I agree with this statement fully. It is the reason I find Steam so compelling. It truly has been easier for me to re-download games onto a new system, easier for me to purchase new games, than it would be to pirate them. Of course, I've never tried to play such games on Linux, but Steam is the closest to "getting it right" I've seen.
Make it easy to legally use your game, and people will do so.
These exceptions aren't temporary. There's no "Let me in once" option, or "remove this exception after a week" option. You can either browse the website unsecured forever, or you can not browse it at all, ever.
That's just fucking stupid, and negates all benefits of the warnings.
I've noticed that this £1 = $1 in terms of prices thing holds true at least 3/4 of the time (and £2 = $1 on anything imported, and £3 = $2 a fair amount of time as well). Makes me wonder where the hell the "exchange rate" of £1 = $2 comes from. What exactly are people exchanging at that rate?
Yeah, because a service where anyone can copy information instantly and anyone can easily create content without worrying about limited resources is completely worthless and nobody makes any money there doing anything except selling "real world" goods, which also wouldn't count for some reason.
In-game cheating should be prevented by leveraging real-world laws? Not only does that not have anything to do with the issue at hand, it's fucking stupid.
I was only half-surprised that this wasn't already mentioned. But then, didn't they say something like they expected most internet traffic to be encrypted using their system by 1998 or something? Such epic failure, it's probably safe to ignore them.
If someone directly copies and pastes some code into their closed-source application, and distributes that, I don't care about the "derived" work. The original code is no longer free to be modified in that situation. If you were to come across it in the wild, you would not be free to modify it. You would be free to modify the original, by itself, but that's useless if you want to do so in order to change what happens within the closed work. Not touching someone else's code at all, just touching your own original code. But in this case you can't do it because someone has said "No. You can't change your code when it's here."
I suppose the difference might be that you're considering every time someone types "cp" to be a wholly new work, no matter how little of it has changed. Where do you draw the line between "code" and "project"? A useful function? A library? a shared library?
"A simple analogy is seen in that every number has an infinite number of representations (3+2=5, 2*2+1=5, 10-5=5, 10/2=5, etc). Even if the number (file) in question can be copyrighted under current legislation, it is practically impossible and unreasonable to state that every other representation of that particular number is copyrighted."
Actually, no, it's not unreasonable or impractical. In fact, that's how it actually works. Star Wars is copyrighted as a DVD, Film, mpeg, script, live performance, song, interpretive dance, etc...right?
It is giving up the work to the community, it just has a more specific definition of "the community" than you do. The GPL is for giving code to "the community of those who are willing to share how they improved what they are sharing", not "the all-encompassing community of sapient beings".
Try this (written but not tested): #!/bin/bash tgz_file="$1" if [ "${tgz_file#/}" -eq "$tgz_file" ]; then
tgz_file="$(pwd)/$tgz_file"; fi temp_dir="TGZ_TEMP_$(RANDOM)" mkdir "$temp_dir" cd "$temp_dir"
tar -zxvf "$tgz_file"
cd..
i=0 for f in "$temp_dir"/*; do; i=$(($i + 1)); done if [ "$i" -lt "2" ]; then
#only one (or empty), so move it back to the run dir
mv "$temp_dir"/* .
rmdir "$temp_dir" else
#some asshole didn't include a wrapper directory, so make one ourselves
dir="${tgz_file#*/}"
mv "$temp_dir" "${dir%tar.gz}" fi
Anyone - not just LL, can sell L$ for any amount they choose. With a free market, how could LL "Adjust the rate to suit themselves"? They could raise the price - and nobody would buy from them (they currently sell at a little above "market value", and so most larger transactions are done through third parties). They could pump the market with new L$, I suppose. This would make the price of all goods go up, and the same amount of "real" money would buy you the same amount of everything else. They could make more land available at cheaper rates, this could either raise or lower the "value" of L$, depending on how you look at it. What would LL serve to gain from any of it? I suppose pumping the market full of new L$, a timely investor could "make it big" before the market adjusts, but this seems as unlikely in SL as it does in RL.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this statement fully. It is the reason I find Steam so compelling. It truly has been easier for me to re-download games onto a new system, easier for me to purchase new games, than it would be to pirate them.
Of course, I've never tried to play such games on Linux, but Steam is the closest to "getting it right" I've seen.
Make it easy to legally use your game, and people will do so.
"EA's DRM does nothing to prevent torrents. Cracked copies were released even before the official game. This proves that DRM is necessary."
read that over a few times.
afaik, MS invented Ctrl+Alt+Del, and it was (at the time) innovative.
These exceptions aren't temporary. There's no "Let me in once" option, or "remove this exception after a week" option.
You can either browse the website unsecured forever, or you can not browse it at all, ever.
That's just fucking stupid, and negates all benefits of the warnings.
The word "supported" actually meaning something?
I've noticed that this £1 = $1 in terms of prices thing holds true at least 3/4 of the time (and £2 = $1 on anything imported, and £3 = $2 a fair amount of time as well). Makes me wonder where the hell the "exchange rate" of £1 = $2 comes from. What exactly are people exchanging at that rate?
Yeah, because a service where anyone can copy information instantly and anyone can easily create content without worrying about limited resources is completely worthless and nobody makes any money there doing anything except selling "real world" goods, which also wouldn't count for some reason.
In-game cheating should be prevented by leveraging real-world laws? Not only does that not have anything to do with the issue at hand, it's fucking stupid.
btw, you just lost the game.
I was only half-surprised that this wasn't already mentioned. But then, didn't they say something like they expected most internet traffic to be encrypted using their system by 1998 or something? Such epic failure, it's probably safe to ignore them.
If someone directly copies and pastes some code into their closed-source application, and distributes that, I don't care about the "derived" work. The original code is no longer free to be modified in that situation. If you were to come across it in the wild, you would not be free to modify it. You would be free to modify the original, by itself, but that's useless if you want to do so in order to change what happens within the closed work. Not touching someone else's code at all, just touching your own original code. But in this case you can't do it because someone has said "No. You can't change your code when it's here."
I suppose the difference might be that you're considering every time someone types "cp" to be a wholly new work, no matter how little of it has changed. Where do you draw the line between "code" and "project"? A useful function? A library? a shared library?
Hi. You didn't read his post, or didn't understand it enough to post something vaguely related to it. Try again.
"A simple analogy is seen in that every number has an infinite number of representations (3+2=5, 2*2+1=5, 10-5=5, 10/2=5, etc). Even if the number (file) in question can be copyrighted under current legislation, it is practically impossible and unreasonable to state that every other representation of that particular number is copyrighted."
Actually, no, it's not unreasonable or impractical. In fact, that's how it actually works. Star Wars is copyrighted as a DVD, Film, mpeg, script, live performance, song, interpretive dance, etc. ..right?
$100k for 6 months in a data center? Can I have your job?
It is giving up the work to the community, it just has a more specific definition of "the community" than you do. The GPL is for giving code to "the community of those who are willing to share how they improved what they are sharing", not "the all-encompassing community of sapient beings".
Try this (written but not tested):
..
#!/bin/bash
tgz_file="$1"
if [ "${tgz_file#/}" -eq "$tgz_file" ]; then
tgz_file="$(pwd)/$tgz_file";
fi
temp_dir="TGZ_TEMP_$(RANDOM)"
mkdir "$temp_dir"
cd "$temp_dir"
tar -zxvf "$tgz_file"
cd
i=0
for f in "$temp_dir"/*; do; i=$(($i + 1)); done
if [ "$i" -lt "2" ]; then
#only one (or empty), so move it back to the run dir
mv "$temp_dir"/* .
rmdir "$temp_dir"
else
#some asshole didn't include a wrapper directory, so make one ourselves
dir="${tgz_file#*/}"
mv "$temp_dir" "${dir%tar.gz}"
fi
Because Google would /never/ considering doing anything in terms of an operating system. That's just silly!
I'd guess trademark applies to the words "e-meter" "electrometer" or "Church of Scientology"
I think you're thinking of criminal law...
HMV, so you won't be disconnected in the first place?
0.0450% of light is reflected,
99.955% of light is not reflected.
http://www.physorg.com/news119554586.html
If this is the least I can say regarding the wrongness of a lot of that:
What electoral college?
How long before buffering reads into memory is considered archaic legacy support and something to be avoided?
It has MegaTokyo and User Friendly. Why do you think?
Anyone - not just LL, can sell L$ for any amount they choose. With a free market, how could LL "Adjust the rate to suit themselves"? They could raise the price - and nobody would buy from them (they currently sell at a little above "market value", and so most larger transactions are done through third parties). They could pump the market with new L$, I suppose. This would make the price of all goods go up, and the same amount of "real" money would buy you the same amount of everything else. They could make more land available at cheaper rates, this could either raise or lower the "value" of L$, depending on how you look at it. What would LL serve to gain from any of it? I suppose pumping the market full of new L$, a timely investor could "make it big" before the market adjusts, but this seems as unlikely in SL as it does in RL.
*cough* *cough* *cough*