| Main > Main Forum |
| Mame rom legality question |
| << < (10/12) > >> |
| SavannahLion:
Ramifications for whom? An entire generation of youth afraid to approach technology, and by extension, all sciences because governments and powerful companies say it's not OK to explore and learn? The U.S. as a whole is working hard to create obedient little soldiers who think chemistry is nothing more than vinegar and baking soda because anything more directly leads into bombs and meth. Has it not occurred to anyone that the people at these companies who are spending billions on R&D and court costs to protect their products from piracy are hiring the very same people that pirated software and hacked encryption schemes twenty or thirty years ago? Where the ---fudgesicle--- do you think they got their expertise in the first place? It sure as hell wasn't by writing software "legally" like good little boys and girls. |
| ark_ader:
--- Quote ---Ramifications for whom? --- End quote --- For those who work hard and bring a product to market, which eventually pays the salaries of those people that work in the industry. --- Quote ---An entire generation of youth afraid to approach technology, and by extension, all sciences because governments and powerful companies say it's not OK to explore and learn? --- End quote --- An entire generation too lazy to learn, who by my generation disenfranchised them to make them feel worthless in regard to technology and let them be enslaved by it. Explore and learn within the boundaries of the law. Which and what law is the problem, and no enforcement by financial penalties. This is not the Sony and Connectix argument. MAME does not play retail roms. If it did then I would not have an issue with it. --- Quote ---The U.S. as a whole is working hard to create obedient little soldiers who think chemistry is nothing more than vinegar and baking soda because anything more directly leads into bombs and meth. --- End quote --- I would laugh at that, if it wasn't so true. --- Quote ---Has it not occurred to anyone that the people at these companies who are spending billions on R&D and court costs to protect their products from piracy are hiring the very same people that pirated software and hacked encryption schemes twenty or thirty years ago? Where the ---fudgesicle--- do you think they got their expertise in the first place? --- End quote --- By originality, hard graft and taking chances. Sure employ hackers to protect your industry, but not let them give away the keys of the kingdom, by ignoring the merits of those who bring the technology to market in the first place. --- Quote ---It sure as hell wasn't by writing software "legally" like good little boys and girls. --- End quote --- It was in my day, maybe your computer history is somewhat fuzzy. Which doesn't stray from the original argument. But if we invite some of those IP owners into this debate, maybe we would get a better insight. Should we email Sony, Nintendo, Tecmo, and Sega for comment? ::) |
| nullPointer:
--- Quote from: ark_ader on September 15, 2013, 10:26:01 pm --- --- Quote ---It sure as hell wasn't by writing software "legally" like good little boys and girls. --- End quote --- It was in my day, maybe your computer history is somewhat fuzzy. Which doesn't stray from the original argument. But if we invite some of those IP owners into this debate, maybe we would get a better insight. Should we email Sony, Nintendo, Tecmo, and Sega for comment? ::) --- End quote --- I'm not entirely certain what "day" you're referring to, but I gotta call shenanigans on this. The entire history of personal home micro-computers is awash with gray moral grounds and outright theft of ideas. Had it been left up to corporations computers would have only ever have been used for business. Period. Big honkin' mainframes that needed to be moved with heavy equipment. We wouldn't even be sitting here in our homes debating trivial arguments on the internet if it weren't for some hippie-cum-computer engineers from Stanford. If you think those guys followed the letter of the law in terms of creation and ingenuity, or that they set out to support the existing structures of corporate power rather than subvert them, you sir are incredibly naive. That mouse in your hand? That intuitive GUI interface in front of you? All ideas stolen from Xerox (and actively marketed) by that very same group of engineers. People who we now (rightly) praise as visionaries and pioneers in their field. Perhaps we should all start cutting Xerox checks for infringing on their intellectual property all these years, no? To suggest that the advancement of technology has in any way been attributed to or enriched by draconian copyright law is ridiculous. And this is nothing new. Edison himself was rather renowned for liberally borrowing and building upon the ideas of others. Look all I'm trying to say is that technology has never advanced directly as a result of the stifling "shelter" of copyright law, but rather in spite of it. "Fuzzy History" indeed. |
| ark_ader:
--- Quote from: nullPointer on September 16, 2013, 01:03:34 am --- --- Quote from: ark_ader on September 15, 2013, 10:26:01 pm --- --- Quote ---It sure as hell wasn't by writing software "legally" like good little boys and girls. --- End quote --- It was in my day, maybe your computer history is somewhat fuzzy. Which doesn't stray from the original argument. But if we invite some of those IP owners into this debate, maybe we would get a better insight. Should we email Sony, Nintendo, Tecmo, and Sega for comment? ::) --- End quote --- I'm not entirely certain what "day" you're referring to, but I gotta call shenanigans on this. The entire history of personal home micro-computers is awash with gray moral grounds and outright theft of ideas. Had it been left up to corporations computers would have only ever have been used for business. Period. Big honkin' mainframes that needed to be moved with heavy equipment. We wouldn't even be sitting here in our homes debating trivial arguments on the internet if it weren't for some hippie-cum-computer engineers from Stanford. If you think those guys followed the letter of the law in terms of creation and ingenuity, or that they set out to support the existing structures of corporate power rather than subvert them, you sir are incredibly naive. That mouse in your hand? That intuitive GUI interface in front of you? All ideas stolen from Xerox (and actively marketed) by that very same group of engineers. People who we now (rightly) praise as visionaries and pioneers in their field. Perhaps we should all start cutting Xerox checks for infringing on their intellectual property all these years, no? To suggest that the advancement of technology has in any way been attributed to or enriched by draconian copyright law is ridiculous. And this is nothing new. Edison himself was rather renowned for liberally borrowing and building upon the ideas of others. Look all I'm trying to say is that technology has never advanced directly as a result of the stifling "shelter" of copyright law, but rather in spite of it. "Fuzzy History" indeed. --- End quote --- --- Quote ---In 1979, Steve Jobs made a deal with Xerox's venture capital division: He would let them invest $1 million in exchange for a look at the technology they were working on. Jobs and the others saw the commercial potential of the WIMP (Window, Icon, Menu, and Pointing device) system and redirected development of the Apple Lisa to incorporate these technologies. Jobs is quoted as saying, "They just had no idea what they had." In 1980, Jobs invited several key PARC researchers to join his company so that they could fully develop and implement their ideas. --- End quote --- - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox OK. We have 1 million dollars paid to Xerox, and they were on board to take their designs commercial. I do not see any borrowing or theft there. Do you? Usually I would be laughing at you for that comment, I will just let the BYOAC do that instead. >:D I have been in the IT world since 1987. I have worked for large corporations like IBM, Data General, TRW and SAIC that have those mainframes you speak of. I also know how tightly secured they are. That is not my argument. The more you distance yourself from the fact of copyright theft, the more difficult it is to defend your actions. Oh, and please research your comments. ::) |
| Vigo:
--- Quote from: ark_ader on September 16, 2013, 05:37:28 am ---OK. We have 1 million dollars paid to Xerox, and they were on board to take their designs commercial. I do not see any borrowing or theft there. Do you? --- End quote --- Let me make an emphasis on the source you quoted: --- Quote ---In 1979, Steve Jobs made a deal with Xerox's venture capital division: He would let them invest $1 million in exchange for a look at the technology they were working on. --- End quote --- "Looking at" something does not = rights to Steal the companies employees and publish Xerox's work as their own. Since it cost 1 mil. to even look at the work, it is obvious it was highly valued by Xerox. Reading comprehension fail, Ark. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |