Post new topic    
Page «  1, 2
Metal Slime
Send private message
 
 PostMon Jan 13, 2014 2:12 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Haha I didn't even read the TPP thing. I'm just trying to parse out the possible philosophical problems with our arguments. The only thing I've ever imported from Japan was a copy of an old T Rex album that I couldn't find elsewhere at the time.

But yeah, I just want to defend myself against your one focused rebuttal. In an ideal situation, yes I do believe that you should be able to travel to any country and be treated as a citizen there. You didn't choose to be born where you were. The issue is that countries can't allow this because there are other factors at play that are physically impossible to mitigate - as a simple example, you have been paying Social Security (or whatever the equivalent idea is) in the wrong country up to this point. Also, what if you're some kind of spy? There is more at stake here than the individual's freedom to choose.

With licensing and distribution though, I have a hard time seeing much more at stake than cash flow, which by definition of a free market, should be controlled by individual consumers as much as possible. It's true that some geographical segregation will always exist. But only because of physical necessity. If there was a physically viable way for you to eat that McRib that was being sold in a test-market on the other side of the country, then there shouldn't be a law preventing you from doing so.

And maybe that brings us to your final points. If this new TPP law still allows people to buy personal copies of things, then I think it's fine, and I totally agree that the licensing people should have full power to prevent said persons from reselling their personally bought copies en masse. But aren't there already laws to prevent this?
I am Srime
Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostMon Jan 13, 2014 2:24 am
Send private message Reply with quote
There probably are laws to protect against it, but where this is a big international deal, generally it's like.. We'll close these holes that are advantageous to us if you'll close the holes that are advantageous to you. It's all about trying to agree on standards, which then gives you ammunition when someone else doesn't want to play by the same rules that everyone else thinks is fair. Truthfully, I don't understand much of it.
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostMon Jan 13, 2014 9:20 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Having read up about the TPP, it doesn't actually seem to have much of anything to do with things related to the internet or video games. It's mostly just focused on counterfeit stuff coming in from china, which is a huge problem if what I saw on the show Crime Inc is any indication.

I don't actually see anything wrong with this thing.
Blubber Bloat
Send private message
 
 PostMon Jan 13, 2014 6:33 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
Spoonweaver wrote:
Having read up about the TPP, it doesn't actually seem to have much of anything to do with things related to the internet or video games. It's mostly just focused on counterfeit stuff coming in from china, which is a huge problem if what I saw on the show Crime Inc is any indication.

I don't actually see anything wrong with this thing.

I haven't read a thing (partially because I don't care) on this, but if what you say is true, then I'd be cool with it.
What I'd have issues with is the making of importing video games and other media from other countries illegal, because, sure, some people want region locks on their stuff for their own business practice reasons, but just because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean others don't too. I hate laws that prevent everybody from doing a certain honestly fine thing when it should be restricted to the copyright owner's decision, not a demand against anyone, as I'm sure there are plenty of companies who will gladly let their products be exported, as that's how countries make money.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x V
Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostMon Jan 13, 2014 7:51 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
Meowskivich wrote:

I haven't read a thing


Meowskivich wrote:
when it should be restricted to the copyright owner's decision


Wikipedia's article on the trade agreement in question wrote:
Parallel Imports: Article 4.2 provides that rights holders may authorize or prohibit parallel imports.


GTFO.
Blubber Bloat
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 3:57 am
Send private message Reply with quote
So...how about that bill congress passed. The one that allows internet companies to block any sites they deem fit for blocking. And stopping you from using certain services like netflix until you pay them for allowing it. Not going to happen? Too bad Verizon doesn't agree, because they're apparently already working on plans that do jussssssssssst that. Of course, let's let the future decide what happens. Doesn't do anything for my plans to move to Sweden after I graduate.
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x V
Slime Knight
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 8:32 am
Send private message Reply with quote
Weren't Internet prices going to be raised and bandwidth capped if the net neutrality rules were successful?
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 1:15 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
Bandwidth is already capped and has been for a long time for many people, net neutrality has nothing to do with it.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 3:36 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Net Neutrality thing. Almost every headline I have read about it misses the point in one way or another.

This isn't really about internet providers charging us more to see Netflix at full-speed, a more likely scenario is that they would slow down Netflix traffic, and then try to force Netflix to pay them to bring it back up to normal speed.

The loss of Network Neutrality is more about internet companies extorting one another, rather than extorting us customers/users directly ;)

However, just because they are no longer forbidden by the FCC to do that now, does not necessarily mean that they will actually do so. I hope not, but I guess we will see eventually.
Blubber Bloat
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 5:04 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
Bob the Hamster wrote:
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Net Neutrality thing. Almost every headline I have read about it misses the point in one way or another.

This isn't really about internet providers charging us more to see Netflix at full-speed, a more likely scenario is that they would slow down Netflix traffic, and then try to force Netflix to pay them to bring it back up to normal speed.

The loss of Network Neutrality is more about internet companies extorting one another, rather than extorting us customers/users directly ;)

However, just because they are no longer forbidden by the FCC to do that now, does not necessarily mean that they will actually do so. I hope not, but I guess we will see eventually.

Verizon begs to differ, apparently.
But slowing things down is okay, I mean, my grandparents still use dial-up. I'm from a patient people (except my mom, she's about as impatient as they come).
dOn'T MiNd mE! i'M jUsT CoNtAgIoUs!!!
Play Orbs CCG: http://orbsccg.com/r/4r6x V
Super Slime
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 6:06 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
2400 baud ought to be good enough for anybody.
Mega Tact v1.1
Super Penguin Chef
Wizard Blocks
A Scrambled Egg
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 6:43 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
If an isp started charging users extra for access to Netflix (which as James said, this isn't about) it would be financial suicide and millions of people would flock to the competition and the fee would be dropped.
Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition
Liquid Metal King Slime
Send private message
 
 PostThu Jan 16, 2014 7:03 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
The Wobbler wrote:
If an isp started charging users extra for access to Netflix (which as James said, this isn't about) it would be financial suicide and millions of people would flock to the competition and the fee would be dropped.


This would certainly be true in almost any other industry, but usually there are only 2 internet providers in any given market. 3 if you are lucky. If both the DSL company and the Cable company in your neighbourhood do the same thing, you are slimed.

In my own neighbourhood, my only choices are AT&T, Time Warner, and Verison, so I am one of the lucky ones.

However all three of those companies have incentive to punish netflix because they compete at delivery of television shows.

Plus I am afraid that even if Time Warner says "Hey, loyal customers, you have to pay extra for the Netflix Package now!" a whole lot of people will blame Netflix, thus netflix could be pressured into paying a fee on behalf of time warner's customers.

At least-- that is a worst-case scenario. A best case scenario is that some big company does try it, and it fails badly, and their competitor very publicly benefits from staying neutral. That is what I *hope* happens :)
Slime Knight
Send private message
 
 PostThu Feb 13, 2014 12:53 pm
Send private message Reply with quote
Comcast just bought Time Warner Cable. I guess this means we will inherit their broadband caps as well, though I guess TWC was the last major provider that didn't do that.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57618841-93/comcast-time-warner-cable-to-unite-in-$45.2b-merger/
Display posts from previous:
Page «  1, 2