That last bit is the part that rankles me a bit. They originally sold it to us as a multi-player gaming service. Now it is being sold as merely a network that companies use and microsoft provides player matching on.
I still think it is a great service overall - but that they change it around to let companies grind more out of consumers is a bit of pisser.
I still prefer companies that make the best games, regardless of how much they want for them, but when it seems like a company is more focused on loss-control instead of making a great product to sell I try to avoid them.
I actually am waiting for the day when part of the deal of buying the book is that you can only read it yourself - no one can read it for you because then they would be getting the content as well... and that is wrong isn't it? :P
The argument made by the copywrong group is that they paid for the content in the format provided. Any alteration is outside the bounds of the agreement of sale which was not solely for the content but also the delivery.
Once we get passed the 2 being linked we should be fine.
Get your head in the gutter and out of the trademark/copyright/blah blah blah
I also don't think you can buy those jeans as it would be false advertising - only a 40-year old virgin would not think of the sexual reference immediately (wait - can I make a legitimate reference that happens to now be the title of a movie or because they made a movie I can no longer use that phrase? So Dazed and Confused about this... crap! I can't be both of those at the same time anymore either! Fuck this, I'm going to Whitecastle... damnit!)
In our connected, computer driven society, a cyber war is the worst kind of war we could have. It doesn't seem as deadly from a traditional perspective, which is why I think it is even more dangerous.
Cyber war could lead to:
Power grid shutdown
Waste processing plant damage/disruption
Financial destruction
All of which lead to panic. And panic will kill millions.
I'll keep my wars fought by professional soldiers in far away places. Selfish? Hell yes. I am terrified of war coming to my soil and a cyber war can be everywhere whereas with a regular war you need boots on the ground or very expensive planes in the air.
It finally dawned on me what the rights' holders are doing. By not giving the customer what they want like the auto industry did they are setting themselves up for a huge bailout in the great entertainment crash of 2015!
Movies and music will come out that year and the entertainment bubble that exists (where we think the crap is better than it really is but then reality sets in and we understand it is valueless tripe) will pop covering us all with the puss of Hollywood's festering dogma.
Then the governments around the world will need to bail out Hollywood. And what a payout it will be with Hollywood accounting. The US will call off spending trillions on military upkeep to prop up the entertainment industry because without them 3 Americas worth of people will be unemployed.
Riiiggghhhhttt.... so if an artist doesn't want, let's say, black people to listen to their music, or gay people, or white people, then they get to decide that? Fuck that shit. You put it out there, you don't get to decide how it gets used.
Music is made to be listened to. Be it in pieces or as a whole. You don't get to speak and take back your words. You don't get to sing and take back your notes.
I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?
The article is not talking about telling the artist how to distribute their work - it is telling the artists that they don't get to decide how we distribute other things just because it may also be used to distribute their work. It would seem a pretty unfair thing of you to tell me that I can spend my paycheck any way I like, as long as I only use your currency that you get a % of for every transaction performed. It's akin to Mastercard saying to the public "you must use our card" and then having the government come along and enforce it.
On the post: Homeless Man Who Got Free Boots From Cop Now 'Wants His Cut' Of YouTube Attention
Re:
I always love how a critic is by definition someone who didn't do it.
On the post: Xbox DRM Punishes More Paying Customers And Actually Restricts Purchasing Options
Re: Another aspect not covered in article...
I still think it is a great service overall - but that they change it around to let companies grind more out of consumers is a bit of pisser.
I still prefer companies that make the best games, regardless of how much they want for them, but when it seems like a company is more focused on loss-control instead of making a great product to sell I try to avoid them.
On the post: Xbox DRM Punishes More Paying Customers And Actually Restricts Purchasing Options
Re: DRM
"Feature That Sucks"
On the post: Why Everyone Should Care About DRM's Punishment Of The Visually Impaired
Re:
On the post: Why Everyone Should Care About DRM's Punishment Of The Visually Impaired
Re: Re:
Once we get passed the 2 being linked we should be fine.
Ok, yeah, even I think I sound delusional...
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Richard Branson Claims People May Confuse 'I Am Not A Virgin Jeans' With His Virgin Properties
Re: Re:
I also don't think you can buy those jeans as it would be false advertising - only a 40-year old virgin would not think of the sexual reference immediately (wait - can I make a legitimate reference that happens to now be the title of a movie or because they made a movie I can no longer use that phrase? So Dazed and Confused about this... crap! I can't be both of those at the same time anymore either! Fuck this, I'm going to Whitecastle... damnit!)
On the post: Richard Branson Claims People May Confuse 'I Am Not A Virgin Jeans' With His Virgin Properties
Re:
(And isn't it kinda funny how the actual Virgin here is the one doing the phucking...)
On the post: The USPTO: Where Up Is Down, Expensive Medicine Saves Lives, And Cheap Alternatives Violate International Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should We Want A 'Cyberwar'? It's A Lot Less Bloody Than A Real War
More lives
Cyber war could lead to:
Power grid shutdown
Waste processing plant damage/disruption
Financial destruction
All of which lead to panic. And panic will kill millions.
I'll keep my wars fought by professional soldiers in far away places. Selfish? Hell yes. I am terrified of war coming to my soil and a cyber war can be everywhere whereas with a regular war you need boots on the ground or very expensive planes in the air.
On the post: Australian ISP: Negotiating With Hollywood Over Copyright Is Like Talking To A Brick Wall
I finally get it
Movies and music will come out that year and the entertainment bubble that exists (where we think the crap is better than it really is but then reality sets in and we understand it is valueless tripe) will pop covering us all with the puss of Hollywood's festering dogma.
Then the governments around the world will need to bail out Hollywood. And what a payout it will be with Hollywood accounting. The US will call off spending trillions on military upkeep to prop up the entertainment industry because without them 3 Americas worth of people will be unemployed.
Then the terrorists will win.
On the post: A Big Victory For Fair Use Via South Park, What What (In The Butt), Numa Numa, Afro Ninja, Et Al.
Re: Re:
On the post: A Big Victory For Fair Use Via South Park, What What (In The Butt), Numa Numa, Afro Ninja, Et Al.
Re:
On the post: A Big Victory For Fair Use Via South Park, What What (In The Butt), Numa Numa, Afro Ninja, Et Al.
Re: i need about tree-fiddy
Awesomeness.
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
On the post: 2K Sports Botches Their Perfect Game $1 Million Contest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Twitter Challenges Court Ruling That Twitter Users Have No Standing To Protect Their Own Account Info
Re: Re: It's official:
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re:
Music is made to be listened to. Be it in pieces or as a whole. You don't get to speak and take back your words. You don't get to sing and take back your notes.
On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?
Re:
I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?
The article is not talking about telling the artist how to distribute their work - it is telling the artists that they don't get to decide how we distribute other things just because it may also be used to distribute their work. It would seem a pretty unfair thing of you to tell me that I can spend my paycheck any way I like, as long as I only use your currency that you get a % of for every transaction performed. It's akin to Mastercard saying to the public "you must use our card" and then having the government come along and enforce it.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Touts Basketball Trademark Victory In Similar Lawsuit Against Warner Bros.
Re:
Next >>