If you can honestly and truthfully say that you wouldn't have bought the products that you stole, you have a case. But most people can't do that. Anyone who stole something they would have bought has commited theft.
Hell, I've commited theft in this way. Lots of people have. Just don't go thinking it's better than shoplifting. It's safer (that's why I did it), but no more honourable. Don't kid yourself, man.
If a write a book and I want you to pay for it, it's my right. If you copy the book and give it to your friend, well, you'll probably get away with it because I probably won't know about it. If I did know about it I'd say "hey, give me my money". Of course, if I wrote the book to spread the word about something, I'd probably say "spread this around for free", but if I want you to pay for it, it's my right.
Like I said a few posts above, I think MPAA and RIAA deserve what's coming to them, and if they crumble, it's probably a good thing. However, they have every right to crack down on crime. It's their thoughts, they can choose what to do with their thoughts.
Ok, technically, it's not RIAA's or MPAA's thoughts, just the people who blindly work for them, but they entered a contract and it's their choice to do that. They could have (to the best of my knowledge) made music and sold it on the Internet without dealing with RIAA.
Here's what I've got to say about this: copyright infingement is bad. In most ways, it is as bad as theft because in most situations, you are not paying for something you would have paid for (as the grandparent said). I really can't see why someone would complain about the MPAA cracking down on a crime.
That being said, movies (and music) are being sold at annoyingly high prices, and, illegal or not, it's going to be difficult for MPAA and RIAA to catch up with new file-sharing technologies.
The upside to this is that most good musicians play music because they like music. So, say the music industry cumbled down. No disaster. People who actually enjoy making music will continue to create and distribute it, and surely at least some people who enjoy the music would donate to these people to encourage them to keep making music.
MPAA is a bit different. It's hard to make a good movie without a decent budget. But, there is an upside: all those celebrities (which I personally hate) would stop making millions, which I'd enjoy watching very much. I can't be sure how good movies would be without *ahem* forced payment, but keep in mind that some people will pay just for the sake of going to a theatre. Sustainable? We'll see. If the movie industry crumbles down, something goodshouldfollow.
They could pretend that they are promoting him and leave him isolated in space for eternity.
They could do a Google Search for [insert name of bad actor/singer here] and force him to watch every page it links to.
Or, worse yet, with their cutting-edge technology they could somehow dynamically block any computer that he is using from accessing Google, forcing him to use MSN Search for the rest of his life!
Feel free to pepper the following with "IMO" where appropriate... here we go.
I would describe evil as "causing harm for personal gain without consent". Yes, that's a slippery definition.
Basically, if some terrorist commits murder/suicide in hopes of a good afterlife, then I would classify the terrorist as evil. If the terrorist did it strictly because of beliefs, I wouldn't call it evil, but personally, I would call it ignorant, and definetly against the views of Libertarianism as they explained here (not that all Libertarians would necessarily agree with this piece).
Yeah, but Microsoft would spend a billion dollars to make 100 million if it crushed their long-term competition.
However, Google has tons of loyal users, it will be very hard to convince 'em to turn to MSN, especially since the page is so ugly and cluttered (even after their supposed "streamlining").
Yeah, that latest song when she kills herself, I can only hope that one day I'll be able to peel away the vast amount of layers of that masterpiece.
There's like two instruments in that whole song. Probably the worst song I've heard in my life. To be fair (and I hate saying this) Toxic was all right.
Back to the topic at hand, I agree that a quality product does not neccesarily mean better sales. Did anyone actually enjoy the game Enter the Matrix? I didn't, and it sold much more than non-marketed games like Katamari Damacy (and KD was a miracle, it sold much better than most people expected)
In fact, this is a good site to make that point. I think that if most/.ers think about what they like and hate and how popular those things are, they might get an appreciation for this argument.
I find it interesting that Sony is already talking about Gran Turismo 5, which might include damage models.
It's almost as if they have everything planned ahead of time, but they're holding out so they can sell each innovation piece-by-piece, in an overall quest to make more money.
If I were to be very cynical, I'd say they'll release Gran Turismo 5 with online play, but hold out on damage models until Gran Turismo 6. However, I'm not "very cynical", so I say that this scenario is (hopefully) unlikely. Besides, Sony needs a killer app to sell PS3s, right?
That best explained why I played Gran Turismo 2 so much. IMO license tests are the best part of the game simply becasue you have a fixed time to aim for (ie, it's pure skill).
Problem with the main game of Gran Turismo 2 is that it started out painfully s-l-o-w, and all you had to do to win everything was save up 2 million and buy an Escudo Pikes Peak, simple as that.
The other problem is that the gameplay was just too realistic for my liking in some ways, and then painfully unrealistic in others. Call me crazy, I found Burnout 3 more fun (hopefully many will agree with me on that one), but moreover, I actually found it more realistic, well, at least in some key ways. Sure, you can steer the direction of your crash, but hey, at least you can crash in Burnout 3, something impossible in Gran Turismo games. Also, Burnout 3 has a more realistic sense of speed. Even compacts pushed to the max feels fast in real life, and Gran Turismo doesn't catch that sense of speed even with higher-end sports cars.
You can probably tell I'm not a fan of Gran Turismo. Well, I'll admit why, it's because that I suck at the turns. I will often fish tail or spin out or something, usually right at the end of the race. I know that's supposed to be the challenge, but I find it more frustrating than challenging. Heck, Burnout 3 is probably harder (IMO), but I find it much less frustrating. I guess one that is more obsessed with actual racing would find GT much more enjoyable, admittedly.
Not to mention the foot as a topic icon.
By the way, whoever is marking everything as redundant can stop, these guys are clearly trying to clarify some stuff, and they're hardly being redundant while doing so.
Well, you can set your preferences to turn them off, but then you'd have to roll your mouse over the links to figure out which evil companies to boycott, and that's simply too much work for me.
I'm sick of editorials like this bashing the ESRB. I haven't played the Splinter Cell games much, but if I were to guess, Ubisoft deliberately toned down the violence just enough to get a T rating. Just because they add something (drugs) it does not mean the whole package is as (im)mature.
I guess the ESRB isn't perfectly objective (they're close), but it should give you a very good idea as to what to expect. Is objectivity even possible? Everyone has different opinions, you can't please everyone.
I'm sure you can plunk down millions of taxpayers dollars for a tighter system that.01% of the population would appreciate, but why?
It's not the real question. If it was, the Universe would would destroy itself and reappear even more confusing in an effort to make itself harder to figure out.
And to quote Douglas Adams (allegedly): "I may be a sad case, but I don't write jokes in Base 13."
Slashdot Mirror
If you can honestly and truthfully say that you wouldn't have bought the products that you stole, you have a case. But most people can't do that. Anyone who stole something they would have bought has commited theft.
Hell, I've commited theft in this way. Lots of people have. Just don't go thinking it's better than shoplifting. It's safer (that's why I did it), but no more honourable. Don't kid yourself, man.
If a write a book and I want you to pay for it, it's my right. If you copy the book and give it to your friend, well, you'll probably get away with it because I probably won't know about it. If I did know about it I'd say "hey, give me my money". Of course, if I wrote the book to spread the word about something, I'd probably say "spread this around for free", but if I want you to pay for it, it's my right.
Like I said a few posts above, I think MPAA and RIAA deserve what's coming to them, and if they crumble, it's probably a good thing. However, they have every right to crack down on crime. It's their thoughts, they can choose what to do with their thoughts.
Ok, technically, it's not RIAA's or MPAA's thoughts, just the people who blindly work for them, but they entered a contract and it's their choice to do that. They could have (to the best of my knowledge) made music and sold it on the Internet without dealing with RIAA.
You, my friend, know where it's at.
Here's what I've got to say about this: copyright infingement is bad. In most ways, it is as bad as theft because in most situations, you are not paying for something you would have paid for (as the grandparent said). I really can't see why someone would complain about the MPAA cracking down on a crime.
That being said, movies (and music) are being sold at annoyingly high prices, and, illegal or not, it's going to be difficult for MPAA and RIAA to catch up with new file-sharing technologies.
The upside to this is that most good musicians play music because they like music. So, say the music industry cumbled down. No disaster. People who actually enjoy making music will continue to create and distribute it, and surely at least some people who enjoy the music would donate to these people to encourage them to keep making music.
MPAA is a bit different. It's hard to make a good movie without a decent budget. But, there is an upside: all those celebrities (which I personally hate) would stop making millions, which I'd enjoy watching very much. I can't be sure how good movies would be without *ahem* forced payment, but keep in mind that some people will pay just for the sake of going to a theatre. Sustainable? We'll see. If the movie industry crumbles down, something good should follow.
Interesting.
It was an amazing post; you got modded up just for reccomending it! That's what I like to call 2nd-hand moddage.
... hope there's 3rd-hand moddage :P
/* This code runs Internet Explorer. It is not needed for the OS to run properly */
Sorry if that one's been said already.
They could pretend that they are promoting him and leave him isolated in space for eternity.
They could do a Google Search for [insert name of bad actor/singer here] and force him to watch every page it links to.
Or, worse yet, with their cutting-edge technology they could somehow dynamically block any computer that he is using from accessing Google, forcing him to use MSN Search for the rest of his life!
Cue evil laugh track.
"Insults are a sign of an amateur troll. Ridicule is more accomplished and elicits a greater emotional response from the target."
Still got a pretty good emotional response though.
Feel free to pepper the following with "IMO" where appropriate... here we go.
I would describe evil as "causing harm for personal gain without consent". Yes, that's a slippery definition.
Basically, if some terrorist commits murder/suicide in hopes of a good afterlife, then I would classify the terrorist as evil. If the terrorist did it strictly because of beliefs, I wouldn't call it evil, but personally, I would call it ignorant, and definetly against the views of Libertarianism as they explained here (not that all Libertarians would necessarily agree with this piece).
By the way here's evil on Wikipedia.
Yeah, but Microsoft would spend a billion dollars to make 100 million if it crushed their long-term competition.
However, Google has tons of loyal users, it will be very hard to convince 'em to turn to MSN, especially since the page is so ugly and cluttered (even after their supposed "streamlining").
Yeah, that latest song when she kills herself, I can only hope that one day I'll be able to peel away the vast amount of layers of that masterpiece.
/.ers think about what they like and hate and how popular those things are, they might get an appreciation for this argument.
There's like two instruments in that whole song. Probably the worst song I've heard in my life. To be fair (and I hate saying this) Toxic was all right.
Back to the topic at hand, I agree that a quality product does not neccesarily mean better sales. Did anyone actually enjoy the game Enter the Matrix? I didn't, and it sold much more than non-marketed games like Katamari Damacy (and KD was a miracle, it sold much better than most people expected)
In fact, this is a good site to make that point. I think that if most
What the, no question mark in the parent? I think this is a first :P
1) print Sushi on paper
2) ???
3) Profit?
(Except in Nebras... oh, nevermind.)
I find it interesting that Sony is already talking about Gran Turismo 5, which might include damage models.
It's almost as if they have everything planned ahead of time, but they're holding out so they can sell each innovation piece-by-piece, in an overall quest to make more money.
If I were to be very cynical, I'd say they'll release Gran Turismo 5 with online play, but hold out on damage models until Gran Turismo 6. However, I'm not "very cynical", so I say that this scenario is (hopefully) unlikely. Besides, Sony needs a killer app to sell PS3s, right?
That best explained why I played Gran Turismo 2 so much. IMO license tests are the best part of the game simply becasue you have a fixed time to aim for (ie, it's pure skill).
Problem with the main game of Gran Turismo 2 is that it started out painfully s-l-o-w, and all you had to do to win everything was save up 2 million and buy an Escudo Pikes Peak, simple as that.
The other problem is that the gameplay was just too realistic for my liking in some ways, and then painfully unrealistic in others. Call me crazy, I found Burnout 3 more fun (hopefully many will agree with me on that one), but moreover, I actually found it more realistic, well, at least in some key ways. Sure, you can steer the direction of your crash, but hey, at least you can crash in Burnout 3, something impossible in Gran Turismo games. Also, Burnout 3 has a more realistic sense of speed. Even compacts pushed to the max feels fast in real life, and Gran Turismo doesn't catch that sense of speed even with higher-end sports cars.
You can probably tell I'm not a fan of Gran Turismo. Well, I'll admit why, it's because that I suck at the turns. I will often fish tail or spin out or something, usually right at the end of the race. I know that's supposed to be the challenge, but I find it more frustrating than challenging. Heck, Burnout 3 is probably harder (IMO), but I find it much less frustrating. I guess one that is more obsessed with actual racing would find GT much more enjoyable, admittedly.
Not to mention the foot as a topic icon. By the way, whoever is marking everything as redundant can stop, these guys are clearly trying to clarify some stuff, and they're hardly being redundant while doing so.
Spending $50 000 on Doritos? That's more than many people make in a year! I like this plan, sign me up.
Well, you can set your preferences to turn them off, but then you'd have to roll your mouse over the links to figure out which evil companies to boycott, and that's simply too much work for me.
Let's not forget Latervia. They've had a pretty good run too ;)
What's next, Bananaphone sex?
Then again, it's pretty tough to charge someone for commiting suicide ;)
Which is a bit ironic considering one spelling mistake in a computer language can completely mess up the code.
I'm sick of editorials like this bashing the ESRB. I haven't played the Splinter Cell games much, but if I were to guess, Ubisoft deliberately toned down the violence just enough to get a T rating. Just because they add something (drugs) it does not mean the whole package is as (im)mature.
.01% of the population would appreciate, but why?
I guess the ESRB isn't perfectly objective (they're close), but it should give you a very good idea as to what to expect. Is objectivity even possible? Everyone has different opinions, you can't please everyone.
I'm sure you can plunk down millions of taxpayers dollars for a tighter system that
"But by the time the Nintendo Revolution comes out, we'll probably have a half-height GameCube SP to match Sony's new thin PS2."
Doubtful if you ask me, though they did quietly release a small SNES. I want one.
It's not the real question. If it was, the Universe would would destroy itself and reappear even more confusing in an effort to make itself harder to figure out.
And to quote Douglas Adams (allegedly): "I may be a sad case, but I don't write jokes in Base 13."