At least it has not yet gone as far as genetic engineering and enhancement. Unfortunately, however, I do not think it unlikely that some will seek to tread that path. We do not need a real-life Khan to make things worse than they already are.
I have to wonder, then, how long it will be before simple augmentation gives way to the pursuit of perfection of the species? Where augmented and enhanced humans are considered superior to unaltered ones? That is the sort of thinking and process by which Khan Singh came to be. I should hope no one like him arises, but humans have the unerring tendency to ignore the lessons brought before them.
There are no original ideas, AC#8, because everything is built upon what came before. It is a natural progression, and it's not uncommon for multiple individuals to come to the same conclusion and idea simultaneously. The idea, as has been said, is not nearly as important as the execution, because an idea without good execution goes nowhere. But the idea and good execution do not always come from the same source.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet "DRM" enforcement is stronger than ever!
You pay for the game once, and that is it. There are other campaigns you can buy, as well as smaller nonessentials in the online store like makover credits, unlock packs, extra character slots, costumes, and more, none of which convey any gameplay advantage or necessary function but are merely extras to make your playing experience more fun.
A most effective approach, although unfortunately, Arenanet (who makes the Guild Wars games) is still of the belief that copyright is necessary and that they can't create without it. I have often wondered how one would make an MMO without copyright. I do believe it's possible, I'm just uncertain as to the methodology.
The fact that you continually fall back upon insults and fallacies undermines your position, AC #114, as do the flaws in your computations. It has been explained to you multiple times that money not spent on DVDs does not simply disappear from the economy. It is merely spent elsewhere. You fail to understand that with the advance of technology, certain shifts inevitably occur.
We are in the midst of one such shift at this time, the move from physical media for digital content to non-physical media. This, of course, terrifies those whose livelihood depends on physical media. They live in such deep myopia that they cannot see beyond their own inability to adapt, and so in their continuing irrelevance they will be left behind much as buggy whip manufacturers were early in the last century.
Re: Re: Yet "DRM" enforcement is stronger than ever!
I would just like to point out that Guild Wars has been successful for over 6 years despite not relying on a subscription model. And Guild Wars 2 is going to follow the same approach with no subscription fees. Therefore, one does not need such fees to create a game of this nature and sustain it. There are other ways.
You should not have so much faith in law and law enforcement, AC #23. Whenever there has been room to abuse a law for their own benefit, governments and law enforcement has done this. It is their history, their own precedent. This is why we say that this measure will be abused just as those prior to it have been. Government bodies in thrall to monied interests have no other motivation or desire.
I will adjust my statement to say that what most intelligent members of the public want is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price.
It is illogical to make the claim that industry content is all they want when monopolists control all of the offline distribution channels and thusly, independent content has much less chance of exposure. On the more equal ground that the internet provides, however, you will find that most industry content is not as desirable as you may think.
You have provided no evidence for your claim and yet you expect it to be believed. Why? It is a most illogical assumption. What I have said is backed up by the many articles found here and which come from other stories elsewhere all around the world. Yours is not.
Whether you like it or not, the age of mass-produced subpar content is rapidly coming to a close, to be followed by an age of quality independent content unfettered by the rules and desires of a legacy industry too frightened to survive.
Incorrect. What they make is what they want us to want, not what we actually want. Hence the clear decline in quality of mainstream content over the last decade. Also, they constantly put up artificial barriers and restrictions that serve no useful purpose and which only antagonize paying customers - such as regional restrictions, DRM, windowing, and broadcast schedules.
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price. That, however, is something that the industry has been unwilling to provide, and so because of this, "unauthorized" means of distribution are able to provide what the mainstream providers refuse to give, which is a market failure on their part.
Their actions, as I have stated before, are motivated by greed, fear of change, fear of loss of control, and fear of irrelevance. And, of course, denial of those very things that motivate them. They are an industry unwilling to adapt and unwilling to service their customers in all the ways they potentially could with today's technology. And so, as long as they continue their present course of action, they will eventually collapse and be overtaken by those who do truly value the wishes of those who experience their content. It is the only logical outcome.
You really must govern your passions, AC #61. They will be your undoing. As far as PROTECT IP goes, the mere fact that so many have voiced so vocal an opposition to it logically brings its effectiveness and necessity into question. Consider also that the media organizations responsible for this bill have a long history of deception and fraud, among many other things. This also makes anything they or their supporters - you among them - questionable.
Also, as you have neither addressed the actual points the signatories here are making nor actually looked at the links that have been provided to you, your arguments hold no weight and are invalid. The most logical assumption is that you are paid to be here by those who would see this bill pass. However, because of your deep fear of change, you do not allow yourself to see the flaws in your own arguments and so you rely on personal attacks. They are, after all, the only thing you have, because the facts themselves do not support your view in any way.
As others have said, new content is always built upon old content. There is no other way. So again, your argument is incorrect. There are no works that have been made completely without drawing upon other works. What you seek, AC #61, is an impossibility. Without a source to draw from, creativity cannot happen. Yet people like you would rather let the well run dry than allow others to create. That is what copyright in its current form does—by reducing the ability of culture to be reused and built upon, it reduces the overall amount of culture available to us.
Because the victim's assailant has not refuted the claims, tao, there can be no defamation or slander. For those to be possible, what was said must be proven false. Which it has not. It has not even been contested, merely the terminology used to describe it. Therefore, the victim is not wrong for expressing herself through the only avenue open to her, that of the online world.
The needs of the many—the common people of this country—to have their privacy and civil rights respected above all else—outweigh the needs of the few—the government organizations who seek to strip them from us for their own gain. Or the one—the corrupt government that allows them to do this. When injustice has been done, the only logical course of action is to oppose it, in whatever form it is possible to do so.
The actions taken by CBS are highly illogical, prompted by fear of competition and fear of technology. Nor is it logical that rights should extend beyond the death of a work's creator, since said creator would then be incapable of creating new works. Nor should it last as long as it does in any case, but it does so at the behest of companies and individuals who are absolutely terrified of change and their own irrelevance. That fear clings to them like a pair of Tiberian bats and is the driving force behind every action they take. If we are to move toward the future envisioned by the elder Roddenberry, then such concepts as imaginary property must be discarded.
There is a word to describe the actions of the US Copyright Group - "fishing." Are you not aware, AC #1, of the presumption of innocence of the accused that must be respected in US law? You cannot declare guilt until it has been proven. And you cannot accuse without sound evidence, which an IP address is not, given how easily they can be faked, hidden, or randomized. Every case involved in this incident must be dropped immediately, the USCG fined and dissolved for misusing the legal system for its own gain, and the lawyers who participated in this action disbarred permanently.
It still should not be done, because it would set a precedent that is highly likely to be abused by those who fear competition. Better to err on the side of caution and never give corporations more tools to abuse the citizenry with.
Your logic, AC #91, is flawed. Liability must only be placed on the person/entity performing the act. No more and no less. Otherwise, where would you have it end? To the fourth degree? The fifth? The sixth? Even further out?
I admit my knowledge of Tor is limited, but I do know it is a form of encryption technology, with many legitimate uses. And since the data passing through it is encrypted, there is no way for the Tor operator or the node/exit point itself to know what it is.
You cannot act merely on supposition and assumption. You must have proof, actual evidence. Otherwise you are using the tactics of a police state. Is that what you really want for this country? You must look at a given law and examine it to see if it is just and ethical, before deciding whether it is worth enforcing. If it is not, then ignoring it is not wrong.
Would you care to provide a scan of that check to prove your honesty, AC #51? If you do not, your argument is invalid because you have failed to back it up with evidence. And again, personal attacks will never help you in convincing anyone. Don't use them unless you wish to be immediately dismissed.
And AC #48, most artists never making anything off of CD sales, as has been well established time and again. The labels take everything and go out of their way to make certain most bands will never recoup. So your arguments are flawed and incorrect.
Most kind, Rich. Thank you. And I would agree, Alien Bard, that the only thing personal attacks can accomplish is distraction.
On the issue of copy protection, if the technology has rendered it useless, which it has, then any laws forbidding it are both irrelevant and ineffective. It is technology and what it enables that should define the laws concerning it, and not the other way around.
Tell me, how is "Real Alternative" confusing? It says exactly what it is - an alternative to RealPlayer. There is no confusion. It is making no claim to being the actual RealPlayer, which - given its history - would not be a good thing to claim. Therefore, because of this, and because you do not support your argument with independently-verifiable evidence, your position is incorrect.
On the post: DailyDirt: Artificial And Augmented Senses
Re: Re:
At least it has not yet gone as far as genetic engineering and enhancement. Unfortunately, however, I do not think it unlikely that some will seek to tread that path. We do not need a real-life Khan to make things worse than they already are.
On the post: DailyDirt: Artificial And Augmented Senses
On the post: Being First Isn't The Most Important Thing, Getting It Right Is
Re:
On the post: Article About 'The Menace Of The Software Pirates' From 1985
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet "DRM" enforcement is stronger than ever!
A most effective approach, although unfortunately, Arenanet (who makes the Guild Wars games) is still of the belief that copyright is necessary and that they can't create without it. I have often wondered how one would make an MMO without copyright. I do believe it's possible, I'm just uncertain as to the methodology.
On the post: MPAA: Bad At Math & Bad At Economics
Re: Re: New Meanings for MPAA and RIAA??
We are in the midst of one such shift at this time, the move from physical media for digital content to non-physical media. This, of course, terrifies those whose livelihood depends on physical media. They live in such deep myopia that they cannot see beyond their own inability to adapt, and so in their continuing irrelevance they will be left behind much as buggy whip manufacturers were early in the last century.
On the post: Article About 'The Menace Of The Software Pirates' From 1985
Re: Re: Yet "DRM" enforcement is stronger than ever!
On the post: UK Proposal Would Allow Police To Seize Domain Names Without A Court Order
Re:
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is illogical to make the claim that industry content is all they want when monopolists control all of the offline distribution channels and thusly, independent content has much less chance of exposure. On the more equal ground that the internet provides, however, you will find that most industry content is not as desirable as you may think.
You have provided no evidence for your claim and yet you expect it to be believed. Why? It is a most illogical assumption. What I have said is backed up by the many articles found here and which come from other stories elsewhere all around the world. Yours is not.
Whether you like it or not, the age of mass-produced subpar content is rapidly coming to a close, to be followed by an age of quality independent content unfettered by the rules and desires of a legacy industry too frightened to survive.
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
Re: Re: Re:
When what the public actually wants is to be able to experience the content they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, for a reasonable, uninflated price. That, however, is something that the industry has been unwilling to provide, and so because of this, "unauthorized" means of distribution are able to provide what the mainstream providers refuse to give, which is a market failure on their part.
Their actions, as I have stated before, are motivated by greed, fear of change, fear of loss of control, and fear of irrelevance. And, of course, denial of those very things that motivate them. They are an industry unwilling to adapt and unwilling to service their customers in all the ways they potentially could with today's technology. And so, as long as they continue their present course of action, they will eventually collapse and be overtaken by those who do truly value the wishes of those who experience their content. It is the only logical outcome.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, as you have neither addressed the actual points the signatories here are making nor actually looked at the links that have been provided to you, your arguments hold no weight and are invalid. The most logical assumption is that you are paid to be here by those who would see this bill pass. However, because of your deep fear of change, you do not allow yourself to see the flaws in your own arguments and so you rely on personal attacks. They are, after all, the only thing you have, because the facts themselves do not support your view in any way.
As others have said, new content is always built upon old content. There is no other way. So again, your argument is incorrect. There are no works that have been made completely without drawing upon other works. What you seek, AC #61, is an impossibility. Without a source to draw from, creativity cannot happen. Yet people like you would rather let the well run dry than allow others to create. That is what copyright in its current form does—by reducing the ability of culture to be reused and built upon, it reduces the overall amount of culture available to us.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Using Techdirt Logic Applied here
The needs of the many—the common people of this country—to have their privacy and civil rights respected above all else—outweigh the needs of the few—the government organizations who seek to strip them from us for their own gain. Or the one—the corrupt government that allows them to do this. When injustice has been done, the only logical course of action is to oppose it, in whatever form it is possible to do so.
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements
Re:
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Screws Up, Seizes Tor Exit Node; Vows Not to Learn From Its Mistake
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I admit my knowledge of Tor is limited, but I do know it is a form of encryption technology, with many legitimate uses. And since the data passing through it is encrypted, there is no way for the Tor operator or the node/exit point itself to know what it is.
You cannot act merely on supposition and assumption. You must have proof, actual evidence. Otherwise you are using the tactics of a police state. Is that what you really want for this country? You must look at a given law and examine it to see if it is just and ethical, before deciding whether it is worth enforcing. If it is not, then ignoring it is not wrong.
On the post: Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
Re: Re: Re: Brasil's Reasons
And AC #48, most artists never making anything off of CD sales, as has been well established time and again. The labels take everything and go out of their way to make certain most bands will never recoup. So your arguments are flawed and incorrect.
On the post: Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
Re: Re: Re:
On the issue of copy protection, if the technology has rendered it useless, which it has, then any laws forbidding it are both irrelevant and ineffective. It is technology and what it enables that should define the laws concerning it, and not the other way around.
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>