Well, they could encrypt it and if you decrypted it you'd be violating the DMCA. But no one's watching what you do on your own PC (hopefully), so it's irrelevant I suppose.
> I, like the vast majority, have absolutely no problem with it.
You call my premise faulty, but then make an unsubstantiated claim that the "vast majority" (of who?) supports your idea, which also happens to be a logical fallacy. Having people agree with something doesn't make it right.
They come up with the excuse that they wouldn't buy the game anyway, so the company hasn't lost anything. On the other hand, if there was no other way to get the game other than buying it, would they really never buy the game? I think not. It's more likely that they would wait for the game to be cheaper.
"But the idea that the copyright holder gets to set any conditions they like on your use of an object you own is a misconception."
Which is why it's an important to realize that while you own the disk, you don't own the software. So no, they can't restrict you from reselling the disk with the software on it, but they can restrict whether or not you can access all of the software on the disk (as long as they weren't telling you that you had all of the access).
>Taking as much as you can while giving as little as possible is something you consider admirable in a corporation, but despicable in your fellow citizens.
Actually, I prefer that everyone deal fairly with each other and only take that which they are due.
>Just because you have been mislead by propaganda into thinking this situation where legal might makes ethical right is sensible does not mean the rest of us have.
You realize that we're talking about whether or not you buy a game, right? You know, dealings between private parties? Not the war in Iraq or Prohibition or something, right?
Allow me to translate this mess of a post: an artist has no right to his creation because I want it and I don't want to compensate him. The rest of you, who understand that artists should be compensated for their work, can fuck off.
Sorry....my point flew right over your head. The basic metaphor is about expecting more than what you agreed to receive because the extra thing is "right there!"
And leave them with a net profit of nothing? The purpose of patent law is not just to help with R&D, but to also allow the inventors to reap the rewards of their inventions.
The problem is really what constitutes "discriminatory" in RAND terms for GSM (I couldn't find that defined anywhere). Does it mean that you must charge everyone the same amount, or that you must seek something of the same value. For some companies that could be cash, for others it could be patents. If this goes to court, that'll be the first issue to address.
I understand that you buy games, but you also go and pirate games that you don't buy. That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software. You can't just NOT buy something, no no...you feel entitled to have it so you pirate it. The only message that sends to the developer is that they need to try harder to protect their games.
"Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia."
Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything. It's Nokia's patented technology, and if someone wants to use it, they have to pay up.
They bought a license to the game, not the DLC. The only thing that you own when you buy a game is the physical disk. You don't own the content of the disk.
That's the shittiest logic. The ONLY reason that you have "no intention of buying it" is because you know that you can go out and obtain it illegally. Assholes like you, who feel entitled to play/listen to/watch other people creations on your own terms, are the reason we have shitty DRM shoved down our throats to begin with.
"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for."
You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!
Autistic kids aren't "ordinary", as sad as that might make some people to hear. They were having difficulty keeping them from wandering off, and this is a good solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to smart people, duh.
Actually, if they make a quick, customizable browser, they can stop people from switching and maybe even coax some users back from other browsers.
When someone makes a non-shitty open codec, people will use it. Theora is not that non-shitty codec.
See here: http://www.ie7pro.com
If you don't want Active-X, disabled it.
I guess it just doesn't bother me like it bothers you. Plus I buy all of my games on Steam these days, so it's kinda irrelevant to me.
Well, they could encrypt it and if you decrypted it you'd be violating the DMCA. But no one's watching what you do on your own PC (hopefully), so it's irrelevant I suppose.
Through any number of technical means...what are you asking?
Bait and switch? They never told you that the content would be on the disk, and they never told you anything other than that it would cost you $5.
> I, like the vast majority, have absolutely no problem with it.
You call my premise faulty, but then make an unsubstantiated claim that the "vast majority" (of who?) supports your idea, which also happens to be a logical fallacy. Having people agree with something doesn't make it right.
They come up with the excuse that they wouldn't buy the game anyway, so the company hasn't lost anything. On the other hand, if there was no other way to get the game other than buying it, would they really never buy the game? I think not. It's more likely that they would wait for the game to be cheaper.
"But the idea that the copyright holder gets to set any conditions they like on your use of an object you own is a misconception."
Which is why it's an important to realize that while you own the disk, you don't own the software. So no, they can't restrict you from reselling the disk with the software on it, but they can restrict whether or not you can access all of the software on the disk (as long as they weren't telling you that you had all of the access).
>Taking as much as you can while giving as little as possible is something you consider admirable in a corporation, but despicable in your fellow citizens.
Actually, I prefer that everyone deal fairly with each other and only take that which they are due.
>Just because you have been mislead by propaganda into thinking this situation where legal might makes ethical right is sensible does not mean the rest of us have.
You realize that we're talking about whether or not you buy a game, right? You know, dealings between private parties? Not the war in Iraq or Prohibition or something, right?
I can find no flaw in this argument.
Allow me to translate this mess of a post: an artist has no right to his creation because I want it and I don't want to compensate him. The rest of you, who understand that artists should be compensated for their work, can fuck off.
Sorry....my point flew right over your head. The basic metaphor is about expecting more than what you agreed to receive because the extra thing is "right there!"
And leave them with a net profit of nothing? The purpose of patent law is not just to help with R&D, but to also allow the inventors to reap the rewards of their inventions.
The problem is really what constitutes "discriminatory" in RAND terms for GSM (I couldn't find that defined anywhere). Does it mean that you must charge everyone the same amount, or that you must seek something of the same value. For some companies that could be cash, for others it could be patents. If this goes to court, that'll be the first issue to address.
It's not lousy, you're being pedantic. It wouldn't be a metaphor if I used the same situation as an example.
I understand that you buy games, but you also go and pirate games that you don't buy. That's the prime reason that developers feel the need to protect their software. You can't just NOT buy something, no no...you feel entitled to have it so you pirate it. The only message that sends to the developer is that they need to try harder to protect their games.
"Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia."
Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything. It's Nokia's patented technology, and if someone wants to use it, they have to pay up.
They bought a license to the game, not the DLC. The only thing that you own when you buy a game is the physical disk. You don't own the content of the disk.
That's the shittiest logic. The ONLY reason that you have "no intention of buying it" is because you know that you can go out and obtain it illegally. Assholes like you, who feel entitled to play/listen to/watch other people creations on your own terms, are the reason we have shitty DRM shoved down our throats to begin with.
"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for."
You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!
Autistic kids aren't "ordinary", as sad as that might make some people to hear. They were having difficulty keeping them from wandering off, and this is a good solution.
99% chance that your boss doesn't know enough to mine the data, and he wouldn't care what movies you've been watching even if he did know.