatly.
Do you have a citation for this? From my reading the military does a whole lot more than use man shaped targets. There are three components to military training that touch on this. The first, which video games are good at but which does not apply to shooting people, is operant conditioning. This is basically repetition with rewards. A man shaped target pops up you quickly aim and fire, you hit it, you feel good, the drill sergeant does not yell at you. Rinse and repeat. For video games you're being trained to repetitively move your controller and push buttons. This doesn't help a lot in the real world since you don't have a controller and the movement is completely different.
The second component of military training to address this is ethical. In boot camp they intentionally destroy your self esteem and faith in your own judgement. Then they instill in you a reliance on the judgment of others and obeying orders. This is designed to make effective soldiers that follow orders and submit to the judgement of others. This is primarily designed to address the willingness to kill and obey.
The third component is aggressiveness. Basically they teach you to react with aggression, harnessing the basic instinct towards fight and flight. Being taught to obey is vital for this as well, since a bunch of overly aggressive people who don't obey are a liability.
You see them moan, hold thier abdomen, and cry out in agony. If you see that in a video game continously, what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap? Now, instead of feeling remorse at the first dead victim, they feel like they can keep going because their brain is used the hearing the painfull pleas of a dying person.
The truth is, while this can desensitize people it in no way impairs their judgement and is not a component of the military training to make people better killers. They do use video games, but for tactics and teamwork training, not to try to desensitize them, which is more effectively accomplished by breaking their self esteem.
At least I know you are a true American ;)
Not really. The typical American has a bias towards a belief in personal responsibility over government authority. That is the reason a lot of Americans favor gun ownership. They don't trust the government to protect them (rightfully so) so they take responsibility for their own safety.
I, on the other hand, apply a bit more rigorous logic to topics and make decisions less influenced by said bias. For example, due to this bias towards personal responsibility, most americans think any socialism that does not already exist is bad idea. People, not the government should get their own health care and donate to charities to feed the poor. After looking at the numbers, however, it becomes clear that socialized healthcare and progressive inheritance taxes would greatly reduce violence and increase the quality of living. Thus, I favor those programs, which is very atypical for the average American.
In fact, looking at the numbers an objective researcher will soon see that public gun ownership and socialized healthcare both increase quality of living and decrease violent crime. Americans favor the former and not the latter because they tend towards personal responsibility as a cultural trait. Britons favor the latter and not the former because they have a cultural bias towards centralized, government control. I like to think that I can take a more objective, logical stance than the norm by favoring both. But then, I've actually researched both topics, unlike most people with an opinion.
Nope, this is a bad analogy. And you're implying that I say that the shooter isn't responsible. He is, but in the end who cares who is responsible?
The legal system, which is designed to punish those responsible and not the innocent.
There are lost lives.
How does this not apply to video games. Some unstable kids plays one constantly, goes nuts and emulates it. Lives are lost. It's the same thing.
You're comparing a ban on free speech (videogames) and a ban on a weapon (guns), which are clearly more than "just a tool".
So, lots of free speech is clearly more than just harmless political discussion someone might say, "I think you should all kill a person if you want to be called a man." So someone goes and does it.
I'm not denying that in the end, the one who does the stupid thing is responsible, but the society as a whole is responsible for letting weapons such as guns slip in the hands of children.
Yeah, and society as a whole is responsible for letting violent video games get into the hands of and be constantly played by mentally disturbed children. But in both instances it would be more accurate to say that the parents are responsible for allowing their mentally disturbed and abused child have access to guns and violent imagery.
Unless, some day, the US finally become responsible and not completely fooled by the desire to own guns, itself resulting from a typically american fantasy involving fake security feelings, power and bandits (preferrably not white, or at least from abroad) coming to rape your wife and kill your children.
This is a straw man argument. You make many implicit and unsupportable statements disguised as a question. This particular child lived on a working ranch. What exactly do you expect him to use to kill cattle before butchering them? What exactly do you expect him to use when coyotes attack the family dog? What exactly do you expect him to use when a bear spooks his horse and he is thrown to the ground and then it decides to chew on him a bit? Have you ever lived in a really bad neighborhood and been too poor to move? I mean one where people are beaten to death regularly and the police don't bother to show up most of the time? Have you ever lived in a rural enough area where you regularly encountered bears that may or may not charge you? I've lived in both and your assumption that I don't need a firearm is arrogant and offensive. You really believe you should have the right to decide for others what they do and do not need for their own protection because you're so much smarter than those dumb, deluded twits that have guns? I'm sorry but you're just wrong, both in practice and in principal. Lie to yourself all you want, but both of these are simply an issue of personal responsibility.
Of course, if guns were banned, people would use knifes or find something else. But at least they would kill fewer people before they're stopped.
Are you kidding? Take a look at the numbers. Banning guns increases violent crime and incidental deaths. You see first, criminals still get the guns because they're willing to break the law. Second, when they can't they use a molotov cocktail or pipe bomb for their drive by attacks, resulting in more incidental deaths. Third, it creates a whole class of people who are easy victims, simply because they are small or old or weak and criminals know they won't be armed.
I was saying that I don't want to take part in this debate because it's been done and done again.
Fine then. Stop responding. The truth is, you don't seem to have any logical argument. You want guns banned and are grasping for reasons. It isn't the same issue because umm, video game consoles are blue and most guns aren't. Or it will stop the killing, even though statistics show it increases the killing. Why don't you try looking at the principals and the facts, and then making a decision, instead of the other way around?
How? Last time I used a gun, it was not "point and press X".
The police and military use video games to train in tactics. Now I wouldn't recommend using a grenade launcher to try to propel yourself onto a roof, but there is an argument for video games being a training tool. What this has to do with why they should be banned, on the other hand, is rather less clear.
True, but guns and video games are not similar at all - games are designed for fun, guns are designed to injure and kill. They are completely different things and so the same arguments do not apply.
Are you seriously arguing the intent of the maker is justification for banning something? That is an unknowable quantity. How do you know the video game maker did not make the game for the purpose of training kids to kill their parents?
Furthermore, you implicitly assume that killing and injuring is wrong and undesirable, when in fact it is often very necessary. When a rapist tries to rape, beat, kidnap, and kill my girlfriend should your moral belief that killing is wrong trump her right to defend herself? When I go berry picking should your moral belief that killing is wrong and guns lead to killing trump my right to kill a bear that attacks me? Injuring and killing is both necessary and laudable in certain instances. Guns facilitate those legal instances just as much as they facilitate illegal ones. It is still banning an object in an attempt to stop a person from making a decision and taking an action. It is opposed to the concept of personal responsibility and just plain stupid.
The typical response to such a question that I have heard, is that vans are needed and useful, while guns are only for killing. So I'll save someone some space and just debunk that argument before it is made. Guns are useful for non-illegal acts and killing is often justifiable, needed, and laudable. Uses of this include hunting for food, slaughtering farm raised food, defense against criminals, defense against animals, and simply for entertainment. More importantly, such an argument implies that all things should be banned by default, since all things can be used to kill, and only those things which are deemed more useful or necessary than they are dangerous should be allowed to be owned by the average person. This is a dangerous ideal that is a foundation of totalitarianism.
So let me ask, does anyone have a reason in the above scenario that vans should not be banned, guns should, and that does not make the same obvious mistake I just pointed out?
Tsss. No need to have this silly debate again. I only wanted to point out that guns being banned is not a bad thing.
I find the above two statements to be contradictory. The concept of gun bans and video game bans are similar in many ways. It is the basic argument of personal responsibility versus outside influence. Which is responsible, the person who commits an act or the things that influence that decision and outcome? The people in this case are arguing that video games trained the child to be a better killer, making him better at and more likely to kill those he murdered. Gun control proponents argue that guns make it easier and more likely that a person will kill another. In both cases, they're claiming access to a physical object is responsible for the end result and we need to remove access to that object.