No, you can't prove it. It would be very difficult indeed to prove that you had something a month before it existed. It may have been close to the version on the DVD, but that's not what you claimed. At least you didn't claim to have the extended edition which wasn't even done filming until March 2004.
Recent could describe two, three, four, or even five and still not include Return of the King. We're talking about security to stop the pre-release of movies on the Internet. The vast majority of people weren't on it until at least the mid 90s, Napster didn't arrive until 1999, and Bittorrent wasn't around until 2001. When talking these kinds of numbers, "security [being] tightened in recent years" does not include not increasing security at all in 6 years, even for the idiots that make up the MPAA.
Someone could think it is the exact opposite, as in you're not using what you paid for. But I don't think either is true. In reality, you chose to pay for a connection that had a certain capacity even though you knew you didn't need it. But you thought it was a fair deal, the seller thought it was a fair deal, you both agreed, you're both happy. The GP went to the same seller, thought it was a good deal, the seller thought it was a good deal, both agreed, and both are happy.
I don't get angry because someone else spends longer at the gym than I do, even though we're both spending the same monthly amount. If I really thought it was unfair, I could spend more time there, or ask to pay less, or go somewhere else where they limit the time you can spend in a gym.
If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem
It's not a problem for the dolphins. In fact, a great majority of the species on this planet would not notice, not care, or would benefit from us humans greatly shrinking our numbers.
The Federation Against Copyright Theft said a leak of this kind was extremely unusual as pre-release security had been tightened in recent years.
I had a full dvd rip of LOTR 3 two months before the movie was released to the movie theatres [in 2003]. By full rip I mean the DVD you would buy in stores when the movie was to be released to stores. This is not unusual/uncommon.
Skipping over whether you really did, or whether security has really been tightened, which part of "in recent years" did you not understand?
Still skipping over security really being tightened, the movie wasn't finished until November 12, 2003 (according to the DVD you apparently had a month before), and the movie was released on December 17th, a whopping 1 month and 5 days later (do you always round up?). You're asserting you had the DVD 1 month before the movie was finished. Is this Spaceballs?
Package a game with some tangible thing -- that increases both my costs and the cost of the game
Adding DRM costs money too, but instead of adding value, like a tangible thing, it takes away value. If those were your only choices, it sounds like add cost and value, or add cost and remove value. Also, DRM drives people to piracy as well.
Plus, there's pretty few ways, if any, for an independent developer to actually provide anything in that tangible form that anybody would actually want.
Then I would say your game doesn't have much value to anyone. If, on the other hand, somebody out there (even if it's just a few) really like your game, they will be willing to pay for it. Offer a tiered approach. Something like this:
Basic ($5):
The game
Upgrade 1 ($10):
Basic
+ Nicely printed manual
Upgrade 2 ($15):
Upgrade 1
+ Signed poster
Upgrade 3 ($50):
Upgrade 2
+ Phone call from you
Upgrade 4 ($100):
Upgrade 3
+ Beta access to your next work
Now these may or may not work for you or your game. But let's say they do, you could even give the game away for free. You'd really be amazed at what people will pay for. No, it's not the majority of people, but you don't need the majority. You just need enough. In fact, from the sound of your reply to me earlier, you don't even need to release the game at all. This means you are in a perfect situation to try something new. Very little risk, with the potential for a big reward.
As an example, check out Jill Sobule. She offered tiered levels and made more than $75,000.
I'd say just publish the game. If everyone copies it and you make no money, oh well. Maybe they'll buy your next work after you get a brand going. Or try a new business model as some have already suggested, or make one up yourself. Or, if you don't want to do any of that, "[d]on't release it at all." We won't be any worse off, and neither will you.
The reality is that copyright was intended as an incentive to get works of creativity into our culture, but many people don't need that incentive, others don't respect the bargain (from both consumer and producer ends), and still others don't find it enough of an incentive. If you don't want to release your game, then don't. No one will ever say, "I sure wish FishWithAHammer released his game" because they'll never have heard of you. If on the other hand you release it with current business models, you might make money, you might not, and that may or may not have anything to do with piracy or quality. If you release it with a new business model, you may or may not succeed and that may or may not have anything to do with the business model or quality. It's up to you to decide, but this much I can guarantee, paying customers don't like it when the free version is better than the paid-for version, and despite what many people might think, it is possible to compete with free, free can be a part of your business model, and most people still pay for value.
voiding any warranty you may have (RROD + modded Xbox = $300 for new Xbox).
Am I slow on this? Should I have gotten this earlier? Microsoft intentionally added problems to prevent modding? That's impressive thinking. Rather than adding more technical hurdles that are overcome anyway, just make the warranty so necessary that no one wants to void it.
However, the Wii's runaway sales success was apparent very, very quickly after the late-2006 launch.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and it wasn't that apparent. Go back and look and you will find people who doubted that the Wii's sales would last as long as it has. In fact, just 4 months ago some were saying it would stop, but the sales look like they're keeping pace with last year. If I bothered to, I'm certain I could find more articles, comments, threads, and the like all saying that Wii couldn't possibly maintain its sales. In fact, every article that shows shock/excitement over its sales is validation that people were not expecting it to do as well as it has.
Most of the people who believe the world is round have not read the arguments by Christians, Muslims, and Hindus (whose arguments involved the stars traveling through tunnels) about why the world is flat.
And most people who spout off about a flat earth are the worst kind of stupid. Greeks were essentially the first to think the earth is spherical. That wasn't until about 330 BC, though Lucretius was still opposed to it as late as the 1st century BC. Hindus believed the earth to be spherical at least as early as the 5th century. They even had a calculation for both the circumference of the earth and the length of it's day that were so close to true that I can only guess they had believed it much earlier. Christians as early as the 4th century had spherical earth proponents, though they still had flat-earthers for a few more centuries. In fact, it was the Chinese that were the last to accept a spherical Earth, and that didn't happen until Jesuit influence in the 17th century.
What people need to realize is that Christopher Columbus was lucky because he was totally wrong. Nearly every seafaring population at his time (China excepted) knew the Earth was a sphere, and they all had fairly accurate calculations for it's circumference and how big the Eurasian land mass was, and thus how far away China was from Portugal. Columbus came along and miscalculated everything. He thought Japan was only 5,000 km away when it's much closer to 20,000 km.
I have to ask why it is you are becoming a vegetarian. If it's because you truly think eating meat is murder, then you are still committing murder, and are thus a hypocrite. It can't be for health reasons alone as going vegetarian makes it harder for you to get protein, iron, complex B-vitamins, zinc, copper, etc. So why are you doing it?
My wife and her family (Vietnamese) would disagree with you. They fill a large pot with live crabs and then turn on the burner; no butchering involved. If I remember correctly, the only water involved is whatever is left on the crab after they wash it off. And they'll eat just about the whole thing. I stick to just the legs myself.
Obviously the water was in pain as it was thrashing about trying to get away from the heat source. That's not steam, those are the precious souls of billions of water molecules you just tortured and burned alive!!!
People spend $30 at Starbucks in a week pretty easily, spend probably half an hour or so in line (presuming 10 visits to Starbucks at $3 each visit, 5 minutes in the store). Many still think that $30 (or even $15) for 1.5 to 3 hours of entertainment, no matter how bad it is, is too much.
Did I read this correctly? You are equating going to Starbucks as the same thing as watching a movie? Since we're on the subject of comparing totally different things, I fill up my car with gas about every two weeks for about $30 after about 5 hours worth of driving. At those rates, 2 hour movies ought to cost $12, and a 1.5 hour movie ought to cost $9. A flight from Seattle to New York (about 6 hours) ought to cost $35, but more if it's non-stop. Since all forms of entertainment are the same, a 3 minute song on iTunes should now cost $0.30. I like this new form of determining price; it makes everything so simple.
Also, I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA will be glad to know that everyone in Starbucks also complains about the price of movies and so pirates them all. This certainly gives them an easy place to go round up all the copyright infringers.
You mean like the groupthink that everyone else just follows groupthink? Or is that the groupthink that anyone who mentions groupthink is obviously just using groupthink to say that everyone else is a groupthinker?
The law says that you own the copyright to your work, so you do deserve something from it.
I don't know how copyright law works where you are from, but I haven't heard of any kind of copyright law that guarantees revenues of any amount from a copyrighted work. Most copyright laws are only prohibitions against someone else copying your work. Some allow for fair use, some don't. But nowhere have I seen copyright laws that stipulate any kind of guaranteed revenue just because you copyrighted your work.
You only "deserve" to get paid what people are willing to pay you. Just because copyright law gives you the sole rights for making and distributing copies doesn't mean that has changed.
Unfortunately for them, that's not going to happen. I'm not even going to blame it on the Internet because copyright infringement has been around for as long as copyright law. They should be looking to grow their fan base, not shrink it. Some people will pay for stuff they like, some will not, but that doesn't mean you should be ignoring the non-payers. They very well might encourage their payer friends who are not currently in your fan base to become a part of it. The goal should be to grow your fanbase.
And notice that he's not doing it because of the children, just that he doesn't want to get the state sued
I'm not sure if you mean this is a good thing or not. I think it's a good thing for him to consider the constitutionality of the laws he signs long before thinking of the children.
As another example, yet almost the opposite, Wall-e had no dialog the entire first half of the movie, but was dealing with adult-comprehension level themes. The reality is that Pixar is just really good at making movies that speak to both adults, children and everyone between.
I've often wondered how people would if Michelangelo was asked to paint the Sistine Chapel today. How would people react to his statue of David? Or even Botticelli's suggestion to put it in a cathedral?
Of course not. We have a republic. It was never meant to be a democracy. The US can be described as "NOT a pure democracy" in the same way a hot dog can be described as "NOT a pure chicken sandwich". Democracies have a way of doing the will of the majority, which is not always right, so the founders decided not to have a democracy.
Our elected representatives are in most cases less informed... than most of the experts available.
And as much as I agree with you, they are, on average, much more informed than the average citizen. But you acknowledged that by the end of your post.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can't prove it. It would be very difficult indeed to prove that you had something a month before it existed. It may have been close to the version on the DVD, but that's not what you claimed. At least you didn't claim to have the extended edition which wasn't even done filming until March 2004.
Recent could describe two, three, four, or even five and still not include Return of the King. We're talking about security to stop the pre-release of movies on the Internet. The vast majority of people weren't on it until at least the mid 90s, Napster didn't arrive until 1999, and Bittorrent wasn't around until 2001. When talking these kinds of numbers, "security [being] tightened in recent years" does not include not increasing security at all in 6 years, even for the idiots that make up the MPAA.
Someone could think it is the exact opposite, as in you're not using what you paid for. But I don't think either is true. In reality, you chose to pay for a connection that had a certain capacity even though you knew you didn't need it. But you thought it was a fair deal, the seller thought it was a fair deal, you both agreed, you're both happy. The GP went to the same seller, thought it was a good deal, the seller thought it was a good deal, both agreed, and both are happy.
I don't get angry because someone else spends longer at the gym than I do, even though we're both spending the same monthly amount. If I really thought it was unfair, I could spend more time there, or ask to pay less, or go somewhere else where they limit the time you can spend in a gym.
It's not a problem for the dolphins. In fact, a great majority of the species on this planet would not notice, not care, or would benefit from us humans greatly shrinking our numbers.
Skipping over whether you really did, or whether security has really been tightened, which part of "in recent years" did you not understand?
Still skipping over security really being tightened, the movie wasn't finished until November 12, 2003 (according to the DVD you apparently had a month before), and the movie was released on December 17th, a whopping 1 month and 5 days later (do you always round up?). You're asserting you had the DVD 1 month before the movie was finished. Is this Spaceballs?
Adding DRM costs money too, but instead of adding value, like a tangible thing, it takes away value. If those were your only choices, it sounds like add cost and value, or add cost and remove value. Also, DRM drives people to piracy as well.
Then I would say your game doesn't have much value to anyone. If, on the other hand, somebody out there (even if it's just a few) really like your game, they will be willing to pay for it. Offer a tiered approach. Something like this:
Basic ($5):
The game
Upgrade 1 ($10):
Basic
+ Nicely printed manual
Upgrade 2 ($15):
Upgrade 1
+ Signed poster
Upgrade 3 ($50):
Upgrade 2
+ Phone call from you
Upgrade 4 ($100):
Upgrade 3
+ Beta access to your next work
Now these may or may not work for you or your game. But let's say they do, you could even give the game away for free. You'd really be amazed at what people will pay for. No, it's not the majority of people, but you don't need the majority. You just need enough. In fact, from the sound of your reply to me earlier, you don't even need to release the game at all. This means you are in a perfect situation to try something new. Very little risk, with the potential for a big reward.
As an example, check out Jill Sobule. She offered tiered levels and made more than $75,000.
I'd say just publish the game. If everyone copies it and you make no money, oh well. Maybe they'll buy your next work after you get a brand going. Or try a new business model as some have already suggested, or make one up yourself. Or, if you don't want to do any of that, "[d]on't release it at all." We won't be any worse off, and neither will you.
The reality is that copyright was intended as an incentive to get works of creativity into our culture, but many people don't need that incentive, others don't respect the bargain (from both consumer and producer ends), and still others don't find it enough of an incentive. If you don't want to release your game, then don't. No one will ever say, "I sure wish FishWithAHammer released his game" because they'll never have heard of you. If on the other hand you release it with current business models, you might make money, you might not, and that may or may not have anything to do with piracy or quality. If you release it with a new business model, you may or may not succeed and that may or may not have anything to do with the business model or quality. It's up to you to decide, but this much I can guarantee, paying customers don't like it when the free version is better than the paid-for version, and despite what many people might think, it is possible to compete with free, free can be a part of your business model, and most people still pay for value.
Whitespace, Befunge, Brainfuck and others, though I don't think any one does any serious coding in those.
Am I slow on this? Should I have gotten this earlier? Microsoft intentionally added problems to prevent modding? That's impressive thinking. Rather than adding more technical hurdles that are overcome anyway, just make the warranty so necessary that no one wants to void it.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and it wasn't that apparent. Go back and look and you will find people who doubted that the Wii's sales would last as long as it has. In fact, just 4 months ago some were saying it would stop, but the sales look like they're keeping pace with last year. If I bothered to, I'm certain I could find more articles, comments, threads, and the like all saying that Wii couldn't possibly maintain its sales. In fact, every article that shows shock/excitement over its sales is validation that people were not expecting it to do as well as it has.
Just so there's no confusion: you are making this comment on an article about mindblowing games not being profitable.
Skip the stickers. Just wear clothes that exude confidence.
And most people who spout off about a flat earth are the worst kind of stupid. Greeks were essentially the first to think the earth is spherical. That wasn't until about 330 BC, though Lucretius was still opposed to it as late as the 1st century BC. Hindus believed the earth to be spherical at least as early as the 5th century. They even had a calculation for both the circumference of the earth and the length of it's day that were so close to true that I can only guess they had believed it much earlier. Christians as early as the 4th century had spherical earth proponents, though they still had flat-earthers for a few more centuries. In fact, it was the Chinese that were the last to accept a spherical Earth, and that didn't happen until Jesuit influence in the 17th century.
What people need to realize is that Christopher Columbus was lucky because he was totally wrong. Nearly every seafaring population at his time (China excepted) knew the Earth was a sphere, and they all had fairly accurate calculations for it's circumference and how big the Eurasian land mass was, and thus how far away China was from Portugal. Columbus came along and miscalculated everything. He thought Japan was only 5,000 km away when it's much closer to 20,000 km.
I have to ask why it is you are becoming a vegetarian. If it's because you truly think eating meat is murder, then you are still committing murder, and are thus a hypocrite. It can't be for health reasons alone as going vegetarian makes it harder for you to get protein, iron, complex B-vitamins, zinc, copper, etc. So why are you doing it?
My wife and her family (Vietnamese) would disagree with you. They fill a large pot with live crabs and then turn on the burner; no butchering involved. If I remember correctly, the only water involved is whatever is left on the crab after they wash it off. And they'll eat just about the whole thing. I stick to just the legs myself.
Obviously the water was in pain as it was thrashing about trying to get away from the heat source. That's not steam, those are the precious souls of billions of water molecules you just tortured and burned alive!!!
Did I read this correctly? You are equating going to Starbucks as the same thing as watching a movie? Since we're on the subject of comparing totally different things, I fill up my car with gas about every two weeks for about $30 after about 5 hours worth of driving. At those rates, 2 hour movies ought to cost $12, and a 1.5 hour movie ought to cost $9. A flight from Seattle to New York (about 6 hours) ought to cost $35, but more if it's non-stop. Since all forms of entertainment are the same, a 3 minute song on iTunes should now cost $0.30. I like this new form of determining price; it makes everything so simple.
Also, I'm sure the MPAA and RIAA will be glad to know that everyone in Starbucks also complains about the price of movies and so pirates them all. This certainly gives them an easy place to go round up all the copyright infringers.
You mean like the groupthink that everyone else just follows groupthink? Or is that the groupthink that anyone who mentions groupthink is obviously just using groupthink to say that everyone else is a groupthinker?
I don't know how copyright law works where you are from, but I haven't heard of any kind of copyright law that guarantees revenues of any amount from a copyrighted work. Most copyright laws are only prohibitions against someone else copying your work. Some allow for fair use, some don't. But nowhere have I seen copyright laws that stipulate any kind of guaranteed revenue just because you copyrighted your work.
You only "deserve" to get paid what people are willing to pay you. Just because copyright law gives you the sole rights for making and distributing copies doesn't mean that has changed.
Unfortunately for them, that's not going to happen. I'm not even going to blame it on the Internet because copyright infringement has been around for as long as copyright law. They should be looking to grow their fan base, not shrink it. Some people will pay for stuff they like, some will not, but that doesn't mean you should be ignoring the non-payers. They very well might encourage their payer friends who are not currently in your fan base to become a part of it. The goal should be to grow your fanbase.
I'm not sure if you mean this is a good thing or not. I think it's a good thing for him to consider the constitutionality of the laws he signs long before thinking of the children.
As another example, yet almost the opposite, Wall-e had no dialog the entire first half of the movie, but was dealing with adult-comprehension level themes. The reality is that Pixar is just really good at making movies that speak to both adults, children and everyone between.
I've often wondered how people would if Michelangelo was asked to paint the Sistine Chapel today. How would people react to his statue of David? Or even Botticelli's suggestion to put it in a cathedral?
[subject correction]
PB, not TB... hehe.
Of course not. We have a republic. It was never meant to be a democracy. The US can be described as "NOT a pure democracy" in the same way a hot dog can be described as "NOT a pure chicken sandwich". Democracies have a way of doing the will of the majority, which is not always right, so the founders decided not to have a democracy.
And as much as I agree with you, they are, on average, much more informed than the average citizen. But you acknowledged that by the end of your post.