"What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs.
Repeal state taxes? Sounds really nice. But remember we live in the United States of Litigiousness. In addition, you'll probably have to change the state constitution and that in itself will take no less than a decade.
Bottom line: repeal of state taxes won't happen for the generation that "starts" the independent state, but for the second generation.
We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws.
In this day and age of the "Patriot Act," CARNIVORE, and the overwhelming need for security (according to our current administration) there is no way that 20,000 or even 100,000 people could break the federal hold on states. Those who have tried on a much smaller basis (Ruby Ridge and Pine Ridge) are either dead or in prison.
We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns.
And the federal authorities that you no longer collaborate will seize any and all public or private property that has anything to do with any type of (federally) illegal narcotic; and when you resist, the President will federalize your own National Guard to defeat you.
10th Amendment power has been whittled away for the past 250 years. It does not have enough power to over turn federal drug and weapons laws.
We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.
See above.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.
Yeah, Jefferson Davis thought he could do the above too. Lincoln thought different. We all know what happened next.
There exists a delicate balance of power between the federal government and the 50 states. Before you go running off to create your own independent state, you may want to create some alliances with other states. If you go it alone (be it with 20,000 people) you will fail.
Don't forget history. It was not Washington and the Colonial army alone that defeated the British, it was the French Navy and Army with the Colonial army that defeated the British.
And a small request: after you have your own "free" state, work hard to call a federal constitutional convention, so that the Constitution can be changed.
The whole attitude of "The Windows users are persecuting me because my machine is prettier and it runs better!" is really over the top, incorrect, and irrelevent.
So please, just relax, enjoy your own machine, and quit worrying about what everyone else thinks about Macs.
The assassination of Maclolm X was a terroristic act. It was done by the nation of islam.
To this day, other than overrated movie conjecture, there is no one in prison for Malcolm X's murder; nor is there anything other than circumstantial evidence that suggests the Nation of Islam murdered Malcom X.
Furthermore, numerous uses of force in the 60s and 70s, designed to put fear into people, were acts of terrorism. I believe this included pipe bombs, shooting people, etc.
Show me ONE true instance where the Nation of Islam attacked ANYONE in the 60s or 70s. Please name one source... other than yourself.
I personally think you have the Black Panthers confused with the Nation of Islam. Stop watching bad movies and read a book.
I personally think you are confused in your facts. Not to mention reactionary and mello-dramatic. In addition, if you (and for that matter other Mac Addicts) spent half the time you do attacking the Windows Community on promoting Mac usage and demonstrating its real power, I'm sure you would win some converts. But you're too busy taking every criticism of Apple as a personal attack.
But AOL -- with 35 million subscribers worldwide -- uses the tactic most frequently. The AOL discs appear in magazines, at the movies, in the mail and at parties, but an AOL spokesman wouldn't say how many discs are sent out every year.
Cool. I can start having AOL disc parties (kinda like Tupperware, 'cept different). I can showcase the different AOL CDs now flouting through the USPS. And tell people how they too can receive 4 discs in one day.
We can have games, like name your favorite AOL customer service rep and pin the tail on Steve Case. And door prizes, we have to have door prizes... maybe AOL CDs from around the world.
The developing world doesn't give a stuff what word processor you prefer or how you think it's unfair that you should have to pay, what, $15 for a CD, so you steal it instead. Look at the big picture, people.
Amen to that. I don't think someone starving to death in Asia or trying to survive yet another civial war in Africa gives 2cents about the RIAA or MPAA and the "difficulty" we Americans encounter when purchasing our vast amounts of CDs and DVDs.
If I want to have an MP3 server in my house, I can. If I want to burn copies of the CDs I have purchased to protect against losing or damaging my only copy, I can. If I want to make a compilation CD, I can.
I agree as long as the above is for personal use. If you open your MP3 server to the world and allow people to download files, then you are supporting piracy. You'll get no argument from me on personal use. I believe once you buy one cd you should be able to make a 1000 copies or more, but only for personal use.
First, take artists out of there. Artists don't own squat! They sign it away to get that record deal.
Not completely true. I can name an artist that owns his own music for every artist you name that signed his rights away.
Do the heirs of Robert Frost still deserve royalty checks for his poems, or should they be released into the public domain? Should the silent movies be released to the public domain, or should some company own them and just sit on them because they can?
You're using examples that are more than 80 years old and as such are easier to argue that they should be part of public domain.
What do you think is a fair time frame for copyright? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
Re:*sigh*, morons... qjkx
on
Unmaking The Game
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
concept of money is people continuing to pay $12.95 for a game that has no customer service, an obviously flawed monetary system, several "show-stopping" graphics and lag issues, broken zones and loot tables, pathing and xyz axis bugs, and of course very limited in-game support now (except for those playing on the $49.95 a month "Legends" server).
If someone is exploiting the monetary system (and they have for some time) then Verant should step up and fix the problem. However, please don't figure on that happening for at least 6 months. It took Verant 6 months to address the issue of ManaBurn and the affect it had on the "game" and Planes of Power is due for release next week (and with EVERY new release there are several new and fun issues to deal with, not the least of which a day or two of downtime).
Bottom line, it is just a GAME. And because it is just a GAME, you have choices. There are numerous other online roleplaying games (albeit they do not have the population like EQ) people can enjoy (and exploit!).
Re:Who cares if a football player's taking steroid
on
Unmaking The Game
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If someone is cheating to "spoil" EQ, then
1) Verant should step up and fix what is wrong or 2) Stop paying Verant $12.95 a month and go play one of the other 4 or 5 OnLine roleplaying games.
SETI@Home is not out of funding... it's a Microsoft-Martian-AOL conspiracy to keep us from learning the Elvis isn't dead; he's just on tour in another part of the MilkyWay.
So, your point (simplified) is: 1) entertainment (music, movies, software, literature, etc) is too expensive and should be less costly 2) entertainment should be easier to attain (i.e. watch a new release movie in the comfort of your own home), and 3) entertainment should be owned by the people and not by the artists or corporations?
The difference is that it costs money for a company to produce a car.
When did it become free to produce an album? Because if something has changed recently, I have a couple of songs I'd like to put down on vinyl.
We are talking about music that has been created, and is just sitting doing nothing.
No. What we're talking about is a group of companies and individuals that hold the rights to hundreds of songs and albums. It's their property. And they don't want people downloading it for free. An entire industry survives because people have always PAID for music. What has changed? With the advent of P2P, why is it ok to not pay for music, movies, or software?
They don't make it available because they are too busy pushing the "next great thing".
$899 to $12.99 will get you just about any CD from an artist's back catalogue.
To the positive thinker, that means "there is an untapped market out there that people are swarming around".
To the marketing company it means an entirely new way of delivering product to consumers. And I'm sure one day we'll see the Net play a much larger role in the music industry.
To the RIAA, it means "Pirates! We must stop them!"
Granted the RIAA goes WAY too far in trying to enforce its monopoly. However, can you blame them?
P2P networks are distributing, for free, copyrighted works. If the same P2P networks distributed pirated (i.e. ripped) copies of Unreal 2003 wouldn't that be stealing? It's someone's intellectual property. A group of individuals sat down and worked from someone's idea to create a video game. What's the difference?
Is it fair for a competing network to pick up Fox's broadcast of the World Series and show it on their own network?
It is about the RIAA and record labels wanting to maintain their control over music.
It's there music! They own it. Copyright holders OWN it. They can do whatever they want with it. Just because a certain song or album brings back fond childhood memories, doesn't mean you own the song and can do with it what you please.
Instead of trying to kill online file trading, they should make it not worthwhile by offering a better product.
Now, I've ranted and raved throughout this little diatribe and I apologize if I've offended you. When I got to this part I smiled. You have hit the capitalist nail on the head. The music industry doesn't want to involve itself in new technology... never has. The only reason the industry agreed on the CD format is they knew it would "wear out" quickly and people would have to buy more. It took 15 years before digital recording became the standard in the industry. Why? Because it is sooooo easy to make copies from a digital recording, the label executives were afraid that artists would realize that they could make the same recording at home as they could at the million dollar Sony Studio in NY; and that putting it out on their own "label" would give them a larger share of the profit.
Bottom line is most people that use a P2P network don't feel the slightest grief about downloading copyrighted works (be it music, movies, or games). The majority feels as if they "deserve it" and justify their actions by telling themselves that Metallica and George Lucas are rich enough, "they don't need the money." They're right: they don't need the money. But the people they employ do.
Example: after Jerry Garcia died and the Grateful Dead stopped touring, they had to lay off 75% of their staff. The remaining 25% support the website and merchandising. What happens if someone comes along and copies the same GD shirts you pay $25 for on the website and offers them for free? Is this stealing? Is this copyright infringement?
What's the difference between bootlegging shirts and downloading music from the NET?
So technically I haven't purchased them, but there is no real viable alternative. If the record companies offered older songs at a reasonable price, I would buy them. They don't, they are hoarding what they "own". Everyone else has embraced digital music except the people who control the music industry. They really need to wake up.
You know I would buy an AC Cobra if it was offered at a reasonable price. However, Ford and current private owners refuse to lower the price to one which I can afford; so they're hoarding them too!
Am I justified in going out and "acquiring" one through other-than-legal means?
I applaud your "stand up and be heard" rhetoric, however I have to call into question your self-promoting ethics. Just because the labels and distributors price music above what we may think is fair, doesn't give us justification to steal. Just because studios and theatre chains price admission above what we think is fair, doesn't give us the right to download a pirated copy or sneak in through the backdoor.
A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it."
From AP: Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, is refusing to carry Sheryl Crow's upcoming album, because one song says the chain sells guns to kids.
In both cases Wal Mart seems to be simply protecting its most profitable sales: GUNS. We all know video games and good music detract from gun sales. And certainly, kids would want to buy a video game with naked chicks over a new rifle.
And can we blame Wal Mart? After Congressman Pat Kennedy "motivated" Wal Mart to move Guns away from the toy department in 2001 (effectively destroying the under 18 sales market) and with cigarette sales at an all-time low, Wal Mart must protect its last REAL AMERICAN profitable sales area: GUNS.
I do hope that the remaining portion of his "vast" memorabilia collection is able to support his defense fund and maybe pay down some of the expected criminal fines and civil judgements.
Stealing is stealing.
I don't think Mr. Foley should spend any amount of time in a cell, however, probation, counseling, and LOTS of community service is definitely in order.
I mean honestly, I didn't like the last Star Wars movie, so I have to be entitled to download burn this one to divx for compensation, right? It's only fair.
You nailed it, my friend. 99% of the movie, music, software pirates justify their actions with the "I deserve it" excuse.
"I have been a fan of Star Wars since I was 9, so I deserve to 'own' a copy before anyone else."
"I deserve lower prices at the box office, so I'll just download an illegal copy."
"I wasn't going to pay to see it in the theatre anyways, so I can download it because Lucas isn't losing money either way"
It burns me that some in the/. community can jump up and down and scream when Microsoft begins to charge for something they think should be free.
Shout the praises of Linus when he releases something new for free.
And support people that pirate a movie like Star Wars... a movie funded SOLELY by George Lucas.
Review: It's ok to pirate Microsoft, 'cause they're bad. It's not ok to pirate Linux, 'cause they're good. It's ok to pirate Star Wars, 'cause Mr. Lucas has enough money already (forget that he employs nearly 2000 people).
Now, is copyright infringement stealing? No, because the damage is on a fundamentally different order. If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place. This can be more than the cost of an individual copy, less, or even negative. Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.
Huh? We're modding this as Funny, right?
The damage to society done by stealing is easy enough to estimate. You steal a car, and you've stolen the value of the car from that person.
If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place.
Yes, it is easy to value an automobile and then assess damage as necessary. However, how do you value a person's lost time from work? Or time it takes to replace the car? Or the salary of the insurance company employee who processes the claim? Etc... Are those "costs" valid? Or are they on a "fundamentally different order"?
Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.
Ok, I'll bite... what issue?
I think most people would agree that stealing is stealing. Whether you take a.50cent piece of candy or stick up a liquer store for $500 or embezzle $5million, it's all theft and it's all wrong. Punishment is a completely different story. Did this person steal $450,000 worth of materials? The court will decide.
I think a much juicier question is: did the website, which ran the early review, generate income from this "inside information"? If they did, isn't fair to say that they owe Mr Lucas a substantial portion of that income, considering it was Mr. Lucas' creative product that generated their income?
Good point. And I do agree that "competitive education" is good, but only to a point.
First, education is a right in this country. In all states it is illegal not to educate a child. Driving or owning an auto is not a right. So, your argument is "apples and oranges."
There are several pitfalls to "voucher" education. First and foremost is the economic divide that exists in all parts of this country. And you and I both know that a voucher system would only widen that divide.
A modified voucher system is in place now. Title 1 funds are restricted if schools do not meet federal guidelines set by the current administration. State funds are also restricted by set guidelines. Of course, parents don't have a direct say in those guidelines.
And to tell you the truth those guidelines (like standardized testing, etc) are complete nonsense.
If parents want a voucher system, then they need to get involved NOW. Not at election time, but RIGHT NOW. If you want to change the education system, don't wait. Act now.
Slashdot Mirror
"What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs.
Repeal state taxes? Sounds really nice. But remember we live in the United States of Litigiousness. In addition, you'll probably have to change the state constitution and that in itself will take no less than a decade.
Bottom line: repeal of state taxes won't happen for the generation that "starts" the independent state, but for the second generation.
We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws.
In this day and age of the "Patriot Act," CARNIVORE, and the overwhelming need for security (according to our current administration) there is no way that 20,000 or even 100,000 people could break the federal hold on states. Those who have tried on a much smaller basis (Ruby Ridge and Pine Ridge) are either dead or in prison.
We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns.
And the federal authorities that you no longer collaborate will seize any and all public or private property that has anything to do with any type of (federally) illegal narcotic; and when you resist, the President will federalize your own National Guard to defeat you.
10th Amendment power has been whittled away for the past 250 years. It does not have enough power to over turn federal drug and weapons laws.
We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.
See above.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.
Yeah, Jefferson Davis thought he could do the above too. Lincoln thought different. We all know what happened next.
There exists a delicate balance of power between the federal government and the 50 states. Before you go running off to create your own independent state, you may want to create some alliances with other states. If you go it alone (be it with 20,000 people) you will fail.
Don't forget history. It was not Washington and the Colonial army alone that defeated the British, it was the French Navy and Army with the Colonial army that defeated the British.
And a small request: after you have your own "free" state, work hard to call a federal constitutional convention, so that the Constitution can be changed.
Out
The whole attitude of "The Windows users are persecuting me because my machine is prettier and it runs better!" is really over the top, incorrect, and irrelevent.
So please, just relax, enjoy your own machine, and quit worrying about what everyone else thinks about Macs.
Amen to that brother!
It's not enough that you can not see that it's just another dumb movie and that you are overreacting (as usual).
Oh wait... what would you ever write about if you couldn't overreact to the smallest thing?
Hmmm...
The assassination of Maclolm X was a terroristic act. It was done by the nation of islam.
To this day, other than overrated movie conjecture, there is no one in prison for Malcolm X's murder; nor is there anything other than circumstantial evidence that suggests the Nation of Islam murdered Malcom X.
Furthermore, numerous uses of force in the 60s and 70s, designed to put fear into people, were acts of terrorism. I believe this included pipe bombs, shooting people, etc.
Show me ONE true instance where the Nation of Islam attacked ANYONE in the 60s or 70s. Please name one source... other than yourself.
I personally think you have the Black Panthers confused with the Nation of Islam. Stop watching bad movies and read a book.
I personally think you are confused in your facts. Not to mention reactionary and mello-dramatic. In addition, if you (and for that matter other Mac Addicts) spent half the time you do attacking the Windows Community on promoting Mac usage and demonstrating its real power, I'm sure you would win some converts. But you're too busy taking every criticism of Apple as a personal attack.
Damn, you caught me. I can type "good" but can't read. Oh well... guess I have to go back to Hooked on Phonics.
Did you notice my sarcasm? :)
But AOL -- with 35 million subscribers worldwide -- uses the tactic most frequently. The AOL discs appear in magazines, at the movies, in the mail and at parties, but an AOL spokesman wouldn't say how many discs are sent out every year.
Cool. I can start having AOL disc parties (kinda like Tupperware, 'cept different). I can showcase the different AOL CDs now flouting through the USPS. And tell people how they too can receive 4 discs in one day.
We can have games, like name your favorite AOL customer service rep and pin the tail on Steve Case. And door prizes, we have to have door prizes... maybe AOL CDs from around the world.
And cake, punch, and cookies... emmmm cookies.
If these guys succeed, what's stopping AOL from re-packaging each CD and mailing it out again?
The developing world doesn't give a stuff what word processor you prefer or how you think it's unfair that you should have to pay, what, $15 for a CD, so you steal it instead. Look at the big picture, people.
Amen to that. I don't think someone starving to death in Asia or trying to survive yet another civial war in Africa gives 2cents about the RIAA or MPAA and the "difficulty" we Americans encounter when purchasing our vast amounts of CDs and DVDs.
If I want to have an MP3 server in my house, I can. If I want to burn copies of the CDs I have purchased to protect against losing or damaging my only copy, I can. If I want to make a compilation CD, I can.
I agree as long as the above is for personal use. If you open your MP3 server to the world and allow people to download files, then you are supporting piracy.
You'll get no argument from me on personal use. I believe once you buy one cd you should be able to make a 1000 copies or more, but only for personal use.
First, take artists out of there. Artists don't own squat! They sign it away to get that record deal.
Not completely true. I can name an artist that owns his own music for every artist you name that signed his rights away.
Do the heirs of Robert Frost still deserve royalty checks for his poems, or should they be released into the public domain? Should the silent movies be released to the public domain, or should some company own them and just sit on them because they can?
You're using examples that are more than 80 years old and as such are easier to argue that they should be part of public domain.
What do you think is a fair time frame for copyright? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
concept of money is people continuing to pay $12.95 for a game that has no customer service, an obviously flawed monetary system, several "show-stopping" graphics and lag issues, broken zones and loot tables, pathing and xyz axis bugs, and of course very limited in-game support now (except for those playing on the $49.95 a month "Legends" server).
If someone is exploiting the monetary system (and they have for some time) then Verant should step up and fix the problem. However, please don't figure on that happening for at least 6 months. It took Verant 6 months to address the issue of ManaBurn and the affect it had on the "game" and Planes of Power is due for release next week (and with EVERY new release there are several new and fun issues to deal with, not the least of which a day or two of downtime).
Bottom line, it is just a GAME. And because it is just a GAME, you have choices. There are numerous other online roleplaying games (albeit they do not have the population like EQ) people can enjoy (and exploit!).
If someone is cheating to "spoil" EQ, then
1) Verant should step up and fix what is wrong
or
2) Stop paying Verant $12.95 a month and go play one of the other 4 or 5 OnLine roleplaying games.
You do have a choice.
I'll second that. Who cares if someone is "duping" or cheating to make "money" in EQ. It's just a GAME.
Move along, nothing to see here.
LOL! Right on!
SETI@Home is not out of funding... it's a Microsoft-Martian-AOL conspiracy to keep us from learning the Elvis isn't dead; he's just on tour in another part of the MilkyWay.
Sorry couldn't resist.
What will middle america do now to access wal mart.com?
So, your point (simplified) is:
1) entertainment (music, movies, software, literature, etc) is too expensive and should be less costly
2) entertainment should be easier to attain (i.e. watch a new release movie in the comfort of your own home), and
3) entertainment should be owned by the people and not by the artists or corporations?
The difference is that it costs money for a company to produce a car.
When did it become free to produce an album? Because if something has changed recently, I have a couple of songs I'd like to put down on vinyl.
We are talking about music that has been created, and is just sitting doing nothing.
No. What we're talking about is a group of companies and individuals that hold the rights to hundreds of songs and albums. It's their property. And they don't want people downloading it for free.
An entire industry survives because people have always PAID for music. What has changed? With the advent of P2P, why is it ok to not pay for music, movies, or software?
They don't make it available because they are too busy pushing the "next great thing".
$899 to $12.99 will get you just about any CD from an artist's back catalogue.
To the positive thinker, that means "there is an untapped market out there that people are swarming around".
To the marketing company it means an entirely new way of delivering product to consumers. And I'm sure one day we'll see the Net play a much larger role in the music industry.
To the RIAA, it means "Pirates! We must stop them!"
Granted the RIAA goes WAY too far in trying to enforce its monopoly. However, can you blame them?
P2P networks are distributing, for free, copyrighted works. If the same P2P networks distributed pirated (i.e. ripped) copies of Unreal 2003 wouldn't that be stealing? It's someone's intellectual property. A group of individuals sat down and worked from someone's idea to create a video game. What's the difference?
Is it fair for a competing network to pick up Fox's broadcast of the World Series and show it on their own network?
It is about the RIAA and record labels wanting to maintain their control over music.
It's there music! They own it. Copyright holders OWN it. They can do whatever they want with it. Just because a certain song or album brings back fond childhood memories, doesn't mean you own the song and can do with it what you please.
Instead of trying to kill online file trading, they should make it not worthwhile by offering a better product.
Now, I've ranted and raved throughout this little diatribe and I apologize if I've offended you. When I got to this part I smiled. You have hit the capitalist nail on the head.
The music industry doesn't want to involve itself in new technology... never has. The only reason the industry agreed on the CD format is they knew it would "wear out" quickly and people would have to buy more. It took 15 years before digital recording became the standard in the industry. Why? Because it is sooooo easy to make copies from a digital recording, the label executives were afraid that artists would realize that they could make the same recording at home as they could at the million dollar Sony Studio in NY; and that putting it out on their own "label" would give them a larger share of the profit.
Bottom line is most people that use a P2P network don't feel the slightest grief about downloading copyrighted works (be it music, movies, or games). The majority feels as if they "deserve it" and justify their actions by telling themselves that Metallica and George Lucas are rich enough, "they don't need the money."
They're right: they don't need the money. But the people they employ do.
Example: after Jerry Garcia died and the Grateful Dead stopped touring, they had to lay off 75% of their staff. The remaining 25% support the website and merchandising. What happens if someone comes along and copies the same GD shirts you pay $25 for on the website and offers them for free? Is this stealing? Is this copyright infringement?
What's the difference between bootlegging shirts and downloading music from the NET?
So technically I haven't purchased them, but there is no real viable alternative. If the record companies offered older songs at a reasonable price, I would buy them. They don't, they are hoarding what they "own". Everyone else has embraced digital music except the people who control the music industry. They really need to wake up.
You know I would buy an AC Cobra if it was offered at a reasonable price. However, Ford and current private owners refuse to lower the price to one which I can afford; so they're hoarding them too!
Am I justified in going out and "acquiring" one through other-than-legal means?
I applaud your "stand up and be heard" rhetoric, however I have to call into question your self-promoting ethics. Just because the labels and distributors price music above what we may think is fair, doesn't give us justification to steal. Just because studios and theatre chains price admission above what we think is fair, doesn't give us the right to download a pirated copy or sneak in through the backdoor.
capitalism at its best.
A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it."
From AP: Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, is refusing to carry Sheryl Crow's upcoming album, because one song says the chain sells guns to kids.
In both cases Wal Mart seems to be simply protecting its most profitable sales: GUNS. We all know video games and good music detract from gun sales. And certainly, kids would want to buy a video game with naked chicks over a new rifle.
And can we blame Wal Mart? After Congressman Pat Kennedy "motivated" Wal Mart to move Guns away from the toy department in 2001 (effectively destroying the under 18 sales market) and with cigarette sales at an all-time low, Wal Mart must protect its last REAL AMERICAN profitable sales area: GUNS.
I do hope that the remaining portion of his "vast" memorabilia collection is able to support his defense fund and maybe pay down some of the expected criminal fines and civil judgements.
Stealing is stealing.
I don't think Mr. Foley should spend any amount of time in a cell, however, probation, counseling, and LOTS of community service is definitely in order.
LOL!
/. community can jump up and down and scream when Microsoft begins to charge for something they think should be free.
/. community logic.
I mean honestly, I didn't like the last Star Wars movie, so I have to be entitled to download burn this one to divx for compensation, right? It's only fair.
You nailed it, my friend. 99% of the movie, music, software pirates justify their actions with the "I deserve it" excuse.
"I have been a fan of Star Wars since I was 9, so I deserve to 'own' a copy before anyone else."
"I deserve lower prices at the box office, so I'll just download an illegal copy."
"I wasn't going to pay to see it in the theatre anyways, so I can download it because Lucas isn't losing money either way"
It burns me that some in the
Shout the praises of Linus when he releases something new for free.
And support people that pirate a movie like Star Wars... a movie funded SOLELY by George Lucas.
Review:
It's ok to pirate Microsoft, 'cause they're bad.
It's not ok to pirate Linux, 'cause they're good.
It's ok to pirate Star Wars, 'cause Mr. Lucas has enough money already (forget that he employs nearly 2000 people).
I love
Now, is copyright infringement stealing? No, because the damage is on a fundamentally different order. If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place. This can be more than the cost of an individual copy, less, or even negative. Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.
.50cent piece of candy or stick up a liquer store for $500 or embezzle $5million, it's all theft and it's all wrong.
Huh? We're modding this as Funny, right?
The damage to society done by stealing is easy enough to estimate. You steal a car, and you've stolen the value of the car from that person.
If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place.
Yes, it is easy to value an automobile and then assess damage as necessary. However, how do you value a person's lost time from work? Or time it takes to replace the car? Or the salary of the insurance company employee who processes the claim? Etc...
Are those "costs" valid? Or are they on a "fundamentally different order"?
Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.
Ok, I'll bite... what issue?
I think most people would agree that stealing is stealing. Whether you take a
Punishment is a completely different story. Did this person steal $450,000 worth of materials? The court will decide.
I think a much juicier question is: did the website, which ran the early review, generate income from this "inside information"? If they did, isn't fair to say that they owe Mr Lucas a substantial portion of that income, considering it was Mr. Lucas' creative product that generated their income?
Good point. And I do agree that "competitive education" is good, but only to a point.
First, education is a right in this country. In all states it is illegal not to educate a child. Driving or owning an auto is not a right. So, your argument is "apples and oranges."
There are several pitfalls to "voucher" education. First and foremost is the economic divide that exists in all parts of this country. And you and I both know that a voucher system would only widen that divide.
A modified voucher system is in place now. Title 1 funds are restricted if schools do not meet federal guidelines set by the current administration. State funds are also restricted by set guidelines. Of course, parents don't have a direct say in those guidelines.
And to tell you the truth those guidelines (like standardized testing, etc) are complete nonsense.
If parents want a voucher system, then they need to get involved NOW. Not at election time, but RIGHT NOW. If you want to change the education system, don't wait. Act now.