I agree the call for 100% is idiotic but I don't see it being a government forced initiative only that they'd like to see it.
The only people demanding 100% right now are the childrens charities, but I already knew they were the pinnacle of the "think of the children" croud hence why I'd never donate to them. In cases like this they ultimately do more harm than good because they simply just cover up the fact a problem still exists.
It's currently only the childrnes charities that are the problem here, the government, despite me hating them dearly for their repeated idiocy have not yet demanded 100% coverage, only said they'd like to see that. I'd like to see the existence of god disproved once and for all but that doesn't mean it's going to happen does it?
Music industry lobby Lobbyist: Hi Mr MP, how would you like to meet Bono? MP: OMG HE WAS MY IDOL AS A CHILD I'D LOVE TO Lobbyist: Okay, just implement these laws otherwise Bono will be a very very sad person and might not want to come out and see you MP: Sure!
IT industry lobby Lobbyist: Hi Mr MP, how would you like to meet Richard Stallman? MP: Who?
More seriously though, I think the issue does seem to be at least from my experience of reading into comments from various British MPs that the music industry is much better connected and MPs are much more likely to bow down at their feet simply because although some people of their generation are the founding fathers of IT as we know it, many more simply missed the boat with the IT thing and MPs nearly always fall into the latter- they just don't get IT, but they ALL know who Bono and so on is and they all worship these types of people. We don't have any IT literate MPs here and I'm not sure it's much different abroad, Obama is one of the first politicians I've seen that actually seems to have a decent grasp of technology.
I think the crux of it is that people in the music industry and politicians seem to get on well, they just seem to have the same mindset whilst IT and Science simply don't seem to get on with politicians as well. In that scenario it doesn't really matter what an industry is worth, most politicians don't seem to take a logical approach to decision making like that. They're more fallable to arguments such as "Piracy is wrong, it's illegal, it always has been, it must be stopped" than they were to reasoned arguments producing statistics showing piracy is only bad for the major labels but probably good overall for the population as a whole. If politicians did follow a logical, reasoned way of thinking then in the UK at least we wouldn't be seeing this consistent push for ID cards despite the population, the opposition parties, ex-security service leaders, employers/businesses being against it and costs for the scheme ballooning into many many billions of pounds- no logical or reasoned thought would lead to the conclusion that continuing such a scheme is a good idea.
One final note is that a few weeks back David Cameron mentioned that if the Conservative party made it into power next that he would appoint someone from the creative industry to be in charge of deciding the UK's broadband future. One has to wonder what on earth the logic behind that is when he could choose someone from the technology industry. That coupled with his speech to the BPI a couple of years ago that was full of ignorance and many other comments and events through the past few years along similar lines are a pretty good demonstration that David Cameron and the Conservatives are strongly tied to big media. I do not think Labour is any different judging by their actions. So one thing is for sure, their actions and comments in favour of big media over technology certainly add weight to the idea that yes, they have a much stronger lobby at very least or simply offer more "incentives" to MPs than technology does.
I think this is the biggest mistake the prosecution is making to be honest.
They're trying the same tactics that are used by the music/movie industry in the US which rely on an clueless or biased judge. Sweden is a particularly technically literate country, I think even the worst judge there could see through this kind of idiocy and so they're acting as their own worst enemy.
I'm actually suprised because I figured they'd be more clever than this, I figured they'd realise if they played it straight and acted the victim they'd be able to push the case well and probably get at least some kind of result. The problem is they're not playing the victim, they're actually blatantly playing an aggressive agenda and I don't think a judge is going to look too kindly on a group of people who are acting in such an aggressive manner whilst the defence are the ones looking very strongly victimised. For all the FUD and stats they pull out in the media claiming they're the victim (from calling it theft through to massaging stats) and making people believe it they're outright failing to translate this propaganda success into the courts and are just making themselves look like complete and utter idiots.
Tactful, is apparently not a word these people understand.
The thing is they already have a lot of that code from their previous products, certainly patching is a trivial thing to implement and the time requirement for doing so would be negligible.
I'd imagine the Steam stuff was done purely so they can distribute via Steam, whilst the Microsoft stuff was done because it gives them free advertising- the first Windows only Live game with achievements I think so it's kind of a flagship product in terms of what MS would like to see as the future of Windows gaming, single profile, mixed with your XBox live profile and achievements gained equally on either system's games.
I don't think they needed Steam at all for any reason other than DRM or to simply get on Steam's download service to try and increase sales. Live is a different story, the matchmaking code is quite good and you're right it'd take a while to implement from scratch, judging by how crap their original Dawn of War net code was (the game failed to handle any additional connections if you tried to do a normal TCP/IP game rather than a gamespy game with more than one other player and if one person was behind NAT) then you may have a point here regarding Live even though they already had net code libraries from before.
There's a difference between using Exchange's basic POP3 server and making use of all the vast array of features Exchange provides though. Most business want the full suite of features.
The things that might give Microsoft the edge are proper Windows integration (Exchange etc.) which is important in the business world where the majority of systems are Windows based and also the massive hoarde of.NET developers that can easily develop for Windows mobile.
Whether they will in practice is a different story of course but Microsoft do have some advantages with their platform, the idea is if they can close their disadvantages - i.e. provide the things Apple has, whilst continuing to provide the things they don't have then that would indeed give them the edge.
As an aside, I did complain to the vendor too by the way, pointing out what Valve had done and whilst they didn't really answer my questions they did interestingly defend DRM. There was one particular gem in the e-mail that I can only assume was a freudian slip:
"The software previously described also prevents privacy on gaming titles, which in turns protect customers from illicit copies of pirated games. The pc games are developed more and more with this preventive software and this seems to be a trend with pc gaming."
The software she is referring to is Steam, I find it quite amusing that she stated quite clearly that it prevents privacy, I think somehow she meant piracy but an amusing slip all the same;)
This is how I see it: - The vendor (GAME) is morally wrong to release the game early but is in the right legally - Valve is morally wrong to prevent you accessing a game you've purchased and perhaps even legally in the wrong also
This is why I think Valve deserves the majority of the blame, yeah a vendor shouldn't release early from a moral standpoint but in the UK there's actually nothing legally wrong with it. Also there's no technical reason I can't play the game other than an artificial one imposed by Valve.
I don't disagree GAME shouldn't have sent it out with this issue, but I also think it was idiotic of Valve to believe everyone would honour the release date perfectly. Particularly as most online companies ship games a day or so early to ensure that if there's a delay in the mail people still get it for release. This means some get it early, but at least that way everyone gets it for release, whilst otherwise some would get it for release and others would have to wait until Monday or later due to lack of delivery on Sat/Sun, which is harsh as many would probably like the weekend to play it than wait another week.
This is why although I understand the argument that all retailers should stick to release I also don't think it's possible if they are to offer a good service. There is however absolutely no reason that Valve/THQ etc. couldn't let people activate early other than sheer bloody mindedness. In other words, the problem is much easier solved by Valve/THQ not being arseholes than it is the vendor managing to offer customers good service whilst still maintaining precise release dates- this only way they could do this would be by using courier services which would add a good 10% - 20% onto costs for the end users for delivery. Of course, Valve would love nothing more than that as their delivery not-required service would receive a massive boost.
My concern then is that Valve actually likes this situation, because if they can shift the blame onto vendors then it has the potential to up their sales, whilst other vendors can do little to counteract it. It's win-win for Valve unless we point out how utterly underhanded Valve are playing this and how they're inconveniencing legitimate customers in the process.
Activation is via Steam and Steam produced the error message, I couldn't even get to install the Windows live part because of Steam's block so it most certainly is a Steam problem and absolutely not a fault of Windows Live I'm afraid.
Really? why would THQ care? They don't benefit from fixed release dates, only retailers do.
"If it served them no benefit then all companies would just ship out the games, and let individual stores start selling it as they arrive instead of having specific release dates."
The reason we have fixed release dates is so all companies have time to get stock in so they can all start selling at the same time. The worry is that some retailers may not be able to get their stock in before others and may lose out. As all retailers are prone to this they setup agreements as per that in the UK to sell on Fridays. It is not legally binding, it's a choice they make.
"It should make those retailers look bad since they're the ones violating THQ's release date, and if you disagree with that then you should complain to THQ, and perhaps to the whole gaming industry for even using the concept of release dates, but not to Valve."
GAME et al. have chosen to release a day early, they have done nothing wrong from a legal standpoint only broken the agreement with other retailers for this particular title. Valve have chosen not too, but to spite those that have have prevented their customers activating.
This is why it is Valve that is at fault. Valve could simply have just ignored the release date too. I understand Valve may be annoyed others broke the release date, but abusing their position to inconvenience customers who are simply not at fault is rediculous.
It's because as per the box, the only agreement I have with Valve is for them to take my registration, I had not at any point agreed for them to be able to prevent me having access to the game, it is not their place to do so unless the box were to state something along the lines of "Valve Software may prevent you accessing the game at any time without notice" so that I could choose not to buy it on that basis.
Why? The store has done nothing legally wrong or even particularly morally wrong as many other stores also got it to their customers yesterday. Steam has however imposed an artificial restriction outside of that which was agreed to when I accepted the terms on the box by purchasing and opening the product.
It's because I purchased a game not developed by Valve from a retailer other than Valve but that it is Valve preventing me from playing it.
Valve should have no power to prevent me from using a product that was neither developed by them nor that I bought from them. I have no transaction with Valve other than that which was agreed on the box- to register the game with Valve and nothing more.
The issue is that Valve is doing something other than taking my registration which is the only transaction the game box suggests I must perform with them. They are doing something over and above the stated remit which I agreed with the publisher to allow them to fill. When the agreement states I only have to register with them that is all I should have to do, I should not also have to be subjected to an artificial limitation by them as to when I can use the software as this was at no point agreed.
No, the reason I couldn't activate was because Valve's servers prevented me doing so. It is hence Valve's hardware and software at their end that is preventing me using the game.
It may be THQ's fault, but I'd be suprised if it was ever their intention that anyone with a copy of the game not be able to use it as it serves them no benefit.
It does however assist Valve in that it makes other game suppliers than themselves look bad because anyone else selling it will be selling a game that Valve has prevented working only to blame the retailer rather than accept they're imposing an artificial restriction.
It states registration required with Steam on the print on the box, not with Windows Live and not with restrictions that I can only play the game when Valve decide I can (even though THQ are the developer and Games workshop own the IP).
Pretty big difference to just registration required with Steam. That said, there's no reason they need anything other than the CD key to register the game anyway so registration required in itself is pretty vague.
In the UK there is mutual agreement to not release games until Fridays so that all suppliers get their stock in during the week week and hence have equal chance to sell on release, but there is nothing legally binding here. Valve has effectively decided because it wishes to uphold that agreement it is imposing restrictions on other retailer's customers because those retailers do not wish to uphold that agreement.
The very fact you mention that I should've bought direct from Valve suggests there's something very wrong, this is the sort of monopoly abuse that Microsoft would get shot and hung fromt he gallows here for, Valve doesn't have a monopoly in online game distribution as such but it has a strong position and clearly seems to be abusing it.
I bought Dawn of War 2 yesterday for £24.99 which personally I don't mind paying for a game.
But then I got home and tried to install it and it requires you install Steam and Games for Windows Live and activate the game via Steam. I tried to activate it and was told I can't because it's not for sale in my country- presumably because although some shops are selling it THQ decided the actual release date was today.
So yeah, that changed my mind, £24.99 is fine for a game I can play when I want and whatever system I want but it's far too overpriced for a game I can only play when they decide I'm allowed to play it whilst also having to give away a bunch of personal details to Valve for Steam and Microsoft for Windows Live.
The box at least said an internet connection and registration was required to play but it still said nothing about having to give away details to register to Valve AND Microsoft and it certainly said nothing about them being able to choose when I can and can't play the game.
It's been said here many a time that pirates provide a copy of a game cheaper (free) and that you can play without restriction when you want and where you want. If companies want to increase sales then perhaps they need to accept that they have to beat pirates on at least one of these levels, by either matching them on price (not gonna happen) or by beating them on product quality. Whilst they continue to do neither they wont get anywhere.
As for me and DoW2? I file a complaint with UK trading standards and will be returning the game tommorrow and they can damn well take it back even if it is opened because as far as I'm concerned if I don't have the guarantee of being able to play it when I want and have to hand over personal details to two third party companies to be able to play then it's faulty or simply misadvertised. Just as I got burnt with Spore's DRM I've now been burnt with Dawn of War II's. You see when I was young I used to pirate games because I couldn't afford to buy them, now I make plenty enough to buy these games I do so, just as I *gasp* bought a copy of Windows for my most recently built PC. I also bought music from iTunes only to find the only music on my iPod that would play on the game Lips on the 360 for my girlfriend was downloaded MP3s and none of my legally purchased music would work. Some may think it's not a big deal having to wait a day to activate but my concern is that they can revoke my access just as easily as they've prevented my access to a game I've legitimately bought.
What they need is a change of attitude and price is only part of that, I wont buy brand new XBox 360 games at £39.99 but at around £29.99 I don't mind because at least the restrictions are pretty obvious when you buy the game and console. It's not ideal that there restrictions exist but it's light years ahead of the unadvertised 5 install limit with Spore on release and the "Valve gets to choose when you can and can't play" with Dawn of War 2. So whilst I'll buy 360 games, I wont buy music, I wont buy PC games, not even if they were £9.99 anymore it's not just worth the hassle.
So yeah, even Valve with their "Hey look at us guys! we think DRM is silly, we love piracy and think it helps! hell we even do great discounts sometimes!" are still the scum of the Earth and as bad as EA when it comes to draconian DRM in that they prevented me playing a game made by the company THQ and bought from the company GAME and could just as well prevent me again any time they wish.
To be fair it raises a point though- if the system uses this data automatically then can it tell the difference to say an image from a screenshot of a game like Eve online? I'm not sure what the data they're receiving is actually used for.
What if a user has a rendered image on their system that they downloaded as a background or something and uploads it believing it's a real image?
"This is a new game mechanic that fairly radically changes the gameplay of the FPS"
Yes, it's absolutely nothing like the cover system in Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Rainbow Six Vegas, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 is it?
Sticking to first person in cover isn't innovation, it's a game design choice. The games listed above don't do this (RB6 Vegas is notable because it's an FPS rather than 3rd person title apart from in cover) because they feel it doesn't add anything to their game. It's not that it's in any way a new idea, it's just a different game design choice. Also of course, if you zoom whilst behind cover in many of these sorts of games it does switch back to FPS so even in that respect it's not new.
The reason RB6 Vegas seems to switch to 3rd person for cover is because it's more interesting to see your character doing his thing than it is to just have a camera bobbing around rather uninterestingly as you move along a wall.
Cheney wasn't just an employee of Halliburton, he was on the board of directors, that means he was very strongly tied to the company and had strong interests in it. He was also a neo-con and Halliburton was a vessel for him to help push his political agenda of American strength and corporate interest worldwide. There was also some evidence that Cheney still had some ties to Halliburton whilst the government was pouring money into it.
This is why I asked about the lawyers, because there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were deeply involved in the company and it's ideas like Cheney was. If there is evidence of a strong vested interest as there was with Cheney then sure I'll view them the same way, but until then I'll remain cautious. There are still a lot of bitter Republicans willing to throw FUD left right and centre when it may well have no merit.
I'm concerned about people in power with ANY link to the RIAA, but I'm not about to decide absolutely that these people are going to push the RIAA's agenda when they don't even hold the very top post.
The RIAA had a lot of money and it stands to reason then that they'd go for people who are high up in the law circles to push their cases. It's also no suprise that people who end up in the justice department are picked from the same set- those at or near the top of their game.
It's good that this sort of thing is reported so that we can watch closely and protest the link, but it's not necessarily the end of the world that's all.
Yes I know they worked for the RIAA before. But do they still do so?
If they don't also still work for the RIAA are we sure these lawyers actually even give a damn about the RIAA? Unless they have stocks and shares or whatever in the RIAA companies then what's in it for them if they no longer work for them?
It is possible that these lawyers were just doing it for the money and don't actually give a damn about the company they were working for.
Does anything have anything more damning than that they used to work for the RIAA? do they still? are they receiving money or incentives still from the RIAA?
I'd argue that it's one of the few things we here in Britain have going for us nowadays- the BBC.
The BBC produces some excellent content and shares it worldwide such as Planet Earth and gets involved in various co-productions with foreign companies such as HBO in the US. Some people love BBC news, others hate it but overall the BBC is a top notch content producer when it comes to (lots of people love Top Gear, Doctor Who etc.).
The situation with the BBC isn't quite the same as that described but it is similar. I think the BBC is largely quite respected worldwide for the content it produces to and whilst many things make Britain look like an awful country nowadays, I'd argue the BBC isn't one of them and in fact is one of the few things that shows us in a positive light.
It may sound bad but really it's not, we pay a TV license here which funds the BBC and they also have BBC Worldwide a commercial arm that sells DVDs of their content and such on the world stage to help fund international content too. As such if your setup follows the latter model- by charging reasonable amounts for some, but not all of the foreign content the cost isn't going to be much, but more people will become aware of Canadian culture.
and the internets shall lol as the music industry finally finds out in the most publicly embarassing way possible that they can't actually do anything to stop piracy.
From TFA:
""EPIC WINNING LOL," Peter himself later commented on Twitter."
Gotta love their high spirits despite all the crap being thrown at them but I'd imagine it's a hell of a relief seeing the music industry's case pretty much gutted on only the second day.
What's interesting from the BBC article is this:
"In fact it simplifies the prosecutor's case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works."
I find that an impressively naive comment as they haven't made anything available- that should be even easier to defend than "assisting copyright infringement" although from what I understand, despite the music industry just blatantly suggesting they're making available the actual charge is "assisting making available" which is somewhat different. If the latter is indeed the actual charge then I guess we're back to them just defending the fact that assisting making available isn't actually any kind of crime in Sweden.
Still one might hope the fact that their initial main charge has been obliterated that this might put the brakes on any hopes of sympathy for the remaining charge also.
"Yeah, because it's not like other OS's haven't gained a significant marketshare in the past few years."
Yes, you're right, it's not.
"I'm pretty sure OSX's marketshare has improved a couple fold in the past 5 years"
All the way up to 10 users instead of 5 then?
"so it looks like your argument is just full of it."
It's odd that you'd say that when you're quite obviously pulling numbers out your ass in both this and your previous post. But here, have a look at this, it's about as good as we have:
Windows at around 91%, MacOS at 5% and Linux at 1%. MacOSX has not quite increased it's marketshare a couple of fold in the last 5 years, it's gained about 1 or 2% rather than the 2.5% it'd need for a couple of fold increase. Only NetApp is more generous than that but it's a pretty blatant anomally compared to all others offering their stats and the figures I just gave are an average including their stats. If NetApp is indeed simply biased hence it being such an anomally compared to the others then MacOS' increases will be lower again.
The fact is, at that rate, Microsoft still has a few decades left in it yet.
Microsoft are protecting their own self interests. Whilst RIAA pressure, or perhaps a hope to move in as a media distributor themselves at some point probably helps push the DRM on music/movies things like the Photoshop problem mentioned here are almost certainly designed to protect products like Windows, Office and so on. The point is though, Microsoft would probably do this anyway without RIAA pressure.
Their whole business model for their software is built around selling for a small fortune software that is otherwise easily copied for free. Bill Gates and Microsoft invented the very model of software being something you pay for separately from the system itself, they created the idea of software as a product rather than something that came with a system. In a way, that's quite a good thing they did otherwise we may have had proprietary systems kinda like the Mac, but instead with only the software that came on the system originally! The problem is they take it to the nth degree and want to charge ever more for software as a separate product. I don't mind buying a $20 Usenet client if it's really decent but I sure as hell am not going to pay $70 for something like Nero, $200 or whatever for Office and $1000 or whatever for Visual Studio. This is essentially where the battle with RMS started, he had a similar idea- software being separate from the hardware, but under a paradigm of much greater openess.
I don't know anyone that had a legit purchased copy of Windows XP who built their own system or who'd upgraded an old machine, only those who got it with their system and even then if it's Home they used a pirated copy of pro instead. To be fair, they must have lost massive amounts of potential sales through piracy this way.
What Microsoft doesn't seem to have clued in on though is that these people pirating XP were also the ones who in their professional life were allowing for it to be pushed on the desktop in a commercial environment. I do not believe Vista was a failure because of bugs because despite the rose tinted glasses view of many, it was really no worse than XP at release and nowadays certainly isn't any worse. The reason Vista flopped is because people couldn't pirate it and still receive patches easily to use on their home computers and so simply couldn't be bothered to get their companies to upgrade to it at work because they hadn't had time to get used to it at home.
I think Microsoft severely underestimate the power of the technical hoardes that convince their managers or not to upgrade or tell their colleagues that they don't want Vista on their home PCs and so on. Ironically, this is why Linux take up is so slow IMHO- many people don't want to support an OS at work that they've never gotten used to at home to know the ins and outs. Linux has the additional hurdle in that it's very different to Windows so many wont even spend the time making such a big jump. The problem is, XP is showing it's age and Linux is losing it's sharp edges, and if Microsoft piss these people off again, they're going to make that jump.
To sum up, the reason Microsoft is doing this is because closed, locked down and paid for is their very business model and always has been ever since their creation. Perhaps what's changed is that hardware is fast enough for them to steal a few processor cycles and a chunk of RAM here and there to handle DRM without most users noticing coupled with the fact over the last few years they've upped the ante on DRM so that people are becoming less and less infuriated by it. Whilst people are ranting about the new DRM features everyone's forgotten the likes of genuine advantage and it's become something people now simply accept. Similarly, if Microsoft have their way, with Windows 8 or whatever, this kind of draconian DRM will simply be forgotten about and people will be ranting about the next big problem. The only hope here is that Windows 7 will be a flop because of DRM and such too and Microsoft realise their locked down approach simply isn't sustainable.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree the call for 100% is idiotic but I don't see it being a government forced initiative only that they'd like to see it.
The only people demanding 100% right now are the childrens charities, but I already knew they were the pinnacle of the "think of the children" croud hence why I'd never donate to them. In cases like this they ultimately do more harm than good because they simply just cover up the fact a problem still exists.
It's currently only the childrnes charities that are the problem here, the government, despite me hating them dearly for their repeated idiocy have not yet demanded 100% coverage, only said they'd like to see that. I'd like to see the existence of god disproved once and for all but that doesn't mean it's going to happen does it?
It goes something like this:
Music industry lobby
Lobbyist: Hi Mr MP, how would you like to meet Bono?
MP: OMG HE WAS MY IDOL AS A CHILD I'D LOVE TO
Lobbyist: Okay, just implement these laws otherwise Bono will be a very very sad person and might not want to come out and see you
MP: Sure!
IT industry lobby
Lobbyist: Hi Mr MP, how would you like to meet Richard Stallman?
MP: Who?
More seriously though, I think the issue does seem to be at least from my experience of reading into comments from various British MPs that the music industry is much better connected and MPs are much more likely to bow down at their feet simply because although some people of their generation are the founding fathers of IT as we know it, many more simply missed the boat with the IT thing and MPs nearly always fall into the latter- they just don't get IT, but they ALL know who Bono and so on is and they all worship these types of people. We don't have any IT literate MPs here and I'm not sure it's much different abroad, Obama is one of the first politicians I've seen that actually seems to have a decent grasp of technology.
I think the crux of it is that people in the music industry and politicians seem to get on well, they just seem to have the same mindset whilst IT and Science simply don't seem to get on with politicians as well. In that scenario it doesn't really matter what an industry is worth, most politicians don't seem to take a logical approach to decision making like that. They're more fallable to arguments such as "Piracy is wrong, it's illegal, it always has been, it must be stopped" than they were to reasoned arguments producing statistics showing piracy is only bad for the major labels but probably good overall for the population as a whole. If politicians did follow a logical, reasoned way of thinking then in the UK at least we wouldn't be seeing this consistent push for ID cards despite the population, the opposition parties, ex-security service leaders, employers/businesses being against it and costs for the scheme ballooning into many many billions of pounds- no logical or reasoned thought would lead to the conclusion that continuing such a scheme is a good idea.
One final note is that a few weeks back David Cameron mentioned that if the Conservative party made it into power next that he would appoint someone from the creative industry to be in charge of deciding the UK's broadband future. One has to wonder what on earth the logic behind that is when he could choose someone from the technology industry. That coupled with his speech to the BPI a couple of years ago that was full of ignorance and many other comments and events through the past few years along similar lines are a pretty good demonstration that David Cameron and the Conservatives are strongly tied to big media. I do not think Labour is any different judging by their actions. So one thing is for sure, their actions and comments in favour of big media over technology certainly add weight to the idea that yes, they have a much stronger lobby at very least or simply offer more "incentives" to MPs than technology does.
I think this is the biggest mistake the prosecution is making to be honest.
They're trying the same tactics that are used by the music/movie industry in the US which rely on an clueless or biased judge. Sweden is a particularly technically literate country, I think even the worst judge there could see through this kind of idiocy and so they're acting as their own worst enemy.
I'm actually suprised because I figured they'd be more clever than this, I figured they'd realise if they played it straight and acted the victim they'd be able to push the case well and probably get at least some kind of result. The problem is they're not playing the victim, they're actually blatantly playing an aggressive agenda and I don't think a judge is going to look too kindly on a group of people who are acting in such an aggressive manner whilst the defence are the ones looking very strongly victimised. For all the FUD and stats they pull out in the media claiming they're the victim (from calling it theft through to massaging stats) and making people believe it they're outright failing to translate this propaganda success into the courts and are just making themselves look like complete and utter idiots.
Tactful, is apparently not a word these people understand.
The thing is they already have a lot of that code from their previous products, certainly patching is a trivial thing to implement and the time requirement for doing so would be negligible.
I'd imagine the Steam stuff was done purely so they can distribute via Steam, whilst the Microsoft stuff was done because it gives them free advertising- the first Windows only Live game with achievements I think so it's kind of a flagship product in terms of what MS would like to see as the future of Windows gaming, single profile, mixed with your XBox live profile and achievements gained equally on either system's games.
I don't think they needed Steam at all for any reason other than DRM or to simply get on Steam's download service to try and increase sales. Live is a different story, the matchmaking code is quite good and you're right it'd take a while to implement from scratch, judging by how crap their original Dawn of War net code was (the game failed to handle any additional connections if you tried to do a normal TCP/IP game rather than a gamespy game with more than one other player and if one person was behind NAT) then you may have a point here regarding Live even though they already had net code libraries from before.
There's a difference between using Exchange's basic POP3 server and making use of all the vast array of features Exchange provides though. Most business want the full suite of features.
The things that might give Microsoft the edge are proper Windows integration (Exchange etc.) which is important in the business world where the majority of systems are Windows based and also the massive hoarde of .NET developers that can easily develop for Windows mobile.
Whether they will in practice is a different story of course but Microsoft do have some advantages with their platform, the idea is if they can close their disadvantages - i.e. provide the things Apple has, whilst continuing to provide the things they don't have then that would indeed give them the edge.
As an aside, I did complain to the vendor too by the way, pointing out what Valve had done and whilst they didn't really answer my questions they did interestingly defend DRM. There was one particular gem in the e-mail that I can only assume was a freudian slip:
"The software previously described also prevents privacy on gaming titles, which in turns protect customers from illicit copies of pirated games. The pc games are developed more and more with this preventive software and this seems to be a trend with pc gaming."
The software she is referring to is Steam, I find it quite amusing that she stated quite clearly that it prevents privacy, I think somehow she meant piracy but an amusing slip all the same ;)
This is how I see it:
- The vendor (GAME) is morally wrong to release the game early but is in the right legally
- Valve is morally wrong to prevent you accessing a game you've purchased and perhaps even legally in the wrong also
This is why I think Valve deserves the majority of the blame, yeah a vendor shouldn't release early from a moral standpoint but in the UK there's actually nothing legally wrong with it. Also there's no technical reason I can't play the game other than an artificial one imposed by Valve.
I don't disagree GAME shouldn't have sent it out with this issue, but I also think it was idiotic of Valve to believe everyone would honour the release date perfectly. Particularly as most online companies ship games a day or so early to ensure that if there's a delay in the mail people still get it for release. This means some get it early, but at least that way everyone gets it for release, whilst otherwise some would get it for release and others would have to wait until Monday or later due to lack of delivery on Sat/Sun, which is harsh as many would probably like the weekend to play it than wait another week.
This is why although I understand the argument that all retailers should stick to release I also don't think it's possible if they are to offer a good service. There is however absolutely no reason that Valve/THQ etc. couldn't let people activate early other than sheer bloody mindedness. In other words, the problem is much easier solved by Valve/THQ not being arseholes than it is the vendor managing to offer customers good service whilst still maintaining precise release dates- this only way they could do this would be by using courier services which would add a good 10% - 20% onto costs for the end users for delivery. Of course, Valve would love nothing more than that as their delivery not-required service would receive a massive boost.
My concern then is that Valve actually likes this situation, because if they can shift the blame onto vendors then it has the potential to up their sales, whilst other vendors can do little to counteract it. It's win-win for Valve unless we point out how utterly underhanded Valve are playing this and how they're inconveniencing legitimate customers in the process.
Activation is via Steam and Steam produced the error message, I couldn't even get to install the Windows live part because of Steam's block so it most certainly is a Steam problem and absolutely not a fault of Windows Live I'm afraid.
"Yes, per THQ's will."
Really? why would THQ care? They don't benefit from fixed release dates, only retailers do.
"If it served them no benefit then all companies would just ship out the games, and let individual stores start selling it as they arrive instead of having specific release dates."
The reason we have fixed release dates is so all companies have time to get stock in so they can all start selling at the same time. The worry is that some retailers may not be able to get their stock in before others and may lose out. As all retailers are prone to this they setup agreements as per that in the UK to sell on Fridays. It is not legally binding, it's a choice they make.
"It should make those retailers look bad since they're the ones violating THQ's release date, and if you disagree with that then you should complain to THQ, and perhaps to the whole gaming industry for even using the concept of release dates, but not to Valve."
GAME et al. have chosen to release a day early, they have done nothing wrong from a legal standpoint only broken the agreement with other retailers for this particular title. Valve have chosen not too, but to spite those that have have prevented their customers activating.
This is why it is Valve that is at fault. Valve could simply have just ignored the release date too. I understand Valve may be annoyed others broke the release date, but abusing their position to inconvenience customers who are simply not at fault is rediculous.
See here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1134813&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=26929205#26929943
It's because as per the box, the only agreement I have with Valve is for them to take my registration, I had not at any point agreed for them to be able to prevent me having access to the game, it is not their place to do so unless the box were to state something along the lines of "Valve Software may prevent you accessing the game at any time without notice" so that I could choose not to buy it on that basis.
Why? The store has done nothing legally wrong or even particularly morally wrong as many other stores also got it to their customers yesterday. Steam has however imposed an artificial restriction outside of that which was agreed to when I accepted the terms on the box by purchasing and opening the product.
It's because I purchased a game not developed by Valve from a retailer other than Valve but that it is Valve preventing me from playing it.
Valve should have no power to prevent me from using a product that was neither developed by them nor that I bought from them. I have no transaction with Valve other than that which was agreed on the box- to register the game with Valve and nothing more.
The issue is that Valve is doing something other than taking my registration which is the only transaction the game box suggests I must perform with them. They are doing something over and above the stated remit which I agreed with the publisher to allow them to fill. When the agreement states I only have to register with them that is all I should have to do, I should not also have to be subjected to an artificial limitation by them as to when I can use the software as this was at no point agreed.
No, the reason I couldn't activate was because Valve's servers prevented me doing so. It is hence Valve's hardware and software at their end that is preventing me using the game.
It may be THQ's fault, but I'd be suprised if it was ever their intention that anyone with a copy of the game not be able to use it as it serves them no benefit.
It does however assist Valve in that it makes other game suppliers than themselves look bad because anyone else selling it will be selling a game that Valve has prevented working only to blame the retailer rather than accept they're imposing an artificial restriction.
It states registration required with Steam on the print on the box, not with Windows Live and not with restrictions that I can only play the game when Valve decide I can (even though THQ are the developer and Games workshop own the IP).
Pretty big difference to just registration required with Steam. That said, there's no reason they need anything other than the CD key to register the game anyway so registration required in itself is pretty vague.
But isn't that in itself a major problem?
In the UK there is mutual agreement to not release games until Fridays so that all suppliers get their stock in during the week week and hence have equal chance to sell on release, but there is nothing legally binding here. Valve has effectively decided because it wishes to uphold that agreement it is imposing restrictions on other retailer's customers because those retailers do not wish to uphold that agreement.
The very fact you mention that I should've bought direct from Valve suggests there's something very wrong, this is the sort of monopoly abuse that Microsoft would get shot and hung fromt he gallows here for, Valve doesn't have a monopoly in online game distribution as such but it has a strong position and clearly seems to be abusing it.
I bought Dawn of War 2 yesterday for £24.99 which personally I don't mind paying for a game.
But then I got home and tried to install it and it requires you install Steam and Games for Windows Live and activate the game via Steam. I tried to activate it and was told I can't because it's not for sale in my country- presumably because although some shops are selling it THQ decided the actual release date was today.
So yeah, that changed my mind, £24.99 is fine for a game I can play when I want and whatever system I want but it's far too overpriced for a game I can only play when they decide I'm allowed to play it whilst also having to give away a bunch of personal details to Valve for Steam and Microsoft for Windows Live.
The box at least said an internet connection and registration was required to play but it still said nothing about having to give away details to register to Valve AND Microsoft and it certainly said nothing about them being able to choose when I can and can't play the game.
It's been said here many a time that pirates provide a copy of a game cheaper (free) and that you can play without restriction when you want and where you want. If companies want to increase sales then perhaps they need to accept that they have to beat pirates on at least one of these levels, by either matching them on price (not gonna happen) or by beating them on product quality. Whilst they continue to do neither they wont get anywhere.
As for me and DoW2? I file a complaint with UK trading standards and will be returning the game tommorrow and they can damn well take it back even if it is opened because as far as I'm concerned if I don't have the guarantee of being able to play it when I want and have to hand over personal details to two third party companies to be able to play then it's faulty or simply misadvertised. Just as I got burnt with Spore's DRM I've now been burnt with Dawn of War II's. You see when I was young I used to pirate games because I couldn't afford to buy them, now I make plenty enough to buy these games I do so, just as I *gasp* bought a copy of Windows for my most recently built PC. I also bought music from iTunes only to find the only music on my iPod that would play on the game Lips on the 360 for my girlfriend was downloaded MP3s and none of my legally purchased music would work. Some may think it's not a big deal having to wait a day to activate but my concern is that they can revoke my access just as easily as they've prevented my access to a game I've legitimately bought.
What they need is a change of attitude and price is only part of that, I wont buy brand new XBox 360 games at £39.99 but at around £29.99 I don't mind because at least the restrictions are pretty obvious when you buy the game and console. It's not ideal that there restrictions exist but it's light years ahead of the unadvertised 5 install limit with Spore on release and the "Valve gets to choose when you can and can't play" with Dawn of War 2. So whilst I'll buy 360 games, I wont buy music, I wont buy PC games, not even if they were £9.99 anymore it's not just worth the hassle.
So yeah, even Valve with their "Hey look at us guys! we think DRM is silly, we love piracy and think it helps! hell we even do great discounts sometimes!" are still the scum of the Earth and as bad as EA when it comes to draconian DRM in that they prevented me playing a game made by the company THQ and bought from the company GAME and could just as well prevent me again any time they wish.
To be fair it raises a point though- if the system uses this data automatically then can it tell the difference to say an image from a screenshot of a game like Eve online? I'm not sure what the data they're receiving is actually used for.
What if a user has a rendered image on their system that they downloaded as a background or something and uploads it believing it's a real image?
"This is a new game mechanic that fairly radically changes the gameplay of the FPS"
Yes, it's absolutely nothing like the cover system in Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Rainbow Six Vegas, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 is it?
Sticking to first person in cover isn't innovation, it's a game design choice. The games listed above don't do this (RB6 Vegas is notable because it's an FPS rather than 3rd person title apart from in cover) because they feel it doesn't add anything to their game. It's not that it's in any way a new idea, it's just a different game design choice. Also of course, if you zoom whilst behind cover in many of these sorts of games it does switch back to FPS so even in that respect it's not new.
The reason RB6 Vegas seems to switch to 3rd person for cover is because it's more interesting to see your character doing his thing than it is to just have a camera bobbing around rather uninterestingly as you move along a wall.
Cheney wasn't just an employee of Halliburton, he was on the board of directors, that means he was very strongly tied to the company and had strong interests in it. He was also a neo-con and Halliburton was a vessel for him to help push his political agenda of American strength and corporate interest worldwide. There was also some evidence that Cheney still had some ties to Halliburton whilst the government was pouring money into it.
This is why I asked about the lawyers, because there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were deeply involved in the company and it's ideas like Cheney was. If there is evidence of a strong vested interest as there was with Cheney then sure I'll view them the same way, but until then I'll remain cautious. There are still a lot of bitter Republicans willing to throw FUD left right and centre when it may well have no merit.
I'm concerned about people in power with ANY link to the RIAA, but I'm not about to decide absolutely that these people are going to push the RIAA's agenda when they don't even hold the very top post.
The RIAA had a lot of money and it stands to reason then that they'd go for people who are high up in the law circles to push their cases. It's also no suprise that people who end up in the justice department are picked from the same set- those at or near the top of their game.
It's good that this sort of thing is reported so that we can watch closely and protest the link, but it's not necessarily the end of the world that's all.
Yes I know they worked for the RIAA before. But do they still do so?
If they don't also still work for the RIAA are we sure these lawyers actually even give a damn about the RIAA? Unless they have stocks and shares or whatever in the RIAA companies then what's in it for them if they no longer work for them?
It is possible that these lawyers were just doing it for the money and don't actually give a damn about the company they were working for.
Does anything have anything more damning than that they used to work for the RIAA? do they still? are they receiving money or incentives still from the RIAA?
I'd argue that it's one of the few things we here in Britain have going for us nowadays- the BBC.
The BBC produces some excellent content and shares it worldwide such as Planet Earth and gets involved in various co-productions with foreign companies such as HBO in the US. Some people love BBC news, others hate it but overall the BBC is a top notch content producer when it comes to (lots of people love Top Gear, Doctor Who etc.).
The situation with the BBC isn't quite the same as that described but it is similar. I think the BBC is largely quite respected worldwide for the content it produces to and whilst many things make Britain look like an awful country nowadays, I'd argue the BBC isn't one of them and in fact is one of the few things that shows us in a positive light.
It may sound bad but really it's not, we pay a TV license here which funds the BBC and they also have BBC Worldwide a commercial arm that sells DVDs of their content and such on the world stage to help fund international content too. As such if your setup follows the latter model- by charging reasonable amounts for some, but not all of the foreign content the cost isn't going to be much, but more people will become aware of Canadian culture.
It does have benefits.
and the internets shall lol as the music industry finally finds out in the most publicly embarassing way possible that they can't actually do anything to stop piracy.
From TFA:
""EPIC WINNING LOL," Peter himself later commented on Twitter."
Gotta love their high spirits despite all the crap being thrown at them but I'd imagine it's a hell of a relief seeing the music industry's case pretty much gutted on only the second day.
What's interesting from the BBC article is this:
"In fact it simplifies the prosecutor's case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works."
I find that an impressively naive comment as they haven't made anything available- that should be even easier to defend than "assisting copyright infringement" although from what I understand, despite the music industry just blatantly suggesting they're making available the actual charge is "assisting making available" which is somewhat different. If the latter is indeed the actual charge then I guess we're back to them just defending the fact that assisting making available isn't actually any kind of crime in Sweden.
Still one might hope the fact that their initial main charge has been obliterated that this might put the brakes on any hopes of sympathy for the remaining charge also.
"Yeah, because it's not like other OS's haven't gained a significant marketshare in the past few years."
Yes, you're right, it's not.
"I'm pretty sure OSX's marketshare has improved a couple fold in the past 5 years"
All the way up to 10 users instead of 5 then?
"so it looks like your argument is just full of it."
It's odd that you'd say that when you're quite obviously pulling numbers out your ass in both this and your previous post. But here, have a look at this, it's about as good as we have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Windows at around 91%, MacOS at 5% and Linux at 1%. MacOSX has not quite increased it's marketshare a couple of fold in the last 5 years, it's gained about 1 or 2% rather than the 2.5% it'd need for a couple of fold increase. Only NetApp is more generous than that but it's a pretty blatant anomally compared to all others offering their stats and the figures I just gave are an average including their stats. If NetApp is indeed simply biased hence it being such an anomally compared to the others then MacOS' increases will be lower again.
The fact is, at that rate, Microsoft still has a few decades left in it yet.
Microsoft are protecting their own self interests. Whilst RIAA pressure, or perhaps a hope to move in as a media distributor themselves at some point probably helps push the DRM on music/movies things like the Photoshop problem mentioned here are almost certainly designed to protect products like Windows, Office and so on. The point is though, Microsoft would probably do this anyway without RIAA pressure.
Their whole business model for their software is built around selling for a small fortune software that is otherwise easily copied for free. Bill Gates and Microsoft invented the very model of software being something you pay for separately from the system itself, they created the idea of software as a product rather than something that came with a system. In a way, that's quite a good thing they did otherwise we may have had proprietary systems kinda like the Mac, but instead with only the software that came on the system originally! The problem is they take it to the nth degree and want to charge ever more for software as a separate product. I don't mind buying a $20 Usenet client if it's really decent but I sure as hell am not going to pay $70 for something like Nero, $200 or whatever for Office and $1000 or whatever for Visual Studio. This is essentially where the battle with RMS started, he had a similar idea- software being separate from the hardware, but under a paradigm of much greater openess.
I don't know anyone that had a legit purchased copy of Windows XP who built their own system or who'd upgraded an old machine, only those who got it with their system and even then if it's Home they used a pirated copy of pro instead. To be fair, they must have lost massive amounts of potential sales through piracy this way.
What Microsoft doesn't seem to have clued in on though is that these people pirating XP were also the ones who in their professional life were allowing for it to be pushed on the desktop in a commercial environment. I do not believe Vista was a failure because of bugs because despite the rose tinted glasses view of many, it was really no worse than XP at release and nowadays certainly isn't any worse. The reason Vista flopped is because people couldn't pirate it and still receive patches easily to use on their home computers and so simply couldn't be bothered to get their companies to upgrade to it at work because they hadn't had time to get used to it at home.
I think Microsoft severely underestimate the power of the technical hoardes that convince their managers or not to upgrade or tell their colleagues that they don't want Vista on their home PCs and so on. Ironically, this is why Linux take up is so slow IMHO- many people don't want to support an OS at work that they've never gotten used to at home to know the ins and outs. Linux has the additional hurdle in that it's very different to Windows so many wont even spend the time making such a big jump. The problem is, XP is showing it's age and Linux is losing it's sharp edges, and if Microsoft piss these people off again, they're going to make that jump.
To sum up, the reason Microsoft is doing this is because closed, locked down and paid for is their very business model and always has been ever since their creation. Perhaps what's changed is that hardware is fast enough for them to steal a few processor cycles and a chunk of RAM here and there to handle DRM without most users noticing coupled with the fact over the last few years they've upped the ante on DRM so that people are becoming less and less infuriated by it. Whilst people are ranting about the new DRM features everyone's forgotten the likes of genuine advantage and it's become something people now simply accept. Similarly, if Microsoft have their way, with Windows 8 or whatever, this kind of draconian DRM will simply be forgotten about and people will be ranting about the next big problem. The only hope here is that Windows 7 will be a flop because of DRM and such too and Microsoft realise their locked down approach simply isn't sustainable.