The guardian is losing money hand over first on its online operation. They might get 'it' but they haven't worked out how to turn 'it' into cash after over a decade of trying.
In America the price was more than a netbook but not game breakingly more, in Britain the worst version of the iPad will be twice as expensive as a netbook.
I've been hit twice in two weeks with attempted installs of trojans/fake anti-spyware just from visiting pages linked to from Slahsdot stories. Not amusing.
At approximately 250-500 miles, city-centre to city-centre train travel beats out both car and plane in terms of convenience. And that's not even with high speed rail, just regular intercity services.
I have seen HTML 5 demos, there's one with coloured balls moving around the screen on a black background reacting to the mouse. That takes up 90% of one core of my machine. I knocked up a similar program in Actionscript, it took up 5% of one core.
I did explicitly exclude subscription models from how to pay for games because not everyone wants to pay a on-going cost to play a game. I want to be able to buy a game now and still be able to play it in 1,2,5,10 years time without having to pony up more dough.
You're argument is akin to me going, "making murder legal would increase murders and decrease the numbers of alive people" and you saying, "but people can murder all ready, get with the times".
Yes, I analogised copyright infringement to murder. I went there.
The current copyright system works on the principle of selling something that people are forced to pay for when they don't need to...
Really? This is really your argument? What things are there that you're being forced to purchase?
And just to address the rest of your argument, the mime artist has explicitly chosen to give away their performance. Producers of digital works, for example computer games, don't have the option of private performances in your model, are you saying their only option is donation-ware?
I'm down with that, actually distributing the book gets all kind of capital concerns but actually producing the work can be done "for free" (note the air quotes there). On the other hand a AAA computer game requires massive up front investment before the finished work is produced (and then all the money for distribution post creation phase).
I was generally agreeing with them, I felt though that their statement was a touch hyperbolic. Plenty of works are produced for free now and they would still be in the future if copyright was to disappear (which is what the PP, for all their verbal stutter stepping, are proposing). I feel that the counter arguments to the Pirate Party's ridiculous copyright position must be moderate and consistent so I was combining a mild rebuke with a demonstration of the vast swathes of work that would be lost by adopting the PP's policies.
Is this same as burning it to the ground. Legalised non-commercial file sharing is so close to not having copyright you may as well come out and say it in an honest manner.
A Booker prize winning book requires one guy to spend his evenings for a year writing. A AAA computer game involves a hunderd people working full time for 3 years costing millions upon millions of dollars.
They are pretty much not comparable as a creative endeavor.
Lets not go down a silly goose route. Lots of people create works for the fun of creating works, without copyright there would still be creative works but:
There would not be the variety as certain types of creative works would be totally unfeasible to create.
People would not have the opportunity to make a living from their creative works thus limiting the number that a person could produce
Large corporation would be easily able to 'wait out' the little man to then exploit popular creative works (for T-shirt designs and other tat) as the Pirate party "commercial" copyright lasts only 5 years.
We'd move back to a system of patronage for large works which relies on the edification of donors for the creation of work.
Because I like new games that require a team of 100 and millions of dollars to produce?
Of course there is no a priori right to make money from an activity but what's the a priori right behind property laws (one man's property is another indigenous people's theft) or earning a wage for any job? Copyright has allowed us to move beyond the creative tyranny of patronage to an explosion of independent creation and allowing the investment of ridiculous sums of money into creative works.
Sure the setup we've got now is tilted incorrectly but the correct solution is reform not to burn the whole edifice to the ground.
In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the GP was in favour of Flash in terms of performance: saying that Flash isn't just 'smoother' but that it's significantly better.
The guardian is losing money hand over first on its online operation. They might get 'it' but they haven't worked out how to turn 'it' into cash after over a decade of trying.
Just want to add my own, this is stupid and anyone who's remotely impressed by this is stupid, post to the mass. This is stupid.
Bugger
In America the price was more than a netbook but not game breakingly more, in Britain the worst version of the iPad will be twice as expensive as a netbook.
Where is this attach rate myth coming from, last time I saw the PS3 and Wii attach rate were within 0.1 points of each other.
You don't have to use Adobe tools to develop Flash content, there a loads of opens source languages that can compile to Flash, HaXe for instance.
Thanks, I'll be here all night, try the shrimp.
I've been hit twice in two weeks with attempted installs of trojans/fake anti-spyware just from visiting pages linked to from Slahsdot stories. Not amusing.
I got an attempted ZBot install upon going to that page.
At approximately 250-500 miles, city-centre to city-centre train travel beats out both car and plane in terms of convenience. And that's not even with high speed rail, just regular intercity services.
I have seen HTML 5 demos, there's one with coloured balls moving around the screen on a black background reacting to the mouse. That takes up 90% of one core of my machine. I knocked up a similar program in Actionscript, it took up 5% of one core.
I did explicitly exclude subscription models from how to pay for games because not everyone wants to pay a on-going cost to play a game. I want to be able to buy a game now and still be able to play it in 1,2,5,10 years time without having to pony up more dough.
You're argument is akin to me going, "making murder legal would increase murders and decrease the numbers of alive people" and you saying, "but people can murder all ready, get with the times".
Yes, I analogised copyright infringement to murder. I went there.
Could you explain how? What is this alternate mechanism for funding a multi-million dollar game that won't make any money from distribution?
you don't have to buy any of those things. I honestly have no idea what yo are trying to say.
The current copyright system works on the principle of selling something that people are forced to pay for when they don't need to ...
Really? This is really your argument? What things are there that you're being forced to purchase?
And just to address the rest of your argument, the mime artist has explicitly chosen to give away their performance. Producers of digital works, for example computer games, don't have the option of private performances in your model, are you saying their only option is donation-ware?
I'm down with that, actually distributing the book gets all kind of capital concerns but actually producing the work can be done "for free" (note the air quotes there). On the other hand a AAA computer game requires massive up front investment before the finished work is produced (and then all the money for distribution post creation phase).
I was generally agreeing with them, I felt though that their statement was a touch hyperbolic. Plenty of works are produced for free now and they would still be in the future if copyright was to disappear (which is what the PP, for all their verbal stutter stepping, are proposing). I feel that the counter arguments to the Pirate Party's ridiculous copyright position must be moderate and consistent so I was combining a mild rebuke with a demonstration of the vast swathes of work that would be lost by adopting the PP's policies.
Is this same as burning it to the ground. Legalised non-commercial file sharing is so close to not having copyright you may as well come out and say it in an honest manner.
This is a free cake policy.
A Booker prize winning book requires one guy to spend his evenings for a year writing. A AAA computer game involves a hunderd people working full time for 3 years costing millions upon millions of dollars.
They are pretty much not comparable as a creative endeavor.
How does a computer game get funded under this system?
Of course there is no a priori right to make money from an activity but what's the a priori right behind property laws (one man's property is another indigenous people's theft) or earning a wage for any job? Copyright has allowed us to move beyond the creative tyranny of patronage to an explosion of independent creation and allowing the investment of ridiculous sums of money into creative works.
Sure the setup we've got now is tilted incorrectly but the correct solution is reform not to burn the whole edifice to the ground.
In a world with no copyright for "non commercial" distribution of work how is anyone who creates a non subscription fee based computer game or e-book supposed to make money given that the work will be freely available on file sharing sites?