I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.
Man, if ever there was a post that needed to be modded up, this is it. I agree completely. The level of worship we afford to the founding fathers borders on ridiculous. Yes they were very smart men. Yes they had a lot of foresight. They were still just men, which means that they weren't perfect.
The Constitution is not the Bible. Its a living document, and it was designed as such, with explicit measures for making changes to it. Our forefathers designed it this way, because they knew that they were but men, so they couldn't predict or perfect everything in our country.
Its useful to reflect upon their wisdom, but through the lens of modern day. I don't buy that we are somehow less intelligent or wise than the founding fathers.
You're missing my point which is exemplified by this quote:
Now, here's the kicker which destroys your faulty argument
Its not my argument. I don't believe it. But they do, and they have been successfully in getting laws passed. Yes they've been struck down, but it only takes one lapse in the courts for something to stick.
My point is that we need to make good arguments instead of mental masturbation. The whole "If video games make us violent then why aren't we all murderers LOLOL" is arguing a strawman. Not only that, its completely based on anecdotal evidence and generalizing over the population.
Now see, the statistics point you brought up is good, but its not the bullet-proof argument you think it is. Why? Well, how do you know the violent crime statistics wouldn't be lower without video games?
What could help the argument is pointing out studies that show that there isn't a causal link between the two. Everyone always says that there's ton of them out there right?
In the end, the problem is that no matter how loudly and how hardly you claim that the burden of proof is on the other party and its not your problem, it is. Politicians are out there winning small victories, and I don't want to see them turn into large ones.
The fact is that you assumed that I'm part of Thompson's crew and ended up preaching to the choir. Which is precisely the thing that I was lamenting in my very first post. Thanks for that.
Thats a vast oversimplification of Group A's argument. Additionally, a proof would require that no-one in Group B is more violent in any way to be valid, which you have not proved in the slightest. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Altruism being hard wired doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be altruistic to everyone, just to people that may have a direct impact on your survival and gene propagation. Mainly, friends, family, members of your in-group, etc. We have no problem blowing other people away because, hey they're different than us.
Also, its somewhat of a glass-half-empty sort of viewpoint. I suspect that there is more altruism in the world than people realize, but we tend to focus on the negative.
Altruism can impart a survival and reproductive advantage, although not directly but indirectly. Altruism can benefit the survivability of your immediate community. A stronger community increases your chance of survival in hard times. Its the same argument for morality being involved.
I'd suspect a lot of our higher functions, such as altruism, charity, morals, and the like are influenced a lot more by our genetic programming than people would like to believe.
Well your's is shorter than what I said, although it means the same thing.:) Music: Granted.
Mods?
Mods aren't really the same thing as a full video game. They leverage the engine and quite a bit of the resources that have already been made for the game. If we saw some sort of creative commons repository for professional-quality models, textures, sounds, and music, plus a collection professional-grade foss engines and toolsets, then maybe. But the fact that game development isn't very well suited to iterative development (release a core product, then add features and bugfixes as time goes on) doesn't help the effort. Its extremely hard to keep people interested in a game project.
Yes. In some cases, the DRM has become so ridiculous that hobbyists are shut out almost entirely, such as set-top video gaming.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the console game companies make money on licensing fees. I'd like to see DRM removed.
In that case, I will tone down the vitriol.
I didn't find the content of your posts vitriolic.
I apologize for implying that hobbyists are the only answer. Look also at any made-for-TV movie, or look at advergaming.
No need to apologize. I'm sorry I came off strongly. Its just frustrating because, as a gamer and hobby game programmer, its pretty apparent to me that the hobby game angle isn't really workable without taking a drastic step backwards (over a decade) in game technology. I'd like there to be a way to keep the game industry thriving if abolition of copyright becomes the best course of action.
"I think that music can be funded outside of copyright, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate" should be I "think that music can be funded outside of copyright, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the same holds true for video games."
I don't find it necessary to dispute parts of the argument I agree with, unless I feel that there is a need for a devil's advocate. I think that music can be funded outside of copyright, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate
Besides, is the prospect of a larger variety of professionally made movies and video games worth restricting the freedom of people to use computing machinery?
Its not a binary choice.
First of all, the freedom in question is the freedom to copy information. Computers are utilized for that, and as a result come under scrutiny and restriction. I'm assuming that by "restricting the freedom of people to use computing machinery" you mean DRM. I don't support DRM, partly because I view it as an unfair restriction and partly because the very concept of DRM is broken.
If we're talking about whether temporary monopolies on distribution should be given to promote art, and to enrich the public domain, then that depends. If the terms are reasonable, temporary, and supported by the public at large, then I do support that. If enforcing these terms requires violations of other freedoms or heavy handed methods of enforcement, then I would not support that. If the state of technology and social opinion is such that we must have control over our property taken away from us, then I think thats a clear signal that we need to rethink how we fund creative endeavors.
And why are video games subject to copyright for 95 years?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're implying that I support copyright in its current form. I don't. I'd like to see a massive scaleback of copyright. Video games should get protection for five, maybe ten years.
I'm not necessarily against you per se. I think that copyright still has value in our society, but the RIAA and their kin need a serious bitch-slap, copyright needs to be reduced to something reasonable, and penalties for breaking copyright need to be brought into question and severely reduced to something even approaching reasonable. As it is, the current body of copyright law betrays the social contract between the creators and consumers.
But I didn't cover all this because that wasn't the point of my post. The point - the sole point - was that suggesting that hobbyist games and movies could fill the void of professional games and movies is laughable. In a copyright-less world, we'd probably need to find some other way to fund them. I have no ideas in that regard.
Hobbyist video games in no way, shape, or form approach the quality of professional games. Show me the hobbyist games as in depth as Metal Gear Solid, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Grand Theft Auto, etc, and maybe you'll have a point.
Speaking as a hobbyist game dev, hobby games are mostly nifty time wasters or tech demos. They simply don't compare to something professionally made.
Because that argument is based onlogicalfallacies. You think that the opponents are really going to stand by and go "Well if you say so..." instead of ripping your extremely poor argument to shreds, then chalk it up as a win? Playing games doesn't make you informed nor an expert on this subject, which means those masses of masses of gamers count for jack and shit.
My point is that the Zune will add DRM to songs to received songs that one could legally possess if the sender has the copyright and allows it to be kept permanently, so it is improperly adding some DRM in circumstances where it shouldn't
Yeah, but the Zune, or any similar device really, has no way of knowing if that song that you sent me is something you created with your own band that you own the copyright to, or just a song that you ripped from a CD. Ironically enough, you would have to add DRM to the song in order for a Zune to "know" that a song's copyright belongs to you.
I guess my real point is that its unfair to blame Microsoft for this particular "feature." They have to abide by copyright laws, and the RIAA would sue the player out of existence if they let people trade unprotected song. They'd probably call them portably piracy devices or something.
Apple has to behave too. The only reason that they can sell un-DRMed music is because they made a business case to various music studios and convinced them to drop the DRM. Good luck getting the same deal on something thats basically designed to swap copies of music.
Um, not necessarily. If I were to put my own music (as in, my own compositions that I recorded) for which I own the copyright on a Zune, then it is legally up to me whether the copy of that song sent to a different Zune can be kept indefinitely. However, a Zune will automatically put the 3/3 limit on it. There's not a choice. Frankly, that sucks.
Notice I said "may not legally own them." You might own the copyright, or you might not. The problem is that its nearly impossible for an electronic device to decide whether you do or not. So Microsoft erred on the side of caution to avoid getting sued. I agree it sucks, but I can't really fault Microsoft when its RIAA pressure that made it necessary.
Why should we take them seriously when their argument is that "sometimes stuff happens" or more frequently "if we get a large enough population, someone will snap"? Other than, of course, the fact that the people making these arguments are rich and powerful and have Senators as lap dogs?
Because they're actually influencing opinion. They've managed to get laws passed. Sure they've been struck down as unconstitutional, but how long until something sticks?
How many millions of people have played first person shooters since Quake? I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate a statistically interesting fraction of video game players that go on to murder people. San Andreas alone sold 5 million units by the end of 2004 [pcvsconsole.com]. Since then how many gamers killed people? What percentage of gamers killed people compared to the percentage of murderers in the general public? Can these people even demonstrate a correlation between gaming and murdering? Can they even back up their claim that games "can" cause violence with hard facts?
See, that kind of thinking is a lot better than what normally passes for debate on this issue, which was my point.
Ideally thats how it should be, but real life isn't ideal. If we consider ourselves as defending against Jacko's attacks, then we should collectively make better arguments. As it is, we're flinging around straw men and anecdotes, then patting ourselves on the back for a job well done, while everyone else is rolling their eyes at us.
My point was if having a catalog of "Plays For Sure" music represents a significant barrier for switching to Zune, then it would also represent a significant barrier towards switching to an iPod. A customer isn't going to go, "Hmmm, well I could buy a Zune, but I have all this Plays For Sure music that doesn't work on it... I guess I'll buy an iPod."
Ok, so in Apple's case, the DRM is the fault of the RIAA. Why is the same reasoning not applied to Microsoft? After all, Bill Gates also publicly came out against DRM too. Seems like there's a double standard going on here.
The idea that Quake or any other FPS teaches people to aim a gun is fairly foolish, as it does nothing to show people how to line up their sights and get an appropriate sight picture.
I agree, its incredibly foolish, which is why people aren't saying that. Its a strawman that gamers and journalists bring out to pound on so that they can feel oh-so-superior to the anti-game lobby. What Jack-o and company are claiming is that it can mentally prepare them to kill another human. That is, it can lessen the psychological resistance and after-effects of killing another human being. Now, I think that this is bullshit, but its not really quite as clear-cut, which is why I suspect my fellow gamers like to trot out the strawman.
However, having been trained in the military how to shoot after having almost no experience with firearms prior to that, I can tell you that training someone in the basics of aiming and firing a weapon can be done in a very short amount of time (twenty minutes or so in a classroom environment). You can also easily do a Google search and find out pretty much anything you need to know to figure it out for yourself.
I've fired a handgun, and its fairly easy. You won't become a marksman overnight, but close enough for government work.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, if ever there was a post that needed to be modded up, this is it. I agree completely. The level of worship we afford to the founding fathers borders on ridiculous. Yes they were very smart men. Yes they had a lot of foresight. They were still just men, which means that they weren't perfect.
The Constitution is not the Bible. Its a living document, and it was designed as such, with explicit measures for making changes to it. Our forefathers designed it this way, because they knew that they were but men, so they couldn't predict or perfect everything in our country.
Its useful to reflect upon their wisdom, but through the lens of modern day. I don't buy that we are somehow less intelligent or wise than the founding fathers.
Look, I agree that the GPLv3 is a good license to have, but not everyone who disagrees is a Microsoft shill. Grow up man.
Best... idea... ever!
:(
C'mon man, don't make me move to New Jersey.
What, you don't think babies should be thrown into meat grinders? ;)
You're missing my point which is exemplified by this quote:
Now, here's the kicker which destroys your faulty argumentIts not my argument. I don't believe it. But they do, and they have been successfully in getting laws passed. Yes they've been struck down, but it only takes one lapse in the courts for something to stick.
My point is that we need to make good arguments instead of mental masturbation. The whole "If video games make us violent then why aren't we all murderers LOLOL" is arguing a strawman. Not only that, its completely based on anecdotal evidence and generalizing over the population.
Now see, the statistics point you brought up is good, but its not the bullet-proof argument you think it is. Why? Well, how do you know the violent crime statistics wouldn't be lower without video games?
What could help the argument is pointing out studies that show that there isn't a causal link between the two. Everyone always says that there's ton of them out there right?
In the end, the problem is that no matter how loudly and how hardly you claim that the burden of proof is on the other party and its not your problem, it is. Politicians are out there winning small victories, and I don't want to see them turn into large ones.
The fact is that you assumed that I'm part of Thompson's crew and ended up preaching to the choir. Which is precisely the thing that I was lamenting in my very first post. Thanks for that.
Thats a vast oversimplification of Group A's argument. Additionally, a proof would require that no-one in Group B is more violent in any way to be valid, which you have not proved in the slightest. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Your argument is based on a strawman, and your proof really isn't proof at all. You're countering rhetoric with rhetoric.
The idea that, if you get in competition with them over resources, they may in turn be more altruistic to you, as opposed to Joe down the street?
Altruism being hard wired doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be altruistic to everyone, just to people that may have a direct impact on your survival and gene propagation. Mainly, friends, family, members of your in-group, etc. We have no problem blowing other people away because, hey they're different than us.
Also, its somewhat of a glass-half-empty sort of viewpoint. I suspect that there is more altruism in the world than people realize, but we tend to focus on the negative.
Altruism can impart a survival and reproductive advantage, although not directly but indirectly. Altruism can benefit the survivability of your immediate community. A stronger community increases your chance of survival in hard times. Its the same argument for morality being involved.
I'd suspect a lot of our higher functions, such as altruism, charity, morals, and the like are influenced a lot more by our genetic programming than people would like to believe.
Well your's is shorter than what I said, although it means the same thing. :) Music: Granted.
Mods?Mods aren't really the same thing as a full video game. They leverage the engine and quite a bit of the resources that have already been made for the game. If we saw some sort of creative commons repository for professional-quality models, textures, sounds, and music, plus a collection professional-grade foss engines and toolsets, then maybe. But the fact that game development isn't very well suited to iterative development (release a core product, then add features and bugfixes as time goes on) doesn't help the effort. Its extremely hard to keep people interested in a game project.
Yes. In some cases, the DRM has become so ridiculous that hobbyists are shut out almost entirely, such as set-top video gaming.Agreed. Unfortunately, the console game companies make money on licensing fees. I'd like to see DRM removed.
In that case, I will tone down the vitriol.I didn't find the content of your posts vitriolic.
I apologize for implying that hobbyists are the only answer. Look also at any made-for-TV movie, or look at advergaming.No need to apologize. I'm sorry I came off strongly. Its just frustrating because, as a gamer and hobby game programmer, its pretty apparent to me that the hobby game angle isn't really workable without taking a drastic step backwards (over a decade) in game technology. I'd like there to be a way to keep the game industry thriving if abolition of copyright becomes the best course of action.
"I think that music can be funded outside of copyright, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate" should be I "think that music can be funded outside of copyright, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that the same holds true for video games."
I don't find it necessary to dispute parts of the argument I agree with, unless I feel that there is a need for a devil's advocate. I think that music can be funded outside of copyright, but I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate
Besides, is the prospect of a larger variety of professionally made movies and video games worth restricting the freedom of people to use computing machinery?Its not a binary choice.
First of all, the freedom in question is the freedom to copy information. Computers are utilized for that, and as a result come under scrutiny and restriction. I'm assuming that by "restricting the freedom of people to use computing machinery" you mean DRM. I don't support DRM, partly because I view it as an unfair restriction and partly because the very concept of DRM is broken.
If we're talking about whether temporary monopolies on distribution should be given to promote art, and to enrich the public domain, then that depends. If the terms are reasonable, temporary, and supported by the public at large, then I do support that. If enforcing these terms requires violations of other freedoms or heavy handed methods of enforcement, then I would not support that. If the state of technology and social opinion is such that we must have control over our property taken away from us, then I think thats a clear signal that we need to rethink how we fund creative endeavors.
And why are video games subject to copyright for 95 years?Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're implying that I support copyright in its current form. I don't. I'd like to see a massive scaleback of copyright. Video games should get protection for five, maybe ten years.
I'm not necessarily against you per se. I think that copyright still has value in our society, but the RIAA and their kin need a serious bitch-slap, copyright needs to be reduced to something reasonable, and penalties for breaking copyright need to be brought into question and severely reduced to something even approaching reasonable. As it is, the current body of copyright law betrays the social contract between the creators and consumers.
But I didn't cover all this because that wasn't the point of my post. The point - the sole point - was that suggesting that hobbyist games and movies could fill the void of professional games and movies is laughable. In a copyright-less world, we'd probably need to find some other way to fund them. I have no ideas in that regard.
Hobbyist video games in no way, shape, or form approach the quality of professional games. Show me the hobbyist games as in depth as Metal Gear Solid, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy, God of War, Grand Theft Auto, etc, and maybe you'll have a point.
Speaking as a hobbyist game dev, hobby games are mostly nifty time wasters or tech demos. They simply don't compare to something professionally made.
The same could be said of movies.
Because that argument is based on logical fallacies. You think that the opponents are really going to stand by and go "Well if you say so..." instead of ripping your extremely poor argument to shreds, then chalk it up as a win? Playing games doesn't make you informed nor an expert on this subject, which means those masses of masses of gamers count for jack and shit.
Yeah, but the Zune, or any similar device really, has no way of knowing if that song that you sent me is something you created with your own band that you own the copyright to, or just a song that you ripped from a CD. Ironically enough, you would have to add DRM to the song in order for a Zune to "know" that a song's copyright belongs to you.
I guess my real point is that its unfair to blame Microsoft for this particular "feature." They have to abide by copyright laws, and the RIAA would sue the player out of existence if they let people trade unprotected song. They'd probably call them portably piracy devices or something.
Apple has to behave too. The only reason that they can sell un-DRMed music is because they made a business case to various music studios and convinced them to drop the DRM. Good luck getting the same deal on something thats basically designed to swap copies of music.
Notice I said "may not legally own them." You might own the copyright, or you might not. The problem is that its nearly impossible for an electronic device to decide whether you do or not. So Microsoft erred on the side of caution to avoid getting sued. I agree it sucks, but I can't really fault Microsoft when its RIAA pressure that made it necessary.
Because they're actually influencing opinion. They've managed to get laws passed. Sure they've been struck down as unconstitutional, but how long until something sticks?
How many millions of people have played first person shooters since Quake? I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate a statistically interesting fraction of video game players that go on to murder people. San Andreas alone sold 5 million units by the end of 2004 [pcvsconsole.com]. Since then how many gamers killed people? What percentage of gamers killed people compared to the percentage of murderers in the general public? Can these people even demonstrate a correlation between gaming and murdering? Can they even back up their claim that games "can" cause violence with hard facts?See, that kind of thinking is a lot better than what normally passes for debate on this issue, which was my point.
Obviously giving the author credit for originally writing the code is just too demanding.
I can see that line of reasoning.
Of course you also have freaks like me who'd just buy the CDs and rip instead.
Ideally thats how it should be, but real life isn't ideal. If we consider ourselves as defending against Jacko's attacks, then we should collectively make better arguments. As it is, we're flinging around straw men and anecdotes, then patting ourselves on the back for a job well done, while everyone else is rolling their eyes at us.
My point was if having a catalog of "Plays For Sure" music represents a significant barrier for switching to Zune, then it would also represent a significant barrier towards switching to an iPod. A customer isn't going to go, "Hmmm, well I could buy a Zune, but I have all this Plays For Sure music that doesn't work on it... I guess I'll buy an iPod."
Ok, so in Apple's case, the DRM is the fault of the RIAA. Why is the same reasoning not applied to Microsoft? After all, Bill Gates also publicly came out against DRM too. Seems like there's a double standard going on here.
I agree, its incredibly foolish, which is why people aren't saying that. Its a strawman that gamers and journalists bring out to pound on so that they can feel oh-so-superior to the anti-game lobby. What Jack-o and company are claiming is that it can mentally prepare them to kill another human. That is, it can lessen the psychological resistance and after-effects of killing another human being. Now, I think that this is bullshit, but its not really quite as clear-cut, which is why I suspect my fellow gamers like to trot out the strawman.
However, having been trained in the military how to shoot after having almost no experience with firearms prior to that, I can tell you that training someone in the basics of aiming and firing a weapon can be done in a very short amount of time (twenty minutes or so in a classroom environment). You can also easily do a Google search and find out pretty much anything you need to know to figure it out for yourself.I've fired a handgun, and its fairly easy. You won't become a marksman overnight, but close enough for government work.
Yes, because all that "Plays For Sure" music will work just fine on an iPod. Err, wait....