Perhaps, but I'm sorry to say you chose a poor example to wave your flag on. The irony is the people who you fear will one day become that angry mob were exactly the ones suffering from what you fear. It may have been only one guy and a few copycats but the loophole in the system made him stronger than a mob.
Cause he was a dick in and out of character. I fully support them beating down on him in game and pretending to be on his side. The defaming and aggression out of game was extreme but it wasn't exactly surprising if he really does have even the most minuscule understanding of the human mind.
I see, I was countering the wrong argument. Your problem isn't with whether or not he was an ass but with people having any custom they would like outsiders to respect. He did not have a moral obligation to sit in the pvp area and chat away like some valley girl. But I do not think it unreasonable to expect someone to respect their wishes. They just wanted to be left alone and a player created system had arisen that those standing in section XYZ are in the 'we want to be left alone' area. This still left a vast majority of the area open to his kind of play, just this *small* section was a designation neutral zone.
If I distill what your saying down to its most honest meaning it comes out as "I will do anything I want, however I want, whenever I want, no matter how it affects you." Being someone who appreciates the anarchist ideology I can get behind most of that statement except that last part. To intrude on someone elses right of self determination you lose all rights to your own.
By 'nature of the system' I mean the capitalist method of out doing your competition thereby taking away their customers with the result that you take away their ability to make a living. This is how that system is defined and by competing in that system you accept it. You can't try to encroach on someones business with your better and more efficient idea and then bitch about someone doing the same to you. Thats what I mean by 'perfectly acceptable'.
The difference between copyright and your worker is one creates a good that is infinite the other creates a good that is finite. We protect that infinite good for a short time as the long term benefit is worth its creation. That finite good is protected by the very fact that its limited.
Except that this guy would do the equivalent of walking into the boxing ring and throw the person on top of the dumbell set and laugh at them as the writhe in pain.
Everyone involved is paying so that point is moot. He had the option to play the game as intended, instead he chose to interact with those who did *not* want to play that way and ignoring those that did. As someone stated earlier, when someone had a toon that could defend against his tactics he ran away, just like every griefer/bully does. He wasn't interested in testing his mettle against a worthy opponent, he just wanted to poke the ant hill.
After that the players gradually increased the attacks on him trying to force him to conform.
Actually no, they wanted him to leave them alone. Having him conform would have been a bonus, being left the fuck alone was the goal though. After all the guy who threatened him didn't go "If you don't start playing like we want you to I'm going to kill you." He said "Stop killing me or I'll kill you in RL", to paraphrase.
As the guy above mentioned. There are pvp zones and within those zones there are certain areas that have been set aside by the players as 'no kill zones'. Your free to waste anyone outside that zone but it's not unreasonable for them to expect you to respect those safe areas. If you don't, your an ass, pure and simple. Your defense of 'i paid money' doesn't mean squat when everyone your running across spent money just like you did.
not taking unsportsman-like advantage of any loopholes
Did you just say that? Seriously? So it's not unsportsman like to target someone who isn't aware of your presence? It isn't taking advantage of a loophole to get the game itself to kill the player for you with virtually no work on your part? To such an extent that the game doesn't even acknowledge that you had any part it in by not crediting you with the kill?
the anti-twixt folks were the griefers, you should RTFA
I did read the article. Some people used out of game methods to get back at him since his character was too powerful in game. Since your stuck in "RP is All" mode isn't it common practice that the villians would resort to defaming a 'hero' if they can't beat them? In any case, he reaped what he sowed, nothing more, nothing less. Role playing as a blood thirsty 'hero' doesn't absolve him of being an ass.
Since your stuck on the RP aspect of the game. WTF kind of *hero* was he? Last I checked a hero doesn't go around murdering everyone he can get ahold of. Sounds more like a sociopathic villian than a hero. Your point would at least have some merit if that's what he played. But he didn't, he played a "good guy" and acted like a douchebag both in character and out of character.
True, but that's the nature of the system and is perfectly acceptable. What the current copyright law creates is a nigh never ending private ownership of humanities ideas. Society protects a creators rights, for a limited time, for its own enrichment not the creators. But now many big businesses are living off the protection we've handed to creators and twisted it out of proportion to protect their own. This was not the purpose of copyright. If society no longer gains a benefit from this exchange then society should stop protecting it. Then work on creating a new system that will finally kill immortal copyright permanently.
Perhaps, but thats true for virtually every movement. Why someone supports the PP I wont question so long as they support it until we can get some reasonable laws in place. If we go too far it just means culture and business will suffer while right now we have culture and private rights suffering, the greater evil in my world by far.
It will prevent XYZ corp from distributing it, true, but if it gets out however it happens whats their recourse? Once you neuter copyright law to the point where everything is defacto public domain you can't go after the guy who leaks it. It's like taking pictures of an 18th century novel in a private collection, yeah you'll piss people off but they can't stop the photos from being distributed.
Ok so overall we probably spend about the same maybe a little less per song/movie than our grandfathers did. I don't really see how that a good or commendable thing though. In 1939 they had worse tech, worse automation, and worse distribution. All those have become *much* better and we still pay the same relative costs per your own example. Taking that into account that same movie your grandfather, or great grandfather for some, saw as a young man *is still in copyright* 80 years later. How can you defend a system like that?
1. Financing of the artists' production costs
They have every right to put their money wherever they wish. Its not my place to tell them what or where to invest their money. But it does become my place and right when they want me to pay to have their investment protected via immortal copyright or wasteful public spending.
2. Facilitation of access to studios, sound engineers and other such capital
While its true that a professional recording studio is needed for the ultimate in recording quality. With todays tech its possible to make a great demo at a "no I wont go bar hoping tonight" limited budget. At which point when the recording execs hear the demo we refer back to 1.
3. Marketing and promotion
Refer to point 1.
4. Selectivity: a record label only signs a minority of artists that they think are good. They filter out bad artists so that the public doesn't have to.
I didn't ask for this public 'service' nor do I want it. I'm very good at filtering out what I don't like without assistance thank you.
The **AA have made such a large amount of money on the distribution model of their goods that they feel entitled to it. They aren't, at least not to the degree they currently enjoy. Their industry will survive, music will be made, and artists will make a living. Just not in this current form, no one is taking away an artists right to perform live and charge whatever they wish. We only wish to make it so that in a few years it becomes public domain so that another artist may take their turn at spinning straw into gold.
Seconded, this movie is great. Anyone with a touch of science fiction interest should watch it. Personally I thought the acting was fine, but perhaps I'm not the best judge on that since the story sucked me in.
Irrelevant. Copyright law was meant to give incentive for creative works to be made and the creators to make a living. The whole incentive part of copyright law has been twisted into a lottery ticket system instead of the original purpose of protecting the creator, for a limited time, from someone stealing the work and thereby removing their ability to make a living.
Just because they have been able to make a multi-billion dollar business out of raping the public domain and trampling our rights doesn't mean that business model should be protected.
Most movies make a profit from the theatre viewings alone. That profit won't change at all, since the movie maker can easily negotiate a contract with the theatres to forbid re-distribution.
I'm pro PP but I disagree. Without *any* copyright laws they don't have a legal framework to protect the Right to Copy their movies. It would have to all rely on personal agreements between the theater and the producers/distributors with little to no recourse if an employee independently "frees" a copy to his personal laptop thereby avoiding the one sticking point of physical ownership. They have a hard enough time today when its obviously against the law much less if the laws say its perfectly legal.
Many who have and will join the Pirate Party don't do so out of a desire to screw content creators. We do it out of a desire to *stop* being screwed by those who have screwed the content creators.
Copyright law has been perverted and twisted into a mockery of itself, until that changes your side of the street is filthier than ours. While its true that there has been some advancement in copyright law in the last few years, things like fair use and parody receiving limited protections, it isn't enough to offset the horrors done to public domain. Once logical copyright laws are in place I might switch to the pro-copyright camp, until then though I'm firmly with the Pirates.
And that is bad why? The pirate bay may have swung the pendulum too far against copyright/IP law but that is a natural and just reaction to immoral laws. Most people would have respect for IP laws if they weren't so severely imbalanced. Yes some would still break the law but its hard to argue that a 5-7 year term for copyrights/IP with severely limited options to extend is immoral. While it's easy to call the current system of lifetime plus 20-70 years as immoral. When you might die of old age before the creative works made during your *grandparents childhood* is public domain, its easy to dismiss stupid laws like that.
Wait, so your pushing for MS to write multiple pieces of software that *do the same thing* just so you can have a feather in your cap that shows your "100% IE free"? Seriously? I can get behind the idea that MS should give the option for different web browsers at install. That's fair... except for all the smaller ones that aren't on the list. But to get your panties in a wad because MS is using the same rendering engine in multiple pieces of software is just down right childish.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but I'm sorry to say you chose a poor example to wave your flag on. The irony is the people who you fear will one day become that angry mob were exactly the ones suffering from what you fear. It may have been only one guy and a few copycats but the loophole in the system made him stronger than a mob.
Cause he was a dick in and out of character. I fully support them beating down on him in game and pretending to be on his side. The defaming and aggression out of game was extreme but it wasn't exactly surprising if he really does have even the most minuscule understanding of the human mind.
I see, I was countering the wrong argument. Your problem isn't with whether or not he was an ass but with people having any custom they would like outsiders to respect. He did not have a moral obligation to sit in the pvp area and chat away like some valley girl. But I do not think it unreasonable to expect someone to respect their wishes. They just wanted to be left alone and a player created system had arisen that those standing in section XYZ are in the 'we want to be left alone' area. This still left a vast majority of the area open to his kind of play, just this *small* section was a designation neutral zone.
If I distill what your saying down to its most honest meaning it comes out as "I will do anything I want, however I want, whenever I want, no matter how it affects you." Being someone who appreciates the anarchist ideology I can get behind most of that statement except that last part. To intrude on someone elses right of self determination you lose all rights to your own.
By 'nature of the system' I mean the capitalist method of out doing your competition thereby taking away their customers with the result that you take away their ability to make a living. This is how that system is defined and by competing in that system you accept it. You can't try to encroach on someones business with your better and more efficient idea and then bitch about someone doing the same to you. Thats what I mean by 'perfectly acceptable'.
The difference between copyright and your worker is one creates a good that is infinite the other creates a good that is finite. We protect that infinite good for a short time as the long term benefit is worth its creation. That finite good is protected by the very fact that its limited.
Except that this guy would do the equivalent of walking into the boxing ring and throw the person on top of the dumbell set and laugh at them as the writhe in pain.
Everyone involved is paying so that point is moot. He had the option to play the game as intended, instead he chose to interact with those who did *not* want to play that way and ignoring those that did. As someone stated earlier, when someone had a toon that could defend against his tactics he ran away, just like every griefer/bully does. He wasn't interested in testing his mettle against a worthy opponent, he just wanted to poke the ant hill.
After that the players gradually increased the attacks on him trying to force him to conform.
Actually no, they wanted him to leave them alone. Having him conform would have been a bonus, being left the fuck alone was the goal though. After all the guy who threatened him didn't go "If you don't start playing like we want you to I'm going to kill you." He said "Stop killing me or I'll kill you in RL", to paraphrase.
As the guy above mentioned. There are pvp zones and within those zones there are certain areas that have been set aside by the players as 'no kill zones'. Your free to waste anyone outside that zone but it's not unreasonable for them to expect you to respect those safe areas. If you don't, your an ass, pure and simple. Your defense of 'i paid money' doesn't mean squat when everyone your running across spent money just like you did.
not taking unsportsman-like advantage of any loopholes
Did you just say that? Seriously? So it's not unsportsman like to target someone who isn't aware of your presence? It isn't taking advantage of a loophole to get the game itself to kill the player for you with virtually no work on your part? To such an extent that the game doesn't even acknowledge that you had any part it in by not crediting you with the kill?
Your definitions sure aren't the same as mine.
the anti-twixt folks were the griefers, you should RTFA
I did read the article. Some people used out of game methods to get back at him since his character was too powerful in game. Since your stuck in "RP is All" mode isn't it common practice that the villians would resort to defaming a 'hero' if they can't beat them? In any case, he reaped what he sowed, nothing more, nothing less. Role playing as a blood thirsty 'hero' doesn't absolve him of being an ass.
Since your stuck on the RP aspect of the game. WTF kind of *hero* was he? Last I checked a hero doesn't go around murdering everyone he can get ahold of. Sounds more like a sociopathic villian than a hero. Your point would at least have some merit if that's what he played. But he didn't, he played a "good guy" and acted like a douchebag both in character and out of character.
GOD?
True, but that's the nature of the system and is perfectly acceptable. What the current copyright law creates is a nigh never ending private ownership of humanities ideas. Society protects a creators rights, for a limited time, for its own enrichment not the creators. But now many big businesses are living off the protection we've handed to creators and twisted it out of proportion to protect their own. This was not the purpose of copyright. If society no longer gains a benefit from this exchange then society should stop protecting it. Then work on creating a new system that will finally kill immortal copyright permanently.
Perhaps, but thats true for virtually every movement. Why someone supports the PP I wont question so long as they support it until we can get some reasonable laws in place. If we go too far it just means culture and business will suffer while right now we have culture and private rights suffering, the greater evil in my world by far.
It will prevent XYZ corp from distributing it, true, but if it gets out however it happens whats their recourse? Once you neuter copyright law to the point where everything is defacto public domain you can't go after the guy who leaks it. It's like taking pictures of an 18th century novel in a private collection, yeah you'll piss people off but they can't stop the photos from being distributed.
Agreed, doesn't change the fact that she still sucks. Although I remember a time when she was worth watching on mute.
Ok so overall we probably spend about the same maybe a little less per song/movie than our grandfathers did. I don't really see how that a good or commendable thing though. In 1939 they had worse tech, worse automation, and worse distribution. All those have become *much* better and we still pay the same relative costs per your own example. Taking that into account that same movie your grandfather, or great grandfather for some, saw as a young man *is still in copyright* 80 years later. How can you defend a system like that?
1. Financing of the artists' production costs
They have every right to put their money wherever they wish. Its not my place to tell them what or where to invest their money. But it does become my place and right when they want me to pay to have their investment protected via immortal copyright or wasteful public spending.
2. Facilitation of access to studios, sound engineers and other such capital
While its true that a professional recording studio is needed for the ultimate in recording quality. With todays tech its possible to make a great demo at a "no I wont go bar hoping tonight" limited budget. At which point when the recording execs hear the demo we refer back to 1.
3. Marketing and promotion
Refer to point 1.
4. Selectivity: a record label only signs a minority of artists that they think are good. They filter out bad artists so that the public doesn't have to.
I didn't ask for this public 'service' nor do I want it. I'm very good at filtering out what I don't like without assistance thank you.
The **AA have made such a large amount of money on the distribution model of their goods that they feel entitled to it. They aren't, at least not to the degree they currently enjoy. Their industry will survive, music will be made, and artists will make a living. Just not in this current form, no one is taking away an artists right to perform live and charge whatever they wish. We only wish to make it so that in a few years it becomes public domain so that another artist may take their turn at spinning straw into gold.
Seconded, this movie is great. Anyone with a touch of science fiction interest should watch it. Personally I thought the acting was fine, but perhaps I'm not the best judge on that since the story sucked me in.
Irrelevant. Copyright law was meant to give incentive for creative works to be made and the creators to make a living. The whole incentive part of copyright law has been twisted into a lottery ticket system instead of the original purpose of protecting the creator, for a limited time, from someone stealing the work and thereby removing their ability to make a living.
Just because they have been able to make a multi-billion dollar business out of raping the public domain and trampling our rights doesn't mean that business model should be protected.
Most movies make a profit from the theatre viewings alone. That profit won't change at all, since the movie maker can easily negotiate a contract with the theatres to forbid re-distribution.
I'm pro PP but I disagree. Without *any* copyright laws they don't have a legal framework to protect the Right to Copy their movies. It would have to all rely on personal agreements between the theater and the producers/distributors with little to no recourse if an employee independently "frees" a copy to his personal laptop thereby avoiding the one sticking point of physical ownership. They have a hard enough time today when its obviously against the law much less if the laws say its perfectly legal.
Many who have and will join the Pirate Party don't do so out of a desire to screw content creators. We do it out of a desire to *stop* being screwed by those who have screwed the content creators.
Copyright law has been perverted and twisted into a mockery of itself, until that changes your side of the street is filthier than ours. While its true that there has been some advancement in copyright law in the last few years, things like fair use and parody receiving limited protections, it isn't enough to offset the horrors done to public domain. Once logical copyright laws are in place I might switch to the pro-copyright camp, until then though I'm firmly with the Pirates.
And that is bad why? The pirate bay may have swung the pendulum too far against copyright/IP law but that is a natural and just reaction to immoral laws. Most people would have respect for IP laws if they weren't so severely imbalanced. Yes some would still break the law but its hard to argue that a 5-7 year term for copyrights/IP with severely limited options to extend is immoral. While it's easy to call the current system of lifetime plus 20-70 years as immoral. When you might die of old age before the creative works made during your *grandparents childhood* is public domain, its easy to dismiss stupid laws like that.
Wait, so your pushing for MS to write multiple pieces of software that *do the same thing* just so you can have a feather in your cap that shows your "100% IE free"? Seriously? I can get behind the idea that MS should give the option for different web browsers at install. That's fair... except for all the smaller ones that aren't on the list. But to get your panties in a wad because MS is using the same rendering engine in multiple pieces of software is just down right childish.
Careful, you might be infringing on someones patent there.