Oolite Bulletins

I was kinda hoping that the new sharing system would take care of things like that! Another game that sucked with multiplayer was Sacred 2, two people could play coop on one 360, but to trade or share items you had to be online and both players had to have Gold accounts.

Cheers,

Smithy

I'm not a massive Gold fan but since World of Tanks is coming soon and is free to gold members, then I'm defiantly going gold in the future. Also gold is giving free games out now, just downloaded Fable 3! Assassins Creed 2 will be soon, a game I would try but didn't want to buy.

It's looking more and more like the 360 has a strong future

I really hope so, mine isn't going anywhere for a good long while I have Fable 3 for PC and it isn't too bad, kinda short and limited though compared to previous titles. As a hint, buy as much property as you can get your hands on!

Cheers,

Smithy

Today's xkcd
http://xkcd.com/1228/

Sooooo, pirating is sharing, not stealing! That's a relief, now I can sleep better at night!

Cheers,

Smithy

Or, at least, this is what RMS thinks
“Piracy”
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

The problem with any label or term is that you can always have negative connotations attached to it. Take the term "disabled". There is nothing inherently offensive or derogatory about the term and it was never intended as an insult, but these days "disabled is a no-no term, differently-abled I believe is the PC term now, but how long before that gains the wrong connotations too? Just a thought

Cheers,

Smithy

Smithy2501 wrote:

The problem with any label or term is that you can always have negative connotations attached to it.

Sure. Picking words so that the connotations match your message is an extremely useful communications skill. (I have a book from the 50s on public speaking which recommends not using a word unless you're aware of all its meanings, for instance)

This is kind of the other way round, though - "piracy" already had a bunch of negative connotations attached to it: the trick was to (surprisingly successfully) attach that word to a behaviour which doesn't actually resemble piracy much.

Smithy2501 wrote:

Take the term "disabled". There is nothing inherently offensive or derogatory about the term and it was never intended as an insult, but these days "disabled is a no-no term, differently-abled I believe is the PC term now, but how long before that gains the wrong connotations too? Just a thought

This I suspect depends on your country and perhaps even region - "disabled" is generally preferred in the UK by people who are. As with everything "refer to people how they say they like to be referred to" basically doesn't go wrong as a general rule of politeness.

cim wrote:

This is kind of the other way round, though - "piracy" already had a bunch of negative connotations attached to it: the trick was to (surprisingly successfully) attach that word to a behaviour which doesn't actually resemble piracy much.

Possibly though this owes something to its origin in the music industry, via "pirate radio" stations - some of whom did at least sail the high seas and on occasion fly the Jolly Roger. I don't think there was a meeting on global media tycoons where they decided to coin the word. I don't think they object to it, either, mind you - "benefitting from other people's hard work whilst not contributing anything yourself, albeit in a manner which does not deprive anyone of anything (other than, y'know, the ability to earn a living through their own creative efforts)" is a bit of a mouthful.

cim wrote:

This I suspect depends on your country and perhaps even region - "disabled" is generally preferred in the UK by people who are. As with everything "refer to people how they say they like to be referred to" basically doesn't go wrong as a general rule of politeness.

Here in Aus it seems to be that disabled is a dirty term, however i agree, treat people the way they deserve to be treated and everyone gets on fine. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter what label you use, the situation is still the same. Of course spin doctors will skew it one way or the other, that's their job Its the same with the term terrorism. Terrorists have been around for as long as there have been humans, but now some exceptionally successful PR has turned it into the dirtiest term around and a legitimate excuse for a government to do whatever the hell they want. Now substitute piracy for terrorism and game/movie/tv producer for government and you kinda get the same thing! The DRM on HDMI cables is crazy and no-one seems to realise it

Cheers,

Smithy

P.S. Sorry if this doesn't flow very well, I'm running a little low on sleep!

Disembodied wrote:

I don't think there was a meeting on global media tycoons where they decided to coin the word.

You may be surprised, I probably sound like a conspiracy theorist, but most of the DRM on media is due to global media tycoons getting together and meeting to impose these restrictions and, I'm sure, work out the PR behind it too

Cheers,

Smithy

Smithy2501 wrote:

You may be surprised, I probably sound like a conspiracy theorist, but most of the DRM on media is due to global media tycoons getting together and meeting to impose these restrictions and, I'm sure, work out the PR behind it too

I'm certain that the various media tycoons do get together and lobby governments to impose crazy laws to give preferential treatment to their industries, but the use of the word "piracy" for breaking copyright has been around for a long time - like I say, it may have something to do with pirate radio, a term that seems to date back to at least the 1950s.

Hmm ... in the book trade, "piracy", meaning copying other people's works (in this case, poetry), seems to date back to 1603: see Thomas Dekker's The Wonderfull Yeare:

Alas, poore wenches (the nine Muses!) how much are you wrongd, to haue such a number of Bastards lying vpo[n] your hands? But turne them out a begging; or if you cannot be rid of their Riming company (as I thinke it will be very hard) then lay your heauie and immortall curse vpon them, that whatsoeuer they weaue (in the motley-loome of their rustie pates) may like a beggers cloake, be full of stolne patches, and yet neuer a patch like one another, that it may be such true lamentable stuffe, that any honest Christian may be sory to see it. Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.

Well it's kind of a natural progression from literature to radio to tv to software as technology changes but the underlying problem remains. I guess there will always be people who plagarise and copy (whether their reasons be good or bad) and there is no easy fix. I agree with previous statements that treating everyone as a criminal is wrong, unfortunately it has always been the minority that cause problems for the majority! Majority rules? Only in the perfect utopian society! Side note, I am much too tired for that level of imagery in poetry

Cheers,

Smithy

Smithy2501 wrote:

Well it's kind of a natural progression from literature to radio to tv to software as technology changes but the underlying problem remains. I guess there will always be people who plagarise and copy (whether their reasons be good or bad) and there is no easy fix.

It's all information, certainly - it just gets easier to copy and distribute, which makes things easier and easier for those who want to exist parasitically, feeding on other people's work and contributing nothing. It is unclear, at present, how big an issue illegal copying is: it's true that not all (or even not many) illegal copies represent lost sales, for example.

I think the biggest problem though is one of attitude: people are being trained, often by media corporations themselves, to expect something for nothing (where "nothing" is actually "valuable personal and demographic information"). But very often people's perception is, now, that they should be able to get any sort of stuff, when they want, for free (or, with the huge discounts being handed out by e.g. Amazon, for very little money indeed) - and if they can't, they'll go somewhere else.

I mentioned that in a previous post, peoples sense of self entitlement is a huge part of the problem, they seem to think they are entitled to the product for what they think it is worth, whether that be free or dirt cheap, rather than what the creator of said product believes it to be worth. Now, I don't have a problem with people attaching a value to what they purchase, but if you believe the price to be too steep, don't buy it! You have no entitlement to own it and in most cases with digital media its a luxury, not a necessity (rant over!)

Cheers,

Smithy