Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Non-recurring engineering costs (Score 1) 82

There is no way a modern ARM SoC will cost less than an 8-bit NES SoC to make.

Unlike an accurate NOAC, an ARM SoC is available commercially off the shelf. Are you including non-recurring engineering costs in your estimate or excluding them?

But all we can do is speculate. No authoritative reply is possible because everyone who knows about its internals is under NDA, and Slashdot will close this comment section before NES Classic Edition is available to the public. (Slashdot has a policy of closing all comment sections 14 days after they open.)

The licensor has a choice: make $1/$2 per game or make nothing at all. How is that difficult to understand?

A licensor might rationally choose zero in order not to devalue its copyright and/or trademark. If a licensor chooses $1 or $2 now, it can't choose $3 or $5 down the line when subsequent would-be licensees complain about not being given a comparable deal.

And no matter which way you hold it, it's still not a NES controller.

Neither is the controller included with NES Classic Edition. It's a Wii Classic Controller shaped like an NES controller.

Comment Re:Publishers unwilling to grant a license (Score 1) 82

Because it would be much more expensive to use hardware that is capable of emulating a NES through software than it would be to use a NES on a chip or FPGA.

Nintendo can probably buy a common ARM SoC including the HDMI driver for cheaper than it'd take to engineer and manufacture an accurate NOAC with all the relevant mappers included. Existing NOACs tend to have problems, such as inverted duty cycles, audio distortion, and no digital output.

They have a choice. Make $1/$2 per copy or make $0 per copy. It's not hard to see which of those makes more sense.

Consider the NES games Bart vs. the World and Lethal Weapon. If the upstream licensor of the movie or TV series on which a game was based wants $3 per copy, then for every $1/$2 copy the game publisher sells, it has to pay $3 to the movie or TV studio, resulting in a loss of $2/$1 per copy. In this case, earning $0 by not licensing at all would at least stop loss.

Notice how the controller bundled with the NES classic isn't the controller bundled with the Wii?

The controller bundled with the Wii was the Wii Remote and Nunchuk. All NES Virtual Console games work with the Wii Remote held sideways.

Comment Re:Silly complaints (Score 1) 85

If you sold exclusive rights, you already paid a lot of opportunity cost. When Spotify ignores you, you asked them to.

The problem is that if you sell exclusive rights to some of your works but make the rest available to Spotify, Spotify will demote even the ones you told it to make available.

Comment This app is incompatible with all of your devices (Score 1) 85

An app on Google Play Store will be excluded from search results unless it's available both A. in your country and B. on your device. When I view the document at that URL while logged into a Google account to which a Galaxy Tab A 8.0" (2016) and a Nexus 7 (2012) are registered, I see the following:

This app is incompatible with all of your devices.

[Incompatible] No carrier Samsung SM-T350
[Incompatible] No carrier Asus Nexus 7

I expected the document to include a list of suggested devices to purchase on which to run this app, but it did not.

Comment Re:Who gives a shit (Score 1) 200

I've linked you to her articles a fucking dozen times already

You haven't linked me though. I can only assume serviscope_minor's request was for the benefit of others reading this discussion, such as myself.

I tried "Erin Pizzey" on Wikipedia, and though it does mention "harassment, death threats, bomb threats and defamation campaigns", it says nothing about a drive-by shooting in particular. (But then Wikipedia aims to include only claims that can be backed up by what it considers independent reliable sources.) Nor do the snippets in the first ten results for Google erin pizzey drive-by shooting appear relevant. What am I missing?

Comment Re:Fair use (Score 1) 172

It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.

No, you're wrong.

First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.

Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.

There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.

The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).

Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.

And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)

Comment But does it run X? (Score 1) 259

Oh, BTW, you may be running Linux or BSD yourself and not even know it -- Android is Linux and Apple is BSD.

And it'd be technically correct* to state that TiVo DVRs run Linux.

But what people mean when they refer to running Linux or BSD on a desktop PC are X11/Linux and X11/FreeBSD. Unlike the majority of window managers for the X Window System, Android prior to Nougat doesn't even have multiple windows on screen as a standard feature, which makes it not ideal for writing one document while referring to another.

* Allegedly the best kind of correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that people think you have nothing more important to do.

Working...