I don't think he's a troll.
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
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?
If I make copies and swell those, then I have violated copyright law...but that still doesn't mean you 'deserved' that money.
Well actually, it is part of why the artist deserved that money (I'm going to stop talking from mcgrew's hypothetical now). Copyright law is society's promise not to copy their work. The fact that is law, and that the artist created the work under that perfectly valid assumption, means that we are morally bound to honour it. It doesn't mean we have to buy his stuff, only to pay for what we use.
Ok, say you make a CD and put it up for sale. Someone buys a copy and burns a copy of his copy for his friend, who has never heard of you. You have lost nothing. If his friend likes your CD he's likely to buy a copy of your next one and you earn even more. Now, if your customer sells a copy of his copy to his friend, that's money that should have gone to you, but didn't.
I don't understand how I've suddenly lost more when someone who hasn't (yet) heard of me paid money for a copy than if they'd taken it for free. Either way, the money should have gone to me. What do I care in which pirate's lap the money lands? Whether it's the person who provided the copy, or the person who took it, it's still money I deserve, and in either case, the injustice is that it's not in my bank account.
Grr. This is a pet peeve of mine.
I'm not talking about a potential loss of revenue for MapleStory, I'm talking about the gain in revenue for UMaple
Kind of like the difference between downloading a movie off TPB and selling copies of the movie for a profit
Copyright law is supposed to protect the artist, not stop people from making a profit. The problem is that the people who have the artistic talent are not seeing results for their hard work, not that someone else is making money. You have to remember that the wrongdoing is against the artist. What harm does the money do to the artist, over giving it away for free? About the only difference I can see is that the giving away for free simply saturates the market more with the illegitimate goods, since more people would take it. But for some reason (latent jealousy is about the only reason I can come up with), making money is frowned upon, and even though we don't prosecute it, it somehow makes every crime worse.
Well perhaps (leaving some minor pedantry aside), but an entity doesn't have to commit an act of violence in order to be considered violent. For example, we say a film is violent if it portrays violence, even though it's all fabricated.
Saying an ideology is violent is very different from saying that some of the people who follow it (or at least, claim to follow it) have previously committed violent acts. If that were the criterion, then I think any ideology would be considered violent. Hell, even pacifism would be classified as violent. It's not a very meaningful category if you're just going to put everyone in there.
Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.