you know what would be even better? if we had sane copyright durations... then these games and their source code would now be in the public domain. and available for free or just the price of media (discs, not the presstitutes).
thankfully, the authors had a limited time to benefit monetarily. now we get all that was offered to us through the copyright agreement...
the only games that got ad advertising right are games that have zero ads in them.
if a game has ads in it, i will assume it's available for free, since nothing else could offset the utter anger and disgust that will come out of gamers.
if game = ads, then game = free.
there's no middle ground for me. if i pay 50 bucks, i expect no ads whatsoever.
and in what way does modifying your cell phone or console physically harm other people like it would if you "modified" your car or land? even those are bad examples because much of it artificial and does nothing except raise taxes and revenue for the city.
if you want to lose more freedom, then do nothing. take your examples and keep allowing companies and govt to add to that list of things you cannot own.
you quit buying physical discs. but itunes gets their music from the RIAA cartel. so every RIAA itunes track you purchase, you put money into the DRM system and the RIAA's coffers.
how does locking up your dvd player into regions or preventing you skipping commercials on your bought dvd movies, property under copyright laws?
how does locking up the processors and storage in your consoles, protecting property in copyright laws?
how does installing DRM-crippled OSX on a non-apple computer constitute "theft" under copyright laws?
i want my products unencumbered and i want the law to make sure greedy scumbags can't set up a business to prevent people from owning their own property. so i want it to be illegal to have DRM. DRM is for renting, if you want to go that far... when you SELL products, it is not renting, it's selling. and i expect to have full access not artificially restricted (concentrate on that word artificial before you reference some analogy that won't work...).
and thief and lock analogy doesn't work in this case. the thief can actually remove your entire item aka stealing. copyright infringement isn't removing the absolute product, it's making a copy. even under the law it's not called stealing except by people who don't know better and copyright cartel shills. the reason that analogy doesn't work is because first, the thief in your example didn't pay for your house/car and didn't buy the right to use it. second, the thief can physically remove the object thus rendering it not available to anyone else.
when you or anyone else buys a copyrighted item, you expect to be able to use it... DRM prevents use. therefore under copyright law, if the author prevents use of purchased item... does that break the agreement or not?
if timeshifting is legal... for which you don't even pay for... then clearly that "property" isn't as solid as you think it is. i want to prevent companies from denying customers their lawful property rights.
just because your lousy business model only works if you deny customers their property, does not mean it's legal or moral. customers have every right to take back what is their property. (since physical devices often come with software in firmware, they claim copyright "protection" for the whole device as well... like consoles for example.)
even in the example you gave above... buying a dvd and showing it to an audience... what constitutes an audience? does your immediate family? your extended family? friends?
so where do you draw the line? perhaps this is only an exception but what about unlocking your cell phone? unlocking software so that it runs on any hardware? where do you think the ownership lies there?
so yeah, in this world where everyone and everything is in the favor of "content producers"... i am fighting for the customers/users rights. the rights with which they bargained for by making copyright a law in the first place. incompetent judges/legislators and shills/lobbyists have broken the contract. it's so broken that i cannot even begin to fathom why people think it's ok to go on like this.
copyright is a public contract/license to authors, not a property right. it is not in any sense property. ideas and ephemereal entities cannot be owned or contained except artificially. but by distributing it publicly, then you've even lost that.
don't renege on your responsibilities, authors. or you may see people abolish copyright all together (which is a good idea). you keep stretching the laws/boundaries to your favor... well a rubberband can only stretch so far before it gives or breaks. so don't fuck with the public and customers' rights or you'll regret it.
give us honest and uncrippled products and we'll happilly give you our money. but if you screw us, we'll find ways to rectify the situation.
if a product contains any form of DRM they forfeit their copyright.
copyright laws PROTECT the authors. so they can't have it both ways.
if you want the protection of copyright, that by definition means you cannot encumber your product. the customer who purchases it has the right to use it any way they wish, short of distribution. if you interfere with that right, it means that you DO NOT abide by copyright law. hence you give up the copyright privileges you enjoy.
DRM and Copyright can NOT coexist. one infringes on the rights of the customer to do with what they wish with the product.
there are no licenses with regards to copyrighted materials. your MONEY buys you the right to use it, not words on a piece of paper (usually seen after the box has been opened) called a "EULA".
a EULA is not valid, no matter how much the software and copyright cartels proclaim. you are selling a copy... SELLING a COPY!. when you sell a copy, the customer has the right to use that copy any way they wish, short of distributing it. you infringe on that, then people have a right to assume you do not want to abide by the laws of copyright.
courts are manned by incompetent judges who don't understand the concepts of copyright or computer software related issues. and legislators are even more incompetent and "bought".
i don't hold out ANY hope that we will get a "power that be" to hold up the other end of the copyright agreement. they keep piling it on in favor of the "content authors", which i call compilers (knowledge/information is neither created nor destroyed, merely recompiled). all of this belongs in the public domain by default. copyright is an unnatural law that hopes to make compilers release more works in return for a small period of exclusivity (monopoly) so that they can benefit monetarily from it, hence ENCOURAGING new releases...
copyright doesn't give the compilers the right to restrict how a copyrighted item/product is used, except distribution (which i needn't mention, it's in the law). when they use DRM and Insidious Computing to prevent LAWFUL uses, they break their side of the agreement and in my estimation, gives the public the right to break the DRM and use the copy as a public domain entity.
DRM and Copyright are mutually exclusive therefore as you can see.
DRM breaks the compiles side of the agreement. or "contract" if you will...
as far as i'm concerned, they brought this mess on themselves.
RMS = the right to read.... it keeps coming more true every day.
software compilers? you need to register with the central authority to even posses one.
hardware with analog outputs? those have been made illegal in 2020.
these and more things are coming... your actions now will determine if they do or not.
the number one step to countering this is education.
tell your family and friends, in a casual and non-coercive way what Insidious Computing and DRM (Draconian Restriction Management) is really all about. tell them that those shiny gadgets, cell phones and consoles are all about preventing the real owner of said property from making full use of them. tell them about how those locked-down and crippled devices can be made to do so much more but those greedy cartels don't want people to own their property but merely rent them but still get the right to call it selling. unless your device is leased or rented, you have EVERY RIGHT to use it in any way you wish and any technical means to prevent you is AGAINST THE LAW.
and no, copyright is not property. if it were, it wouldn't have a time limit so don't let any shills, online or in the media distract you from the real meat of the issue.
the way i see it... if they don't make copyright and related issues reasonable and limited in duration and scope, the people have a right to take it in their own hands. copyright wasn't intended to last longer than the heat-death of the universe. and the DMCA is like DRM for t
but this just means that going into the future, more and more software will become like STEAM - all control in the hands of the vendor and none in the customer.
if the program is located on the web... they can change any features on a whim, deny you access for any reason they choose, record every keystroke, record which features you use, how long you use, etc etc.
personally, i'd rather never go down that path. taking control out of the hands of users/customers is a very bad thing indeed. and it's also the software industry's (and mostly microsoft's) wet dream. they could (and do right now) every sinister thing imaginable.
that's what happens when you don't control something; someone else does.
no thanks google. unless you make it available offline.
but the good news is that for 1500 bucks you can build a nearly top of the line gaming system.
and in 2 years when you want to upgrade, for 6-700 bucks you can upgrade to the then high performance system.
that's one of the reasons i prefer x86 systems. you cannot buy off the shelf mac cpus and motherboards. and you're tied to apple's prices. a good OS doesn't make up for these shortcomings. that and gaming is virtually a windows-only thing.
"get a console" i hear you say.
not in good conscience, i reply.
i cannot in good faith buy a device that i cannot fully access (crippled with DRM and Insidious Computing).
if and when gaming on windows becomes as crippled as consoles, i just might have to give up gaming... sad it will be... maybe it'll be time for me to move out of the "so called basement" by then.
anyway, the PC is far superior to consoles in every way possible save installation and compatibility. pc games are also cheaper at launch (i just saw a new game, black and white 2 for sale at 37 bucks) whereas to this day halo 1 for the xbox is still 20 bucks. the halo pc version now costs like 10 dollars less than 2 years later whereas it debuted for 35.
so you have cheaper hardware on consoles (barring the obscene prices for next gen consoles) but games on the pc start off lower and drop in price much much more quickly than console games.
in the end, pc gaming is only a tiny bit more expensive or on par. and a computer is far FAR more useful and versatile. that and for the time being, it is free from Digital Handcuffs and you can truly access and own your property.
i haven't even touched upon how pc hardware is significantly faster... even more so by the time the next gen arrive. even these pumped up next gen systems don't have textures as sharp and detailed as what you'd get on a decent gaming pc.
"it's all about the games"....
true... but you don't see companies still making ps1 games or dreamcast games. those systems are still very capable.
no, to say that gfx aren't important would mean we would still be on a lot older hardware. current consoles can do absolutely everything next gen can do except for a few extra special effects.
enough of my tirade. back to your regularly scheduled propoganda.
mpeg2 hasn't been a problem for cpus since the days of the 300mhz chips.
if you mean high def mpeg2 (1280x720 and above) though, you're right that current cpus can play it more than easily.
on a 2ghz a64, it doesn't take more than 40% of the cpu time.
AVC or mpeg4 part 10 is ridiculously overtaxing on cpus. and apple's quicketime7 is horrendously slow at playing them back (on x86 windows). try mplayer or VLC, they're far more smooth and take up a lot less cpu for the same content. though 1080 files won't play without stutters on a 2ghz a64... it will on a 2.5ghz a64 and above though.
another win for FOSS. (pun not intended). maybe i should say another victory for FOSS.
this is the same bullshit they used against web radio and broadcasters.
even if they were broadcasting ORIGINAL music, they still have to pay the RIAA. (or some copyright cartel front group).
no music has fallen back into the public domain in over a century and even if some do (like some of elvis' songs in Europe) they won't allow people in other countries to obtain that music.
a big F U to the aholes in the RIAA/MPAA/Software cartels.
that right there tells you that you don't buy the music or EVEN the "license" to use it.
everything you get is by beneficence of the RIAA and copyright cartels.
just be glad they encode the music such that it is audible by human beings. cause you know, it's THEIR music and your money doesn't buy you the privilege of its use.
i just love respecting copyrights and the cartels that love them.
Slashdot Mirror
you know what would be even better? if we had sane copyright durations... then these games and their source code would now be in the public domain. and available for free or just the price of media (discs, not the presstitutes).
thankfully, the authors had a limited time to benefit monetarily. now we get all that was offered to us through the copyright agreement...
oh wait...
the only games that got ad advertising right are games that have zero ads in them.
if a game has ads in it, i will assume it's available for free, since nothing else could offset the utter anger and disgust that will come out of gamers.
if game = ads, then game = free.
there's no middle ground for me. if i pay 50 bucks, i expect no ads whatsoever.
yeah don't sign up right away.
wait a while, like say 50 years or so.
let the bugs be worked out.
and in what way does modifying your cell phone or console physically harm other people like it would if you "modified" your car or land? even those are bad examples because much of it artificial and does nothing except raise taxes and revenue for the city.
if you want to lose more freedom, then do nothing. take your examples and keep allowing companies and govt to add to that list of things you cannot own.
you quit buying physical discs. but itunes gets their music from the RIAA cartel. so every RIAA itunes track you purchase, you put money into the DRM system and the RIAA's coffers.
unless you only buy "independant" tracks...
short of distribution, yes.
how does locking up your dvd player into regions or preventing you skipping commercials on your bought dvd movies, property under copyright laws?
how does locking up the processors and storage in your consoles, protecting property in copyright laws?
how does installing DRM-crippled OSX on a non-apple computer constitute "theft" under copyright laws?
i want my products unencumbered and i want the law to make sure greedy scumbags can't set up a business to prevent people from owning their own property. so i want it to be illegal to have DRM. DRM is for renting, if you want to go that far... when you SELL products, it is not renting, it's selling. and i expect to have full access not artificially restricted (concentrate on that word artificial before you reference some analogy that won't work...).
and thief and lock analogy doesn't work in this case. the thief can actually remove your entire item aka stealing. copyright infringement isn't removing the absolute product, it's making a copy. even under the law it's not called stealing except by people who don't know better and copyright cartel shills. the reason that analogy doesn't work is because first, the thief in your example didn't pay for your house/car and didn't buy the right to use it. second, the thief can physically remove the object thus rendering it not available to anyone else.
when you or anyone else buys a copyrighted item, you expect to be able to use it... DRM prevents use. therefore under copyright law, if the author prevents use of purchased item... does that break the agreement or not?
if timeshifting is legal... for which you don't even pay for... then clearly that "property" isn't as solid as you think it is. i want to prevent companies from denying customers their lawful property rights.
just because your lousy business model only works if you deny customers their property, does not mean it's legal or moral. customers have every right to take back what is their property. (since physical devices often come with software in firmware, they claim copyright "protection" for the whole device as well... like consoles for example.)
even in the example you gave above... buying a dvd and showing it to an audience... what constitutes an audience? does your immediate family? your extended family? friends?
so where do you draw the line? perhaps this is only an exception but what about unlocking your cell phone? unlocking software so that it runs on any hardware? where do you think the ownership lies there?
so yeah, in this world where everyone and everything is in the favor of "content producers"... i am fighting for the customers/users rights. the rights with which they bargained for by making copyright a law in the first place. incompetent judges/legislators and shills/lobbyists have broken the contract. it's so broken that i cannot even begin to fathom why people think it's ok to go on like this.
copyright is a public contract/license to authors, not a property right. it is not in any sense property. ideas and ephemereal entities cannot be owned or contained except artificially. but by distributing it publicly, then you've even lost that.
don't renege on your responsibilities, authors. or you may see people abolish copyright all together (which is a good idea). you keep stretching the laws/boundaries to your favor... well a rubberband can only stretch so far before it gives or breaks. so don't fuck with the public and customers' rights or you'll regret it.
give us honest and uncrippled products and we'll happilly give you our money. but if you screw us, we'll find ways to rectify the situation.
DRM and copyright are mutually exclusive.
if a product contains any form of DRM they forfeit their copyright.
copyright laws PROTECT the authors. so they can't have it both ways.
if you want the protection of copyright, that by definition means you cannot encumber your product. the customer who purchases it has the right to use it any way they wish, short of distribution. if you interfere with that right, it means that you DO NOT abide by copyright law. hence you give up the copyright privileges you enjoy.
DRM and Copyright can NOT coexist. one infringes on the rights of the customer to do with what they wish with the product.
there are no licenses with regards to copyrighted materials. your MONEY buys you the right to use it, not words on a piece of paper (usually seen after the box has been opened) called a "EULA".
a EULA is not valid, no matter how much the software and copyright cartels proclaim. you are selling a copy... SELLING a COPY!. when you sell a copy, the customer has the right to use that copy any way they wish, short of distributing it. you infringe on that, then people have a right to assume you do not want to abide by the laws of copyright.
courts are manned by incompetent judges who don't understand the concepts of copyright or computer software related issues. and legislators are even more incompetent and "bought".
i don't hold out ANY hope that we will get a "power that be" to hold up the other end of the copyright agreement. they keep piling it on in favor of the "content authors", which i call compilers (knowledge/information is neither created nor destroyed, merely recompiled). all of this belongs in the public domain by default. copyright is an unnatural law that hopes to make compilers release more works in return for a small period of exclusivity (monopoly) so that they can benefit monetarily from it, hence ENCOURAGING new releases...
copyright doesn't give the compilers the right to restrict how a copyrighted item/product is used, except distribution (which i needn't mention, it's in the law). when they use DRM and Insidious Computing to prevent LAWFUL uses, they break their side of the agreement and in my estimation, gives the public the right to break the DRM and use the copy as a public domain entity.
DRM and Copyright are mutually exclusive therefore as you can see.
DRM breaks the compiles side of the agreement. or "contract" if you will...
as far as i'm concerned, they brought this mess on themselves.
RMS = the right to read.... it keeps coming more true every day.
software compilers? you need to register with the central authority to even posses one.
hardware with analog outputs? those have been made illegal in 2020.
these and more things are coming... your actions now will determine if they do or not.
the number one step to countering this is education.
tell your family and friends, in a casual and non-coercive way what Insidious Computing and DRM (Draconian Restriction Management) is really all about. tell them that those shiny gadgets, cell phones and consoles are all about preventing the real owner of said property from making full use of them. tell them about how those locked-down and crippled devices can be made to do so much more but those greedy cartels don't want people to own their property but merely rent them but still get the right to call it selling. unless your device is leased or rented, you have EVERY RIGHT to use it in any way you wish and any technical means to prevent you is AGAINST THE LAW.
and no, copyright is not property. if it were, it wouldn't have a time limit so don't let any shills, online or in the media distract you from the real meat of the issue.
the way i see it... if they don't make copyright and related issues reasonable and limited in duration and scope, the people have a right to take it in their own hands. copyright wasn't intended to last longer than the heat-death of the universe. and the DMCA is like DRM for t
thing is a red herring.
l ed-law-firm-repeat_b_8277.html
N ews&file=article&sid=2835
/ 002383.html
it has nothing to do with software.
she's the person who helped wipe bush's national guard records.
it's called cronyism. just about everyone in the current administration is there because of donating to the GOP or is a close friend of the bushs.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10042005.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/miers-
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives
just some interesting links.
but this just means that going into the future, more and more software will become like STEAM - all control in the hands of the vendor and none in the customer.
if the program is located on the web... they can change any features on a whim, deny you access for any reason they choose, record every keystroke, record which features you use, how long you use, etc etc.
personally, i'd rather never go down that path. taking control out of the hands of users/customers is a very bad thing indeed. and it's also the software industry's (and mostly microsoft's) wet dream. they could (and do right now) every sinister thing imaginable.
that's what happens when you don't control something; someone else does.
no thanks google. unless you make it available offline.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096446/
hmmm.
i'm pretty sure he wasn't a geek or a nerd.
but you never know.
luckily for us slashdotters, that will never come to pass.
phew. almost had me worried.
as the old saying goes:
it takes one to know one.
yes, yes it could.
and secure windows would have the benefit of not using up any electricity, since the computer wouldn't be turned on.
so it's a win-win situation (pun intended).
it's funny cause it's true. :-)
i always found "choose your country" video cards quite capable and good value for the money.
but the good news is that for 1500 bucks you can build a nearly top of the line gaming system.
and in 2 years when you want to upgrade, for 6-700 bucks you can upgrade to the then high performance system.
that's one of the reasons i prefer x86 systems. you cannot buy off the shelf mac cpus and motherboards. and you're tied to apple's prices. a good OS doesn't make up for these shortcomings. that and gaming is virtually a windows-only thing.
"get a console" i hear you say.
not in good conscience, i reply.
i cannot in good faith buy a device that i cannot fully access (crippled with DRM and Insidious Computing).
if and when gaming on windows becomes as crippled as consoles, i just might have to give up gaming... sad it will be... maybe it'll be time for me to move out of the "so called basement" by then.
anyway, the PC is far superior to consoles in every way possible save installation and compatibility. pc games are also cheaper at launch (i just saw a new game, black and white 2 for sale at 37 bucks) whereas to this day halo 1 for the xbox is still 20 bucks. the halo pc version now costs like 10 dollars less than 2 years later whereas it debuted for 35.
so you have cheaper hardware on consoles (barring the obscene prices for next gen consoles) but games on the pc start off lower and drop in price much much more quickly than console games.
in the end, pc gaming is only a tiny bit more expensive or on par. and a computer is far FAR more useful and versatile. that and for the time being, it is free from Digital Handcuffs and you can truly access and own your property.
i haven't even touched upon how pc hardware is significantly faster... even more so by the time the next gen arrive. even these pumped up next gen systems don't have textures as sharp and detailed as what you'd get on a decent gaming pc.
"it's all about the games"....
true... but you don't see companies still making ps1 games or dreamcast games. those systems are still very capable.
no, to say that gfx aren't important would mean we would still be on a lot older hardware. current consoles can do absolutely everything next gen can do except for a few extra special effects.
enough of my tirade. back to your regularly scheduled propoganda.
mpeg2 hasn't been a problem for cpus since the days of the 300mhz chips.
if you mean high def mpeg2 (1280x720 and above) though, you're right that current cpus can play it more than easily.
on a 2ghz a64, it doesn't take more than 40% of the cpu time.
AVC or mpeg4 part 10 is ridiculously overtaxing on cpus. and apple's quicketime7 is horrendously slow at playing them back (on x86 windows). try mplayer or VLC, they're far more smooth and take up a lot less cpu for the same content. though 1080 files won't play without stutters on a 2ghz a64... it will on a 2.5ghz a64 and above though.
another win for FOSS. (pun not intended). maybe i should say another victory for FOSS.
that certainly gives new meaning to "magic gate" technology.
a man's best friend is the grim reaper.
piece o' software?
how odd...
of Cthulu or the Cthulu mythos?
there's a difference...
this is the same bullshit they used against web radio and broadcasters.
even if they were broadcasting ORIGINAL music, they still have to pay the RIAA. (or some copyright cartel front group).
no music has fallen back into the public domain in over a century and even if some do (like some of elvis' songs in Europe) they won't allow people in other countries to obtain that music.
a big F U to the aholes in the RIAA/MPAA/Software cartels.
that right there tells you that you don't buy the music or EVEN the "license" to use it.
everything you get is by beneficence of the RIAA and copyright cartels.
just be glad they encode the music such that it is audible by human beings. cause you know, it's THEIR music and your money doesn't buy you the privilege of its use.
i just love respecting copyrights and the cartels that love them.
i respect copyright cartels, therefore i am.
sounds like LCDs have their own set of problems.
maybe in about 10 years they'll mature enough to replace CRTs completely.
i'll be waiting for that day but i'll continue to buy CRTs in the meantime.
ironic that people complain about winxp being ram hungry...
it runs just fine on 256m.
but no one serious about computing would have less than 1GB.