Forget the the legal technicalities, let's talk common sense. When people sign up for iTunes, they agree to the restrictions on what they are buying. It's not like the restrictions or horribly onerous, or are constantly changing. So why should I feel sorry for people who pay money for these files, knowing the restrictions, and then complain about the restrictions. If you pay money for something that you know has restrictions, you can't later bitch about the same restrictions, since you alreayd agreed they were fine. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the songs to begin with.
I have a hard time having sympathy for someone who knowingly buys something he knows he can't use, and then complains about it. Everyone knows you can only use music from iTunes on an iPod, and only on Windows and OSX (I belive, I could be wrong about the last part). If you still knowingly purchase something, knowing beforehand that you can't use it, you don't deserve any sympathy. If you want music that will work with your choice of portables, make sure you buy something that works with that portable.
If you knowingly buy something that won't work for you, you give up all rights to later complain that it doesn't work based simply on your own stupidity.
While I see a lot of good stuff staying (TSS, G4TV.com, Icons, X-Ply, I see some things that I just can't figure out.
They kept the fucking Thunderbirds?? The Thunderbirds??? I have never talked to anyone who actually watched this show, much less enjoyed it. Same thing with Portal and Cheat.
They should definitely tone down the G4 contribution, as that was by far the weaker channel. And they need to keep the hosts as is if at all possible. I like Leo, but he was a much better fit for Call for Help than the Screen Savers. He is better with the lower knowledge crowd, and TSS was moving towarda a geekier crowd.
The incentive for Sony is that it greatly simplifies support calls. Instead of going through steps to diagnose the problem, they simply tell the user to put in the "repair CD" and reimage the drive back to a working state. They can get people off the phone in no time with this tactic. That is why they are doing it, since other OEM do not have this restriction.
And if this is the case (which I highly doubt), where is the problem? I don't feel bad for people who pirate software and then complain when they get caught. If I steal a car and then there is a recall on it, should I be able to take my car in and get it fixed without anyone saying anything about it being stolen? The problem is that people are stealing MS software (and yes, taking something you have no rights to is stealing, whether it's software or hardware). MS isn't to blame for not supporting these people, they are to blame for stealing the software.
If you buy a full version, you have all these rights. What people fail to realize is they get an OEM copy of the OS with a new system. It is much cheaper than a full version, but also has 1 added restriction, it can only be (legally) run on that machine. If you want the full version, pay for the full version. If you only pay for a limited version (which is esentially what the OEM version is) then don't complain because you don't get the rights of the full version.
And before you say it, Sony has chosen to make it so you can only install the OS on a Sony machine, not MS. So the fact you can't install the OS on VMWare on the machine it came on is the fault of Sony, not MS.
Why exactly is this a good idea? Why can't they just use what they think is best for the job without trying to push what they like on everyone else? I certainly don't want to see a sign everywhere that says "We use MS Windows, the leader in PC operating systems because it is the best for our job. It does everything we need it to, and does it well."
The library is not there to push your pet OS. If they use it, that's great. It's not their job to convince other people to use it anymore than it is to convince people who use Linux to use Windows.
Re:typically its the other way around
on
Videogames as Art
·
· Score: 1
My first thought of videogames as art is always Max Payne. It is the closest I have seen yet to a movie style of game. Yes, there is action you control, but there is a very specific story that is being told. It evokes emotions like no game I've seen (the level in MP2 in the abandoned amusement park still keeps me on the edge of my seat). It is the closest thing to an interactive movie that I've seen yet.
Yes, I see something wrong (if this is true), but it's not with the punishment for copying software. People often use these type of statistics to say that the punshment for copyright violation is too harsh, but what they really show is the punishment for rape is too low, which really has nothing to do with the conversation.
while I agree it will be very hard for them to tell who exactly downloaded the files (unless there are proxy logs kept) they idea of exempting schools from the law is ludicrous. While I agree schools are not for politics or pushing agendas, they are also not for committing intellectual property theft. They are also not for pushing the idea that "information wants to be free, so you should be able to take it".
Why is reading more enriching than TV? I can sit down and read complete crap for 5 hours a day just like I can watch crap for 5 hours a day. It really bugs me when people say "TV rots your brain, you should read" because there is more crap to read than to watch. If I read People magazine, am I enriched? What about EGM? Or Sports Illustrated? What is the difference between reading these and watching ET, G4, or a sports game on TV?
TV is no better or worse a medium than reading. There is a majority of crap in both mediums, you just have to find the stuff that is good.
Personally, the person caught recording the movie should be, at a minimum, subject to a fine, maybe jail if it wasn't a first offense. The real problem I have is that big business has made it so a single person (that is not making a profit, and that is a big part of my opinion) can be prosecuted and sent to jail.
While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to strongly disagree about whether it should matter if the person is making a profit from something. If something is illegal, it is illegal. It shouldn't matter whether they made a profit or not. If I defraud someone, but then give all the money I took from them and give it to charity, should I get a lesser sentence? If I take GPL code and use it in my closed-source app, should I be able to get away with it because my app is freeware? If it is a big enough offense to be illegal (and I don't want to argue whether any specific offense should be illegal, just in general), then it should be illegal for people profiting and those not profiting, since the illegal part is the action, not the money you make from the action.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family. While I agree celebs shouldn't be more important than non-celebs, I think we need to add a few to the list in the interest of fairness. Maybe Charlton Heston should be in there. Maybe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Larry King should be there (because really, they are just celebs just like Stern). Maybe we should add Arnold Swartzeneger in there.
I find it finny that everyone always points out the "liberal" celebs who talk about politics, but when it's a conservative celeb, suddenly we should listen. Arnold has no more place in office than Fonda or Striesand.
While I agree that Clear Channel has every right to play who they want (or not play who they want), this is not a case of them not liking Howard Stern. They have stated the only reason they are taking Stren off their stations is the stance the FCC is taking in matters of "decency". The new fines being talked about include possible loss of license, which is what CC is worried about. If they had a moral epiphany and decided Stern was too dirty for their liking and they didn't want to distribute such programs, I would be completely behind their right to choose that. But they are being bullied and blackmailed by the possible consequences, not making a decision on their own.
You are right, you can modify your X-Box however you want and it is legal. You can paint it, smash it, pee on it, and put a new chip in it and it is all perfectly legal. What you CANNOT do is put a chip containing code that MS owns and you have modified and have no right to use in there. Many people mistakenly believe the act of putting a new chip in their X-Box is illegal. It is not. It is the act of using code owned by MS that you have no right to use or modify that is illegal. If you can write your own BIOS for the chip and throw it in an X-Box and make it work, you are free and clear.
I'm not sure how you figure the document is mostly FUD. You state yourself they only compare the 2 in one situation. They point out valid shortcomings in OO while playing up their strengths. How exactly does this create Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt? It seems it's a standard marketing document (much like the rebuttal is) where the best points of the product you like are played up and the worst points of your competitor are played up. This is a far cry from FUD.
Personally, I'm glad you got flamed; you deserve it if you spoke out against HardOCP in this issue. As an Internet journalist and writer I think it's of extreme importance that everyone recognize that HardOCP is in the right in this matter according to the facts as they have been presented, and that Infinium Labs was appallingly wrong for doing what they did.
While I think Infinium labs is wrong, I have to completely disagree with the idea that this guy deserved to be flamed. While you stand up for HardOCP's rights, you encourage people to shout down this guy if they disagree. Why encourage him to think about his position and state it eliquently if you are just going to shout him down when he does so? HE has every right to state his opinion just as HardOCP does. Just as you have every right to disagree. But flaming is not disagreeing, it is badgering, shouting down, and harassing without any intelligent thought. And that is the last thing anyone should be encouraging.
We also have a crappy baseball team and a football team that is so far beyond crappy I don't know how to describe it. We are also famous for prosecuting a museum for showing art (Robert Maplethorp), being lame enough to relish in the fact he have the world's largest chicken dance, and a thriving race war going on. Add in our deserted downtown and police who love to kill minorities, and I would say you have named all the things we're infamous for.
Obviously you know nothing about this case. The music companies didn't make an extra buck from the price fixing this case was about. This case was about the music companies trying to keep big chain stores like Best Buy, Circuit City, and Target from selling CDs at or below cost as a way to get people into their store and spend money on other items. The music companies still sold the CDs to these place at the same price they do everywhere else, so they didn't make a single dollar on it.
As much as everyone is blasting the music companies on this, I actually support them on this case, because their goal was to keep the music stores, specifically the smaller mom and pop music stores, from being wiped out by the big chains. The suit didn't say $15 was too much for a CD, it said that the music companies can't stop places from selling the CDs at a loss to get people into their stores.
While I do support limited copyright, I also hate the idea of it. I dread the day that after 10 years any company can take any song they want and use it in a commercial. What if you don't want your music used to advertise for beer? Too bad, it's been out 10 years and anyone can use it for anything? Don't want your song used to promote the latest anti-drug movement or the latest candidate you don't like? Sorry, your copyright has run out. Things like that make me think maybe copyright should be X years of the life of the artist, whichever is longer. At least that way you don't have to see your own work perverted.
I would agree if this was just about things on boxes sitting on shelves next to each other. But when a non-computer person goes to by a computer, and the salesperson says "And it comes with Lindows" there is a decent chance they won't catch the difference. Lindows is aiming for non-computers users, with a look and feel like Windows. There is a good chance for confusion, which is what the lawsuit is about.
While this is true, there is another side of this equation that often gets left out. If you are a non-programmer using the software, you still must wait for an official patch, or trust that some random guy made a good patch that doesn't break anything else and doesn't contain any nasties in it. While it is true that anyone can patch the code, the majority of users are non-programmers, so that doesn't mean anything to them. OSS often talks about such incredinly short fix times, but often it's because "Hacker0123" came up with a patch that is linked to on the SecurityFocus website. for the average non-programmer, there still isn't a fix, because it isn't officially out somewhere where they can find it, and it hasn't been tested and approved by someone they trust.
I had to do this just last year at the company I work for. They wanted me to sign a "we own everything you create in and out of work" agreement. I naturally balked at this. I simply asked them to change it to they own anything created on company time or directly related to the company (to cover them in case I made something extremely similar to what they are making at the same time). I had to explain why I wanted this to the HR person (to which I simply explained that I have a web page, and the way it was written, they could make me alter anything up to and including my personal web site just because they didn't like what it said, even if it was not related to work). They had no problem with my revision and made the changes and I signed the form.
That said, if they refuse to make reasonable changes, you probably don't want to work there. It sets a precedent that they feel they own you and you will do as they like or else, and that is a very bad precedent to have set before you even start working there. If they feel that way now, what will they be like once you are actually their employee and have signed the agreement?
Which leaves you in the same place. What do you do with your unsupported AAC files when iTunes dies? If the vendor dies, your files will work on the systems they currently work on, but no new systems. Which means you better home your hard drive doesn't die. iTunes and Napster are in the same boat as far as DRM, but since iTunes is/. favorite, most people tend to overlook their DRM, even when it leaves you in the same place as all the others.
Of course this will still be useful at catching small time drug dealers/users, and is another example of the drug war eating away at civil liberties.
While it is true that some people will be able to get around this, how exactly is it a lessening of civil liberties? Letting law enforcement agencies tap a phone with proper judicial oversight in no way lessens civil liberties. This isn't like removing judicial oversight for wiretaps, this is continuing to use wiretaps in legitimate circumstance, with oversight, and adapting to the newest technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget the the legal technicalities, let's talk common sense. When people sign up for iTunes, they agree to the restrictions on what they are buying. It's not like the restrictions or horribly onerous, or are constantly changing. So why should I feel sorry for people who pay money for these files, knowing the restrictions, and then complain about the restrictions. If you pay money for something that you know has restrictions, you can't later bitch about the same restrictions, since you alreayd agreed they were fine. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the songs to begin with.
I have a hard time having sympathy for someone who knowingly buys something he knows he can't use, and then complains about it. Everyone knows you can only use music from iTunes on an iPod, and only on Windows and OSX (I belive, I could be wrong about the last part). If you still knowingly purchase something, knowing beforehand that you can't use it, you don't deserve any sympathy. If you want music that will work with your choice of portables, make sure you buy something that works with that portable.
If you knowingly buy something that won't work for you, you give up all rights to later complain that it doesn't work based simply on your own stupidity.
While I see a lot of good stuff staying (TSS, G4TV.com, Icons, X-Ply, I see some things that I just can't figure out.
They kept the fucking Thunderbirds?? The Thunderbirds??? I have never talked to anyone who actually watched this show, much less enjoyed it. Same thing with Portal and Cheat.
They should definitely tone down the G4 contribution, as that was by far the weaker channel. And they need to keep the hosts as is if at all possible. I like Leo, but he was a much better fit for Call for Help than the Screen Savers. He is better with the lower knowledge crowd, and TSS was moving towarda a geekier crowd.
The incentive for Sony is that it greatly simplifies support calls. Instead of going through steps to diagnose the problem, they simply tell the user to put in the "repair CD" and reimage the drive back to a working state. They can get people off the phone in no time with this tactic. That is why they are doing it, since other OEM do not have this restriction.
And if this is the case (which I highly doubt), where is the problem? I don't feel bad for people who pirate software and then complain when they get caught. If I steal a car and then there is a recall on it, should I be able to take my car in and get it fixed without anyone saying anything about it being stolen? The problem is that people are stealing MS software (and yes, taking something you have no rights to is stealing, whether it's software or hardware). MS isn't to blame for not supporting these people, they are to blame for stealing the software.
If you buy a full version, you have all these rights. What people fail to realize is they get an OEM copy of the OS with a new system. It is much cheaper than a full version, but also has 1 added restriction, it can only be (legally) run on that machine. If you want the full version, pay for the full version. If you only pay for a limited version (which is esentially what the OEM version is) then don't complain because you don't get the rights of the full version.
And before you say it, Sony has chosen to make it so you can only install the OS on a Sony machine, not MS. So the fact you can't install the OS on VMWare on the machine it came on is the fault of Sony, not MS.
Why exactly is this a good idea? Why can't they just use what they think is best for the job without trying to push what they like on everyone else? I certainly don't want to see a sign everywhere that says "We use MS Windows, the leader in PC operating systems because it is the best for our job. It does everything we need it to, and does it well."
The library is not there to push your pet OS. If they use it, that's great. It's not their job to convince other people to use it anymore than it is to convince people who use Linux to use Windows.
My first thought of videogames as art is always Max Payne. It is the closest I have seen yet to a movie style of game. Yes, there is action you control, but there is a very specific story that is being told. It evokes emotions like no game I've seen (the level in MP2 in the abandoned amusement park still keeps me on the edge of my seat). It is the closest thing to an interactive movie that I've seen yet.
Yes, I see something wrong (if this is true), but it's not with the punishment for copying software. People often use these type of statistics to say that the punshment for copyright violation is too harsh, but what they really show is the punishment for rape is too low, which really has nothing to do with the conversation.
while I agree it will be very hard for them to tell who exactly downloaded the files (unless there are proxy logs kept) they idea of exempting schools from the law is ludicrous. While I agree schools are not for politics or pushing agendas, they are also not for committing intellectual property theft. They are also not for pushing the idea that "information wants to be free, so you should be able to take it".
Why is reading more enriching than TV? I can sit down and read complete crap for 5 hours a day just like I can watch crap for 5 hours a day. It really bugs me when people say "TV rots your brain, you should read" because there is more crap to read than to watch. If I read People magazine, am I enriched? What about EGM? Or Sports Illustrated? What is the difference between reading these and watching ET, G4, or a sports game on TV?
TV is no better or worse a medium than reading. There is a majority of crap in both mediums, you just have to find the stuff that is good.
Personally, the person caught recording the movie should be, at a minimum, subject to a fine, maybe jail if it wasn't a first offense. The real problem I have is that big business has made it so a single person (that is not making a profit, and that is a big part of my opinion) can be prosecuted and sent to jail.
While I agree with your general sentiment, I have to strongly disagree about whether it should matter if the person is making a profit from something. If something is illegal, it is illegal. It shouldn't matter whether they made a profit or not. If I defraud someone, but then give all the money I took from them and give it to charity, should I get a lesser sentence? If I take GPL code and use it in my closed-source app, should I be able to get away with it because my app is freeware? If it is a big enough offense to be illegal (and I don't want to argue whether any specific offense should be illegal, just in general), then it should be illegal for people profiting and those not profiting, since the illegal part is the action, not the money you make from the action.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
While I agree celebs shouldn't be more important than non-celebs, I think we need to add a few to the list in the interest of fairness. Maybe Charlton Heston should be in there. Maybe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Larry King should be there (because really, they are just celebs just like Stern). Maybe we should add Arnold Swartzeneger in there.
I find it finny that everyone always points out the "liberal" celebs who talk about politics, but when it's a conservative celeb, suddenly we should listen. Arnold has no more place in office than Fonda or Striesand.
While I agree that Clear Channel has every right to play who they want (or not play who they want), this is not a case of them not liking Howard Stern. They have stated the only reason they are taking Stren off their stations is the stance the FCC is taking in matters of "decency". The new fines being talked about include possible loss of license, which is what CC is worried about. If they had a moral epiphany and decided Stern was too dirty for their liking and they didn't want to distribute such programs, I would be completely behind their right to choose that. But they are being bullied and blackmailed by the possible consequences, not making a decision on their own.
You are right, you can modify your X-Box however you want and it is legal. You can paint it, smash it, pee on it, and put a new chip in it and it is all perfectly legal. What you CANNOT do is put a chip containing code that MS owns and you have modified and have no right to use in there. Many people mistakenly believe the act of putting a new chip in their X-Box is illegal. It is not. It is the act of using code owned by MS that you have no right to use or modify that is illegal. If you can write your own BIOS for the chip and throw it in an X-Box and make it work, you are free and clear.
I'm not sure how you figure the document is mostly FUD. You state yourself they only compare the 2 in one situation. They point out valid shortcomings in OO while playing up their strengths. How exactly does this create Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt? It seems it's a standard marketing document (much like the rebuttal is) where the best points of the product you like are played up and the worst points of your competitor are played up. This is a far cry from FUD.
Personally, I'm glad you got flamed; you deserve it if you spoke out against HardOCP in this issue. As an Internet journalist and writer I think it's of extreme importance that everyone recognize that HardOCP is in the right in this matter according to the facts as they have been presented, and that Infinium Labs was appallingly wrong for doing what they did.
While I think Infinium labs is wrong, I have to completely disagree with the idea that this guy deserved to be flamed. While you stand up for HardOCP's rights, you encourage people to shout down this guy if they disagree. Why encourage him to think about his position and state it eliquently if you are just going to shout him down when he does so? HE has every right to state his opinion just as HardOCP does. Just as you have every right to disagree. But flaming is not disagreeing, it is badgering, shouting down, and harassing without any intelligent thought. And that is the last thing anyone should be encouraging.
Hey now that isn't fair!
We also have a crappy baseball team and a football team that is so far beyond crappy I don't know how to describe it. We are also famous for prosecuting a museum for showing art (Robert Maplethorp), being lame enough to relish in the fact he have the world's largest chicken dance, and a thriving race war going on. Add in our deserted downtown and police who love to kill minorities, and I would say you have named all the things we're infamous for.
Obviously you know nothing about this case. The music companies didn't make an extra buck from the price fixing this case was about. This case was about the music companies trying to keep big chain stores like Best Buy, Circuit City, and Target from selling CDs at or below cost as a way to get people into their store and spend money on other items. The music companies still sold the CDs to these place at the same price they do everywhere else, so they didn't make a single dollar on it.
As much as everyone is blasting the music companies on this, I actually support them on this case, because their goal was to keep the music stores, specifically the smaller mom and pop music stores, from being wiped out by the big chains. The suit didn't say $15 was too much for a CD, it said that the music companies can't stop places from selling the CDs at a loss to get people into their stores.
While I do support limited copyright, I also hate the idea of it. I dread the day that after 10 years any company can take any song they want and use it in a commercial. What if you don't want your music used to advertise for beer? Too bad, it's been out 10 years and anyone can use it for anything? Don't want your song used to promote the latest anti-drug movement or the latest candidate you don't like? Sorry, your copyright has run out. Things like that make me think maybe copyright should be X years of the life of the artist, whichever is longer. At least that way you don't have to see your own work perverted.
I would agree if this was just about things on boxes sitting on shelves next to each other. But when a non-computer person goes to by a computer, and the salesperson says "And it comes with Lindows" there is a decent chance they won't catch the difference. Lindows is aiming for non-computers users, with a look and feel like Windows. There is a good chance for confusion, which is what the lawsuit is about.
While this is true, there is another side of this equation that often gets left out. If you are a non-programmer using the software, you still must wait for an official patch, or trust that some random guy made a good patch that doesn't break anything else and doesn't contain any nasties in it. While it is true that anyone can patch the code, the majority of users are non-programmers, so that doesn't mean anything to them. OSS often talks about such incredinly short fix times, but often it's because "Hacker0123" came up with a patch that is linked to on the SecurityFocus website. for the average non-programmer, there still isn't a fix, because it isn't officially out somewhere where they can find it, and it hasn't been tested and approved by someone they trust.
I had to do this just last year at the company I work for. They wanted me to sign a "we own everything you create in and out of work" agreement. I naturally balked at this. I simply asked them to change it to they own anything created on company time or directly related to the company (to cover them in case I made something extremely similar to what they are making at the same time). I had to explain why I wanted this to the HR person (to which I simply explained that I have a web page, and the way it was written, they could make me alter anything up to and including my personal web site just because they didn't like what it said, even if it was not related to work). They had no problem with my revision and made the changes and I signed the form.
That said, if they refuse to make reasonable changes, you probably don't want to work there. It sets a precedent that they feel they own you and you will do as they like or else, and that is a very bad precedent to have set before you even start working there. If they feel that way now, what will they be like once you are actually their employee and have signed the agreement?
Which leaves you in the same place. What do you do with your unsupported AAC files when iTunes dies? If the vendor dies, your files will work on the systems they currently work on, but no new systems. Which means you better home your hard drive doesn't die. iTunes and Napster are in the same boat as far as DRM, but since iTunes is /. favorite, most people tend to overlook their DRM, even when it leaves you in the same place as all the others.
Of course this will still be useful at catching small time drug dealers/users, and is another example of the drug war eating away at civil liberties.
While it is true that some people will be able to get around this, how exactly is it a lessening of civil liberties? Letting law enforcement agencies tap a phone with proper judicial oversight in no way lessens civil liberties. This isn't like removing judicial oversight for wiretaps, this is continuing to use wiretaps in legitimate circumstance, with oversight, and adapting to the newest technology.