The people making Revision approached Square BEFORE even putting it on Steam to ensure there would be no backlash. (this, more than anything, is probably what did it)
There are quite a few examples of modders coming up to developers and asking for permission before putting on Steam, only to have the developers threaten with lawyers. In many ways, it was because of this stupidity that people stopped asking the developers for permission and just released the mods to the public, hoping that the backlash wouldn't be too bad (before the DMCA, there wasn't much a company could do to stop a mod, only try to find the modder and sue them.)
And to make matters worse, the developers tend to change policies quicker than the revolutions of most pulsars, where a developer (e.g. Majong) is really happy with a mod (craftbukkit), so much so that they eventually bring it into their fold, offering developers to it, only to DMCA it out of existence shortly after being acquired by Microsoft.
You have to own a copy of the original Deus Ex. (honestly not to big a deal; if you're getting Revision, you probably love Deus Ex anyways)
I am not aware of any mod that has not required the original game. There may be some, but I am not aware of any. The whole point of a mod is to add functionality, fix bugs, etc., in the game.
Revision is generating zero profit. (this helps too I suppose)
Probably. Though I don't understand what the heartache is with people generating money on these things. You got your money selling the original game...someone comes along and adds functionality to the game, and people buy it, and if a lot of people are interested, they buy more of your game.
But this "zero profit" even hurts, since quite a few of the modders would love to generate mods where they can pay off the costs associated with the development of the mod, and then give the profit to charity. Mods aren't that expensive to create, so the costs are quite low, and they probably won't be asking the same DLC prices the "official mods" get.
In the most cosmopolitan place I've ever lived, there aren't more than maybe FIVE local broadcast stations.
I live in southern California, and get about 20 with my antenna. More than 30 if you count the ones in Spanish.
Most major stations have one or more "sub-stations" now with digital HDTV, so channels like 7 have 7.1 and 7.2. Some come in better than others, and I occasionally have to turn my antenna to get better signal, but I get far more than 5. Maybe in Kansas you'll only get 5, but I've seen the same traveling to other parts of the country.
Try reading the post, he knew which map he wanted to use, he knew who held the copyright, but trying to get permission to use the map was competitive with Vogon style bureaucracy.
The "post" has nothing to do with maps or vogon style bureaucracy...the link to Tom Bell's blog doesn't contain anything to do with maps or vogon style bureaucracy.
I suspect the problem is that the link you provided to the "post" was stripped somehow and I cannot access it. Which means I got caught thinking you were "whatever" doing his normal tirade against the evils of the internet and missed this link. Oops.
Is this what we want researchers to be spending their time on?
It may not be what your bosses in the copyright maximalism industry want, but I'd prefer someone spending some honest time looking into the facts instead of coming up with out-of-the-netherregions opinions based on pixie-dust and fairy-tail as to how their control of the universe should be strengthened because of the artists they like to pretend they help and protect (at the very time screwing said artists with unconscionable "deals" that make the industry far richer and the artist poorer (because they can't afford the lawyer to look out for their best interests.)
I'd love to see far more research in this field. I may be wrong in my beliefs about copyright, but we are never going to figure out the better way without people doing real science.
When that day comes, remember what you said here and be thankful you were wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
As much as I hate the system, which tends to require lawyers and lots of money for what justice you can afford, most of those I've actually dealt with have been decent, hardworking, and for the most part, interested in doing whatever necessary to help/protect the interests of their client.
There are lawyers like Carrion, Duffy, Steele, Hansmeier, Lipscome, Jack Thompson, etc., but those tend to be the vocal exception to the rule, and it seems like there are places within the law where the pricks and DB lawyers gravitate to, they tend to be highly visible and yet the minority when it comes to lawyers.
But if you watch an hour or two of television, then it starts seeming a lot more reasonable.
I don't mind spending $5/day on entertainment. I just don't thin that any amount of television is reasonable waste of $5/day. If I want mindless entertainment, I spend $20 on a video game, and I can play that game for weeks, whenever I want. Terraria was probably the single most reasonable use of $20 for entertainment in recent years, and the added advantage is that I can bring up my server and host a game for all my friends.
The problem for the cable industry, which has been said many times here already, is that there are so many options now-a-days for entertainment, that the heady days where they were the only game in town are long gone. Sticking their head in the ground, forcing their customers to change their habits instead of changing their own habits, will do nothing to stem the tide.
You and I are outliers though. The average American watches 5 hours / day, so that works out to about $1 / hour on the cable package you have. Considering how good television is these days, that's not a terrible price.
I am not an outlier (and from the looks of this article, I am not alone either in doing what I am doing)...I haven't removed all television from my life...I still have an antenna, and still (occasionally) watch TV (usually the news, or Big Bang, if I just happen to hit it on the night its playing.) Though I have mostly switched to streaming what I want to watch either directly from the provider's website (cbs.com for Big Bang, southpark.com for South Park) or via Netflix/Amazon/Hulu. But most of the time, its playing in the background, occasionally capturing my attention. And I am not paying $5 a day for it.
Same here, which is why I am not technically a cord-cutter. But I am a cord-cutter in the sense that I haven't even connected the cable TV box.
Cox said that they were cheaper when bundling the TV and the Internet bill together, and it seemed, looking at their glossy ads that it was cheaper (nevermind the fact that they really went out of their way to make it impossible for you to cut cable TV off the bill and keep internet,) when the bill actually arrived and I discovered that fees, taxes, tariffs, energy recovery, rentals, etc., increased the bill by ~$50, that it wasn't at all worth the $10 off for bundling cable and internet. My parents, who still have basic cable, spend ~$200 a month on their bill, a good percentage of it being fees and other costs. I spend $99 a month for my cable bill, and thanks to the Internet Tax Freedom Act, there are no taxes, tariffs, rentals, etc., on that bill (though that may be changing shortly.)
Either way though, $2 / hour sounds about right for me.
How many people watch cable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? When I had cable, it was background noise, running three or four hours a week. $150/30 = $5 a day for background noise, which doesn't seem like a lot. However, when I left, cable had almost tripled in price between when I started and when I left, and they were talking about another increase in price. Lots of money being thrown away each month for background noise.
I spend ~$30 a month for background noise (Netflix/Amazon, and once-upon-a-time, I paid for Hulu, but then realized that I could just attach a computer to a TV and I could watch far more content on Hulu without paying for ads.) Far cheaper, and I don't feel bad when I don't use it.
You say Verizon can "grab information" out of an SSL connection
Never said that, nor did I imply it. Wow. You gotta love bashing down strawmen, you seem to be really good at it.
As for GRE tunnels, if you own the backbone, you can create tunnels and add whatever headers you want to the transmission. But you don't even need to do that...you can just send the information out-of-band.
They can't inject cookies in that, at least not yet.
They don't need to inject anything. They own the infrastructure. They can GRE tunnel the traffic to the endpoint and put the data into a header, so the GRE tunnel end-point/receiver can grab the information and display ads based on that information, while still allowing SSL traffic to flow without an issue. May require a little extra work, but may be worth the effort to keep the money rolling in. Of course, why even do that, since they already have a database showing your entry point, so they can just set up AOL's ad network to query the database and pull your information directly, maybe caching all the users coming from a particular IP address and some sort of mechanism in-between to make sure that each user is identified.
Should be pretty easy if they already own the end-point...
The trick is adding that capability to non-Verizon users.
Re: Re: So what's wrong with being tracked all over the net?
Tell you what. Why don't you create a blog or news site for us to go that reveals the evils of the tech world and Big Google? Then everyone that wants to can go over there and no body has to argue.
Yeah, but only if he also turns off commenting in order to protect our 1st Amendment rights. There is no way I can support a website that denies our freedom of speech by allowing us to comment on items that they post!
I'm used to it. With all the credit monitoring I'm getting, I believe I'm now set for life plus 70 years.
I know this is tongue firmly in cheek, but if you are relying on credit monitoring services to keep you secure, you've already lost.
Better is to remove credit from the equation. Get rid of the big four credit reputation companies and the problem disappears immediately (well, except for the IRS, which still allows scammers to submit fraudulent tax returns based solely on publically available information, and it is pretty safe to assume that your SSN and other vital information is publically available by now.) Makes buying things on credit harder, but how many times do people actually do that in their lives.
Credit freeze is really the best way of doing this, and so long as it is implemented correctly (which, considering Experian is one of the four, and they have seriously fucked up here, that is a shaky assumption,) it makes things far more difficult for the scammers/criminals to use your information to steal stuff.
Re: Re: ??? If you don't like this, then why the hell are you wanting to allow modifications to it?
I want my car to take input from my phone (hands-free calling and text message-reading) and from any USB device I plug in that contains music.
Off-topic, but Mason, have you ever considered a carpc?
Don't need anything integrated into the car bus network, just a simple carpc that runs Linux, has bluetooth and does everything you want. Car already supplies 12v DC on the accessory or radio power wire, and getting a 12v DC power supply is far cheaper than an DC/AC/DC converter.
Unfortunately, they aren't cheap, but they are getting far cheaper now that miniitx boards are getting cheaper and the components are getting more standardized (I still hate buying memory for them though...since it is always a crapshoot on how tall the memory will be to fit in one of these things. My first carpc was about $1000, but they are getting cheaper...only big issue now is the price of the DIN case, but you can always mount the computer under a chair or behind the control panel and leave the radio in the car if you want to still have access to that.
The schools reaction to it did however endanger the child.
The school's reaction to it did more to endanger the child's safety...it endangered the safety of us all. We need kids who think outside of the box, who explore new ideas and new concepts, that enjoy STEM and want to make the world a better place. Now the other children in the class have learned not to question authority, not do anything "out-of-the-ordinary," not show off their intelligence and ingenuity; take your Soma, do your job, keep your head down, and don't worry about your class and social status...
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Scott on Sep 14th, 2015 @ 12:31pm
You can copyright video.
That is exactly what I said.
I think the problem is, as you said, they can say anything they want, but they aren't necessarily right legally or factually. Until the law holds them accountable for their misrepresentations as to what the law actually says or what we can do legally, this shit will continue.
"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited."
They say it every time, and even though they have yet to win a case against a defendant for doing so, they still say it.
Sure, rebroadcasts or retransmissions of a fixed broadcast is illegal, but outlawing accounts which do not involve actual copying of video or audio by another company without their permission is bogus copyright advice from copyright maximalists who want to scare everyone into thinking they have to ask permission (and be denied) every time they want to talk about the game.