This is a weak argument against giving up our rights to circumvent access control in the vein of fair use while not infringing upon copyright. This is a particularly weak analogy when the profits of rich companies are the only things being protected by the law. Making it weaker is its placement in the same thread with an argument for using an already established constitutional litmus test against laws which infringe upon our rights as American citizens to see if DMCA stacks up.
Honestly, I'm not even really sure what exactly you are arguing. It seems like a typical libertarian idealist counter to a question of "how can we have any laws and still be free?" arguing that sometimes giving up freedoms is for the betterment of society. However, the fact that you seem to be arguing that DMCA is akin to murder law, and thus fair use is akin to the "right to kill" and thus we should give up our right to fair use for the good of society, you seem to be perverting libertarian thought to benefit corporate interests. Truly, I am quite confused to your reasoning here, but it gave me a good laugh. I vote he should be modded up as +5 Funny.
It's an entirely different story when we're looking back at the old days of Atari / NES. How many Gradius clones were there, for instance? Did these games really improve upon the content of Gradius, or simply take the same gameplay the same concepts and simply change how a few things functioned to make a "different" game? Castlevania clones, SMB clones, Defender clones, they all abounded in the land of 8-bit, because it was easy to do it. We don't see as many clones these days unless we're looking at the mod community, and the majority of those modders are attempting to make an homage to their favorite games within another of their favorite games, with no intent of ever making money off it.
I think modding should be encouraged, as it leads to new and better games. I think using inspired content to branch out into new universes and new genres should also be encouraged. It is the actual lazy turn-a-buck copypasta clone games which should be despised --
-- but without them, we wouldn't have many games on our cell phones...
Why was Mario created when there were already other platform games out there?
In the early 1980s, there weren't other scrolling platform games. As far as I can tell, SMB1 was the first game to use scrolling instead of a Donkey Kong-style single screen or Pitfall!-style page flipping.
Sorry mate, you've forgotten Namco's Pac Land But SMB was pretty darn close.
I wonder who here on
Quite obviously it would take a fool to think that this parallel revival was "news," however TFA has little to do with discussing just turntables, but the widespread increase in vinyl records, new turntable models, and so on in popular retailers like Best Buy. TFA is about the spread of this phenomenon from confinement to the corner record store out into the mainstream. The summary is weak, but you'd have realized that had you read TFA rather than skimming the summary, misreading it, and deciding to troll for karma. This is a clear case of EMPF (Epic Mod Point Fail).
No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action.
One of the most profoundly stupid statements ever uttered by an economist. Sure you can't stick the global economy in a beaker and have controls and the other paraphernalia of controlled lab tests, the highest standard of science. But you can experiment with human action at the individual or small group in a controlled lab. It's routinely done these days. There is such a thing as experimental verification and falsification.
And because it's now "routinely done" that somehow makes his statement, however so long ago, "stupid." During that time I'm sure it wasn't routinely done, if done at all, so it probably felt a lot less "stupid" of a statement when he made it. This statement was also coming into formation as an idea of Mises in the wake of a wildly turbulent economic collapse known as the Great Depression, and the unpredictability that would lead to the Cold War. The context of the statement provides further explanation as to its meaning. To simply flaunt this one statement as being "stupid" because of 50+ years of advancement into social science that wasn't available at the time he made it, I would argue is a far more "stupid" assertion.