Yeah, I never did get Aquaria running under Ubuntu, but really, your comment doesn't make sense. If you buy the bundle, with the Linux version you get the Windows version automatically, so just run that one, instead (like I did with Aquaria).
> I think I'll stick to running commercial games
These aren't commercial games? There's some kind of price cutoff for commercial games? Some kind of marketing model limitations?
Yeah, one of the reasons I've splurged and spent many $$ on Humble Bundle games which I haven't played and may never get around to playing: the fact that they are DRM-free and ported to Linux leaves me the impression that even my grandchildren will be able to play them (in a VM).
I'm probably correct but possibly in theory only, because the work involved in resurrecting such old distros could probably be massive. Always the chance one of the other buyers will set it up for me and make it easy, though.
Yeah, gotta keep those minority slaves for our cotton fields, no? The majority voted for it!
Perhaps in the case of this particular proposition you might be correct; however, what most people believe is "democracy" is far from the strict version which you think it means.
> The illegality depends on whether the depiction is of
> an actual child.
You're totally optimistic. Depending on juridiction, there are different age cutoffs, text-only may or may not be allowed, works with artistic value may or may not be allowed, depictions of children acted by adults may or may not be allowed, etc.
Not to talk about the fact that the existence of steganography means that every file on your computer might contain child porn without you knowing about it (and such ignorance is, in many jurisdictions, not a valid defense --- and even if it were, your life is already ruined the minute you have been accused, so good luck).
Not quite as bad a situation as for copyright, but still a cesspool of problems.
Perhaps reading the arguments of the other side would be more effective rather than just spouting off drivel? You seem to have totally forgotten the argument which has been set out over and over again in this and similar discussions: namely, that this "disruption" is not likely to be effective for more than a short period of time, and its likely effect will be to merely cause P2P technology to become less vulnerable to such kinds of attacks.
The problem with your theory is that you are already bankrupted by lawyer's fees by the time you are able to file your first filing in Federal court.
OTOH, I see a shining future for all kinds of infringing material being disseminated while claiming to be licensed. (This was thought of, already, and made into a separate crime, if I am not mistaken.)
Yes, the report itself showcases information about the trading volume on Mt. Gox currently being around $276K per day.
In my opinion, however, just trading shouldn't really be considered "use". The report has no firm information on the volume of bitcoins actually used to buy real goods or services.
Waves, however, does seem to be a good example of a company whose (current) business model is doomed by the progress of technology. Once Waves' algorithms have been reverse engineered (and any patents have run out), their only distinguishing feature which will remain is their "brand recognition". I doubt they'll last very long once it gets to that point. And even if they are constantly improving their algorithms, the law of diminishing returns will eventually stop that because human hearing is not constantly improving (or at least, not at a significant rate).
> if you don't need Waves to create great music,
> why do they even exist?
The following information is based on a conversation I had once, a long time ago, with someone who worked at Waves. So I apologize ahead of time if it is not 100% correct.
When Waves' price point was set, Waves couldn't be run on consumer grade hardware. It needed to be run on custom-designed DSP boards which were part of the product --- one of the reasons for the "uber-price", back then.
Unfortunately for Waves, Moore's Law doesn't apply to human ears, so now many off-the-shelf computers are powerful enough to run Waves, and Waves' only distinguishing feature is the more advanced, internal algorithmic know-how. Because Waves' potential market is small, it seems that they've decided that lowering its price would not generate significantly more income for them.
If we compare Waves' situation to, for example, Paulo Coelho in a knee-jerk fashion, we would come to the conclusion that Waves' management "doesn't get it". However, it is not at all clear that they are stupid. My understanding is that all of the big recording studios pay for Waves without a second thought, so the lost income from them would have to be offset by hundreds of times more sales to indie musicians like Dan, who are more likely to decide not to pay even for a cheaper product (or at least, not until they start making significant money from their music).
Your post is confused. You make it seem like Waves has been injured ("and against Waves wishes" [sic]), when, in reality, you should be ranting about the "lost sale" to the producers of the "very, very good plug-ins that most people use". Unfortunately, you can't stir up enough moral panic about that because it's not clear from what he wrote that Dan didn't pay for one of those (and decide to use Waves instead).
So where is our indignation supposed to come from? You also emphasize that the difference in quality of the music Dan produces using Waves compared to the other plugins is not very significant, so you undercut the only other argument I can see is possible (which you didn't even attempt to make), which is to be indignant that Dan is "cheating" in the competition with other musicians.
So, while I found your post interesting, it was totally ineffective in generating the effect which I believe you desired. About the only thing which would have generated that kind of moral outrage is Dan thanking everyone for enabling him to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds, while, at the same time, saying that even though he's totally capable now of paying for Waves without thinking twice, he's still not going to do it (for whatever reason).
All this discussion, especially the paragraph which includes
We measure economic value in monetary value -- even when it doesn't involve money directly. And, yet, because of this, we often forget that non-monetary transactions have tremendous costs, price and value as well.
You could have purchased a few from Baen, they've never had DRM as far as I can see. Myself, this means that I'm actually going to send them email commending them on this decision, and I'll pick out the book which seems the most interesting and buy it, just to put my wallet where my ideology is.
Wow, yes, I hadn't thought of that. Is it similar to how they cannot extend the term of copyright as much as they want because the Constitution says it is for a "limited time"?
Laws which work mechanically are unlikely to be respected.
Even more bizarrely, given the wording of the US copyright act, it would seem that if one buys a painting in Europe, one still needs the permission of the rightsholder to bring it back home (import it) to the US.
It isn't a 'massive fail' unless it's tested in the courts and the author is found to be wrong.
It is a massive fail for society as a whole that people choose to waste their own time and the justice system's time (and possibly channel their own money to lawyers) for no good reason.
<snarkmode>
If this phenomenon becomes more widespread, authors everywhere will be going bankrupt paying lawyer's fees and court fees. Don't you even think of the authors?</snarkmode>
On the post: Latest Humble Bundle Of Pay-What-You-Want Indie Games Raises $1-Million In Five Hours
Re:
> I think I'll stick to running commercial games
These aren't commercial games? There's some kind of price cutoff for commercial games? Some kind of marketing model limitations?
On the post: Latest Humble Bundle Of Pay-What-You-Want Indie Games Raises $1-Million In Five Hours
Re: Re: Re: Lets not forget...
I'm probably correct but possibly in theory only, because the work involved in resurrecting such old distros could probably be massive. Always the chance one of the other buyers will set it up for me and make it easy, though.
On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps in the case of this particular proposition you might be correct; however, what most people believe is "democracy" is far from the strict version which you think it means.
On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button
Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
> an actual child.
You're totally optimistic. Depending on juridiction, there are different age cutoffs, text-only may or may not be allowed, works with artistic value may or may not be allowed, depictions of children acted by adults may or may not be allowed, etc.
Not to talk about the fact that the existence of steganography means that every file on your computer might contain child porn without you knowing about it (and such ignorance is, in many jurisdictions, not a valid defense --- and even if it were, your life is already ruined the minute you have been accused, so good luck).
Not quite as bad a situation as for copyright, but still a cesspool of problems.
On the post: DMCA Notices So Stupid It Hurts
Who is More Macho?
I said, Google, show what's goin' around.
.....
It's fun to ban with the DMCA...
(Here's hoping my post doesn't get taken down by the Village People!)
On the post: Network Analysis Reveals Apparent (And Legally Questionable) Attack On Torrent Networks
You're just an **AA girl, in the **AA world
On the post: How TPP Would Put Massive Burdens On Those Accused Of Infringement
Re: is this your copyright?
OTOH, I see a shining future for all kinds of infringing material being disseminated while claiming to be licensed. (This was thought of, already, and made into a separate crime, if I am not mistaken.)
On the post: How TPP Would Put Massive Burdens On Those Accused Of Infringement
Re: Hopes that will be dashed.
On the post: FBI Explores The Implications Of Bitcoin
$276K of trading per day on Mt. Gox alone
In my opinion, however, just trading shouldn't really be considered "use". The report has no firm information on the volume of bitcoins actually used to buy real goods or services.
On the post: Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law
Sure confused those media CEO morons-in-a-hurry
The hypocrisy would be pathetic if it weren't already so typical it's even expected.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Don't fall into the trap
You should also review this Techdirt post.
Waves, however, does seem to be a good example of a company whose (current) business model is doomed by the progress of technology. Once Waves' algorithms have been reverse engineered (and any patents have run out), their only distinguishing feature which will remain is their "brand recognition". I doubt they'll last very long once it gets to that point. And even if they are constantly improving their algorithms, the law of diminishing returns will eventually stop that because human hearing is not constantly improving (or at least, not at a significant rate).
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Waves, as another Techdirt (counter?) example
> why do they even exist?
The following information is based on a conversation I had once, a long time ago, with someone who worked at Waves. So I apologize ahead of time if it is not 100% correct.
When Waves' price point was set, Waves couldn't be run on consumer grade hardware. It needed to be run on custom-designed DSP boards which were part of the product --- one of the reasons for the "uber-price", back then.
Unfortunately for Waves, Moore's Law doesn't apply to human ears, so now many off-the-shelf computers are powerful enough to run Waves, and Waves' only distinguishing feature is the more advanced, internal algorithmic know-how. Because Waves' potential market is small, it seems that they've decided that lowering its price would not generate significantly more income for them.
If we compare Waves' situation to, for example, Paulo Coelho in a knee-jerk fashion, we would come to the conclusion that Waves' management "doesn't get it". However, it is not at all clear that they are stupid. My understanding is that all of the big recording studios pay for Waves without a second thought, so the lost income from them would have to be offset by hundreds of times more sales to indie musicians like Dan, who are more likely to decide not to pay even for a cheaper product (or at least, not until they start making significant money from their music).
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Who exactly was injured?
So where is our indignation supposed to come from? You also emphasize that the difference in quality of the music Dan produces using Waves compared to the other plugins is not very significant, so you undercut the only other argument I can see is possible (which you didn't even attempt to make), which is to be indignant that Dan is "cheating" in the competition with other musicians.
So, while I found your post interesting, it was totally ineffective in generating the effect which I believe you desired. About the only thing which would have generated that kind of moral outrage is Dan thanking everyone for enabling him to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds, while, at the same time, saying that even though he's totally capable now of paying for Waves without thinking twice, he's still not going to do it (for whatever reason).
On the post: Hacking Society: It's Time To Measure The Unmeasurable
Re: Utility vs. Money
On the post: 'Almost Anybody Can Have An Idea' -- Linus Torvalds
Mod it up (funny)!
On the post: Tor Listens To Authors And Readers And Ditches DRM
Re: Re:
On the post: Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
Re:
Er, never mind...
On the post: Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder
Re: Re:
Even more bizarrely, given the wording of the US copyright act, it would seem that if one buys a painting in Europe, one still needs the permission of the rightsholder to bring it back home (import it) to the US.
On the post: Kenya's High Court Rules Anti-Counterfeiting Law Is Unconstitutional Because It Threatens Access To Generic Drugs
Re:
Unfortunately, that's not going to help your infinitely negative karma.
On the post: Author Discovers Assassin's Creed Uses Same Cliche'd SciFi Trope As His Book... Sues For Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a massive fail for society as a whole that people choose to waste their own time and the justice system's time (and possibly channel their own money to lawyers) for no good reason.
<snarkmode>
If this phenomenon becomes more widespread, authors everywhere will be going bankrupt paying lawyer's fees and court fees. Don't you even think of the authors?</snarkmode>
Next >>