Actually, thinking about that a bit, if that turned out to be true, we could just sit back while the "anti-piracy" cartel went after them. Probably be far more effective than any military action we've done there. Sure, it probably violates a few clauses of the Geneva Convention....
If Coulton's song is infringing, how is Glee's song not infringing? Is a cover of an infringing song not also infringing on the original?
If not, then we have a really sweet loophole: get someone to cover a desired song, then release your own cover and just call it a "cover of a cover". It's like money laundering for music. Let's call it "music laundering".
Excuse me while I file a patent on this process....
All of the links to Dr. Amy's posts (on the blog that's supposedly been taken down twice) pull up fine, but the ones going to Gina's give me either a server error, a "not authorized", or a WordPress login screen.
It would be pretty ironic if, because of Gina trying to get Amy's blog offline, the Streisand Effect caused her own blog to get overloaded and shut down.
I'm confused. The article says the opera was "forced" to tell the story without the official images, but then it quotes the director as saying they were never going to use the images in the first place.
The quote makes it sound like Disney just wanted to flex its muscles and say "NOT ENDORSED BY US" when the opera didn't look for their approval in the first place.
Perhaps, but that can backfire. His son might have looked at his father as a meddling interloper in his hobby, making him more defiant and more determined to keep spending his time on the computer.
Instead, his father tried to alter his son's experience in his virtual world, to make his son no longer *want* to play.
Now, his son has found out his father was behind it, so he may end up going back to play anyway, but it does appear at least to have encouraged his son to stop and think about what was going on and why.
I noticed recently that Castle Crashers was released on Steam; it's a fun game but I refuse to buy and play it because of my experience with it on the XBox 360. A friend of mine bought it for his 360 and we'd throw down 4-player on the weekends. His XBox died from the red ring of death and he moved his HDD to his new XBox. We couldn't play multiplayer anymore. Each XBox Live account needed to own the game, or it had to be the original system it was bought for.
Microsoft provides a "license transfer tool" so that you can change the "original system it was bought for" to the new system, and everyone can play again.
While I agree that this is an annoying step that only exists because of the DRM, and it would never happen with a game on a disc, at least there is a way to correct the problem yourself.
Downloadable titles are usually far cheaper and have different expectations than a physical purchase.
For the XBLA titles, typically yes. For the "Games on Demand", though, they tend to have similar prices as the physical counterparts, and their prices don't degrade with time like the physical products in the free market. Even though I tend to buy my games new, I still will buy the physical disc over the digital download.
It's actually my hope that they will actively go after anyone else who tries this. Rumor has it Microsoft is planning on doing something similar in the next Xbox (although I haven't seen anything describing *how* it might happen yet).
If they do happen to implement it in the next PlayStation, hopefully word will get out and sales will dry up in response. Although they'll probably just attribute the lack of sales to piracy again....