Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy Lawyers Caught Pirating Each Other
An anonymous reader writes "We would like to think that the lawyers that are prosecuting alleged copyright infringers are practicing what they preach, but it looks like one of the most high profile firms involved in such cases are just as guilty of stealing others' work as those who are downloading illegal media."
Since there is no creative value in the things they lift from each other, it is hard to argue they are "pirating" it. Can I steal a verb they use, and just call it "stealing"? :)
Also, the general population surely should be held to higher standards than the scum of the earth.
What the hell is that? And how do you download any sort of media?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
We should encourage this: we can hope they'll fight each other to death, and we can disbar the survivors.
True, but copied fully in accord with the fair use doctrine.
The article presents the situation as Andrew Crossley being in conflict with ACS:Law over the use of templates. The problem with that is that Andrew Crossley is in fact the proprietor ("principal?" Don't know the correct term) of ACS:Law, so it would be difficult for ACS:Law to steal his work. To quote WikiP: "The main partner of the company, and its only registered solicitor is Andrew Crossley."
A hero is someone who knows when to run away. I am a hero. -Trent the Uncatchable
There is no hypocrisy. Their job is to work with their client and defend their IP. They are not required to be passionate nor they have to personalty believe in it, their job is to defend their clients.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I hate you and I hate your lame attempts at increasing your pagerank. You are the scum of the earth.
Also, your website looks terrible. When I opened it I assumed you linked to the wrong page and that was a domain filler. Really bad graphic design.
Now, kindly go away.
FTFA: Andrew Crossly claims that the firm contacted him for help, which he provided, but instead of just using his templates as a guide, ACS:Law began to use them as their own without consent. The name is Andrew Crossley. From Wikipedia article on ACS:Law: The main partner of the company, and its only registered solicitor,] is Andrew Crossley. How could ACS:Law steal from its main partner?
Yeah, he could have had better taste when stealing.
You're forgetting that it's completely possible to steal money (the pirates money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money. Also, if a sale could ever have occurred and something prevented it from happening, potential profit was stolen and whoever made this sale not happen should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you want to read about what is actually going on, please see this article. The article linked in the summary is riddled with factual inaccuracies.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
just talked about this in his defcon talk, "You’re Stealing it Wrong" http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2714
Actually, the open software advocates you're referring to are consistent -- I don't think you'll hear any of them saying that someone should be able to incorporate downloaded MP3's into commercial products that are then resold to others. They are absolutely fine with open source software being downloaded and used for free, where they have problems is when the open source software is incorporated into other products and sold rather than given away for free. So there's no double standard.
Of course, many (most?) open source software advocates (myself included) don't bother with downloading illegal content because it's easier to go to Amazon or iTunes and click the "Buy" button than to track down a torrent with a full and complete copy of the music we want to listen to. Once people get out of college and realize that their time costs money, the cost to pirate music exceeds the benefit for many people. There are, of course, the hardcore downloaders that download every album known to man in the genres they are interested in, but hey, it's not like they would have bought those 2000 albums so the music industry isn't losing much real income..
Possibly some of us who frequent slashdot are hypocrites. But to label everyone who visits slashdot as a hypocrite is quite arrogant.
There are in fact quite a few different individuals who post here and people tend to post in articles that interest them. Some days it seems as though nearly every user hear uses nothing but Linux. Other days it seems as though everyone is talking about the benefits of Windows 7. You see? There is no one opinion here. And to claim that there should be is ridiculous.
Possibly some of us who frequent slashdot are hypocrites. But to label everyone who visits slashdot as a hypocrite is quite arrogant.
Can't argue your point. You are quite correct. It just seems the hypocrites are the most vocal.
I stand corrected and apologize.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
My point about most slash dot open source advocates(which I am one) is they will be the first to sick the lawyers on anyone they feel is not respecting the rights of the authors of said software. But they will be the first to disrespect the work of musicians, movie personnel, or game personnel by illegally downloading their content.
Don't you find it hypocritical that this thread like most threads do nothing but trash lawyers. But what profession do they automatically run to when they are pissed off over a specific subject and THEIR reading of the law?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Don't you find it hypocritical that this thread like most threads do nothing but trash lawyers. But what profession do they automatically run to when they are pissed off over a specific subject and THEIR reading of the law?
No, not really. Because the organization that typically pursues violations of the GPL etc. in the US is the EFF and they have a very solid reputation for trying to solve matters in an amicable fashion first. Only when the other party categorically refuses to play ball do they start involving the justice system.
There is a group of people that feel they have the right to download anything and everything on the planet. There's also a group of people that supports open source and doesn't appreciate it when the license under which it is distributed gets violated. Both of these groups can be found on Slashdot, but that does not mean they consist of the same individual people.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
He's not trying to increase his page rank. Slashdot adds rel=nofollow to all links in comments, so linking from Slashdot doesn't help there. He's trying to make people click (which you did), probably to infect them with some malware (but, of course, you run Linux and browse with Lynx, so you're safe).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News