It's not precisely on point (it's rather tangential, in fact), but considering this issue, it occurs to me that perhaps we - either directly or via our representatives - should think again about the questions we ask of intelligence agencies.
It seems to me that we tend to ask questions like "has [persons or entities [of xyz nationality]] ever been subject to surveillance by [whatever agency] under [whatever programme]".
This gives answers (when it doesn't result in boilerplate, which is the normal response for GCHQ), but not always meaningful answers, or answers which might serve as a metric of the surveillance state, or answers which might provide a basis for further action.
Perhaps more appropriate questions to focus on these days might be "are there any [persons or entities] within [whatever agency]'s reach which are not subject to surveillance", "what percentage of [the UK's companies, etc] are under surveillance" and "are there, in practise, any analytic criteria that would not result in [persons or entities] not being subject to further monitoring".
Very conceivably, this being the intelligence community, they might try to redefine "surveillance" to mean inserting cameras into the subject's nostrils, or some other sleazy truth-avoidance tactic, but it's a place to start that shouldn't result in vast imponderables, if and when we do get a coherent answer.
The best way for trolls and trolling organisations to win an argument is to control both sides, usually by posting something emotive and inflamatory that shuts down critical thought.
Failing that, crapflooding the page with nonsense also seems to be a win for them - if the "argument" happens at the top of the thread, all the reasoned debate gets knocked out of view, minimising the number of people who will see it and maximising the number who see only semi-literate idiocy.
While there will always be a few genuine commenters who respond to troll posts, it's quite likely that some, most or even all of these replies are themselves by paid shills, who will post reasonable comments some of the time to look legit, but are really only there to reply to trolls when it counts.
They don't need lecturing, they need to be banned forever.
"Rightscorp sent Defendant 288 notices via their ISP Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. from December 14, 2014 to May 12, 2015 [...]"
My maths is rubbish, so maybe someone will correct me if I'm wrong: That's - what? - 288 notices over about 150 days? Or one notice every twelve hours or so? Or one notice every three office hours?
That's not a notification system carefully designed to get people to stop infringing, it really isn't. That's a notification system carefully designed to get blocked by every spam filter in the western hemisphere.
Regardless of one's feelings towards copyright, I'm pretty sure deliberately manufacturing unresponsive plaintiffs isn't the way things are supposed to be done, even in a US copyright case.
I can't blame anyone for misreading what Wheeler was going to be like. All signs pointed to yet another corporate cock-knocker who would grease the wheels for big business as far as he could get away with.
That this hasn't happened is astounding and part of my brain is still expecting him to say "oh, wait, I made a mistake, lets have these rules instead", followed by a big, juicy helping of freshly-butchered consumer rights.
It seems like we all got the man wrong. Kudos to Karl Bode for acknowledging this. Even more kudos for Wheeler, the best man for the job - and a far better man for it than anyone expected. :)
If this were reversed - say, the MPAA speaking at an event before and alongside judges who might soon have to rule on important copyright matters - I would interpret this as low-to-moderate-grade evidence of institutional bias. If I regard it as wrong on that side, I must regard it as wrong on this one. The judges did the right thing.
I'm not too familiar with all the various bits and bobs of Americas innumerable anti-terrorism laws and executive orders, but if memory serves, some parts of these only apply during times of National Emergency.
This order is presumably intended to - in effect - preemptively reclassify all major hacking incidents as terrorism. Individuals and organisations identified are now subject to surveillance and response under the terms set by the Patriot Act and other rules, rather than normal due process.
The order also functionally makes the acquisition of "trade secrets" into terrorism. "[...] any person determined [...] to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, the receipt or use [...] of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means [...] just became subject to Patriot Act rules.
This, logically, must include everyone involved in the last big Sony hack, every file-sharing-site where the movies appeared, everyone who downloaded copies and - you're going to love this, I just know it - every journalist who received and wrote about the various leaked emails.
Congratulations everyone, the President of the United States of America just declared all of us to be de facto terrorists, subject to unlimited surveillance and attack, at the whim of any branch of the US government that wants to do so.
This articles title is "How The Apathy Of IP Rights Holders About Their Copyrights Killed A Game Re-Release" - and the article as a whole seems generally written to support that assertion. However, looking at the Kotaku article this article is based on, this claim seems to be basically untrue.
There's no question in my mind that the copyright issues depicted here are a problem for society and there's no question that those issues deserve to be highlighted, but that's not what killed No-One Lives Forever.
Based on the Kotaku article, Warners mindless, point-blank refusal to do business is the actual reason. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best misleading and at worst a deliberate falsehood. :/
From the original Kotaku article, regarding Warner:
Their hope was short-lived. In early February, Kuperman and Kick got a definitive answer from Warner: No.
"They come back with a response that said they're not looking to either publish the game themselves at this time, or to partner with us," Kuperman said. "Those options, they're not going to accept either one of them. So basically, we're back to square one."
From the sound of things, Night Dive, Monolith and Fox are all happy to move forward, but Warner says no.
First thing: this article works so hard to put a Techdirt spin on things (no bad thing in itself), it no longer resembles fact particularly well. Rights confusion is part of the story, but it's not part of the ending. :/
Second thing: If you're a content creator of any description and you care about anything you create, don't do business with Warner unless you're desperate, because those guys are assholes and they will throw your shit in the corporate dumpster as soon as they get bored with it.
Did you like Batman: Arkham Asylum and its sequels? Enjoy them while you can still play them, because once they stop being profitable, fuck you all! They'll never be released again. Same goes for anything else they have a legal interest in.
Final thing: dear Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Inc, you suck and you may eat a dick. In fact, you may eat an entire flotilla of dicks, at your leisure. That is all. :/
I don't think I've backed any real failures, as of yet. I tend to back projects that sound like they come from someone who knows what they're doing. So far, I've not been ripped off.
- - - - -
A few projects do stand out as being not all that was promised.
My biggest disappointment is Godus, by British game-development veteran Peter Molyneux and his team. They promised a God Game (an old, established genre, for those who don't know), but they delivered a mobile-phone-type game based around micropayments, something not even hinted at in the Kickstarter description. I haven't played in a long while, so perhaps there's a real game in there now, but I shall have to get around to playing it again before I know.
Frontier Developments' space game Elite: Dangerous gets a mention for not delivering on the promise of an offline mode. I understand why they did it, I can see what they've built and are continuing to build (I play it, it's a great game for those of us with a good internet connection), but they shouldn't have made promises they couldn't keep and they shouldn't have tried to weasel out of refunding affected crowdfunders afterwards.
I didn't back their Kickstarters myself, but US developer Double Fine Productions deserves a special mention for abusing both Kickstarter and Steam Early Access by - in my opinion - partially scamming their customers on two separate projects (Broken Age and Spacebase DF-9). I won't buy from them again.
- - - - -
On the subject of what crowdfunding is, I don't think any existing definition describes it adequately: it's an investment of sorts, it's a gamble of sorts, it's a pre-purchase of sorts - all of these are both true and false from different perspectives and none of them give the whole picture.
It's crowdfunding, something new and comparatively unique. The rules that should exist - but currently don't - should reflect its special nature.
For larger, more professional and more ambitious projects, I would ideally like to see more done to assure crowdfunders that their money won't be wasted or stolen. There should be: • independant, professional assessments of project viability; • better rules for clearly and exclusively defining projects, goals and progress-milestones - no-one should be making promises they can't be sure of keeping, or using the absence of certain promises to turn a project into something else; • minimum standards of communication, so we all know where we stand at any given stage; • independant monitoring, so we know where our money's being spent and we can be sure it's not all vapourware; • clear definitions of failure, by degrees if necessary, with clear and reasonable procedures for remuneration if some or all goals can't be met and finally; • clear rules and standards of enforcement by the fundhost, including pursuing violators and scammers through the courts, where necessary.
For smaller and more amateur projects, which obviously can't afford those increased operational costs, or any project which is inherently much more of a gamble, there needs to be a very clear distinction that this is the case. No crowdfunding consumer should enter into an agreement uninformed about the risks.
It may be the case that the two kinds of project are best-served with their own, separate services and definitions. Different names for them might be wise. Pro-funding versus Risk-funding, perhaps?
Those are the basic rules, as I think they should exist, at any rate. Until such time as we have something like them, what we have now is summed up perfectly by Ehud Gavron above: whatever we'd like it to become, crowdfunding is currently a gamble. We all proceed at our own risk. :)
I'm not inclined to either be a cheerleader for the IPO, or give applause for overhyping the toxicity ange, but I am entirely in favour of the authorities seizing fake alcohol.
In the part of London where I live, it's almost impossible to get a bottle of decent whisky in local off-licenses (our equivalent of the American liquor-store). The supply chain has been crapflooded with fake versions that cost the same as the real thing, but taste like shite, give you a much nastier headache and are worth less than half the asking price (the same stuff is sold as own-brand goods in supermarkets, so we know how much it's worth). If I want to get a decent bottle, I have to go to Waitrose and pay through the nose for it.
God knows I'm no fan of general notions of IP, but I am entirely alongside it when it comes to getting rid of fakes and fraudsters who take our money under false pretenses, give us substandard crap in return, make the producers of the real thing look bad and generally make us all worse off.
Because I like them? The smart TV, for all its faults, allows access to a wider range of services than is otherwise available. They're very set in their ways, but that's no reason not to try to introduce them to things that will ultimately make them happier.
It's also cheaper than their preferred option, which is a horrifyingly overpriced Sky TV subscription. The UK's free and legal services aren't great, but a combination of those, plus a low-cost Amazon Instant sub should be able to replace 98% of everything they currently pay through the nose for, at a substantially reduced cost.
Once they're comfortable enough with the newer OS's, convincing them to stop throwing money away on Skys substandard service should be just a matter of time. :)
That's really unpleasant. My household has an older Samsung smart TV. They're quite handy for some things, but increasingly, I wish we'd gone for a standard TV instead. We could presumably have bought a standalone multimedia box like Roku, but I didn't really know anything about it at the time. It's been a learning experience, I suppose.
I have generally been ambivalent about recommending them to others. On the plus-side, they deliver a better service than none at all and they're very good for gently introducing older and more conservative family members to new forms of viewing, such as online streaming and watching films stored on hard drive.
On the downside, performance is far too slow (why do manufacturers always think that we'll be impressed by technology when they've designed it down to a price, rather than up to a specification?), the UI is unintuitive, there's no way to upgrade the smart hardware without replacing the whole unit and I have yet to find anything on the system that can't be done better by standalone, ugradeable third-party boxes.
After watching Sony, LG and Samsung repeatedly shit in their own soup in the intervening time, I'm not nearly so ambivalent. A standard TV and a Roku (or similar) is clearly the way to go.
I think, as time passes and technology gets cheaper, it will only become more difficult to obtain a TV that isn't smart-capable, or even smart-dependent. If the latest slew of invasive, cretinous manufacturer decisions is anything to go by, it won't be something to look forward to.
It's fairly clear that you've never sat down to play a bunch of old roms using an emulator...Thus, I'm sorry to say, you're not a gamer at heart.
Your inferences are entirely wrong. I have emulators for many systems prior to PS2 and maintain a not-insubstantial collection of original titles and systems stretching back to the Sinclair ZX-81. Every now and then, I even play the things. Most people don't.
With very few exceptions, I do not usually play online games. Your comments about e-sports are unrelated to my post or my gaming habits.
This is partially correct and worth expanding on. Licensing issues vary from game to game.
In the case of Nintendos own works - such as Mario, Zelda, etc - there are no licensing isssues to overcome: Nintendo is the sole owner of the code inside the original console hardware and the games and can do whatever they like with them, including porting them to any platform they like without anyone else's permission.
For non-Nintendo games, many titles are probably owned by large companies such as EA, courtesy of all the acquisitions they've made over the years. They might be willing to license their properties to Nintendo, or if profitable enough, might seek to license an emulator from Nintendo and release the games themselves.
On the other hand, given that companies like EA, et al, have their own interests in mobile gaming, it's just as likely that they would simply refuse to allow the games to be published at all, seeing it as competition for their own newer investments.
There are probably also many instances of orphaned works, where ownership details have gotten lost in the fog of historical acquisitions. Those titles can never be released without substantial research efforts to establish precisely who bought what and when, which is unlikely to be profitable.
In the case of games licensed from films, such as Super Star Wars and Goldeneye, there is almost zero chance of republication. The costs of merely negotiating for the rights would vastly outstrip any potential sales.
It's worth noting that old games are not as popular as some might think. I think that re-releases of older titles, while profitable, rarely achieve anything like the sales needed to justify significant investment. This is why there are so many buggy, bare-bones PC re-releases that barely function.
These days, we all have access to emulators and copies of old ROMs, etc, but how many of us actually bother to play them?
For all the value that nostalgia has for us, most of us would rather play something new.
For once I'm going to have to disagree. Normally, I'm quite happy to decry the demented control-freakery of Nintendo, but when it comes to smartphones, I have to concede they have a point.
Smartphones are good for games that have been designed and built for touch-screen control. For old-school games, which generally require continuous, clear sight of everything on-screen and reliable, responsive controls, they are frankly terrible.
My experience with games on smartphones is limited, but as far as I've found it, on higher-quality smartphones, the results of porting old-form gameplay have been disappointingly poor and on lower-quality smartphones, the results can be literally unplayable.
I'm not a big fan of Nintendo, but I can't kick them for not wanting anything to do with something that's only likely to hurt their reputations. If I were them, I wouldn't do it either.