The typical torrent user gets their content there because it's a more convenient, higher quality product, as well as free. IE, to avoid unskippable ads, DRM virus-infested always-on games, and the ability to use on any device they want with a minimum of bullshit.
All the software that's DRM free gets pirated like crazy. There's literally no benefit to having the pirated version over the official version except not having to pay for it, yet it still gets pirated. Why do you think the Humble Indie Bundle gets pirated? I wish pirates would just straight-up admit that "having to pay" is the number one issue and if creators did all these things you suggest (stuff that pirates use as excuses for their behavior) they still wouldn't slow down their pirating-ways.
Torrent users also spend more on legal content than non-torrent users; not sure where you're getting your FUD.
I never believe those claims. When I look at the biggest pirates I know, and they say things like "why are you paying for stuff you can get for free on the internet?" it's just a little hard to believe that they pay for anything.
A better approach would be to set up a Kickstarter campaign outlining all the work that needs to be done and who needs to be paid for their efforts
I assume you mean all the creators who should be getting paid for their work, rather than get ripped off by torrents? Ohhhhhh - you mean the middle-man torrent app creator who has done jack-shit compared to all the works they're helping people steal? Yeahhhhh, those people need to be supported.
I offer my software without DRM, but I certainly won't be using any labels like that because: (1) It's ugly, and (2) I completely disagree with the philosophy of the Free Software Foundation (who is behind the DefectiveByDesign website) who thinks that everyone should be allowed to pirate everything. If you don't believe me, then look it up - the "software user rights" should include the "freedom to share". The free software foundation claims it's about free as in "freedom", but mostly it's about "free as in beer" (since most people only care about the price and lack any ability or desire to modify the software anyway).
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
It's unfortunate that the world has offered him a free living by lavishing him with monetary awards for his so-called contributions to free software. The rest of us have to live in the real world where organizations are NOT throwing money at our feet. In other words: Richard Stallman can blow me because he doesn't live in the real world.
My first thought was that the gas-consumption and pollution would be significantly higher than with cars. But, I looked up fuel efficiency on wikipedia and it turns out that aircraft don't actually have bad fuel efficiency:
Airbus states a fuel rate consumption of their A380 at less than 3 L/100 km per passenger (78 passenger-miles per US gallon)
...
Under continuous motorised flight at 225 km/h, a Pipistrel Sinus burns 11 liters of fuel per flight hour. Carrying 2 people aboard, it operates at 2.4 liters per 100 passenger-km. Ultralight aircraft Tecnam P92 Echo Classic at cruise speed of 185 km/h burns 17 liters of fuel per flight hour, which imply 4.6 liters per 100 passenger-km (2 people). [26] Other modern ultralight aircrafts have increased efficiency; Tecnam P2002 Sierra RG at cruise speed of 237 km/h burns 17 liters of fuel per flight hour, which imply 3.6 liters per 100 passenger-km (2 people).
So it works out to something like:
Airbus - 78 miles per passenger per gallon of gas (but that's a large craft with lots of people, so it's probably more comparable to a bus)
Ultralight aircraft - somewhere around 60 miles per passenger per gallon of gas (though a flying car would probably be heavier, since most people wouldn't want a flying car that resembled an ultralight - plus they might want to have some luggage).
The articles seem rather scant on details, and the second link seems to be a repost of the same information in the first article. My first inclination was that the story was BS - I couldn't see any way that they can accomplish what they claim to accomplish, so perhaps the news agency just really screwed up the story. After researching a few other articles about this, my judgement is that they're tracing this stuff back to the source based on listening in on messages being sent around a bunch of connected nodes. A number of nodes would need to be monitored in advance (or at least have relatively good time-frames for when it arrived at various nodes) before the information could be traced back.
Ok, let's make this about technology.
From the "Danger Room" blog on Wired:
On technology and civil liberties issues, Ryan has generally voted along party lines. Ryan opposed net neutrality bills; voted to extend the Patriot Act’s roving wiretaps and to immunize telecom companies from legal liabilities for cooperating with warrantless government surveillance. He co-sponsored a ban on internet taxes. Ryan initially approved of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which WIRED editorialized would “usher in a chilling internet censorship regime,” but backed down in the face of a pressure campaign from the internet-freedom supporters. Activists on Reddit cheered Ryan’s reversal on SOPA — and appear to have reactivated the Ryan thread now that Romney has tapped him to be vice president.
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Ryan co-sponsored permanently banning state & local taxation of Internet access http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Paul_Ryan_technology.htm
Your link doesn't say when the article was written. It does say, "Last Modified: June 26, 2012", but that doesn't mean it's been updated in years. I noticed the article also talks about needing to have iTunes 9, but no mention of iTunes 10. iTunes 10 came out in 2010 - http://www.oldapps.com/itunes.php?old_itunes=63 So, that article has to be at least 2 years old.
Yep, same here. I'll just pirate all the games now.
You do realize that there are other ways to get software on your computer than "Steam", right? Just wondering because you sound like you believe that "Steam" and "piracy" are your only two options.
This sounds like fun. Let's use your argument to justify shoplifting. Obviously, shoplifting is wrong and hurts businesses, but I can use your argument to show otherwise:
There's a couple of problems with this. First of all, no one's taking away profit. [Products] are still being made since [shoplifting] first came out and since [products] were [shiplifted] (basically forever); obviously they're turning a very VERY healthy profit.
See? I just proved that shoplifting doesn't harm anybody!
in fact, many "pirates" are perfectly willing to pay and in some cases have paid; they just prefer having a non-DRM/free format/unrestricted/digital/&c. copy.
That's why non-DRMed stuff doesn't get pirated, right? I can't see any evidence that non-DRMed products get pirated at a lower rate than DRMed ones. In fact, it's been about three years since companies abandoned DRM for music, yet music sales revenue continue to fall. I don't see the slightest evidence that people have switched back to buying digital music. People have always been able to rip their CDs (i.e. no DRM). I wonder why the music industry hasn't rebounded.
John Gilmore of the EFF said, "The Archive is helping people to understand that BitTorrent isn't just for ephemeral or dodgy items that disappear from view in a short time. BitTorrent is a great way to get and share large files that are permanently available from libraries like the Internet Archive."
In other words, the EFF is working towards legitimizing BitTorrent so that illegal uses can continue unabated. I'll go ahead and say what I've been saying for a long time: the EFF has been a pro-piracy organization for a long time, and this is just another example of the EFF skulking around on the fringes of the piracy issue, trying to make moves that help pirates.
Some more quotes from the EFF, just because I know Slashdot doesn't want to listen when I say that the EFF is a pro-piracy organization:
Dave Winer, an early supporter of the EFF: "I gave $5000 to the EFF when they started, I think it was in 1990, with the noble goal of protecting freedoms as our technology and culture move online. I think I have supported every cause the EFF has adopted since then, but that’s no longer true. I gave this a lot of thought, believe me, and had a long email exchange with Brad Templeton, the chairman of the EFF board of directors, and think they have become as radically polarized as the entertainment industry, and like Hollywood are now working against the interests of those they were meant to serve. The issue appears to be copyright, and it appears that the EFF believes there should be no copyright. The problem with the EFF position is that in order to remain consistent, they have had to say that copyright doesn’t exist — if a policy or law restricts what a user can do on the Internet then that is a bad policy or law. The courts can’t agree with the EFF. I don’t agree with the EFF."
And why do we care who has our medical information?
I think people are concerned about the privacy implications. If you have a talk with your doctor about something personal, you'd like to believe that the entire world isn't listening in. What's that? You've got erectile disfunction? You've had mental health issues? You once tried to kill yourself? You went to the emergency room because you were high on drugs or you stuck an object where it shouldn't go? You've admitted to having lots of sex partners or you're gay and you haven't come out? You've got an STD and you'd prefer that your friends and family don't know about it?
Not only are there some potentially embarrassing secrets, but the idea that everyone can find out about your medical history can make you less likely to go to the doctor -- because there might be situations where it might be embarrassing to tell a doctor what the situation is, and much more embarrassing if the whole world could find out about it.
Maybe. It does seem odd that this is the second time Scripps was involved. However, it could be that Scripps uploads the NASA video to YouTube (from the NASA website) before NASA does, and that's causing some sort of problem with YouTube seeing the video as the IP of Scripps rather than NASA. A similar situation might've happened last time as well. I'd actually like to hear YouTube's version of what happened. If Scripps issued a takedown notice, then, yes, this is their fault.
I read the summary and concluded that Scripps Local News blocked the video using a false copyright claim. But, then I read the actual article:
"YouTube will block or censor content for one of three reasons: if a video violates the site’s terms of service, if its content is automatically found to match copyrighted content, or if it receives a request from a copyright owner to remove a pirated video."... Content ID, YouTube’s automated copyright monitor, was meant to be the site’s secret weapon in its fight to stay legal, and make some sense – or cents – out of the video chaos: by algorithmically matching content, robots can, ideally, keep track of which videos contain copyrighted material.
So, basically, the whole takedown might've had nothing to do with Scripps Local News issuing a false takedown, and might've had everything to do with YouTube's robots misidentifying the video. Now, we've got a whole comment section full of people who want to attack Scripps for issuing a false takedown, even though we're not even sure what exactly happened. Please update the summary, Slashdot.
On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree.
I don't think you need to worry about that at all unless you are taking dozens of screenshots of another game and copying them as best you can. This won't affect game developers (I'm one too) unless there some big shift in how these kinds of laws are interpreted.
Because it can be a pain to get software to run on all platforms. Many 3d engines won't run on Windows, Mac, and Linux. (Generally, they'll work fine for Windows and Mac, but contain no Linux support.) I recently did a cross platform Windows/Mac game. It was a little bit of a pain to get it working on the Mac. Mostly because the video-player libraries didn't work like they were supposed to (they claimed to work on Windows and Mac, but it wasn't true, and documentation and support for the Mac version was almost non-existent). I eventually ended up using two completely different video-playback systems - one for Windows and one for the Mac. I think I'd pull my hair out if I had to worry about getting it running on Linux. I can't imagine the problems I'd run into finding third-party libraries to perform the same tasks that I was already doing on the Windows/Mac versions since my third-party libraries were never built for Linux.
"Because in order to make the Windows Store a success, Microsoft needs to block the competition, just like Apple does with its App/Mac stores... Now suddenly, Steam is no longer available on Windows, but it is on Linux."
I don't believe for a second that Microsoft is going to block Steam out of Windows. I do, however, believe that most people will use whatever's on their Windows OS by default (there's lots of data to show that people tend to go with the 'default'). If Microsoft adds a Store to Windows 8, they're going to be tough competition for Steam simply because it's installed by default.
Out of curiosity, what would you think if Sweden was allowing counterfeiting of US currency? Would that be okay? Why should the US have any say in what happens in another country? Personally, I can fully understand why it should be illegal to create counterfeit US currency, and why people who do so (even in other countries) deserve to be punished.
Slashdot Mirror
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/02/19
All the software that's DRM free gets pirated like crazy. There's literally no benefit to having the pirated version over the official version except not having to pay for it, yet it still gets pirated. Why do you think the Humble Indie Bundle gets pirated? I wish pirates would just straight-up admit that "having to pay" is the number one issue and if creators did all these things you suggest (stuff that pirates use as excuses for their behavior) they still wouldn't slow down their pirating-ways.
I never believe those claims. When I look at the biggest pirates I know, and they say things like "why are you paying for stuff you can get for free on the internet?" it's just a little hard to believe that they pay for anything.
I assume you mean all the creators who should be getting paid for their work, rather than get ripped off by torrents? Ohhhhhh - you mean the middle-man torrent app creator who has done jack-shit compared to all the works they're helping people steal? Yeahhhhh, those people need to be supported.
Didn't you get the memo? Greed is a terrible, terrible thing when other people are doing it.
It's unfortunate that the world has offered him a free living by lavishing him with monetary awards for his so-called contributions to free software. The rest of us have to live in the real world where organizations are NOT throwing money at our feet. In other words: Richard Stallman can blow me because he doesn't live in the real world.
People who prefer to support creators, rather than run around like everyone owes them free stuff don't use the Pirate Bay.
So it works out to something like:
Airbus - 78 miles per passenger per gallon of gas (but that's a large craft with lots of people, so it's probably more comparable to a bus)
Ultralight aircraft - somewhere around 60 miles per passenger per gallon of gas (though a flying car would probably be heavier, since most people wouldn't want a flying car that resembled an ultralight - plus they might want to have some luggage).
The articles seem rather scant on details, and the second link seems to be a repost of the same information in the first article. My first inclination was that the story was BS - I couldn't see any way that they can accomplish what they claim to accomplish, so perhaps the news agency just really screwed up the story. After researching a few other articles about this, my judgement is that they're tracing this stuff back to the source based on listening in on messages being sent around a bunch of connected nodes. A number of nodes would need to be monitored in advance (or at least have relatively good time-frames for when it arrived at various nodes) before the information could be traced back.
More articles on the subject:
The Original Article: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/89
A second article with different details: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/372537/20120810/facebook-rumor-math-terrorism-algorithm.htm
Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/paul-ryan-vp/
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Ryan co-sponsored permanently banning state & local taxation of Internet access
http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Paul_Ryan_technology.htm
As lose all that sweet, sweet funding they get from Google?
I bet Google will figure out they can even include sponsored links at the top of search results, too!
How old is your source?
"Currently, in the US, Apple does not sell songs with FairPlay encryption" - Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
Your link doesn't say when the article was written. It does say, "Last Modified: June 26, 2012", but that doesn't mean it's been updated in years. I noticed the article also talks about needing to have iTunes 9, but no mention of iTunes 10. iTunes 10 came out in 2010 - http://www.oldapps.com/itunes.php?old_itunes=63 So, that article has to be at least 2 years old.
You do realize that there are other ways to get software on your computer than "Steam", right? Just wondering because you sound like you believe that "Steam" and "piracy" are your only two options.
I'd bet $100 that the EFF is trying to validate BitTorrent. They have a history of trying to protect and validate Torrents (and piracy). Examples:
"EFF Releases ‘Switzerland’ to Test if Your ISP is Throttling BitTorrent" - http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9677/eff_releases_switzerland_to_test_if_your_isp_is_throttling_bittorrent/
"EFF defended StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2005" - http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/
See? I just proved that shoplifting doesn't harm anybody!
That's why non-DRMed stuff doesn't get pirated, right? I can't see any evidence that non-DRMed products get pirated at a lower rate than DRMed ones. In fact, it's been about three years since companies abandoned DRM for music, yet music sales revenue continue to fall. I don't see the slightest evidence that people have switched back to buying digital music. People have always been able to rip their CDs (i.e. no DRM). I wonder why the music industry hasn't rebounded.
In other words, the EFF is working towards legitimizing BitTorrent so that illegal uses can continue unabated. I'll go ahead and say what I've been saying for a long time: the EFF has been a pro-piracy organization for a long time, and this is just another example of the EFF skulking around on the fringes of the piracy issue, trying to make moves that help pirates.
Some more quotes from the EFF, just because I know Slashdot doesn't want to listen when I say that the EFF is a pro-piracy organization:
"EFF: Piracy Not the Problem" - http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1999/09/21645
"there is no evidence out there that "Internet piracy" is leaving us with fewer creators or fewer copyrighted works” - http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/most-pirated-movie-makes-heaps-money
"EFF Releases ‘Switzerland’ to Test if Your ISP is Throttling BitTorrent" - http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9677/eff_releases_switzerland_to_test_if_your_isp_is_throttling_bittorrent/
"EFF defended StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2005" - http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/
Dave Winer, an early supporter of the EFF: "I gave $5000 to the EFF when they started, I think it was in 1990, with the noble goal of protecting freedoms as our technology and culture move online. I think I have supported every cause the EFF has adopted since then, but that’s no longer true. I gave this a lot of thought, believe me, and had a long email exchange with Brad Templeton, the chairman of the EFF board of directors, and think they have become as radically polarized as the entertainment industry, and like Hollywood are now working against the interests of those they were meant to serve. The issue appears to be copyright, and it appears that the EFF believes there should be no copyright. The problem with the EFF position is that in order to remain consistent, they have had to say that copyright doesn’t exist — if a policy or law restricts what a user can do on the Internet then that is a bad policy or law. The courts can’t agree with the EFF. I don’t agree with the EFF."
I think people are concerned about the privacy implications. If you have a talk with your doctor about something personal, you'd like to believe that the entire world isn't listening in. What's that? You've got erectile disfunction? You've had mental health issues? You once tried to kill yourself? You went to the emergency room because you were high on drugs or you stuck an object where it shouldn't go? You've admitted to having lots of sex partners or you're gay and you haven't come out? You've got an STD and you'd prefer that your friends and family don't know about it?
Not only are there some potentially embarrassing secrets, but the idea that everyone can find out about your medical history can make you less likely to go to the doctor -- because there might be situations where it might be embarrassing to tell a doctor what the situation is, and much more embarrassing if the whole world could find out about it.
Maybe. It does seem odd that this is the second time Scripps was involved. However, it could be that Scripps uploads the NASA video to YouTube (from the NASA website) before NASA does, and that's causing some sort of problem with YouTube seeing the video as the IP of Scripps rather than NASA. A similar situation might've happened last time as well. I'd actually like to hear YouTube's version of what happened. If Scripps issued a takedown notice, then, yes, this is their fault.
So, basically, the whole takedown might've had nothing to do with Scripps Local News issuing a false takedown, and might've had everything to do with YouTube's robots misidentifying the video. Now, we've got a whole comment section full of people who want to attack Scripps for issuing a false takedown, even though we're not even sure what exactly happened. Please update the summary, Slashdot.
I don't think you need to worry about that at all unless you are taking dozens of screenshots of another game and copying them as best you can. This won't affect game developers (I'm one too) unless there some big shift in how these kinds of laws are interpreted.
FYI, the link was changed today from "#Replication_of_existing_games" to "#Accusations_of_intellectual_property_theft".
Accessible here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Accusations_of_intellectual_property_theft
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zynga&oldid=505514523#Replication_of_existing_games
Because it can be a pain to get software to run on all platforms. Many 3d engines won't run on Windows, Mac, and Linux. (Generally, they'll work fine for Windows and Mac, but contain no Linux support.) I recently did a cross platform Windows/Mac game. It was a little bit of a pain to get it working on the Mac. Mostly because the video-player libraries didn't work like they were supposed to (they claimed to work on Windows and Mac, but it wasn't true, and documentation and support for the Mac version was almost non-existent). I eventually ended up using two completely different video-playback systems - one for Windows and one for the Mac. I think I'd pull my hair out if I had to worry about getting it running on Linux. I can't imagine the problems I'd run into finding third-party libraries to perform the same tasks that I was already doing on the Windows/Mac versions since my third-party libraries were never built for Linux.
I don't believe for a second that Microsoft is going to block Steam out of Windows. I do, however, believe that most people will use whatever's on their Windows OS by default (there's lots of data to show that people tend to go with the 'default'). If Microsoft adds a Store to Windows 8, they're going to be tough competition for Steam simply because it's installed by default.
Out of curiosity, what would you think if Sweden was allowing counterfeiting of US currency? Would that be okay? Why should the US have any say in what happens in another country? Personally, I can fully understand why it should be illegal to create counterfeit US currency, and why people who do so (even in other countries) deserve to be punished.