""Fair Use" does not mean "give a copy to a friend""
No shit. I didn't say that. I have a right to a back-up copy. You're suggesting that I have lost that right (through no court decision) because you've got some anecdotal evidence? The only thing that your "evidence" suggests is that you associate and converse with people who violate copyright.
I'm glad you've already convicted me of a crime because I don't enjoy re-purchasing movies and/or albums. That's really appreciated!
Yes, when they got called on it they fixed the problem. But why was the problem created? Because they are trying to stomp all over fair use. They want dvds that can be 1) watched but cannot be 2) backed up. It was only because they screwed up (1). If they could find a way to satisfy (1) and (2); they'd be happy. So obviously they don't support fair use.
I suppose you think Sony was doing a really great thing when they released that rootkit uninstaller too?
What does any of that have to do with the point I was making? I was talking about the fact that the sales history of the Dreamcast does not indicate that piracy was the downfall. Why did you reply?
"I think people need to make a distinction between "exclusive" and "coming out on one platform six months before being ported to another". They are not the same thing, and never have been. This notion of a "timed exclusive" is one of those either meaningless or wrongly-applied industry buzzwords that really needs to go. There is no such thing as a "timed exclusive" - a game is either exclusive or it isn't."
There is a difference between "exclusive" and "timed exclusive" (for lack of a better term) but I think your disregard for the difference between a timed exclusive and a multi-platform release is overstated. When GTA 3 was out exclusively for the PS2, with no mention of it coming out on Xbox, that was clearly a feather in Sony's cap.
"The only difference in GTA4's case is the simultaneous release. Losing six months of "exclusivity" isn't losing exclusivity, it's losing six months. Again, not the same."
People are impatient. Six months can mean a real difference given the right game. I agree that it's not the same as real exclusivity but I do think those exclusive windows can have a real impact.
"I'd say Sega slaughtered itself more than Sony did. The Dreamcast's lack of copy protection, while great for homebrew, made it a very easy target for software piracy."
Sure, that was a problem but look at the history of the Dreamcast. The hardware sold well for a short period of time and then numbers of consoles sold fell off. If your thesis was correct, shouldn't we expect to see a huge installed user base of the console coupled with poor sales of games?
That is not what took place. The Dreamcast sold well but then slumped badly after Sony promised the moon with the PS2. Even if you only look at the sales figures in a vacuum - a drop in hardware sales does not indicate, to me at least, a problem with widespread piracy. If anything, piracy should have helped to move more numbers of consoles.
"The claim is plausible, isn't it? That's enough."
No, it's not enough. The person I replied to was not saying that it was plausible or even just merely possible. He was stating that it was clearly the case that Verizon would be eventually licensing the patent to Vonage.
"Or are you willing to jump out on a limb and say there is no possible way Verizon could benefit, Mr. I see everything in black and white?"
Read in context. I was the one saying you can't make a definitive statement that it is in Verizon's best interest to license the patent.
"Well, for one, not everyone is in Vonages' area of service for landlines. Licensing to Vonage would at least let them reach out and touch millions more people, in an indirect way."
I was responding to the claim that it is more profitable to license to Vonage than to drive Vonage out of business. The fact that licensing might expand the customer base does nothing to prove that it is more profitable to license than to drive Vonage out of business. Starting your statement by saying, "Well, for one," seems to imply that you believe you've refuted my point. You did not.
"Of course, there's no proving that Vonage isn't wiping the floor with Verizon in it's own turf, which is probably more problematic for Verizon than any good which could come from licensing to Vonage."
"Because there is money in doing so. It's likely more profitable for Verizon to obtain royalties from Vonage then to have them take over their business."
Is it? Where's your proof of that? You said it's likely - I call shenanigans. Even if Verizon doesn't pursue VOIP service, Vonage's continued existence takes customers away from Verizon. It's not even a matter of Verizon making use of the patents they have, they could merely sit on them to keep a competitor out of the field. You haven't proven to me that Verizon would make more money through licensing than either driving competition out or using the technology themselves now that VOIP is a more established technology in the mind of the general public.
"Despite what you think company execs aren't vicious little monsters out to destroy everything that is not them. It is more profitable for them to charge large licensing fees to Vonage then to destroy them."
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. I came nowhere near saying that nonsense. My point was that your vague assertion that Verizon and Vonage are going to work this out is based on nothing and Verizon could very well be refusing to license the patent out simply because they don't want another competitor in the field. Prove otherwise instead of making up nonsense that I did not say.
"We are still in the deliberation stage. Verizon and Vonage can still reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial (at least better then one that may be arbitrary assigned by a judge)."
Your original "point" was something about how Verizon wouldn't risk the patent business by bringing the complaint to court. Not only has Verizon already done just that and brought the case to court, I don't even know that Verizon is primarily making money by exploiting problems in the patent system. Do you? You seem to have a lot to say about what Verizon is up to and what they are planning to do - please, enlighten everyone.
I especially enjoy how you cite no evidence. The poor grammar and spelling is just the cherry on top.
"Vonnage will look at its cost/risk analysis and decide that paying royalties to Verizon is much better then facing the risk of losing their business."
What makes you think Verizon is willing to license to Vonage?
"All this posturing is merely a game of trying to reach the minimum amount of royalties they have to incur."
Or it's a matter of Verizon trying to sue Vonage out of business.
"The patent business is to profitable to jeopardize by bringing an argument to court."
Huh? How do you think the injunction came into existence in the first place? Verizon has already taken the argument to court.
"Heck... the PS3 even uses standard USB drives for external storage, just like the XBox 360... what? you mean the 360 uses some proprietary storage? Shocker.:/"
Plugging a USB hard drive into the 360 works fine. Have you tried it?
"The MPAA likes to use it as a bogeyman, a sort of implied threat -- "hey, you may not like us, but we're better than having those monkeys in Congress do it" -- but I'm not sure if there's really any serious risk of it happening."
I think that getting the government involved in legislating what's decent and what's not is a terrible idea but after seeing the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" - I don't know how the process could be much more corrupt.
And yeah, I don't see the government actually getting involved anytime soon but the MPAA is doing a terrible job. Spitzer should look into that process first; when he was attorney general he was always grandstanding and proclaiming that he fought corruption in big business - where is he on this one?
"There are already restrictions on buying R rated movies, at least where I live, and the same goes for video games (Already)."
Where do you live? I know of no government regulation that makes the MPAA rating law. There may be pushback from the MPAA if the ratings are not enforced but the cops aren't going to be called.
"Boris Strugatskiy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_and_Boris_Str ugatsky) allows copying and reproduction of his works without royalties. He's a rare example of a writer who does not write only for money."
This has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue.
"I've played STALKER and it's absolutely not similar to HL2 or Doom."
Are you misunderstanding the article? No one is claiming that. The claim is that textures were infringed upon and used without permission of the artists.
"I don't deny that they may have 'borrowed' some models (probably, it was accidental)"
Why is it probable? You can't just make that claim without any evidence to back it up.
"but the game itself is absolutely NOT a rip-off from Doom/HL."
Perfect! I knew what you meant but it was Monday morning when I posted that so, you know...I had to be a jerk. I went to a public high school and was able to double up on classes in order to graduate at 16. I think that that is what these kids who think they get it should do. Too often smart kids get disillusioned and just sit in the back for four years making snide remarks and being bored. Instead of wasting that time they should work within the system to find something to do. I think parents should push for that and school administrators should facilitate it.
"There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds."
So if a student falls behind, he gets left behind. But the class is being taught at the rate of the slowest learner - how would the slowest learner ever be left behind? It appears you have contradicted yourself.
""to all the people that download music, if you think you are only hurting big companies you are wrong. There are two working people with families who no longer have jobs because of music piracy."
Adapt or die. Even if piracy wasn't a problem at all and everyone was honest, digital distribution is the future - not cd sales.
"For the zune to make a dent in iPod sales, it needed a compelling advantage, and "squirting" songs that expire after three days sure wasn't it."
I think the idea of sharing songs/media wirelessly via your digital music device is a good one. But Microsoft's model relies on Zune being a monopoly product where everyone has it. If they had approached it as an open standard where any player could share a song with another wireless-enabled player, to me at least, it seems like a nice little feature. I guess my point is that that feature seems like it has some merit but the execution sounds poor. (I am neither a Zune or iPod owner.)
I still see quite a few homebrew sites that cover the PSP. Yes, Sony has dropped the ball on this. But Sony is a terrible company and no one should buy anything from them. My statement wasn't that homebrew on the PSP is the cat's pajamas. I was refuting what the OP said regarding the lack of interest about the PSP on geek sites.
"I mean, I cant understand a geek site giving a fuck about it. It's an n-gage that cant make phone calls."
Really? I'll not argue with you over Slashdot can be considered a geek site anymore but certainly you can understand why a homebrew site might be interested in the PSP, can't you?
I did. Please don't assume I didn't because I disagree with you.
"False advertising is never acceptable."
Agreed.
"However, expecting enterprise class service for mass-market, commodity prices is unreasonable."
So expecting what they advertise is unreasonable? Good to know. What you've said is that ISPs should not be saying they are offering unlimited service but since they are, the consumer should know that they are lying and not expect the service promised. That is what I disagree with.
For a non-technical person, first of all, they do not know that their downloading habits may fall more in line with enterprise class service. All they know is that they bought unlimited service and they like to stream a lot of movies from Netflix. When they are shut off, you're saying that they are at fault. I disagree. Second of all, even if the user is a technical person and understands that their use pattern may not be what the ISP is expecting from their service level, I am expecting from the ISP what they promised in the agreement.
If I say I'm going to give you $2,000 for doing a jumping jack and you do it but I don't pay up, you're not in the wrong for expecting a large sum of money for something that isn't worth that much. I am at fault for promising something and then not delivering.
Now how about you...please, read what I said. [Yes, that kind of statement to read what you said is really obnoxious. I completely understood your point and was disagreeing with it.]
The simple fact is that you said, "On the other hand, if you know that the minimum plan won't meet your need, don't whine or subscribe then bitch about it. Go find a plan that will either through a competitor (if available) or via a business class service."; where the minimum plan is unlimited service. That meets my needs but I'm whining/bitching because the company lied. Apologist.
"The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway."
For some reason, I think the parent company of Interscope (surely you already know this based on your arrogant tone), has quite a bit of pull with regards to how their intellectual property is protected.
"The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention."
Yes, that's the amusing part of the story. The RIAA is so lawsuit-happy that they're not even taking the time to determine if the record company wants a property protected. That is indicative of a lot.
"Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad you've already convicted me of a crime because I don't enjoy re-purchasing movies and/or albums. That's really appreciated!
I suppose you think Sony was doing a really great thing when they released that rootkit uninstaller too?
What does any of that have to do with the point I was making? I was talking about the fact that the sales history of the Dreamcast does not indicate that piracy was the downfall. Why did you reply?
That is not what took place. The Dreamcast sold well but then slumped badly after Sony promised the moon with the PS2. Even if you only look at the sales figures in a vacuum - a drop in hardware sales does not indicate, to me at least, a problem with widespread piracy. If anything, piracy should have helped to move more numbers of consoles.
I especially enjoy how you cite no evidence. The poor grammar and spelling is just the cherry on top.
The 360 can use USB drives for external storage. You stated that the PS3 does this and implied that the 360 cannot. You spread false information.
And yeah, I don't see the government actually getting involved anytime soon but the MPAA is doing a terrible job. Spitzer should look into that process first; when he was attorney general he was always grandstanding and proclaiming that he fought corruption in big business - where is he on this one?
Apologize for your rude tone.
Perfect! I knew what you meant but it was Monday morning when I posted that so, you know...I had to be a jerk. I went to a public high school and was able to double up on classes in order to graduate at 16. I think that that is what these kids who think they get it should do. Too often smart kids get disillusioned and just sit in the back for four years making snide remarks and being bored. Instead of wasting that time they should work within the system to find something to do. I think parents should push for that and school administrators should facilitate it.
Nothing you said was relevant to that refutation.
For a non-technical person, first of all, they do not know that their downloading habits may fall more in line with enterprise class service. All they know is that they bought unlimited service and they like to stream a lot of movies from Netflix. When they are shut off, you're saying that they are at fault. I disagree. Second of all, even if the user is a technical person and understands that their use pattern may not be what the ISP is expecting from their service level, I am expecting from the ISP what they promised in the agreement.
If I say I'm going to give you $2,000 for doing a jumping jack and you do it but I don't pay up, you're not in the wrong for expecting a large sum of money for something that isn't worth that much. I am at fault for promising something and then not delivering.
Now how about you...please, read what I said. [Yes, that kind of statement to read what you said is really obnoxious. I completely understood your point and was disagreeing with it.]
The simple fact is that you said, "On the other hand, if you know that the minimum plan won't meet your need, don't whine or subscribe then bitch about it. Go find a plan that will either through a competitor (if available) or via a business class service."; where the minimum plan is unlimited service. That meets my needs but I'm whining/bitching because the company lied. Apologist.
It's not whining when you've been pulled in based on false advertising.