I have over 30 years in Architecture....I can go into hundreds of suburbs/cities/thousands of homes...and say..."I designed that....it's my creative/artistic/spatial artistry, unique to me". No copyright constraints would mean some pimply-faced brat without a clue could take my work and claim it as his own. Where is my reputation?...my portfolio?....h
Then why do you keep pretending that derivitive works can't be made? That's exactly what I asked you earlier, so I guess you have a problem with asking for permission? Guess who won? LucasArts. So much for that derivative work being made under Fair Use. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quote-Ta
Please, you're trying to say that every derivitive work produced is illegal? ...and here I thought I was talking to someone that had at least a grip on reality... Technically yes, unless the copyright holder gives them explicit permission, or unless they can somehow outlawyer their lawyers under Fair Use. Isn't that how it works? Heck, even LucasAr
*boggle* Yes, like I said, the control of such copyrights would be transered with the estate. if they steal, sure. You also see sequels and other derivitive works in the mainstream all the time and no one gets sued or goes to jail. Because they don't bother to go after them. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=cent
How would you want someone to build upon your works? Perhaps by getting permission from the holder of the copyright? If you want to toil only to have some guy you never met sell CDs of your work on Ebay, fine. Don't force the rest of us to accept it such theft. Even when they're dead? Actually, if I toil for these creative works, I'd probably be rel
Au contraire, it can be argued that copyrights actually hinder creative works more than it helps. Tell me again how exactly people are supposed to build on copyright works for their own creative works when things copyrighted in 1923 won't expire until 2019 ? You *may* have a point if copyrights actually expired within the lifetime of its creators. That, and if you can erase the history of people producing creative works even before concept of copyright (which did not occur until the pri
I look at it from an economic perspective. As a rational consumer, anything that'll jack up the price for me (like copyright), is bad. So are patents, which make monopolies, which are bad for consumers again (as well as other companies). As I said, it's a zero sum game. To give more money to publishers requires taking more money away from consumers. The so-called "rights" of copyright are mere
No one's accusing you of anything. If you dislike the thought that your idea and rhetoric comes from a similar line of thinking as people you apparently seem to disagree with, then you should probably ponder that idea a bit more. Such as "copyright is a NECESSARY evil" ......Spell checker Nah, I said grammar errors, not spellin
Damn you for posting the very second after me so I can't edit my post and correct all those horrible grammar errors.
Morals - some have them, some don't. Sounds like something anti-homosexual marriage/abortion/etc. would use. Sometimes it's just a matter of them having different morals than you do. If the law comes knocking on my door, I do not have to run - the pirates do. <TABLE ce
Until you compare it to OS X 5 license packs for $199, which works out to $40/license for a lifetime.
The idea is that, if your hardware doesn't have DRM support, your software/video/music file simply won't play at all. It's basically a battle to see who'll be the first to cave. If no hardware manufacturers (or only a very small group) decide to make use of it, their file format and all their work on DRM will simply flop and go the way of the dinosaurs. Consumers win! If however, they manage to coerce the hardware manufacturers to actually add it in, then it goes back to
Whoops. Well, enough people here probably read Slashdot and thus know what I'm referring to anyway. In any case, sorry 'bout that. But the point stands. If security by obscurity is Microsoft's idea of being "serious" about piracy, then you have to wonder about how "serious" they are about other things. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quot
*scratches head* I found some interesting comments. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And people wonder why MS's product security is so bad. It's one thing to discuss copy protection/activation/etc...quite another to to post 'instructions'. Stardock [and by association Wincustomize.com] are MS 'Partners'. Facilitating piracy of their product is thus a no-no....[Admin edit]
Hmmm. Well, wouldn't they need a connection to download the patch? If they buy the patch on CD, wouldn't it just activate the same way the OS does for people without connections? What I meant is that people will download it somewhere with a nice connection (like work), then burn it and take it home to install. If it can be activated at work, then it
I don't agree with piracy, but I utterly dispise hardware activation. I don't mind much of anything else, but I think it sucks to have to call Microsoft and beg permission to reinstall my OS after changing my hardware. Mac sells a 5 machine license to home users for the standard price. There's no reason MS couldn't do that, too, and I hope someday they'll face M
The whole "download the patch from another source" thing won't work when the patch itself is set to check for a validated OS. All they have to do is set the encrypted patch to validate your activation code with the MS site before it will install, and send the key to decrypt it at the same time from the MS site. Will never happen. You're forgetting n
Wow, I was off. You don't even need to wait for the patches to appear on the P2P and/or warez scene, they're already available direct download on legitimate sites. Taking bets on how long it takes for MS to decide to shut them down. More info on Slashdot. http://slashdot.org/articles/05/07/26/1329231.shtml
So... how long before all the authentication-required patches just end up on P2P?
True. But there's another problem. Realistically, non-combat ships would still likely be armored anyway, because there's always the chance they could manage to escape instead. Just because a ship doesn't have weapons doesn't mean it'll necessarily get blown up. And this may or may not be important for the fleet battles if different ships are targetted.
Um, why armor? Even non-combat ships can be heavily armored (transport ships)
More ideas on how to score the new Metaverse In the old formula, during each 30 day block, your block score was sum of scores/square root of number of games played. This had the effect of lowering your score if you had several good games and then had one bad game. This again, has the effect of causing people to possibly not submit their games (which is bad, since games that aren't submitted can't be analyzed!). A possible solution would be this. The scores in each 30 day
Have you tried a spyware removal program? You may also be able to try a system restore instead of completely reinstalling Windows. Repairing Windows through your Windows installation CD may or may not work as well. Have you tried reinstalling PSP6? Also, check your file associations in Windows Explorer/Tools/Folder Options/File Types (I think that's right, since I'm currently using a Chinese Windows) to see if there are some messed up associations with your image files. Or you can
Dual-boot!
Of course Webster doesn't invent the language. But the problem with culture is that it's not one homogenous mass. That is why people disagree, as we are now. Of course sitting by and doing nothing doesn't really help your view either. That's why you are sitting there writing back as well. Seriously, let's just agree to disagree here.
Stardock Forums
WinCustomize Forums