[richcon]

Tallscot:

I never said Obama never worked with Blagojevich. I said that his job doesn't put him in Blagojevich's private meetings or give him any authority over Blagojevich. There's no reason he would know whether there was something seedy going on behind closed doors.

Two politicians, same political party, same state, of course you can find lots of places their paths crossed. I would be more surprised if Obama didn't campaign for the guy.

[tallscot]

>I said that his job doesn't put him in Blagojevich's private meetings or give him any authority over Blagojevich. There's no reason he would know whether there was something seedy going on behind closed doors.

The list of unseemly people whom Obama was associated with but didn't have a clue what was going on is getting incredibly long.

Blago called Obama a MotherFer. Why? Because Obama wouldn't give him what he wanted to select who Obama wanted as Senator. So obviously someone with Obama was speaking with Blago about that Senate seat. So this is another one of those things where it looks like someone lied about something that isn't illegal but will cause a huge scandal because they lied.

So the idea you are putting forward that there isn't any reason why Obama would be speaking to Blago or be part of any meetings is silly. Picking a U.S. Senator is a very big deal and Obama has all kinds of friends and people he would like to see in there while he is President.

Quote

Two politicians, same political party, same state, of course you can find lots of places their paths crossed

Um, Obama worked for him. He worked to get him elected and then endorsed him for governor in 2006 after Blago's unethical behavior surfaced to the public. Did you not read that?

[richcon]

tallscot said:

Blago called Obama a MotherFer. Why? Because Obama wouldn't give him what he wanted to select who Obama wanted as Senator.

What? So because Obama wasn't cooperating with Blagojevich, means Obama was in bed with Blagojevich?

Quote

So the idea you are putting forward that there isn't any reason why Obama would be speaking to Blago or be part of any meetings is silly. Picking a U.S. Senator is a very big deal and Obama has all kinds of friends and people he would like to see in there while he is President.

I said there's no reason to believe he was in Blagojevich's private meetings over selling Obama's seat. Obama wasn't in Blagojevich's head. In fact, given everything at stake, to knowingly allow something like this to happen Obama would have to be such a world-class idiot that Dan Quale would seem like a rocket scientist in comparison.

Quote

Um, Obama worked for him. He worked to get him elected and then endorsed him for governor in 2006 after Blago's unethical behavior surfaced to the public. Did you not read that?

No. Obama did not work for him. Work to get him elected, yes. Say "I'm working for him" in the colloquial sense that really means "I'm working for his benefit" by helping him get elected, yes. Work for him? no. Governors do not have authority over state senators, or vice versa.

[minimalist]

"I think it's all part of this ridiculous self-centered entitlement culture we've developed.I think it's all part of this ridiculous self-centered entitlement culture we've developed."

Thank you for being bold enough to say whyat needed to be said. Frost7. Since I'm older and hate generational categorizations associated with GenX I am hesistant to use the word "entitlement" because I don;t want to start arguments about what is being dubbed "the entitlement generation".

But even though the word may be the same this is not really about generationalism. This is about the sense of entitlement we see all over the net . Its a very real phenomenon as is the unrepentant glee with which people brag about how easy it is to steal. And I think the primary problem is that these people's peers and and other members of discussion boards won't call them on it. It would not be acceptable to go on a board and brag about how you bought or sold black market weapons or how you stole from a store. Those posts would be yanked in a second. So why do we tolerate this?

"As it stands, I don't think it's very practical to suggest writing a letter for every potential purchase that people skip. In reality, people will take the path of least resistance."

Maybe we need to make that path more resistant by beginning to put the shame back in stealing instead of giving these people free reign? Tech writers, bloggers and everyday posters routinely proclaim "stealing is bad, BUT blah, blah, blah" (insert libertarian sounding excuse here). It's if we think our geek cred might be damaged if were ever to say something as uncool as "stealing music or movies is always wrong.... period." So our fence sitting just ends up providing more justifications for the the bad behavior of others. If you know bragging about such things on discussion boards won't be not tolerated maybe you won't be so casual in your your view that downloading torrents is no big deal.

[tallscot]

Quote

What? So because Obama wasn't cooperating with Blagojevich, means Obama was in bed with Blagojevich?

What it means is Obama's camp was in contact with Blago. That's what it means. I never claimed Obama was a part of selling his senate seat. That is precisely why I said this may be one of those instances where someone gets caught lying about something where they did nothing wrong. So now the story is "what did Obama know and when did he know it" because he said they weren't in contact with Blago but they found an interview of Axelrod saying they were in contact with Blago. On that revelation, Axelrod said he "misspoke". Rham isn't saying anything. He's silent.

The same guy who put Scooter Libby in jail for lying about something he did that wasn't actually a crime is now going after a whole group of people who have a lot of ties with Obama. Like it or not, this isn't going away for a long time. There is going to be a grand jury. Blago is going to talk. They will bring Rezko in too. Rham will have to testify too.

I wonder if the Left is going to cheer on Fitzgerald this time. I'm guessing they won't.

>I said there's no reason to believe he was in Blagojevich's private meetings over selling Obama's seat.

What you started off saying, IMHO, was that since Obama is a U.S. Senator and Blago is the Illinois governor, there was no reason for Obama to have contact with Blago because they are in separate "branches". I was correcting that notion. Obama has had a close relationship with Blago for years and has reason to have input on who replaces him in the Senate.

If that wasn't your point, we don't need to discuss it anymore.

>In fact, given everything at stake, to knowingly allow something like this to happen Obama would have to be such a world-class idiot that Dan Quale would seem like a rocket scientist in comparison

Joe Biden would seem like a rocket scientist. Where is Joe? Did they lock him away?

Quote

No. Obama did not work for him. Work to get him elected, yes.

Now you want to argue semantics? He worked on his behalf and met with him weekly, working on his behalf. The point is he had weekly meetings with him and was his campaign advisor and it was a much closer relationship than "crossing paths" as you say. With your definition, David Axelrod and Obama have crossed paths a couple of times.

It was David Axelrod who worked for Blago earlier but refused to work on his governor campaign because he had issues with Blago. Apparently, David Axelrod has more of a morale compass than Obama because Obama had no problem working on Blago's governor campaign and even endorsed him after corruption charges and an investigation was launched in 2006. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

I'm going to start saying "I know nothing!" like Sergeant Schutlz on Hogan's Heroes whenever we find out about another dubious Obama relationship where Obama supposedly doesn't have a clue what they were saying or what they were up to or what they have done.

[tbutler67]

Steve_S said:

>If you don’t like a publisher’s copy protection scheme, piracy isn’t how you protest, not having anything to do with the game is.
>
>I realize that may not be a popular argument.

Software publishers need to understand a very simple fact. DRM is a means of treating your legitimate customers with hostility. DRM is ineffective (as clearly demonstrated here). Software publishers are giving people a choice between paying money for DRM laden software or simply downloading a cracked version which is free of such restrictions. No, stealing isn't the right thing to do, but honestly companies that push DRM are driving people to steal.

No.

Companies that push DRM are driving people to not buy their software. That's a legitimate response.

Going one step beyond, deciding you want it anyway and stealing it is not legitimate - not now, not ever. Claiming that DRM is driving people to go that extra step beyond is making excuses for behavior that should not be excused. As others have suggested, we can't hope to shut down this unhealthy culture of entitlement as long as we keep excusing that step across the line.

On a side note, could people please stop the @!#$!#% political posts? If I wanted to read political posts, I'd visit a political blog.

[tallscot]

Quote

On a side note, could people please stop the @!#$!#% political posts? If I wanted to read political posts, I'd visit a political blog

Which makes me wonder why the author of this article brought politics into it. ;)

People who break the law or do unethical things will try to justify their actions by creating all kinds of BS excuses. Before iTunes came out, the BS excuse for stealing was that the record companies forced you to buy a whole album and didn't offer single songs. Now you can buy single songs online and people still steal music. Now their BS excuses is they don't like the iTunes DRM. Before digital music came out, my brothers and his friends would copy albums onto audio tape. I don't remember what their justification was.

I don't really understand what the big deal is about software DRM. I haven't experienced the one in Spore. What's the problem? I own Adobe software and I have to activate it over the Internet. No big deal. It's not any worse than entering the serial number off of a box. It's a one-time thing. I have shareware where I get an email with a special code and I enter that and then it goes over the Internet to verify it. No big deal. It's a one-time thing. I play World of Warcraft where I have to create an account online and pay money for a certain amount of time to play and then I log in with my name and password every time I play. That doesn't seem to have deterred too many customers. They are doing fine.

Does Spore require a blood sample every time you play it? The way some people are portraying the DRM, I wouldn't be surprised.

[minimalist]

"People who break the law or do unethical things will try to justify their actions by creating all kinds of BS excuses. Before iTunes came out, the BS excuse for stealing was that the record companies forced you to buy a whole album and didn't offer single songs. Now you can buy single songs online and people still steal music. Now their BS excuses is they don't like the iTunes DRM."

Hence my example about the relatively depressing outcomes of the Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails experiments. When you strip away all the BS and finally give the people what they SAY they really want you discover that they just come up with some new excuse for not paying for content. What they REALLY seem to want is something to complain about while they continue to steal content.

I don't like DRM either. The way I protest it is by not buying anything from iTunes. I'd rather support Amazon, eMusic and a whole slew of independent music resellers that sell music DRM free at higher bit-rates. I don't like DRM on my video either. And since there is virtually nobody that sells digital downloads (much less HD digital downloads) sans DRM I choose to rent dics and stream netflix and hulu.

Just because its easy to steal and you are unlikely you'll get caught does not change the fact that its wrong. And continuing to steal your music and movies while complaining that the man 'made you do it" means nobody will take you seriously so they won;t take you seriously. They know that you'll jut steal it anyway so why should they care what you think about DRM?

[richcon]

My favorite BS excuse from someone who was once bragging about downloading all these big Hollywood movies, about why he refuses to pay for them:

Him: "Because they all suck!"

Me: "So why waste your time by downloading them?"

Him: "Because of course I'm going to watch them."

Hmm.

[tbutler67]

tallscot said:

I don't really understand what the big deal is about software DRM. I haven't experienced the one in Spore. What's the problem? I own Adobe software and I have to activate it over the Internet. No big deal. It's not any worse than entering the serial number off of a box. It's a one-time thing. I have shareware where I get an email with a special code and I enter that and then it goes over the Internet to verify it. No big deal. It's a one-time thing. I play World of Warcraft where I have to create an account online and pay money for a certain amount of time to play and then I log in with my name and password every time I play. That doesn't seem to have deterred too many customers. They are doing fine.

There are two main issues I've seen:

* The Windows version of Spore, at least, installs copy-protection DRM called SecureROM that (as I understand it) is not removed when you uninstall the game, and cannot be removed short of wiping the drive clean and reinstalling Windows. Not as bad as the infamous Sony rootkit, but still not cool, and I wouldn't knowingly accept something like that on my computer either.

* The DRM enforces draconian limits on reinstalls - originally three, now a somewhat more lenient five - and uninstalls will not reset this counter. There's no way to de-authorize a computer. If a system crash forces you to reinstall, you upgrade the hard drive, you upgrade the machine, you just unstall on your desktop to install it on your laptop for travel... all of those count against the limit. I've had enough experience with upgrades and reformats that I have no trouble believing I'd bump up against this limit.

[itommac]

In the early 1980's before most people reading this were born, Electronic Arts (EA) games were the most fiendishly copy protected on the Commodore 64 and Atari which were the two affordable computers available to consumers at the time.
The copy protection EA used jerked the drive head in such a manner that our expensive disk drives were endangered by it. I made a promise to myself that until EA removed damaging copy protection I would not object to pirated versions with copy protection removed. Eventually EA removed the copy protection and I never played a pirated version again. I would not take or make copies.
I still won't take or make copies of EA because DRM is not copy protection in a manner that actually harmed computer hardware.
HOWEVER, I bought the pre-game version of Spore which only allows users to create creatures. It was reasonably priced. I will not buy EA's Spore game because it is too expensive and there is no upgrade price for people like me who bought the early Spore software.

[hayesk]

Thank you Matt, I've been echoing your sentiment on piracy "protests" for a long time now. I too am confused as to why people think they deserve to pirate movies, music, and games just because they don't agree with how they are legally sold.
Pirate it, and you send the message that you are a common thief. Do without it completely, and you send the message that you are willing to go without, and if they want your money, they had better improve their selling practices.

[Steve_S]

minimalist said:

Maybe we need to make that path more resistant by beginning to put the shame back in stealing instead of giving these people free reign? Tech writers, bloggers and everyday posters routinely proclaim "stealing is bad, BUT blah, blah, blah" (insert libertarian sounding excuse here). It's if we think our geek cred might be damaged if were ever to say something as uncool as "stealing music or movies is always wrong.... period." So our fence sitting just ends up providing more justifications for the the bad behavior of others. If you know bragging about such things on discussion boards won't be not tolerated maybe you won't be so casual in your your view that downloading torrents is no big deal.

Maybe we should just stick our heads in the sand and pretend bad things never happen. Really, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Acknowledging what currently happens is different from condoning such behavior. Somehow, I'm not sure if you're able to differentiate the two. Solutions to problems can only come from open discussion. Piracy isn't going to go away, regardless how much shame we associate with it in public forums. I certainly hope you can recognize that. From this thread, I've presented my understanding of why DRM is not only ineffective at stopping piracy, for many I believe it encourages piracy. That doesn't mean I condone piracy or even believe people are justified of pirating material, but it would be ridiculous to simply not even acknowledge it.

[Steve_S]

tbutler67 said:

Companies that push DRM are driving people to not buy their software. That's a legitimate response.

Agreed.

Quote

Going one step beyond, deciding you want it anyway and stealing it is not legitimate - not now, not ever. Claiming that DRM is driving people to go that extra step beyond is making excuses for behavior that should not be excused. As others have suggested, we can't hope to shut down this unhealthy culture of entitlement as long as we keep excusing that step across the line.

What you fail to realize is that not everyone shares your moral compass. I'm not making excuses for theft, nor am I condoning it. However, the fact is, piracy is going to happen. Piracy would happen without DRM, but I believe DRM only encourages this behavior. It certainly doesn't prevent it. That doesn't mean piracy is ever justified, but piracy is a reality whether we choose to speak of it or not.

Quote

On a side note, could people please stop the @!#$!#% political posts? If I wanted to read political posts, I'd visit a political blog.

Agreed. The only thing worse are the dopes that take the bait and start spewing their own political views in a forum like this.