I'm confused as to how a law saying that you can't decrypt the TV signal without paying for it is "fairly silly". I dare say such a law makes perfect sense - if everyone simply pirated the channel, then there's no way it could operate - broadcast equipment at that scale is immensely expensive. Not quite putting a fucking satellite in orbit expensive, but expensive enough.
Except that if they're purchasing wholesale and operating no equipment themselves, then noone needs to be trained as a NOC administrator because there is no network operations.
It's perfectly feasible. It sounds like they're relying on the fact that at wholesale, you're paying for CIR not bits. So they buy x CIR, then distribute that among the members, and operate some sort of trading program to let the members buy bits from each other. Interesting concept, really.
They do if you're in the Indie Games market. This guy isn't. He's in the Arcade Developer Program, which is one of the "big boy programs", in the company of behemoths like Activision, Atari, and the like. Now he's whining that he's being charged "big boy fees". The testing for certification is... extensive. So much so, that offering it free would likely cause the division to lose millions of dollars.
Actually, from an actual publisher agreement... "Publisher may release [*] Title Update [*] per Software Title free of charge". This is, obviously, redacted (it's from SEC filings) but the first asterisk is clearly a quantity, and the second is on balance of probabilities most likely to be a duration. I would imagine the unredacted form is "Publisher may release One (1) Title Update per year per Software Title free of charge". So they don't need to change the rules, that's what the rules are now.
Apple's review process is basically just automated tools though. They aren't doing rigorous certification requirement validation (well, their automated tools are). Microsoft's though is because you're paying for a person to actually playtest your game to make sure it ticks a massive number of boxes. You'll probably find it's closer to the ridiculously expensive and complex Made for iPod program than it is the App Store program.
Having a look at what an actual executed license agreement between a publisher and Microsoft says (I thought these were NDA'd, but apparently you can dig up redacted copies from SEC filings), it looks like Microsoft gives you x free updates, then charges you for any ones past that point unless the reason you make the patch is because Microsoft told you to.
I personally believe the belief that we must sacrifice the core (beneficial) aspects of copyright as a consequence of the existence of digital duplication is flawed - even more so than the current implementation of copyright law. Ignoring the extensions and mutations, the purpose of copyright was meant to promote innovation by allowing a creator to profit from their invention or creation for a brief period. Before anyone jumps on that, I used the fucking past tense, ok? Anyway - abolishing copyright entirely while doing away with all the bad stuff also discards the positive aspects. Hence why I say it still has its place, and is still sustainable. I also disagree that the principle being sustainable necessarily means we must "bend the digital world into the framework of copyright". The extent of bending is the same extent by which we bend the physical world to comply with our laws - by which I mean we do not bend the world but rather constrain the individual. There is nothing different between saying you may not make 500 copies of this software program and saying you may not write this book out 500 times and sell it at flea markets.
Microsoft is charging like $20 for the Windows 8 upgrade.
Only if you purchase a complete PC with Windows 7 pre-installed after a particular date. That's not charging $20 for the upgrade, no matter how you swing it.
Excel 2011 is only available on Mac. Excel 2010 (Ver 14) can only specify column widths in some esoteric number which noone's entirely sure which measurement system it's in.
I figured it was implied. But yes, that's right. Presumably the BitDefender app only detected that location data was sent somewhere without considering where it went.
It has the side effect of protecting Aussie citizens who break US law to get these services in a manner which doesn't break AU law from US-initiated retaliation, as extradition requires a crime committed be a crime in both countries.
Most of those services actually block you if your PayPal account is not registered in their country. Personally, my approach is to search Google for a local hotel and use that as the address. I won't detail how exactly I get around credit card issuer geo-blocking for obvious reasons (namely not wanting the dicks that geo-block to work out a way around it).
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of hundred kilometres to your south-east. Yes, New Zealand really is that backwards.
I assure you, they don't.
I'm confused as to how a law saying that you can't decrypt the TV signal without paying for it is "fairly silly". I dare say such a law makes perfect sense - if everyone simply pirated the channel, then there's no way it could operate - broadcast equipment at that scale is immensely expensive. Not quite putting a fucking satellite in orbit expensive, but expensive enough.
Except that if they're purchasing wholesale and operating no equipment themselves, then noone needs to be trained as a NOC administrator because there is no network operations.
It's perfectly feasible. It sounds like they're relying on the fact that at wholesale, you're paying for CIR not bits. So they buy x CIR, then distribute that among the members, and operate some sort of trading program to let the members buy bits from each other. Interesting concept, really.
You're complaining about a mobile broadband plan with 16GB for $80? Hell, for mobile broadband I get 1GB for $60. $80 you'd be lucky if you got 2GB.
Defeated once more.
Is that on a mobile phone, or are your landlines that expensive?
They do if you're in the Indie Games market. This guy isn't. He's in the Arcade Developer Program, which is one of the "big boy programs", in the company of behemoths like Activision, Atari, and the like. Now he's whining that he's being charged "big boy fees". The testing for certification is... extensive. So much so, that offering it free would likely cause the division to lose millions of dollars.
Actually, from an actual publisher agreement... "Publisher may release [*] Title Update [*] per Software Title free of charge". This is, obviously, redacted (it's from SEC filings) but the first asterisk is clearly a quantity, and the second is on balance of probabilities most likely to be a duration. I would imagine the unredacted form is "Publisher may release One (1) Title Update per year per Software Title free of charge". So they don't need to change the rules, that's what the rules are now.
Microsoft's fees are probably let's say 30-40%, and taxes are on net profit not gross revenue. So the certification fee comes out of pre-tax income.
Sony even charges you for the fucking bandwidth, unlike Microsoft and Nintendo.
Apple's review process is basically just automated tools though. They aren't doing rigorous certification requirement validation (well, their automated tools are). Microsoft's though is because you're paying for a person to actually playtest your game to make sure it ticks a massive number of boxes. You'll probably find it's closer to the ridiculously expensive and complex Made for iPod program than it is the App Store program.
Having a look at what an actual executed license agreement between a publisher and Microsoft says (I thought these were NDA'd, but apparently you can dig up redacted copies from SEC filings), it looks like Microsoft gives you x free updates, then charges you for any ones past that point unless the reason you make the patch is because Microsoft told you to.
That would probably work in a world without EA Sports.
So long as a mandatory effect of "hacking" your box is that it is immediately blacklisted by the online gaming networks.
Oh wait, that's exactly what happens.
Australian or UK only. I'm not sure why those two specifically, but it's probably due to the similarities between the ratings.
I personally believe the belief that we must sacrifice the core (beneficial) aspects of copyright as a consequence of the existence of digital duplication is flawed - even more so than the current implementation of copyright law. Ignoring the extensions and mutations, the purpose of copyright was meant to promote innovation by allowing a creator to profit from their invention or creation for a brief period. Before anyone jumps on that, I used the fucking past tense, ok? Anyway - abolishing copyright entirely while doing away with all the bad stuff also discards the positive aspects. Hence why I say it still has its place, and is still sustainable. I also disagree that the principle being sustainable necessarily means we must "bend the digital world into the framework of copyright". The extent of bending is the same extent by which we bend the physical world to comply with our laws - by which I mean we do not bend the world but rather constrain the individual. There is nothing different between saying you may not make 500 copies of this software program and saying you may not write this book out 500 times and sell it at flea markets.
I don't play World of Warcraft. Do I still need SysWoW64?
Microsoft is charging like $20 for the Windows 8 upgrade.
Only if you purchase a complete PC with Windows 7 pre-installed after a particular date. That's not charging $20 for the upgrade, no matter how you swing it.
Excel 2011 is only available on Mac. Excel 2010 (Ver 14) can only specify column widths in some esoteric number which noone's entirely sure which measurement system it's in.
I figured it was implied. But yes, that's right. Presumably the BitDefender app only detected that location data was sent somewhere without considering where it went.
Wait, New Zealand actually produces something you wanted?
Don't tell me you were trying to catch up on Shortland Street...
It has the side effect of protecting Aussie citizens who break US law to get these services in a manner which doesn't break AU law from US-initiated retaliation, as extradition requires a crime committed be a crime in both countries.
Most of those services actually block you if your PayPal account is not registered in their country. Personally, my approach is to search Google for a local hotel and use that as the address. I won't detail how exactly I get around credit card issuer geo-blocking for obvious reasons (namely not wanting the dicks that geo-block to work out a way around it).
Even if they did need to be rated, I'm pretty sure $1,000 distributed over 1,000,000 copies doesn't equal $30 per copy.