Paul makes a heck of a good point here. I really do hope they reconsider and make a good decision on this point.
"So, you're fine with an outage by your ISP, MS's servers or simply moving house causing you to lose access to your entire game collection because you might be trying to play something you've not had prior permission to access? You're OK with being blocked from using any content at all if you live in an area with poor or non-existent connections (just because you're commenting online doesn't mean you have access to a connection usable with your XBox)."
I think I will be ok if they require a connection at some point to confirm a transfer has taken place (in regard to physical media I mean) but why should we lose access to something they just confirmed 24 hours ago that we had purchased legitimately? You have to go online at some point and they can do their little check then - so what if I get to play a game I purchased at some point and sold at a later point for a few more days? I can't imagine that is worth the negative press.
People can already see me when I am in the public view and I can't control what they remember and who they tell - all this does is increase the quality and quantity of the information. And there was a great example of someone showing how this can backfire on Ted Talks (I can't remember his name but he basically uploads all of his information - including when he urinates... to the government).
If you want true privacy you have to be a private person - at all times and in all respects.
It seems like what is being debated is selective privacy - not true privacy.
I'm not interesting so I have no fear that I am going to end up being stalked by some paparazzi, even an automated one. I'm sure many people are famous but it is the threshold that is being debated here - if it truly was privacy that we were concerned with then we wouldn't allow paparazzi.
But this Chertoff guy is a complete tool - he's talking out of three sides of a mouth, never mind 2.
Maybe I just don't see the perspective many others here see though.
"The only way to fix this mess is to move to invalidate useless patents and tie them up in court with crowd funded defenses. We are many, they can be beat at their own game here."
You realize that they still win with that approach right? Lawyers get paid for being in court...
A better use of those funds would be to crowd-source information gathering on all of the people they employ - make their life an open book and advertise, advertise, advertise.
The public needs information, and explanation of what the information means. Crowd-source investigative journalism and hit them in the media. Expose their connections to politicians - get people to actually talk about the negative impact of what they are doing. They add nothing to GDP - but they are closing down companies that do.
How many people who are eating the pie complain to the people who aren't getting any how terrible it tastes? They don't want them to know that they are eating pie that they took from them in the first place because then they would have to answer some uncomfortable questions themselves.
I think there are those few smart, honest industry folk but they are going to be drowned out and will have a hard time getting factual evidence - and they need to prove harm, not just speculate on it.
I also believe that the people who make the big moves in the markets aren't the complainers - they are the ones who see what is going on and get in on the deal.
It's speculation on my part, of course, but I'm honestly not smart enough to catch these people.
"Just quit blaming creators. Pay them what they ask, or go without."
Who's blaming the creator? And the challenge here is that we would like to know exactly what we are paying them for. Am I paying for a movie, to watch the content of it, or am I paying only for the experience of watching it in the manner to which they later decide I should watch it even if originally we had agreed upon something else? Should they (this creator you describe... you know, the corporation that now merely owns the copyright, not the actual person/people who invested creative effort) get to retroactively decide what I do with a work that I purchased under previous terms? Do they get to decide how long I get to enjoy something for?
The problem for me is that they can't even clearly articulate what I am actually getting.
I understand clearly when I go to a movie theater to watch a movie what exactly I am getting - I am getting access to a seat in a room with a big screen, big sound, a bunch of other people, to watch a movie exactly once. That is very clear. And when I fork over my money, I understand that clearly.
What I don't understand is why when I purchase a movie on DVD I can't watch it on any DVD player, forever.
Next it will be that we can only watch certain movies on a certain size of TV... that's right, next you will only be able watch Spider-Man on a Sony TV because that is clearly what the creator wanted...
I think the answer is confusion. If people don't understand how they are being manipulated it is harder for them to articulate dissatisfaction.
Scenario 1) They are clearly crooks (people easily understand taking what they have)
Scenario 2) They got a deal (they don't understand that they lost the opportunity to gain - it was something they never had so there is less likelihood they understand it is missing)
In scenario 1 there is an emotional response that is easily understood by humans (from children to adults - everyone understands "he took my cookie").
In scenario 2 they don't understand that they never got the cookie that the other person is now eating - they may think, hey, why does he have a cookie? but they don't understand that it should have been their cookie in the first place since they never had possession of it.
So in the end, those people roam the streets because we (gerenally speaking) don't understand their crime.
No. This is bad. He may be the type of person who sees this as his responsibility because he may feel he should have prevented it, but it isn't the same thing as him being responsible for the actions of another.
If someone takes my car and runs someone over, I can feel bad about allowing them to use the car, but it was not my action or inaction that caused them to do it. That is too far a stretch of transference. (And I am assuming the individual I loaned the vehicle to was someone who was legally able to drive and not knowingly impaired)