True, but both of those examples are from the distant past, and were caused by issues regarding older OS paradigms and hardware that no longer exist. Both examples, in fact, were an underlying problem that game developers would have no control over, hence the regularity with which they were seen. Those kinds of problems were actually why things like DirectX and other frameworks were developed, to free developers from having to address these kinds of issues directly.
Here, the problems experienced on this single game do not appear to be replicated on other games running on the same OS/hardware. What's more likely - that Rocksteady's series has such a fantastically well-equipped fanbase that they've uncovered issues of a type not often seen since the days of 386 processors and 640k base memory and not seen by contemporary competing titles? Or that their product is badly manufactured and faulty on this platform?
Rubbish. Maybe you need algorithms to process the data, but there's no reason why human intervention should not be happening when taking services away from people. There's also no reason for a system that apparently doesn't allow a human being to manually correct mistakes.
To be fair, that's available space required on the drive, not the size of the download. The actual download is most likely compressed to a much smaller size - around 17Gb by the look of a quick search. Your point stands though - hard caps are bad idea no matter what, but they have to expand to allow for realistic usage.
Hey, you were given a link to help you start to educate yourself. Do you want to educate yourself on the actual arguments against SOPA now, or are you one of those pathetic tools who gets their entertainment from derailing honest discussions with fictional strawmen?
OK, thanks for the explanation. I'd still say that reinforces Tim's original point you quoted, since Amazon, etc., would still have to determine the status of things not on the list - especially since the determination of whether a work belongs on the list won't even start until after they have it on their shelves.
As for the rest, I'm a veteran of the video nasty panic and other such idiocy in the UK. I'm familiar with vague, unworkable and ultimately counter-productive attempts at "for the children" censorship. Just a shame it's so obviously ridiculous to the rest of us, but the people making the laws don't understand facts.
"It was only because so many Americans spoke out against it that it was stopped. It's too bad that not enough Australians did the same Down Under."
That's unfortunately by design, IMHO. The issue is that a lot of the services used every day by people globally are either based in the US or run by companies with major US investment. The outcry against SOPA was international - but it was loud opposition by sites like Google and Wikipedia that got the word out to people. The number of Americans speaking out was because people were afraid they could not access these sites if SOPA were to pass. It wasn't because they truly understood the implications on a technological and innovation level.
Here, unfortunately, there's no such international collection of websites based in Australia (to my knowledge, anyway). I'm sure some made their opposition known, but without the big name push the word didn't get out as effectively. On top of that, I'm sure that certain Australian-run media interests were doing their best to roll out lies and FUD about the issue to ensure that Australians wouldn't hear the news until it was too late.
This, sadly, is what they want. Messing with US-based technology companies has proven ineffective, so they're going to mess with smaller countries first where they get to attack them with far less opposition. If the fears stated by opposition don't come to pass, they'll use that as ammo in their next attempt to pass SOPA in the US. If they're proven correct, hey, it's only Australia so who cares? That is sadly their mindset, I think.
"How many people have successfully used the courts to obtain redress, without going bankrupt as the process is dragged out for years by the corporations?"
Irrelevant, since a lot of the examples I posed were more to do with contract violations than copyright issues.
The point is, that's the mindset these people have. If that's what they do to people who agree to work with them under contract, what do you think they'd do with content produced by people with whom they have no such agreement?
"Copyright is only useful to those who can use the courts to defend their rights, that is for the big corporation and the very rich."
Wrong. Copyright is the reason why, for example, studios currently have to bid on the rights to adapt a novel for the screen. All those stories you read about thousands or even millions being paid to licence properties? Gone. The studios can adapt whatever they want without paying anything to the original author. Ditto music - independent musicians might release a great song, but major labels can get their glorified karaoke models to do cover versions of any of them without having to pay any kind of royalty. You could even get them falsely claiming to be the original, with little legal recourse for the person who literally had their work stolen.
You surely see the problem here? Like it or not, copyright exists for a reason. It's been mutilated and transformed into something well beyond what was originally intended and desperately needs to be fixed. But, completely removing it would be worse for those poor folks you're claiming to defend.
Nice link. However, it seems to me that it still puts a lot of pressure on individual companies:
"In case of content severely harmful to minors ("schwer jugendgefährdend"), the object does not need to be entered into the "index", as the distribution restrictions mentioned above are effective automatically (§ 15 II JuSchG). This applies, for example, to any pornographic content or to other content that violates certain clauses of the German penal law, also to content glorifying war and content depicting minors in an unnatural and sexual posture."
So... you can use the index, but some material is effectively banned without being on that index. Presumably the retailer has to do this themselves. Also:
"Media examined by the BPjM are: films (DVD, BluRay, etc.), games (PC, Playstation, Xbox, Wii, etc.), music (audio CDs, etc.), printed media (books, comic books, magazines, brochures, etc.) and internet sites. The examination takes place after the media’s publication."
Two strange things I notice there. One is that this doesn't mention non-printed books such as the eBooks being discussed here. Possibly an oversight or an outdated summary, but it does jump out. Secondly - it strikes me as being very strange that you can't see if your book would end up on this list until after its publication. I wonder how much money people have lost because they published a product that's then severely restricted after the stock has been manufactured, rather than simply being able to put together a censored and/or re-edited version that would not be on there in the first place.
Re: Re: If admitting facts incriminates you, better stop your actions.
"You need to stop lying."
Yeah, right. That's all he's got. If he admits that the issue is not that laws are being enforced, but the methods by which enforcement is attempted, he doesn't just lose a way to attack the object of his obsession. He's also forced to admit that most readers here are actually on his side to some degree or another. His fragile mind won't take that level of reality intruding.
"There's no legitimate reason for the larger amounts they've demanded in the past."
Well, greed for one, broken business models another.
The main problem is that most of the laws were created during a time when duplication was an expensive and specialised task. Due to this, examinations of duplication on any kind of mass scale implicitly assumed that they would only be performed for profit and the punishments were set accordingly. Demanding thousands or even millions from an organisation involved in widespread international bootlegging was hardly an issue, not least because most such actors were involved in other forms of organised crime.
But then, technology changed the realities. True to form, the courts and industry have not adjusted their thinking and set the expectations according to reality. Now we have individuals sharing content with each other - as they always did with physical media, just now on a larger scale - for absolutely nothing. The same punishments now suddenly seem ridiculously excessive. You can't punish an individual who copied a file in the same way as you'd charge a criminal gang who've set up a disc processing facility.
That's logical to anyone with any sense, but they haven't caught up yet. Or, they realise that despite the same technology that enables infringement being infinitely useful for reducing their own costs and expanding their own market, it also reduces their profit margins. So, they'll ride this train until it crashes, and leave their successors to pick up the pieces with business methods that actually apply to this century. But, the courts have to tell them where to stick their demands first, and that will probably require changes to the laws - laws which those same corporations are intent on buying in their favour.
"Why would they even attempt to do so, when there are more people clamoring for their services than they can deal with."
Why would they do it? Really? Look at how many movies they're remaking over and over. This is not an industry of ideas, at least not at the studio executive level. Now imagine that they get to remake any movie, or adapt any work, without having to licence or pay a single cent to the original creator.
There's stories all the time of people getting ripped off by studios, be it getting screwed out of royalties for work they did by "Hollywood accounting", ideas being stolen wholesale (look into the story behind Gravity, for example) and many other ways. Now imagine if they were legally allowed to do any of these things. Of course, you can argue that the smaller guys could do the same thing, but it's not likely to happen in a way that stops works literally being stolen for profit by the majors.
It's also likely to have a detrimental effect on the art itself, since the guys in it for profit would still make money but the ones doing it for the art might not even get credited for their own work, let alone paid. Sadly, the unwashed masses don't normally care enough to get behind the little guy either, not when there's a new shiny thing for sale.
"The reason that the legacy industries keep attacking Google and the Internet is not because piracy is hurting their profits, but because the rising tide of self publishing, and its discovery by more and more people, is competition that they do not know how to deal with other than shutting it down."
This is all true. But, that doesn't change the fact that abolishing copyright and replacing it with nothing would be a very, very bad idea. We need to change the way the system's been gamed in the corporations' favour, not shut it down entirely.
My feeling is that it's something they want to use as a trojan horse. Even the people they're falsely accusing of piracy must have a couple of CD rips on their hard drive or some other kind of format-shifted content. They get accused, their computer seized and charged for whatever can be found. No innocent victims any more, you see, so they're not running an extortion racket now, honest.
Re: Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
"I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS."
Then, why should we buy it?
Congratulations, if you convince people of this fact then you've explained to them why they should stop supplying your industry with revenue from purchases, and use free legal services instead. Why spend $10 on something that confers me no additional value compared to listening to the radio? Why listen to music all, in fact, when there's so many other forms of entertainment, even in audio format. That $10 is better spent on your industry's competitors.
That's what I love about you - without realising it, you're actively trying to destroy the industries you claim to be nobly defending.
When DRM was implemented on music, I remember some executive or other opining on the possibilities it "enabled", trying to put a positive spin on them all, but unable to hide the fact that they were just artificial restrictions designed to cripple the music in order to be charged again to unlock them. My favourite was the suggestion that you could buy someone a track for their birthday, but it would only play up to 3 times on that date and no other. Amazingly, not only did that idea fail but DRM itself failed on music purchases.
That is their idea of a positive move, their sycophants were shocked to be reminded that the recipient would probably appreciate a full unrestricted track (or, even better, the ability to choose their own music). The mindset they've locked themselves into is astounding sometimes, and the suggestions you've all made would not be something they'd be averse to trying.
Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
"YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES!"
Oh, deaser you're still arguing with your fantasy strawmen aren't you?
I DO pay, asshole. Now what?
"But doesn't much affect practical archiving"
Apart from where it does. The rule's largely unenforceable on that content, but it still applies.
"not out in "the cloud" for anyone to take the content."
Also, dickhead, private clouds exist. If you want to prevent infringing public sharing, have at it. As ever, just don't try to take away my rights to use my LEGALLY PURCHASED content the way I see fit. it didn't work when pricks like you were trying to restrict my access to VHS and it sure as hell isn't going to work now.
If only you morons would put as much effort into fixing the crap you do that encourages piracy rather than trying to take rights away from your own customers...
"And how, exactly, do they plan to setup that time-based lock?"
Like these things always happen - they palm the actual implementation over to someone else and have a scapegoat if it goes wrong or turns out to be impossible to implement effectively. I have no doubt that people are already telling the politicians that it's ridiculous, but can't get any traction because "it's for the children" and the politicians need to "do something".
"Deliberately make some percentage of your physical recordings defective."
Lots of discs are actually defective and will rot over a few years due to flaws during manufacturing. I own somewhere in the region of 850 DVDs and maybe 900 CDs, and I've seen around 4-5 of each format suffer like this (the reflective layer becomes oxidised and useless.
But, if I see evidence that any more of my collection, the government can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to shell out for another copy rather than making a backup. Especially if the industry is still going down the "it's a licence not a purchase" route they're chasing, in which case they can supply a free replacement for the faulty media they supplied to access my licenced content.