Your question kind of implies that access to the 'prevailing culture' should be some sort of human right. That kind of paints 'prevailing culture' as some sort of specific entity that can be defined, and puts 'prevailing culture' on some sort of pedestal, but culture is a dynamic, fluid, multi-faceted, intangible thing that means different things to different people. And it's really ok to be uninformed about a subject of a conversation. And actually saying, "I'm not familiar with XYZ, what's it about?" is a great way to get to know people. I think what you're getting at is that social insecurity some feel when they're out of the loop on a subject. That's a self-confidence thing that can easily be overcome. It's really not necessary for us all to feel on the same page about everything. And things would probably get really boring really quick if we were. I'm unlikely ever to know that feeling of tearing down an autobahn in a Ferrari due to the cost, but I don't feel culturally bereft about it or demand that there should be some sort of publicly funded Ferrari hire scheme to make sure we all get the chance to do it.
I was going to bring up the supercar example myself, but didn't fancy getting berated for blowing things out of proportion. At least I know I'm not the only one who thought that argument was null and void
I wouldn't even mind if a higher price meant higher quality. IE - more time in dev and more importantly, more devs. But no, we're still given sloppy crap that was sold on a deadline and in some cases doesn't even work ! I still cannot play Batman. I tried, but the frame drops are just awful. So that's £33 they had out of me alone and I have no recourse for a refund really. I guess I could dispute it in Paypal but I just assume my pleas would be futile. Gaming has been almost completely ruined by corporations who don't make games to see games. They make games to make money and that's it, they really couldn't give a toss whether that game is good or not all they see it as is a salable item that is going to make them rich. Thankfully we still have slightly smaller studios still making games. This is a good thing. Indie gaming? not so sure.. Technology wise they are a step back in time for me and I don't want to go backward. TBH I am not even sure the terms "pirate" and "thief" even apply to me. I am just simply testing their wares and if they're crap I am deleting them and then not buying them. I'll admit, financially I have been up and down over the past few years. At times I did "steal" games and I did play them without paying for them simply because I could not afford them. There weren't that many, but I clearly remember "stealing" COD Ghosts because I assumed it would be rubbish. Oddly enough I was quite surprised at how much I liked it. I thought it was great. So what did I do as soon as I was in better stead financially? here, see for yourself. IIRC I picked it up in a sale for £20. The same went for Dead Island too. However, as soon as I was in a better condition financially I bought that too, and Riptide. I have never "stolen" a game and then not paid for it in any shape or form (and I mean play as in more than twenty minutes). Got 250 games in my Steam library now. I've probably played about 20 of them, if that. I've bought them, though.
Tell me about it. I think I 315 games in my library with an average completion rate of something like 22%... So extrapolating that out means I'm missing out on 5257 achievements.... EDIT: http://www.mysteamgauge.com/account?username=thom804 Dat retail value.... I know I've spent well under £1000 for all of that.
http://www.mysteamgauge.com/account?username=bigc90210 1138 here (actually i think about 10 are bits of software) no idea how many achievements im missing out on?
That's not what I'm implying. I'm simply musing on the fact that many of our critical real world inventions were inspired by fiction, including the system on which we're communicating, perhaps even the device. With that in mind it's arguable that free access to information, even fiction, holds a greater good than the myopic fair recompense anti-piracy argument which, as mentioned earlier, has little bearing on reality; You need only look at the hiring practises of development houses for evidence of that. Enquiry is a great conversation starter, but it pales in comparison to bonding over a shared experience. Ferraris? We're talking about bits here, not atoms - The base unit of thought itself, which now has nominal global distribution costs.
I work at a bank and most engineers laugh at me when I say that I buy all my games (Steam or bundles), movies (VOD, DvD and cinema), music (CD and Spotify premium), books (printed or eBook). Those people aren't poor, far from that ... but they just feels it is normal to not pay for culture. They even go to great length like paying for VNP or news group to pirate content (paying the pirate but not the authors) ... this is just disgusting. They download arount 20GB of movies or series a day, I far prefere to wait if I can't pay but being honest with my feelings. Edit: I think this is more a matter of people not being able to manage their frustation rather than not being able to buy them. I want it all, now and for free ! Poor world
I think that happens because people simply don't see value in digital assets the same way they see it in physical ones. And when you say to want all now and free, well... that's how the digital world works. I'm repeating myself, but this is why I think we need a major copyright reform and think whether copyright as we know it makes sense for digital assets. In my view current copyright laws work well only for physical assets. For digital assets it makes no sense to charge distribution, the real cost is all in the creation process. Because of this, it makes much more sense to fund the creation, in a system similar to Patreon and forget about trying to limit redistribution (which eliminates piracy, by definition). However, there's no way this will change anytime soon and requires a change in mentality of both content creators and consumers alike.
I don't know about other countries, but here the phone carriers / ISP started to include premium Spotify or Deezer account with their offer. I have a free Spotify subscription now with my 30 euros phone offer (24/7 call, unlimited SMS, 3GB 4G data). I've been very pleased by the content compared to a few years ago when I checked and realised I'd need Deezer + Spotify + Qobuz to cover eveything I listen to. I wish the Netflix catalog in France could be like it is in the US. In its current state it is not very interesting and I still prefere bying DvDs or VOD.
In the UK, mobile carriers (certainly carphone warehouse as a 3rd party vendor) will try to tempt in customers with various 'offers'. These invariably come with crappy low-end phones that offset the cost of these offers. The new Nexus phones come with 3 months of Google Music, but only if you've not got a current google account and not used the subscription service before. Overall, the UK mobile market is in a real sorry state after learning from the USA that data-rates can be pushed through the roof and people will still pay for it (my contract was due to go from £30p/m to £60 to keep the same unlimited date plan).
This is a bit offtopic, but how does that work? Do they charge Spotify or Deezer traffic? If not, they are violating net neutrality, unless internet traffic is unlimited.
Net neutrality does not exist in Europe anymore (we got fast lanes for "specialized applications"). Also they might be just giving you a subscription while not doing anything against net neutrality - for example here in Slovakia if you are a Telekom customer, you can get a Deezer account which is billed through them. And Deezer doesn't care if the money is paid by you via Telekom, or paid by Telekom itself because you have a plan which includes Deezer "for free".
I know, unfortunately. It all comes down to how traffic is being handled, I think, not necessarily whether the subscription is tied or not to a contract.
Well, GuilleAcoustic didn't say traffic was free. And IMO it is exactly what i said - a Deezer or Spotify subscription tied to the contract without any additional fees on top of the existing contract.
The free sub is just a means of dragging you into paying more in data usage (unless you're capped of course). I use over 20gb a month on audio just to and from work. Imagine the charges for 17gb of extra data onto your contract, even if the sub is free.
The "free" Spotify premium account is for 3GB and above plan. I do have the 3GB and once consumed I'm on limited bandwidth (somewhere around 2G speed). I never use all my data since I sync Spotify album on my home Wifi when I go outside and listen to what I synched at home (no need to restream them then).
That's a huge over dramatization of the truth. In actual fact there are provisions in the new bill that could possibility allow specialized applications in very specific circumstances, but to claim that 'net neutrality does not exist in Europe' is so far from the truth that invalidates your entire argument. The new rules limits the services can be given priority to things like remote surgery, driverless cars and preventing terrorist attacks. In addition the regulation also requires that those 'specialised services' cannot be offered if they restrict bandwidth for normal internet users.
