Don't Copy That Floppy! Gets a Sequel

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Don't Copy That Floppy! Gets a Sequel

Posted by timothy on Monday July 6, 2009 @02:40PM from the not-the-jailhouse-fantasy-I-signed-up-for dept.

theodp writes "Back in 1992, the SIIA released Don't Copy That Floppy!, a goofy video in which anti-piracy rapper MC Double Def DP convinces a young lad not to copy a game by appealing to his sense of right and wrong. Now, to address what it calls 'new generations and new temptations,' the SIIA has uploaded a trailer for a new anti-piracy rap video — Don't Copy That 2 — that will be released this summer. To underscore the video's it's-not-just-a-copy-it's-a-crime message, the new film is a tad darker than the original. A smug teen who's downloading files from 'Pirates Palace' and 'Tune Weasel' finds his world turned upside down when automatic weapons-toting government agents break down the door and take his Mom away in handcuffs. The teen finds himself in a prison jumpsuit forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him, physically attack him, and make him run for his life back to his jail cell (image summarizing his plight)."

416 of 523 comments (clear)

BILLY MAYS HERE... by BillyMays · 2009-07-06 14:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

...with scare tactics!

Seriously though, the first DCTF was happy and upbeat (and for good reason, as many people simply didn't know that copying a floppy was piracy). What happened to that feel? Are we really at a point where we're so influenced by the RIAA/MPAA's ways of doing things that SIIA's first sequel in 17 years immediately jumps to scare tactics?

Maybe it's just me, but I see this quickly becoming one of those "You wouldn't steal a car" type of things - jumping to such an extreme that it becomes a satire piece.
1. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by MBCook · 2009-07-06 14:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Watch the preview video. It's there now.
  I agree that at least DCTF served a purpose. This one is exactly where the RIAA/MPAA is. Kid copies some software, ends up making prison tattoos and being chased (so he can be beaten/killed) because he wasn't good at making the tattoo.
  It's clear cause and effect here: own a computer, be annoyed by an 80s reject rapper, get shanked in prison.
  What they need is another DCTF, just not corny. If they ran PSAs saying it's important to buy software, otherwise people won't be able to make The Sims 4, Crysis 5, or Barbie Horse Adventures 7: The Mysterious Case of the Calico Clydesdale, they could probably get a whole new generation of kids to think twice about copying.
  Instead they made themselves a joke again.
  Even if they had to do this campaign, did they really have to tie it into DCTF? That can't possibly lend them credibility. I bet if I showed this new video to the average 12 year old, they'd think it was some kind of internet sketch comedy thing.
  
  --
  Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
2. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by cbiltcliffe · 2009-07-06 14:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Since he's "running for his life," does that mean they're essentially saying "You wouldn't steal a car, but if you copy Microsoft Office, we'll kill you?"
  Sounds like a threat to me....
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
3. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-07-06 14:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The efficacy of the ad (which Roger Ebert rated two middle fingers up) depends on copyright infringement actually involving jackbooted thugs and jail time, and we know that the content providers have agents in Washington. As others have noted below, the ad itself seems to be goofy and not necessarily the scare-tactic public service announcements we saw during the Bush I and Reagan eras.
  
  Also, one more Association to add to my shit-list.
4. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by unlametheweak · 2009-07-06 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the SIIA (along with their equivalents in the movie and music industry) are lobbying governments around the world to make sure that these scare tactics become reality. These organizations do want governments and prisons to support the business community. Labor is even cheaper in prison, and prisoners can't unionize and are not allowed to cast a vote.
5. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Zero_Independent · 2009-07-06 14:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Even if they had to do this campaign, did they really have to tie it into DCTF? That can't possibly lend them credibility. I bet if I showed this new video to the average 12 year old, they'd think it was some kind of internet sketch comedy thing.
  You mean it's not?
6. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2009-07-06 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  The trailer for it seems very tongue-in-cheek so maybe they are still maintaining the happy and upbeat feel of the first.
  
  --
  Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
7. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by snowgirl · 2009-07-06 15:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People seem to have a big problem with understanding what "illegal" means. You cannot go to jail for every illegal action. Some illegal actions create a civil liability, and some create criminal liabilities... and then criminal liabilities are separated into misdemeanors and felonies.
  I've had issues with people commenting that "prostitution is like murder, it's illegal", and I point out, "No, prostitution is like jay-walking... it's illegal." Prostitution is a misdemeanor and will not get one a lot of time in jail. It's why prosecutors (hell, law enforcement themselves) are so eager to offer a prostitute immunity in order to testify against their pimp (which is a felony).
  People just have a very hard time understanding that you cannot be sent to jail for every illegal action. ESPECIALLY, a hard jail. Typically the worst that you can be hit for with copyright violation is fines... it can make your life difficult, or even hell, but it can't take away your freedom.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
8. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by fractoid · 2009-07-06 15:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The "you wouldn't steal a car" ad always annoyed the hell out of me. Bad analogy, and all that. It wasn't until just now that I realised that this Peugeot ad is what you're actually doing when you download media. You're using your own hardware to create a (usually lower fidelity) replica of the car.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
9. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by MBCook · 2009-07-06 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That was literally my first thought when I saw this, but I checked out other videos by that YouTube user and it looks totally legit. If this is a joke, they went a long way.
  
  --
  Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
10. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Korin43 · 2009-07-06 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  I would download a car..
11. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2009-07-06 15:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Moreover, the unlawful activities fall under different Acts (or statutes? What do Americans call them?)
  For example, murder is against the Criminal Code of Canada.
  Speeding is in the Motor Vehicles Act. (And there's a great loophole there, should you care to read through this Act.)
  Practicing Engineering without a licence is against the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.
  Unauthourized duplication of copyrighted material is against the Copyright Act.
  The list can go on and on but I won't bother.
  Anyway, all of the aforementioned activities are unlawful, but the difference in enforcement and penalties is extreme. It varies from a $125 file to life without parole. Like you, I've always hated the "if you've ever driven even ONE MILE over the limit, that's the same as SERIAL MURDER. IT IS ILLEGAL!!1!ELEVEN!" argument.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
12. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 15:40 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You Bastard! Now I'm going to have that song in my head for another six months!
13. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Wahakalaka · 2009-07-06 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Would you download a car? Would you download a TV? Would you download someone's purse? I know I would.
  
  --
  The truth is somewhere in the middle.
14. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2009-07-06 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  This is asinine. I wouldn't mind if they put EQUAL effort into going after the real criminal copyright infringers who bootleg in mass quantities. But organized crime is much harder to prosecute and build a case against, whereas Joe Average User is a soft target who can't afford to defend him or herself, so they go after them instead.
  Go catch the REAL criminals making MONEY off copying your products, or quit whining. See, we've given you a choice.
15. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DMalic · 2009-07-06 15:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yeah, but honestly. Wouldn't someone at the marketing department mention the fact it looks identical to parodies of piracy PSAs, and that releasing it just might be counterproductive?
16. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hamburgler007 · 2009-07-06 15:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But it can take away your freedom. Most prosecutors won't touch a file sharing case but that doesn't mean they can't.
  From www.copyright.gov:
  
  (a) Criminal Infringement. â" (1) In general. â" Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed â" (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
  This doesn't apply to every file sharer, but it does apply to many more than prosecutors would ever want to go after. But to say they can't take away your freedom for it, when they clearly can if they desire to, is false.
17. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2009-07-06 16:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Got into this argument with someone today. They said they wouldn't be STEALING a movie they want to see. I pointed out that downloading it is hardly stealing when, by my downloading it, I am not depriving a single person from seeing it.
  The car analogy doesn't work unless when I download Big Robots Part 8, someone going to see the movie gets turned away. "Sorry, Goldberg's Pants pirated this film so you can't see it."
  And yet these idiots just don't get how their analogy is utterly flawed. The thing is the media have spent so much time yelling IT'S STEALING! IT'S STEALING! IT'S STEALING! that the majority have bought into the lie put forward by the RIAA, MPAA etc... Despite the fact that they can say it a million times, and it still won't make it true.
  People who get hauled up for downloading are NOT charged with stealing or theft. It'd be better for them if they were because theft, rape etc... Carry far lesser sentences than what they are ACTUALLY charged with. Criminal copyright infringement.
  On a related note, I saw a nice piece of juxtaposition the other day that highlights the insanity. The RIAA verdict saying $84,000 or whatever it was per song, right next to a story saying the victims families of the Air France crash would get $24,000.
  Three human lives are worth one song apparently.
18. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by EdIII · 2009-07-06 16:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Instead they made themselves a joke again.
  Which works exactly again them. It tends to make young people take them less and less seriously. You might as well run a PSA against teen age sex by convincing young men there are teeth in young women's vagina's and their peepee's will turn green and fall off if they touch themselves.
  Of course nobody takes them seriously anymore.
19. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Aphoxema · 2009-07-06 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  As long as I'm making a copy I don't see anything wrong with it!
  
  --
  "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
20. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TheSpoom · 2009-07-06 16:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I bet if I showed this new video to the average 12 year old, they'd think it was some kind of internet sketch comedy thing.
  Ah, but what happens when they target it at a younger audience who doesn't know any better?
  Throw it into a DARE program (anti-drug education for those outside the US; called VIP in some areas of Canada) targeting 10-year olds who don't yet understand its stupidity, let it sit for a few years. Bingo, a generation of well-trained consumers who think free information is pure evil.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
21. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by QuantumG · 2009-07-06 16:12 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  What's hilarious is that you seem to be misusing "illegal" yourself. Hint: it doesn't mean the same thing as "unlawful".
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
22. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TheSpoom · 2009-07-06 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  They're gonna be really pissed when we get Star Trek-style replicators that allow just that.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
23. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by wgoodman · 2009-07-06 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't steal a car? That's exactly what i thought of when i read the summary/looked at the picture!
24. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 16:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The goal is not to prevent piracy but rather appear to be trying. This way they can still count all the "lost sales" on their taxes. They want it to be ignored, the apparent effort makes all the difference.
  http://taxation.lawyers.com/income-tax/Business-Casualty-and-Theft-Loss-Tax-Deductions.html
25. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Xero · 2009-07-06 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Don't miss the klingon part near the end of the video! "To duplicate data is a great dishonor!!!"
26. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Kjella · 2009-07-06 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously though, the first DCTF was happy and upbeat (and for good reason, as many people simply didn't know that copying a floppy was piracy). What happened to that feel? Are we really at a point where we're so influenced by the RIAA/MPAA's ways of doing things that SIIA's first sequel in 17 years immediately jumps to scare tactics?
  "The whippings will continue until the people love us". Then they take a five minute break and say "See, not whipping them doesn't help either but we see the cowering under the whip". And they wonder why people curse and spit at them and pirate like crazy when they turn their backs. Why they even try this approach is beyond me.
  If I was them I'd try a completely different approach, try to focus on "What has this music/movie/whatever given you?" Maybe try to contrast it to a lot of the tedium and hard work that's actually been put into creating and producing it. Make people feel that even though it's money out of their pocket, it's being plowed back into rewarding those people and making more albums, more movies. Of course they'd have to try to conceal all the profit they take out of it, but then they'd at least stand a chance.
  As long as they give the impression they're the sherrif of Nottingham, only out to squeeze more money out of the peasants because the noblemen aren't living extravagantly enough they stand no chance, no matter if there are servants paid by said noblemen. All they'll do is build an army of Merry Men that sooner or later will realize they are strong and come tear the castle down.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
27. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Kadin2048 · 2009-07-06 16:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If it works anything as well as DARE has, I predict the Pirate Party will sweep the midterm elections in 2022 and we'll be singing "Arr to the Chief" in 2024.
  
  --
  "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
28. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 16:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Throw it into a DARE program (anti-drug education for those outside the US; called VIP in some areas of Canada) targeting 10-year olds who don't yet understand its stupidity, let it sit for a few years. Bingo, a generation of well-trained consumers who think free information is pure evil. "
  Great idea! They can eliminate all illegal copying using the same techniques they used to win the war against citize^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrugs!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
29. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by emjay88 · 2009-07-06 16:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You might not like the original, but you might like this...
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4
  
  --
  1178161 is prime...
30. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by WillyDavidK · 2009-07-06 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  [shitload of citations needed]
  
  Anyways, stealing is not necessarily defined by depriving one person of an experience or possession, it's defined by obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy. Sure, if you pirate a movie no one is going to be denied the ability to rightfully buy that movie, but the studio who released the film will have a miniscule amount of nearly untraceable shrink in their revenue stream. It's hardly worthy of a trial IMO, but yes it is stealing, even if its no more detrimental than swiping a magnet from a souvenir shop.
  
  --
  For lack of a better signature...
31. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by EdIII · 2009-07-06 16:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They're gonna be really pissed when we get Star Trek-style replicators that allow just that.
  Why would they? Answer is pretty simple, and pathetic. They would lose control. Not just money, but control.
  If we did have replicators it would solve a huge amount of problems on this planet. Direct conversion of energy into materials we need to sustain life. No more pollution and environmental damage due to manufacturing processes. Starvation would be eliminated, and so would wasteful destruction of food for the purposes of economic voodoo.
  The whole idea of copyrights, and intellectual property is to allow artists and inventors to profit from their work. After a reasonable time period it should be in the public domain. If replicators really could exist, then it could be a direct path for inventors to sell something without needing huge companies and marketing departments.
  Costs would plummet. Well at least, they would be the cost of the replicator and the energy. It would be a great thing for humanity and creators, just a disaster to businesses.
32. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  "What they need is another DCTF, just not corny. If they ran PSAs saying it's important to buy software, otherwise people won't be able to make The Sims 4, Crysis 5, or Barbie Horse Adventures 7: The Mysterious Case of the Calico Clydesdale, they could probably get a whole new generation of kids to think twice about copying."
  Or, get this, they could make GOOD GAMES for a change, and see where that gets them. Just a thought.
33. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2009-07-06 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  The car analogy doesn't work unless when I download Big Robots Part 8, someone going to see the movie gets turned away. "Sorry, Goldberg's Pants pirated this film so you can't see it."
  So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
  After all, that's what you're asserting is the correct analog to copyright violation and you seem to assert it is acceptable.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
34. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 17:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You might as well run a PSA against teen age sex by convincing young men there are teeth in young women's vagina's and their peepee's will turn green and fall off if they touch themselves.
  Wait, that's not true?
  Woo Hoo! Hold my calls!
35. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by GrpA · 2009-07-06 17:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Are you kidding?
  Their marketing department didn't even notice that they made an unauthorized reproduction and depiction of a well known anime character in their video...
  So I would guess that they don't even understand the meaning of the word irony.
  On several levels.
  GrpA
  
  --
  Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
36. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 17:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Please tell me this is sarcasm. I remember going through DARE and how my peers became interested in cannabis and alcohol soon afterwards. DARE had little to no effect on my age group.
37. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by esrobinson · 2009-07-06 17:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you could use my car without having any chance of crashing it and with no wear/fuel usage, I'd be completely fine with it. I'm not going to be upset that you gained some benefit with no negative consequences for me.
38. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DMalic · 2009-07-06 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Point.
39. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by QuantumG · 2009-07-06 17:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No crime has been committed. Where the fuck do you live? Saudi Arabia?
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
40. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by houstonbofh · 2009-07-06 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  The car analogy doesn't work unless when I download Big Robots Part 8, someone going to see the movie gets turned away. "Sorry, Goldberg's Pants pirated this film so you can't see it."
  So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
  After all, that's what you're asserting is the correct analog to copyright violation and you seem to assert it is acceptable.
  No. You might rag on it, or get in a wreck, or pick up nasty street whores and stain my seats. Not to mention ware an tear on the engine, clutch, transmission, and tries. But I am fine with you copying my car any time.
41. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by houstonbofh · 2009-07-06 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I will be the first one to point out my typos. Ha. Spoiled your fun, spelling vulture!
42. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by houstonbofh · 2009-07-06 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Like you, I've always hated the "if you've ever driven even ONE MILE over the limit, that's the same as SERIAL MURDER. IT IS ILLEGAL!!1!ELEVEN!" argument.
  I always wondered why people tried that argument. Most of my friends know I speed like a mad man all the time. So if they win the argument and convince me it is true, I might just go "What the fuck." Bang!
  
  Or I might just ease into it with assault and pop em in the nose.
43. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Gonarat · 2009-07-06 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  If we allow Star Trek type replicators to copy cars, then before you know it GM and Chrysler will go bankrupt, then before you know it Billy Mays will die. We can't allow that to happen. Wait, what's that....
  Never mind. Instead of changing with the times, our pals at the MAFIAA (BSA has honorary membership) has to create another joke video instead. Oh, well...
  
  --
  Beware of Sleestak
44. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by enrevanche · 2009-07-06 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  shut up, car analogies always work
45. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by sa1lnr · 2009-07-06 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  "as many people simply didn't know that copying a floppy was piracy"
  I find this rather amusing, back then near enough every bit of software that I had on floppy explicitly said that I was allowed to copy it for backup purposes.
46. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2009-07-06 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Barbie Horse Adventures 7: The Mysterious Case of the Calico Clydesdale
  Please don't give lousy game makers name advice.
  Particularly when the name you invented is better than most names I've seen that make it out of Focus Group testing.
  on second thought...
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
47. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TheSpoom · 2009-07-06 17:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I remember going through DARE and how my peers became interested in cannabis and alcohol soon afterwards. DARE had little to no effect on my age group.
  Thank God for that. I suspect it does have a lasting effect on more people than you suspect however. Consider that your peer group is not the same as other peer groups, who may be more susceptible to such indoctrination. Geeks tend to be more questioning than most.
  Don't get me wrong, I despise the "war on drugs" just as much as the current attempts to move technology back twenty years. I'm just saying that judging by the previous DCTF ad, they're aiming this at kids, and we should have some sort of counter argument ready for those who don't see the flaws of it immediately.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
48. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TheSpoom · 2009-07-06 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  It would be a disaster to some business.
  Specifically, the kind that doesn't want to adapt, so they try to hold the rest of the world back.
  Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world is pretty damn strong.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
49. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 17:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Anyways, stealing is not necessarily defined by depriving one person of an experience or possession, it's defined by obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy.
  Dictionary.com: "to commit or practice theft." (Theft: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another")
  obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy.
  I copy movie: I get movie, copyright holder gets nothing
  I don't copy movie, and do not buy it: I get nothing, copyright holder still gets nothing.
50. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by noundi · 2009-07-06 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  By the same logic? Are you on acid? He says copying != stealing. He never said copying != crime. The simple minded goes "oh well what's the difference." The difference is that it has been very unclear for entire societies how to handle these cases in their courts, and that associating the word copy with the word steal helps tip the scale.
  
  --
  I am the lawn!
51. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Tatisimo · 2009-07-06 18:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I hope they got permission to use Klingons in their video. If not, I suggest whoever owns Klingons sue the hell out of them! And they better not make one of those retarded "fair use" arguments, those are totally not valid.
  
  --
  Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
52. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by gleffler · 2009-07-06 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  On what planet is stealing defined that way? Can you find one dictionary not authored by a content cartel member that actually defines stealing as "obtaining an item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested"?
53. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 18:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Only if I can use the car while you're using it and still neither of us has trouble finding a parking space despite the other one already using it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
54. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  You mean that obsolete industries would get even stricter protection laws and even bigger bailouts?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
55. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by MaskedSlacker · 2009-07-06 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  Am thinkink you should be notifying said anime studio's lawyers.
56. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TheP4st · 2009-07-06 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they got permission to use Klingons in their video.
  At the end there is a text saying "Star Trek courtesy of CBS Paramount Television".
  On a sidenote, I found the girls comment in DCTF 1 "I'm too young for a life of crime" quite daft as it imply that once you reach a certain age a life of crime is acceptable.
  
  --
  "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
57. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by dbIII · 2009-07-06 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  unauthorized reproduction and depiction of a well known anime character in their video...
  Which one?
  I could watch the video but I suspect an advertising executive's teen prison rape fantasy is not safe for work or good for my stomach contents.
58. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Jurily · 2009-07-06 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, it's not their job. Their job is to force as many people as they can to watch it.
59. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by socsoc · 2009-07-06 18:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Believe me, as a DARE "graduate" we definitely understood how stupid it was at age 10, even if we had yet to ever try any drugs
60. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Reservoir+Penguin · 2009-07-06 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  What if you depended on renting this car for money? Would it still be OK with you to let people use it under stated conditions?
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
61. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by MaskedSlacker · 2009-07-06 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  The only copyright infringements that qualify as criminal acts (from the section you cited) are commercial infringers (the guys selling counterfeit DVDs) or people who leak material pre-release(this counts both pissed off studio employees who don't sell it, and boot-leggers who do). Ripping your CD and putting it on Bittorrent doesn't qualify.
  Moreover, in the US, mere DOWNLOADING is not infringement at all, ever (any more than seeing your neighbor's TV through their window). Only uploading is infringement (or course, most p2p networks automatically upload content you've downloaded, that's how p2p works. But it isn't uploading their rhetoric rails against, it's downloading, the thing that isn't even illegal.
62. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by complete+loony · 2009-07-06 18:57 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  There was a recent piece of "journalism" in australia that tried to make a tenuous link that "if you buy a DVD at a flea market you are funding terrorism", sigh.
  
  --
  09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
63. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by syousef · 2009-07-06 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you could use my car without having any chance of crashing it and with no wear/fuel usage, I'd be completely fine with it. I'm not going to be upset that you gained some benefit with no negative consequences for me.
  Nor would I. The car manufacturer on the other hand would, and if they lost sales they'd argue they have to raise their prices to cover manufacturing costs since people aren't buying the cars but copying them instead. This is exactly what the distributors are arguing.
  The difference is they're not manufacturers. They don't add value as far as I'm concerned.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
64. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by socsoc · 2009-07-06 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, so they need to go to the guys at the swap meet instead of catching some 10 year old trying to fill up his iPod because he can't afford the music anyways? They don't like common sense.
65. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by caerwyn · 2009-07-06 19:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not the same situation. A single car can only be used by a single driver at any given time during the day. If you make use of the car for free, you are depriving the owner of the ability to rent that car for a period of time.
  On the other hand, if you could wave a magic wand and make an instant copy of the car, your driving of that copy would not deprive the owner of the ability to rent the original in the meantime. It might decrease the value of said rental due to the availability of a free alternative, but it does not, in fact, deprive the owner of any property or any period of time.
  
  --
  The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
66. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Sobrique · 2009-07-06 19:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Always thought the best 'anti-piracy' ad would be from e.g. a set carpenter on a blockbuster - saying something like: "hi. My name's Mike. I work on the set here, where they're making the ${latest_big_blockbuster}. I'm not a 'big name' - I get paid ${reasonable_amount} per (day/month/year), and I quite like my job - I like making movies, that you can see in the cinema or on DVD. I'd like to thank you for paying for (your cinema ticket|this DVD). You see, it's the sales of the film that determine whether they make another one or not - and that means I get to keep my job, and you get to enjoy another film."
67. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Sobrique · 2009-07-06 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Good game + appeal to audience (if you like it, please consider paying for it, so we can stay in business) is in my opinion the only way a publisher can expect to stay in business - it's been proven time and again that breaking copy protection isn't that hard - it only makes sense, because you give me the bits to 'unlock' my game, and then try and control how and when I do is just doomed to failure.
68. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Sobrique · 2009-07-06 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  "The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."
  That's why 'copyright infringement' can _never_ be "theft".
69. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Sobrique · 2009-07-06 19:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Even if there were a crime committed, it wouldn't be 'theft'. (Adultery also, isn't illegal in a lot of places)
70. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Sobrique · 2009-07-06 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  If the car was still available to generate rental revenue 24/7, then yes - which incidentally, is the case with digital content - just because someone has 'borrowed' it, doesn't mean the next person is unable to 'buy' it.
71. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by maxwell+demon · 2009-07-06 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  Kid copies some software, ends up making prison tattoos and being chased (so he can be beaten/killed) because he wasn't good at making the tattoo.
  Moral: If you copy software, make sure you can make good tattoos.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
72. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by binford2k · 2009-07-06 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that would be reasonable and they're not a reasonable bunch.
  Never mind that your ad would probably be a hell of a lot more effective.
73. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by quadrox · 2009-07-06 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  But that wouldn't work because the point is not to get every upstanding citizen to pay for what they enjoy watching, the point is to squeeze out every last penny out of every person who ever comes into contact with a movie in any way possible.
  Most people who enjoy a movie already pay for it. It's everybody else they are after.
74. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by mrchaotica · 2009-07-06 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is they're not manufacturers. They don't add value as far as I'm concerned.
  If cars could be copied easily (using Star Trek-style replicators or something) then manufacturers wouldn't add value either.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
75. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Thanshin · 2009-07-06 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  You might as well run a PSA against teen age sex by convincing young men there are teeth in young women's vagina's
  
  I don't understand the effect they'd be looking for with that one. They obviously have teeth in their mouths too.
  It'd be like saying "You know what you're already doing with your gf? Well, the rest is at most exactly as risky, so don't worry."
76. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by mrchaotica · 2009-07-06 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't apply to every file sharer, but it does apply to many more than prosecutors would ever want to go after.
  No, this doesn't apply to any file sharer. Note the key phrase: "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." If you're not making a profit off it -- and I've never heard of anybody making a profit file-sharing -- then it can't be criminal infringement.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
77. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-07-06 20:29 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Throw it into a DARE program (anti-drug education for those outside the US; called VIP in some areas of Canada) targeting 10-year olds who don't yet understand its stupidity, let it sit for a few years. Bingo, a generation of well-trained consumers who think free information is pure evil.
  Have you looked around the schools today? 10 year olds are too busy seeding so they can get more out of those private trackers. While stoned.
78. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by icebraining · 2009-07-06 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  "the studio who released the film will have a minuscule amount of nearly untraceable shrink in their revenue stream."
  Why? The only lost revenue they can claim is if you establish the downloader would buy the film if (s)he couldn't download it. What if the downloader isn't willing to pay the price even if (s)he can't download it? Where's the lost revenue?
  Swiping a magnet from a souvenir shop is completely different: they had to pay for that specific copy of the object and now they can't sell that copy. When a file is downloaded, a *new copy* of the object is created, so the shop would be able to sale exactly as many copies as before.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
79. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by jimshatt · 2009-07-06 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  ... there are teeth in young women's vagina's and their peepee's will turn green and fall off if they touch themselves.
  Young women have peepee's? Yuck!
80. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-07-06 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, I wouldn't steal a car.
  
  However, I might steal a policemans' helmet!
  
  Requires sound.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
81. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Your.Master · 2009-07-06 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
  Several of these come down on the side of "intent to deprive", most are ambiguous, and some support the taking of things you don't have the right to, eg. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent".
  I think intuitively both work and any native speaker could prefer either. I'm a native speaker and taking without consent is how I would have defined it if you just asked me directly.
  The problem is that historically, there has rarely been a difference. Nevertheless, we've long had the verbal concepts like "stealing my idea" or "stealing my thunder" that only work with the "no consent" interpretation (or with the deprivation of potential gain from your idea or your "thunder" or whatnot, which still applies).
82. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 21:07 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Maybe they live in Michigan ?
83. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by maxwell+demon · 2009-07-06 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if copying the purse also includes copying the money inside, you're counterfeiting money.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
84. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by mrrudge · 2009-07-06 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  Me also, I'm now thirty six, is that old enough ? The infomercial made me do it, your honor.
85. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Dr_Barnowl · 2009-07-06 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations have just become a parasitic entity perched on the back of humanity anyway. Their original purpose was to provide a service to society - they each had a charter that laid out their responsibilities (e.g. - build this bridge, build a road, etc) and the corporation ended when they were fulfilled.
  Since then they gained the rights of a person, which isn't strictly fair because they don't have any of the limitations of a person - people are not immortal, or gifted with a thousand hands.
  I think this kind of technology is possible. It's also so tempting to implement that it's almost inevitable. The question is who gets it first ; is it going to be a totalitarian regime (be that a government or a powerful corporation), or is it going to be "the people"? If corporations realize how much power it can grant them (and they're not universally clueless), they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it. The tinfoil hatted part of me thinks that this is one reason why they are so keen on getting DRM right - they're investing in their future.
86. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by mcvos · 2009-07-06 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  So you're fine with me using your car without your permission as long as I replace the gas/fluids I use and get it back before you wake up?
  That's certainly a much better analogy. Not entirely perfect, because you can still crash the car or commit some traffic violation with it or do anything else with it that hurts the original owner. But if you return the car with no damage whatsoever without the owner noticing it was even gone, then it certainly wasn't theft. I think it'd count as joyriding, although that is also potentially more damaging to the owner than copying.
87. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by CmdrGravy · 2009-07-06 21:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Actually no, it would be a disastrous thing for humanity since the very first I am going to use my replicator for is to churn out a billion strong army of 50M long venomous flying crocodiles with a taste for human blood.
88. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by dbIII · 2009-07-06 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, did they give KÅsuke Fujishima a cut for using his work from "Oh My Goddess"? Obviously not, but now we have a name for whose copyright they are infringing for this ad about copyright infringement.
89. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-06 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  If they ran PSAs saying it's important to buy software
  That is completely irrelevant. People already desperately *want* to buy stuff. The problem is, that it's way too expensive for what it's worth, and we have way to little money!
  It is insulting and arrogant, to call us thieves because they can't make games and software that are actually worth their money, and then whine when we copy stuff, costing them exactly ZERO dollars.
  Maybe if they stopped thinking of software as a good, and started to think of it as a service, they would come up with business model that does not try to defy physics!
  Oh, and actually having a real experience in the game, instead of plastic-fantastic digital bling-bling (I look at you, EA, Crytek, etc.), could help with the worth too.
  I hope my game project (actually based on a service business model with business ethics) will be a success, because I will stomp them into the ground, and then give interviews in game magazines, consisting only of maniacal laughter! XD
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
90. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by testadicazzo · 2009-07-06 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  The message that I get from the video, and I hope the message that kids will get, is that the U.S. legal system is seriously out of step with cultural and technological innovation, and requires serious overhaul, especially with regard to copyright law.
91. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by gsslay · 2009-07-06 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  with no negative consequences for me.
  Except that next year you'll want a new car model and find that they aren't interested in creating newer models. Why? Because too many people weren't buying the last model. Sure, you could go just 'copy' someone else's. But the point comes when everyone is copying and no-one's buying. End result is no-one's producing.
  So does that count as a negative consequence? The problem here is people are basically only interested in their own direct self interest. Any negative consequence that results from more than one step in the chain is simply too remote to worry them. It's someone else's problem.
92. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by selven · 2009-07-06 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Something that is illegal can be lawful. For example, moving your pawn forward three squares in chess is an illegal move (against the rules) but it's not unlawful (against the law).
93. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hattig · 2009-07-06 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Every time you see this advert, please make a complaint to whoever you make complaints to about unethical, unreasonable, bullying advertising in the USA.
  * waiting for www.tuneweasel.se *
94. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 21:48 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Correct. You have deprived me of nothing. Given that my wife is a sentient human being and not a duplicate of inert data she can make up her own mind who she sleeps with. After all its not like she's my property.
  Because you wouldn't be suggesting that would you?
95. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by MukiMuki · 2009-07-06 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Just as long as those PSA's don't air right before my (store-purchased) game's title screen loads. Seriously, that shit is how violence happens.
96. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hairyfeet · 2009-07-06 22:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I honestly think they are just wasting their cash. Kids today are a HELL of a lot more cynical than we were in the 80s. They see the corruption, the obvious payoffs, the lies and the bullshit.
  Remember a few years ago when they had that little forced 'public service message" that they forced kids to watch at school? They did that at my oldest's school, and when he told me about it he was standing with a whole bunch of other kids waiting to be picked up. Nearly all the kids had iPods or Sandisks or some other MP3 player blasting in one ear while they had the other free for bullshitting. So I asked the kids "what did you think about it?" and their answer was pretty much variations on "RIAA are greedy pigs".
  So I really don't think it'll work. They have watched as every politician from Obama on down have been more than happy to do a 180 for a nice fat check, they think the entire system is total bullshit (I can't even convince mine to vote when they turn 18 "what is the point? They'll just take bribes and ignore you anyway" is what I get) and therefor are gonna do whatever the hell they want and give you the finger if you say something about it. So much for that whole "youth can change the world" huh?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
97. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Fred_A · 2009-07-06 22:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So I would guess that they don't even understand the meaning of the word irony.
  On several levels.
  But then, why would metallurgists work for the RIAA ?
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
98. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by jez9999 · 2009-07-06 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Someone would dupe a nuclear bomb. Or at least a bunker buster. And tanks. And AK47s. I predict that very shortly after replicator technology is invented, the human race will be destroyed.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
99. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DangerFace · 2009-07-06 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've begun to suspect, in my dirty, cynical little mind, that the RIAA/MPAA et al actually realise that copying is exposing people to more works, and posting them record profits, which is why they do this crap - it isn't in a genuine attempt to stop copying, it's an attempt to make them seem more of a joke and less of a threatening MAFIAA who will take you to court for $* million just for a few mp3s, which is just another revenue stream to them at this point.
  
  --
  Be smart, help people!
100. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Fred_A · 2009-07-06 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they got permission to use Klingons in their video.
  At the end there is a text saying "Star Trek courtesy of CBS Paramount Television".
  On a sidenote, I found the girls comment in DCTF 1 "I'm too young for a life of crime" quite daft as it imply that once you reach a certain age a life of crime is acceptable.
  Now you got me wondering if I'm too old for a life of crime.
  Maybe I've missed my calling.
  apt-get installs amule
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
101. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DangerFace · 2009-07-06 23:15 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Hold on just one second. You mean that, because I downloaded this copy of Ubuntu for free, and maintain it with free software, that there will never be a new version of Ubuntu! Oh no!
  Except, and bear with me here, I had Ubuntu when it was 5.10, and they are currently planning the release of 9.10. Also, when I dl software straight from the Ubuntu servers I'll get a few hundred KB/s, but on Windoze I get a few tens of KB/s.
  It must just be like all those artists that give away their work for free - really we all know that they are SECRET MAGICIANS, funded by OSAMA BIN LADEN in order to BRING DOWN THE CORPORATIONS THAT LOVE AND PROTECT US!
  To be judged a success nowadays, films have to make a profit pretty much immediately upon release. By the time they go on sale as DVDs they are a massive commercial flop if they haven't made profit. Music should be free because it costs practically nothing to produce - many musicians play music at a stunning loss, and still keep doing it - Christ, I've spent a couple of grand easy on musical equipment, and have made Â£~100. Games should be paid for, because they are expensive and hard to produce, but if I bought every game I wanted to play I wouldn't have any money left over to pay my electricity bill, rendering the purchases pointless.
  
  --
  Be smart, help people!
102. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Sfing_ter · 2009-07-06 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sancho? is that you?
  
  --
  A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
103. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hamburgler007 · 2009-07-06 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  The only copyright infringements that qualify as criminal acts (from the section you cited) are commercial infringers (the guys selling counterfeit DVDs) or people who leak material pre-release(this counts both pissed off studio employees who don't sell it, and boot-leggers who do). Ripping your CD and putting it on Bittorrent doesn't qualify.
  It's A,B, OR C. If you downloaded the god awful Wolverine via movie via bittorrent simply to watch when it was leaked before its release, you have committed a criminal act. If you use bittorrent to download 1000 songs in half a year, or an expensive piece of software and some songs, or perhaps even just enough songs to available on seperately packaged cd's that total over $1000, you have committed a criminal act. I use bittorrent as an example since even without having fully downloaded you may be uploading (ie distribution).
  I'm not saying that I agree with the law on this, but to claim that it is not a criminal act because it isn't for commercial purposes, or because it isn't something widely prosecuted, is incorrect.
104. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hamburgler007 · 2009-07-06 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want to be redundant as I just posted a reply to a similar post, but it's A,B, OR C.
105. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DMalic · 2009-07-06 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  After the leaked mediasentry emails, we know their subsidiaries tracking pirated use and sending out nastygrams know exactly what's going on. One of them included a flowchart mocking the RIAA; another mentioned taking time to laugh at the idea of college students not pirating anymore.
106. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by NES+HQ · 2009-07-06 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  My DARE officer got caught stealing lawnmowers from Wal-Mart. Seriously.
107. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by that+IT+girl · 2009-07-06 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  ...but it can't take away your freedom.
  Yet.
  
  --
  10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
  20 DRINK COFFEE
  30 GOTO 10
108. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by TrekkieGod · 2009-07-06 23:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That was literally my first thought when I saw this, but I checked out other videos by that YouTube user and it looks totally legit. If this is a joke, they went a long way.
  They went a long way. If you go to their user page, you can see that the user joined youtube on April 1st this year. I guess they liked the joke too much to let it go after april fools.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
109. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by thisnamestoolong · 2009-07-07 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  The magic copy would also not be painted, have vinyl seats instead of leather, would have no A/C, and would have a (shudder) AM/FM radio instead of a CD player, meaning that the car rental business would STILL not be in danger of going under as people STILL have a reason to rent the original car. When you buy a CD you get album art and higher quality sound. I have downloaded many a song and then gone back later to buy the CD. Well, that was until the RIAA sent me a nice little letter. Now I don't illegally download anymore, and I don't buy the +/- 3 CDs per week that I was buying before. Good job assholes.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
110. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Culture20 · 2009-07-07 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  What are you worried about? They obviously fall off. BTW, read up on female hyenas some time...
111. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by tgatliff · 2009-07-07 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  The think that gets me about all of this is no balance... No one is talking about microsoft word literally being the standard and until StarOffice there was no way around not using it, but yet MS office is $500+.
  Groups like these want to "herd" people, but piracy is a balancing force.... The more they charge, the higher the piracy rate, but no one will talk about that fact...
112. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by sammyF70 · 2009-07-07 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  yep. Think of that, all you system administrators! Everytime you do a backup of your servers, you dishonor your company!
  
  --
  "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
113. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by cheekyboy · 2009-07-07 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of the car company taking the brand new car out of the factory out for a test drive, with perfect odometer checked before hand. They had cruise control etc computers making sure it did not go above 100km/ph, yet they got booked by automatic cameras/speedo equipment under bridges that clocked them doing 106kph.
  Tell me whats illegal and whats fraud then. The driver, or the fucking government twats that do nothing meaningful in their lives but read 800 page reports and believe in them, then sign off on them.
  In my world, one stuff up like that in the speedo/camera company and out goes the contract, get lost. So the state looses 300M in revenue, who cares, the people will LOVE THE govt then.
  I say send the jail the staff and lawyers every one who approved this company as indirect accomplaces. Hey turds, ignorance of the law is not an excuse as some dumbasses say.
  
  --
  Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
114. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by bitt3n · 2009-07-07 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  ends up making prison tattoos and being chased (so he can be beaten/killed) because he wasn't good at making the tattoo.
  usually you copy a tattoo from tattoo flash art. clearly his copying skills needed more work
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
115. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Genom · 2009-07-07 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you've got to figure that, at least at first, it'll be hard to create complex devices. "Computer - make me a 1/2 megaton warhead" would be a lot harder than "Computer - make me a 3/4" spanner".
  That having been said, there will be folks using them to make *parts* for nefarious devices. And, if the tech makes it far along enough to be able to make complex machinery, I'm sure there will be folks that *do* try to make weapons.
  And, I'm sure the folks who make these devices will think of this, and put in some kind of controls to prevent wholesale creation of, for example, machine guns. However, those controls will obviously be in software, and will be able to be circumvented with the right amount of effort. And of course there will be those willing to put in that effort.
116. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-07 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  They're gonna be really pissed when we get Star Trek-style replicators that allow just that.
  They are starting to exist - tools today can recreate part remotely from electronic data; making it unnecessary to ship a part from a warehouse or stock large number of spares.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
117. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by dyingtolive · 2009-07-07 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had mod points for you right now. You just made about 3 people all turn and look at me.
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
118. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by mysidia · 2009-07-07 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait for the sequel to the Smokey Bear PSAs.
  The ad can depict a perpetrator who dropped a cigarette getting carried out to the woods for punishment.
  No more are the days where the bear just asks you nicely to follow the rules. You don't want a horde of angry bear rangers after you? You better put out that cigarette properly, rather than just throwing it to the forest floor.
119. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by drinkypoo · 2009-07-07 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but what happens when they target it at a younger audience who doesn't know any better? Throw it into a DARE program
  When I was 10 I had already seen the mainstream press report on the CIA importing cocaine into the USA, and on their invention of crack cocaine. When I was seven I heard a girl who I had no reason to distrust tell a story about how her father got pulled over for doing ten over the limit on highway 1 while people were zipping past him, and the top literally said "you were easier to catch".
  Any kid who doesn't know by the age of ten that the powers that be lie to you constantly is beyond help. They're one of these people who are going to peak in high school. You know these people, they were jocks or bullies who didn't have the chutzpah to make something out of their precarious position over their peers. They will never even have a real career, just a job. You can't do anything to save these kids from becoming part of the machine.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
120. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by cthulu_mt · 2009-07-07 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  My DARE officer is the town judge. Thankfully I don't live there anymore.
  
  --
  Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
121. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by drinkypoo · 2009-07-07 01:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Which works exactly again them. It tends to make young people take them less and less seriously. You might as well run a PSA against teen age sex by convincing young men there are teeth in young women's vagina's
  Of course not... not with gums like that! Sheesh.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
122. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Chris+Pimlott · 2009-07-07 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you're depending on income from renting your car in a world where car usage is free, you'd better start working on your plan B...
123. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by FreonTrip · 2009-07-07 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think that the grandparent was right. If results at my school were any indication, the less questioning peer groups ultimately enjoyed drugs and alcohol more than we did - DARE's images of consequence education might have kept kids from going completely overboard, but did very little to quell kids' desires to escape from the monotony of small-town life.
124. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by furby076 · 2009-07-07 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously though, the first DCTF was happy and upbeat (and for good reason, as many people simply didn't know that copying a floppy was piracy). What happened to that feel?
  
  You just answered it. People, early on, didn't know copying was bad. In fact programmers were taught in school, or home-brewed, to copy code from others (just cite the source of the code in your code or give a link to their website or e-mail address assuming they had one). Now a days practically everyone knows about anti-piracy laws. They are plastered all over.
  
  Don't get me wrong - based on the description of the video (haven't seen it) I think this thing is extreme but there should be a middle ground...showing some 10 y/o kid that his mom will be hauled off and he will be some deviant 30 y/os sexual play thing is excessive.
  
  --
  
  I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
125. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by LanMan04 · 2009-07-07 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Beware of Pillow Pants! He bites!
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
126. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by furby076 · 2009-07-07 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  generation of well-trained consumers who think free information is pure evil.
  I agreed with you until this point
  1) History has proven that no matter how much brain-washing gov't has done over the years humans have an innate knowledge of what is good and what is evil. It's instinct.
  2) Just because information is not free does not make it evil. Not all information has a cost. Also, games/music/movies aren't just information, they are products. Some of them made with the intent of profit. That is OK. Nothing wrong with someone saying "Hey i am going to spend X hours and money to create a product so I can make Y profit". If you want that latest and greatest game from whatever company you like to buy games from you need to realize they are in it for profit. Even if they were in it to just break even they would still need to sell you the stuff (remember they incur costs to create whatever product they are selling).
  
  Pay products are not evil. Free products are not evil. Let the copyright owners/patent owners/etc make the decision of how to distribute their product. You can always opt to not buy/download/take/use it
  
  --
  
  I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
127. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by elrous0 · 2009-07-07 02:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  DARE cracked me up. The essential message was "Kids, if you ever smoke a joint, you're going to end up dying in the gutter." Especially funny now, considering that our last three U.S. Presidents were all avowed "druggies" (by DARE's standards). Maybe they should create a new "Kids, if you don't toke, you'll never get to be President" campaign.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
128. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by tbannist · 2009-07-07 02:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, they actually did that PSA.
  The only problems were:
  A) They hired an actor to pretend to be a set builder.
  B) He was griping that he "only" worked 8 months a year.
  C) He was griping that he "only" earned $88,000 USD a year.
  D) He accused everyone watching the movie of being thieves.
  We talked to a local movie theater owner and politely explained that the anti-piracy advertisement was insulting his customers and making them feel unwelcome in his theater. We also mentioned that the message that his customer's hard earned money (most of whom make less in a year than the fake set builder makes in 8 months) should go to pay a relatively well off guy living in California to work less and earn more than them was not going to be received the way it was intended. Lastly we pointed out that the people in the theater have already *paid* for their ticket, if they were going to steal the movie they'd be at home in front of their computers and never see the PSA. Since that chat, I haven't seen that PSA or any other anti-piracy PSAs in theaters around here.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
129. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by billybacs · 2009-07-07 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Or the movie Teeth....worst. movie. ever. IT'S VAGINA DENTATA!!!!!!!! ::while every guy tries to rape her and promptly has their unit chomped off::
130. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Alsee · 2009-07-07 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  [shitload of citations needed]
  Ok, will the US Supreme Court be an acceptable source for citation?
  the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel.... the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple 'goods, wares, merchandise'... It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "'Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, 'is an infringer of the copyright.'"
  The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: 'Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, 'is an infringer of the copyright.
  The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use.
  There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft
  the copyright holder owns only a bundle of intangible rights which can be infringed, but not stolen
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
131. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by tbannist · 2009-07-07 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, here's a little known fact: Speedometers aren't very accurate. They can't be because they interpret the speed of the car based on how fast the wheels are turning, but they have no automated way of knowing the dimensions of the tire. New tires are thicker than old tires, and thus a car with new tires will actually be traveling faster than a car with old tires. One rotation of a thicker tire pushes the car further than one rotation of a thinner tire and thus while you're brand new speedometer may say 100 kph, you may actually be traveling at 106 kph.
  Of course, this is goes to show that the person who set up the automated speeding ticket system is too ignorant to be allowed to continue doing that job. You need to build in margins of error into the systems and understand the logistics of the real world.
  There was an ample demonstration of this principle outside Toronto, Canada. A pair of guys who got tickets for speeding for doing something like 106 kph on a 100 kph highway teamed up and drove at exactly 100 kph beside one another along the highway. The effect of both drivers actually driving at the speed limit was to create a giant traffic jam behind them that took hours to unsnarl itself. And while they were ticketed again for public mischief, I think they proved the point that the traffic system can't handle a large volume of people strictly obeying the laws.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
132. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Alsee · 2009-07-07 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah? Well I'M going to use MY replicator make an army of TWO billion giant space pandas with a taste for venomous-crocodile blood!
  And THEN I'm going to make an army of NINE HUNDRED NINTY NINE billion teleporting ants with titanium jaws, with a taste for devouring everyone else's replicators! Muahahahahahah!
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
133. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Xenious · 2009-07-07 02:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I am so calling my wife on her bluff now! ;)
  
  --
  -Xen
134. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DavidTC · 2009-07-07 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  And, and we have the concept of 'stealing my girlfriend', too, but that doesn't mean that's legally plausible either. (Despite the fact that does deprive you of something.)
  And stealing someone's thunder does deprive them of said thunder. That's the point. Same with stealing 'my idea', which usually means either depriving me of the 'credit for my idea' or the 'profit from my idea'.
  Just because something is a figure of speech doesn't mean it's actually a rational, but, more important, those three concepts all, indeed, are the concept that you rightfully had something (Although, legally speaking, they were not things you 'owned'.)
  By which we can conclude that people often use metaphors that invest property rights in things they don't legally have property rights in, and thus being deprived of those things is 'theft'.
  It doesn't provide any examples of people using 'theft' as a metaphor for things they aren't deprived of.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
135. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DavidTC · 2009-07-07 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's worth noting that using someone's car without permission is actually legal as long as you do not deprive them of it or harm it in any way.
  However, burning their gas or using their electricity is, indeed, harming it, even if you replace those things. It is 'theft by conversion' to burn someone's gasoline, regardless of if you replace it, just like it's illegal to embezzle money and then immediately pay it back.
  Granted, they'll usually charge you with car theft if they catch you, on the assumption you were actually stealing the car. Moving something is fairly clear evidence you were depriving people of it. But if you were to actually return it before anyone noticed, or just run it in place, perhaps for the AC, they could not charge you with auto theft, just using gas and power.
  And other laws make it illegal to enter or start someone's car without permission, as the assumption is you will steal it or something in it, but those laws are akin to breaking and entering laws, where simply being and doing something make it very likely you're about to commit a larger crime, and hence they themselves are illegal. It is not 'theft' itself.
  But you can use their car as, for example, a table if you want. You can legally walk up to random people's parked cars, throw a tablecloth on them, pull up some chairs, and eat dinner off them. You can climb in the back of people's pickups and walk around there. All legal.
  They'll get upset, and can sue you if you accidentally cause damage to their car (Which is not the same as driving it, which deliberately burns their gas, and hence is theft.), but barring any damage, it's entirely legal.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
136. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by dstech · 2009-07-07 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, studies suggest that DARE has no long-term effects on drug use: http://www.apa.org/releases/dare.html
137. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DinDaddy · 2009-07-07 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Both of you guys' electric bills are going through the roof.
  Dopey mad scientists never consider all the angles.
138. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by greyhueofdoubt · 2009-07-07 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Prostitution is a misdemeanor and will not get one a lot of time in jail.
  IANAP, nor a customer, but I do know some people. Let's just say that the state you get caught in has a lot do with your punishment. And misdemeanor doesn't always mean a slap on the wrist.
  http://prostitution.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=000119
  That is some serious jail time and fines for what is often an already economically disadvantaged group. If you are self-employed and unmarried, getting caught can mean losing your car and choosing to either pay $3,000 or spend a month in prison.
  But if you do it for free or sell photographs of yourself doing it, or pay other people to do it in front of a camera, it's legal.
  -b
  
  --
  No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
139. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Alsee · 2009-07-07 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Typically the worst that you can be hit for with copyright violation is fines
  Incorrect. The US at least has long had criminal penalties for serious commercial infringement operations... and for the last several years congress has been passing legislation that has been LITERALLY written by the lawyers employed by the copyright industry. Not only is that text written to openly pander to the copyright industry's demands, those industry lawyers slipped a number of trick clauses into the text. One such example is in the N.E.T. Act where they slipped in a redefinition of the term "financial gain" which magically swept virtually all P2P usage (and even old school mix-tape trading) under the commercial-infringement criminal statutes. Under US law virtually everyone who has ever touched a P2P app (or traded mix-tapes with a friend) is technically a felon subject to a year - and in most cases up to three years - in prison. Probably something like 20 percent of the population or more is technically guilty of felony criminal copyright infringement. Probably 80 to 100 percent of the people here on Slashdot are guilty of felony criminal copyright infringement.... guilty under the felony commercial-infringement statutes for committing infringement for "financial gain" under the new definition. We would need to build five to ten times as many prison cells to hold many tens of millions of people for the next one-to-three tears.
  A note to those across the rest of the world, many other countries have done the same thing or are being heavily lobbied to do the same thing, often under the phrase "commercial scale" infringement. By adding "or commercial scale infringement" to the law, any infringement involving the internet gets swept under the hard criminal laws supposedly reserved for major commercial piracy operations. For example Australia added a "commercial scale" clause to their law punishable by up to 5 years in prison, or up to to two years for an individual who commits commercial scale infringement through "negligence". Oh gee, how REASONABLE of them.... children who have an infringing music file in a P2P share folder or who put an infringing file on their webpage... the law generously says they only face TWO years instead of five years for their special-case merely individual act of merely negligent infringement on a "commercial scale".
  I'm not up to date on the latest activity, but the European Union has repeatedly been pushing for a directive that would not only criminalize "commercial scale" infringement, it would criminalize attempting, aiding, abetting, or inciting "commercial scale" infringement. Not just P2P software, but FTP and webserver and all sorts of routine internet-related software programming potentially becomes criminal. Last I heard one part of the EU legislature had actually voted to passed this law, but that it failed or stalled in another part of the process.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
140. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Alsee · 2009-07-07 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  The only copyright infringements that qualify as criminal acts (from the section you cited) are commercial infringers (the guys selling counterfeit DVDs) or people who leak material pre-release
  In 1998 the NET act REDEFINED "financial gain" to include "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works". Anyone who has every used P2P, or has swapped old school mix tapes with a friend, actually falls within the harsh "commercial infringement" criminal statutes.
  Moreover, in the US, mere DOWNLOADING is not infringement at all
  The creation of a copy is a violation of the copyright reproduction right. I agree that the person SENDING a file is the one who knows the actual contents, and is the only one who knows if he is authorized to send it, and that it makes infinitely more sense to place the legal responsibility on that end, but under US law and the law of pretty well ever other country on earth, the person on the downloading end is indeed violating the law. If I send you a copyrighted work and I tell you I am an authorized distributor for that work when I'm not, or even if I tell you I'm sending a public-domain work and I instead send a different infringing copyrighted work, under US law you are technically liable for copyright infringement for downloading and creating a copy of that work. The "good news" is that the law does have a specific clause for you to then claim you are an "innocent infringer". The legal burden is upon YOU to prove in court your innocent infringer status, and if you succeed the result is that the usual $750 minimum-per-work damages is lowered to a $200-minimum-per work damages. Even if you prove your "innocent infringer" status you are still legally guilty of infringement and still hit with a $200 minimum damages per work.
  I'm not DEFENDING that law - but yes that is in fact what US copyright law says. The nation would grind to a complete halt if we were to fully enforce all of the insane facts of our copyright law.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
141. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Alsee · 2009-07-07 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately you're wrong about that.
  In 1998 the NET act REDEFINED "financial gain" to include "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works". Anyone who has ever used P2P, or has swapped old school mix tapes with a friend, actually falls within the harsh "commercial infringement" criminal statutes.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
142. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by botik32 · 2009-07-07 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the key word here is 'taking'. When one downloads something they do not take, they copy.
143. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by sfarmstrong · 2009-07-07 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Moreover, it's misleading to call all those activities "unlawful." Just because you do something that gives someone a legal remedy against you, doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes, it's actually a good thing when a party breaches a legal obligation. For example, see efficient breach theory.
  Mind you, I don't think breach of copyright is analogous to an efficient breach, because infringement usually means the rights-holder gets no compensation. It's a complicated question.
  At any rate, "illegal" doesn't have an inherent meaning. There are only breaches of obligations, and consequences ensuing from those breaches.
144. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2009-07-07 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  ,Only if I can use the car while you're using it and still neither of us has trouble finding a parking space despite the other one already using it.
  I already posited that I would have it back before you needed it, so you would have no need to use it while I'm using it. And the parking space problem likewise resolves itself.
  Please leave the key in the door, and reply with your address and schedule. Thanks!
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
145. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2009-07-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely perfect, because you can still crash the car or commit some traffic violation with it or do anything else with it that hurts the original owner.
  I could also add rootkits into a Windows 7 torrent, hurting Microsoft's reputation for security (please leave dumb flames at home; You can use OS X Snow Leopard and Apple instead). It harms the original owners of their ability to have a homogenous and more secure operating system market, which seems far worse (even correcting for their size and asset base as compared to yours) to a purely cosmetic scratch on your bumper (for instance).
  Or imagine if Sony CDs were completely fine, but all the Somy CDs that I created and used their logo on contained rootkits? They lost at least some sales as part of the boycott that ensued.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
146. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DavidTC · 2009-07-07 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Oddly enough, counterfeiting money is probably the closest analogy to copyright infringement under the law.
  ...and absolutely no one considers that 'theft'.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
147. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by DavidTC · 2009-07-07 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Make people feel that even though it's money out of their pocket, it's being plowed back into rewarding those people and making more albums, more movies. Of course they'd have to try to conceal all the profit they take out of it, but then they'd at least stand a chance.
  That's the real joke. The reason they don't try that, is that they do suck so much money out that any human face they put on it either has to be a) a big name star who they pay well, but everyone knows is rich, so no one cares if they have a job or b) someone that gets paid crap.
  Yeah, they could run an ad saying: 'Here is James Smith, a key grip (Disclaimer, I have no idea what a 'key grip' does.) who worked on Terminator, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, who, thanks to widespread pirating, had such low ratings (insert graph showing how estimated pirating hurt ratings) that the ad purchases didn't cover production costs (insert another graph), so it was canceled, and he has now lost his job. (insert shot of his family) Pirating costs real people jobs, don't do it.'...
  ...until someone looks up what percentage of the profits he was making and learns he was making 1/100,000th an episode vs. how much the studio will make...and it would have been half that if not for his union. And people will say 'So, if it's that important, why didn't you just pay your president, who doesn't appear to do any work on the show at all, 5% less and cover all their salaries?'
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
148. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Nathrael · 2009-07-07 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...and that's why universal assemblers and similar technology will most likely be outlawed or kept strictly in the hands of the big governments.
  
  --
  A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
149. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-07 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I've been wondering for about a week whether our society is has gotten more cynical or if I've just been noticing it more. I'm 27, so my adult years have coincided with Oklahoma City, OJ Simpson, Monica Lewinsky, Kosovo, the 2000 election, 9/11, and George W. Bush. Not a fun time for a person who is taking their first looks at the wider world. Since I wasn't that aware of the world before that, I've generally assumed things have always been like this.
  Then an odd thing happened last week. This famous singer died. I never really listened to his music as a kid, so, like millions of others, I thought I'd try it out. As I expected, it was good but overrated. But there was one thing I did not expect. It was positive. Shockingly positive. I realized I hadn't heard something so devoid of cynicism in years. Decades.
  So I have evidence that society may not always have been like it was today. And now I read this anecdote about kids being more cynical than I was.
  I have to know. So older slashdotters, has the last decade been more cynical than the decades before it? Did people really used to believe in things, or is that looking at history with rose-colored glasses?
150. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by matt20102 · 2009-07-07 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that DCTF was sketch comedy...
151. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hairykrishna · 2009-07-07 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Anti drug campaigns are always ridiculous. Anyone remember "Winners don't use drugs"? I guess Michael Phelps never played arcade games.
  
  --
  "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
152. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Stormwatch · 2009-07-07 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  When you buy a CD you get album art and higher quality sound.
  I never cared much about cover art, but I enjoyed following the lyrics from the booklet. And it infuriated me to buy an album and find that the booklet had no lyrics, or incomplete lyrics. Especially before I got 'net access, it wasn't easy to find lyrics.
  
  Quality sound? Well, FLAC takes care of that. But if you can actually hear the difference between a a 320k MP3 and a CD... you probably should shoot for the high end: rather than CD, get music in SACD, DVD-Audio, or vinyl.
  
  Also, consider that today's music is, more often than not, ENGINEERED TO SOUND LIKE SHIT.
  
  Back in my ignorant teen years, I thought musicians would try to make their music sound the best. They'd hire the best engineers, people who worked on the most advanced systems, so at any distortion, I thought - they must be doing something awesome that my humble boombox just can't handle. And if I could only afford a good stereo, I'd get that awesomeness. No, I was mistaken. They were not going for quality, but for sheer loudness - the audio equivalent of a dick size contest. It sounded like shit in my boombox because the mastering was shit. And I'm not going to waste money on shit.
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
153. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Danse · 2009-07-07 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
  Several of these come down on the side of "intent to deprive", most are ambiguous, and some support the taking of things you don't have the right to, eg. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent".
  I think intuitively both work and any native speaker could prefer either. I'm a native speaker and taking without consent is how I would have defined it if you just asked me directly.
  The problem is that historically, there has rarely been a difference. Nevertheless, we've long had the verbal concepts like "stealing my idea" or "stealing my thunder" that only work with the "no consent" interpretation (or with the deprivation of potential gain from your idea or your "thunder" or whatnot, which still applies).
  The thing is, something like "stealing my idea" was never considered to actually be theft under the law because you couldn't own an idea. Then when copyright and patent law came around, you were granted a monopoly on the distribution and/or use of an idea, with certain limitations. Those laws defined the violation of these rights as crimes, none of which is referred to as "theft". So theft is not the applicable term here. Copyright infringement is the proper term.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
154. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hairyfeet · 2009-07-07 08:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, let me put it this way. Once upon a time my grandma believed in government, that police were honest, and that voting was a duty all should perform. After 2004 she quit with a "what's the point?" attitude. When I asked her why she said "You would have to be blind to not see how corrupt the have all become, and I may be old but I ain't blind". The same thing has happened with my mom and as I said my boys, not matter how hard I try to convince them, refuse to vote as they figure it would probably be rigged if anyone but a D or an R looked like they might have a shot.
  You can't watch everyone from the President on down flip flop every time a treasonous whore...err I mean lobbyist breaks out his checkbook before you say "why bother?". Look at Obama, who has changed just about every single thing he ran on during the election for big fat checks. Or McCain who actually could have run against his 2000 self and would have had completely different platforms. The corruption has gotten so bad, and the MSM is now owned by the cartels and releases "news" about as real Pravda during the cold war, so why wouldn't everyone just say "WTF?" and not care?
  The simple fact is our elected thieves will happily sell out the safety, security, and the people of this country to multinational corporations that don't give a shit if the whole country burns as long as they get the insurance money. How exactly are you supposed to compete with those that can write 6 zero checks as easily as you buy a stick of gum?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
155. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Blakey+Rat · 2009-07-07 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  You're definition of "well-known" must be different than mine...
  
  --
  Comment of the year
156. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2009-07-07 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  yep. Think of that, all you system administrators! Everytime you do a backup of your servers, you dishonor your company!
  Makes perfect sense. Would any Klingon want to be instantly revived if he fell in battle? Forever denied Stovokor because he could never die gloriously in combat? Why should their information be any different? Klingon servers don't crash, damn it, they go down fighting!
  Besides, cons notwithstanding, when's the last time you saw a geeky Klingon?
157. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by aus_jackd · 2009-07-07 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Barbie Horse Adventures 7: The Mysterious Case of the Calico Clydesdale
  Torrent plz... :)
158. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by baerm · 2009-07-07 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't seen that PSA in quite awhile but all of the last times I remember seeing it in the theatre, people in the audience just laughed at it. I can't imagine a worse result for a serious PSA than the crowd it's trying to appeal to pealing out in laughter at its ridiculousness. Sometimes it was the best laugh of the movie. And this wasn't just action movies with a young crowd, this was at adult movies (not porn!) where the median age would be, well, middle aged.
  
  I think we can call that PSA an epic Fail, another war on drugs indeed.
159. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by hab136 · 2009-07-07 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, no crime has been comitted. I'm pretty sure adultery isn't a crime anyway and doens't get charged as "theft".
  Depends on the state. In North Carolina adultery is illegal, and you can sue for alienation of affections - basically stealing one's partner.
160. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by bandmassa · 2009-07-08 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The idea the copying a file is a crime is a gross exaggeration born of laws making this a contract condition of any purchase.
  
  Morally, then, to download a file is less of a crime than copying the original file, but if you're copying a copy, you're not a party to the original rights contract inherent in the purchase of the film or tune.
  
  Yes, governments can legislate to make this a crime, but that's the criminalisation of small fish, while the real thefts, recopyrighting of public domain material being done by big corporations is not only going unpunished, but is actively encouraged.
  
  APRA/AMCOSS (Australia's rights management body for songwriters), due to an administrative error on the part of Australia's national broadcaster the ABC, have put a song of mine into copyright that was expressly posted online as public domain and royalty-free. The ABC missed this condition, filed their rights report and now APRA refuse to release it because they claim I've assigned my rights on all of my works.
  
  That is copyright theft, yet it is perfectly legal. Yes, I'll get paid for any uses of the song, but that's not the point. I wanted that song to belong to the global body of artistic work, a tribute to Tasmania, my home state, and to my love. APRA/AMCOSS have stolen that tribute in my name, without my authority.
  
  There are only two rules which apply here AFAICS, those with the gold make the rules, and copyright is so broken it's unfixable.
  
  http://macidol.com/song/23027 is the song in question.
  
  --
  "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
161. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by LingNoi · 2009-07-08 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Since we can assume you would be the closest in proximity to the replicator you'd be the first to die.
162. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Opportunist · 2009-07-09 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Zero problem, that could actually solve the parking space problem in my home town.
  Simply come up to my home and I'll hand you the car key.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
163. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by Korin43 · 2009-07-09 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  ...so they can use them in huge pointless wars.
164. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by snowgirl · 2009-07-12 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  But it can take away your freedom. Most prosecutors won't touch a file sharing case but that doesn't mean they can't.
  ...snip...
  This doesn't apply to every file sharer, but it does apply to many more than prosecutors would ever want to go after. But to say they can't take away your freedom for it, when they clearly can if they desire to, is false.
  Now is when I break out the legal loophole technicality that I wrote into my comment... I said "typically" doesn't... if some 90% of violators cannot be prosecuted for jail time, then "typically" certainly is satisfied.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
165. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by snowgirl · 2009-07-12 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Watch me hoist you by your own petards...
  
  (a) Criminal Infringement. Ã" (1) In general. Ã" Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed Ã" (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
  (A) requires financial gain. Downloading the "god awful Wolverine movie" for personal viewing is not financial gain, or private financial profit.
  (B) requires distribution, which downloading is not.
  (C) requires reproduction or distribution, neither of which downloading is.
  Now, if you downloaded the "god awful Wolverine movie via bittorrent" then you could make a case for reproduction and distribution... however simply downloading it off the internet would not make it a criminal act.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
166. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by snowgirl · 2009-07-12 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover, in the US, mere DOWNLOADING is not infringement at all
  The creation of a copy is a violation of the copyright reproduction right.
  Wrong, you are granted by free-use to create a backup copy of all copyrighted material that you legally receive.
  
  ... under US law you are technically liable for copyright infringement for downloading and creating a copy of that work.
  Ah, you've made it clear your mistake here. You are technically liable, however you are not criminally negligent, which is required for prosecution of a criminal act.
  At best, it could be made a claim of "unjust enrichment", which requires simply the civil reimbursement of the cost for legal obtainment of the movie.
  
  The legal burden is upon YOU to prove in court your innocent infringer status...
  This is a civil liability, not a criminal liability. There are a number of civil liabilities that presume guilt until innocence is proved. Mainly, because civil decisions only need a "preponderance of evidence". Again, a civil liability cannot result in jail time.
  
  you are still legally guilty of infringement and still hit with a $200 minimum damages per work.
  Legally liable not "guilty".
  
  I'm not DEFENDING that law - but yes that is in fact what US copyright law says. The nation would grind to a complete halt if we were to fully enforce all of the insane facts of our copyright law.
  Again, it's civil liability, not criminal liability. In a case of civil liability it's the responsibility of the wronged (the one with "standing") to bring the matter to court. In the state of Washington, small claims court has a filing cost of $25, so if it's worth less than that for you, then there is no reason to sue. Not to mention that Small Claims Court of Washington doesn't allow granting of equity... thus you cannot sue someone in small claims court to stop doing something, you can only sue him for the damages caused. Normal civil court has filing fees of $200, and allows the defendant access to lawyers. So, seeking a granting of an injunction would be an even higher bar for bringing the matter to court.
  In a case of criminal prosecution, the prosecutors are the ones to make the decision (most of the time) to bring the issue to court. There's a whole different level of weighing the worth of pushing this issue... but the easiest way to say it is that unless the prosecutor is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then he won't bring it to court, because if it's so easy for him to find reasonable doubt, then convincing 12 people that that reasonable doubt doesn't exist is pretty hard... well, as long as you're ethical.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
167. Re:BILLY MAYS HERE... by snowgirl · 2009-07-12 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'll emphasize the word that you glossed over:
  
  Typically the worst that you can be hit for with copyright violation is fines
  So, all your spouting of what can happen in a serious copyright infringement does not affect the truth of my statement that the typical case is someone committing non-criminal copyright infringement, which is by far the majority of violators.
  Just to show how pedantic I am, I must however, point out that I made an error in that statement, since "typically" is an adverbial phrase, it need be set off from the rest of the sentence by a comma.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 14:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Anyone got a link to the torrent?
1. Re:So... by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd guess it'll be one of the few songs you won't be able to find a single torrent of, or at least no good seeds. In my experience, the quality of the product is in direct relation to the amount of seeders. So in this case I'd expect one: The SIIA.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:So... by damburger · 2009-07-06 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because those virus-ridden .avi files really fuck up my computer, as do those adverts on the site the firefox cannot block, and which install rootkits on my Ubuntu install.
  Retard.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
A better video by Aphonia · 2009-07-06 14:44 · Score: 5, Funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGXavXZwRcg From the IT crowd (BBC) - an anti piracy ad. Except its for films. yet its a better video.
1. Re:A better video by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 15:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions."
  so use: instead try http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9ovyz_the-it-crowd-anti-piracy-ad_fun
  p.s and the show is on channel4 not bbc
2. Re:A better video by RevWaldo · 2009-07-06 15:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'll see your IT Crowd vid (funny!) and raise you -
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXkxSl4f6vw
  
  - The Boondocks!
  
  --
  Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
3. Re:A better video by houstonbofh · 2009-07-06 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions." so use: instead try http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9ovyz_the-it-crowd-anti-piracy-ad_fun
  p.s and the show is on channel4 not bbc
  Can I mod that informative AND funny?
4. Re:A better video by FrostedWheat · 2009-07-06 18:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Nothing to do with the BBC. It's on Channel 4.
  The only good program on the entire channel ;-)
5. Re:A better video by aembleton · 2009-07-06 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  You should try watching Inside Nature's Giants on Channel 4 at 9PM on Mondays. Its a very good nature programme where they cut up a large animal (last night was a whale) and show you all of its parts. I learnt last night that whales actually have hind legs inside them as they're most closely related to Hippos.
6. Re:A better video by damburger · 2009-07-06 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not available in the UK due to copyright restrictions? I fucking paid for it to be made!
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
7. Re:A better video by hattig · 2009-07-06 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Channel 4 has a better range of comedy non-quiz programmes than most other channels, both now and historically. Peep show, black books, spaced ...
  Also Channel 4 provides them all, for free, on 4oD, should you want to watch them ever. Talk about providing a means to stop piracy, why pirate when it's available from the maker!
  BBC gives us QI, HIGNFW, Mock The Week, Never Mind The Buzzcocks, Mighty Boosh, and only the latter isn't a faux quiz. Why don't the faux news quizzes run for half the year, it's not as if they're going to run out of news! Why do they get 8 week 'seasons'? FAIL BBC.
8. Re:A better video by funkatron · 2009-07-06 23:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That link just gives me a demonstration of why piracy is better than legit: "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions. ".
  
  --
  "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
9. Re:A better video by Sockatume · 2009-07-06 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of the time a reviewer described Hot Fuzz as from the creators of "BBC4's Spaced". Aside from the dubious notion that every channel in the UK must be the Beeb, the juxtaposition of Spaced and The Secret Life of Corners tickled me.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
10. Re:A better video by Aphonia · 2009-07-08 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  There is a BBC4 and a Channel 4 - some of us outside the UK get them confused / occasionally lump them into 1 channel for shows we watch from the UK.
British TV by jciarlan · 2009-07-06 14:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

Forgive the youtube link, but a British TV show called "The IT Crowd" did a pretty good anti-piracy warning.
1. Re:British TV by hnangelo · 2009-07-06 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how long it will take for them to reach that point...
2. Re:British TV by omz13 · 2009-07-06 19:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Forgive the youtube link, but a British TV show called "The IT Crowd" did a pretty good anti-piracy warning.
  
  Its not an anti-piracy warning... its satire of the anti-piracy warning that is shown at the start of DVDs sold in the UK. As satires go, its very funny is you know the original warning. (And, to be blunt, one reason to rip your DVDs is to remove the very f*****g annoying anti-piracy warning that is shown at the start of DVDs sold in the UK, especially as you can't skip through it, grrrrr. When I buy a DVD, I just want to watch its content, not get bombasted with crappy anti-piracy warnings and all the stupid trailers they are starting to add now).
3. Re:British TV by Rogerborg · 2009-07-06 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Its not an anti-piracy warning... its satire
  
  How kind of you to point that out. I'm sure nobody would have guessed that without your generous condescension. Also, could you find it in your heart to please explain for us the concept of "understated sarcasm", since it's far beyond our humble comprehension.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
DP by tnok85 · 2009-07-06 14:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Is it just me or does MC Double Def "DP" sound like a black porn star's stage name?
1. Re:DP by anagama · 2009-07-06 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm ... you stole my allusion, at least the DP part. Prepare yourself for a life behind bars!
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
2. Re:DP by BlackSabbath · 2009-07-06 15:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That would be MC Double Dong "DP".
3. Re:DP by BlackSabbath · 2009-07-06 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  Aural sex? I like the sound of that!
  *boom* *tish*
  Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
4. Re:DP by herring0 · 2009-07-06 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  WHAT??? I can't hear you...there's something in my ear.
5. Re:DP by game+kid · 2009-07-06 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Can't be worse than a female game character with "DP" in her name.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
6. Re:DP by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Did you have to remind me of that "mindfuck" picture?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re: DP by meist3r · 2009-07-06 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  I knew I'd seen that guy and the mom before ...
8. Re:DP by An+ominous+Cow+art · 2009-07-07 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Nasal sex is nothing to sneeze at, either.
Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by eldavojohn · 2009-07-06 14:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

A smug teen who's downloading files from 'Pirates Palace' and 'Tune Weasel' finds his world turned upside down when automatic weapons-toting government agents break down the door and take his Mom away in handcuffs. The teen finds himself in a prison jumpsuit forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him
Huh, that's funny. Last I checked you normally don't get jail time for copyright infringement. Search warrants? For your computer maybe. Serving papers for a court date? Sure. Arrested on the spot? Don't think so. Jail time? Not to my knowledge. The only legal consequence the SIIA lists on their site are "significant fines for copyright infringement." Unless the kid was uploading unreleased Guns N' Roses tracks or orchestrating the huge operation of The Pirate Bay I don't think he'll be doing time.

Maybe they should do a little more research before they imply that you will end up in a gulag tattooing cartoon characters on convicts?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be fine with the kid (assuming he's 18+) getting a letter in the mail saying he has to appear in court and then a slow five year montage ending with him settling out of court and not being able to go to college or only attending a community college. That'd be pretty realistic. I still don't agree with it but that's how it works these days. Who knows? Maybe the over emphasized results will backfire on them and the general populace will see how unrealistic the charges are for copyright violation? I mean, that's not going to change until a politician looks bad taking a sack of money in campaign contributions ... or realizes that it bothers his constituents that lives are being ruined over something that maybe isn't so serious that a person should be financially hobbled for the rest of their life or next seven years from bankruptcy or whatever results. Huge fines are enough to stop me from copyright violations but lets face it, you're not going to jail if you do it. You're not a hardened criminal with a rap sheet serving time next to murderers if you're convicted of file sharing. You're most likely going to settle out of court and be financially stunted.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by corsec67 · 2009-07-06 14:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just look at the "You wouldn't steal a car..." videos.
  The MPAA didn't seem to care that they were comparing unrelated crimes.
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
2. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by oneiros27 · 2009-07-06 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, that's funny. Last I checked you normally don't get jail time for copyright infringement. Search warrants? For your computer maybe. Serving papers for a court date? Sure. Arrested on the spot? Don't think so. Jail time? Not to my knowledge.
  
  What? next, you'll tell me that Don't Download This Song was a parody.
  
  --
  Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
3. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by QuantumG · 2009-07-06 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's a wet dream of the copyright owners that one day the police with fight a war on their behalf.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
4. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by eldavojohn · 2009-07-06 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's a wet dream of the copyright owners that one day the police with fight a war on their behalf.
  Oh, you haven't seen the list of projected wars have you? It's going to be known as "The War on Consumers" and it's down the list somewhere past "The War on Drugs" and "The War on Terror" but I'm pretty sure it's before "The War on Air." I think Gore has already declared victory on that last one though, I don't know I zone out a lot when politicians talk about wars on abstract things.
  
  --
  My work here is dung.
5. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Asclepius99 · 2009-07-06 15:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually, I think the fastest way to see a change would be if a senator's/governor's/etc. son/daughter was caught pirating their favorite song/movie/whatever.
6. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by bertoelcon · 2009-07-06 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  What happened to "The War on Wars", that one would make for excellent campaign buzz as it makes you think that they want peace.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
7. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by The+MAZZTer · 2009-07-06 15:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I bet the RIAA have already traced sharers to an IP, gotten a home address, found out it's the home of some celebrity or politician and immediately dropped it.
8. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by vux984 · 2009-07-06 15:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually, I think the fastest way to see a change would be if a senator's/governor's/etc. son/daughter was caught pirating their favorite song/movie/whatever.
  Unfortunately not. The copyright holders would treat them with kid gloves, drop the case, and give them a gentle, 'hey don't do it again speech'.
9. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by PachmanP · 2009-07-06 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think the fastest way to see a change would be if a senator's/governor's/etc. son/daughter was caught pirating their favorite song/movie/whatever.
  While I don't think much of the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA, I can't imagine them being that stupid! It would certainly be nice, but I think it's right up there with world peace.
  
  --
  You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
10. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by MidnightBrewer · 2009-07-06 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that they *wish* they had that kind of power, and decided to act it out in their ill-advised sequel.
  Seriously, exactly who are they targeting with this video? Perhaps they're going for the more subtle commentary that due to piracy they can't afford to make decent marketing materials. They represent an industry that includes some of the best storytellers and artistic talent around and this is the best they can do? We really *should* worry, if in fact this is the direct upshot of piracy.
  
  --
  "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
11. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by influenza · 2009-07-06 16:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or maybe SIIA has been given a preview of what's being negotiated for the secret ACTA treaty.
  National security my ass...
12. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Spikeles · 2009-07-06 16:40 · Score: 1
  Huh, that's funny. Last I checked you normally don't get jail time for copyright infringement.
  
  Depends on how much you copied costs at retail.
  The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act, 17 U.S.C
  (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully:
  
  for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
  by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
  --
  I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
13. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 17:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Not being able to go to college" ... WTF? So you would not send him to jail but would ruin his whole life forever. Get real, the courts should concentrate on real crimes, like rape, murder and physical theft.
14. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-07-06 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Just look at the "You wouldn't steal a car..." videos.
  But if I could download a car, I would certainly torrent me up a couple of bugattis.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
15. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by rdnetto · 2009-07-06 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  What about all those John Doe cases - if the RIAA grouped a bunch of them together, would they have dropped all of the cases just to let of the politician's kid? What if the person was a more distant relative, or a friend?
  
  --
  Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
16. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  They shouldn't hope for a war. Their lairs (and thus primary targets) are usually clearly marked with large signs of their logos on top of them, while their sneaky opponents usually hide in plain resident dwellings. Asymmetric warfare ftw!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
17. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-07-06 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, that's funny. Last I checked you normally don't get jail time for copyright infringement.
  
  Check again:
  A defendant, convicted for the first time of violating 17 U.S.C. Â 506(a) by the unauthorized reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500 can be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to $250,000, or both.
18. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by damburger · 2009-07-06 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is; the police are paid for by the public purse so it would amount to having a massive government subsidy. What greedy industry wouldn't like that?
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
19. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Neoncow · 2009-07-07 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  I may be wrong about this, but weren't the "you wouldn't steal a car" videos a parody? The ones that show up on the top of the search results must be parodies.
20. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by corsec67 · 2009-07-07 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  What would a parody AD be doing at the start of a DVD?
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
21. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by geekoid · 2009-07-07 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  They don't need to do research, they know perfectly well the realities of what happens. This is about scaring people, and not about giving a factual representation of events that might transpire.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
22. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Alsee · 2009-07-07 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Close... but you missed the trick the copyright industry lawyers pulled when they wrote the bill (yeah, the NET act and most recent US copyright legislation has literally been drafted by lawyers employed by industry lawyers).
  The first thing that law does is redefine "financial gain" to include receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
  For example if you have ever touched P2P software you are pretty much automatically a felon subject to a year in prison, and generally three years if it's more than a handful of files. The only way you *don't* fall under the criminal penalties is in comical case of specifically sharing files for upload and never downloading so much as a single file, and specifically intending to never download even a single file.
  What the is actually doing defining up to one year in prison regardless of dollar value, and the dollar figures in part 2 increasing the penalty to three years in prison.
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
23. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by Alsee · 2009-07-07 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked you normally don't get jail time for copyright infringement.
  You're right that they don't normally engage in criminal prosecution, but the law does in fact criminalize most common simple infringement. Specifically NET act redefined "financial gain" to include the receipt or expectation of receipt of anything of value, including other copyrighted works. Effectively anyone who has ever touched P2P is technically guilty of criminal infringement and subject to up to a year in prison, or up to 3 years if it's more than a handful of files. Australian law has up to a 2 year prison term for simple common P2P, and the US has been pushing for a directive requiring criminal penalties for "commercial scale" infringement - where "commercial scale" is a euphemism for "on the internet".
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
24. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by LingNoi · 2009-07-08 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the $2500 part. Say each movie you download is about $10 you would have to download 250 movies in 180 days and the authority have proof of that before the jail time could even apply.
25. Re:Since When Does Infringement Equal Jail Time? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-07-08 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  For movies, perhaps. However, it would take what - 3 copies of Photoshop?
Confirmation? by basementman · 2009-07-06 14:48 · Score: 1

Can anyone provide a link to confirm that the SIIA is actually making this? The trailer jumped the shark when the kid started spinning the CD endlessly on his finger, so my first impression would be that it is a parody of the original.

--
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
1. Re:Confirmation? by Hewligan · 2009-07-06 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  The SIIA link to it from their own site on this page
  (Check number 01 in the image fader thing on the page)
  
  --
  "If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated"
2. Re:Confirmation? by ceoyoyo · 2009-07-06 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Do you suppose they posted it on YouTube, or did someone rip it off their site and put it on YouTube without permission?
  That would make it even funnier.
Dangerous stuff by harmonise · 2009-07-06 14:49 · Score: 5, Informative

...finds his world turned upside down when automatic weapons-toting government agents break down the door and take his Mom away in handcuffs. The teen finds himself in a prison jumpsuit forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him, physically attack him, and make him run for his life back to his jail cell

The message I get from this is, "Wow, movies and music sound like dangerous stuff. I better avoid them at all costs whether purchased legally or not."

--
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
1. Re:Dangerous stuff by xarragon · 2009-07-06 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  What, and in effect boycott RIAA/MPAA products? That's probably even worse than piracy, since with piracy they can still get money from you via legal extortion. Boycotting on the other hand, that's... TERRORISM!
So, basicly, by Minwee · 2009-07-06 14:51 · Score: 4, Funny

it's RIAA-porn.
1. Re:So, basicly, by maxwell+demon · 2009-07-06 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Given that it's a teen ... does that mean the SIIA creates child porn? :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Anybody else have a flashback... by cranky_chemist · 2009-07-06 14:52 · Score: 1

to the "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison" scene from Office Space? This is meant as humor, right?
1. Re:Anybody else have a flashback... by compro01 · 2009-07-06 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  This is meant as humor, right?
  I don't know anymore. This is venturing into Poe's Law territory now.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Well, at least it's truth in advertising by RLiegh · 2009-07-06 14:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because we've seen that the RIAA will go after your family if they don't think they can get any money out of you; regardless of whether or not any of you even own a computer!
1. Re:Well, at least it's truth in advertising by Doctor_Jest · 2009-07-06 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  ..Ironic that this little propaganda film is the first time the RIAA actually told the truth. :)
  
  --
  It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
is the entertainment industry by Presto+Vivace · 2009-07-06 14:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

endorsing prison rape of children? Because that is what it looks like. There is a better way to fight software piracy.
1. Re:is the entertainment industry by Hershmire · 2009-07-06 17:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  SPAMming on /.? I've been away too long.
  
  --
  if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll); //Stupid roommates.
2. Re:is the entertainment industry by Presto+Vivace · 2009-07-06 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  yes, me and the 4 people who rated it insightful.
3. Re:is the entertainment industry by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-07 01:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I stopped reading then the article rampled about copying is stealing.
4. Re:is the entertainment industry by hansamurai · 2009-07-07 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Except the author still describes Pirate Bay users as looters, as if they were breaking into stores at night or pretending they were the federal government.
  
  --
  Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Remember Children by HavePatience · 2009-07-06 14:56 · Score: 2, Funny

If you make copies of intellectual property, liscensed video games ans software programs, you will be erased with state violence.
It is okay to kidnap and possibly kill people with state violence for things they do with ideas.
Well, of course. by Nebulious · 2009-07-06 14:57 · Score: 2, Funny

How else can he afford another solid gold Humvee? And diamond studded swimming pools? These things don't grow on trees.
1. Re:Well, of course. by bertoelcon · 2009-07-06 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  (Said as a Humvee falls out of a tree) Weird Al does a ironically good job of making the music industry look bad by putting out good music about them looking bad.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Subliminal messaging? by damn_registrars · 2009-07-06 14:59 · Score: 1

The one of the news tickers in the video is describing the impeachment of the governor of Illinois a while back ... will the same thing happen to you if you pirate music?

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Don't download this song by orkysoft · 2009-07-06 15:05 · Score: 3, Funny

This one's much better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32wmepTVM3I

--

I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
1. Re:Don't download this song by iMouse · 2009-07-06 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Interweb BAAAD! Chubby GOOOOD!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb_jLAisPzk
2. Re:Don't download this song by TBoon · 2009-07-06 16:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Ironically, "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions."
3. Re:Don't download this song by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Great song, where can I download it? :)
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Don't download this song by Professor_UNIX · 2009-07-07 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  He was giving it away for free on his Myspace page several years ago, but I can't find it there anymore. Try P2P networks.
It should be a crime by QuantumG · 2009-07-06 15:06 · Score: 1

To blatantly and deliberately mislead the public into believing something is a crime when it isn't.
"Production of propaganda with an intent to mislead" or something.
I bet it's already illegal in Germany.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Don't read this message by cmburns69 · 2009-07-06 15:08 · Score: 1

I think I know where they get their inspiration. The description sounds just like the video for Weird Al's "Don't Download This Song": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg

--
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Huh by Ian+Alexander · 2009-07-06 15:10 · Score: 1

Yeah, watching that trailer my first response is "wow, they're douchefucks for doing that to someone over some media."

Don't copy that floppy was funny and appealed to your sense of right and wrong/interest in supporting content creators so they'll be around to produce more good stuff. This just sounds like trying to scare people into line. Which can work, but it does rather rob you of any moral high ground when your argument is "or we'll fuck you up, put you in prison, and go after your family."
And now... our corporate anthem... by MickyTheIdiot · 2009-07-06 15:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do what's best for the corporation... or we'll throw your ass in jail.
What a joke...
Worst by dindi · 2009-07-06 15:16 · Score: 1

Regardless of what it is about, it is the worst short film/clip/propaganda I have seen in a long time. That includes local (Costa Rican) commercials and Latin American soap operas .....
OMG .... shame on you for making me watch this
I wanted to watch Don't Copy That Floppy... by Noodles · 2009-07-06 15:17 · Score: 1

but when the rapping started they lost me.
SIIA Members: Google, IBM, Adobe, Intel, Oracle... by theodp · 2009-07-06 15:19 · Score: 2, Informative

A selection of U.S. companies from the SIIA Member Directory: Accenture, Adobe, AOL, Barclays, Bloomberg, CNN, Charles Schwab, Citi, Cognizant, CollabNet, College Board, Deloitte, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, Google, IBM, Infosys, Intel, Intuit, JPMorgan Chase, Lazard Freres, McGraw Hill, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Novell, Oracle, Reuters, Salesforce, SAP, SAS, Standard & Poor's, Sun Microsystems, Symantec, Time Warner, UPI, The Wall Street Journal, Wells Fargo Bank.
So it's not a parody? by British · 2009-07-06 15:22 · Score: 1

Yes, it's almost spot-on like the video from the IT crowd, yet it's from the same creators of DCTF. You are shown police state tactics with a scene that reminds me of Brazil.
We have come a long way, America.
Sweet! by dufachi · 2009-07-06 15:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

They are intimating that you can end up in Federal "Pound-You-In-The-Ass" Prison for making a dupe. Nice! The industry just needs to realize that it's free advertising and treat it as such instead of endorsing child rape.

--
-Kinsey
This could be YOU! by ShadowWraith · 2009-07-06 15:25 · Score: 1

Both illegal downloaders and the music industry know that it is pretty much impossible to sue every filesharer. This knowledge is basically what keeps filesharers going. The only reason that organizations like the SIAA sue individual parties for ridiculous sums of money is to induce fear in the overwhelming majority of filesharers and thereby cut down filesharing as much as possible by pure psychology. Coupling this video with the real-life verdicts carried out on a few of the millions of filesharers will effectively cause many eleven-year-olds to piss their pants in fear and not download that album. What the SIAA doesn't realize that the average eleven-year-old that will actually be intimidated by this will probably not BUY any albums either, and that almost all filesharers will simply see through the scare tactics and filesharing will live on. Therefore, what this amounts to is just a ton of money wasted by the SIAA on a stupid music video that will at best serve to entertain the public on youtube. The SIAA made a good move with their first video from the 90s; they appealed to people's sense of morality, detailing how much work is put into a game and why it is worth it to support the creators. Though appealing to conscience wouldn't stop all filesharing, people would at least feel moved to pay for games (or other media) that they enjoyed, supporting an industry of quality. I do not know why they have resorted to useless fearmongering instead.
1. Re:This could be YOU! by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  people would at least feel moved to pay for games (or other media) that they enjoyed, supporting an industry of quality.
  Not an option for the music industry, I'm afraid. :)
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 15:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

The new United States: Violence and corruption is entirely acceptable.

Pay taxes to kill Iraqis? Sure.

Many hours spent playing violent video games? Sure.

Government run by thieving banks? Sure.
1. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-07-06 15:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Don't give Cheney too much credit. State violence in support of corporate interest has been as American as apple pie since before he was a gleam in the milkman's eye.
2. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by Repossessed · 2009-07-06 19:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think you underestimate how long Cheney has been around. Where do you think we got the oil in the first place? Cheney had the dinosaurs slaughtered.
  
  --
  Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
3. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by mcvos · 2009-07-06 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  Posting to undo my faulty mod. (I wanted to mod it funny, but Opera closed the box at flamebait)
4. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by couchslug · 2009-07-06 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  "State violence in support of corporate interest has been as American as apple pie since before he was a gleam in the milkman's eye."
  Anyone still think we don't need the Second Amendment, read on:
  http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html
  Fun Factoid:
  "War hero Billy Mitchell led an air squadron from Langley Field near Washington, D.C. The squadron set up headquarters in a vacant field in the present Kanawha City section of Charleston."
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
5. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by Grishnakh · 2009-07-07 05:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There's nothing "new" about it. The US has been corrupt for a long time.
  Pay taxes to kill Iraqis? Sure.
  40 years ago, it was paying taxes to kill Viet Cong, who were certainly no threat to Americans. At least with Iraq, they had the flimsy excuse that Saddam had WMDs; back then, there was zero threat to Americans from the jungle-dwelling Viet Cong, except some vague threat of Communism spreading, though the real reason for US involvement was to protect French colonial interests.
  Pay taxes to kill Iraqis? Sure.
  The Federal Reserve has been around for most of the 20th century, so again, nothing new.
  The only thing new now is that the corruption has become more visible than ever, and the economic house of cards is breaking down, as the US can no longer rest on the inertia of the post-WWII economic boom.
6. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by Grishnakh · 2009-07-07 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, I quoted the wrong line of parent's post. This should read:
  Government run by thieving banks? Sure.
  The Federal Reserve has been around for most of the 20th century, so again, nothing new.
7. Re:The new U.S.: Violence is entirely acceptable. by nagnamer · 2009-07-07 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Banks ran by thieving government.Sure.
  FIFY
  It would actually be great that way. However, it's quite the way OP put it.
  Check out "Money as debt" (http://www.moneyasdebt.net/) if you want to know how BAD govt run by banks can be.
  
  --
  Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
Scare tatics by Lord+Byron+II · 2009-07-06 15:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or like the anti-drug commercials that aired immediately after 9-11 that attempted to link smoking a joint with supporting Osama Bin Laden.
1. Re:Scare tatics by it0 · 2009-07-06 15:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Just to put it into perspective. Al Queda is pressuring farmers in afghanistan to grow poppies to make cocaine. There is a large effort to convert to convert the farmers to grow something else like saffraan.
  But cocaine!= weed, but there is some truth in that message.
2. Re:Scare tatics by SplashMyBandit · 2009-07-06 16:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  Just to put some facts into perspective (you unfortunately appear to have crossed some facts, otherwise your post is otherwise relatively sound - must all be the weed you're getting)
  
  Opium poppies are used to produce opium and can then be refined into heroin. Initially the Taliban (who are not Al Qaeda, but host them) were against drug production but have now resorted to hosting drug lords to fund their fight against the Western infidels (this really does remove what little moral high ground they might claim to have had).
  Cocaine is derived from coca leaves (mostly grown in South America, which is rather far away from Afghanistan), and the Columbian government has had some success in reducing this (during its grinding war against FARC that has picked up successful momentum).
  In both cases (Afghanistan, Columbia) the drug trade (opium, cocaine) is used to fund rebellion against the central government. Destroy the drugs and the rebellion struggles. The Afghan farmers complain that legitimate crops pay poorly compared to poppies so pressure the Afghan government to resist Western suggestions of aerial crop eradication. It is unlikely that demand in the West for recreational drugs will be reduced completely (the recession helps aparently) so it crop eradication is a better bet in winning the drug war. Saffron is a substitute that pays better than wheat (provided it can be grown successfully).
3. Re:Scare tatics by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 17:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  OK. Now let's really put it into perspective. One of the most dangerous drugs on the planet is Alcohol. It is legalin the US. Osama isn't running any alcohol production/smuggling/distribution rings. Given that Marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. are only profitable to terrorists because the government chooses not to legalize and regulate them (in true hypocritical fashion), whom do we have to blame if they are making tons of money on the black market the government created and fuels again?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
4. Re:Scare tatics by houstonbofh · 2009-07-06 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just to put it into perspective. Al Queda is pressuring farmers in afghanistan to grow poppies to make cocaine.
  Poppies are processed to opium which is processed to heroin. Cocaine is made from coca.
  Yeah... Al Queda is just so wrong headed!
5. Re:Scare tatics by enrevanche · 2009-07-06 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  The weakness in FARC has little to do with coca eradication and more to do with their loss of support among parts of the population (i.e. disillusion with their lack of results). Besides, the right wing government supported factions produced far more coca than FARC which has always been a small time player.
  The Taliban will exist (and be strong) as long as there is foreign occupation of Afghanistan. They will most likely retain substantial power after the U.S. leaves until the Afghanis decide to remove them. But this will not happen until they no longer fear western meddling in their affairs. You can see this in Iran now that the population feels less threatened by the west, true dissent has emerged. The local bully gets the support when the outside bully is the threat. The Iranians dissenters may not win this round, but the current leaders will be weakened and will eventually fall unless they can raise the specter of an outside threat. (BTW, mutual fear between Iran and the U.S. helps conservatives on both sides)
  In Columbia without the massive U.S. drug war, the two sides would probably have come to some sort of compromise a long time ago. U.S. meddling in Columbian affairs keeps the right wing in power and thus FARC keeps up business as usual. Without the oppression, they would either become a regular political party or fade away as some other more moderate group filled their role. (There is extreme political oppression against any labor organization in Columbia, these include right wing death squads).
6. Re:Scare tatics by MaskedSlacker · 2009-07-06 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's hilarious watching someone think they're informative and getting something wrong that even hollywood scriptwriters manage not to fuck up.
  Not only does cocaine != weed, but cocaine isn't made from poppies. It comes from coca. Opium poppies are processed into...OPIUM. Or its derivatives, such as heroine, morphine, laudanum, or oxycontin, a favorite of anti-drug right-wingers who want their substance abuse to support good ol' corporations, instead of gangs of murderous thugs.
7. Re:Scare tatics by socsoc · 2009-07-06 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Please tell me your secret about converting poppies into cocaine. Scientists world-wide are interested.
8. Re:Scare tatics by Sobrique · 2009-07-06 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure I saw a discussion that had heroin under scrutiny for how 'dangerous' it actually is - compared to alcohol/nicotine. I seem to recall the outcome was that it's primarily dangerous because it's illegal - lacking 'save' environments to use, and lackin quality control. I mean, they will give you morphine in hospital, because when 'well controlled' long term consequences are relatively few.
  Alcohol/Nicotine though have much longer term 'destructive' properties, out of proportion to their therapeutic benefits.
9. Re:Scare tatics by Ihmhi · 2009-07-06 21:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Heroin is dangerous because it's addictive as all hell.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
10. Re:Scare tatics by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  Heroin is dangerous,but so is skydiving and nobody is talking about outlawing skydiving. The real problem is that it is a black market drug. That makes it very expensive, and opens up the possibility that the user will get something other than heroin or that it will be much stronger than expected, resulting in an overdose. Because it is very expensive people steal to come up with the cash for their fix. I am not condoning such behavior, but it is a well known fact that this will happen so long as it is ridiculously overpriced. If your house gets broken into by a junkie, write your congressman a thank you note.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
11. Re:Scare tatics by chooks · 2009-07-06 23:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  By that logic, the entire Civilization series should be outlawed and Sid Meier thrown in jail for all eternity.
  
  --
  -- The Genesis project? What's that?
12. Re:Scare tatics by cheekyboy · 2009-07-07 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Didnt the biggest pot dealer in Nepal convince the govt to make the drug illegal, so that his profits can sky rocket?
  Wake up police and govt and lawyers, legalize it, make it cheap, tell the old people their opinions were used for the last 50 years, now its the young peoples turn. Thats the only way to kill the drug lords/hangs/kingpins.
  
  --
  Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
13. Re:Scare tatics by MozzleyOne · 2009-07-07 00:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Oh thank you my government from saving me from myself!
  I'll just go start bashing my head into a wall - the government hasn't banned it, so it must be ok!
  
  --
  Ayjay on Fedang
14. Re:Scare tatics by rpillala · 2009-07-07 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  The drugs produced from those crops in Afghanistan don't make it to the west. Drugs (even the heroin from poppies) in the west come from South American countries.
  This is from Gretchen Peters, author of Seeds of Terror . I saw her doing questions and answers on BookTV so you might be able to catch that, if not read the entire book. Her research is very interesting.
  
  --
  When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
15. Re:Scare tatics by Blue+Stone · 2009-07-07 01:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  >Heroin is dangerous because it's addictive as all hell.
  No. Heroin is a threat to a person's freedom because it's addictive. Heroin is DANGEROUS because it is illegal AND it has a low threshold of overdose.
  Illegality means that there are no guarantees over purity which means that (ironically) a particularly pure batch of heroin can lead to a user overdosing after taking the same dose as they normally do (same dose but of a purer mix = death). That's dangerous, but wouldn't be happening if the user (however misguided) was able to source a guaranteed level of purity. The government could do this by legalising and regulating. It will not happen so long as the supply is in the hands of criminals. (And this is aside from tha harm caused by the loss of limbs, etc, to injecters of heroin because of the junk that is used to cut it).
  The government's continuing war against drugs does nothing to minimise the harm of people who are caught by their addiction to heroin. In point of fact it is RESPONSIBLE for the majority of the harm caused.
  Where heroin is able to be supplied legally, under prescription for instance, a user suffers no risk of overdose, unless it's through their own gross stupidity. They suffer no chance of blood-clots and the like through injecting cutting impurities (brick dust, ajax powder etc) and they do not need to inflict their addiction upon society by stealing to fund their habit. The danger to the user and to society is reduced. Enourmously.
  In addition the addict can stabilise their life, maintain a job (assuming the assinine policy of drugs tests is not employed by their employer (if they can do their job OK, then it doesn't matter what they're smoking/injecting FFS)) and have a normal family life. In this state they can tackle their addiction and its underlying causes in a state of support and stability. A child gets its father or mother back, a family reclaims their son or daughter.
  The addict can even use for the rest of their lives. Although this probably won't be considered ideal (at least in terms of their freedom from addiction) their will be few consequences for their health, since all of the major threats to their physical well-being come from the heroin being in the control of criminals.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
16. Re:Scare tatics by Psyborgue · 2009-07-07 01:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Stanton Peele, a Psychologist who studies addiction wrote an article in support of your claims. Heroin is only dangerous in it's illegal form where purity is an unknown. Before it was made illegal, heroin overdose was practically unheard of.
17. Re:Scare tatics by Psyborgue · 2009-07-07 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody mod this insightful.
18. Re:Scare tatics by Vohar · 2009-07-07 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  You grossly underestimate the addiction cycle of heroin. The body builds a tolerance to the drug, so effects are dulled and wear off sooner over time. Eventually the addict feels the NEED (as opposed to want) for a hit mere hours after the previous dose. I know of law enforcement agencies that pick up heroin addicts as paid informants: They get paid to rat out a supplier, then use that money to buy more heroin. Couple hours later they rat out that supplier to buy more, etc.
  You think making it a prescription drug would fix this? What, a prescription recreational drug? Not to mention there are plenty of prescription drugs being abused already.
19. Re:Scare tatics by oDDmON+oUT · 2009-07-07 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Two of the most addictive and dangerous drugs, liquor and cigarettes, are legal, and regulated by the government.
  All the other "bad drugs" are unregulated, untaxed, and criminalized.
  Why?
  Surely it's not to support a massive prison industry, create a culture of fear, prop up the liquor and tobacco industries, or continue to suck tax dollars into a war (one of many) that's been declared lost decades ago.
  
  --
  Some days it's just not worth
  chewing through my restraints.
20. Re:Scare tatics by Hatta · 2009-07-07 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Destroy the drugs and the rebellion struggles.
  Destroy the drugs, and the remainder skyrockets in value. Legitimize the drugs, and no criminals or rebels will be involved in its production.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
21. Re:Scare tatics by 2obvious4u · 2009-07-07 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Very Insightful indeed.
22. Re:Scare tatics by geekoid · 2009-07-07 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  "this really does remove what little moral high ground they might claim to have had"
  as opposed to all the lies, random killing and crazy talk.
  It is American policy not to go after the average farmer, even if they are farming opium.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
23. Re:Scare tatics by geekoid · 2009-07-07 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  "One of the most dangerous drugs on the planet is Alcohol."
  That's not even close to the most dangerous. AS always it's the dose that makers the poison.
  You act like the government is some black box entity.
  It's you and me, and millions of others. Sadly, the 'religous right' is loud and convinces it's believers that marijuana is 'bad' and 'evil'. Those people then cry out when ever legislation tries to remove marijuana from the list.
  You are correct, the best thing we can do is legalize and tax Marijuana.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
24. Re:Scare tatics by geekoid · 2009-07-07 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's becasue if you don't sky dive you don't go into violent withdrawals, and check out of society.
  Your gross characterization of the junkie is just wrong.
  Many people go about their normal lives and use drugs. Even if it was legal* that person would still rob your house becasue he won't hold down a job. The cost of a dose of legal heroine at this point is speculative that it will be significantly cheaper. remember, the price point is a balance between competition, and how much someone will pay.
  The value of it being legal in it's self will support a higher price because the value is not dealing with people who would kill you if you get out of line.
  Of course, the money we save in law enforcement could be directed to fixing our prison system and educating people about moderation.
  *Yes, it should be.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
25. Re:Scare tatics by DavidTC · 2009-07-07 03:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  How on earth does 'addictive' mean 'dangerous'?
  Heroin is, indeed, a very addictive drug. Not just 'mentally' addictive, but your body very rapidly becomes dependent on it and you will die if cut off from it rapidly. (Not 'may die'...'will die'.)
  That said, when steadily supplied at invariant quantities, it is entirely, 100%, safe to take your entire life.
  When morphine was first introduced and used during the US civil war, a lot of soldiers got addicted to it. It was basically the only battlefield medicine. If you got injured, or even ill from disease, which was a good percentage of people, and didn't die, which was almost no one who was sick, you'd end up addicted to morphine.(Heroin turns into morphine when ingested.) And you'd stay addicted to it your entire life.
  And that's not counting the patent medications and laudanum and paregoric which hooked a bunch of civilians.
  Estimates of 200,000 addicts are probably too high, but quite a large number of people got addicted in the last half of the 1800s, and never really got unaddicted.
  And this was in days where quality control was a lot looser, and yet most people managed to have absolutely no medical problems whatsoever from their morphine addiction.
  In modern day, there's absolutely no reason to believe that someone could not stay addicted to morphine or heroin their entire life with no medical complications at all.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
26. Re:Scare tatics by Katalyst23 · 2009-07-07 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I just read a book on psychoactive drugs where a group of researchers and professors in the field were asked to rate the most commonly used drugs based on addictiveness. They actually placed nicotine far above heroin. I would argue that the dangerousness of heroin stems more from the fact that it is both easier to overdose on than nicotine due to the fact that people inject it, and is generally dispensed without any sort of quality control - the strength will vary greatly from dose to dose.
  
  --
  It's turtles all the way down!
27. Re:Scare tatics by thetagger · 2009-07-07 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is unlikely that demand in the West for recreational drugs will be reduced completely (the recession helps aparently) so it crop eradication is a better bet in winning the drug war.
  Yeah, why solve our domestic problems when we can raise hell in a third world country instead?
28. Re:Scare tatics by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-07 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the lesson. Most of what you say is so far off point I'm not going to waste my time. Since I have known hundreds of Junkies over the years and heard there stories, suffice it to say that "my gross misunderstanding of Junkies" is tempered by the fact that I have real world empirical knowledge of them. You also contradict yourself saying that many people do drugs and live a normal life, and then go on to add that junkies will still steal even if drugs are cheapand legal because they can't function and hold down a job (which is grossly false).
  
  Nice attempt, but in the future try to keep from contradicting yourself in a manner that allows one to have both conflicting claims show on the page at once ;-)
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
29. Re:Scare tatics by NoseyNick · 2009-07-07 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  ... but hospitals across the world still give it as a pre-op before many operations.
  
  --
  Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
30. Re:Scare tatics by vaporland · 2009-07-07 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  more perspective - we could take the billions of dollars we are flushing down the rathole in Afghanistan and just buy up all the drugs. the wealth the US is spreading around there now is going to a very few people at the very top.
  
  it's kind of like what the government is doing with the bankers' bailout: giving delinquent banks money, instead of giving money to people who owe the banks, so they can pay the money they owe, get out of debt, and save the banks from delinquency...
  
  --
  Ask Me About... The 80's!
31. Re:Scare tatics by LingNoi · 2009-07-08 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  because that's the way it's always been. It's the exact same reasons we're forever going to be on IPv4.
Weird Al by bertoelcon · 2009-07-06 15:37 · Score: 1

Seeing this really just made me think of "Don't Download This Song" by Weird Al, and that was a clear mockery of the system.

--
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
1. Re:Weird Al by Tharsman · 2009-07-06 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  I dare bet that's where they got their inspiration.
Complete Member Company List by theodp · 2009-07-06 15:42 · Score: 1

Complete Member Company List.
1. Re:Complete Member Company List by Aphoxema · 2009-07-06 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  And now they all look like one collective muppet...
  
  --
  "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
I'm glad to see by morsmortis · 2009-07-06 15:42 · Score: 1

how our tax money is put to good use in these perilous times with the portrayal of a swat-like raid on a software pirate. You know because he probably spends the money he saves, by pirating software, on assault weapons, hardcore drugs, and danky craigslist girls.
Exactly what I was Thinking! by ZirconCode · 2009-07-06 15:43 · Score: 1

The IT Crowd was my very first thought!
It's sad though to see this VERY VERY satani *cough* satireistic movie become reality.
And doesn't the government get at least a little mad? Last time I checked their prison system wasn't supposed to be depicted like that...
What by Smoke2Joints · 2009-07-06 15:43 · Score: 1

Are they actually serious?
1. Re:What by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see.... they pumped out a large amount of dough to make it and they're generally not known for their good humor and self irony... yes, I think the sad answer is that, yes, they are serious.
  And that can only mean one of two things: Either they think that this is a splendid idea and they really, genuinly like it. Or they don't but think that we, their potential customers, do. And I don't really know what's worse.
  If they think this is a great way to discourage copying, they are no longer in this reality. I don't know which one they're in, I wouldn't want to go there, but it sure ain't one I have been in so far. This has nothing to do with what's supposedly "cool". And, let's face it, that's the biz they're in. Movies and even more music has to be fashionable and stylish, they have to hit the zeitgeist to sell. After all, content is not a 'must have' good, it's neither food nor shelter, it's something people need to want to buy it.
  Or they don't like it but think we will 'buy' it. And that in turn means that they're marketing a product they themselves would not use, one of the cardinal sins in PR and marketing. You cannot sell a product you don't at least like yourself. If you yourself are not convinced of a product, how do you plan to convince anyone else? How do you want to put yourself into the position of your potential customer if you can't understand him (and since you assume he likes your product while you don't, it's pretty much a given that you don't understand him). How do you want to market something if you don't know what your customer would like about the product?
  I don't really know which one's worse. But I know one for sure, it is the most blatant declaration of moral bankrupcy that they ever did. It shows one thing, if nothing else: That they can't empathize with their potential customers and target audience at all.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by fractoid · 2009-07-06 15:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

In evolutionary biology, floppy PREVENTS coppy.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Where have I heard these scare tactics before? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-06 15:59 · Score: 1, Informative

I don't know who's talking about evil, evil cops or hourly raids (maybe you should smoke a little bit less), but do you really have to be a pro-pot propaganda pusher to question no-knock SWAT raids based on shaky drug informants' information?
It sounds like a bit of a problem to me -- people ('evil' police included) even sometimes die as a result.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Frederick.
This sounds familiar by Boawk · 2009-07-06 16:00 · Score: 4, Funny

The teen finds himself in a prison jumpsuit forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him, physically attack him, and make him run for his life back to his jail cell
Sounds like an average day working tech support.
1. Re:This sounds familiar by Isbjorn · 2009-07-06 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'll do you one better--I work tech support for a prison. It's loads of fun when the warden threatens to not let you out till you fix his email.
2. Re:This sounds familiar by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Only that there your cubicle has bars and a lockable door.
  Uh... are they hiring? Wait, they are, that's the recruitment video, right?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:This sounds familiar by geekoid · 2009-07-07 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Are you in prison and working tech support as part of an early release program?
  Or are you free and just employed there?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The GNU Rap by yams · 2009-07-06 16:04 · Score: 1

Maybe RMS could create a parody that goes like "Copy this...., this is NOT a crime". I'm sure it would be a big hit.
Many, MANY inaccuracies in this video! by Doug52392 · 2009-07-06 16:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

I thought I would point out the many inaccuracies in this film:
1. The mother was fighting back to the evil paramilitary force that, without warning, smashed down her door and entered her house. She would have been shot because she clearly "endangered" the armed men's life.
2. ANIME ANGEL TATOOS? In an American prison??? I doubt there are any anime nerds in lockup...
The phrase "copycrime" really reminded me of "thoughtcrime" from 1984, which isn't a good message propaganda should be sending...
1. Re:Many, MANY inaccuracies in this video! by tnok85 · 2009-07-06 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  2. ANIME ANGEL TATOOS? In an American prison??? I doubt there are any anime nerds in lockup...
  
  There will be plenty if this video's promise comes to fruition... just look at the most commonly downloaded torrents - barring porn, unless it has tentacles in it.
2. Re:Many, MANY inaccuracies in this video! by that+IT+girl · 2009-07-06 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  2. ANIME ANGEL TATOOS? In an American prison??? I doubt there are any anime nerds in lockup...
  Sure there are. What do you think they were illegally downloading, hm?
  
  --
  10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
  20 DRINK COFFEE
  30 GOTO 10
3. Re:Many, MANY inaccuracies in this video! by Idiomatick · 2009-07-07 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  2. I thought that was the point of the video. If the RIAA keeps having their way it'll be true. Think if all the people committing 'copycrime' were actually imprisoned then the prisons would be FILLED with anime nerds.
SIIA kills a kitten by icomxwing · 2009-07-06 16:10 · Score: 1

every time you dl a game the SIIA kills a kitten
1. Re:SIIA kills a kitten by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Great, so I won't have to kill those meowing furbags myself.
  Copying, is there anything it can't do?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Where have I heard these scare tactics before? by shiftless · 2009-07-06 16:31 · Score: 1

Oh, give me a fucking break. Every day, all day long, bullshit organizations like "Above the Influence" show stupid ass commercials on TV telling kids that their brain is going to melt if they were to even take one hit of a joint. In the mean time, yes, there ARE innocent people having their doors kicked in, and people getting killed in the process, because of this idiotic War on (Some) Drugs.
Just like anybody else, I can spend 10 seconds doing a Google search and come up with countless examples of senseless deaths and tragedies, all due to a war on a fucking plant. You think it doesn't happen? Well then you are a fucking TOOL who needs to do some research and wake up.
Check this out for an example:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/156/policeshootings.shtml
Re:Where have I heard these scare tactics before? by damn_registrars · 2009-07-06 16:32 · Score: 1

I don't know who's talking about evil, evil cops or hourly raids
That would be the propaganda pushers who tell us about that. That was the whole purpose of my post, in case you weren't paying attention.

(maybe you should smoke a little bit less)
If you know a way to smoke less than none at all, feel free to let me know.

but do you really have to be a pro-pot propaganda pusher to question no-knock SWAT raids based on shaky drug informants' information?
My questioning here is to the existence of them. The propagandists would like us to believe that the SWAT goes out with fully automatic rifles and damned near everything but F-16 strike jets when a little old lady calls the local PD because she heard a local teenager mention pot in reference to a nearby house.

people ('evil' police included) even sometimes die as a result
First of all, I'm not calling the police evil myself. I'm using that description in reference to the way that the propagandists portray them.

Second, the wikipedia article you link to is terribly short on information. The only legitimate news sources they link to agree that a murder was committed by the man sentenced to 10 years. Beyond that is blog hearsay.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Obligitory Plug (Feel free to ignore) by matria · 2009-07-06 16:36 · Score: 1

um... the code Microsoft stole from Sybase is now known as MSSQL.
Why didn't they just use Weird Al? by ProfM · 2009-07-06 16:47 · Score: 1

He already made a jingle AND a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i57g21Z8Kc
I guess maybe it wouldn't have made the same impact ...
... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 16:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

"What's hilarious is that you seem to be misusing "illegal" yourself. Hint: it doesn't mean the same thing as "unlawful"."
Good point! So many people here are using the terms interchangeably. It is as if these people think that the two words are synonymous!

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
1. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'm always happy to correspond with people who make ridiculous claims,especially claims that I said something I clearly never said. What I stated is that Unlawful is absolutelythe same as illegal. Illegal means against the law; unlawful. I'm chomping at the bit to read your explanation as to why you believe they are not synonymous in this context .
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Anybody can make up their own definitions and then call people names when they don't cosign your bullshit. I especially like how you tell me to learn the English language using a complete abortion of the English language, to wit: English language, learn it. Great stuff! Thanks for the laugh. I think you are late for your ESL class, and you have made it abundantly clear that you need to spend a lot more time in the classroom, so off you go ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
3. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by ppanon · 2009-07-06 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  Might that distinction be specific to American jurisprudence?
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
4. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  There is a subtle difference in a court of law but they are synonymous in the context we are using them in this thread. You can learn more here.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
5. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by MaskedSlacker · 2009-07-06 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Let me introduce you to a new word: Jargon. Words used in a technical context do not always mean what they mean in a colloquial or lay context. Synonimity can break down in the switch from one to the other.
6. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! You mean to tell me that the same word can have different meanings, and we have to consider context when using those words? Man,thanks for coming along and pointing that out. I'm pretty sure that is new information that nobody else here on Slashdot possesed until you educated us on the matter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank You!!!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
7. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by JCZwart · 2009-07-07 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Either you're illegally modded 'Insightful' instead of 'Funny', or I'm experiencing a quickly developing vision impairment that causes me to see words where they shoulnd't be...
8. Re:... a 7 letter word for synonym ... by snowgirl · 2009-07-12 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  This whole idea of a difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" is interesting. As pointed out in your link, Black's Law Dictionary provides the definition of illegal as "not authorized by law, unlawful" and unlawful as "forbidden by law, illegal", that the two words cross-reference themselves explicitly provides that both can be used in place of the other.
  Now, to get to the sticky-icky the exact difference between the two. "Unlawful" means that a list of explicit lawful actions is given and it is stated that deviation from those actions is a violation of the law, and "illegal" means that a list of explicitly against the law actions are given, and it is stated that deviation from those actions is not a violation of the law.
  So, some proper real examples are that Washington State provides in traffic law that the lawful way to cross a street is by entering a marked crosswalk while the "Walk" sign is lit, or the icon of a person walking. (Or, if no such pedestrian signal exists, being presented with a simple green light in the direction of desired transit) Any behavior deviating from this is "unlawful".
  Now, the state also explicitly proscribes against killing people. It also describes the exact circumstances under which it is a violation of law, and thus, murder and manslaughter are "illegal".
  But what about the REAL sticky-icky? Let's take Burglary in the state of Washington. It is defined as when "... with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle."
  Thus, burglary is "illegal" because of specific proscription but only when "unlawful" acts are made.
  Seriously though, any lawyer who is going to try and rely upon this argument to make a legal point is likely going to get smacked by the judge...
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Commercial software? by Casandro · 2009-07-06 16:53 · Score: 1

I thought commercial software companies all died in the 2000 bubble. Except for specialist areas where nobody wants to copy it anyhow.
BTW http://www.archive.org/details/StorageD1984 :
At about 4 minutes in, an Interview with Alan Shugart, Founder of Seagate.
Some of his statements in there:
We will not see the Floppy Disk beeing replaced by semiconductor memory.
This is the part where it really relates to "Don't Copy That Floppy"-Video:
Question: "You see this size (3,5") replacing the 5 1/4 inch disks?"
Answer: "No I don't. I think there's a marketplace for the smaller size..., but I don't think that they'll ever replace the 5 1/4 inch mini floppy, because all those programms are written on mini floppies, and you'll never gonna be able to in your wildest imagination transscribe all those programms onto smaller disks. It isn't gonna be done.".
1. Re:Commercial software? by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, cut him some slack. He's a hardware guy. He just stores the crap, he doesn't have to know how it works. Just like a politician, he only has to make laws, not execute them, he needn't know whether they can be executed.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Where have I heard these scare tactics before? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2009-07-06 16:58 · Score: 1

My questioning here is to the existence of them. The propagandists would like us to believe that the SWAT goes out with fully automatic rifles and damned near everything but F-16 strike jets when a little old lady calls the local PD because she heard a local teenager mention pot in reference to a nearby house.
No, it's the DEA that busts in on the little old lady with automatic weapons because a paid informant gave them the wrong address. The local PD is apparently blowing their SWAT budget in whomever Chris Hansen is going after because they're bored.

First of all, I'm not calling the police evil myself. I'm using that description in reference to the way that the propagandists portray them.
Cops aren't evil, they're dangerous - kill a cop because he acted like a burglar/mugger/etc and you're lucky to go to jail, meanwhile they get minimal consequences when they kill someone by mistake.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Another... by KingAlanI · 2009-07-06 17:03 · Score: 1

MC Lars' "Download this Song" also comes to mind
Hey, I can follow instructions. :P
"It's 2006, the consumer's still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I'm writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed"
"You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You've overcharged us for music for years, and now we're
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but...
Welcome to the future."

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Propoganda works... by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-06 17:18 · Score: 1

"Or like the anti-drug commercials that aired immediately after 9-11 that attempted to link smoking a joint with supporting Osama Bin Laden.
It wasn't just commercials. I know of a person who could not get accepted into a sober housing program because they had an open criminal case that included an aspect of supporting terrorism. What was the crime in question? Possession of paraphenalia, to wit 1 "Felix the Cat" Bong. Seriously. The guy couldn't get into a program designed to help people stay drug-free because he was "caught" with a device used for smoking marijuana, and therefore clearly helped fund the 9/11 attacks. The fact that it was Felix the Cat added just enough surrealism to keep me^H^Hhim from totally losing it.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
sad.... by ushere · 2009-07-06 17:21 · Score: 1

that video is so, so sad, i really wanted to cry, but couldn't cause i was laughing so hard..
A modern "Reefer Madness" by JaxTJ · 2009-07-06 17:23 · Score: 1

You would think that every marketing graduate would know that scare tactics turned PSA deliver some of the best unintentional satire created by man. I'll wait until it's in Netflix and do a double feature with "The Day After Tomorrow."
awesome! by Nekomusume · 2009-07-06 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

An anti-piracy video that portrays the RIAA/MPAA/Law Enforcement as being a bunch of over-reacting psychotics? Sounds like a pirate-party recruitment video.
1. Re:awesome! by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  If I was them, I'd run it as an ad spot. Slogan: "Want this to happen to your kids? Don't vote for us!"
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Alternate version by bitspotter · 2009-07-06 17:29 · Score: 1

> ...forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn him on...
Wait, did that just say...?
> ...forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him...
oh. ok. right.
Definition of Theft by YttriumOxide · 2009-07-06 17:39 · Score: 4, Informative
Anyways, stealing is not necessarily defined by depriving one person of an experience or possession, it's defined by obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy.
Are you sure? IANAL, but here's a few definitions I found from different legal texts around the world... (bold emphasis mine)
- "A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.": UK Theft Act 1968, Section 1
- "Unlawfully appropriating property with intent to deprive the owner of property" : Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Paragraph 31.03
- "Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;": Canada Criminal Code, Section 322
- "A person is guilty of an offence if: the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.": Australian Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000, Part 7.2, Division 131.1
I certainly won't argue that piracy isn't a crime, but it definitely does NOT appear to be "theft"...
--
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
1. Re:Definition of Theft by RicRoc · 2009-07-06 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  Good references, thanks!
  Made me think: how could making a digital copy be understood as "permanently depriving"? Obviously, the original copy has not been permanently deprived from the owner. But the copy you see has been permanently deprived. The owner can no longer sell you your "first look" at the content when you have already had a first look. So what is "stolen" is not the content itself, but that first look -- which must be the content owner's property.
  Hm. Hope they don't read slashdot! :-)
  
  --
  Who?
2. Re:Definition of Theft by YttriumOxide · 2009-07-06 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  The owner can no longer sell you your "first look" at the content when you have already had a first look. So what is "stolen" is not the content itself, but that first look.
  By twisting it around it my mind a bit, I can agree that that makes logical sense, despite being ridiculous... (which from your tone, I'm sure you intended)
  
  -- which must be the content owner's property.
  I'd LOVE to see that one argued in court! Me looking at something belongs to someone other than me... hmmm... barrel of laughs all round there!
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
3. Re:Definition of Theft by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-07 00:49 · Score: 1
  Anyways, stealing is not necessarily defined by depriving one person of an experience or possession, it's defined by obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy.
  Are you sure? IANAL, but here's a few definitions I found from different legal texts around the world... (bold emphasis mine)
  
  "A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.": UK Theft Act 1968, Section 1
  "Unlawfully appropriating property with intent to deprive the owner of property" : Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Paragraph 31.03
  "Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;": Canada Criminal Code, Section 322
  "A person is guilty of an offence if: the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.": Australian Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000, Part 7.2, Division 131.1
  I certainly won't argue that piracy isn't a crime, but it definitely does NOT appear to be "theft"...
  I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
  I do think people use theft in a more common usage in these discussions - simply because it is a term most people understand in concept, if not in a strict legal sense.
  In essence, many make what I call the "feet of the duck" argument - when accused of stealing a chicken, show them teh feet of their duck to prove you didn't steal a chicken.
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
4. Re:Definition of Theft by Theaetetus · 2009-07-07 02:05 · Score: 1
  Are you sure? IANAL, but here's a few definitions I found from different legal texts around the world... (bold emphasis mine)
  
  "A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.": UK Theft Act 1968, Section 1
  "Unlawfully appropriating property with intent to deprive the owner of property" : Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Paragraph 31.03
  "Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;": Canada Criminal Code, Section 322
  "A person is guilty of an offence if: the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.": Australian Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000, Part 7.2, Division 131.1
  I certainly won't argue that piracy isn't a crime, but it definitely does NOT appear to be "theft"...
  Arguing from a devil's advocate perspective, the "owner" in the above statutes would be the holder of the copyright, and the "property" is their right to exclude others from use of their intellectual property. By using it, you are permanently depriving them of their right to exclude you from using the property - thus, you are permanently depriving the owner of their property.
  Now, it doesn't quite fit because they still have the right to exclude anyone else from the property, even if you already possess a copy... But as soon as you upload, you're depriving them of that right. For example, if they decide to take their intellectual property off the market - take their ball and go home, which, as a property owner, they are entitled to do - everyone can now just get a copy from you. The owner no longer has a right to exclude others from using their creation. You've destroyed their property right.
  Anyways, again, this really applies more to uploading than downloading... but that's also why the RIAA and MPAA go after uploaders rather than downloaders. Also, it avoids them having to prove that the person wasn't merely format shifting a work that they already own.
5. Re:Definition of Theft by Danse · 2009-07-07 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
  Sure, except that there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. I'd say that's case closed.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
6. Re:Definition of Theft by Danse · 2009-07-07 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Arguing from a devil's advocate perspective, the "owner" in the above statutes would be the holder of the copyright, and the "property" is their right to exclude others from use of their intellectual property. By using it, you are permanently depriving them of their right to exclude you from using the property - thus, you are permanently depriving the owner of their property.
  As I already replied to another post, there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. They could have called it "copyright theft" or just "theft", but they didn't. It's something else altogether.
  
  Can we all please start calling it was it is rather than coming up with tortured analogies and faulty reasoning to try to call it theft?
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
7. Re:Definition of Theft by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-07 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
  Sure, except that there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. I'd say that's case closed.
  While I agree it's more appropriate, there is nothing to prevent someone from making a rational argument for a theft claim as well.
  At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
8. Re:Definition of Theft by Danse · 2009-07-07 10:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
  Actually it's illegal to infringe on a copyright. I'm really not convinced that it's wrong to do so given the current state of copyright law. Also, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that copyright infringement is not theft:
  
  The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
9. Re:Definition of Theft by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-07 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
  Actually it's illegal to infringe on a copyright. I'm really not convinced that it's wrong to do so given the current state of copyright law. Also, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that copyright infringement is not theft:
  
  The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
  First off all, you are speaking of US federal criminal codes; which does not cover a myriad of state and other countries law.
  But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
  Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
10. Re:Definition of Theft by Danse · 2009-07-07 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
  No, it's an easy way to distort the issue.
  
  Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
  Because congress is in the pocket of the media industry that has a vested interest in distorting the issue as much as possible. They're they reason copyright law is so amazingly ridiculous now.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
11. Re:Definition of Theft by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-07 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
  No, it's an easy way to distort the issue.
  Not really. It's pretty easy to see that if you pirate a movie or song the copyright owner is not getting paid for it; so I can see where a reasonable person would view that as theft, even if it isn't in a strict legal sense.
  Despite people's argument that they would have not bought it anyway, then if they assign no value to it then why bother to pirate it? Many people use that to rationalize what they do, but that doesn't make it right.
  Of course, for many people it depends whose ox is gored. I wonder how many people who pirate songs/movies/software get all incensed if someone violates the GPL? After all, the same argument made for piracy - nobody loses anything since they have the original, holds for a GPL violation. They haven't lost th unmodified code, so why is it viewed any differently, other than it's now one of their creations that is "hurt?"
  
  Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
  Because congress is in the pocket of the media industry that has a vested interest in distorting the issue as much as possible. They're they reason copyright law is so amazingly ridiculous now.
  That's another issue. While I think copyright law needs to be reformed, that doesn't justify piracy.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
12. Re:Definition of Theft by Danse · 2009-07-08 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that there's some sort of inalienable right to own ideas. There isn't. While you say that the need for copyright law reform doesn't justify piracy, I don't know how you justify the currently ridiculous state of copyright. I think it certainly justifies piracy. I don't necessary pirate everything because of this, as I do understand the need for creators to earn a living, but I also know that the public interest has been all but completely cut out of copyright law by the media industry's lobbying. I don't see why I should give a damn about their interests either.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
13. Re:Definition of Theft by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-08 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that there's some sort of inalienable right to own ideas. There isn't.
  Copyrights do not protect ideas, only the expression of the idea. To that end, yes, I think that people ought to be able to control how their creations get used.
  
  While you say that the need for copyright law reform doesn't justify piracy, I don't know how you justify the currently ridiculous state of copyright.
  I don't, and it needs to be changed.
  
  I think it certainly justifies piracy.
  Why? How does the current state of affairs justify someone d/l a rip of a just released movie, for example? People that do that, for the most part, do it because its free and they'd rather not pay for it. I do not think it unreasonable for someone to be compensated for their work, and not liking the current laws do not justify avoiding paying for something simply because you can get it for free; which is what seems to drive many pirates.
  I think the argument that "I wouldn't buy it so it's OK to copy it," is simply a rationalization and not reasonable. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy something then either the price will drop or teh company will go out of business.
  
  I don't necessary pirate everything because of this, as I do understand the need for creators to earn a living, but I also know that the public interest has been all but completely cut out of copyright law by the media industry's lobbying. I don't see why I should give a damn about their interests either.
  You don't have to, but don't expect me to agree with you. To me, the best way to change the law is to get people to push their representatives for change, and to not buy stuff. Of course, people find it easier to simply pirate it and remain apathetic; so the fundamental problems with current laws remain.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
14. Re:Definition of Theft by Danse · 2009-07-08 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I suppose that at some point they'll either come up with a foolproof DRM scheme, which people will reject and they'll face major financial problems, or they'll go too far with one of the laws they buy from Congress and face a major backlash. Either way it will bring change. It just hasn't happened yet since it's so easy to just bypass their crap completely.
  
  Not all downloading is done just because people want something for free. Hell, I download MP3s of albums that I own, just because it's easier than ripping them. I've got boxes full of PC games that I've bought over the years, but I've probably downloaded at least half of them again since then, just for convenience sake. I get a version without the DRM crap installed, and often one that's patched up to date and doesn't require any long install process even. Of course the industry probably considers all of this piracy anyway.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
15. Re:Definition of Theft by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2009-07-08 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I suppose that at some point they'll either come up with a foolproof DRM scheme, which people will reject and they'll face major financial problems, or they'll go too far with one of the laws they buy from Congress and face a major backlash. Either way it will bring change. It just hasn't happened yet since it's so easy to just bypass their crap completely. Not all downloading is done just because people want something for free. Hell, I download MP3s of albums that I own, just because it's easier than ripping them. I've got boxes full of PC games that I've bought over the years, but I've probably downloaded at least half of them again since then, just for convenience sake. I get a version without the DRM crap installed, and often one that's patched up to date and doesn't require any long install process even. Of course the industry probably considers all of this piracy anyway.
  Yes, we can agree to disagree - although we probably agree on more than is obvious from this thread; for example and that the two examples you give is not piracy, the industry's viewpoint not withstanding. I think we should be able to use material we own on various devices, and remove DRM from games so they actually work well.
  I agree this focus on DRM is ultimately counter-productive; it's just a race between the two groups that ultimately hurt the consumer. To me, the real issue is how to get enough people aware and interested in this issue to get Congress to notice. The only thing that beats money is votes.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Wonder how much www.tuneweasle.org would cost by LostMyBeaver · 2009-07-06 18:16 · Score: 1

I like the name. I want it. Tempting to setup a server in Antigua and get some trackers running.
Executive's fantasy by DNS-and-BIND · 2009-07-06 18:28 · Score: 1

You know this is a record company executive's fantasy of what should happen to everyone who downloads MP3s. That's what this video is for: it's not for us, really. You know him and his Ivy League buddies had a hearty laugh at the screening in his office, and then he said, "Put that out there where people can download it - for free! Ha ha ha" and went back to torturing kittens or trading derivatives or whatever the fuck he does with his time.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It scared me by thofle · 2009-07-06 18:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Does anyone know of any good "learn how to tattoo" torrents?
1. Re:It scared me by Ash-Fox · 2009-07-06 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone know of any good "learn how to tattoo" torrents?
  Ask and ye shall receive.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
par for course . . . by Alan+R+Light · 2009-07-06 18:38 · Score: 1
Let's see. This commercial
- Promotes the use of a heavily armed and violent response to a nonviolent offence.
- Promotes prison rape as a reasonable deterrent to a nonviolent offence.
- Promotes taking relatives hostage as a reasonable response to a nonviolent offence.
- Manages to violate the law it purports to defend while doing so.
Yup, sounds like Amerika.
funny by jdcope · 2009-07-06 18:46 · Score: 3, Funny

I bet if I showed this new video to the average 12 year old, they'd think it was some kind of internet sketch comedy thing.
Funny, this whole thing makes me think of the IT Crowd piracy video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o
1. Re:funny by dangitman · 2009-07-06 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, really, you think so? Nobody else on slashdot would ever have thought of that scene, in this context, not even briefly.
  
  --
  ... and then they built the supercollider.
can't be legit by socsoc · 2009-07-06 18:46 · Score: 1

was this video made in 1990?
Speaking Of Copyright Stupidity by gacl · 2009-07-06 19:00 · Score: 1

Deep Purple sued because they failed to pay royalties to themselves. . . ??!!

http://russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2009-07-03/Deep_Purple_ordered_to_pay_royalty_to_themselves_.html
1. Re:Speaking Of Copyright Stupidity by Faluzeer · 2009-07-06 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  From the Link :
  "According to the court's ruling, the musicians - Ian Gillan, Ian Paice and Roger Glover - should have obtained a license from the all-Russian NGO, "Russian Authors' Society" for the public performance of any of their songs. The organization represents the rights of foreign performers in Russia - even without these performers giving the NGO permission to represent them."
  No, they were sued because they failed to grease the palms of the state endorsed monopoly that controls performances in Russia. I do wonder how much it would have cost them to obtain a license and just how little of that money they would have got as a Royalty payment?
Ethics in software? by V!NCENT · 2009-07-06 19:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

For me the only ethics in software is being able to share it with your friends. Did your mother teach you nothing?
You know what is truely ethical?; Marking something and then sharing it with the rest of the world!
And the only thing that is truely attacking the digital age are the proprietary software vendors and the pro-copyright bodies.
Now get the fsck off my lawn!

--
Here be signatures
1. Re:Ethics in software? by Peaker · 2009-07-07 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Share car --> I don't have the car to use, it gets worn and torn over time, you might have an accident and destroy it.
  Share software --> You gain software, I still have software, no damage done.
  POOR ANALOGY: YOU FAIL.
2. Re:Ethics in software? by Theaetetus · 2009-07-07 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Share software --> You gain software, I still have software, no damage done.
  Except to the guy who wrote and distributes the software, assuming he's not you.
3. Re:Ethics in software? by geekoid · 2009-07-07 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  And depending on the license AND assuming when he shares the software it's still on his machine. I share a lot of games I don't play anymore.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Ethics in software? by Theaetetus · 2009-07-07 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  And depending on the license AND assuming when he shares the software it's still on his machine. I share a lot of games I don't play anymore.
  Sure - that's First Sale doctrine and is fine. However, I was replying to GP, who stated:
  
  Share software --> You gain software, I still have software, no damage done.
  (emphasis added).
  So yeah, the software's still on his machine.
5. Re:Ethics in software? by Psyborgue · 2009-07-07 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I have been overseas for the past year in a half. When I came back to the states, I found my car in a state of disarray. Since it hand't been used, the battery was completely dead and wouldn't charge, birds had nested in the wheels, the tires were nearly too flat to drive to re-inflate and something had died in the air conditioning system. In retrospect, I wish I had loaned the car to a friend. Sometimes even sharing physical objects has benefits.
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Opportunist · 2009-07-06 19:10 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, copyright violates YOU.
No, wait, that's not ISR... Something's not working out here...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
HOLY SHIT I thought it was CollegeHumor by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-07-06 19:20 · Score: 1

Right up until the end I thought it was a moderately funny (ok, not even that funny) CollegeHumor video or something. Then I realised it's serious. Holy shit. Who are these people? They're among us, but they're not like us. They have no sense of ... ridicule? Shame?
They're not human.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-07-06 19:26 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mod Parent Way Up by theTerribleRobbo · 2009-07-06 19:41 · Score: 1

Funniest response this story. :D
New video 'stolen' / suspected peado fantasy's by yossarianuk · 2009-07-06 19:43 · Score: 1

Due to the similarities between this and the 90's video I believe there is a case of copyright infringement, maybe the creators of this vid should be gang raped in jail instead of kids downloading tracks. I would also like the designers of the video to have their hard drives checked - they appear to be into kiddie rape...
Rap music by codeButcher · 2009-07-06 19:43 · Score: 1

Not that I'm a fan of rap in general. But I do not think that I should take my moral guidance from rap musicians.

--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Worrying and amusing in equal measure by Gaxx · 2009-07-06 20:09 · Score: 1

What really strikes me is how well this current fumbled outing into marketing to youth culture really demonstrates the inability to understand that culture and what might motivate its members.

We already had ample indications that the recording industry, as a whole, was seriously struggling with the paradigm shifts of the digital age but this really does suggest floudering at a much deeper level of connect with their customer base.

--
-- Gaxx
What we really need... by Bones3D_mac · 2009-07-06 20:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

... is a PSA that warns viewers that the content of most PSAs are rarely objective and are often funded by organizations trying to push their own agenda. (Some of which may actually be worse than the crap they're PSAing to us about.)

--

8==8 Bones 8==8
Re:SIIA Members: Google, IBM, Adobe, Intel, Oracle by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-07-06 20:36 · Score: 1

It's weird that Microsoft isn't there.
What game will they be featuring? by WWWWolf · 2009-07-06 20:38 · Score: 1

Since the original video had the developers of AOL's Neverwinter Nights, will this new video feature the developers of the current generation's cutting edge MMORPG?
Don't copy those World of Warcraft CDs! Every time you copy a World of Warcraft CD, Vivendi loses money! A lot of money!
About that unword: by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-06 21:21 · Score: 1

Copying a floppy NEVER was "piracy", and never will be!
First and foremost, it as fair use.
THEN, in case you are giving it to someone, without having a license to do so, is copyright infringement. Which has nothing do to with stealing, killing, sinking ships, or anything like that!
And then it STILL does not hurt anybody, when that other person would not have bought it anyway.
Which by definition makes it no crime.
A real crime has to hurt somebody in some way. Everything else is no crime, but a law that only exists to give some people an unfair advantage.
Which makes that law, that is hurting the people that are punished because of it, by definition a crime.
This is how things really look. But it seems you have already bought their newspeak dictionary.
Which makes me want to sink some "ships", killing some people. Especially those with the **AA on their flags.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
1. Re:About that unword: by DavidTC · 2009-07-07 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think people who refer to copyright infringement as 'piracy' are rapists. Rapists of language.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
2. Re:About that unword: by Danse · 2009-07-14 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  And then it STILL does not hurt anybody, when that other person would not have bought it anyway. Which by definition makes it no crime.
  Not true.
  
  A real crime has to hurt somebody in some way. Everything else is no crime, but a law that only exists to give some people an unfair advantage.
  Also not true.
  
  Which makes that law, that is hurting the people that are punished because of it, by definition a crime.
  And, yet again, not true.
  
  This is how things really look. But it seems you have already bought their newspeak dictionary.
  Ironic, since you just tried to make up your own definitions as well. As much as I hate what copyright law has become, and how it's being abused by the media industry, you're not helping by trying to do the same thing. You're just providing a weak argument that is easily shot down, making those opposed to copyright law in its current incarnation look like morons. Don't do that.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What is "Tunes Weasel" referring to? by CAPSLOCK2000 · 2009-07-06 22:55 · Score: 1

I get "Pirates Palace", that refers to The Pirate Bay, which suggests that "Tunes Weasel" also refers to some major download site. The obvious reference is to iTunes and Firefox (also known als Iceweasel), but I can't believe that they would imply that iTunes is illegal.
Weasel could refer to IceWeasel which is another name for Firefox. I'm sure there's a bunch of people around that think that Firefox is somewhat fishy because people download it.
Another possibility is that it refers to Waffles, which is almost an acronym of Weasel.
Am I missing something or is competition really that fierce that they will even attack iTunes?
Neverwinter Nights! by EightBits · 2009-07-06 23:06 · Score: 1

I had no idea Neverwinter Nights was a game back then. And an MMORPG to boot. I was living in the C64 world until 1997 so I had no real desire to keep up with the PC world. I was/am a very big an of the gold box D&D games and I feel totally and completely cheated!
If you run linux... by pinkushun · 2009-07-06 23:24 · Score: 1

MC Double Def DP wouldn't be able to get into your PC in the first place!
This just confirms it. by oDDmON+oUT · 2009-07-06 23:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

The *IAA's want to become the next SS/KGB/Stasi, using paramilitary actions as a way to keep the dollars trickling into their dying business models.
The truly scary part?
That suits in both Hollywood and on the Beltway believe that this is a viable way to treat the American people.

--
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
i LIKED THE IT CROWD VERSION by cheekyboy · 2009-07-06 23:54 · Score: 1

Watch it here and watch it again, till you email it to Riaa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o
How about a 'you wouldnt risk your career working for riaa as a lawyer would you, who would hire you next?'

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Weird Al did it first by scharkalvin · 2009-07-06 23:57 · Score: 2, Informative

The description of the video sounds like Weird Al's "Don't download this song" video.
if the plane was full of Riaa Lawyers by cheekyboy · 2009-07-07 00:02 · Score: 1

Air France would deny the plane had them there and that they really are scuba diving in the Atlantic.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
1. Re:if the plane was full of Riaa Lawyers by cbiltcliffe · 2009-07-07 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  if the plane was full of Riaa Lawyers..... ....the world would have been having a huge party on the 4th July, rather than just the US....
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
didn't watch the video by jollyreaper · 2009-07-07 00:05 · Score: 1

The summary is leaving me confused. Is this an amateur video satirizing the RIAA or is this really from an anti-copyright infringement group?

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
You may be on to something by Voyager529 · 2009-07-07 00:38 · Score: 1

I wonder if the next 50 Cent could get street cred for music swapping:
Went onto Limewire
Got caught swappin' songs
Got five years in prison
And some tats on my arms
Then add some f-words and n**ga references for good measure...
Re:Where have I heard these scare tactics before? by damn_registrars · 2009-07-07 01:05 · Score: 1

So you bring in a website from a biased organization to try to prove your point?

I'm guessing you didn't read my post very well. Allow me to reiterate.

The perpetual pushers of pro-pot propaganda want us to believe that these raids involving cops armed with fully-automatic machine guns, RPGs, and surface-to-air missiles occur everyday. Furthermore they want us to believe it happens all over the place, in your neighborhood, based on anonymous phone calls made to the police precinct by twisted individuals.

Neither of those points are true. Sure, there have been some raids where doors have been kicked in. It happens for a lot of things beyond pot. And when all we see is the account of the person who lived there - because the police report is conveniently not posted on those web sites - we get a viewpoint that is way beyond biased.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Sounds like all of Madofs investments.... by cheekyboy · 2009-07-07 01:11 · Score: 1

Hey, is there a Maddof connection here?
Why is goggle part of this, is it possible to even pirate google software? I bet its impossible.
Stupid twits, probly joined because they were playing golf with some ceos.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
VHS Tape by treytech · 2009-07-07 02:23 · Score: 1

I have the Don't Copy That Floppy VHS tape in the original packaging if anyone wants to buy it...
Don't write software that plays DRMed movies by Sloppy · 2009-07-07 02:24 · Score: 1

It's a crime (DMCA)! Please, we appeal to your sense of right and wrong.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Pardon? by whiledo · 2009-07-07 02:25 · Score: 1

I never want to see any footage from a speedo camera.

--
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Ironic, aint it. by CJSchmidt · 2009-07-07 02:41 · Score: 1

Is that a rip-off Tardis interior I see (I guess they didn't want to pay for the rights)? Interesting that they choose a property which I got into by downloading (that was the only way to watch it at the time) and have since spent hundreds of dollars purchasing Doctor Who DVDs, CDs, books, and collectables.
I love how... by Civil_Disobedient · 2009-07-07 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love how they use the coercive threat of prison violence. These days it's just accepted as fact that the prison system is completely and utterly broken beyond repair.
Help stamp out piracy - Use Linux by awpoopy · 2009-07-07 03:25 · Score: 1

Use Linux.
You are free to:
Copy it.
Give it to a friend.
Put it on a website for anyone to download or copy.

--
I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
Re:A better video - That reminds me... by 2obvious4u · 2009-07-07 03:32 · Score: 1

Hasn't this been tried before? Although the remake is much better. For some reason people believe it, even if it isn't true, just make a commercial or better yet a movie about it.
does anyone know by circletimessquare · 2009-07-07 03:33 · Score: 1

what torrent i can get this video from?
thanks

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This happened to my next door neighbor ... by PPH · 2009-07-07 04:27 · Score: 1

... while I was downloading stuff through their unsecured WiFi.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
I don't understand... by gregthebunny · 2009-07-07 05:31 · Score: 1

...why some (most?) people seem to think it's okay to download something simply because they can. Am I the only person left who finds it morally objectionable to obtain something that I very well should have paid for? If I want a CD or DVD or video game, I go to the store and buy it. If a new NIB copy is too expensive for my tastes, I hit up the local resale shops. If that's still too much, then I rent or borrow it to make sure I like it and am willing to invest in it. Otherwise, I wait until the price goes down. Perhaps I'm up on my moral horse again. Perhaps I'm just wrong. Or perhaps I'm one of the few people left who still sees things properly in this up side down world.
Oops by Alsee · 2009-07-07 05:41 · Score: 1

Oops, when I said "the US has been pushing for a directive", I meant the EU. A European Union directive.
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Outlaw is cool by roc97007 · 2009-07-07 06:16 · Score: 1

Seems like this could be interpreted as a way for nerds to be gangsta. Keeping it real.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Wasn't this already a South Park story line? by Dark_Gravity · 2009-07-07 06:32 · Score: 1

A smug teen who's downloading files from 'Pirates Palace' and 'Tune Weasel' finds his world turned upside down when automatic weapons-toting government agents break down the door and take his Mom away in handcuffs.
I am pretty sure I already saw this basic plot line on a South Park episode.

--
Bring back Sirius Punk!
Best response... by clambake · 2009-07-07 07:10 · Score: 1

Some one needs to make the response video: Greedy RIAA representatives being hauled in front of the guillotine...
You almost nailed it at 100%; A+ by Zero__Kelvin · 2009-07-07 11:07 · Score: 1

"Not just 'mentally' addictive, but your body very rapidly becomes dependent on it and you will die if cut off from it rapidly. (Not 'may die'...'will die'.)"
With this sole exception, everything you said is dead on balls accurate. For future reference, you can die from Alcohol withdrawal but not from heroin. In fact, this is one of the many reasons Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than heroin, assuming properly regulated doses.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:Where have I heard these scare tactics before? by shiftless · 2009-07-07 20:40 · Score: 1

So you bring in a website from a biased organization to try to prove your point?
I only posted that one link for your convenience, instead of you having to search for an find the numerous news stories describing the events in question. There have been a number of occasions where innocent people have been shot and killed during bullshit SWAT drug raids. It does happen FREQUENTLY. You can easily find out the facts for yourself, if you'll actually take a minute to look instead of just calling bullshit because the facts don't fit in with your worldview. It's not my responsibility to correct your ignorance, but at least I tried.
I'm confused..... by LittleGuy · 2009-07-08 07:28 · Score: 1

... what will deter those illegal downloaders who like Prison Rape?

--
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Re:SIIA Members: Google, IBM, Adobe, Intel, Oracle by LingNoi · 2009-07-08 15:05 · Score: 1

but Novell is on there