Copyright and the Constitution are the biggest things. You seen intent on your belief over anything that the rest of society actually agrees with and that's a huge problem.
Is it just me or does anyone else recognize that game companies that depend on copyright issue have a lot of issues with their community?
We talked about EA and how they threw the public under the bus when it came to DRM. But there is more to this that Notch made me recognize.
EA has destroyed every instance of community building they could have.
Let's explain:
The DRM? Leaves the modding community in the dust. Less people want to play a game in a closed wall. Most pirates will opt to remove the DRM but not build on the experiences that EA tries to offer by making new tools.
The Origin system? Leaves out the millions of people on Steam who rely on just Steam for their games. It also separates their market to allow them to price discriminate. Why try to pay a game on Steam for $60 when EA offers the same game on Origin for $40 and (again) the pirates just remove the incentives by offering a better alternative than the official corporate version?
Of course, Ubisoft makes the same mistakes. It seems that when you're in charge of a company, you see the public as merely consumers while you look to make all of the rules to your advantage.
The point is maybe it's time to recognize that the ones that hide behind copyright the most are the same companies (whether in music, gaming, or movies) that are the most vulnerable to disruption.
I'm probably like a broken record but it bears repeating:
Incentive is the most powerful word in the English language. The entire battle with copyright, the need to control information, the reduction of the public sphere, the need to clam up information is all about the same root cause.
To control where you make money in a stable fashion and devour the competition whether it's a teacher or another business. The winner gets the spoils and the glory to control works. The loser gets to pay the cost. And we can see the results of this game in regards to the public. YouTube and Google believe corporate lies over what the public can judge for themselves. Our libraries get little funding for textbooks and pay too much for sharing knowledge. We have a record industry that looks to make money in perpetuity without regards to what the public wants. And the public is weakened considerably by laws that don't represent them or their interests.
I can go on, but the incentives are quote clearly aligned to site that copyright is nothing more than a tool for oppression and censorship, ignoring the public, and rewarding the private sphere for nothing more than claiming ownership ofideas over benefiting the public and enriching our share of knowledge in all sorts of industries.
Something that concerns me is that there is an administrative bureaucracy that is impeding on progress here. The teachers have no say in the education of the kids and the kids aren't learning as well as they could. The copyright claims are not the problem here. Find out what type of incentive structure is causing a tone deaf response to such a thick headed idea.
Obviously, if there are people that have to make money for the school through copyright claims, there's a problem. Copyright being used to censor artists and teachers is going to create a very strong backlash similar to the French revolution if this keeps going long enough.
You would think someone had paid attention in history when people are pushed in the wrong direction for too long.
" That's why Nintendo instituted a strict policy that governed who could make games for their system, how many they could make per year and what the content could be."
But that licensing is still quite lucrative. All three systems charge a fee to put games on their systems. When nintendo was the big digg, the fee was higher. Even now, they tend to be on the expensive side (which is why more people like computer gaming now, more diversity and less start up costs). That is the key business model nowadays.
" Which was the most useless part of the entire system and rarely worked the way it was supposed to."
Too true... I hated that damn thing but you have to admit that it was a great way to advertise to kids that this was a toy and not a game system.
The kids figured it out immediately. The parents just ignored it as they watched their soap operas.
On the post: Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Do You Live In The Constitution-Free Zone Of The US?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow...
On the post: How PeerJ Is Changing Everything In Academic Publishing
Re: Re: I could publish for your cheaper than either
I'm not sure if there are acceptable terms for the public to discuss and share articles over the needs of the academics.
On the post: Former Copyright Registers: We Must Limit Fair Use At Public Universities, For The Poor Publishers Who Are Paying Us To Say This
Re:
On the post: Minecraft Creator Stops By Pirate Bay Co-Founder's Reddit AMA To Thank Him For 'Making The World A Better Place'
Nostalgia
We talked about EA and how they threw the public under the bus when it came to DRM. But there is more to this that Notch made me recognize.
EA has destroyed every instance of community building they could have.
Let's explain:
The DRM? Leaves the modding community in the dust. Less people want to play a game in a closed wall. Most pirates will opt to remove the DRM but not build on the experiences that EA tries to offer by making new tools.
The Origin system? Leaves out the millions of people on Steam who rely on just Steam for their games. It also separates their market to allow them to price discriminate. Why try to pay a game on Steam for $60 when EA offers the same game on Origin for $40 and (again) the pirates just remove the incentives by offering a better alternative than the official corporate version?
Of course, Ubisoft makes the same mistakes. It seems that when you're in charge of a company, you see the public as merely consumers while you look to make all of the rules to your advantage.
The point is maybe it's time to recognize that the ones that hide behind copyright the most are the same companies (whether in music, gaming, or movies) that are the most vulnerable to disruption.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Incentive
Incentive is the most powerful word in the English language. The entire battle with copyright, the need to control information, the reduction of the public sphere, the need to clam up information is all about the same root cause.
To control where you make money in a stable fashion and devour the competition whether it's a teacher or another business. The winner gets the spoils and the glory to control works. The loser gets to pay the cost. And we can see the results of this game in regards to the public. YouTube and Google believe corporate lies over what the public can judge for themselves. Our libraries get little funding for textbooks and pay too much for sharing knowledge. We have a record industry that looks to make money in perpetuity without regards to what the public wants. And the public is weakened considerably by laws that don't represent them or their interests.
I can go on, but the incentives are quote clearly aligned to site that copyright is nothing more than a tool for oppression and censorship, ignoring the public, and rewarding the private sphere for nothing more than claiming ownership ofideas over benefiting the public and enriching our share of knowledge in all sorts of industries.
On the post: Oh Wait: MIT Already Made All Its Research Open; So Why Was It So Against Aaron Swartz?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Campaign Launched To Stop School From Claiming Copyright On Student Work
How to destroy universities
Something that concerns me is that there is an administrative bureaucracy that is impeding on progress here. The teachers have no say in the education of the kids and the kids aren't learning as well as they could. The copyright claims are not the problem here. Find out what type of incentive structure is causing a tone deaf response to such a thick headed idea.
Obviously, if there are people that have to make money for the school through copyright claims, there's a problem. Copyright being used to censor artists and teachers is going to create a very strong backlash similar to the French revolution if this keeps going long enough.
You would think someone had paid attention in history when people are pushed in the wrong direction for too long.
On the post: Teri Buhl Threatens To Sue Us And Others; Still Seems Confused About The Law
She hadn't looked into the laws flute her claims, she's digging into a bad position, and she has lost in the court of public opinion.
I hope that some day I can teach a class on journalism just to say "Don't be like this lady"
On the post: No, Copyright Is Not Like A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The physical CD is still owned. I have a second copy and my own CD which is now my tangible property.
On the post: North Korea Threatens To Nuke US With Copied Video Game Footage
The translation
On the post: NJ State Trooper Feels The Best Part About The Required Dashcam Is The OFF Button
Re: Re:
On the post: Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law
On the post: Japanese Government To Start Seeding P2P Networks With Faux Files Containing Copyright Warnings
Re:
The Zerg rush on the government building would be the stuff of legend.
On the post: Investigative Journalist Claims Her Public Tweets Aren't 'Publishable;' Threatens To Sue Blogger Who Does Exactly That
Re:
On the post: White House Declares It Has 'Broad Powers' When It Comes To Cyberattacks
Re: FTFY
On the post: Valve Sued In Germany Over Right To Resell Games
Re: Re: Re:
But if you try to buy it for others for a cheaper price, Valve will ban your account.
On the post: Valve Sued In Germany Over Right To Resell Games
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Valve Sued In Germany Over Right To Resell Games
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Report Suggests China May Lift Console Gaming Ban
Re: Re: We learned this lesson before...
But that licensing is still quite lucrative. All three systems charge a fee to put games on their systems. When nintendo was the big digg, the fee was higher. Even now, they tend to be on the expensive side (which is why more people like computer gaming now, more diversity and less start up costs). That is the key business model nowadays.
" Which was the most useless part of the entire system and rarely worked the way it was supposed to."
Too true... I hated that damn thing but you have to admit that it was a great way to advertise to kids that this was a toy and not a game system.
The kids figured it out immediately. The parents just ignored it as they watched their soap operas.
Next >>