Since when is it a right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting? If we're taken to TRIAL, yeah, you probably have some right to know who your accuser is... but an anonymous Internet posting? Sorry. That is not a right.
I find myself in an interesting position. I am a Christian husband and father. Given my religious background, I certainly oppose such vile literature. One could argue that I see this as a 'win' for me and my beliefs. However, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If I wanted to eliminate such literature, I'd seek to garner support from people in the community. I'd want the world to WANT to rid itself of such literature. Paypal should strive to be as neutral as possible as it is a tool for moving money around. What people do with their money is their own business.
Paypal, why stop at dirty books? Why not cut off funds to presidential campaigns (for candidates you do not like)? Why not cut off funds for anyone who refuses to detail what the transaction was for? Do you plan on reinstating Smashwords for transactions not involving dirty books?
It's such a slippery slope that this really is a victory for no one. It's just one more reason for me to move my assets away from Paypal.
Disliking does not *excuse* infringement. A more appropriate analogy would be that every time you go to pay for your nachos at the concession stand, the cashier slaps you after handing you your receipt. People want the nachos and want to support the people selling them, but if every purchase is accompanied by pain, people will start saying, "What's that over there?" *runs*
Is this guy seriously complaining about the variety of Android hardware? Has this guy never written a big application for the PC? There is so much more hardware variance on the desktop than in the phone market. The mark of a good engineer is his ability to write flexible, adaptable code that conforms to its environment. Frankly, if a team is coding an app and stopping the instant it runs smoothly on one device, I question the quality of code underneath: no effort to optimize, streamline, harden, etc.
It's really not THAT hard to support many Android devices.
Girls DO have problems seeing pictures even if they are clearly marked as fake. The problem is that they remain in a state of denial and think they really DO need to look that good just to fit into this world. They ignore the fact that 0.0000001% of women in the world are capable of looking that "good".
I vehemently oppose DRM. Steam is DRM, but Steam did what no other company does. In exchange for the occasional online verification, I receive an offline mode, the ability to download games anytime, recurring price drops, awesome targeted marketing, a buddy list to find friends gaming, etc. etc. etc.
Ubisoft (and others like it) do NOTHING to offset the presence of DRM (in addition to the DRM being infinitely more restrictive). I receive no tangible benefit. The pirated version is simply WAY BETTER. These publishers act like their games are God's gift to gamers and that they are entitled to any means necessary to "protect their investment". This does not even begin to address the issue second-hand sales, which are a problem resulting from prices that are too high.
Steam gets it. Ubisoft does not. Steam likes gamers. Ubisoft likes gamers' money.
I no longer hire photographers who retain the copyright on the pictures shot at my wedding/party/whatever. I find photographers who accept fair wages for their TIME and TALENT (and arguably a rental of their awesome equipment). What on earth am I paying them for if I have to purchase the pictures at the end of the session? Call it work for hire. Call it what you will. All I know is that legacy photographers NEED to go away. Charging for the time to shoot a bunch of pictures AND trying to sell those pictures to me afterward is a bloody scam.
No one gets it except Steam. If you honestly believe that you are selling licenses (and not the game/movie/song itself), do you not have some obligation to ensure that the customer is able to enjoy the product for the duration of that license? I'd like to see such a contract out in the real business world.
"The 10,000 widgets will be assembled and delivered for $450,000. Oh, but if our truck driver falls asleep and zooms off a cliff, tough luck. You'll have to buy the whole load again. However, for a mere $75,000, we will add insurance!"
People seem to think it's OK to turn your brain off when an "expert" speaks.
This fits right in with the woman who sued the doggy door company because her son crawled through, fell into the pool, and drowned. Apparently, she failed basic geometry classes (or common sense in general) in failing to realize that objects can fit through holes larger than said objects. There was no "expert" to tell her that perhaps children can fit through large doggy doors!
Seriously, what has become of society? If this were a story about scientists being bribed to lie about the results, that'd be one thing. However, suing them because they happened to be wrong? Do people honestly believe that the knowledge scientists possess is magical and completely faultless?
But that's how anti-tech creative people operate: they feel each of their creations is some magical gift to the world. However, they haven't stopped to think about how hosed they would be if they had to pay royalties for each use of paper, the pencil, the English language, etc. on through every inch of tech that they use to create.
I'm curious. As a software engineer myself, exactly how is the tech community to come up with an algorithmic (excuse me... "innovative") mechanism to detect a license/copyright? For one thing, the "tech community" has been trying that for years. DRM anyone?
I make it a point to sell my talent, not my output. My output can be copied and reused eternally, and that is a desirable trait! My ability to create such useful output is obviously a scarce good, and I find myself able to sell it accordingly. :)
The reason the "tech community" (such a ridiculous generalization of a term) refuses to support Big Content in its endeavor to lock down content is that the end result would be a ridiculous sense of entitlement.
If Big Content had its way...
A TV would refuse to function, because it detects too many viewers.
A camera would not shoot, because it would sense a "no cameras" signal in the area.
An application would fail to launch, because the keyboard detected fingerprints other than those of the original licensee.
A Blu-ray would not start, because it senses you exceeded its viewing quota, and you need to go buy the movie again.
A song would not play, because the attached speakers are too awesome, and you are not licensed to hear so much bass.
A book would erase its words, because its GPS would detect that it is being read in a country where the book is not released yet.
Yeah, I am very comfortable over here NOT on your side, Big Content.
Last I checked, having a supportive group of fans is far more effective than any amount of engineering. If the fans are on your side, you can tap into the community and summon its collective power to solve problems. Instead, Sony has built a fortress to defend itself from fans. It stays behind its walls and simply attaches bait (in the form of entertainment) to hooks and fishes for fans from the safety of its castle. Heaven forbid the fishermen have any meaningful interaction with their catch! The fish (or their money) are all that matter!
"Rights"
Since when is it a right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting? If we're taken to TRIAL, yeah, you probably have some right to know who your accuser is... but an anonymous Internet posting? Sorry. That is not a right.
Re: Solution: make great games nobody would part with
Why convince people to keep games when we can just legislate to force them? :]
Hmmm
What are DISTRUBITION rights?
Intriguing (as The Buzz Saw)
I find myself in an interesting position. I am a Christian husband and father. Given my religious background, I certainly oppose such vile literature. One could argue that I see this as a 'win' for me and my beliefs. However, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If I wanted to eliminate such literature, I'd seek to garner support from people in the community. I'd want the world to WANT to rid itself of such literature. Paypal should strive to be as neutral as possible as it is a tool for moving money around. What people do with their money is their own business.
Paypal, why stop at dirty books? Why not cut off funds to presidential campaigns (for candidates you do not like)? Why not cut off funds for anyone who refuses to detail what the transaction was for? Do you plan on reinstating Smashwords for transactions not involving dirty books?
It's such a slippery slope that this really is a victory for no one. It's just one more reason for me to move my assets away from Paypal.
Re: Wow....It's just like high school (as The Buzz Saw)
Disliking does not *excuse* infringement. A more appropriate analogy would be that every time you go to pay for your nachos at the concession stand, the cashier slaps you after handing you your receipt. People want the nachos and want to support the people selling them, but if every purchase is accompanied by pain, people will start saying, "What's that over there?" *runs*
Re: Getting it right (as The Buzz Saw)
Seconded'd. I intend to check out their games very soon.
various platforms (as The Buzz Saw)
Is this guy seriously complaining about the variety of Android hardware? Has this guy never written a big application for the PC? There is so much more hardware variance on the desktop than in the phone market. The mark of a good engineer is his ability to write flexible, adaptable code that conforms to its environment. Frankly, if a team is coding an app and stopping the instant it runs smoothly on one device, I question the quality of code underneath: no effort to optimize, streamline, harden, etc.
It's really not THAT hard to support many Android devices.
Actually yes. (as The Buzz Saw)
Girls DO have problems seeing pictures even if they are clearly marked as fake. The problem is that they remain in a state of denial and think they really DO need to look that good just to fit into this world. They ignore the fact that 0.0000001% of women in the world are capable of looking that "good".
Don't forget (as The Buzz Saw)
Being first to market does grant a significant advantage. However, if someone comes along and does your job better, prepare for competition!
Re: (as The Buzz Saw)
Are you implying that Ubisoft has to actually LIKE making games?
Re: Aggravating DRM (as The Buzz Saw)
This comment here is key to the whole debate.
I vehemently oppose DRM. Steam is DRM, but Steam did what no other company does. In exchange for the occasional online verification, I receive an offline mode, the ability to download games anytime, recurring price drops, awesome targeted marketing, a buddy list to find friends gaming, etc. etc. etc.
Ubisoft (and others like it) do NOTHING to offset the presence of DRM (in addition to the DRM being infinitely more restrictive). I receive no tangible benefit. The pirated version is simply WAY BETTER. These publishers act like their games are God's gift to gamers and that they are entitled to any means necessary to "protect their investment". This does not even begin to address the issue second-hand sales, which are a problem resulting from prices that are too high.
Steam gets it. Ubisoft does not. Steam likes gamers. Ubisoft likes gamers' money.
Re: SImilar issue happened years ago with stock photography (as The Buzz Saw)
I no longer hire photographers who retain the copyright on the pictures shot at my wedding/party/whatever. I find photographers who accept fair wages for their TIME and TALENT (and arguably a rental of their awesome equipment). What on earth am I paying them for if I have to purchase the pictures at the end of the session? Call it work for hire. Call it what you will. All I know is that legacy photographers NEED to go away. Charging for the time to shoot a bunch of pictures AND trying to sell those pictures to me afterward is a bloody scam.
EULA ALL THE THINGS! (as The Buzz Saw)
Someday, I will purchase some EULA-wrapped software with some EULA-wrapped money.
Nothing to see here people. (as The Buzz Saw)
In other news, developers who actually LIKE customers and RESPECT their rights are letting you set the price on their games.
http://www.humblebundle.com/
COGS alone makes this bundle worth it.
So yeah, what are we talking about again? Ubi who?
Hello, Steam! (as The Buzz Saw)
No one gets it except Steam. If you honestly believe that you are selling licenses (and not the game/movie/song itself), do you not have some obligation to ensure that the customer is able to enjoy the product for the duration of that license? I'd like to see such a contract out in the real business world.
"The 10,000 widgets will be assembled and delivered for $450,000. Oh, but if our truck driver falls asleep and zooms off a cliff, tough luck. You'll have to buy the whole load again. However, for a mere $75,000, we will add insurance!"
Makes perfect sense. (as The Buzz Saw)
People seem to think it's OK to turn your brain off when an "expert" speaks.
This fits right in with the woman who sued the doggy door company because her son crawled through, fell into the pool, and drowned. Apparently, she failed basic geometry classes (or common sense in general) in failing to realize that objects can fit through holes larger than said objects. There was no "expert" to tell her that perhaps children can fit through large doggy doors!
Seriously, what has become of society? If this were a story about scientists being bribed to lie about the results, that'd be one thing. However, suing them because they happened to be wrong? Do people honestly believe that the knowledge scientists possess is magical and completely faultless?
Re: Re: Re: Innovation to enforce copyright, eh? (as The Buzz Saw)
So, THAT is how Skynet came about. Big Content eventually does merge with the Tech Community to send out copyright-enforcing robots. I like it.
Re: Let me see if I got that straight... (as The Buzz Saw)
But that's how anti-tech creative people operate: they feel each of their creations is some magical gift to the world. However, they haven't stopped to think about how hosed they would be if they had to pay royalties for each use of paper, the pencil, the English language, etc. on through every inch of tech that they use to create.
Innovation to enforce copyright, eh? (as The Buzz Saw)
I'm curious. As a software engineer myself, exactly how is the tech community to come up with an algorithmic (excuse me... "innovative") mechanism to detect a license/copyright? For one thing, the "tech community" has been trying that for years. DRM anyone?
I make it a point to sell my talent, not my output. My output can be copied and reused eternally, and that is a desirable trait! My ability to create such useful output is obviously a scarce good, and I find myself able to sell it accordingly. :)
The reason the "tech community" (such a ridiculous generalization of a term) refuses to support Big Content in its endeavor to lock down content is that the end result would be a ridiculous sense of entitlement.
If Big Content had its way...
A TV would refuse to function, because it detects too many viewers.
A camera would not shoot, because it would sense a "no cameras" signal in the area.
An application would fail to launch, because the keyboard detected fingerprints other than those of the original licensee.
A Blu-ray would not start, because it senses you exceeded its viewing quota, and you need to go buy the movie again.
A song would not play, because the attached speakers are too awesome, and you are not licensed to hear so much bass.
A book would erase its words, because its GPS would detect that it is being read in a country where the book is not released yet.
Yeah, I am very comfortable over here NOT on your side, Big Content.
Sony should work on its fanbase... (as The Buzz Saw)
Last I checked, having a supportive group of fans is far more effective than any amount of engineering. If the fans are on your side, you can tap into the community and summon its collective power to solve problems. Instead, Sony has built a fortress to defend itself from fans. It stays behind its walls and simply attaches bait (in the form of entertainment) to hooks and fishes for fans from the safety of its castle. Heaven forbid the fishermen have any meaningful interaction with their catch! The fish (or their money) are all that matter!