1
General Gaming / Re: Your game of the Generation
« on: January 05, 2014, 08:44:31 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
General Gaming / Re: Valve announces SteamOS
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:55:03 PM »
We are but one in the same...
3
General Gaming / Re: Valve announces SteamOS
« on: December 12, 2013, 07:26:44 PM »
I probably will put together some videos. With only 300 of them being thrown into the wild, I'm sure I can garner some interest on The Interwebz(tm). Sadly, the controller itself is still of the "prototype" variety. It's my understanding that it will be lacking the center touchscreen and wireless capabilities.
4
General Gaming / Re: Valve announces SteamOS
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:30:26 PM »
Of course.
I'm now NWR's PC corespondent, afterall.
>.>
I'm now NWR's PC corespondent, afterall.
>.>
5
General Gaming / Re: Valve announces SteamOS
« on: December 11, 2013, 06:18:00 PM »
I just received e-mail confirmation... I've been selected to received one of the 300 prototype SteamBoxes and controller! A bunch of Big Picture Mode centric games were added to my account as well. Box should be here within the next week or two, apparently! 
6
General Gaming / Re: Does my girlfriend have the right to make me delete a videogame she doesn't like
« on: August 22, 2013, 05:49:23 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
7
General Chat / Re: oh for @&/? sake
« on: August 22, 2013, 05:44:47 PM »Dude, if you want to make a valid argument, like Morari, that copyright law is whack and the whole system needs to be fixed, then please, do that.
My argument is valid, so sayeth the moderators.
8
General Chat / Re: oh for @&/? sake
« on: August 20, 2013, 09:23:48 PM »
This is awesome! Toddra is now my new favorite poster. Are we sure he's not one of TJ's puppets?
Anyway... the only way to get paid is by actually doing something worth getting paid for, like giving me a physical copy of a book, or a concert I can go to, etc. Some industries have already made this transition. Wedding photographers used to shoot weddings for a minimal fee, then charge a large amount for prints and reprints. If you wanted extra copies of your wedding photos for your extended family, you had to pay for the extra prints.
With the advent of scanners and dirt-cheap photo printers, they've transitioned to a model where they charge a lot for shooting the wedding, but charge little for the prints or even give them away for free. Technically they can charge for the prints as they did before, but realistically they know it's so easy to make copies there's no possible way they'd be able to enforce their copyright for every photo the take. So they've just restructured their payment system to reflect reality, rather than copyright laws.
Forget for a moment everything about copyright, publishing, movie/music production, etc. Think of this purely in terms of work vs. compensation. I shoot photos of a wedding and process the photos. That's a lot of work. I print pictures of said wedding. That's very little work. Under the old model, the payment system did not reflect my costs - I charged very little for the part which required a lot of work on my part, but charged a lot for the part which required almost no effort. The new system fixes this. I now charge a lot for the part which requires a lot of work, and charge little for the part which requires little work. The same thing has got to happen to books, music, and movies. In the old days, musicians and actors were paid for live performances. That is the norm.
In the 20th century there was a bit less than 100 years where technology was good enough to allow mass duplication, but not good enough to lower cost of duplication to the point where individuals could duplicate. This allowed a business model to flourish in which payment did not reflect costs. Musicians and actors were able to work once, then sit back and make money over and over based on that single performance. This is not normal. No other business is like that - you have to constantly work if you want to keep making money.
Now in the 21st century, the cost of mass duplication has fallen far enough that it's now easily within grasp of the individual. No longer does it make sense for people to be charged large amounts of money for what is a nearly free service (duplication). People may be stuck on the morality of it because the 20th century way is all they've ever known. But strictly in terms of work invested vs. compensation, the 20th century way was clearly wrong since the most money was being made for the step which cost the least money.
The transition to a model where content creators are not paid for duplication services is not some new journey into unexplored territory. It is a return to what was the norm for millenia. For most of history, duplication was impossible (performances) or nearly impossible (books), so the only way to get paid was for the actual content creation. During the 20th century, duplication became possible, and content creators leveraged it to get paid multiple times over for the same work. Now in the 21st century duplication has become so cheap that people are starting to question if it's really fair for content creators to be paid multiple times for the same job. That is the true crux of the matter, not who owns the work or whether copying is stealing.
I do believe in copyright - the temporary monopoly does encourage creation. But the terms have to be reasonable. With duplication costs having dropped to almost zero, preventing society from making copies simply because of archaic laws does more harm than good. Something like 10-20 years for copyright seems about right to me. Copyright is fundamentally about encouraging creativity and creation of new content. A copyright term of life + 70 years discourages creativity, and instead encourages trying to figure out how to create something new once and live off it for the rest of your life.
Anyway... the only way to get paid is by actually doing something worth getting paid for, like giving me a physical copy of a book, or a concert I can go to, etc. Some industries have already made this transition. Wedding photographers used to shoot weddings for a minimal fee, then charge a large amount for prints and reprints. If you wanted extra copies of your wedding photos for your extended family, you had to pay for the extra prints.
With the advent of scanners and dirt-cheap photo printers, they've transitioned to a model where they charge a lot for shooting the wedding, but charge little for the prints or even give them away for free. Technically they can charge for the prints as they did before, but realistically they know it's so easy to make copies there's no possible way they'd be able to enforce their copyright for every photo the take. So they've just restructured their payment system to reflect reality, rather than copyright laws.
Forget for a moment everything about copyright, publishing, movie/music production, etc. Think of this purely in terms of work vs. compensation. I shoot photos of a wedding and process the photos. That's a lot of work. I print pictures of said wedding. That's very little work. Under the old model, the payment system did not reflect my costs - I charged very little for the part which required a lot of work on my part, but charged a lot for the part which required almost no effort. The new system fixes this. I now charge a lot for the part which requires a lot of work, and charge little for the part which requires little work. The same thing has got to happen to books, music, and movies. In the old days, musicians and actors were paid for live performances. That is the norm.
In the 20th century there was a bit less than 100 years where technology was good enough to allow mass duplication, but not good enough to lower cost of duplication to the point where individuals could duplicate. This allowed a business model to flourish in which payment did not reflect costs. Musicians and actors were able to work once, then sit back and make money over and over based on that single performance. This is not normal. No other business is like that - you have to constantly work if you want to keep making money.
Now in the 21st century, the cost of mass duplication has fallen far enough that it's now easily within grasp of the individual. No longer does it make sense for people to be charged large amounts of money for what is a nearly free service (duplication). People may be stuck on the morality of it because the 20th century way is all they've ever known. But strictly in terms of work invested vs. compensation, the 20th century way was clearly wrong since the most money was being made for the step which cost the least money.
The transition to a model where content creators are not paid for duplication services is not some new journey into unexplored territory. It is a return to what was the norm for millenia. For most of history, duplication was impossible (performances) or nearly impossible (books), so the only way to get paid was for the actual content creation. During the 20th century, duplication became possible, and content creators leveraged it to get paid multiple times over for the same work. Now in the 21st century duplication has become so cheap that people are starting to question if it's really fair for content creators to be paid multiple times for the same job. That is the true crux of the matter, not who owns the work or whether copying is stealing.
I do believe in copyright - the temporary monopoly does encourage creation. But the terms have to be reasonable. With duplication costs having dropped to almost zero, preventing society from making copies simply because of archaic laws does more harm than good. Something like 10-20 years for copyright seems about right to me. Copyright is fundamentally about encouraging creativity and creation of new content. A copyright term of life + 70 years discourages creativity, and instead encourages trying to figure out how to create something new once and live off it for the rest of your life.
9
General Chat / Re: oh for @&/? sake
« on: August 20, 2013, 07:24:31 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
10
General-3 / Re: Off-Topic Wise-Ass Comments About Other NWR Forum Threads
« on: August 18, 2013, 01:16:05 AM »
I outlasted TJ.
Victory is mine!
Victory is mine!
11
General Gaming / Re: I just joked about an idea... and I'm sure someone is working on it...
« on: August 11, 2013, 05:04:22 AM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
12
General Chat / Re: Yay! I fixed my computer!
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:10:51 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
13
Movies & TV / Re: New Movies/TV Shows we should keep an eye out for!
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:08:47 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
14
General-3 / Re: Setting the new forum baseline
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:08:01 PM »
I'm a fictional slut.
15
General-3 / Re: Setting the new forum baseline
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:39:21 AM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
16
Movies & TV / Re: Rate the last TV show you've seen
« on: August 06, 2013, 11:35:54 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
17
General Gaming / Re: What are you playing?
« on: August 05, 2013, 05:24:03 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
18
General-3 / Re: This is for you broodwars
« on: August 04, 2013, 10:40:39 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
19
Movies & TV / Re: New Movies/TV Shows we should keep an eye out for!
« on: August 02, 2013, 10:11:56 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
20
General Chat / Re: Confession time: I am seriously depressed and I feel alone
« on: July 31, 2013, 12:33:12 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
21
Movies & TV / Re: Rate the last TV show you've seen
« on: July 27, 2013, 11:12:11 PM »
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
--Bureau of Internet Morality
22
General Gaming / Re: What games do you never get tired of?
« on: July 27, 2013, 11:10:03 PM »Not every Mortal Kombat...but most of them. Maybe I should be more specific: Mortal Komabt 1-Gold, then the new one.
Deadly Alliance, Deception, and Armageddon were all fine games as well. In fact, I'd rank Deception pretty high within the franchise, goofy new characters aside.
23
General Gaming / Re: What games do you never get tired of?
« on: July 26, 2013, 06:59:41 PM »
Plot driven games won't make the list. There are some great stories to be told out there with the medium, but such experiences don't exactly equate into replayability. That said, just about any modern game immediately fails as well. I don't want to drudge through a hand-holding tutorial for the first 30 minutes of a game. Multiplayer games have an obvious advantage here. I still play Quake III Arena regularly and it was released in 1999.
24
General Gaming / Re: Ouya
« on: July 18, 2013, 02:17:36 AM »
Hackers ≠ Crackers
Open source must be a scary concept though... no corporate overlords.
Open source must be a scary concept though... no corporate overlords.
25
General Gaming / Re: Ouya
« on: July 17, 2013, 01:48:34 PM »
...like on your PSP.
Edit: Mistake corrected. All Sony products are the same to me.
Edit: Mistake corrected. All Sony products are the same to me.
The entire contents of this Web site, unless otherwise noted, are Copyright © 1999 - 2012 NINWR, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ™ and © for all products, characters, and indicia related thereto which are contained herein are owned by the companies who market or license those products. This Web site is not endorsed, sponsored, nor otherwise affiliated with Nintendo. It has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and knowledge. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without consent from NINWR, LLC is prohibited.
