Sure, provided the owner of the property avails it for enjoyment unconditionally.
What? Denigration of property rights?
Yes! ... As long as that's what has been availed.
I understand that much, but I'd suggest that the state forcing individuals to relinquish property on the basis that other individuals like it is not something good. Property is availed conditionally and entirely at the discretion of the owner of said property.
I know. I'm just saying that there are ways to think about this where the benefit of the society overall can be considered. It would not be a new and revolutionary thing, even if it does fly directly in the face of current social trends.
Not at all. Games at end of life can have servers hosted or paid for by users. That was the basis of Nostalrius, which was the instigation for Blizzard creating WoW Classic once they saw that hey actually there IS still a massive demand for this product.
This is really the only issue here.
The commodification of everything in life is one thing but e v e r y t h i n g "as a service" or subscription-based or "smart engineered" is really, really frustrating. It turns a nice existence with fun indulgences into life actually becoming bloatware.
I mean, one would hope that the government would prevent these sort of monopolies. I have no faith they will though.
dotesports.com
I avoid subscriptions like the plague. I don't see the point of paying an infinite amount of money for a finite product.
As somebody who makes a living via creative merit, I sure as hell hope not. I also don't think its realistic as not everyone has the desire to produce art/media even if they could do it with no effort. If AI tools were perfect, are people just all going to start making art? I doubt it. It's not as if making art (talking basic here) is terribly difficult to begin with....you have to want to do it. What's more likely is that producers of art (all forms) will just be able to make more of it (probably too much) but I suspect there will always be some kind of exchange for it. At some abstract point it's basically the AI acting as an intermediary directly between a person's imagination and an audience...but that's still some kind of intellectual property worth something.
If it's an infinite amount of money, it's an infinite amount of product. For example, if you're talking about a netflix subscription being an infinite amount of product (i.e. an infinite amount of time), then the consumption of the product is also infinite (due to the infinite amount of time to consume).
If everything else comes with art, it won't be a problem as there wouldn't be a need to make a living any longer. Though I do share you concern during the transition, assuming that we're even heading in a good direction.
That's fine, my goal is to make my own. So really I'd only need the technology to advanced to the point where it can reach my needs. Though I'd like for anyone to have the ability if they want.
It's not, though I'm aiming a little higher than basic. AI can make a somewhat realistic movie even now, barring rough edges like giving people extra fingers randomly. I've written short stories and made sketches, but I don't feel like the effort to go beyond that is worth it right now. To my eye it looks like it will eventually be realistic for anyone with a PC and a week of free time to make a full length movie of passable quality, although I don't know if that's 20 years away or 120.
I could accept that if it allows producers to sell to individuals instead of going for mass appeal. AI should be no different than hiring a studio to create something that you envision but lack the skill to create.
I agree, AI is a tool just like a ruler. It doesn't remove creativity. My desire is that the tool becomes good enough and cheap enough that everyone has one, though I can still benefit even if things don't go that far.
There are cases where a subscription is justified, but I feel like there are a lot more subscriptions in the world than there are suitable cases for them. Netflix is fine conceptually, though I'd prefer to have a DVD copy of something I'd want to watch if I have to pay for it. Games as a service don't appeal to me, but charging upkeep for the online portions can make sense.
As it's become easier to exchange funds for services without physical transactions, repeat transactions have become easier. I think it's absolutely fair to be critical of the trend toward subscriptions over single transactions for tangible goods, and it's a criticism that I also offer, but the answer isn't regulatory oversight.
The shareholders own the company, that’s why the CEO needs to make them happy.
This has worked in a few very specific cases - SimCity 2013 being one of them - but for the most part always-online "DRM" has not been influenced by consumers very much. It was pushed onto consumers by the producers and no alternative was offered. It is almost universally disliked.
Which is odd, because streaming/lack of ownership has actually helped the situation in the music industry. Music piracy has dropped drastically as reasonably priced streaming services have become ubiquitous among all populations. The side effect has been slightly less tremendous amounts of wealth being paid to artists and labels. And sort of like what Steam has done for indie game developers, indie music artists now have more opportunity than ever. The movie and TV industry is kind of in upheavel at the moment as people are getting fed up with having to subscribe to so many different services, and those services adding and dropping content so often. Piracy has gone down, but disapproval is still high. In many cases I've resorted to buying on a marketplace like Top Gear on Amazon, which of course I was introduced to in America via [redacted]. For all the [redacted] I committed on that front I did actually pay for it once it was offered. Everything is for sale, especially if it's free.
I agree with your sentiment. Until recently, old games were difficult to keep playing - because technology and interfaces kept changing - not just for TV systems but backward compatibility with operating systems. These days that's starting to turn around, and old games are coming back out.
This is not merely false, rather it's aggressively stupid in its falsity. There was always an alternative. Don't like that a product is only available through a subscription service? Don't subscribe. The only reason it became so pervasive is because consumers were enticed by the product more than they were dissuaded by the constraints. But you can always go back and it doesn't involve appealing to the state to violate others' rights, but you may have to do without the shiny new thing. Buck up. Make the sacrifice. Be the change.
That is what this set of petitions is about. Helping to lessen monopolies. Watch the video. It explains is all.
