I am one of those techs that does not settle and it simply for one reason. Cost of living. If I am forced to suffer a tech job that will pay me 20k a a year or less for my abilities and experience, why bother put up with the stress. I could simply go work commission based retail or go back into the catering business. I have been in the workforce for so long and worked in so many different fields that I find that it is just plain silly to "accept" what they are offering. IMO all techs that see jobs that underpay for experience and knowledge should just avoid applying for that position because that is a trend that needs to be curbed.

Entitlement is one thing, but estimating your own worth is another. No one can tell you what you are worth (even if it is an inflated estimation) these companies are the ones that will have to make a sacrifice or simply not be able to fill a need that will only grow worse.

The internet itself is the sidewalk. An example of pciketing on this sidewalk is creating your own site or another method/rallying cry against said business. Facebook, youtube, and many other forms of social media are extremely powerful tools to get the message out.

Whether blocking access irl or online, chances are it coste someone money. And there is no minor infraction when someone takes something from you or costs you your time as an individual. Why would businesses or small user created sites be any different?

I don't buy that DDoS os the nly meaningful way and I doubt such a harmful action is reasonably viewed by most as the same harmless actions of picketing or jaywalking.

By definition a DDoS attack... a distributed denial-of-service attack, is intended to block access. It is more akin to picketers actually blocking the entrance of a hotel while on a public sidewalk. That is not legal in the real world and certainly isn't legal online either.

The picketing that is allowed is something that is next to the entrance of a business that is informing but not blocking entry and exit to said business. And mainly it has to be off the property of the business because they can hit the protestors with trespassing.

Problem with a DDoS is that it is everything that is NOT allowed in a peaceful picketing. It denies access to a site, Which is the equivalent of blocking the doors to a business. Also any modification of a site is messing with the companies property, which wouldn't be allowed in real life either.

It is about "how" things are done not why.

I am sorry, I don't understand the 'getting paid by government' part how does this work out?

What I mean, is that 'everyone' involved in making the tangible product should still receive royalties for that particular product. After copyright lapse though, they shouldn't be entitled to receive anything from people who cover the song or any variants of it as long as the new material doesn't contain snippets from the older work.

I guess, to be more clear is that I believe people should get paid for tangible products they create within the scope of original CP law but the intangible elements should be shared.

You are right, this does bring up interesting arguments about the line between copyright and consumers sense of entitlement. Copyright is all about profit and ownership. But the original intent of copyright is hundreds of years old now. As with all things it has changed and adopted with society and technology. 400 years ago, they crafted it most likely because of the limitations of spreading someones work around. Today we have the internet.

Even if I were to agree with you about the music in question becoming available for all to use and recreate as a source of inspiration, I really don't see how it would entitle anyone to the work as performed by a particular artist.

Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.

As always people forget a step. What you have is...

"Customer purchased product from store.
Customer owns product from store.
Customer after some period of time sells product used to somebody else.
Store already got paid, so they have no legal interest, much less moral or ethical interest, in the second sale.

First Sale Doctrine covers this. Everywhere else in the physical world you cannot pull this fucking shit for two seconds without being called crazy greedy retarded sons of bitches."

But before the customer purchases the product from the store it is well within the manufacturer's right to sell the product how they want it and how much they want it for. As long as they are not being misleading and are upfront with what is happening they are in the right and it falls under buyer beware. Now whether it deals with a service like online play (which is not subject to first sale doctrine) or DLC (which is NOT found on disc) then you as a consumer are not entitled to that material. Your personal opinions about the "value" of the game doesn't allow you step over the companies rights to distribute the product how they see fit.

The real question that keeps popping up in my head when people complain about this is.... are people practically PLANNING on selling this game after buying it brand new? If you do not think a game is worth it, why buy brand new? If you don't plan on keeping the game (a choice made before purchase) then why not just "rent" the game? I really don't get the overwhelming sense of entitlement this generation of gamers seem to have regarding DLC and services and expect these companies to feel pity when you loudly proclaim your desire to fuel the second hand market.

I think these devs and companies are making a stand. If you think these games are worth it, support them outright. If not, feel free to hold on to your personal feelings of entitlement and let them burn. Either way, the message will be felt if these devs close up shop. It would entice the pubs to only shift big bucks into guaranteed successes and the more unique titles drop tremendously in budget and quality or simply fall by the wayside.

The only difference? Read again. Sony is putting this on all "FIRST PARTY" games. Which means Sony is the publisher of those games. Doesn't seem any different from PC now does it?

Attrition. It is expected that at some point in time interest wanes and the game players move on to different things. It is extremely easy to see accounts that are added and used alot after the time the estimate for decline.Normally the publishers handle the costs and they constantly crank out products that may need attention as well. It becomes a numbers game.

This is a how-to. So while it is understandable about raging against someone bragging about a bit of ingenuity. This guy should be commended for taking the time out to inform instead of brag and I assure you, it is much easier to brag or insult than it is to inform.

Exactly. I am reading this article and thinking this doesn't explain deductive reasoning, which in fact, a person can do that on their own and not need to debate or talk to another person about. Reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. It is reasoning that allows us to recognize and deduce correctly at times patterns in all sorts of creatures, objects and phenomena. I am not sure why they are trying to pigeonhole reasoning as a product of human interaction when chances are it started from our need to hunt and protect ourselves.

But of course, it MUST be the Sony firmware. That explains why 360 owners exhibit the same exact issues. Man, sony is evil and far reaching with that kind of pull. SMH.