The patent system, for as much as it gets bad press, offers the little guy (independent inventor) a chance to get ahead.
That's the theory, but it doesn't really end up working that way. It's more likely that the independent inventor won't be able to afford to defend themselves against large corporations with obvious/generic patents that should never have been granted, but serve to eliminate competition.
They could have made WAY more money, probably ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE MONEY if they'd embraced the internet as a content delivery tool OVER A DECADE AGO
If they'd done that, then they would very likely have lost their monopoly on content distribution by now. That monopoly is what drives their business model, and is the thing they're really trying to protect with the whole "anti-filesharing" FUD campaign. The last thing the industry wants is for artists and consumers to figure out that they don't need middlemen anymore.
What makes you think that's allowed? I'm sorry, but you have to troll for one side or the other in order to participate in the global warming discussion. That's one of the rules, as far as I can tell.
No, piracy doesn't take away that choice. You never really had it in the first place. Copyright only gives the illusion of control over your work. Even following copyright, there are things people can do with your work that you have no say over. The only way to keep your choice, is to not distribute your work.
I should be the one to choose how I work, and I choose to write stories for a bit of money.
Good for you. But that's got nothing to do with piracy.
The point is that it's no longer my choice what happens to the book
Welcome to the real world. Once you publish/release your work, you've lost control. The only way you can keep absolute control/choice over what happens to your work, is to never publish it.
Isn't that because what id develops these days are engines that other people use to make games? Where do they make the majority of their money... game sales, or engine licensing?
Slashdot Mirror
The patent system, for as much as it gets bad press, offers the little guy (independent inventor) a chance to get ahead.
That's the theory, but it doesn't really end up working that way. It's more likely that the independent inventor won't be able to afford to defend themselves against large corporations with obvious/generic patents that should never have been granted, but serve to eliminate competition.
To a large corporation a patent is a barrier to profit.
It's also a great tool for eliminating competition.
They could have made WAY more money, probably ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE MONEY if they'd embraced the internet as a content delivery tool OVER A DECADE AGO
If they'd done that, then they would very likely have lost their monopoly on content distribution by now. That monopoly is what drives their business model, and is the thing they're really trying to protect with the whole "anti-filesharing" FUD campaign. The last thing the industry wants is for artists and consumers to figure out that they don't need middlemen anymore.
Well, you could always stand up and demand your leaders repeal this nonsense.
You believe they'd actually listen?
Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?
Only on paper. In reality, participation is an illusion.
Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
That's the common sense answer. But then you have others who claim that downloading something is copyright infringement.
There is already protection for the specific implementation of software... it's called copyright.
"Software patents" are purely about protecting the generic effect, which should be invalid.
And the root problem there is that the device itself is not secure, not that UPNP allowed the device to be attacked.
No, both of those are the problem.
you can't patent an idea
That's the theory, but it doesn't seem to be enforced much.
Have you seen a current generation mobile phone that didn't violate one of their design patents?
Windows 8 is just Windows 7 PLUS metro.
Surely you could just not use the metro parts
Wouldn't that be called... Windows 7
Disclaimer: I am honestly not trolling here.
What makes you think that's allowed? I'm sorry, but you have to troll for one side or the other in order to participate in the global warming discussion. That's one of the rules, as far as I can tell.
Rather than looking myopically at "gun related deaths", you should look at overall "deaths by violent crime".
I'm sorry, but intelligence has no place in a debate about gun control.
Piracy takes away that choice.
No, piracy doesn't take away that choice. You never really had it in the first place. Copyright only gives the illusion of control over your work. Even following copyright, there are things people can do with your work that you have no say over. The only way to keep your choice, is to not distribute your work.
I should be the one to choose how I work, and I choose to write stories for a bit of money.
Good for you. But that's got nothing to do with piracy.
The point is that it's no longer my choice what happens to the book
Welcome to the real world. Once you publish/release your work, you've lost control. The only way you can keep absolute control/choice over what happens to your work, is to never publish it.
Copyright does not exist to guarantee control.
Most of them.
Access all the resources you like, so long as it's not focused, even if "only" partially, on something illegal.
Based on that I assume you view Google as being just as guilty as TPB?
I'm sorry to hear that, but it still has nothing to do with "stealing".
Isn't that because what id develops these days are engines that other people use to make games? Where do they make the majority of their money... game sales, or engine licensing?
You mean the Army Public Health Command study that was paid for by the TSA and conducted in TSA labs? Is that your definition of a "third-party" test?
I thought Rage was meant to be a demo of their new engine. The point of it was to show off the engine, not necessarily show off the "game" itself.
I assume the "chilling" part is that the guidelines were even necessary to begin with.
But never stated specifically who they were from.
See my reply to your other reply (which didn't answer the question).
There is nothing in that report talking about TSA scanners.
What third-party tests?