I think what you stated is best. If you can use another source that actually wants links. If you have to use Wired, NYT, etc. maybe a different colored link or something. As some suggested you may even be able to automate this.
All links to ad-list wired.com, NYT, etc are automatically colored red or something to minimize the hassle for the techdirt crew.
same for me. we're currently building a new house partly to get away from comcast and at&t so we made a criteria that the internet service cannot be provided by one of them for us to build in any location. Luckily we found a location that has Gig Fiber provided by Home Telecom, that my friends who have their service love.
I've been complaining about this for years since I'm in one of the original "test" markets and sent in complaints before and after the Net neutrality rules, maybe they'll actually do something as more people complain, but any one citizen just gets ignored.
Also, as someone who has been in a "trial market" for 2-3 years, long before the FCC did anything it's just Comcast realizing the government will let them do anything they want and their customers can't go anywhere else.
I'm already currently getting screwed about this. I've already filed an FCC complaint last year when Comcast said I was using ~100GB/month more than my router with DD-WRT said I was using. When I asked for details as to when/how this supposed discrepancy happens, they couldn't tell me any details about usage per hour/day/etc only the last 3 days and the month.
So that's great the FCC will look into it if they expand their "trial", but in the meantime I've been under this "trial" for the last two years and nothing seems to happen or change.
If they are going to collect this information congress should have the same or less protections than the rest of America. This is the only way to get them to pay attention or care. Normally they carve out exceptions for themselves, and thus don't pay attention to or care what they're law create. Like the TSA, congress gets to skip them.
The game doesn't require the internet to be played.
There is nothing that says you have to allow your kids on the internet. If you just get the game and let them play it or supervise them while they do without downloading player content it will be 'E' content.
There is no reason for nor any way for the ESRB to know what you are going to say or do in the online content.
Look at Halo the content itself is one thing and if you are fine with your kids playing it then ok. However, when they get into online play if you do not have voice communication limited you have no way of knowing what the trolls in your game will spew out.
Heck I'm an adult and I don't want to listen to the drivel that most players spit out. Most users who aren't interested in this do 1 of 2 things or both.
1) only use parties to play so you can only hear your friends.
2) only allow voice communication from friends on your list.
I wasn't saying it does. That is the only thing that is currently restricted. the latest shooter/sports/game etc they have one time use codes to try to capture money if you sell the game, and the new owner wants to play online.
So with nintendo having shit for online support people don't care and the codes weren't worth the cost in infrastructure and support to implement. As far as I know there aren't any games on the 360/wii(u)/ps3 that tried to restrict single player. Some added "free" access to DLC or one time codes for "online" but that is it. This is all that people will be able to do with Sony or nintendo. Unless either company tried to stop a 3rd party there isn't DRM on either system is all I was pointing out since neither will do this with their games. Sony said they'll let publishers do whatever they think might work, and at the moment there is almost no 3rd part on the Wii U so it remains to be seen what if anything will happen
Nintendo is the ONLY console maker this cycle not trying to block used games, at all. Unlike the PS4, the Wii U doesn't even support DRM to restrict used games, even if 3rd Parties wanted to (probably part of why they have so little 3rd Party support currently):
Nintendo never had this publishers do this, because frankly Wii is and was terrible for online play. In trying to "protect" kids they created the worlds worst friends list with friend codes and horrible interfaces. They've made it slightly better with console codes instead of per-game codes but it is still not good.
I don't like the xbone but Major Nelson addressed this question the other day, if you get banned you will not loose your games. Granted this is what they claim now. I will not fully believe it until it happens.
"Yeah I hadn't considered that. I guess I was primarily focused on GameStop. Correct me if I'm wrong on this but didn't Microsoft say they were going to allow you to transfer your game license? I believe you can only do it once which kind of sucks but at least its something (I realize it doesn't make up for it though)."
Yes, Microsoft is letting you transfer a game once and it can not be transferred again, but this is a limitation on what you can do right now with your 360.
"By this logic would you say that the developer only deserves a single sale of their game? Would you also say it's fair that if one person buys the game they have the right to make copies of that game and sell them outside of Wal-Mart? I don't really think its a fair analogy here as we are not discussing material objects that physically degrade over time such as a house or car. "
So game discs don't get scratched up? Online communities don't die off? I loved Red Faction: Guerrilla, but the online community completely died off in less than 1 month. It would take 5-10 mins to find a single match. If you bought that game new or used later you would likely never experience the multiplier or at least much of it as there was no one to play with. Also, once the game is sold I'm not playing it there is still only one person playing it at a time.
If you don't like cars/houses what about movies/music there are no restrictions on those do you think Netflix and Redbox should be eliminated they allow you to watch movies without paying for them. Many of which have the same or higher budgets as video games. What about HBO? they show you movies that you would otherwise have to purchase for yourself?
"I still have to think about this some more and try to consider all angles. I didn't even think about private sellers. It is an interesting subject to say the least. Also, In my opinion, the publishers can go fuck themselves. They are basically middle-men like GameStop. I'm more concerned with the developers actually getting fair value for what they do. I myself am an aspiring independent (PC) game developer and I know just how much work it really takes to make these games. "
Microsoft is requiring all games to have publishers or they won't be allowed on the xbone. Hence the next oddworld won't be available on it. Frequently developers get nothing or almost nothing from the sales. They get a check from the publisher and maybe they get a bonus or a small cut for certain sales.
"I would totally be against passing legislation to prevent the sale of used games or anything like that. I do believe however, that the developers of the game should be able to do as they please with their software. If they want to restrict used game sales using built in methods I'm perfectly fine with that. "
So your car manufacturer should tie your car to your DNA and if you want to transfer it you need to go to the dealership and pay them to transfer it to a new sucker. You don't have restrictions on your movies or cds and they keep chugging along while getting more pirated than console games.
"I'm not even a console gamer so this doesn't really affect me so much. I do however, own 100+ games on Steam that I can't resell and that doesn't bother me at all because most of them I paid a fair price for (Not $60). I guess the point I'm trying to make is if we saw fairer pricing along with the elimination of the used games market (Steam-style) would people still feel as strongly? You say I'm entitled (I'm not sure what I'm pro porting to be entitled to) and yet you demand that software developers design their software in a way doesn't intrude on your right to resale. That seems more like an entitlement to me."
Most people don't have issues with the digital games not being transferable and understand that. The issue is on the xbone if you buy a disc at Best Buy/GameStop/Amazon you can not transfer that disc. Sony and Microsoft both offer digital copies of games right now on their consoles that you can sell/trade/etc and no one cares. The entire issue is that Microsoft is trying to changes physical discs.
That's fine if they want to sell the digital only game. The news that has come out so far is that they are doing this with the physical discs as well.
Both microsoft and sony sell download only games that you can't sell, but if you want that option you can run out to Best Buy, target, etc and buy the physical disc.
Depends how DHS would see it though.
Generally things come into play at the land, otherwise the entire coastal part is wrong since international waters start about 12 miles out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters)
as a result everything should only be affected 88 miles inland instead of the 100 they are showing, if this is the case.