"exclusive control" applies. It is not enough to say you have a choice when that choice means alienating yourself from the rest of the world. These days Linux is more viable, but even now it has second-rate driver support. Back when the suit was launched, there was essentially no choice for the average consumer. Hell, even Microsoft knew it looked so bad that they had to give Apple money just to keep them afloat, so they could point to them as competition.
Yeah, but it costs money to set up and the only real benefit to MS is to sit there laughing at the cheaters all playing each other. Sounds priceless to me:)
Also, there could be an actual benefit by not having to get into an arms race with the modders. If the modders don't know they are caught, they won't seek out another mod. Besides all that, the idea doesn't sound all that expensive. They're already detecting the modded systems and taking action.
I love this bit from the article:
The boy's mother arrived and gave police permission to search her son's bedroom. The police found nothing illegal in the student's bedroom, but confiscated five decorative swords in the search.
Sword ownership rights have been under heavy fire since they were determined to be the leading cause of death during the Siege of Acre in the third crusade.
Too lazy to even Google, but last I heard (years ago), they give you a device that monitors your viewing habits. I once received $4 in the mail (cash!) with an offer to participate in the program. I didn't do it, but the cash in the mail was surprising.
That's primarily politics. The shared source tenent of the GPL isn't politics. It is driven by a practical concern to, as you say, "improve-use-and-share". You can read up on how Stallman was traumatized (comical but true!) by not being able to modify a printer driver without access to the source. Most coders aren't binary specialists, and even those who are would be much more productive with source code. Hell, even the OpenBSD guys aren't happy with binary blobs. Actually, the want they specs, not just source code.
If improve-use-and-share was a right rather than a priviledge (as it would be in a world without copyright), the act of contrition would hold less importance. I don't understand. I think you had it right in your original post. If there were no copyrights, binary blobs with DRM hardware would be the norm. And even forgetting DRM, there's still the practical matter that modifying binaries is a pain, so the "right to improve" part is pretty constrained.
Hasn't Microsoft's "shared source" pretty well proven this to you? The source code by itself means nothing. It means nothing because they have copyright to prevent you from doing anything useful with it. The whole point of GPL is to stop this from happening to source code. GPLv3 goes even further to plug the latest loopholes.
Sound vaguely similar to the MAFIAAs? No, it sounds like you get pissy over your copyrights, but don't care about big industry's. RIAA gets their leads from p2p networks that share copyrighted music. They don't go door-to-door. How else are they supposed to go after people using p2p sites to illegally copy?
I imagine if you found your stuff in a p2p site you'd probably try to think of a way to stop it.
You miss the obvious. One of the basic tenents of GPL is that you get access to source code. That is why the original article picked on the GPL so much as requiring copyright. It says as much right on the front page of http://gnu.org/:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Being able to hack binary blobs is better than nothing, but having the source makes a world of difference.
And I bet, if I had a million dollars, I could probably hook that up. 'Cause chicks dig a dude with money.;-) If you want two prostitutes at the same time, I'm sure you could afford that now.
how is the problem not piss-poor end-users? If there is a 300-1 ratio of people who don't do the "right" thing, then the security model is broken. The user is given a choice of not getting what they want or dismissing a warning that they can't understand and is probably a false alarm. Guess what? All those people that ignored the warning were right; it was a false alarm. Even as a technical user, I make the same choice all the time when some ssh cache is no longer valid. My understanding is that Vista is filled with these nagware warning boxes, which will just further condition people to ignore warnings.
Oblivion masks this well by it's expansive and diverse storylines, it's a great game simply because there's just so many characters to interact with, things that change depending on your actions, etc. I dunno, Oblivion got boring fairly quickly. As you say, the textures were reused a lot -- after a while, one cave looks like another. The character voices and basic looks were reused a lot too. It was fun for awhile, playing with the stat system, magic, alchemy, etc. The missions were fun in the beginning, too. But after awhile, same old, same old. I quit on the "get everybody's help by closing all the gates". Visit city, close gate. Visit city, close gate. Yawn.
In related news, I'd like to congratulate you for being the ONE guy who managed to abbreviate Hard Disk Drive properly. Of course, people could just write out "hard drive" and avoid the confusion completely. There's too many damn acronyms.
Final Fantasy XI requires that it is installed on the hard drive of the 360 Wow, I had no idea. Just goes to show how short-sighted Microsoft's "core" strategy was. So lots of developers haven't taken advantage of the hard drive. Yet some developers are going to require it, fragmenting their market and pissing off consumers.
Personally I wanted to throw my game out the window. The GTA series has always been frustrating, and as a game I find it is way overated. I bought a PS2 because of FFX and GTA3, and while GTA3 was incredible when I first saw it (actually I spent a few days just marvelling at the world), it quickly got boring and frustrating. It would have been ok if it had more frequent save points, or ad hoc save points. Instead, there was always too much repitition by having to start the mission from scratch. I rented Vice City and San Andreas, and quickly returned both.
You know what, call me stupid but any time I watch a dual-layer DVD on my 360, the point at which it switches layers is practically unnoticeable. I've noticed it. A pause that shouldn't be there is a wee bit jarring.
but a good performer who has invested years into the company and the community in which the company operates deserves a little more consideration. And they often get it. Employers value experience. It may take months or years to get the same productivity out of another worker.
The employee might have to sell his freakin' house before he can move to a place with jobs. That's why there is unemployment, to give you a cushion.
Small business is sold to the American people as some great get-rich scheme but most small businesses fail and that seed money is gone. It's a sucker's bet these days. If you want to get rich, then starting your own business is the only practical way. Stupid laws that try to micromanage your business don't help. Ok, 9/10 fail. People are aware of this number. Most people realize that it takes a lot of hard work, skill, and some luck to succeed, yet for them it is worth the risk. There's value in being your own boss and the rewards can be great.
Most people don't have what it takes, and prefer a steady job. This is fine. Yet small business is a very large part of the economy, and it always has been.
However, I do not support the RIAA or the MPAA, as I find their tactics indefensible. I also believe that it's completely inappropriate; copyright holders themselves should pursue violations, rather than pushing such dirty work to a second-party group. If a bunch of ISPs formed an umbrella group to help fight spam, would you feel the same way? On principle, I don't see anything wrong with an entity like the RIAA. Are there abuses and mistakes? Sure. But the basic idea seems reasonable, if you believe people shouldn't be allowed to illegally download movies and music with impunity.
I don't believe you can usefully generalize my opinions on copyright from my disagreement with groups such as the RIAA and the MPAA. I can't say for any one particular person, but my general feeling is that the RIAA is just a convenient entity to bash for going after individual downloaders. It's the same way Metallica was villainized when they went after Napster. It doesn't matter who is leading the fight, only that the fight is being fought.
Well, to be honest, your question caught me by surprise. I wasn't aware of the exact nature of RIAA, and after a cursory search, the details are still fuzzy to me. It seems they are a trade group that themselves don't own copyrighted music, but they represent companies that do. When a lawsuit is initiated, however, it does appear that the actual copyright holders are the plaintiffs.
So you seem to be questioning me on a technicality. What it all boils down to is that people like downloading music for free that legally they aren't entitled to, and act morally outraged when the average user is acted against. They'll latch on to the abuses, but the real motivation is just wanting the free music. So if they don't respect copyright for music, what copyrights do they respect? Isn't the natural conclusion to question the notion of copyright altogether? Certainly some people do, and I at least find their stance principled, unlike the "whatever is good for me" crowd.
So while the FSF is not anti-copyright, it is quite sound to be both pro-Free Software and anti-copyright, with the qualification that in place of copyright we would like to see the 4 essential freedoms of software users enshrined in law. But saying that you must allow free access to source code when distributing software is a form of copyright, no matter how you slice it. That's why the blogger referenced the old "haggling over price" joke. Arguing that you are merely guaranteeing a users "freedom" ignores that you are doing so by taking away other freedoms. Free speech would allow you to release binary only code.
There are also many, many Slashdotters who get upset when the RIAA tries to enforce it's copyright against people downloading music for free. Sure, they pick on the obvious abuses, but the driving reason is that they want to listen to music for free without fear of punishment for violating copyright. I'm sure if you asked many of these people if copyright should be abolished they would say "No!".
You should reread the article with the following requirement for free software in mind:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Without copyright, the GPL cannot enforce this. In response to this, some posters have said that instead of copyright, there should be a law requiring source code be distributed with binary code. How's that for "freedom"?
Slashdot Mirror
YOU pay attention. Your parent said: "I'm aware that this is only on the paid-for part of the business. I still don't like it."
"exclusive control" applies. It is not enough to say you have a choice when that choice means alienating yourself from the rest of the world. These days Linux is more viable, but even now it has second-rate driver support. Back when the suit was launched, there was essentially no choice for the average consumer. Hell, even Microsoft knew it looked so bad that they had to give Apple money just to keep them afloat, so they could point to them as competition.
But it's gold-plated ! That must be worth, umm, something?
Also, there could be an actual benefit by not having to get into an arms race with the modders. If the modders don't know they are caught, they won't seek out another mod. Besides all that, the idea doesn't sound all that expensive. They're already detecting the modded systems and taking action.
Sword ownership rights have been under heavy fire since they were determined to be the leading cause of death during the Siege of Acre in the third crusade.
I agree with you. The article was very balanced. Actually, I was struck by just how balanced and well-written it was.
Too lazy to even Google, but last I heard (years ago), they give you a device that monitors your viewing habits. I once received $4 in the mail (cash!) with an offer to participate in the program. I didn't do it, but the cash in the mail was surprising.
"Go run along and play; the adults have work to do."
You can make a point without insulting people. In fact, it tends to work a lot better.
I imagine if you found your stuff in a p2p site you'd probably try to think of a way to stop it.
You miss the obvious. One of the basic tenents of GPL is that you get access to source code. That is why the original article picked on the GPL so much as requiring copyright. It says as much right on the front page of http://gnu.org/:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Being able to hack binary blobs is better than nothing, but having the source makes a world of difference.
Most people don't have what it takes, and prefer a steady job. This is fine. Yet small business is a very large part of the economy, and it always has been.
Well, to be honest, your question caught me by surprise. I wasn't aware of the exact nature of RIAA, and after a cursory search, the details are still fuzzy to me. It seems they are a trade group that themselves don't own copyrighted music, but they represent companies that do. When a lawsuit is initiated, however, it does appear that the actual copyright holders are the plaintiffs.
So you seem to be questioning me on a technicality. What it all boils down to is that people like downloading music for free that legally they aren't entitled to, and act morally outraged when the average user is acted against. They'll latch on to the abuses, but the real motivation is just wanting the free music. So if they don't respect copyright for music, what copyrights do they respect? Isn't the natural conclusion to question the notion of copyright altogether? Certainly some people do, and I at least find their stance principled, unlike the "whatever is good for me" crowd.
There are also many, many Slashdotters who get upset when the RIAA tries to enforce it's copyright against people downloading music for free. Sure, they pick on the obvious abuses, but the driving reason is that they want to listen to music for free without fear of punishment for violating copyright. I'm sure if you asked many of these people if copyright should be abolished they would say "No!".
You should reread the article with the following requirement for free software in mind:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Without copyright, the GPL cannot enforce this. In response to this, some posters have said that instead of copyright, there should be a law requiring source code be distributed with binary code. How's that for "freedom"?