Well yes, but the same can be said of any company's response to public feedback. People just slap on that label when they disagree with the wider community.
Call it what you want, point out whatever ulterior motives you like, but the advantages of corporate responsibility to the public far, far outweigh the disadvantages. Sure, you may lose something you want from time to time, but it's an invaluable safeguard.
You're missing the point. Deliberately or accidentally, I'm not quite sure, but the point has been missed nonetheless.
Nobody is denying that the Taliban exists or is fighting American soldiers. That's not what this is about. It's about how offensive it is to soldiers, for people to play as their enemy, pretending, for enjoyment, to kill them and their brethren. They know better than anyone that the Taliban exists. They would just rather you show some more respect for their sacrifices.
Q: Will I have to spend money to remain competitive? A: No. Any items affecting gameplay, and even most purely cosmetic items, will still be obtainable simply by playing the game.
Sure, but I was more wondering if there was actually a fledgling business who tried to get off the ground, but was hit with a hard lawsuit. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here (I think there probably is), but I was just hoping for a solid, measurable basis for such fears.
I don't know about you specifically, but it can be kinda scary to give up the 9 to 5 and run a business full time. Fears that look big may turn out to be small or non-existent. That's why I'm curious about actually filed anti-competitive lawsuits.
I, too, prefer someone who thinks. It's an invaluable talent when things go pear-shaped, and protocol all go to shit. However, if things weren't going to shit, and protocol was an issue, I would (in most areas) prefer they obey the protocol, and talk to me later about how the protocol didn't work, or how it could be amended (officially or unofficially). The last thing you need, when you're running a large scale operation, is everyone deluding themselves into thinking they know better than you, especially when they don't have the full picture. That's when things become dangerous and unpredictable. Suggestions are always welcome, but protocol should be adhered to. If they can't live with protocol as it is, and I can't live with protocol as they want it to be, then they can resign.
Essentially, it's a false dichotomy. Breaking rules is a nice romantic picture of original/creative thought, but it's not the only expression of original/creative thought, and, as a general rule, it is not a great idea (even if you think you understand the situation).
As an example, consider the UIs of certain modern applications, moving away from the rule-based "do as I say" method of interaction to the "do what I want" method of interaction (e.g. auto-complete/predictive text, voice recognition, awesome bar in Firefox, etc). Many slashdotters feel that such design decisions make the UI less intuitive, since the response of the program depends on hidden or arbitrary parameters. Computers have the capacity to reasonably guess at what you mean, but many of us still prefer the efficiency and predictability of strict, rule-based interaction. The same goes for many businesses.
It is unlikely that it can be known or proven until it is first tried.
'Tis true. Which is why we do studies and trials first.
Not convinced? Well, how about we try mass suicides. That may help our copyright problems. Hey, we don't know until we try!
Your "carefully reasoned arguments" aren't so carefully reasoned. They merely replaced the words "potential profit" with "demand" and formed the same illogical arguments that I've seen time and time again.
Odd. You never pointed out a problem in my reasoning. You only tried to equate pirating with not buying (which I have since rebutted, and is not a problem of logic), and commented on the similarity of my carefully reasoned argument with another carefully reasoned argument that you've encountered before. I asked before, and I'll ask again: where, specifically, is my logical flaw?
Also, I notice you're conveniently ignoring the other half of my post from the other thread, where I prove that piracy is harmful. You didn't seem to have too much problem with the careful reasoning there.
I think, before you reply, you need to look back at my arguments, pinpoint exactly where I went wrong (and no, arriving at the opposite conclusion to you is not evidence that I'm wrong), or convince yourself that they are correct. Take as much time as you need, because otherwise you're just going to start arguing in circles.
I find it worthless. The only reason I use it is because other people don't and I live in an illogical capitalistic society.
Oh, OK. Then I'll gladly take it off your hands. I won't take much of your time. I'll even buy you dinner and drinks, if it will sweeten the deal.
Or perhaps you misunderstand what "worth" actually is. If you don't want to part with it, it's worth something (to you).
Trade what? Pirates aren't trading anything, they're copying. The artist isn't spending his time making the copies for the pirates, the pirates just effortlessly copy it and use the software for free. There's no 'trading' going on here. No 'taking', either.
I'm not talking about pirates, I'm talking about people who actually pay for their entertainment. They do trade something for the copy. The pirates correspond to the people who use the other method, and obtain without trading (which I thought was pretty self-evident). Also, the artist doesn't spend time on making the copies, the artist spends time making the original.
Relax; I hadn't said anything challenging or ground-breaking. Basically, artists work to create, some people pay, some people do not.
Plenty of time to make the original product, yes. However, that doesn't change the fact that the pirate effortlessly copied his software and it didn't hurt him in the slightest. No 'taking' and 'trading' involved.
You're begging the question. I'm in the middle of proving that your unsubstantiated claim that piracy is not harmless, and the best rebuttal essentially amounts to "well, it's not harmful because it's not harmful". It's not helpful to your argument.
Yes, all I was referring to was the work done by the artist in producing the original. That is all I was saying in that statement.
We're now past the rest of my argument, and the objections so far have been minor confusions, and simply restating the problem with no actual rebuttal. I'm now going to assume that you accept the argument, due to the lack of reasons countering that argument.
"Because everybody wins"
Except people that don't have money.
I guess, but it's pretty difficult to make them win. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't have a better solution for allowing them to "win". For example, if you assume that they have access to the internet, you fail it already. If you assume that without copyright, even assuming they have internet access, that they have more of a choice of free culture than they do currently, then you fail it twice.
"Piracy is different, since the act of not buying and pirating actually harms demand."
So does someone who just doesn't buy it but also doesn't pirate it.
OK, I'll pay that. It's a related concept to legitimate competition, and I forgot to explicitly mention it. Basically, the possibility of gaining nothing and keeping the money currently outweighs the possibility of buying the item. Just like, when a person decides to choose one store over another, they choose one trade over the other. The possibility of not buying is like another null trade, where nothing is traded for nothing.
But, I suppose you're more interested in why this is not as harmful as piracy. It has the same effect on the artist as piracy (as does legitimate competition), but at least the artist has a chance of fairly competing. They can lower the price, find a new business model, or just make something better.
It is assumed that the consumer is not buying the work because he does not want it. Like I said, we try and make sure that everybody wins, that consumers get what they want, and to do so, we make sure that providers get what they need to keep providing people with what they want. If a person refuses to buy or pirate a work, then I am happy to assume that they do not want it, and so it is not our business to make sure that the
Thought. In fact, I haven't found a plausible scenario where nuking copyright doesn't cause problems, and believe me, it's not from a lack of trying. I've argued with countless people on the subject. Most people come up with some explanation of what our culture will be like post-copyright. In every single one of them, I have found at least three holes in their argument, or plausible concerns that they hadn't really considered.
The discussion is moot anyway. There's a much better way of approaching copyright reform: do nothing. Well, not do "nothing" exactly, but do nothing on the legal front (except perhaps some cosmetic changes, like shorter terms, perhaps repeal the DMCA (although I'm not particularly against the DMCA)). Pass/redact no laws, and start demanding that artists allow free sharing. Copyright allows for that case, and in fact, it's happening right now. Only reward artists who do allow free sharing, and refuse to deal with those who don't. They'll have to change their business model quicksmart, and they'll have no sympathy with the courts, since you're not doing anything illegal or morally wrong.
Why is this superior? Well, for a number reasons:
1) It doesn't artists into something they can't manage. If they can't manage to sustain free sharing, they can always revert back to the original business model, lick their wounds and recover. 2) If this new business model has some adverse effect on quality/quantity, then consumers have the safety net of choice. They can choose whether or not to buy into paid culture, either exclusively, or maybe just a bit on the side. Simply put, we get more choice, which is a massive bonus. 3) The system in place is a tried and true method of attracting artists, so working within it, and changing it organically from the inside out, it not only the safest way, but really the only sensible way, without having to invest in countless studies on the matter prior to tearing the system down.
It is far, far, far superior to anything I have heard from the proponents of piracy. Maybe such a superior system exists, but until it becomes known and proven, my system is by far the best chance we have for actually instituting effective change.
Also, pretending that pirates are hurting anyone by merely effortlessly copying something just creates more problems.
Pretending that you know that my carefully reasoned arguments are pretence just makes you sound like an idiot. Sorry, but it's true.:-/
It matters little, as that is the fault of our illogical capitalistic society that requires that you have worthless artificial currency to survive (at the moment).
Classic mistake: just because the currency's materials have no innate value, doesn't mean the currency is worthless. It's worth something purely because we treat it as though it's worth something, just like anything and everything we deal with. Everyone treating it as something of value is sufficient to make it of value.
It also does not follow that without currency, piracy becomes harmless. Without currency, you revert back to trading objects/services of similar value. An artist's time is valuable (like everybody else's), and he's not going to spend time that he could be using to make himself a living (by hunting and gathering, presumably) creating, recording, and distributing a nice little recording to you, unless you contribute to his living. You know, actually make his spending of his time worthwhile. He probably will expect something of value to be traded for his work, and you, being a music fan, could find something of sufficient value to trade for said work.
Now, suppose you didn't have to pay for said work. I don't know the reason, just that there was a way for you to obtain without trading. Maybe the artist is crazy enough to put in all that work, and hand it out for free, no strings attached. Or maybe not; maybe there's some other way this thing appears magically in your possession. If it's the artist's choice, then I don't really care; It's between you and him, and any problems or boons from that choice is a private matter. So, let's assume that he wants to trade for it, but you don't. Is the artist worse off for it if you do?
Let's assume for the moment that the artist is no worse off. Then surely, unless you're somehow extraordinarily special, the same will apply to everyone. That means, everyone who wants to trade with the artist can trade nothing instead, and each time, the artist is no worse off. Even if everyone chooses to trade nothing, then by assumption, the artist is still no worse off.
But this conclusion is absurd. He has already used plenty of time; time he could have been using to earn himself some food, shelter, or just some stability. If everyone or anyone had actually traded something for his work, he would have had more that he considered valuable, so he would be better off in that respect as well. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, piracy is not harmless (or somehow, it's harmless only when certain people do it).
If it's about potential profit, then everyone is guilty of 'taking' that (even though it only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist made more money, making 'taking' it impossible), as you're guilty of 'stealing' someones potential profit just by not buying their product.
No, it's not about potential profit. It's about something a little different: demand. Demand is a potential source of profit, but not all potential profit comes from demand. You know this already: determining not to buy a product certainly drains potential profit, but it has no impact on demand. We do our best, as a society, to make sure profit actually reflects demand. Why? Because everybody wins. People who want something actually get it. People who contribute to society by making such a thing available are rewarded for their efforts, which encourages them to do it again.
Piracy is different, since the act of not buying and pirating actually harms demand. People who want it enough to buy it can obtain it without buying it, and their new possession now fulfils their demand without the necessary quid pro quo. So, the potential profit that the seller is entitled to (the demand), is reduced through actions not within his control.
Well, we do actually allow competition, which damages demand, but that's because at least the consumer still wins (he still gets what he wants). Piracy doesn't hav
I must say, it's a relief seeing your post. I've been a little concerned that the moderate middle ground on the copyright issue may be shrinking. Actions by the Big Publishers have been polarising the issue somewhat, which is not entirely fair, since copyright is actually quite a bit bigger than them. I've been seeing more people here in favour of abandoning copyright, or almost as bad, abandoning copyright for non-commercial purposes (which is where 99% of the violations come from).
We desperately need solutions, but nuking copyright just creates more problems. What we really need is a tighter corporate leash. That would solve not only the copyright problems, but a fair few other problems as well. I too would vote for a party who would be in favour of reasonably scaling copyright and copyright enforcement back, but I find the pirate party's stance simply unacceptable.
How is democracy related to stealing revenue from other people?
If majority A wants to screw minority B, then democracy has got you covered! Well, to within a constitution, but constitutions have never covered all possible methods of screwing.
However, democracy doesn't protect against stupid decisions. Democracy is only as good as the people who use it.
(Mods, bring it on! I'm not even trolling, but it never stopped you before!)
People that want to "protect" their kids are willing to destroy the freedom of everyone around them just so they can prevent their kids of expressing the same curiosities as they did when they were young.
Sir, I am in awe! However do you manage to pack so much fail into a single sentence?
I know several people who want to protect their kids, and no, they are not willing to destroy the freedom of everyone else around them. Also, they want to protect their kids because, well, that's what parents are hard-wired to do! They see dangers, they want to protect their children from it. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
I read the first two sentences of your post and saw instantly that you don't really get it. Everything a company does is technically a pure money grab. The term "money grab" is just a purely arbitrary and subjective label that people put on a company's actions when they don't approve of those actions. Whether or not an action by a company is deemed a money grab by a given consumer is (or should be) irrelevant when you go shopping. What should be relevant is the product you're getting versus the amount you're paying.
Also, even though manufacturing may cost the same between the locked and unlocked CPU, Intel may well be unlocking a previously untapped market, for people who want a CPU, but are unsure of the amount of power they need. This provides something close to what they want: a CPU that can be upgraded for next to nothing, with next to no hassle involved. If such a market were to exist in any significant size, then releasing the locked CPU could provide intel with a greater market share, and greater profits. Greater profits then allow intel to eat into their newer, fatter margins to lower their prices when competing with AMD. I'm not saying it will happen, but it could happen. Don't be so quick to dismiss more creative business models.
If you buy a crippled CPU, you are not losing features, you are gaining them. You're just not gaining the amount that you would if you had paid the extra $50.
Intel could easily have made the same crippled CPU without the ability to upgrade, at (roughly) the same price. Does that make it a superior CPU? Does it make it any less crippled? It has the same features at the same price. Well, it would have one less feature: the ability to be upgraded to a slightly faster model for peanuts, which is a pretty useful feature, if you think about it.
But here it comes: have we bought a central processing unit which has now become our property because we paid for it, or are we simply buying a "license" to use Intel's "intellectual property"?
I'm not sure exactly how they would enforce it legally. This is not copy protection for some creative work, so the DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses surely don't apply. Is there some other anti-uncrippling section of the DMCA, or in some other law?
Slashdot Mirror
Well yes, but the same can be said of any company's response to public feedback. People just slap on that label when they disagree with the wider community.
Call it what you want, point out whatever ulterior motives you like, but the advantages of corporate responsibility to the public far, far outweigh the disadvantages. Sure, you may lose something you want from time to time, but it's an invaluable safeguard.
You're missing the point. Deliberately or accidentally, I'm not quite sure, but the point has been missed nonetheless.
Nobody is denying that the Taliban exists or is fighting American soldiers. That's not what this is about. It's about how offensive it is to soldiers, for people to play as their enemy, pretending, for enjoyment, to kill them and their brethren. They know better than anyone that the Taliban exists. They would just rather you show some more respect for their sacrifices.
If only there was some law that prevented EA from listening to the community and taking their concerns into account. Then we would have true freedom!
Just like in life! When they can't afford the hat, or don't want to buy the hat, they go and kill themselves.
Oh wait...
Sure, but I was more wondering if there was actually a fledgling business who tried to get off the ground, but was hit with a hard lawsuit. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here (I think there probably is), but I was just hoping for a solid, measurable basis for such fears.
I don't know about you specifically, but it can be kinda scary to give up the 9 to 5 and run a business full time. Fears that look big may turn out to be small or non-existent. That's why I'm curious about actually filed anti-competitive lawsuits.
Does anyone know of any fledgling software companies that were strong-armed into oblivion by software patents?
40 years of "government is bad" has a way of making 40 years of government look bad.
'tis true. :-/
If they attend enough keggers, they're not going to remain smart for very long (in both the short and long term).
Citation?
I, too, prefer someone who thinks. It's an invaluable talent when things go pear-shaped, and protocol all go to shit. However, if things weren't going to shit, and protocol was an issue, I would (in most areas) prefer they obey the protocol, and talk to me later about how the protocol didn't work, or how it could be amended (officially or unofficially). The last thing you need, when you're running a large scale operation, is everyone deluding themselves into thinking they know better than you, especially when they don't have the full picture. That's when things become dangerous and unpredictable. Suggestions are always welcome, but protocol should be adhered to. If they can't live with protocol as it is, and I can't live with protocol as they want it to be, then they can resign.
Essentially, it's a false dichotomy. Breaking rules is a nice romantic picture of original/creative thought, but it's not the only expression of original/creative thought, and, as a general rule, it is not a great idea (even if you think you understand the situation).
As an example, consider the UIs of certain modern applications, moving away from the rule-based "do as I say" method of interaction to the "do what I want" method of interaction (e.g. auto-complete/predictive text, voice recognition, awesome bar in Firefox, etc). Many slashdotters feel that such design decisions make the UI less intuitive, since the response of the program depends on hidden or arbitrary parameters. Computers have the capacity to reasonably guess at what you mean, but many of us still prefer the efficiency and predictability of strict, rule-based interaction. The same goes for many businesses.
'Tis true. Which is why we do studies and trials first.
Not convinced? Well, how about we try mass suicides. That may help our copyright problems. Hey, we don't know until we try!
Odd. You never pointed out a problem in my reasoning. You only tried to equate pirating with not buying (which I have since rebutted, and is not a problem of logic), and commented on the similarity of my carefully reasoned argument with another carefully reasoned argument that you've encountered before. I asked before, and I'll ask again: where, specifically, is my logical flaw?
Also, I notice you're conveniently ignoring the other half of my post from the other thread, where I prove that piracy is harmful. You didn't seem to have too much problem with the careful reasoning there.
I think, before you reply, you need to look back at my arguments, pinpoint exactly where I went wrong (and no, arriving at the opposite conclusion to you is not evidence that I'm wrong), or convince yourself that they are correct. Take as much time as you need, because otherwise you're just going to start arguing in circles.
Oh, OK. Then I'll gladly take it off your hands. I won't take much of your time. I'll even buy you dinner and drinks, if it will sweeten the deal.
Or perhaps you misunderstand what "worth" actually is. If you don't want to part with it, it's worth something (to you).
I'm not talking about pirates, I'm talking about people who actually pay for their entertainment. They do trade something for the copy. The pirates correspond to the people who use the other method, and obtain without trading (which I thought was pretty self-evident). Also, the artist doesn't spend time on making the copies, the artist spends time making the original.
Relax; I hadn't said anything challenging or ground-breaking. Basically, artists work to create, some people pay, some people do not.
You're begging the question. I'm in the middle of proving that your unsubstantiated claim that piracy is not harmless, and the best rebuttal essentially amounts to "well, it's not harmful because it's not harmful". It's not helpful to your argument.
Yes, all I was referring to was the work done by the artist in producing the original. That is all I was saying in that statement.
We're now past the rest of my argument, and the objections so far have been minor confusions, and simply restating the problem with no actual rebuttal. I'm now going to assume that you accept the argument, due to the lack of reasons countering that argument.
I guess, but it's pretty difficult to make them win. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't have a better solution for allowing them to "win". For example, if you assume that they have access to the internet, you fail it already. If you assume that without copyright, even assuming they have internet access, that they have more of a choice of free culture than they do currently, then you fail it twice.
OK, I'll pay that. It's a related concept to legitimate competition, and I forgot to explicitly mention it. Basically, the possibility of gaining nothing and keeping the money currently outweighs the possibility of buying the item. Just like, when a person decides to choose one store over another, they choose one trade over the other. The possibility of not buying is like another null trade, where nothing is traded for nothing.
But, I suppose you're more interested in why this is not as harmful as piracy. It has the same effect on the artist as piracy (as does legitimate competition), but at least the artist has a chance of fairly competing. They can lower the price, find a new business model, or just make something better.
It is assumed that the consumer is not buying the work because he does not want it. Like I said, we try and make sure that everybody wins, that consumers get what they want, and to do so, we make sure that providers get what they need to keep providing people with what they want. If a person refuses to buy or pirate a work, then I am happy to assume that they do not want it, and so it is not our business to make sure that the
We've never done so before, how do you know that?
Thought. In fact, I haven't found a plausible scenario where nuking copyright doesn't cause problems, and believe me, it's not from a lack of trying. I've argued with countless people on the subject. Most people come up with some explanation of what our culture will be like post-copyright. In every single one of them, I have found at least three holes in their argument, or plausible concerns that they hadn't really considered.
The discussion is moot anyway. There's a much better way of approaching copyright reform: do nothing. Well, not do "nothing" exactly, but do nothing on the legal front (except perhaps some cosmetic changes, like shorter terms, perhaps repeal the DMCA (although I'm not particularly against the DMCA)). Pass/redact no laws, and start demanding that artists allow free sharing. Copyright allows for that case, and in fact, it's happening right now. Only reward artists who do allow free sharing, and refuse to deal with those who don't. They'll have to change their business model quicksmart, and they'll have no sympathy with the courts, since you're not doing anything illegal or morally wrong.
Why is this superior? Well, for a number reasons:
1) It doesn't artists into something they can't manage. If they can't manage to sustain free sharing, they can always revert back to the original business model, lick their wounds and recover.
2) If this new business model has some adverse effect on quality/quantity, then consumers have the safety net of choice. They can choose whether or not to buy into paid culture, either exclusively, or maybe just a bit on the side. Simply put, we get more choice, which is a massive bonus.
3) The system in place is a tried and true method of attracting artists, so working within it, and changing it organically from the inside out, it not only the safest way, but really the only sensible way, without having to invest in countless studies on the matter prior to tearing the system down.
It is far, far, far superior to anything I have heard from the proponents of piracy. Maybe such a superior system exists, but until it becomes known and proven, my system is by far the best chance we have for actually instituting effective change.
Pretending that you know that my carefully reasoned arguments are pretence just makes you sound like an idiot. Sorry, but it's true. :-/
Classic mistake: just because the currency's materials have no innate value, doesn't mean the currency is worthless. It's worth something purely because we treat it as though it's worth something, just like anything and everything we deal with. Everyone treating it as something of value is sufficient to make it of value.
It also does not follow that without currency, piracy becomes harmless. Without currency, you revert back to trading objects/services of similar value. An artist's time is valuable (like everybody else's), and he's not going to spend time that he could be using to make himself a living (by hunting and gathering, presumably) creating, recording, and distributing a nice little recording to you, unless you contribute to his living. You know, actually make his spending of his time worthwhile. He probably will expect something of value to be traded for his work, and you, being a music fan, could find something of sufficient value to trade for said work.
Now, suppose you didn't have to pay for said work. I don't know the reason, just that there was a way for you to obtain without trading. Maybe the artist is crazy enough to put in all that work, and hand it out for free, no strings attached. Or maybe not; maybe there's some other way this thing appears magically in your possession. If it's the artist's choice, then I don't really care; It's between you and him, and any problems or boons from that choice is a private matter. So, let's assume that he wants to trade for it, but you don't. Is the artist worse off for it if you do?
Let's assume for the moment that the artist is no worse off. Then surely, unless you're somehow extraordinarily special, the same will apply to everyone. That means, everyone who wants to trade with the artist can trade nothing instead, and each time, the artist is no worse off. Even if everyone chooses to trade nothing, then by assumption, the artist is still no worse off.
But this conclusion is absurd. He has already used plenty of time; time he could have been using to earn himself some food, shelter, or just some stability. If everyone or anyone had actually traded something for his work, he would have had more that he considered valuable, so he would be better off in that respect as well. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, piracy is not harmless (or somehow, it's harmless only when certain people do it).
No, it's not about potential profit. It's about something a little different: demand. Demand is a potential source of profit, but not all potential profit comes from demand. You know this already: determining not to buy a product certainly drains potential profit, but it has no impact on demand. We do our best, as a society, to make sure profit actually reflects demand. Why? Because everybody wins. People who want something actually get it. People who contribute to society by making such a thing available are rewarded for their efforts, which encourages them to do it again.
Piracy is different, since the act of not buying and pirating actually harms demand. People who want it enough to buy it can obtain it without buying it, and their new possession now fulfils their demand without the necessary quid pro quo. So, the potential profit that the seller is entitled to (the demand), is reduced through actions not within his control.
Well, we do actually allow competition, which damages demand, but that's because at least the consumer still wins (he still gets what he wants). Piracy doesn't hav
We're also not ready for a post-copyright world.
Ask me again when successful artists using P2P distribution exclusively are the norm instead of a vanishing exception.
I must say, it's a relief seeing your post. I've been a little concerned that the moderate middle ground on the copyright issue may be shrinking. Actions by the Big Publishers have been polarising the issue somewhat, which is not entirely fair, since copyright is actually quite a bit bigger than them. I've been seeing more people here in favour of abandoning copyright, or almost as bad, abandoning copyright for non-commercial purposes (which is where 99% of the violations come from).
We desperately need solutions, but nuking copyright just creates more problems. What we really need is a tighter corporate leash. That would solve not only the copyright problems, but a fair few other problems as well. I too would vote for a party who would be in favour of reasonably scaling copyright and copyright enforcement back, but I find the pirate party's stance simply unacceptable.
If majority A wants to screw minority B, then democracy has got you covered! Well, to within a constitution, but constitutions have never covered all possible methods of screwing.
However, democracy doesn't protect against stupid decisions. Democracy is only as good as the people who use it.
(Mods, bring it on! I'm not even trolling, but it never stopped you before!)
Sir, I am in awe! However do you manage to pack so much fail into a single sentence?
I know several people who want to protect their kids, and no, they are not willing to destroy the freedom of everyone else around them. Also, they want to protect their kids because, well, that's what parents are hard-wired to do! They see dangers, they want to protect their children from it. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
I think people today are overly sensitive. Not you creat3d, but the mods who seem to be offended at your outrage.
Your typo almost pulled the same trick on me. ;)
I read the first two sentences of your post and saw instantly that you don't really get it. Everything a company does is technically a pure money grab. The term "money grab" is just a purely arbitrary and subjective label that people put on a company's actions when they don't approve of those actions. Whether or not an action by a company is deemed a money grab by a given consumer is (or should be) irrelevant when you go shopping. What should be relevant is the product you're getting versus the amount you're paying.
Also, even though manufacturing may cost the same between the locked and unlocked CPU, Intel may well be unlocking a previously untapped market, for people who want a CPU, but are unsure of the amount of power they need. This provides something close to what they want: a CPU that can be upgraded for next to nothing, with next to no hassle involved. If such a market were to exist in any significant size, then releasing the locked CPU could provide intel with a greater market share, and greater profits. Greater profits then allow intel to eat into their newer, fatter margins to lower their prices when competing with AMD. I'm not saying it will happen, but it could happen. Don't be so quick to dismiss more creative business models.
If you buy a crippled CPU, you are not losing features, you are gaining them. You're just not gaining the amount that you would if you had paid the extra $50.
Intel could easily have made the same crippled CPU without the ability to upgrade, at (roughly) the same price. Does that make it a superior CPU? Does it make it any less crippled? It has the same features at the same price. Well, it would have one less feature: the ability to be upgraded to a slightly faster model for peanuts, which is a pretty useful feature, if you think about it.
I'm not sure exactly how they would enforce it legally. This is not copy protection for some creative work, so the DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses surely don't apply. Is there some other anti-uncrippling section of the DMCA, or in some other law?
Was the base 43?