God dman it, I had a perfectly good rejoinder and slashdot's damned antiliteracy filters gave me the "sixteen seconds since you hit reply". Now I forgot what I typed.
Oh yeah, "without political opposition there is no politics."
I wish the damned people that run slashdot would learn to read and type. This is annoying.
SOME people will download games no matter what. These people should simply be ignored by any publisher, because they're not going to by any games anyway.
MOST people are willing to pay for what they get. Howeber, they're not willing to pay for crap or otherwise be ripped off.
"Piracy" doesn't cost anyone a dime. A sale you would have never made is not a sale you lost. If people are downloading your product and not buying it, it's way overpriced. I realise that they believe DRM will increase revinues, but they're wrong. Not to say they don't exist, but I never met anyone who downloads stuff to keep from paying for it. I do refuse to buy DRMed stuff. If it has DRM and I would otherwise consider using it, DRM lost you a sale.
Where did you get those silly ideas? The lyrics and music are both copyrighted and licensed to the label, who owns copyright to the recorded work. You have no license at all, period. You have a CD, a physical product you paid for and own.
Not me, I'm not touching that game with a ten foot pole. If the creators are stupid enough to pull a hare-brained stunt like having a single player game that requires an internet connection it can't possibly be good anough to waste my time trying to play.
True, they do want it both ways, but if you tax it as property it is then property, and the taxes won't hurt them a bit. It would dissuade the average person.
Rather than tax it as the property they claim it is, stand up and shout every time they claim it as the property they want you to believe it is.
I'll try Spore just as soon as the drm is bypassed
Please don't. In fact, please don't buy Spore at all. If they're stupid enough to pull this kind of anti-customner crap, how can they possibly be smart enough to make a decent game?
DRM is a sign that the product sucks so much that its creators don't think it's good enough to pay for.
Don't buy a product so bad its creators think nobody would pay for it.
Mostly because it won't do a thing to prevent piracy.
In other words, compenies that do this are incredibly stupid, and people who buy products from these companies are even stupider. If you see someone with a legal copy of this game, point and laugh. If you see someone with a cracked, pirate copy, slap him on the back, shake his hand, and have him give you a copy. And spread as many cracked copies around as you possibly can.
Probably true, but what it SHOULD do is put the moronic company that came up with this fucktardedly hare-brained idea out of buisness.
Damn it, we won this war back in the late eighties when we refused to buy copy protected CDs. WTF is wrong with you people? Don't buy into to this idiotic shit!
O.k. I've gotten one thing by glancing at the slashdot comments. No one really knows how much a yottabyte of storage will be!
Can some one show me how many kilobytes are in yottabyte?
Yottabyte From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? Jump to: navigation, search Prefixes for bit and byte Decimal Value SI 10001 k kilo 10002 M mega 10003 G giga 10004 T tera 10005 P peta 10006 E exa 10007 Z zetta 10008 Y yotta
Binary Value FOLDOC IEC 10241 K kilo Ki kibi 10242 M mega Mi mebi 10243 G giga Gi gibi 10244 T tera Ti tebi 10245 P peta Pi pebi 10246 E exa Ei exbi 10247 Z zetta Zi zebi 10248 Y yotta Yi yobi
A yottabyte (derived from the SI prefix yotta-) is a unit of information or computer storage equal to one septillion (one long scale quadrillion or 1024) bytes. It is commonly abbreviated YB. As of 2008, no computer has yet achieved one yottabyte of storage. In fact, the combined space of all the computer hard drives in the world does not amount to even one zettabyte. According to one study, all the world's computers stored approximately 160 exabytes in 2006, with nearly 1 zettabyte projected by 2010.[1] When used with byte multiples, the SI prefix may indicate a power of either 1,000 or 1,024, so the exact number may be either:
1 septillion, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes -- 10008, or 1024, or 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 bytes -- 10248, or 280.[citation needed] The term "yobibyte", using a binary prefix, has been proposed as an unambiguous reference to the latter value.
[edit] References ^ Expanding Digital Universe IDC White Paper (pdf)
Will this be unit of measure just for companies like Google or MS only or are we talking about yottabyte flash drives?
You'll likely see a yottabyte flash drive in your lifetime. I remember when people were gasping at the IBM XT's incredibly huge 10 meg hard drive.
How high would a yottabyte stack of eight inch floppies reach? I don't even remember how much data an eight inch floppy held. I do remember a five inch one held 360k.
Hell, lots of these kids don't remember when floppies were floppy on the outside as well as on the inside.
Links supplied for those Brits and us Yanks who don't realise that we speak different languages, almost as different as redneck is from ebonics.
Remember, guys, "Billion" means two different things [Seven if you believe the ebonic rednecks at wikipedia]depending on which part of the world you're in, so make sure you're not getting into a debate between an american and a brit who are both probably right and wrong at the same time.
You realise this would mean I could take GPLed Linux code written in 2003, and use it without having to follow the GPL, right?
Yes, and I would be ok with that. Note that another part would mandate that no computer program could be copyrighted without the source code. That and the five year lifetime of the copyright would make the GPL totally unnecessary.
And that every little patch, beta version, or code posted to a mailing list, would have to be put in the Library of Congress?
So what's so hard about that? We have this thing called "email" these days.
My office computer is running Office 2003, and my home computer Office 97. Should those products be in the public domain?
Yes. How many billion dollars did microsoft make from those products? Copyright's constitutional purpose is to have new works that will go into the public domain. How long are you willing to let Microsoft milk the public's cash cow?
It might be difficult for companies to sell new products if they had to compete with high quality zero-cost legal copies
That's their problem. And it's their problem even now.
why use Vista when you can get XP for free?
Why indeed, if Vista contains no improvements? But if Vista were faster, with a smaller footprint, and more useful then people would in fact pay for theis. Why use any Microsoft OS when Linux and BSD are free? But Microsoft still manages to sell a lot of software.
Why would individuals be left in the cold? When I registered my two copyrights in 1983 that was how it was done then, and I had no trouble getting those copyrights. IIRC there was a ten dollar fee, I'd do away with the fee entirely since the public is (or is supposed to be) the ultimate beneficiary.
For example, Pearl Jam was good (opinions may vary but I liked them and they sold well), Nickelback was signed because they sounded sort of like Pearl Jam (I hate Nickelback) and Creed was signed because they sounded like nickelback (Creed are worse than Nickelback).
For the record, I'm 25 and feel exactly the way you do when I turn on the radio
There's still hope for the world! Pearl Jam was indeed good, Nickleback was indeed crap and Creed was indeed even crappier crap than crap!
The gas is ionized by the electricity, which gets to the gas to be ionized THROUGH WIRES. Haven't you noticed that your forty inch flourescents have WIRES coming from them? No, there are no wires inside the tube, the tube contains the gas that is ionized by the electricalk current. There's no magic there.
Should newer bands be able to flat out use Jagger/Richards songs for free and make a profit at it even when these two are still alive?
Why are you using British examples? I refer only to my own country. Rush, Stones, et al are foreigners. Let their own countries follow their own constiututions (if they have them) and let me concentrate on my own. If you are British or Canadian then we are both arguing with the wrong person.
But yes, newer bands should be able to use their songs for free. Because they're not THEIR SONGS. They're OUR songs. The limited time copyright was given them to entice them to create so that those songs will go into the public domain.
How much are you still making on work you did 40 years ago?
Copyright's entire purpose is to get new works into the public domain. You cannot create in a vaccuum. Walt Disney would have never filmed Seven Dwarves if the Grimm Brothers had not been born.
No work is copyrighted unless application is filed along with two copies in the Library of Congress That will kill the photography profession
Funny, photography thrived for over a hundred years under those restrictions. Are you saying that today's photographers aren't as good or as smart as photographers were in 1983 when I registered two copyrights and such a requirement was still there?
In the US you do NOT own the novel you wrote. It is not property. It belongs to "we, the people". The copyright holder merely has a limited time monopoly on distribution.
I'm personally fine with his continuing to sell copies of his own work.
I'm not. Hasn't he milked Dark Side of the Moon long enough by now? How much are you getting paid for work you did when Nixon was still President? I know he's British (and you may be as well) but in the US, copyright is constitutionally mandated to ensure that artists keep generating art. If he can still live off of thirty five year old work, what is supposed to entice him to make more?
As for software copyrights, 5 years is just silly. By now Windows XP would be in public domain.
IMO it should be.
But what if a corporation made the work? I can't think of a single animated movie that wasn't.
Corporations don't create, people create. The people who make the movie (actors, cameramen, costume designers, etc) should collectively own the copyright. THEY created it, not the fatassed bastard sitting in his penthouse paying wages to them. but printers usually do one printing and then wait to see if those sell. It can take a year or more for demand to accumulate enough to warrant printing a novel again
They should adapt their business model accordingly. Copyright is for the public, not the publisher. Square also likes to...
Again, US Copyright's purpose is to entice creation of new works. What Square likes to is in square's best interests but not the general public's. Square can piss up a rope. Rather than milk old games they should make some NEW ones. How many billions of dollars did Microsoft make in XP's first five years? Jesus H Christ, how much is enough????
Slashdot Mirror
God dman it, I had a perfectly good rejoinder and slashdot's damned antiliteracy filters gave me the "sixteen seconds since you hit reply". Now I forgot what I typed.
Oh yeah, "without political opposition there is no politics."
I wish the damned people that run slashdot would learn to read and type. This is annoying.
SOME people will download games no matter what. These people should simply be ignored by any publisher, because they're not going to by any games anyway.
MOST people are willing to pay for what they get. Howeber, they're not willing to pay for crap or otherwise be ripped off.
"Piracy" doesn't cost anyone a dime. A sale you would have never made is not a sale you lost. If people are downloading your product and not buying it, it's way overpriced. I realise that they believe DRM will increase revinues, but they're wrong. Not to say they don't exist, but I never met anyone who downloads stuff to keep from paying for it. I do refuse to buy DRMed stuff. If it has DRM and I would otherwise consider using it, DRM lost you a sale.
Where did you get those silly ideas? The lyrics and music are both copyrighted and licensed to the label, who owns copyright to the recorded work. You have no license at all, period. You have a CD, a physical product you paid for and own.
Not me, I'm not touching that game with a ten foot pole. If the creators are stupid enough to pull a hare-brained stunt like having a single player game that requires an internet connection it can't possibly be good anough to waste my time trying to play.
I have bigger windmills to tilt at.
True, they do want it both ways, but if you tax it as property it is then property, and the taxes won't hurt them a bit. It would dissuade the average person.
Rather than tax it as the property they claim it is, stand up and shout every time they claim it as the property they want you to believe it is.
political opposition IS "Terrorism" and crime.
Orwell was an optimist.
More to the point, other countries (like mine) should look to England's failed example and refuse to follow it.
I'll try Spore just as soon as the drm is bypassed
Please don't. In fact, please don't buy Spore at all. If they're stupid enough to pull this kind of anti-customner crap, how can they possibly be smart enough to make a decent game?
DRM is a sign that the product sucks so much that its creators don't think it's good enough to pay for.
Don't buy a product so bad its creators think nobody would pay for it.
Mostly because it won't do a thing to prevent piracy.
In other words, compenies that do this are incredibly stupid, and people who buy products from these companies are even stupider. If you see someone with a legal copy of this game, point and laugh. If you see someone with a cracked, pirate copy, slap him on the back, shake his hand, and have him give you a copy. And spread as many cracked copies around as you possibly can.
It's called "civil disobedience". Put these people out of business, dammit!!!!
Probably true, but what it SHOULD do is put the moronic company that came up with this fucktardedly hare-brained idea out of buisness.
Damn it, we won this war back in the late eighties when we refused to buy copy protected CDs. WTF is wrong with you people? Don't buy into to this idiotic shit!
Can some one show me how many kilobytes are in yottabyte? Will this be unit of measure just for companies like Google or MS only or are we talking about yottabyte flash drives?
You'll likely see a yottabyte flash drive in your lifetime. I remember when people were gasping at the IBM XT's incredibly huge 10 meg hard drive.
I refuse to dump floppies until then.
How high would a yottabyte stack of eight inch floppies reach? I don't even remember how much data an eight inch floppy held. I do remember a five inch one held 360k.
Hell, lots of these kids don't remember when floppies were floppy on the outside as well as on the inside.
Links supplied for those Brits and us Yanks who don't realise that we speak different languages, almost as different as redneck is from ebonics.
Remember, guys, "Billion" means two different things [Seven if you believe the ebonic rednecks at wikipedia]depending on which part of the world you're in, so make sure you're not getting into a debate between an american and a brit who are both probably right and wrong at the same time.
Under the new regime, wouldn't that be a "Yobibyte" or something similarly idiotic?
If it's idiotic you want then it's idiotic you get. "My computer storage has Yobibitybobityboodidybytes."
What's infinity divided by zero?
You realise this would mean I could take GPLed Linux code written in 2003, and use it without having to follow the GPL, right?
Yes, and I would be ok with that. Note that another part would mandate that no computer program could be copyrighted without the source code. That and the five year lifetime of the copyright would make the GPL totally unnecessary.
And that every little patch, beta version, or code posted to a mailing list, would have to be put in the Library of Congress?
So what's so hard about that? We have this thing called "email" these days.
My office computer is running Office 2003, and my home computer Office 97. Should those products be in the public domain?
Yes. How many billion dollars did microsoft make from those products? Copyright's constitutional purpose is to have new works that will go into the public domain. How long are you willing to let Microsoft milk the public's cash cow?
It might be difficult for companies to sell new products if they had to compete with high quality zero-cost legal copies
That's their problem. And it's their problem even now.
why use Vista when you can get XP for free?
Why indeed, if Vista contains no improvements? But if Vista were faster, with a smaller footprint, and more useful then people would in fact pay for theis. Why use any Microsoft OS when Linux and BSD are free? But Microsoft still manages to sell a lot of software.
Why would individuals be left in the cold? When I registered my two copyrights in 1983 that was how it was done then, and I had no trouble getting those copyrights. IIRC there was a ten dollar fee, I'd do away with the fee entirely since the public is (or is supposed to be) the ultimate beneficiary.
I agree with you, but I've surrendered. There are more important windmills for me to tilt at.
For example, Pearl Jam was good (opinions may vary but I liked them and they sold well), Nickelback was signed because they sounded sort of like Pearl Jam (I hate Nickelback) and Creed was signed because they sounded like nickelback (Creed are worse than Nickelback).
For the record, I'm 25 and feel exactly the way you do when I turn on the radio
There's still hope for the world! Pearl Jam was indeed good, Nickleback was indeed crap and Creed was indeed even crappier crap than crap!
The gas is ionized by the electricity, which gets to the gas to be ionized THROUGH WIRES. Haven't you noticed that your forty inch flourescents have WIRES coming from them? No, there are no wires inside the tube, the tube contains the gas that is ionized by the electricalk current. There's no magic there.
Should newer bands be able to flat out use Jagger/Richards songs for free and make a profit at it even when these two are still alive?
Why are you using British examples? I refer only to my own country. Rush, Stones, et al are foreigners. Let their own countries follow their own constiututions (if they have them) and let me concentrate on my own. If you are British or Canadian then we are both arguing with the wrong person.
But yes, newer bands should be able to use their songs for free. Because they're not THEIR SONGS. They're OUR songs. The limited time copyright was given them to entice them to create so that those songs will go into the public domain.
How much are you still making on work you did 40 years ago?
Copyright's entire purpose is to get new works into the public domain. You cannot create in a vaccuum. Walt Disney would have never filmed Seven Dwarves if the Grimm Brothers had not been born.
No work is copyrighted unless application is filed along with two copies in the Library of Congress
That will kill the photography profession
Funny, photography thrived for over a hundred years under those restrictions. Are you saying that today's photographers aren't as good or as smart as photographers were in 1983 when I registered two copyrights and such a requirement was still there?
Yow! That's a lotta bytes!!!!
In the US you do NOT own the novel you wrote. It is not property. It belongs to "we, the people". The copyright holder merely has a limited time monopoly on distribution.
I'm personally fine with his continuing to sell copies of his own work.
I'm not. Hasn't he milked Dark Side of the Moon long enough by now? How much are you getting paid for work you did when Nixon was still President? I know he's British (and you may be as well) but in the US, copyright is constitutionally mandated to ensure that artists keep generating art. If he can still live off of thirty five year old work, what is supposed to entice him to make more?
As for software copyrights, 5 years is just silly. By now Windows XP would be in public domain.
IMO it should be.
But what if a corporation made the work? I can't think of a single animated movie that wasn't.
Corporations don't create, people create. The people who make the movie (actors, cameramen, costume designers, etc) should collectively own the copyright. THEY created it, not the fatassed bastard sitting in his penthouse paying wages to them.
but printers usually do one printing and then wait to see if those sell. It can take a year or more for demand to accumulate enough to warrant printing a novel again
They should adapt their business model accordingly. Copyright is for the public, not the publisher.
Square also likes to...
Again, US Copyright's purpose is to entice creation of new works. What Square likes to is in square's best interests but not the general public's. Square can piss up a rope. Rather than milk old games they should make some NEW ones. How many billions of dollars did Microsoft make in XP's first five years? Jesus H Christ, how much is enough????