If they're too stupid to figure out that they're no good at content creation and should have gotten a day job, well then, their content probably wouldn't have been worth jack anyway.
Giving incentive to create more useless dreck is not innovation.
It's much easier to define than you think. Natural rights are rights that we as humans by nature assume we have without being told. Simplest way to find out: ask a young child. It won't take long at all (usually by about 1-2 years old) before someone starts claming objects as their own: it comes naturally. Meanwhile, my 7-year-old niece copied (by hand!) an entire library book into her notebook so she could still read it after she took it back. She wouldn't have the slightest clue anyone might claim that as being "wrong", or that she doesn't have the right to do it. Again, it came naturally. No rational human would ever assume there's anything wrong with copying anything until someone else manages to convince them it is.
IF YOU VALUE A SONG, it is ethical to compensate the artist for creating that song - in some way, and to some degree, according to the measure of enjoyment and "use" you get out of the song. If you cannot agree to that simple principle, then you reveal yourself as nothing but a looter, who cares as little for "advancement of the arts and culture" as you like to claim the RIAA & other gatekeepers do.
So, by that same logic, if I find myself in the unfortunate situation of having listened to a piece of utter dreck that made my ears bleed, the artist in turn should compensate me for the negative value of the song, due to the mental and emotional trauma it caused me, and for wasting my time. Right?
There's nothing wrong with copying for personal use, ethically, morally, or otherwise. That's not what copyright is about. Copyright is about protecting the rights of the rightholder to exclusively sell copies of the work; no one else is allowed to sell new copies. What's called "copyright" today isn't that at all any more, it's now more of a "corporation right to fuck their customers for every bloody cent they can get while robbing their artists blind".
Now, the artist gets considerably less not because there is a technical possibility of copying, but because people willfully choose not to pay for the music they enjoy, e.g. they copy. How do you justify that?
Blatantly false. There's more money to be made in art right now than EVER before in history. The only reason it seems like less is because there are so fucking many "artists" competing for it now. Go back and read your history. Artists getting rich has always been limited to a very very small percentage of the artists at the time. Many late artists whose work is now considered great never made a living off their art while they were alive. For every Beethoven, there were a hundred more "starving artists" who were happy if they got paid with a meal for a night's entertainment.
And in most cases, they probably are. The problem is there are way, WAY too many musicians nowadays for them to all make a living with their music. It's just flat impossible. For every venue (this is including hole-in-the-wall bars) there are a hundred garage bands trying to make a living.
Bottom line, if you're not able to make money selling your current product, the problem is not your customers. It's time for these unsuccessful artists to get a day job, and recognize their "musical career" for what it really is: a hobby.
So if you got hit with a false positive, you would rather be banned than simply relegated to the cheater server? At least with this solution you still get to play.
No more so than any other server and internet resources used for games. Cheaters aren't any less likely to spend money on future content than other players.
Exactly. I've already thought about this kind of possible solution before. I think I would much prefer it over current solutions. Being unfairly categorized is much less bad than being unfairly banned.
So in other words, the only people Comcast is actually saying "no" to are the ones who really are just doing a shakedown, and never had any intention of actually taking it to court. This just became far less impressive. Of course, it IS Comcast, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief as it has become apparent that the universe is still working as usual, and nothing strange is actually going on. If these were real media companies Comcast would still be handing over all the info requested (and more) as usual.
"Presumably based on Canadian statutes that treat any sexual images of characters that appear to be under 18 as actual child pornography, the images they discovered were deemed child porn and the man was charged accordingly."
In this case, the pictures weren't even of actual people. So you can even be prosecuted for possession of images of cartoon adults that appear to be under 18.
And what if you were browsing porn and didn't realize one of the images was actually a 17-year-old who looked like she was over 20? I don't approve of child porn, but there's a VAST difference between a sexy nude photo of an older teen (and good luck actually telling if she's 17, 18, or 19...) and an 8-year-old being raped.
Exactly what immediately came to my mind. As long as you follow the instructions, building and launching an Estes rocket is significantly safer than riding a bicycle.
They are also very cool, and exactly what a kid needs to get interested in that sort of thing. And some of them are dirt cheap, at about $10.
The difference is with fast-forward you still see snippets of the ads, and sometimes people will stop fast-forwarding to go back and look at an add that caught their interest. My former roommate did this way too often.
I can see why Fox is doing this, and they're right about it destroying their TV ecosystem. But I don't care, and I hope they lose.
Doesn't matter. If you're doing entertaiment primarily for the money, you're in the wrong career - especially if you're failing at it. You should only do entertaiment if you're doing it because you love it. Everyone has hobbies. Most don't expect to get paid for them. If you are able to make money doing your hobby, well, that's just a bonus. People make money doing what I like to do as a hobby. I don't. Nor do I expect to. Why? Because the demand isn't there.
That's the approach to take with entertaining and art.
The other person who responded to you is absolutely correct. And due to that, even the mac addresses that ship on hardware aren't 100% unique. They've had to start reusing them already.
Because they still want Photoshop over Gimp, because they like it a little better. And since Gimp is free, how can Photoshop possibly be worth $700? Clearly, it's vastly overpriced. They feel a lot better robbing "about $20" from the "Big Greedy Corporation" than they do about letting the "Big Greedy Corporation" rob them of "about $680". The "Big Greedy Corporation" won't miss that $20 anyway. And besides, there's no way they could have afforded it at $700 anyhow, so the BGC is out nothing. Right?
I believe that's the subconscious thought process, though most don't realize it.
Pretty much this. A program sells for $700 when a reasonable facsimile is available for free, legitimately. Same is true for almost every other piece of software that sells for hundreds of bucks. People realize the stuff really just isn't worth that much.
It doesn't even matter if the alternative isn't identical or not as good. It's free. By normal human rationale, that means the other similar one can't possibly warrant a price that high. Sure, it may be a little better, but not $700 vs $0 better. And that's how I believe most people rationalize piracy.
These companies would probably be ahead giving away the core software for free to home users and collecting some here and there on microtransactions.
To continue getting funding? To get funding for the next project? I don't work in research, but I don't see why such funding would be handed out all in one lump sum.
Doesn't matter. Software licenses should only have the right to restrict what would impact potential sales for that software. This includes things like whether it can be used only for personal use or also for commercial use, how many concurrent copies of it can be run, etc. A software license should never impact what hardware you can run it on, as long as the use and profitability of the software itself is not affected. If anything, Psystar's use of the software increases the potential profitability of it, because it can be used on more devices. If they're using the software as a loss-leader, well, that's their problem. That's the same thing as selling console hardware at a loss, then complaining when the users use it for something other than buying your overpriced games - exactly what the previously mentioned Atari case was about.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. We call houses and other physical things our property because it's human nature and instinct to do so.
If they're too stupid to figure out that they're no good at content creation and should have gotten a day job, well then, their content probably wouldn't have been worth jack anyway.
Giving incentive to create more useless dreck is not innovation.
It's much easier to define than you think. Natural rights are rights that we as humans by nature assume we have without being told. Simplest way to find out: ask a young child. It won't take long at all (usually by about 1-2 years old) before someone starts claming objects as their own: it comes naturally. Meanwhile, my 7-year-old niece copied (by hand!) an entire library book into her notebook so she could still read it after she took it back. She wouldn't have the slightest clue anyone might claim that as being "wrong", or that she doesn't have the right to do it. Again, it came naturally. No rational human would ever assume there's anything wrong with copying anything until someone else manages to convince them it is.
IF YOU VALUE A SONG, it is ethical to compensate the artist for creating that song - in some way, and to some degree, according to the measure of enjoyment and "use" you get out of the song. If you cannot agree to that simple principle, then you reveal yourself as nothing but a looter, who cares as little for "advancement of the arts and culture" as you like to claim the RIAA & other gatekeepers do.
So, by that same logic, if I find myself in the unfortunate situation of having listened to a piece of utter dreck that made my ears bleed, the artist in turn should compensate me for the negative value of the song, due to the mental and emotional trauma it caused me, and for wasting my time. Right?
There's nothing wrong with copying for personal use, ethically, morally, or otherwise. That's not what copyright is about. Copyright is about protecting the rights of the rightholder to exclusively sell copies of the work; no one else is allowed to sell new copies. What's called "copyright" today isn't that at all any more, it's now more of a "corporation right to fuck their customers for every bloody cent they can get while robbing their artists blind".
Now, the artist gets considerably less not because there is a technical possibility of copying, but because people willfully choose not to pay for the music they enjoy, e.g. they copy. How do you justify that?
Blatantly false. There's more money to be made in art right now than EVER before in history. The only reason it seems like less is because there are so fucking many "artists" competing for it now. Go back and read your history. Artists getting rich has always been limited to a very very small percentage of the artists at the time. Many late artists whose work is now considered great never made a living off their art while they were alive. For every Beethoven, there were a hundred more "starving artists" who were happy if they got paid with a meal for a night's entertainment.
And in most cases, they probably are. The problem is there are way, WAY too many musicians nowadays for them to all make a living with their music. It's just flat impossible. For every venue (this is including hole-in-the-wall bars) there are a hundred garage bands trying to make a living.
Bottom line, if you're not able to make money selling your current product, the problem is not your customers. It's time for these unsuccessful artists to get a day job, and recognize their "musical career" for what it really is: a hobby.
Couldn't agree more. I managed to get through the first 2 or 3 paragraphs without choking. What a crock. He is definitely some kind of RIAA shill.
So if you got hit with a false positive, you would rather be banned than simply relegated to the cheater server? At least with this solution you still get to play.
No more so than any other server and internet resources used for games. Cheaters aren't any less likely to spend money on future content than other players.
Exactly. I've already thought about this kind of possible solution before. I think I would much prefer it over current solutions. Being unfairly categorized is much less bad than being unfairly banned.
So in other words, the only people Comcast is actually saying "no" to are the ones who really are just doing a shakedown, and never had any intention of actually taking it to court. This just became far less impressive. Of course, it IS Comcast, so we can all breathe a sigh of relief as it has become apparent that the universe is still working as usual, and nothing strange is actually going on. If these were real media companies Comcast would still be handing over all the info requested (and more) as usual.
Canada does.
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/27/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/
Relevant quote from the link:
"Presumably based on Canadian statutes that treat any sexual images of characters that appear to be under 18 as actual child pornography, the images they discovered were deemed child porn and the man was charged accordingly."
In this case, the pictures weren't even of actual people. So you can even be prosecuted for possession of images of cartoon adults that appear to be under 18.
And what if you were browsing porn and didn't realize one of the images was actually a 17-year-old who looked like she was over 20? I don't approve of child porn, but there's a VAST difference between a sexy nude photo of an older teen (and good luck actually telling if she's 17, 18, or 19...) and an 8-year-old being raped.
I'd vote for a small soap dish, or a goat's left testicle before I'd vote for the candidate of either of the two major parties at this point.
Another possibility is having it be related to the value of the vehicle. Still not a perfect solution, but it might work.
Exactly what immediately came to my mind. As long as you follow the instructions, building and launching an Estes rocket is significantly safer than riding a bicycle.
They are also very cool, and exactly what a kid needs to get interested in that sort of thing. And some of them are dirt cheap, at about $10.
The difference is with fast-forward you still see snippets of the ads, and sometimes people will stop fast-forwarding to go back and look at an add that caught their interest. My former roommate did this way too often.
I can see why Fox is doing this, and they're right about it destroying their TV ecosystem. But I don't care, and I hope they lose.
Doesn't matter. If you're doing entertaiment primarily for the money, you're in the wrong career - especially if you're failing at it. You should only do entertaiment if you're doing it because you love it. Everyone has hobbies. Most don't expect to get paid for them. If you are able to make money doing your hobby, well, that's just a bonus. People make money doing what I like to do as a hobby. I don't. Nor do I expect to. Why? Because the demand isn't there.
That's the approach to take with entertaining and art.
THIS. This should be modded up much higher than 5. I've been trying to communicate this for a while now.
The other person who responded to you is absolutely correct. And due to that, even the mac addresses that ship on hardware aren't 100% unique. They've had to start reusing them already.
Because they still want Photoshop over Gimp, because they like it a little better. And since Gimp is free, how can Photoshop possibly be worth $700? Clearly, it's vastly overpriced. They feel a lot better robbing "about $20" from the "Big Greedy Corporation" than they do about letting the "Big Greedy Corporation" rob them of "about $680". The "Big Greedy Corporation" won't miss that $20 anyway. And besides, there's no way they could have afforded it at $700 anyhow, so the BGC is out nothing. Right?
I believe that's the subconscious thought process, though most don't realize it.
Pretty much this. A program sells for $700 when a reasonable facsimile is available for free, legitimately. Same is true for almost every other piece of software that sells for hundreds of bucks. People realize the stuff really just isn't worth that much.
It doesn't even matter if the alternative isn't identical or not as good. It's free. By normal human rationale, that means the other similar one can't possibly warrant a price that high. Sure, it may be a little better, but not $700 vs $0 better. And that's how I believe most people rationalize piracy.
These companies would probably be ahead giving away the core software for free to home users and collecting some here and there on microtransactions.
His account is obviously to troll the real kdawson, whose UID is 3715.
To continue getting funding? To get funding for the next project? I don't work in research, but I don't see why such funding would be handed out all in one lump sum.
It's not at all about copyright. It's all about software licensing. Psystar wasn't copying anything. They were purchasing copies directly from Apple.
And it doesn't matter what courts upheld it or refused to appeal it. A bad ruling is still bad.
Doesn't matter. Software licenses should only have the right to restrict what would impact potential sales for that software. This includes things like whether it can be used only for personal use or also for commercial use, how many concurrent copies of it can be run, etc. A software license should never impact what hardware you can run it on, as long as the use and profitability of the software itself is not affected. If anything, Psystar's use of the software increases the potential profitability of it, because it can be used on more devices. If they're using the software as a loss-leader, well, that's their problem. That's the same thing as selling console hardware at a loss, then complaining when the users use it for something other than buying your overpriced games - exactly what the previously mentioned Atari case was about.
This is truly a horrible outcome.