As a long time Linux user, I have long left the world of Windows gaming. I still have a number of games that run fairly well in Wine. But I stopped buying Windows only games long ago. I have bought nearly every Humble Bundle since its beginning and have been able to have more gaming than I can handle from it.
I think that the Humble Bundle is probably the best thing to have happened for Linux gaming ever. It has shown that even though the Linux OS makes up 1% of the market, it holds a much higher (nearly 25% at times) of the game buying public.
And these people call us entitled. What makes this guy think he is entitled to my $50-100 a month? Nothing entitles him or anyone else to my money. Only those producers of products and services I actually want and will use will get my money.
The absolute best thing I have watched over the last year has been a web series called The Daly Show. It stars Tim and Sam Daly. It is produced and directed by Ben Shelton.
I got more enjoyment out of those ten 5-minute episodes than I did from any hour long tv show this past year.
Also, I am a cord-never. I will always be one. I visit my mom's house on a fairly regular basis. She is a Dish subscriber. I can never find anything interesting to watch when I am there. Why would I pay for something that I would rarely watch?
Who said there wasn't? There was a lot of hyperbole. However, the hyperbole used by the anti-SOPA/PIPA crowd used was in an effort to draw people's attention to the troublesome and problematic portions of the bill. Meaning, the hyperbole was used to point out fact.
On the pro-SOPA/PIPA side, they used quite a bit of hyperbole, but were stating it as fact. Big difference.
That sounds an awful lot like "Guilty until proven innocent." That is antithetical to the US's system of justice. It is always on the accuser to prove their accusations, not the accused to prove against the accusations.
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
What about when NBC falsely represents itself as the copyright holder of a video and has it taken down? Is that not having freedom of expression trampled?
What about when the website you rely on to distribute your solely owned and created copyright works gets shut down by over zealous governments and media lobbies? Is that not having your freedom of expression trampled?
Also, would it really be Jay's job to check out the legalities of using the clip or more likely a staffer from their legal group.
I don't think it is really Jay's responsibility. It should be the responsibility of the network and the producers though.
But the point of focusing on Jay here is that Jay is the public face around which this whole thing revolves. It was on Jay's show. It is because the video aired on Jay's show that this video was flagged by content id. If it wasn't for Jay, this guy's video would still be there.
Actually, it isn't even an opt-out system anymore. Sure you can apply the most open version of a creative commons license, but your work is still copyrighted. You are just choosing not to enforce it.
I will ad this. I am not against all advertising. I am against intrusive advertising. I hate website ads that pop over the content I am trying to view. I am against ads that play music or sounds without my authorization.
On TV, I am just plain tired of commercial breaks that have grown longer and louder over the years.
There are ways for tv shows and television networks to make money from advertising. It is just that the nature of advertising is changing and changing rapidly. They can fight that change like they are now, or they can adapt (ooh there is that word we use constantly here on Techdirt) to that change and find new ways to make money that meet the needs of the viewers.
You bring up an interesting point. However, I must ask this:
Is skipping commercials entirely that much different from fast forwarding through them? Sure when you fast forward you catch fleeting glimpses of commercials, but you are not really taking anything in as your mind is focused on finding the show again.
Since Fast forwarding has existed along side time shifting for the entire time it has been deemed fair use, do you really think that the Supreme court would decide that now fast forwarding has gone too far? I find that unlikely.
However, in the off chance that it does happen, I can easily see a huge backlash by the viewing public. A public that has over the last 30+ years become accustomed to recording shows and fast forwarding through commercials. They will not take lightly the loss of that ability.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 12:37pm
Note: If you get a 404 error when looking up your domain, it is just Google's way of telling you that no one cares about your website enough to send a takedown notice. Count yourself lucky. Or not.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:11am
Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
Here is an example from my experience:
A while back, I use to play a popular game on Facebook. After a while of playing and becoming decent at it, I joined a Facebook Page that focused on sharing tips for playing the game better. I was eventually asked to become a contributor to it. The page was really popular and had over 100,000 members.
Then one day, Facebook shut the page down. No warning. No explanation. Nothing. We could no longer post. We could no longer communicate with our fans.
After fruitlessly trying to get our page unbanned, we started up a new one. Same content, same writers. Sadly, we no longer had the same membership. After being live on the new page for the same length of time as the other page was active, we still had less than half the membership. Why? Because there was no way for us to communicate with our fans that we had a new page. We were harmed beyond repair by the banning of the original page.
So tell me again how websites being blocked is only an "inconvenience"
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 24 May 2012 @ 10:03am
Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
Really? How? Only in your dreams. Let's say I've got my content on a site and ICE comes in and shuts it down. I can be up and running in 10 minutes from any other site on the web. I can still sign contracts with legit sellers like Amazon and ICE's seizure is just a minor inconvenience. Oh, I'll grant you that it's an inconvenience, but you can be up and running again in a few minutes.
In the mean time, you will lose over 50% of your readership as they won't know where to find you because their RSS feeds are now busted, navigating to the site URL redirects them to ICE and they are lost at where to go.
You are an idiot. Losing a domain is damaging to a site.
Well, currently Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc is testing this theory. They are claiming that others cannot use the John Carter and Tarzan stories that are in the public domain, because of trademark. It is a horrible argument, but there are claiming it and litigating on it anyway.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:43am
Re: Re: I have sworn off Apple, MS will be much harder
Get a PS3, Wii or a Roku box if you want to watch Netflix. As for Football Manager, you could probably run it in Wine. 2011 and 2012 seem to have soem decent Gold compatibility. Live says Platinum.
Two pieces of software is not worth supporting a company that you don't like.
On the post: Latest Humble Bundle Of Pay-What-You-Want Indie Games Raises $1-Million In Five Hours
Re:
I think that the Humble Bundle is probably the best thing to have happened for Linux gaming ever. It has shown that even though the Linux OS makes up 1% of the market, it holds a much higher (nearly 25% at times) of the game buying public.
On the post: TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal
On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button
Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL21EB474DBBD62834
I got more enjoyment out of those ten 5-minute episodes than I did from any hour long tv show this past year.
Also, I am a cord-never. I will always be one. I visit my mom's house on a fairly regular basis. She is a Dish subscriber. I can never find anything interesting to watch when I am there. Why would I pay for something that I would rarely watch?
On the post: Senator Coons Admits That SOPA 'Really Did Pose Some Risk To The Internet'
Re:
On the pro-SOPA/PIPA side, they used quite a bit of hyperbole, but were stating it as fact. Big difference.
On the post: Did Hollywood Not Use Available DMCA Tools Just To Pretend It Needed SOPA?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
What about when the website you rely on to distribute your solely owned and created copyright works gets shut down by over zealous governments and media lobbies? Is that not having your freedom of expression trampled?
On the post: Copylaundering: Jay Leno Airs Campaign Video From YouTube, NBC Claims Ownership Of Original
Re: Copyright?
I don't think it is really Jay's responsibility. It should be the responsibility of the network and the producers though.
But the point of focusing on Jay here is that Jay is the public face around which this whole thing revolves. It was on Jay's show. It is because the video aired on Jay's show that this video was flagged by content id. If it wasn't for Jay, this guy's video would still be there.
On the post: Copylaundering: Jay Leno Airs Campaign Video From YouTube, NBC Claims Ownership Of Original
Re: Re: Copyright?
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Excuses
On TV, I am just plain tired of commercial breaks that have grown longer and louder over the years.
There are ways for tv shows and television networks to make money from advertising. It is just that the nature of advertising is changing and changing rapidly. They can fight that change like they are now, or they can adapt (ooh there is that word we use constantly here on Techdirt) to that change and find new ways to make money that meet the needs of the viewers.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Excuses
Is skipping commercials entirely that much different from fast forwarding through them? Sure when you fast forward you catch fleeting glimpses of commercials, but you are not really taking anything in as your mind is focused on finding the show again.
Since Fast forwarding has existed along side time shifting for the entire time it has been deemed fair use, do you really think that the Supreme court would decide that now fast forwarding has gone too far? I find that unlikely.
However, in the off chance that it does happen, I can easily see a huge backlash by the viewing public. A public that has over the last 30+ years become accustomed to recording shows and fast forwarding through commercials. They will not take lightly the loss of that ability.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
Re: The 1%
Please.
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
Interesting
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
Interesting
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
A while back, I use to play a popular game on Facebook. After a while of playing and becoming decent at it, I joined a Facebook Page that focused on sharing tips for playing the game better. I was eventually asked to become a contributor to it. The page was really popular and had over 100,000 members.
Then one day, Facebook shut the page down. No warning. No explanation. Nothing. We could no longer post. We could no longer communicate with our fans.
After fruitlessly trying to get our page unbanned, we started up a new one. Same content, same writers. Sadly, we no longer had the same membership. After being live on the new page for the same length of time as the other page was active, we still had less than half the membership. Why? Because there was no way for us to communicate with our fans that we had a new page. We were harmed beyond repair by the banning of the original page.
So tell me again how websites being blocked is only an "inconvenience"
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
In the mean time, you will lose over 50% of your readership as they won't know where to find you because their RSS feeds are now busted, navigating to the site URL redirects them to ICE and they are lost at where to go.
You are an idiot. Losing a domain is damaging to a site.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re:
On the post: Apple And Microsoft Behind Patent Troll Armed With Thousands Of Nortel Patents
Re: Re: I have sworn off Apple, MS will be much harder
Two pieces of software is not worth supporting a company that you don't like.
Next >>