It's DRM in that you need to be signed in to Steam to play the games. If you log into the same Steam account from a different computer it will log you out in the first, as I found out recently when I tried it. Not sure of the details if you're in an actual game, but I think it will exit. I think it's fool-able if you disconnect the network cable, but most of their games are multiplayer, so not a lot of point in that.
This isn't correct. Steamworks requires initial online authentication when you buy the game from retail, and will likely force you to update the game before you can play too. After that you can play offline as much as you want. If the connection goes while you're logged in, you're not kicked out, it'll keep working as normal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
You never address why the behaviour by pirates deserves to be illegal when every reputable study indicates the biggest customers are pirates or that rampant piracy can be rather easily defeated by simply making works easily available at low prices.
The part that Bob misses is that Valve games are still available early if not day one ready for unauthorised sharing, but Valve doesn't appear to care. Particularly when you don't do fall into the trap that Bob does and look at the fact that Valve's success in Russia has nothing to do with DRM when their games are likely already available in those countries free of DRM and free of charge (or cheap).
Well, I don't know. If the allegations are true, they were holding back some content from free users, and only allowing paid users to access some of the content that was on their site. If even this is true, they are much worse than your average torrent site.
There were private sections of the forums that could only be accessed by people who donated or contributed. These were one time payments of any amount someone wanted to give, and it was generally understood this was to maintain the site (whether the owners were honest about this is another matter). Access to these private forums could also be gained through other, non-monetary means (generally contributing to the forums basically).
If they were aware that those third parties didn't have legitimate access to the links in question, then the site owners actually had concrete knowledge that the material was infringing. I don't know for a fact that this allegation is true, but it's not unlikely.
Indeed they did. It was fully known by them that they were engaging in piracy. Much of the talk however was about how inadequate alternatives were, especially when considering international viewers of the site who couldn't access some shows legitimately anyway.
This is significant under the law. According to a lot of case law (e.g. Perfect 10 v. Google), the location of the server where the content is hosted, is the location of the infringement. Furthermore, merely providing links to infringing content is not, in itself, infringement.
AFAIK the content was hosted elsewhere, but as mentioned, they were involved or at least had significant knowledge of the process.
This latter criticism isn't intellectually serious, of course.
Coming from someone who's idea of being intellectually serious is dismissing evidence of wide patent system abuse because it was on "a TV show" is hilarious.
Also, I'm not sure how your experience in getting (I assume) vague patents covering inventions that (I assume) did not necessarily need your expertise to be created somehow makes you more of an authority on the subject than people who actually take notice of problems pointed out by actual studies and research.
As already pointed out, conflating patent infringement with rape and murder does your argument no justice.
Second of all, nine tenths of the law is definition. If the law had such a broad definition of murder or rape that someone by any ordinary definition of the term is innocent would be arrested and even convicted, or the law allowed for abuses of such law, then yes, we should probably change the law.
Though I did ask you a direct question on whether the number of bad patents getting through is solely the act of a few bad examiners, or getting rid of all of them. That was effectively your proposed equivalent of improving the criminal justice system in your (incredibly bad) analogy, but how would that solve the sheer number of patent applications and the time pressures to get through that backlog? How would that solve the low standards applied particularly in software? How would that compare to evidence indicating patents aren't needed, or are only rarely needed? How would that solve the low standard of disclosure in patents?
If examiners are granting patents that are too "vague," that's a knock on the examiner, not on the concept of patents.
So we solve patent system problems, like the granting of more and more low quality patents producing defensive patenting practices and large amounts of pointless litigation, by firing all of the patent examiners?
Or are you saying the huge amount of low quality, unnecessary patents are purely the work of 1 or 2 bad examiners?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible, but not as terrible as it could be
The law uses the term "such as", not "only" or "limited to". The listed hardships are likely examples, not strict definition and limitation on when something can be considered substantial hardship.
This is a case where a large part of any definition of harm that can be attributed to the seizures will involve speech. the idea that abridging of speech ex parte cannot be considered substantial does indeed appear to counter the rulings pointed out earlier, in which various forms of the argument "you cannot limit speech without determination that the speech is infringing/obscene" are now made less important than a slightly vague definition of substantial hardship in a seizure law.
^This. Reminds of of the point Cracked made about studios buying up scripts simply so no one else could have them (even if they had no intention of making the film).
The arrests of those associated with anonymous reminds me of The Man Who Was Thursday:
Was anyone wearing a mask? Was anyone anything? This wood of witchery, in which men's faces turned black and white by turns, in which their figures first swelled into sunlight and then faded into formless night, this mere chaos of chiaroscuro (after the clear daylight outside), seemed to Syme a perfect symbol of the world in which he had been moving for three days, this world where men took off their beards and their spectacles and their noses, and turned into other people. That tragic self-confidence which he had felt when he believed that the Marquis was a devil had strangely disappeared now that he knew that the Marquis was a friend. He felt almost inclined to ask after all these bewilderments what was a friend and what an enemy. Was there anything that was apart from what it seemed? The Marquis had taken off his nose and turned out to be a detective. Might he not just as well take off his head and turn out to be a hobgoblin?
[...]
"Why do you worry with me?" he cried. "You have expelled me as a spy."
"We are all spies!" whispered Syme.
"We're all spies!" shouted Dr. Bull. "Come and have a drink."
Next morning the battalion of the reunited six marched stolidly towards the hotel in Leicester Square.
"This is more cheerful," said Dr. Bull; "we are six men going to ask one man what he means."
"I think it is a bit queerer than that," said Syme. "I think it is six men going to ask one man what they mean."
They turned in silence into the Square, and though the hotel was in the opposite corner, they saw at once the little balcony and a figure that looked too big for it. He was sitting alone with bent head, poring over a newspaper. But all his councillors, who had come to vote him down, crossed that Square as if they were watched out of heaven by a hundred eyes.
The idea that maybe anonymous (or a significant portion of it) would turn out to be a bunch of police officers spying on each other would be such a great end.
No one said anything about giving you an exclusive right, why that's being brought in I have no idea. The entire point of the GPL is that by distributing GPL'd code, the reciever is automatically granted the ability to modify and distribute code. Anybody that forbids someone who recieved GPL'd code from redistributing or modifying it is in violation, so I'd imagine you could sue for someone breaching the license that explicitly grants you the ability to distribute and modify, even without being the copyright holder.
As a publisher, your primary product is always distribution and promotion. After all, the livelihood of your business fundamentally centres around selling copies of CD/Cassette/Vinyl. Selling specifically in music or books or films is effectively an act of specialisation, perhaps based on interest or passion, perhaps not.
As a music publisher however, you're likely not satisfied. Many artists who decide to sign distribution deals with you are happy with their lot, or have little interest in the daunting task of trying to appeal to millions of people all at once, perhaps happy in their niche, perhaps simply not sure about what changes may be made to give them that wider appeal. So what do you do? You integrate.
The business has not changed from being about selling convenience as CD/Cassette/Vinyl. You simply exert more control over the creative side to ensure you can sell those 1,000,000 blank shiny discs you just bought because you weren't happy simply helping an artists get heard. It made sense to integrate like that because it allowed you an unmatched control over the selection process, and anything that didn't quite work out, you could change it. Even better, you can keep the copyright to carry on exploiting the songs indefinitely!
So no, what was being sold is convenience on the consumer side (listening to music they liked when they want) and promotion on the artist side (getting heard in general). Choosing who you decide to promote and exerting influence to ensure the product sells more CD's is just rational business sense. It has no relation to the future of music as a whole, nor does it mean anything when you can't sell CD's any more because good quality mp3's can be distributed cheaply and independently of you.
That is, assuming you don't confuse yourself into thinking you are the embodiment of music as a whole and get laws passed to force people to pay for a cheap commodity like distribution and tell people alternative methods of promotion will never work, or when they do work, tell everyone they're exceptions.
On the post: Just As Valve Shows That You Can Compete With Piracy In Russia, Russia Starts Cracking Down On Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Valve Steam is a DRM-powered paywall!
This isn't correct. Steamworks requires initial online authentication when you buy the game from retail, and will likely force you to update the game before you can play too. After that you can play offline as much as you want. If the connection goes while you're logged in, you're not kicked out, it'll keep working as normal.
On the post: E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what I've been saying
On the post: Just As Valve Shows That You Can Compete With Piracy In Russia, Russia Starts Cracking Down On Piracy
Re: Re: Valve Steam is a DRM-powered paywall!
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/publishingservices.php
The part that Bob misses is that Valve games are still available early if not day one ready for unauthorised sharing, but Valve doesn't appear to care. Particularly when you don't do fall into the trap that Bob does and look at the fact that Valve's success in Russia has nothing to do with DRM when their games are likely already available in those countries free of DRM and free of charge (or cheap).
On the post: Gaming Company Sees Massive User & Revenue Growth Because Of Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "We don't condone it..." and NOT making money from piracy.
Distribution is now a near zero cost act that can be performed by almost anyone. Creation is a scarcity that is still valuable and can be sold.
I'm not sure where your sly implication of the "tragedy of the commons" comes into this when the commons can't be depleted by file sharing.
On the post: Another NinjaVideo Admin Pleads Guilty, Expect The Rest To Do So Too
Re: Re: Re: Much different from other cases
There were private sections of the forums that could only be accessed by people who donated or contributed. These were one time payments of any amount someone wanted to give, and it was generally understood this was to maintain the site (whether the owners were honest about this is another matter). Access to these private forums could also be gained through other, non-monetary means (generally contributing to the forums basically).
Indeed they did. It was fully known by them that they were engaging in piracy. Much of the talk however was about how inadequate alternatives were, especially when considering international viewers of the site who couldn't access some shows legitimately anyway.
AFAIK the content was hosted elsewhere, but as mentioned, they were involved or at least had significant knowledge of the process.
On the post: Disney 'Analyst': My Lack Of Imagination Necessitates Passage Of PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
Coming from someone who's idea of being intellectually serious is dismissing evidence of wide patent system abuse because it was on "a TV show" is hilarious.
At least Mike has research that can back him up:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=206189
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/ge neral/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
http://patentabsurdity.com/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa pers.cfm?abstract_id=983736
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=206189
http://p apers.nber.org/papers/w16213
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
P.S. Actually, it was a podcast.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Also, I'm not sure how your experience in getting (I assume) vague patents covering inventions that (I assume) did not necessarily need your expertise to be created somehow makes you more of an authority on the subject than people who actually take notice of problems pointed out by actual studies and research.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
Second of all, nine tenths of the law is definition. If the law had such a broad definition of murder or rape that someone by any ordinary definition of the term is innocent would be arrested and even convicted, or the law allowed for abuses of such law, then yes, we should probably change the law.
Though I did ask you a direct question on whether the number of bad patents getting through is solely the act of a few bad examiners, or getting rid of all of them. That was effectively your proposed equivalent of improving the criminal justice system in your (incredibly bad) analogy, but how would that solve the sheer number of patent applications and the time pressures to get through that backlog? How would that solve the low standards applied particularly in software? How would that compare to evidence indicating patents aren't needed, or are only rarely needed? How would that solve the low standard of disclosure in patents?
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hilarious
So we solve patent system problems, like the granting of more and more low quality patents producing defensive patenting practices and large amounts of pointless litigation, by firing all of the patent examiners?
Or are you saying the huge amount of low quality, unnecessary patents are purely the work of 1 or 2 bad examiners?
On the post: Judge Says Making It Harder To Exercise Free Speech Does Not Create Substantial Hardship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible, but not as terrible as it could be
This is a case where a large part of any definition of harm that can be attributed to the seizures will involve speech. the idea that abridging of speech ex parte cannot be considered substantial does indeed appear to counter the rulings pointed out earlier, in which various forms of the argument "you cannot limit speech without determination that the speech is infringing/obscene" are now made less important than a slightly vague definition of substantial hardship in a seizure law.
On the post: Is Universal Music Using Bogus DMCA Takedowns As A Negotiating Tactic?
Re:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-s uck.html
On the post: Arresting People Associated With Anonymous Unlikely To Have The Impact The Feds Expect
The idea that maybe anonymous (or a significant portion of it) would turn out to be a bunch of police officers spying on each other would be such a great end.
On the post: Managing IP Magazine Recognizes That Those Who Are Critical Of Intellectual Property Are Important To The Conversation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ridiculous Assertion: Righthaven Ruling Threatens Open Source
Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some laws are inherently more open to abuse than others. They're called "bad laws".
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re:
I nearly didn't believe it myself. It even applies if the laws are changed!
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a publisher, your primary product is always distribution and promotion. After all, the livelihood of your business fundamentally centres around selling copies of CD/Cassette/Vinyl. Selling specifically in music or books or films is effectively an act of specialisation, perhaps based on interest or passion, perhaps not.
As a music publisher however, you're likely not satisfied. Many artists who decide to sign distribution deals with you are happy with their lot, or have little interest in the daunting task of trying to appeal to millions of people all at once, perhaps happy in their niche, perhaps simply not sure about what changes may be made to give them that wider appeal. So what do you do? You integrate.
The business has not changed from being about selling convenience as CD/Cassette/Vinyl. You simply exert more control over the creative side to ensure you can sell those 1,000,000 blank shiny discs you just bought because you weren't happy simply helping an artists get heard. It made sense to integrate like that because it allowed you an unmatched control over the selection process, and anything that didn't quite work out, you could change it. Even better, you can keep the copyright to carry on exploiting the songs indefinitely!
So no, what was being sold is convenience on the consumer side (listening to music they liked when they want) and promotion on the artist side (getting heard in general). Choosing who you decide to promote and exerting influence to ensure the product sells more CD's is just rational business sense. It has no relation to the future of music as a whole, nor does it mean anything when you can't sell CD's any more because good quality mp3's can be distributed cheaply and independently of you.
That is, assuming you don't confuse yourself into thinking you are the embodiment of music as a whole and get laws passed to force people to pay for a cheap commodity like distribution and tell people alternative methods of promotion will never work, or when they do work, tell everyone they're exceptions.
Is that a concise enough explanation?
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
Forms that don't involve doing nothing on the labels part other than imposing taxes for uploading to private locker accounts?
Forms that don't arrive several months after the cinema releases?
Forms that are actually affordable by those in emerging economies?
Forms that aren't arbitrarily region restricted for the sole purpose of price discrimination?
How about forms that don't involve laws with low standards of evidence and low standards of due process?
On the post: Why PROTECT IP Breaks The Internet
Re:
Your argument is another spin on conflating stealing with infringement.
Next >>