VI was a console game, it was just repackaged in North America as III since they didn't release every FF over here.
*hugs his original FFIII (aka FFVI) cartridge*
Yeah, I know, I'm kinda ashamed of myself
In Soviet Russia, the Internet surfs you!
My favorite line, after the report stated that sites that are taken down pop back up hosted in other countries:
"We'll keep going after them no matter how many times they come back up"
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Because if we don't pay them to upload our purchased music, then how are they going to afford finding new artists to exploi... er... promote?
The projectionist may be James Bond, but it seems it's AC who has the license to shill
*Ahem*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*wheeze*AHAHAHAHAH
My apologies, allow me to rephrase. Why are authors given no specific provision for placing their work in the public domain, and why is the legal effect of stating an abandonment not clear? (source)
I suppose to keep this from becoming an argument over semantics I'll rephrase my question to be, why should work be automatically copyrighted and have to be specifically dedicated to the public domain which is a legally iffy solution at best instead of automatically in the public domain and specifically requiring a clear legal process to obtain a copyright?
I dunno, I'll admit "Still Alive" is still my favorite, but "Want You Gone" definitely has its charm and I can listen to it over and over.
Well, i'm not a legal expert here, but from the sounds of what the people trying to pass these laws want to do, i'd say ultimately they'd like to see the internet be a place with no anonymity that requires permission to do anything, and essentially turn it from a communications medium into a broadcast medium. IMO, that would be a very broken internet.
Note, this is not necessarily what these exact laws will do, but it's easy to extrapolate what the unchecked end-goal would be.
Whenever I see stories like this, it keeps popping into my head that perhaps, things will ultimately get better when all the old guys who are used to this industry have died off and the next generation who gets it can finally take over.
Then I hear my boss telling his kids that copying a CD from a friend is stealing; and from my sister that her kids obviously don't value music because they download it to their ipods and she needs to teach them better, and I start wondering if people aren't trying to indoctrinate the next generation into the old ways already.
Heh, I was just pointing out that the way you argued that it was quite easy to take it any way.
Now, as for this, there's a lot of studies on both sides of the fence, both claiming disincentive to create and claiming that there's still plenty of incentive. It can't really be stated without a shadow of a doubt at the moment that copyright is needed to get people to create.
And yes, there can still be competition within a set of rules, I don't mean to advocate that any rules at all are pointless.
What I will say however, is that it seems that with copyright as it is, as with many many other systems which include rules, people fall in love with the rules so much that the rule itself becomes the be all and end all. It's easy to say "we make these rules to help" or "we make these rules because they're necessary" but eventually, it boils down to "we make rules because we love having rules" and the purpose of the rule and whether or not it works properly is long forgotten.
Yes, illegal activity isn't a free market. But is it illegal because it's bad? Is it illegal because it harms? Or is it illegal because we don't like it?
It often feels like laws such as this get passed not due to necessity, nor due to research, but due to fear, and because 'it's always been that way'
As 'Weird Al' Yankovic so wisely states "It's tradition. That makes it ok"
Understand that a government granted monopoly isn't a real free market?
I believe Mr. Miyagi can claim prior art on that last one...
I like these rules! I think I'm gonna adopt em for my own life :)
I know this lawsuit seems silly, but maybe he's just trying to save face.
Ugh, I'm with you on that.
Admittedly, I've attended some Q&A sessions and have been keeping up with the results of OpenMedia.ca, and I've heard some excellent talking points that sound very promising regarding copyright and stuff, but it's really hard to believe that they're more than just talking points. Maybe I'm jaded, but it often feels like a minority government is the only way to keep the worst of the laws from getting pushed through with no oversight. It'd be really nice to take the politicians at their word, but I just can't.
Because when technology forces your business to change, it makes perfect sense to involve law enforcement!
Y'know, usually, I'm pretty proud of my heritage... but at the moment, I'm glad I can't read dutch because if I could, I'd probably throw up in my mouth a little.
... damn you Google Translate... *hurk*
I know, I kept thinking "This has got to be a joke... some kind of parody... it's too absurd to be real..."
But there wasn't any punchline :(
Re: Wheeeee!
Why should the RIAA/MIAA get to dictate how new technology works?