Because the lower price competitors still need people to run their services as they expand and take over the incumbents job, and creates a healthier market for all with a lower priced service meaning less pressure on people and the job market as a whole, especially as new jobs are created through people who can now better afford services for web based businesses.
Poor quality "approved" bootlegs were still no replacement for albums or real live show
Nor are high quality recordings a threat to real live shows, and it seems allowing them to be created and distributed only allows easier creation of new fans who will eagerly await any opportunity to go to a live show, meaning you've just created more demand for a scarce product with one that is less scarce.
Even better if that less scarce product became non-scarce and could be infinitely copied and shared across the world, no?
Governments have also been jumping on board with free (as in freedom) software. The UK Government for example has set requirements to at least consider open source/free software.
There's a great article too about how free/open source software has helped Governments that otherwise can't afford licensing costs, along side the advantage of being at less risk to vendor lock-in.
It was fairly entertaining, but not particularly special (rated 4 stars from 1325 ratings). It's about some guy who's good at a particular game, with some evil gangsta trying to rope him in and win some money from betting off the back of him, with expected tragic consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2K Elizabeth
BioShock 2's DRM is different from the first game. Yes, there is still online activation (and we're using GFWL now, which is for a host of reasons that are gameplay related) but the install limits - both number of times and on machines - was a huge deal for many consumers in 2007 and that is entirely gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2K Elizabeth
This is and is not true - You don't have to be connected to the internet if you want to play the game. You can go on, install, make an offline profile, and never go online again. If you don't like going online on the install, I understand that, but you won't have to be constantly connected.
As for the other limit, I know I stated this before, but it's something that comes in the GFWL package - and the package was what we wanted, overall, not just for the limits. But I called those out because even if a lot of games have them and it's standard, I thought it would be important to you guys to know.
---
So she instantly contradicts herself, then passes the blame on to Microsoft as if their employees were being forced to give up their first born children if they didn't choose to go with non-SSA GFWL. It's 2K's friggin' game; It was their call. Blaming Microsoft for a decision that 2K made seems pretty underhanded.
And what's with her thinking that it's a standard for games to have activation limits? I own ~80 games on Steam, none of them having activation limits. Smoke and mirrors. Power of suggestion. Some games have activation limits, but by no means is it a standard. And if you were to purchase every game available in the Steam store, or anywhere else for that matter, you would find that most games DON'T have activation limits.
So it IS rather convenient you've managed to ignore entirely the pre, shoot and post-production costs of the making and marketing of a professional motion picture. That cost gets recouped and then a profit must be returned on investment or the next flick doesn't get made, right?
It's not convenient, just obvious, so I left it out.
But let's ignore that technological advances have made it cheaper than ever before to create any piece of work, and focus on the minority of films that are made for millions of dollars due to overly high fees for individuals like actors and directors, an inane focus on slow and expensive advances in CGI for petty one upping of that other overly expensive action film even if it does little to genuinely improve the film, of which are still successful thanks to other factors that do have real value like the cinema experience that can't be easily replicated.
Where is your acknowledgment of these factors? How does paying zero to access the work recoup these costs plus a reasonable profit?
And let's ignore the second part of my post:
"However, this allows people who couldn't distribute previously due to higher barriers like cost to use this to their advantage, making more money than they could previously through attention gained that drives audiences to live shows and to purchase merchandise."
It seems to me the ISP's were the last realistic hope of continuing the historic coupling of price and product, no?
They were the last bastion of hope for people who don't realise the difference between valuing access to content and the content itself.
Price is still coupled with product, it's just in a way that you seem intent on not understanding. When ability to access a work is practically infinity, the amount people are willing to pay to access it will be 0 due the obvious ubiquitous nature of it. This can only come about thanks to technology making it so easy and cheap to duplicate, which in turn leaves less money in distribution.
However, this allows people who couldn't distribute previously due to higher barriers like cost to use this to their advantage, making more money than they could previously through attention gained that drives audiences to live shows and to purchase merchandise.
For myself, I'd rather be realistic and pay based on what actually has real value, not what others want to force me to value.
That wasn't my point, and I never said there wasn't. My point was in the use of language, especially in how 2 particular or popular sides in an issue might both tend to use positive language to describe themselves even if the fact they disagree must mean one is anti-something, in turn presenting themselves as being groups that are positive and affirming a right, whilst glossing over what they are against.
n the end, no provider should be obliged to be part of illegal activity. While there is a small part of P2P traffic that is legal, it is clear from studies and to the naked eye that much of what is going on is illegal or "infringing". This isn't a question of language, it's a question of reality.
It's a question of language in how you phrase terms relating to file sharing or file sharers, especially in how you may want to try and represent someone who is involved in the act, which was my point, not the fact of whether it is illegal.
What isn't fact however is that P2P is inefficient - it allows distribution of workload so that no individual person or server is forced to bear the brunt of uploading/downloading, especially in cases where there is high demand of a particular file, and especially when that file is Large. Ubuntu for example urges people to use their torrent during new release windows to lessen the stress on their servers which can get hit pretty badly due to the large jump in demand and the cost of running them.
It allows for perfectly high speeds given a certain threshold of seeders and leachers (which doesn't have to be many).
Torrents are used for various purposes, like Miro (http://www.getmiro.com/) which is specifically about distributing content (content that is intended to be dsitributed widely across the internet) and gets consistently high speeds. It's also used by Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/en/) amongst various others.
Also what isn't fact is whether all forms of P2P should be banned, and whether the act of sharing content in itself should be banned or considered reprehensible, as is endlessly debated here.
You seem to be intent on using any other words to describe file sharing. Whether it's the usual term piracy, or stealing, or file trading. In all cases you seem to explicitly focus on using language that makes it appear as if duplication of files is anything but easy, zero cost duplication - completely the opposite of stealing, trading or real life current and ye olde piracy.
It makes me think just how much debating and arguing is tied up not merely in just the overall points, but the language one uses and what that implies about what they're trying to get across, even if both the point and language are not representative of the reality.
Kinda like how in abortion, both sides are "pro" something.
Copyright enforces the ability to decide outside access to a work. This was during a time when the only ability to widely distribute easily and efficiently was the printing press, which may have been too expensive and prohibitive for artists to set up, giving all power and economic incentive tothe already wealthy who would more easily be able to start and maintain that kind of distribution.
When technology makes it as easy and cheap as it is today to distribute works, this need to protect the ability to decide access is drastically lessened, as now most money leaves distribution (due to distribution of the work itself becoming a commodity). This in turn leads to ways artists can use this to make money by more easily distributing works, in turn gaining attention and driving value by creating a larger audience for reduced cost, meaning increased ability to continually make money from live shows and anything else affiliated like the artists personal time or official merchandise.
1) That people value the original content or artists so little they they'll gladly rip them off regardless of what they do. The fact is, people copy because it's easy, conveniant and they realise the cost of reproduction is zero anyway, so there's no point paying for the ability to access.
2) That file sharers and counterfeiters are all one in the same.
3) That any fan of the show won't value original, official merchandise over cheap knock offs.
Your argument is based on equating all file sharers as moral lacking counterfeiters who only care about saving a quick buck and don't value anything.
The cost of running the servers is actually quite minimal compared to the monthly fee. Their whole revenue system relies on Blizzard's intellectual property (the server code) remaining in the hands of Blizzard.
No, their whole revenue is based on providing a consistent, high quality experience and continually producing new content. You do not need copyright to do that.
If you were entirely consistent, you'd have to say that anyone could run Blizzard's server code and can compete with them in terms of service and cost
I am entirely consistent, and I agree. Red Hat has competition from others on service and cost with essentially the same underlying system. They win out because they can continually produce a good experience, in this case defined by fixing bugs, stability, and customisation whilst continually producing new software to drive more value to both their system and others.
Their competition wouldn't have Blizzard's development costs.
If the cost of running servers was so cheap, why would Blizzard have substantially higher costs? They'd only have substantially higher costs either through inefficiencies in how they're running things or being unnecessarily greedy. The production of new content in itself may add costs in it's own right, but so long as it was compelling content it would only add further value meaning more subscribers to cover said cost, gaining ground against any competitors.
You'd see companies like Amazon and Microsoft running WOW Servers, and undercutting Blizzard. Because Blizzard controls their server code, you can't claim that they're simply charging for running the servers. Yes, Blizzard is creating new content, but that's "digital" and therefore, worthless in your book.
Good for them. If they can continue making money whilst undercutting blizzard, then that's only good for me because then there's real competition and I get $5 off per month.
Although that's not what I said at all regarding content being "worthless". It's simply less able to seriously make someone pay upfront the amount of money previously charged in a system that only allows for finite reproduction when working with a system that allows for infinite reproduction. The content would be worthwhile, but cannot be expected to continue to justify the old price before infinite reproduction was possible. Blizzard justifies it's customers by continually providing compelling new content as well as continually good service. Amazon (why the Hell would they be doing this, they're a retailer, not content producer) nor Microsoft would not necessarily be able to effectively or completely copy that.
Again, if people are happy to pay upfront, good for them. I still do and have many times. I simply hope they don't seriously expect every download I made of other products was genuinely a lost sale.
What will happen is that large segments of the software industry will simply become financial dead-ends, and companies will stop creating those applications, much to the loss of society.
Kinda like Red Hat is a dead end, or Novell is a dead end, or Alfresco is a dead end, etc etc. You predicted something with no basis, and for which I already provided examples of how it could work. For years completely free of charge software and in fact software that allows itself to be copied and reproduced has been thriving for quite some time. You must be living in a parallel universe, where my completely free of charge operating system Ubuntu, free of charge browsers and free of charge media players, free of charge games and free of charge office suite is impossible.
Either that or I'm that one that must be living at the centre of a black hole.
I think I've proved my point.
It seems you haven't proven anything. You've simply reasserted something without evidence, made a prophecy which says the ability for me to type this comment is impossible unless those assertions are true and generally misappropriated where the value of various products lays.
Fine, but why do they keep paying *Blizzard* for that experience? For comparison, why do people pay $14.95 one time to play Counter-Strike 1.6, but pay $14.95 a month to play WoW? Part of the answer is that WoW has better DRM designed-in.
No, it's because WoW is a services based game. You pay for ongoing service. CS is a one time upfront payment for content and online access, not ongoing production of content and high quality servers.
On the post: Incumbents Blocking Broadband Stimulus Efforts Because They Don't Like Competition
Re:
On the post: Grateful Dead Always Knew How To Connect With Fans
Re:
Nor are high quality recordings a threat to real live shows, and it seems allowing them to be created and distributed only allows easier creation of new fans who will eagerly await any opportunity to go to a live show, meaning you've just created more demand for a scarce product with one that is less scarce.
Even better if that less scarce product became non-scarce and could be infinitely copied and shared across the world, no?
On the post: CIOs Jumping On The Free Software Bandwagon
There's a great article too about how free/open source software has helped Governments that otherwise can't afford licensing costs, along side the advantage of being at less risk to vendor lock-in.
http://linuxologist.com/advocacy/how-linux-helped-5-poverty-stricken-governments/
On the post: Author Claims $9.99 Is Not A 'Real Price' For Books
Wal-Mart Mentality
How much money is Wal-Mart making again?
On the post: Bollywood Movie Released On YouTube Same Day As Theatrical Release
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5f-jUpUp8o
It was fairly entertaining, but not particularly special (rated 4 stars from 1325 ratings). It's about some guy who's good at a particular game, with some evil gangsta trying to rope him in and win some money from betting off the back of him, with expected tragic consequences.
On the post: BioShock 2, Loaded Up With Annoying DRM That Pisses Off Fans, Cracked Immediately Anyway
Re: Re:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1115638&page=18
On the post: BioShock 2, Loaded Up With Annoying DRM That Pisses Off Fans, Cracked Immediately Anyway
Steam: forces updates on you, Need to be logged in to authenticate a game
Games for Windows Live: Activation Limit of 15, need account with the service
SecuROM: Does nothing the other 2 don't already provide, whilst being scaled back to make it a pointless inclusion
On the post: BioShock 2, Loaded Up With Annoying DRM That Pisses Off Fans, Cracked Immediately Anyway
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4209/bioshock2drm.jpg
On the post: Spanish ISP Telefonica Claims Google Gets Free Bandwidth; Says Google Should Pay Up
Re:
I'll give him a chance with that one.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: to Modplan
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Hobson's choice
They were the last bastion of hope for people who don't realise the difference between valuing access to content and the content itself.
Price is still coupled with product, it's just in a way that you seem intent on not understanding. When ability to access a work is practically infinity, the amount people are willing to pay to access it will be 0 due the obvious ubiquitous nature of it. This can only come about thanks to technology making it so easy and cheap to duplicate, which in turn leaves less money in distribution.
However, this allows people who couldn't distribute previously due to higher barriers like cost to use this to their advantage, making more money than they could previously through attention gained that drives audiences to live shows and to purchase merchandise.
For myself, I'd rather be realistic and pay based on what actually has real value, not what others want to force me to value.
On the post: South Butt Responds To North Face As Only It Could
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re: Re: Re:
It's a question of language in how you phrase terms relating to file sharing or file sharers, especially in how you may want to try and represent someone who is involved in the act, which was my point, not the fact of whether it is illegal.
What isn't fact however is that P2P is inefficient - it allows distribution of workload so that no individual person or server is forced to bear the brunt of uploading/downloading, especially in cases where there is high demand of a particular file, and especially when that file is Large. Ubuntu for example urges people to use their torrent during new release windows to lessen the stress on their servers which can get hit pretty badly due to the large jump in demand and the cost of running them.
It allows for perfectly high speeds given a certain threshold of seeders and leachers (which doesn't have to be many).
Torrents are used for various purposes, like Miro (http://www.getmiro.com/) which is specifically about distributing content (content that is intended to be dsitributed widely across the internet) and gets consistently high speeds. It's also used by Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/en/) amongst various others.
Also what isn't fact is whether all forms of P2P should be banned, and whether the act of sharing content in itself should be banned or considered reprehensible, as is endlessly debated here.
On the post: Once Again, Be Careful What You Wish For With Net Neutrality Once The Lobbyists Get Done With It
Re:
It makes me think just how much debating and arguing is tied up not merely in just the overall points, but the language one uses and what that implies about what they're trying to get across, even if both the point and language are not representative of the reality.
Kinda like how in abortion, both sides are "pro" something.
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Re: Apart from...
When technology makes it as easy and cheap as it is today to distribute works, this need to protect the ability to decide access is drastically lessened, as now most money leaves distribution (due to distribution of the work itself becoming a commodity). This in turn leads to ways artists can use this to make money by more easily distributing works, in turn gaining attention and driving value by creating a larger audience for reduced cost, meaning increased ability to continually make money from live shows and anything else affiliated like the artists personal time or official merchandise.
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Re: Re: Apart from...
1) That people value the original content or artists so little they they'll gladly rip them off regardless of what they do. The fact is, people copy because it's easy, conveniant and they realise the cost of reproduction is zero anyway, so there's no point paying for the ability to access.
2) That file sharers and counterfeiters are all one in the same.
3) That any fan of the show won't value original, official merchandise over cheap knock offs.
Your argument is based on equating all file sharers as moral lacking counterfeiters who only care about saving a quick buck and don't value anything.
On the post: Of Course Most Content Shared On BitTorrent Infringes; But That's Meaningless
Apart from...
On the post: Nina Paley vs. Jaron Lanier
Re: Re: Re: Re: No evidence
No, their whole revenue is based on providing a consistent, high quality experience and continually producing new content. You do not need copyright to do that.
I am entirely consistent, and I agree. Red Hat has competition from others on service and cost with essentially the same underlying system. They win out because they can continually produce a good experience, in this case defined by fixing bugs, stability, and customisation whilst continually producing new software to drive more value to both their system and others.
If the cost of running servers was so cheap, why would Blizzard have substantially higher costs? They'd only have substantially higher costs either through inefficiencies in how they're running things or being unnecessarily greedy. The production of new content in itself may add costs in it's own right, but so long as it was compelling content it would only add further value meaning more subscribers to cover said cost, gaining ground against any competitors.
Good for them. If they can continue making money whilst undercutting blizzard, then that's only good for me because then there's real competition and I get $5 off per month.
Although that's not what I said at all regarding content being "worthless". It's simply less able to seriously make someone pay upfront the amount of money previously charged in a system that only allows for finite reproduction when working with a system that allows for infinite reproduction. The content would be worthwhile, but cannot be expected to continue to justify the old price before infinite reproduction was possible. Blizzard justifies it's customers by continually providing compelling new content as well as continually good service. Amazon (why the Hell would they be doing this, they're a retailer, not content producer) nor Microsoft would not necessarily be able to effectively or completely copy that.
Again, if people are happy to pay upfront, good for them. I still do and have many times. I simply hope they don't seriously expect every download I made of other products was genuinely a lost sale.
Kinda like Red Hat is a dead end, or Novell is a dead end, or Alfresco is a dead end, etc etc. You predicted something with no basis, and for which I already provided examples of how it could work. For years completely free of charge software and in fact software that allows itself to be copied and reproduced has been thriving for quite some time. You must be living in a parallel universe, where my completely free of charge operating system Ubuntu, free of charge browsers and free of charge media players, free of charge games and free of charge office suite is impossible.
Either that or I'm that one that must be living at the centre of a black hole.
It seems you haven't proven anything. You've simply reasserted something without evidence, made a prophecy which says the ability for me to type this comment is impossible unless those assertions are true and generally misappropriated where the value of various products lays.
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Must Be Online To Play
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's because WoW is a services based game. You pay for ongoing service. CS is a one time upfront payment for content and online access, not ongoing production of content and high quality servers.
Next >>