talking about BREAKING THE DAMN LAW

"I love all the people on here, frolicking around, all happily talking about BREAKING THE DAMN LAW"
-Myself when first posting in a thread on Gaia about Limewire/ISP/Net Neutrality

In a thread where several people were discussing the proper ways to illegally download music/movies, there were only two people discussing the legality of it. The rest were talking about their right to steal from others. This was my opening post into that thread.



“If you could, would you steal a car? Would you steal a purse? Would you steal a boat? Most likely, unless you are a kleptomaniac, you probably said NO to all of those questions. Now, why would you steal a movie/song?”
You should know this quote. It is the line that is at the start of many of your DVDs, usually it features attractive looking ladies and men stealing expensive looking cars. While I think that the ad has good potential, it really does not touch the issue. When you steal a car, you are taking the only one of it that exists; with a song, you are taking a copy. Most people, when asked “if you can make a copy of this car, and take the copy, would you?” would answer with a resounding YES. This is what file sharing is, you are not actually taking an item, you are copying it and taking the replicate (shouldn’t Harrison Ford have retired them all by now?)

Please keep in mind, I am not touching personal use here, that is a different topic for a different day. I am merely touching the sharing and copying of files for other persons.

If you would not steal an actual version of something, what makes you think that you have a right to a copy of the same thing? If I make money per book I sell, then how would selling my book to one person, having that person copy and distribute it to ten others, help me in the long run. Sure, I get my money for selling one book, but I should be getting the money for selling eleven. This is the basic principle of file sharing, and this is why it is wrong.

Now, I really don’t like the slippery slope fallacy, and I hate all fallacies in general, I must use it for this issue. If a person is able and willing to download a file (illegally), odds are that they will do it again. Also, if one person seeds a download, odds are that thousands of people will download it. This is not just speculation, this is supported by current downloading evidence.

Currently, several record, movie, and porn companies are suing users of programs like bit torrent, kazaa, and limewire over their seeding of songs and movies and pleasures. These companies are getting millions of dollars in rewards, and they look as though they are planning on taking on more and more users. This, to me, is a good thing. Persons should be secure in their property, be it real or intellectual. A song is the property of the record company (usually) or the artist, not the property of the person who has a CD. Hopefully, as these cases increase, more and more people will stop downloading illegally.

You are wondering why it is that I am talking about this. Admit it, you know you were. I am talking about this for the same reason I keep talking about parents and their teens. who is the main downloader of illegal things? TEENS. Who will pay for the teens actions if they go to court? PARENTS. Yep, once again, I am looking at parental responsibility. You would not let your kids steal from others, beat people up, or anything like that, so why are you letting them use the internet to steal properties? Step up, police what they are doing, and teach them what not to do. Windows XP, Vista, and I believe OSX all have controls you can use to stop this sort of thing. Various flavors of Linux do as well.

As I keep saying, it is the parents responsibility here to make sure that their kids are following the law. Take their phone away. Take their computer away. Take their car away. Sure, they may hate you, but you are a parent, not a friend. Start acting like it. Read more ...

The Gamers Bill of Rights

Post 52

To all Ohioans and those in other states dealing with the aftermath of Ike please note that our hearts go out to you. That said, I have power, so suck it...

Recently, the companies of Stardock - makers of The Political Machine, Galactic Civilizations, and several Windows Themes and Upgrades - and Gas Power Games - makers of Supreme Commander and the Siege games - decided that PC gamers deserved certain rights. They found these rights to be inalienable (though, why God gives a damn about gaming I don't understand) and decided to write them down. They called these rights “The Gamers Bill of Rights”. Now, some of these 'rights' were obvious, some stupid, and some nonsensical; thus, in a true Bargarian fashion, I have decided to analyze these 'rights'.

My comments are in bold.

1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.

   1. There are two main problems with this statement: What if it was knowingly not working AND what if they downloaded it? I understand that if the game did not work as advertised they should be allowed to return it FOR EXCHANGE. If you allow it to be returned for a refund you are only encouraging piracy. Also, how do they expect me to be able to return a downloaded file?

2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.

   1. This sounds all fine and dandy until you realize what this entails. What is a finished state? I would argue that 'The Sims' is not finished as it has no overall goal, thus not being a game because it has no conclusion. Furthermore, you can test a game for years but never find some of the problems as you WILL NOT DO what I will do to the game. I suggest and alternative to this later.

3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.

   1. Wait, it is a finished project BUT gets meaningful updates? Okay, so these rights are already problematic.

4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updates not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.

   1. I agree 100% with this condition. I should be able to pop in a single player game and play right away, no matter where I am, no matter what connection I have. For multiplayer and that sort of game I can understand why this is needed.

5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.

   1. Define adequately. Minimum requirements are just that, what the game CAN run on at the least. Why should you expect DX10 graphics from your 50$ card?

6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.

   1. Last time I checked, that little agreement you click to when you install the game SAYS that they can install these programs. Looks like the consent is there. I have a suggestion here later too.

7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.

   1. While I think that we should be able to get our games running no matter what, I have a serious issue with this idea. Why should the company run the bandwidth and storage capacity just because you screwed up your computer. They should allow us to have multiple installs (explained later) and thus KEEP YOUR CD IN GOOD CONDITION. They should not lose money because you were stupid.

8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.

   1. I agree 100% with this. We should not be treated as criminal for losing our card boxes and the like. Let us call and request the code (make it similar to requesting passwords for a website).

9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.

   1. Wait, didn't they already mention this?

10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

    1. I agree with this. I am really glad that Spore, even with the DRM, does not require the CD to play. With emulation software the method of guaranteeing a real purchase using the CD is no longer useful.

I think that this 'Bill of Rights' is more a gimmick than anything else. Most of these things are illogical and frankly idiotic. Do we require cars to say every little thing that is in them? Is the gas millage accurate? Do we make book sellers give us unlimited copies because we broke them?
NO

So why should we make game publishers do the same? This is a move to get people to like Stardock more, and to fight DRM. Guess what, if I own something I have the right to protect it, even if it is seen as Draconian.

Here is my Gamers Bill of Rights

1. For every game bought there are to be seven authentications allowed (like in ITunes) in which that game can run. These should be allowed to be turned on or off to accommodate the moving of computers or the selling of games. You also have the right to call and get the code whenever needed, similar to how a website gives out forgotten passwords.

2. All games are to be updated in a timely manner (roughly once per ¼) for three years after the release of the game. Furthermore, the companies are to inform the gamers of what they are working on fixing.

3. The agreement that we check in order to install the game is to be available to read at every selling location. This is to include all drivers and programs aside from the original game installed.

4. Gamers have the right not to be required to update or be on line for single player games.

5. All gamers have the right to be considered Innocent until proven Guilty. They are not to be assumed as pirates when simply trying to get their game installed.

6. All gamers have the right to be able to run all of their games without the CD/DVD in the rom-drive.

7. All companies are to provide a support staff either online or at a toll-free number until their update time has expired. They may still charge for hints.

8. Any and all property acquired in a game can be sold or traded based on the users desires.

9. All games are to be released at the same time thought the world.

10. On all DVDs/CDs they are to have no region assigned, they should be able to be played in any drive anywhere in the world (this assists with selling and gifting).

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

Macs

Post 2:

So I am sitting here in English 571.02 thinking about life, the ballads along the Scottish and English border that crossed into America (what the lecture was about), and what I was going to be writing for the Wednesdays update. Then, I look around. I am sitting there with my little Acer and everybody else in class has out a Mac of some sort. That is write, an OSX running, white background, glowing apple orb Mac. I realized that Macs are something that REALLY GRINDS MY GIGANTIC NOTCHED WHEELS.

So lets start talking about Macs. I mean, what is the appeal in these systems; they are underpowered, not unupgradable, cost way more, and have the most restrictive end-user agreement of any OS (and most Mac users claim Microsoft is evil and the devil). Really, it boils down to the three following things:
1) Macs are not worth how much they cost
2) Any benefits that OSX had over Microsoft are now no longer applicable
3) There are no benefits in having a Mac over a PC

So, let us start by discussing how much Macs cost compared to a similar PC. I will be using the Macbook Pro (standard) vs a PC (comparable) that I made on Cyberpower. The stats are listed here:
Item Mac PC
Size 15.4 inches 15.4 inches
CPU 2.4GHz with 3Mb Catch 2.4GHz with 3Mb Catch
RAM 2gig 2gig
Video Card 256Mb 8600GT 256Mb 8600GT
HD 200gig 250gig (no 200)
Optical Disc 8X, DVDRW, CDRW 8X, DVDRW, CDRW
Cost $1999.00 (plus shipping and tax) $1115.00 (plus shipping and tax)

Now, it is clear that the Mac is way more expensive then an equal PC. Clearly, there is no argument that you can not get more bang for your buck with a Mac, so there must be something else at play here. So, we must examine if there are any benefits in having OSX over Vista. While one could have made the argument about XP, and especially, ME, there are no real glaring differences in Vista to OSX. In fact, Vista runs better and is very secure. There is a reason that OSX is usually the first system hacked in trials. While Windows does have more viruses written for it (due to the market share) it is more secure. Furthermore, Windows immediately attempts to fix all found flaws, while Mac takes there time. Clearly, there are no benefits on OSX there.

So, what are the benefits of OSX that make it work the 800$? Is it usability? Now with Vista, which took all of OSXs best features and added them. Is it security, well, yes, but not by much, and definitely not 800$ worth. Is it programs? Get real, what is there that is on a Mac that is not on a PC? I can name much better programs that are PC only. According to crave vista wins against OSX in a trial and error. With that knowledge, is there any reason to pony up the extra 800$? This Vista and Ubuntu user says NO.

Read more ...