Uh, don't look now, but I think your smugness is showing. Just a little.

If USA cannot compete without artificial limits on copyright and patents then they deserve to lose.

Perhaps, but without the US, those copying the US also lose out, since they'd actually have to pull their heads out of their asses and create something for themselves. You know, like they're supposed to be doing now.

Or trivial in hindsight.

What? Just because it's inconvenient to your argument, doesn't mean it can't be the case.

The copyright holders were receiving a sum of money from Telstra to be the exclusive broadcaster of he NRL on mobile devices. Naturally, if Optus could get away with it, then both Telstra and the NRL lose a lot of money.

I don't think he's a troll.

The truth are ALWAYS politically incorrect

Oh, that's what you think? Huh, that explains a lot. If you were able to convince yourself of that, then it would be easy to the eschew common sense and ignore the logistic infeasibility that plague your assertions.

If you download a mind without permission, you're just ripping off the mothers. Without their income stream, for what reason would they create minds in the first place? :-)

Um, the gargantuan scientific achievement?

They definitely operate on Slashdot

That's strong claim. I assume it's supported by strong evidence? I only ask because I personally haven't found any. Nor have I been able to come up with a plausible reason why anyone would think it a good investment to pay them to operate here since the negative opinions of MS. At least then, hitting the opinions of the IT crowd could potentially be effective, since they're pretty much exactly the biggest source of MS's reputation, and definitely some of their biggest customers.

What topics are you certain that they're manipulating, how are they doing it, and why?

The fact is, most people want to play through a game once. This means that there's no shortage of used games on the market, which drives prices down, and that most people don't care too much about wear and tear, so long as it makes it through their first (and only) playthrough. There's no reason why the used game market shouldn't be eating heavily into profits. I should also point out now that people who buy and sell used games are doing nothing wrong. They are well within their rights, and I hope nothing I say below will contradict this.

Now, a lot of people here, as to be expected, are going to dismiss this as more industry whinging, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. You must remember that every big ticket game is an investment, and that every blow to profits will impact how many are made, and how much effort is put into the ones that are made. Basically, there will always be consequences, whether or not we want there to be, no matter how dearly we hold onto the right to sell used games. This means it's important to actually think about it; to weigh options, rather than to just knee-jerk and automatically take the side against the people you hate.

I myself am undecided. On one hand, I buy my fair share of used games (although I tend to hoard them and play some again rather than resell), and I would be very sorry to see the used game market dry up. On the other hand, a lot of the same logic behind copyright applies (albeit less strongly) to stopping used sales. Like with copyright, in the long term, there is no significant detriment, since the alternative makes the contested product infeasible. What's the point in having the right to copy something that doesn't exist? Similarly, what's the point in having the right to resell something you can't buy in the first place? If certain works become infeasible to produce, then everyone loses. Not just the studios, the developers, and their first sale customers, but also the people (like me) who buy them second hand (and, I guess, even the people who pirate them). The only people who at least break even are those who don't buy them in at all in the first place.

I know that some people will applaud the death of the bloated, overpriced, overproduced, under-creative AAA game, but their personal preference is hardly the point. Not every choice must satisfy every consumer. As usual, if you don't like something, for whatever reason, you do not have to buy it. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing that nobody can buy it. If there is demand for it, then it is something that we don't want to lose. Of course, if we want even more what we're giving up instead (i.e. first sale rights on AAA games), then we'll just have to eat the loss. Either way, we are losing something of value, which is a sad, but as of yet unavoidable state of affairs. Like I said, it would be sensible to consider both sides and make an informed and rational decision about what is more valuable to us.

Please mods, this is not a troll. As always, I am simply trying to invite a healthy debate on the topic, and not turn it into a matter of foolish pride and revenge (which most issues surrounding Big Media seem to be). If you disagree with me, please reply. I would be more than happy to debate with you, to listen to you, and hopefully, be proven very wrong!

Really? I have two questions: a) What the hell? and b) Where do you live?

To make matters worse, the ribbon interface actually made the MS Office suite of software easier to use for noobs and probably made these same power users feel threatened.

I'm not sure I would ascribe so much psychology to it. The interface changed significantly, and everyone who was used to the old interface found the new interface counter-intuitive and difficult to use, so they raged. It's what users do.

True... I myself am currently living with an 8GB cap (don't ask :-/ ). However, I'm going to guess that this, um, "situation" will, er, "improve" any time soon, as the history of technological advancement has taught us time and time again.

Look, I am more than aware that artists can transfer copyrights. However, copyright law does protect artists, even when they trade them away. People pay artists for copyrights because they are still worth something. Without copyright law, they aren't worth the paper they're printed on (and yes, I am aware they are not printed).

However, I think you may have missed my point. Whatever you call the entity being wronged here, it's not due to money changing hands.

I've heard that, but I don't think it's enough. It's only a matter of time before the people who are prepared to pay for a pirated copy realise they can get a copy of the very same legitimacy for much, much less. Besides, who actually pays for pirated copies these days?