"then prices will be double, so you're really earning is actually 30% of your current income."
Well, duh:). The reason this helps the solvency of a pension system is that it lowers the accrued liability of the org/gov that is paying the pension (assuming it's not indexed).
" believe a fund manager who follows the Austrian School of thought would be the best to make investment decisions"
A good stock fund manager takes this into account. However, a good fund would not be looking only at stocks.
"If you look at the wealthiest people based on net assets, you'll see that they are debt free and self-invested even if they aren't rich"
When you're looking at net assets (which includes debt), of course the highest will have zero or minimal debt. Why not use growth of net assets, instead? Then, you're removing debt from the equation and looking for those who can maximize earnings, which is really what a good investment strategy does.
"In an economy with a fixed currency base (say gold) that fluctuates little in supply, inflation and deflation are not based on currency as the world economies currently are"
No, they are still based on currency, by definition. The difference is that individual governments have less ability to control currency values -- which can be bad, if government action could prevent catastrophic events.
"If you have 100 units of currency in existance, the prices of goods fluctuates directly on supply and demand and disregard the currency base
Not so, since the currency is not tied to a single good. This would only hold true if there was zero net growth in production, or if the currency was tied to that one particular good (like the market for gold if you had a gold standard).
"When there are 100 units of dollars in existance and the central bank prints 10 more, the people who can spend those 10 more first won't see a 10% inflationary change based on the new currency."
That's not exactly true, unless the market is unaware of the additional currency being printed. Remember, if you want to apply market theory, you've got to assume that the market is aware of all factors. Besides, currency value is dependent on amount in ciculation, not amount printed -- so anyone who amassed 10 units could hold 5 off the market to drive up the value of their other 5, selling them, then re-releasing the withheld 5 into circulation. This is one way that big banks can manipulate (and have done so) currency to their own benefit. Is it better for government to do so, or for private concerns to do so? In theory government acts on behalf of the people... but, well, we know how that has turned out. OTOH, governments can act as a counter to private concerns seeking to manipulate the currency market to their benefit.
The problem with a gold standard is that gold is currency too -- even though supply is relatively stable, and is hard for governments to influence. I think, in the end, it is better to have a currency backed by GNP (like the USD) than backed by an arbitrary hard good like gold. Either one is an abstraction, but one has value other than just perceived value.
I'll check out your book suggestions next time I'm at the library, thanks.
"I know two people from college who had the exact same idea (seperately of each other) a couple years ago. I'm sure tens of thousands of people have had the same idea across the country. Did any of them do it? No. EA did."
Did any of them present their idea to EA, and get EA sign an agreement to not use the idea without licensing it from them?
This isn't about having an idea first -- it's about entering into a contract with a company, and that company breaching the terms of the contract.
"Actually, the pensions crises in every country comes from the fact that the currency they are based in is being debased, and that the companies that invested in the pensions are finding themselves uncompetitive because of those pensions."
The two factors you list are not even close to being the only two things causing failure of pension systems worldwide. In fact, they are likely not even the top two factors. Also, devaluation of currency actually helps the solvency of a pension system. And, there is a big distinction between government pensions and private pensions, and what factors cause their failure.
You've left out:
Increased payout times (longer life expectancy)
Fluctuations in the size of the working population (like the upcoming baby-boomer retirement in the US)
Fluctuations in the markets where pensions are invested, and poor decisions by fund management.
Companies not meeting growth targets.
Pensions are just accrued expenses, whether there are tax incentives or not. Private pension failures happen, basically, for the same reasons that public pensions fail -- income being less than (current expenses + accrued expenses).
You may know quite a bit of free-market theory, but what you state as fact regarding solvency of pensions is not even remotely so.
Also, regarding currency debasement (controlled inflation is what I think you are referring to) -- this is a stimulus for investment, and is a primary method by which growth can be achieved. The idea is to stimulate investment that results in a greater growth in GDP than the debasement of the currency. One of the results of this is innovation, since there is more capital available for new ideas.
Without regular periods of inflation, you get a stagnant economy in which everyone loses -- even those who keep their cash in a mattress, since there will be less to spend their cash on when they choose to do so.
"Which market requires force and coercion most, in your opinion?"
That's a loaded question. Regulation is very important in many markets IMO... like with industries that pollute, for example. Or natural monopolies. Or any particular market where the people decide to assign the government the right to regulate (I think this is overstepped alot, BTW). I was responding to a generalization in the OP that shouldn't be taken as always accurate.
"So you believe you have the right to monopoly over the use of non-unique words presented in a certain combination? I don't agree. You need to utilize guns as the last resort to force me even though I never initiated force against anyone."
No, I believe that it's my right to not have others pretend to be me and mislead my customers. I believe that it's my right to have a business reputation that I have earned, to have a name that people can associate with my business practices, without having to worry about imposters devaluing my reputation.
Since face-to-face business is, as a whole, being supplanted by electronic commerce, I think it's a service to consumers, retailers, and producers to be able to trust that the company they are doing business with is really the company they think they are doing business with.
"We have the free market where the billions of consumers make decisions every second and the market continuously changes in response to the demand by consumers and the supply of a given service or product. On the other hand we have regulatory bodies and governments that change over years or even decades in order to satisfy 51% of the voting block."
It's a foregone conclusion to governments (even so-called capitalist ones) that the free market, without regulation, does not always result in the best solution for everyone. I'd have to agree with them, but YMMV.
"Why not just open the floodgates and let the market create what it needs? Why should anyone have a say in guiding those billions of buying decisions, other than the individual consumers making them?
Because, in the long run, it's probably cheaper and more convenient for everyone to implement 200 TLDs than it is to implement, say, 20,000 constantly-changing TLDs. Also, for those of us who pay tribute to Network Sol'ns or other vendor, I'd hate to have to pay for 10x the number of registrations, just to preserve the integrity of my company's business name online.
"This Wired article is full of misinformation, and reads like a press release from the Claria public relations department."
Wired depends upon readers for its revenue. Why shouldn't an article be just a big fat troll? The goal is to maximize page traffic and click-throughs, after all.
The ressons I used guns in the analogy is because
(1) The example of misuse of a gun I gave is obviously illegal, and
(2) It is a given in the US that people have a right to own them.
It is also something near and dear to the hearts of many, many people who do not understand what the uproar is about the DMCA.
" If you bought a turd in a box, the layer of said turd doesn't owe you anything."
Not true -- if you purchase a turd, you expect there to be a turd inside the box. And if there is not, you go to the seller to get a turd replacement. And if you used that turd as compost, just like the instructions said, and it killed all your plants instead of feeding them -- well, then, whoever sold you that turd and told you it was a nutritious compost supplement owes you some more plants.
This is not a "wouldn't it be nice if..." this is the way the law works in the US.
In this example, I would equate circumvention of copy protection to purchasing a gun; possession of a cracked DVD/CD to owning a gun; distributing copyrighted content illegally to popping a cap in your behind.
Circumvention of the copy protection is a tool by which people can illegally distribute copyrighted works... maybe it's not the best metaphor, but I think it makes sense.
If the systems were being used within the guidelines established by MS in the packaging/labeling, then MS could be held liable for the damages. I don't know if sending a free copy of PD0 is restitution enough, but I smell the threat of a class-action lawsuit... and given the low marginal mfgring costs of 360 games, I think MS would rather ship replacements than have to pay even more lawyers.
The problem is the need for preponderance of evidence to show that the 360 caused the problem, and that the 360 was being used in a manner consistent with its labeling/instructions for use.
I bet if enough people make a stink, MS starts replacing the games that were actually damaged, along with the defective consoles.
In the US, it is legal (with restrictions) to own a gun. It is not legal to go out and randomly pop a cap in someone's behind. The tool, or mechanism, is legal, but the act is not.
Contrast that to the restrictions being argued against. The tool, circumvention of copy protection technology, is illegal. The act, distributing copies in violation of copyright, is also illegal.
Why is circumventing copy protection illegal? Because the **AA want it to be.
Say I want to rent a bike for the day. I license the use of the bike, and am provided with a bike lock. Is it illegal for me to pick that lock? Even if you go by the **AAs' ridiculous licensing theory, it still doesn't make sense to have circumventing copy protection be illegal.
"There has been no concrete explanation for the forming of the universe by evolutionists (i.e. where did the big bang come from, where did the cosmic egg come from, where did the subspace that randomly fluctuated to create the egg come from)"
Evolutionary theory doesn't address the beginning of the universe, that has nothing to do with evolution.
Biogenesis is also a topic not strictly addressed by evolutionary theory.
Yes, evolutionary theory leads one to ask the questions, "but how did life start? And what was the first parent?" But the theory of evolution was not developed to answer that question, does not answer that question, and should not be expected to answer that question.
Well, that's not exactly the issue, since packet headers can be considered 'packaging' -- much like Priority Mail or Express Mail envelopes / labels. The real issue is discrimination.
If you use a non-discriminating formula to determine packet delivery time, and all possible senders and receivers have euqal access to the methods by which you can specify delivery time, all at equal pricing, then common carrier status is not violated.
But if BellSouth chooses to give certain companies preferred pricing on expedited packet delivery, then they lose CC status.
IANAL
You're right of course, but the idea is that we learn from our mistakes of the past... One of the repeating themes of laws violating the First Amendment is that they are passed in times of duress, then reanalyzed and loosened in hindsight... each successive law is less censoring than the last.
Of course, I'm full of Friday optimism right now, and it's not a foregone truth that the past will predict the future. And we have to make sure that we are loud enough to ensure we're not facing draconian censorship in the videogame industry... which might take some work.
There is no way in Guild Wars to post static content that is viewable by other players? Odd.
Is there a guild directory, where someone could post a guild website with such requests on it?
Another thought is that people who develop a network of 'friends' in-game, or belong to a guild, have a method of letting people know that they've got something for sale or want to buy something.
I get whispers several times a day asking if I'm buying or selling X; if it's someone I don't know, I drop the Ignore-hammer. But my social network has helped me fnind goods at the right price many times.
A tiered system would probably meet the requirements for non-discrimination, as long as the prices are the same for all clients at each tier. Or, like Fedex, they could offer a volume discount based entirely on a formula.
If an ISP starts to offer individualized contracts, then they would lose their CC status.
Of note: Common carriers have "a duty to allow universal, nondiscriminatory access to all suppliers and consumers of information and a concomitant privilege from liability for the content of that information."
The universal and non-discriminatory part is the key. Discrimination against suppliers and consumers is forbidden if you want protected legal status. If priority packages can be delivered without affecting 'normal' packets, ISPs should be in the clear -- but this is not likely, IMO.
Of course, IANAL.
Also of note, the legal opinion expressed in the link above states that the network in question should refrain from individually-tailored contracts. This doesn't mean a tiered system is out of the question, but what is described in the article is not exactly an openly tiered system.
The thing is, if an ISP loses common carrier status, they are liable for the content they deliver. Maybe the definition of common carrier, or perhaps a new designation, needs to be developed further, but as far as every case study and legal opinion I could find stated, my OP was pretty much on the ball. Discrimination of packets precludes CC status, which precludes legal protection for content.
That's why I referred to the commercialization of pop art, not the foundations of pop art -- Warhol made plenty of money by doing commissioned brand pieces, as well as portraits.
Warhol saw obsession with money as an American cultural value, but was not immune to its power.
"Frankly I think we're meant to hate the soup."
I'm not so sure about that. I thought I remembered his commentary on it, but turns out I was thinking about Coke. Shamelessly pulled from wikipedia: Warhol said, "a Coke is always a Coke; the Coke that the president drinks is the same as your Coke or mine." I think the same holds true for the Campbell's soup can -- these pop culture images represent some fundamental sameness of people in that era.
I don't think we need to act against advertising in art products. I believe myself to be intelligent enough to see past the adverts, and I don't mind if they subsidize my gameplaying or tv/movie watching.
My concern is that people unaware of the saturation of advertising fail to look at things clearly. This is, after all, what makes advertising so effective.
"the Strickland v. Sony case is detrimental to the industry"
BS. Public discussion of the issues is a Good Thing(tm), especially if it helps parents realize they need to pay attention to what Johnny's doing on his XBox.
It may be harmful in the short term to certain profit-seeking enterprises in the industry, but in the long term the discussion will have positive repercussions.
I know I'm oversimplifying here, but either the game industry adapts to new rules (and keeps making money) or the industry keeps on going as is without new rules (and keeps making money). The adult market is big enough that it will continue to be catered to...
The only parties likely to lose out, depending on the outcome (which is certain, despite what alarmists say):
Kids who want to play adult games.
Adults who are too embarassed to buy adult-themed games.
Freedom of Speech.
FTS: "Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, "
As soon as they do this, then they should become legally responsible for all content that crosses their network.
Either ISPs are passive conduits, or they are not. If they can easily differentiate between packets from different sources, and filter those packets for different handling procedures, then they can take responsibility for not allowing 'illegal' packets on their network.
I can't see that anyone would be surprised by this. Advertising and cross-promotion already permeates almost every part of our entertainment media. Music is perhaps the only place where product placement is not widespread within the content, since the industry looks down upon those who do not consider themselves 'artists.'
Of course there are differences, but there are also a lot of parallels between this and the commercialization of the 'pop art' movement. If you consider games to be art, look to Warhol for where the industry is going.
Slashdot Mirror
"then prices will be double, so you're really earning is actually 30% of your current income."
:). The reason this helps the solvency of a pension system is that it lowers the accrued liability of the org/gov that is paying the pension (assuming it's not indexed).
Well, duh
" believe a fund manager who follows the Austrian School of thought would be the best to make investment decisions"
A good stock fund manager takes this into account. However, a good fund would not be looking only at stocks.
"If you look at the wealthiest people based on net assets, you'll see that they are debt free and self-invested even if they aren't rich"
When you're looking at net assets (which includes debt), of course the highest will have zero or minimal debt. Why not use growth of net assets, instead? Then, you're removing debt from the equation and looking for those who can maximize earnings, which is really what a good investment strategy does.
"In an economy with a fixed currency base (say gold) that fluctuates little in supply, inflation and deflation are not based on currency as the world economies currently are"
No, they are still based on currency, by definition. The difference is that individual governments have less ability to control currency values -- which can be bad, if government action could prevent catastrophic events.
"If you have 100 units of currency in existance, the prices of goods fluctuates directly on supply and demand and disregard the currency base
Not so, since the currency is not tied to a single good. This would only hold true if there was zero net growth in production, or if the currency was tied to that one particular good (like the market for gold if you had a gold standard).
"When there are 100 units of dollars in existance and the central bank prints 10 more, the people who can spend those 10 more first won't see a 10% inflationary change based on the new currency."
That's not exactly true, unless the market is unaware of the additional currency being printed. Remember, if you want to apply market theory, you've got to assume that the market is aware of all factors. Besides, currency value is dependent on amount in ciculation, not amount printed -- so anyone who amassed 10 units could hold 5 off the market to drive up the value of their other 5, selling them, then re-releasing the withheld 5 into circulation. This is one way that big banks can manipulate (and have done so) currency to their own benefit. Is it better for government to do so, or for private concerns to do so? In theory government acts on behalf of the people... but, well, we know how that has turned out. OTOH, governments can act as a counter to private concerns seeking to manipulate the currency market to their benefit.
The problem with a gold standard is that gold is currency too -- even though supply is relatively stable, and is hard for governments to influence. I think, in the end, it is better to have a currency backed by GNP (like the USD) than backed by an arbitrary hard good like gold. Either one is an abstraction, but one has value other than just perceived value.
I'll check out your book suggestions next time I'm at the library, thanks.
"I know two people from college who had the exact same idea (seperately of each other) a couple years ago. I'm sure tens of thousands of people have had the same idea across the country. Did any of them do it? No. EA did."
Did any of them present their idea to EA, and get EA sign an agreement to not use the idea without licensing it from them?
This isn't about having an idea first -- it's about entering into a contract with a company, and that company breaching the terms of the contract.
"Actually, the pensions crises in every country comes from the fact that the currency they are based in is being debased, and that the companies that invested in the pensions are finding themselves uncompetitive because of those pensions."
The two factors you list are not even close to being the only two things causing failure of pension systems worldwide. In fact, they are likely not even the top two factors. Also, devaluation of currency actually helps the solvency of a pension system. And, there is a big distinction between government pensions and private pensions, and what factors cause their failure.
You've left out:
Increased payout times (longer life expectancy)
Fluctuations in the size of the working population (like the upcoming baby-boomer retirement in the US)
Fluctuations in the markets where pensions are invested, and poor decisions by fund management.
Companies not meeting growth targets.
Pensions are just accrued expenses, whether there are tax incentives or not. Private pension failures happen, basically, for the same reasons that public pensions fail -- income being less than (current expenses + accrued expenses).
You may know quite a bit of free-market theory, but what you state as fact regarding solvency of pensions is not even remotely so.
Also, regarding currency debasement (controlled inflation is what I think you are referring to) -- this is a stimulus for investment, and is a primary method by which growth can be achieved. The idea is to stimulate investment that results in a greater growth in GDP than the debasement of the currency. One of the results of this is innovation, since there is more capital available for new ideas.
Without regular periods of inflation, you get a stagnant economy in which everyone loses -- even those who keep their cash in a mattress, since there will be less to spend their cash on when they choose to do so.
"Which market requires force and coercion most, in your opinion?"
That's a loaded question. Regulation is very important in many markets IMO... like with industries that pollute, for example. Or natural monopolies. Or any particular market where the people decide to assign the government the right to regulate (I think this is overstepped alot, BTW). I was responding to a generalization in the OP that shouldn't be taken as always accurate.
"So you believe you have the right to monopoly over the use of non-unique words presented in a certain combination? I don't agree. You need to utilize guns as the last resort to force me even though I never initiated force against anyone."
No, I believe that it's my right to not have others pretend to be me and mislead my customers. I believe that it's my right to have a business reputation that I have earned, to have a name that people can associate with my business practices, without having to worry about imposters devaluing my reputation.
Since face-to-face business is, as a whole, being supplanted by electronic commerce, I think it's a service to consumers, retailers, and producers to be able to trust that the company they are doing business with is really the company they think they are doing business with.
"We have the free market where the billions of consumers make decisions every second and the market continuously changes in response to the demand by consumers and the supply of a given service or product. On the other hand we have regulatory bodies and governments that change over years or even decades in order to satisfy 51% of the voting block."
It's a foregone conclusion to governments (even so-called capitalist ones) that the free market, without regulation, does not always result in the best solution for everyone. I'd have to agree with them, but YMMV.
"Why not just open the floodgates and let the market create what it needs? Why should anyone have a say in guiding those billions of buying decisions, other than the individual consumers making them?
Because, in the long run, it's probably cheaper and more convenient for everyone to implement 200 TLDs than it is to implement, say, 20,000 constantly-changing TLDs. Also, for those of us who pay tribute to Network Sol'ns or other vendor, I'd hate to have to pay for 10x the number of registrations, just to preserve the integrity of my company's business name online.
"Sounds like stealware(TM) to me!"
Whose side are you on, the **AA?
It's not theft, since they are only making a copy, and you are not deprived of the use of your account codes, PINs, etc.
"This Wired article is full of misinformation, and reads like a press release from the Claria public relations department."
Wired depends upon readers for its revenue. Why shouldn't an article be just a big fat troll? The goal is to maximize page traffic and click-throughs, after all.
The ressons I used guns in the analogy is because
(1) The example of misuse of a gun I gave is obviously illegal, and
(2) It is a given in the US that people have a right to own them.
It is also something near and dear to the hearts of many, many people who do not understand what the uproar is about the DMCA.
" If you bought a turd in a box, the layer of said turd doesn't owe you anything."
Not true -- if you purchase a turd, you expect there to be a turd inside the box. And if there is not, you go to the seller to get a turd replacement. And if you used that turd as compost, just like the instructions said, and it killed all your plants instead of feeding them -- well, then, whoever sold you that turd and told you it was a nutritious compost supplement owes you some more plants.
This is not a "wouldn't it be nice if..." this is the way the law works in the US.
In this example, I would equate circumvention of copy protection to purchasing a gun; possession of a cracked DVD/CD to owning a gun; distributing copyrighted content illegally to popping a cap in your behind.
Circumvention of the copy protection is a tool by which people can illegally distribute copyrighted works... maybe it's not the best metaphor, but I think it makes sense.
If the systems were being used within the guidelines established by MS in the packaging/labeling, then MS could be held liable for the damages. I don't know if sending a free copy of PD0 is restitution enough, but I smell the threat of a class-action lawsuit... and given the low marginal mfgring costs of 360 games, I think MS would rather ship replacements than have to pay even more lawyers.
The problem is the need for preponderance of evidence to show that the 360 caused the problem, and that the 360 was being used in a manner consistent with its labeling/instructions for use.
I bet if enough people make a stink, MS starts replacing the games that were actually damaged, along with the defective consoles.
In the US, it is legal (with restrictions) to own a gun. It is not legal to go out and randomly pop a cap in someone's behind. The tool, or mechanism, is legal, but the act is not.
Contrast that to the restrictions being argued against. The tool, circumvention of copy protection technology, is illegal. The act, distributing copies in violation of copyright, is also illegal.
Why is circumventing copy protection illegal? Because the **AA want it to be.
Say I want to rent a bike for the day. I license the use of the bike, and am provided with a bike lock. Is it illegal for me to pick that lock? Even if you go by the **AAs' ridiculous licensing theory, it still doesn't make sense to have circumventing copy protection be illegal.
"There has been no concrete explanation for the forming of the universe by evolutionists (i.e. where did the big bang come from, where did the cosmic egg come from, where did the subspace that randomly fluctuated to create the egg come from)"
Evolutionary theory doesn't address the beginning of the universe, that has nothing to do with evolution.
Biogenesis is also a topic not strictly addressed by evolutionary theory.
Yes, evolutionary theory leads one to ask the questions, "but how did life start? And what was the first parent?" But the theory of evolution was not developed to answer that question, does not answer that question, and should not be expected to answer that question.
Well, that's not exactly the issue, since packet headers can be considered 'packaging' -- much like Priority Mail or Express Mail envelopes / labels. The real issue is discrimination.
If you use a non-discriminating formula to determine packet delivery time, and all possible senders and receivers have euqal access to the methods by which you can specify delivery time, all at equal pricing, then common carrier status is not violated.
But if BellSouth chooses to give certain companies preferred pricing on expedited packet delivery, then they lose CC status.
IANAL
"Expect this to last about 3 minutes, when they realise that none of their users will be "demanding" advertising."
Yes, that's exactly what happened with Google Adsense.
You're right of course, but the idea is that we learn from our mistakes of the past... One of the repeating themes of laws violating the First Amendment is that they are passed in times of duress, then reanalyzed and loosened in hindsight... each successive law is less censoring than the last.
Of course, I'm full of Friday optimism right now, and it's not a foregone truth that the past will predict the future. And we have to make sure that we are loud enough to ensure we're not facing draconian censorship in the videogame industry... which might take some work.
There is no way in Guild Wars to post static content that is viewable by other players? Odd.
Is there a guild directory, where someone could post a guild website with such requests on it?
Another thought is that people who develop a network of 'friends' in-game, or belong to a guild, have a method of letting people know that they've got something for sale or want to buy something.
I get whispers several times a day asking if I'm buying or selling X; if it's someone I don't know, I drop the Ignore-hammer. But my social network has helped me fnind goods at the right price many times.
A tiered system would probably meet the requirements for non-discrimination, as long as the prices are the same for all clients at each tier. Or, like Fedex, they could offer a volume discount based entirely on a formula.
If an ISP starts to offer individualized contracts, then they would lose their CC status.
Here's a reference, it's not the source legal code, but: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/community/resources/legal .html
Of note: Common carriers have "a duty to allow universal, nondiscriminatory access to all suppliers and consumers of information and a concomitant privilege from liability for the content of that information."
The universal and non-discriminatory part is the key. Discrimination against suppliers and consumers is forbidden if you want protected legal status. If priority packages can be delivered without affecting 'normal' packets, ISPs should be in the clear -- but this is not likely, IMO.
Of course, IANAL.
Also of note, the legal opinion expressed in the link above states that the network in question should refrain from individually-tailored contracts. This doesn't mean a tiered system is out of the question, but what is described in the article is not exactly an openly tiered system.
The thing is, if an ISP loses common carrier status, they are liable for the content they deliver. Maybe the definition of common carrier, or perhaps a new designation, needs to be developed further, but as far as every case study and legal opinion I could find stated, my OP was pretty much on the ball. Discrimination of packets precludes CC status, which precludes legal protection for content.
"Not a hip-hop fan, are you?"
/rimshot
I did say "music," after all...
That's why I referred to the commercialization of pop art, not the foundations of pop art -- Warhol made plenty of money by doing commissioned brand pieces, as well as portraits.
Warhol saw obsession with money as an American cultural value, but was not immune to its power.
"Frankly I think we're meant to hate the soup."
I'm not so sure about that. I thought I remembered his commentary on it, but turns out I was thinking about Coke. Shamelessly pulled from wikipedia: Warhol said, "a Coke is always a Coke; the Coke that the president drinks is the same as your Coke or mine." I think the same holds true for the Campbell's soup can -- these pop culture images represent some fundamental sameness of people in that era.
I don't think we need to act against advertising in art products. I believe myself to be intelligent enough to see past the adverts, and I don't mind if they subsidize my gameplaying or tv/movie watching.
My concern is that people unaware of the saturation of advertising fail to look at things clearly. This is, after all, what makes advertising so effective.
Yes, but is this paid advertisement, or bragging about the ability to buy luxury goods?
Probably some of both...
"the Strickland v. Sony case is detrimental to the industry"
BS. Public discussion of the issues is a Good Thing(tm), especially if it helps parents realize they need to pay attention to what Johnny's doing on his XBox.
It may be harmful in the short term to certain profit-seeking enterprises in the industry, but in the long term the discussion will have positive repercussions.
I know I'm oversimplifying here, but either the game industry adapts to new rules (and keeps making money) or the industry keeps on going as is without new rules (and keeps making money). The adult market is big enough that it will continue to be catered to...
The only parties likely to lose out, depending on the outcome (which is certain, despite what alarmists say):
Kids who want to play adult games.
Adults who are too embarassed to buy adult-themed games.
Freedom of Speech.
The only one I'm worried about is #3.
FTS: "Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, "
As soon as they do this, then they should become legally responsible for all content that crosses their network.
Either ISPs are passive conduits, or they are not. If they can easily differentiate between packets from different sources, and filter those packets for different handling procedures, then they can take responsibility for not allowing 'illegal' packets on their network.
I can't see that anyone would be surprised by this. Advertising and cross-promotion already permeates almost every part of our entertainment media. Music is perhaps the only place where product placement is not widespread within the content, since the industry looks down upon those who do not consider themselves 'artists.'
Of course there are differences, but there are also a lot of parallels between this and the commercialization of the 'pop art' movement. If you consider games to be art, look to Warhol for where the industry is going.