Comments on: DRM Troubles Lead to FTC Discussion

By: groinshot

groinshot — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:15:33 +0000

Wahey, thanks very much, I splash out and pay 60 quid for this to find out I cant play it now? how nice of microsoft.

By: zarathustra

zarathustra — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:53:22 +0000

If that is the case then you have my humble apologies. :) I hate snuff almost as much as cp…

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:23:37 +0000

Ok, now I see what you're saying and that is disgusting :(. I didn't post that, it was someone using my name to screw me over. Before IntenseDebate was added here it was possible to do that and it happened a few other times that I know of.

Probaly you won't believe me though :( Oh well, not much I can do except ask for it to be removed is there.

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:22:02 +0000

Ok, now I see what you're saying and that is disgusting :(. I didn't post that, it was someone using my name to screw me up. Before Intensedebate was added here it was possible to do that and it happened a few other times.

Probaly you won't believe me though :( Oh well, not much I can do except ask for it to be removed.

By: this is fake

this is fake — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:44:44 +0000

We need to get Lawrence Lessig to be a panelist for thsthis

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:52:26 +0000

Strange? The book is about Rosseau and contains portions of text from his books that you posted, it's hardly random – I didn't spend a great deal of time, I just searched and found your exact words.

And yes, fair point regarding the viewpoints thing, however I'm reading what you posted which is another persons words that aren't there in their entirety so I can read the semantics either way.

By: Roze

Roze — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:37:50 +0000

No, I did not adapt whatever random book about Rousseau you linked to, I adapted Rousseau himself.

I have definitely not failed to relate it to the issue at hand since it is related.

Is this seriously trying to say that people viewpoints are unable to be atered
If you had given any thought about the first line itself, then you would know that it is saying that whatever are the viewpoints of people, whether it regards their particular interests of the general interest of the people, the idea of the general will and common interest itself cannot be changed, nor can the idea be destroyed. Although people may differ on what exactly is the common interest and general will, the idea itself is unalterable and indestructible. The idea of public good shall always be there, and shall eventually prevail, even though, for the time being, it may be encroached upon by interests of factions.

One would need to be blind to all of history to think that the public good does not prevail, or that tyranny lasts forever. Take, for example, the abolition of serfdom.

By: CMG

CMG — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:06:50 +0000

My apologies, I was unclear. The original comment I replied to was talking about purchasing games, the whole "you.will.not.get.my.money" thing. Most of the forementioned games are excellent when played online.

The point of my comment, I agree. It's a shame companies are hurting the customers for buying the game, while pirates like ourselves enjoy a fully working product with no hidden software. My sympathy goes to the customers.

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:47:37 +0000

Well, you have failed to relate it to the issue at hand IMO – I'm having to make asumptions about what it has to do with the discussion at hand. I'm guessing ypu copied and pasted it from elsewhere or loosely adapted it without giving credit.

From here perhaps: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6cVgNriRS4cC&...

The first line is at odds with what happens in the real world – unless you give qualications:

"The general will is always constant, unalterable and pure"

Is this seriously trying to say that people viewpoints are unable to be atered – what a load of bollocks. because this

So this quote is trying to say

By: Lerianis

Lerianis — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:46:33 +0000

Yeah, Nubcakes…. look at your link in the thread that zarathustra links to, and you will see what the fucking problem is.

By: mister_playboy

mister_playboy — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:34:32 +0000

On a related note, Apple apparently finally gave up on DRM for iTunes music:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10132759-37.htm...

By: Roze

Roze — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:42:44 +0000

No, I did not adapt whatever random book about Rousseau you linked to, I adapted Rousseau himself. It is especially strange that you have linked to that book, especially since a Google search for the first sentence turns up the result The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau rather than whatever random book you have linked to. I have definitely not failed to relate it to the issue at hand since it is related. Is this seriously trying to say that people viewpoints are unable to be atered If you had given any thought about the first line itself, then you would know that it is saying that whatever are the viewpoints of people, whether it regards their particular interests of the general interest of the people, the idea of the general will and common interest itself cannot be changed, nor can the idea be destroyed. Although people may differ on what exactly is the common interest and general will, the idea itself is unalterable and indestructible. The idea of public good shall always be there, and shall eventually prevail, even though, for the time being, it may be encroached upon by interests of factions. One would need to be blind to all of history to think that the public good does not prevail, or that tyranny (or other usurpations) lasts forever. Take, for example, the abolition of serfdom.

By: Roze

Roze — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:48:01 +0000

There are, in fact, two things wrong with your statements, since you have actually made two statements. Firstly, although it is a voluntary power ramification, it is still a power ramification. Secondly, it does nothing like "preventing copying" whatsoever.

By: Roze

Roze — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:47:54 +0000

There are, in fact, two things wrong with your statement, since you have actually made two statements. Firstly, although it is a voluntary power ramification, it is still a power ramification. Secondly, it does nothing like "preventing copying" whatsoever.

By: Roze

Roze — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:44:50 +0000

Just because you fail to understand something, does not make it incorrect.

By: zarathustra

zarathustra — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:03:30 +0000

Here you are, linking to it:

http://torrentfreak.com/the-inside-story-of-the-a...

Backpeddle much…?

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:36:36 +0000

Oh, right doubtless I'm a hired advocate, right. You keep on believing that, I don't really care as it seems to be a somewhat standard response to people that question you.

Would be nice though if you could answer the question I posed seeing as I don't see what your talking about. Please tell us what power it provides over people as I don't see what you're talking about.

Also, try to be specific rather than posting something very vague and open ended

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:34:04 +0000

Oh, right doubtless I'm a hired advocate, right. You keep on believing that, I don't really care as it seems to be a somewhat standard response to people that question you.

Would be nice though if you could answer the question I posed seeing as I don't see what your talking about. Seriously, please tell us what power it provides.

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:30:42 +0000

How … um, er… vague and open ended. And nonsensical to me.

By: NubCakes

NubCakes — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:29:36 +0000

Even if you purchase you may as well used the downloaded version and avoid the DRM