So you're saying that the pressing/distribution process is slow and inefficient. But, rather than come up with ways to improve it, they use it as an excuse to charge more for content that doesn't have to go through pressing/distribution. Something there doesn't add up.
Technically, putting the bare minimum on the physical media and have the rest of the game available via digital distribution makes a lot of sense. However, I don't see how that is a valid explanation for why they charge full price for the minimum that was put on physical media and then charge extra for the rest of the game that was made available via digital distribution.
If those "numerous" design patents can't each stand on their own, then they should be invalidated. The "rectangle with rounded corners" just happens to be the most ridiculous one, so it's often used as the example.
Vast efforts are expended to tell you that there is no difference in the parties, and you shouldn't vote? What country are you talking about?
I'd say you have that completely backwards. The two parties are spending considerable effort to convince you that there is a difference, when the reality is a lot less than they want you to think.
if linking to infringing content is a crime, then all websites are guilty
If downloading and/or linking is actually ruled to be illegal, then everyone on the internet can be guilty and not even know it. But that's exactly what the industry wants. Everyone is guilty, so they can arrest anyone they want to.
If you find that a file share site, it being widely used for piracy, then we should be good citizens and try to get them to stop.
Who is "them"? The individual users who are using a filesharing site to distribute stuff that they don't have rights to? Or do you hold the site responsible for what their users are doing? Did the site respond to DMCA requests?
My understanding is that the DMCA requires them to remove the material upon a takedown request, however, it doesn't say that they can't remove the material if there isn't a takedown request. The hosting company can still remove the material for lots of other reasons that have nothing to do with the DMCA.
Of course they won't acknowledge this. The **AAs are not advocates of the artists, they're advocates of the distribution companies. By definition, they couldn't care less about grey-area copyrights because those don't have anything to do with their business.
You actually believe that if a third party achieved a significant voice in government, that they wouldn't sell out to corporations just as the two main parties have?
Registering as "independent" however means that you aren't allowed to vote in any primary elections, so your vote is limited to whichever turd sandwiches the morons registered in the two main parties select in their primary elections. By registering for one of the parties (at least in my state), even if you don't really agree with that party's platform, you get a chance to decide who in that party goes up in the general election.
Bad news... the morons vastly outnumber you. The turd sandwiches are going to get selected regardless of your vote.
Not when there are vulnerabilities that don't require user initiation (or even awareness). Not all attacks are based on the user doing something stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that the pressing/distribution process is slow and inefficient. But, rather than come up with ways to improve it, they use it as an excuse to charge more for content that doesn't have to go through pressing/distribution. Something there doesn't add up.
Technically, putting the bare minimum on the physical media and have the rest of the game available via digital distribution makes a lot of sense. However, I don't see how that is a valid explanation for why they charge full price for the minimum that was put on physical media and then charge extra for the rest of the game that was made available via digital distribution.
It's a grab for more money, plain and simple.
So how does the day 1 DLC get certified?
If those "numerous" design patents can't each stand on their own, then they should be invalidated. The "rectangle with rounded corners" just happens to be the most ridiculous one, so it's often used as the example.
If it is your PC and you are the administrator then yes, you have full control over it ... Hosts was always an unsupported system file hack
So by "full control" you mean "unless MS decides not to support what you want".
Vast efforts are expended to tell you that there is no difference in the parties, and you shouldn't vote? What country are you talking about?
I'd say you have that completely backwards. The two parties are spending considerable effort to convince you that there is a difference, when the reality is a lot less than they want you to think.
Tim Tebow probably has a patent on it already.
Can you can come up with a scientifically repeatable test where I can independently verify your results of properly sanctified water?
Because they can read the musicians lips, of course.
Just like everybody else who is a person of interest in a criminal case, he has to come to Sweden for questioning./quote?
So you're saying it's standard practice in Sweden to request extradition for people that haven't even been charged with a crime?
Tell that to Mr Vickerman.
if linking to infringing content is a crime, then all websites are guilty
If downloading and/or linking is actually ruled to be illegal, then everyone on the internet can be guilty and not even know it. But that's exactly what the industry wants. Everyone is guilty, so they can arrest anyone they want to.
Too bad the only choices are TweedleDee vs TweedleDum
If you find that a file share site, it being widely used for piracy, then we should be good citizens and try to get them to stop.
Who is "them"? The individual users who are using a filesharing site to distribute stuff that they don't have rights to? Or do you hold the site responsible for what their users are doing? Did the site respond to DMCA requests?
My understanding is that the DMCA requires them to remove the material upon a takedown request, however, it doesn't say that they can't remove the material if there isn't a takedown request. The hosting company can still remove the material for lots of other reasons that have nothing to do with the DMCA.
It's basically a DDOS attack, in this case "DMCA Denial Of Service".
Close... but you have an extra "t" in there somewhere.
Of course they won't acknowledge this. The **AAs are not advocates of the artists, they're advocates of the distribution companies. By definition, they couldn't care less about grey-area copyrights because those don't have anything to do with their business.
You actually believe that if a third party achieved a significant voice in government, that they wouldn't sell out to corporations just as the two main parties have?
Depends on what your goal is.
Registering as "independent" however means that you aren't allowed to vote in any primary elections, so your vote is limited to whichever turd sandwiches the morons registered in the two main parties select in their primary elections. By registering for one of the parties (at least in my state), even if you don't really agree with that party's platform, you get a chance to decide who in that party goes up in the general election.
Bad news... the morons vastly outnumber you. The turd sandwiches are going to get selected regardless of your vote.
You say that in jest, but that's exactly what Publishers are trying to do.
If your goal is patent reform, then you'll probably do more good worrying about who is elected to Congress, rather than the Presidency.
Why not, the BSA already does it.
Exactly. I'm sure climate change is real... I'm also sure it's been going on for several billion years.
Not when there are vulnerabilities that don't require user initiation (or even awareness). Not all attacks are based on the user doing something stupid.