Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

potatohead

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,794

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by potatohead

  2. Posted

    That's 280 monochrome.

     

    The video is color, and for an Apple, that means having two pixels next to one another minimum is needed to form one white pixel. Individual pixels, on an NTSC color display, will actually show as color pixels, orange, blue, magenta, green. Lots of color patterns are possible too.

     

    For this type of display, the effective resolution would be 140 pixels to generate a reasonably artifact free text display as shown in the video.

     

    An Apple doing that kind of text, with that shape, etc... would likely be showing more artifacts in the text areas than we see happening in the video.

  5. Posted · Edited by potatohead

    That is an RF modulator set for the UHF bands, not the VHF TV bands.

     

    In short, you use it just like the channel 3 or 4 type modulators that are common, only tune channel 33!

     

    Back in the day, this was a great choice as there were few signals in that range. Clean, clear, easy RF. These days, there are signals, but that little modulator has a nice, strong output. I recall it being pretty damn good for a modulator, and it was built for the Apple ][ funky video and generally performs well compared to other modulators.

     

    Composite TV input was not common when the Apple ][ series hit the market, though it was very common for the business type monochrome monitors.

     

    You can get an RCA cable and plug one end into the connector you showed us, the other can go into an Atari VCS style "Game Box" for use with a TV that has the cable type connector, or the older two screws type.

  9. Posted · Edited by potatohead

    Yes, they can be invalidated.

     

    Honestly, they should never have been granted in the first place.

     

    There really isn't any absolute protection, just as there isn't one world government. Right now, given how humans are, I think that's a good thing.

     

    Deffo shorter terms. In the US, this is a growing problem keyed to Mickey Mouse. Every time Mickey comes up, so does an extension. Disney can build an empire on the Brothers Grimm, without cites mind you, but nobody gets to build on Disney? Some how that is broken.

     

    It's problems like these that need just as much attention as casual infringement does. In fact, that's a nice trade that may well lead to a better state of things.

     

    And it's not like the current scenario is bad. The smaller entities need some help, but the larger ones are making lots of money. They just aren't making what they think they should make. Interestingly, that is a market and economics problem as I've put here. The dollars they expect largely aren't there, and who really values things?

     

    Markets say things are worth what people will pay for them.

     

    Right now, e-books are a very interesting case. Lots of pressure to price them as physical books, but some authors are finding sweet spots, $1.99 being one of them, where they can sell more direct, capture more margin, and do well in volume against the larger houses. Personally, I don't value an e-book the same. If it's DRM free, that's high value and I pay, because I can give it away, transcode it, use it in various ways, annotate it, etc... If it's restricted, that is much lower value. Paper takes labor, and it's robust, and it doesn't take enabling tech, and it's subject to the right of first sale, meaning it's really mine. Very high value.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    I don't prefer that model. It is all too easy for it to be abused.

     

    Take software patents. Those are permitted in the US but not EU. OSS software would take a big hit if that were unified.

     

    I oppose software patents for a lot of reasons. Good to have parts of the world in agreement to compete with others. We can see the impact of things and let options play out.

  12. Posted

    As long as we have open methods, the *IAA groups can just compete with them.

     

    Sure, they will see some infringement, but we get ongoing freedom in computing, and we can opt to publish in other ways.

     

    Some people are seeing very good success doing that, and I personally want to reward and support it for the future.

     

    Having some slack in the system is IMHO necessary. It checks abuse and extortion otherwise possible.

     

    This leaves smaller operations with some issues, and it is also important to improve things for them, which is why again we all need to discuss this in frank, accurate terms.

  13. Posted

    Shawn, you point out the impact of crappy law.

     

    Current terms aren't optimal. They run long and in a large fraction of cases too long for people to respect them.

     

    A young person today would have a hard time exploring the history of software without some infringement, and a lot of money.

     

    As for music, the big message is people want to explore that too, and do so on their terms. Napster ruined FM for a lot of people, who found out how much was really out there.

     

    Making back catalog music avaliable is the right thing to do and when it is, people buy. But what of the modern acts?

     

    Clear conflict of interest there.

     

    Taylor Swift may well be out last platinum act. She says streaming devalues music, and from her and the major labels point of view she is right.

     

    But is that the goal?

     

    It isn't for me. I love to find niches and scenes and really drill down to their influences and get a lot out of it all.

     

    When I can buy right from the artist, or their label works in ways that don't get in the way, it is all a good, high value experience.

     

    Other examples abound.

     

    When we don't put these things into real, accurate terms, we run the risk of ongoing messes not progress to goals that make sense for everyone more of the time.

     

    It won't make sense all of the time, but it can be a lot better than it is now.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    @emkay

     

    Your analogy is crappy because it fails to speak to information dynamics.

     

    And you are not saying what I am. Let's be clear on that. If you really did understand and agree with my post, you would not have advanced that analogy.

     

    Re: not thinking about it back in the day.

     

    Totally. But we are here now and what we do will impact a lot of things. We need to think about it clearly now, or live with the impact of not doing that.

     

    @Jet boot

     

    How you feel about it is valid. I get that, and understand. You are not the only one dealing in expensive software and experiencing piracy.

     

    Problem boils down to clarit on how we feel vs the actuals in play.

     

    I'm speaking to the latter in the hopes of improving on the former.

  20. Posted · Edited by potatohead

    Lessig outlines this in his book "Code", available here via Creative Commons: http://www.lessig.org/books/

     

    We have these means to regulate behavior:

     

    Law, norms, money and markets, physics.

     

    Each of those has a domain of influence. Good solutions to improving behavior maximize all of those tools. Poor solutions fixate on one or more of the tools, potentially ignoring realities inherent in the others.

     

    In this case, the realities of the physics related to physical goods and information aren't being addressed when theft is the simple means for discussion. This will result in law that isn't well respected, and it's important that we do actually render law that makes sense if we are to avoid people abusing / ignoring said law.

     

    Why?

     

    Because where law fails, social norms, money and markets and physics will trump it. Simple as that.

     

    A better state of things begins with accurate and meaningful discussion. My point in this thread. From my point of view, people will do what they will.

     

    Law doesn't actually prevent anything. It does present as a remedy or consequence. The strength of law depends on people and how they perceive the law as just and true. Where that isn't in place, people can, will, do violate the law. That is a human reality and no amount of denial will address it.

     

    Code can act in an active way, but that's also checked by other people and other code too. Cat 'n mouse. We all know that game well.

     

    Norms are perhaps the most important thing here. Norms, say not hurting other people, are very strong. Using the wrong language, accusing people, treating them as if... all contribute to poor norms. Where there are poor norms, people don't care so much, and where they don't care, both law and norms are weak.

     

    That too is my point in this thread.

     

    I'll frame it this way: Attempting to characterize this as theft to maximize your position is equally poor behavior as infringing is. See how that works?

     

    Secondly, what are the general social norms related to that kind of thing? Simple. If we can't have an honest, meaningful discussion, why give any consideration? There is the problem in a nutshell, and again, my point here.

     

    In my post above, I communicated the impact of not infringing. And I'm perfectly happy to do that. It's the right thing to do. Frankly, I spend my advocacy time on this topic two ways:

     

    1. Let's get educated on theft vs infringement and what that means and how the dynamics play out.

     

    2. Encourage people to find alternatives and value things properly. Generally, this means buying less, but better, and finding alternatives to infringing and favoring creators who have flexible business models.

     

    --Just so we are clear on the position I'm speaking from.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    Hey, I've published software myself. And I know the law, and I know the basis for the law, history, etc...

     

    And the ugly truth is you are flat out wrong about it. Sorry.

     

    My interest here is simple: Get it right so that the dialog leads to policy and law that resonates with physical realities. We will get a better state of affairs that way.

     

    If we all continue to get it wrong, this all will continue to be a mess and the costs of that mess and managing it comes out of all our pockets. Bad law is expensive. So is ignorance.

  22. Posted · Edited by potatohead

     

    Well that's where me and the law respectfully diverge - if you download my game(s), and do so without either my permission or the purchase of a license to use that software you are infringing.

     

    Fixed that for you. The hard, ugly, truth of it is that is an infringing act, not an act of theft. Those actions do not meet the legal test for theft as a criminal matter.

     

    This is why we have the word infringe. Those actions do meet the legal test for infringement as a civil matter.

     

    Whether or not that actually is a lost sale depends on a whole lot of things.

     

    The primary one is demonstrating a sale could have happened. Having funds available and a means to transact need to be in place.

     

    Another would be demonstrating the value proposition makes sense. Was the user motivated for a sale? Did they understand the product well enough to actualize the sale? Was the asking price reasonably aligned with their value perception of the product?

     

    Secondly, what would impact that? Free trial? Video? Etc...?

     

    Another thing which can very significantly impact that is a personal recommendation. Say one of their peers had a great experience and they communicate that successfully to significantly improve value perception. That biases potentials toward sales just as a free trial, demo, video, review, etc... does.

     

    Did that occur? From whom?

     

    Could be the infringer did it. Interesting isn't it?

     

    And that can happen in lots of ways too.

     

    "Here, come over to my house and play this thing!"

     

    "This game was great, but I"m done. Here's the disc." (Major league gaming is harming itself by discouraging this one, IMHO)

     

    "Look at this I checked out from the library."

     

    "My game has an invite. You can play too."

     

    And so on.

     

    My comments above about mind share are valid for infringing acts, as well as non infringing ones, as well as permitted acts, but not authorized by the creator, as in fair use. This could be the library, for example. Or a trade among people who the work was sold to.

     

    Now, compare and contrast works that are highly controlled in ways that limit these activities with those where those activities are built in, authorized, or just possible due to the nature of the work. That impacts the value of mind share to the creator and that impacts sales.

     

    It's not cut 'n dried here. This too has been shown in court as well as through a lot of studies and we have a lot of data speaking right to the ambiguity in play. There is also the economic realities. The dollars to fund all uses simply do not exist. This means either far fewer uses, or uses priced differently, and or competition for the dollars in all cases.

     

    And, again, infringing is wrong. I don't do it either. And I buy works where those things are all possible, avoiding those where it's not.

     

    Recognizing how those dynamics actually work is as important as educating people about the realities inherent in the differences between information products and physical goods.

  23. Posted · Edited by potatohead

    For me, it's simple.

     

    Treat me right, price in line with value perception, and I buy with no regrets. Where that's not true I really don't buy, and frankly, there are a ton of things competing at any given time. I'll just buy from somebody treating me right, delivering good value for the dollar.

     

    Infringing isn't something I do these days. Frankly, I don't have the time. Where I do have the time, I want good value, no hassles, etc...

     

    Here is how that translates for games, music and movies.

     

    I bought exactly ONE major league game production in the last 3 years. Due to DLC and the diluted value I saw, my value perception of it is dubious at best. I'm not looking for future purchases very hard.

     

    I have bought quite a few $10 or so, small productions. Loved 'em, shared with others, who also buy. Value is high, and I am looking for new purchases. That's how gaming has resolved. Of course, retro for me competes very nicely with modern. I like the closeness of it, often the open nature of it, and it's fantastic to participate technically with few worries. I'm not the norm in that respect, but in terms of general value, I am increasingly the norm. PC gaming via Steam is a very good deal. Prices are modest, and I've got enough options to see good value. Consoles? Not so much for the major league productions. Indie stuff in that $10 range? Sweet. Bring it.

     

    Movies? Fuck it. If it's on a nice stream, I'm in. No theaters, no physical media, no DRM downloads. I just don't watch as many movies. This is just great actually. So I pay a subscription, and it's either there or not, no worries. What I'm finding is the Netflix productions, for example, are awesome. Love those, and they are competing with big movies rather nicely. I'm getting high value experience, and I have few worries.

     

    Music? If I can buy from the creator, I do that. Download, physical disc, whatever. As long as I get a good quality copy, no DRM so I can put it on my devices and use it as I want to, I'm golden. I've bought exactly zero major league productions in the last 5 years. If it's on a stream, great! I'm in. Same deal. High value, few worries, subscription.

     

    After thinking about it some, I have come to the realization I won't fund having cake and eating it too. If you want to sell me something, it's mine. Right of first sale. That means I get to give it to somebody else when I'm no longer in need of it, or I can transcode it, whatever my needs are.

     

    If that's not part of the sale, then I consider it a rental, and value it accordingly. This value is much, much lower.

     

    One or the other. I really don't feel good about both.

  24. Posted · Edited by potatohead

    Coupla things:

     

    We have the word infringement because making a copy isn't theft.

     

    US law is clear on this point. The legal test for theft comes down to the target of theft no longer having something they had prior.

     

    Infringement is a slightly different thing. Essentially, somebody is doing something they do not have the right to do, and that can be making a copy, use of said copy, distribution, claiming ownership, and any number of other things.

     

    Piracy is wrong, but it absolutely is not theft.

     

    If we want a better resolution to this mess, and or law we all can live with, it's really, really, really important that we use the right words and concepts. Promoting this activity as theft also promotes the idea of information working like physical goods, and that simply doesn't align with the realities.

     

    Here is something I find very interesting, and that isn't always part of the discussion. It's not part of the discussion because of the strong attempts at equating these activities to physical things, and because recognizing it undermines the theft characterization, which is strong advocacy. Not correct advocacy, but very strong, and because of that strength, continuing to put that idea out there is compelling.

     

    The rights or property holder gets something when infringement happens. They get mind share or attention, maybe familiarity is another way to put this. The person infringing does something they are not supposed to do as well.

     

    Now, the reason I'm putting this out there isn't to justify any of these actions. It's more important that we recognize the realities so that whatever law or norms we end up with preserve all the business models out there. Some people choose to compete with infringement by becoming the default, authoritative source for people wanting to infringe. Put simply, if it's made available without cost, they can trade on the mindshare and benefit from that and realize economic benefit indirectly.

     

    We need to make sure that continues to be possible. It's the way small players can compete with very large, established players.

     

    Using the theft argument successfully also means suppressing this model, and it implies other physical concept analogies, like dumping. In the world of physical goods, it's illegal to give things away with the intent of putting others out of business, for example. They can make economic claims and win them, and due to the real costs of manufacture and distribution of physical goods, those claims are material and often successful.

     

    Information manufacture has very real costs, but distribution costs are near zero, as are duplication costs. New information is expensive, but copies of new information aren't. New physical goods are expensive, and more physical goods are also expensive, as are distributing them.

     

    When somebody commits the crime of theft and they take a physical thing, somebody is out those costs and they are real, material costs. And they lose out. They no longer have a thing they did before.

     

    When somebody infringes, they do something they are not supposed to do, but the owner / rights holder doesn't lose anything at all. Their claims of costs are very difficult to demonstrate as being material, and that is why we have the word infringe.

     

    Personally, I very strongly favor doing business with people who understand these things. I avoid people who do not, and that's because the cost of making information work like physical goods is too high. We must close down computers, we make it difficult for people to own their devices, hack, learn, do, produce, etc... on their own terms, instead forcing them to work through the established entities who then become gatekeepers. Compare and contrast the Apple App Store vs Android where one can use the store or not, or directly distribute applications or not. Just one of many examples.

     

    And that mind share can be worth a lot. Coupla kids can produce some great music on a laptop in a garage, put it out there, and use the dynamics I've just put here to their advantage to gain mind share, and from that traffic, from that money, sales, and boot strap a career.

     

    That same channel also means some poor person somewhere can learn, get a grasp on culture, and do some things they aren't supposed to, but then turn right around and become employable, or produce a work that contributes to culture, makes them money, etc...

     

    I think people bulk infringing because they can suck, because they really aren't paying anybody, and that's a negative. I think people who are looking to improve themselves, or who are without means are a different story. Still difficult, but not the same thing.

     

    Another aspect here: Entertainment dollars are mostly fixed. They vary some, but most people have what they can spend each month and they spend it. Some may save, and they may finance, but the important thing to realize is the billions of dollars out there that are claimed as piracy loss costs simply do not exist. If every single instance of media use were paid for properly, there simply would be a lot less media use as the funding for those uses again simply is not there.

     

    What would people do?

     

    I suspect they would spend more time creating their own entertainment, and that's a big part of why framing this is important. Really, for people to be able to create their own entertainment, things need to be open enough for that to happen, or the costs involve would shut it out.

     

    Don't think the major players miss out on this. They may bitch and moan about it all, but they know damn well what mind share means and how to compete with it. Should they come up with very effective means to prevent infringement, people will seek alternatives, they will lose mind share, and or they would have to lower their asking prices, devalue their own work, etc... and none of those are very attractive compared to the state of things today in most instances.

     

    Games? Since things have moved to the DLC / digital copy model, I simply don't value them the same way anymore. Truth is, I'll spend up to $100 for something I know somebody made, and that I know they worked for, and they get the dollars for, or most of the dollars for. Homebrew is killer that way. Love it. Some game that has the better parts locked out, digital copy, buy in at $50-60, then pay more to really have a better experience? Not a chance.

     

    They aren't competing as well and this is directly related to the value people see in the works.

     

    A game where I get a disc, and it's complete, I can play, then give to a friend, etc...? Worth $60. No question. I buy easily, and I swap with friends, and the authors make a lot of money, we see high value. Or I can archive it and play later, or share with my kids. Whatever. Lots of options = lots of value.

     

    Most digital only things are worth about $10 to me, because I don't have all that value.

     

    See how that works?

     

    You can bet your arse they do.

     

    There is harm being done. And in some cases it's a lot of harm. In a lot of cases there is very little harm.

     

    My big objection here is ignoring mind share and value. Where people have more options, it's a good experience, not being treated like a criminal, etc... value is high, and they will pay and they will infringe. Where there aren't many options, they maybe can't infringe depending, they will pay, but not as much and not as many, etc...

     

    Regarding the subjects of this thread, I found it off putting. And I said so early on. Made it clear I would not buy the work, but that I did appreciate having a free copy out there to participate and give feedback with. Hell, my Jaguar sits in a box, probably forever, because the mere thought of learning something in that community was so god dammed toxic, I was stunned.

     

    For some people, this kind of activity is just more and cheaper gaming. And when we infringe, it's a small club, and it hurts. Easy to see. Many of us know that, and many of us don't care so much either.

     

    But that same small club makes ugly attempts to do what the big players are doing magnify too. That is why I wrote the "don't piss in the pool" comment earlier.

     

    For some of us there is the technical aspect of this whole thing. I'm in that club, and the how, why, new tricks, etc... is where the fun is. Frankly, without that, I probably wouldn't participate at all. And we need open to be viable for that all to work well.

     

    Anyway, my .02 Just thought I would put a few things out there.

    • Like 1
AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...