Comment Re:Double payments (Score 1) 193
It's not a good point, if the packets were lost the first time round then they should simply be resent.
It's not a good point, if the packets were lost the first time round then they should simply be resent.
Because some people spend all day adding their commentary to the videos and they wish to be paid for that commentary. I think that's fair. They paid for the game, and the gamer videos double up as advertisements.
I don't buy games without checking out the game-play on youtube first (actual game-play, not trailers) and the commentary is a good indicator of whether the game is enjoyable.
the work is classified as a Derivative Work.
So the gamers should get the lions share of the advertising revenue / Nintendo have fraudulently taken the gamers share(?).
Programmers should know better, most of what is discussed in this thread is 'mis-addressed' not 'mis-delivered', as far as I'm concerned mis-delivered is when something gets delivered to an address that is not on the post.
Post going to the address written on it = correctly delivered.
Government is a giant extortion racket with the same moral principles as organized crime.
I think you're being a bit hard on organised crime there.
Actually, given that you could extrapolate most people's identities from the data mentioned (postcode, gender and age), this sale would be illegal under EU data protection laws.
Try reading EU data protection laws sometime, we cant sign away our rights here.
So if poor people were paid more generously and hence paid more taxes, rich people wouldn't have to pay so much tax!!
There's an increasing amount of content that you can't view without DRM support
I don't want that content if it is ruined by DRM.
and there is a movement afoot in the news world to investigate DRM for protecting online news content.
They are a bunch of twisting lying agenda driven scumbags who concentrate on crime and terrorism far too much anyway, let them destroy themselves with DRM and perhaps something better will emerge.
Bright argues that if HTML5 does not support DRM, then content providers will move their content away from open standards and implement it with native apps
Good, they can take their crap and stick it where I don't want it because if it's DRM'ed then I don't want it, so keep the DRM the hell away from my browser.
DRM is an insidious evil that does nothing but treat you like a thief, it stops all kinds of disability plugins from working, it stops your fair use rights, it breaks everything, you might find that because some driver doesn't work perfectly that you can't view content you paid for, or you may find that you can't legitimately copy something when you have the fair use right to. Even an action as simple as highlighting a couple of words and copying them to search about them may be removed. And the huge irony will be that this won't stop the pirates, it will only prevent paying users.
Sincerely, keep this out of HTML5, it just doesn't belong in a free web. If someone want's to write some proprietary thing to screw their customers then let them do that, but don't go forcing this stuff on everyone else so easily.
Precisely, please mod parent up.
Not just file-sharing.
Try posting a message on a forum, you won't be able to because your IP address will be banned, because one person in thousands said something someone didn't like.
A good VPN nicely bypasses all this kind of crap.
The only games I buy with DRM are ones that are on sale for ridiculously low prices (such as $5 or less). I refuse to pay full price for something I don't own.
Ditto
And why do the online and offline shops insist on cluttering up my shelves with material rubbish anyway, since no-one else can use it, they might as well just email me a code for my rental.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.