Some time ago I found on some torrent site the 3 original movies, ripped from LaserDisc, and re-encoded as DVDs. I downloaded the isos and burnt them, now I only need to print up something nice for the boxes. I think the LaserDisc version was the same as the VHS one, no new effects, han shoots first, etc.
I also bought the remastered version LF put out, but I only saw it once.. I like the originals better.
The difference is that the way he did it, if he loses, he doesn't have to pay anything.
If he had kept the content online, had been sued, and lost, he'd go bankrupt (maybe even before he got to the point of winning or losing, if he couldn't afford the legal fees).
at least that's what seems to be the consensus so far here on/. (obviously IANAL)
I don't know if he/it exists or not. If I had to bet, i'd probably bet on 'no'; but frankly, the main reason I'm an agnostic is that I don't really care either way:)
Well here in argentina the Peso is devaluating (1 peso = 3.52 dollars, last week it was 3.50, and it keeps devaluating), and a game like GTAIV for xbox360 costs 399 pesos at a retail store. Now, imagine that salaries are similar to, say, salaries in the us but in pesos (i.e.: where an us worker makes u$s2k a month, the same job in.ar can make ar$2k a month), so it's no wonder everyone gets pirated copies. Imagine if you had to pay 399 euro or 399 dollars for a game. If it weren't easy to copy them, most people wouldn't play them at all.
Ironically, I just bought World of Goo for linux at 20 dollars over the net, which is about 70 pesos.. that's as if you had to pay 70 euros for it, but I bought it for two main reasons. 1) I wanted to support non-drm, linux native efforts 2) I really like the game. Not 70-bucks-like-it, but having reason 1) there, I thought the occasion warranted an extra effort.
I feel something similar every time there's news about some new kind of weapon or gun, and I see some people posting like they just got a new toy to play with:(
An example of Google's filtering in Argentina can be seen by searching for "susana gimenez sexshop" which will result in three links at the bottom of the page to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse -- a project that tracks these incidents and seeks to inform users of their rights.
On Google.com.ar: Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 2.700 de susana gimenez sexshop. (0,06 segundos)
On Google.com (through US Proxy):
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,670 for susana gimenez sexshop. (0.11 seconds)
Google's search algorithm produces different results in different localizations, I would think it gives more relevance to results in the same language and/or geography (i.e., in Google Argentina, results in spanish and from places close/in Argentina would be somewhat higher in ranking than the same results in Google.com).
I play football (soccer for our yank friends) 4 times a week, one hour at a time in 5vs5 fields. There's *PLENTY* of those here in Buenos Aires. Dunno where you live, but maybe there's another sport you like that you could practice. The hard part is getting your friends to agree on a schedule, but it's good exercise and we have a good laugh too.
I hate the idea of just running (especially on a machine) but having an objective, and playing with a team is lots of fun. Kinda like playing CS;)
It's not that it more or less restrictive (and I do think EULAs are more restrictive in general, as they are restrictions -in addition- to what copyright law already states. The fact that no one cares about either is another matter). What bothers me the most is the general perception that (generally through licensing) authors get the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with what you've bought and is yours. One thing is the government telling you that through laws, which (we suppose) are set by people democratically elected, and another quite different is some individual getting to tell you that. Sure, we can discuss all night about corruption, lobbying, etc etc, but there's a huge ethical and ideological difference there. The fact that we couldn't care less about the license doesn't mean they're ok. Heck, most of your assumptions were spot on:) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it if we don't agree, because today they don't care about us ignoring the EULA, but tomorrow things could change, and enforcing it would certainly suck. Oh and by eulas being restrictive I was thinking of software allowed to be used commercially or not, allowed to be installed in VMs, charging for allowed connections, that sort of crap. The important thing is that even if today it's not terribly worrying, we're going down a path I don't like at all. Having said all of that, I also happen to think copyright law as it is sucks donkey balls, but that's another story.. we could write a book about that (and Bruce Sterling already did:))
I think a Software Product should be sold as a copy, protected only by explicit copyright law (i.e.: you can't redistribute it without permission), period. None of this nonsense of dictating how you can or can't use it.
What I despise is the author telling you what you can or cannot do with my own copy, ASIDE from what copyright law says. One thing is what the law says, another thing is what the guy who sold me the software says.
Using the typical car analogy, it's as if Ford sold you a car. You're subject by law not to use it to run over someone, or use it without driver license or a license plate, but the 'author' sure as hell has no right at all to tell you which roads you're allowed to use the car on or to forbid you from putting racing tyres on it if you want to. The brand, design, etc of the car belongs to them, but THAT car is yours.
And then there's the issue of Software being seen as a product, but not being sold, and it being -licensed- instead (even tho you usually don't get to read the license until after you've bought and installed the copy).
Of course it's debatable, but personally I HATE the idea of licensing software. I think a Software Product should be sold as a copy, protected only by explicit copyright law (i.e.: you can't redistribute it without permission), period. None of this nonsense of dictating how you can or can't use it. If I want to use it for business, I will, or at home, or for whatever purpose the author didn't intend. It's my copy, and with it I should be able to do absolutely anything I want to as long as I don't redistribute it without permission.
I want to BUY a COPY, not just a limited set of permissions from someone to only do a couple of things with it.. where did this idea that just because someone's the author of some work he gets to dictate what others do with it once it's been paid for?
If I buy a copy, that copy is mine, I do whatever I want with it (as long as it's not explicitely forbidden by law).
Slashdot Mirror
Xenophobe?
"Race" has nothing to do with nationality.
Some time ago I found on some torrent site the 3 original movies, ripped from LaserDisc, and re-encoded as DVDs. I downloaded the isos and burnt them, now I only need to print up something nice for the boxes. I think the LaserDisc version was the same as the VHS one, no new effects, han shoots first, etc.
I also bought the remastered version LF put out, but I only saw it once.. I like the originals better.
The difference is that the way he did it, if he loses, he doesn't have to pay anything.
If he had kept the content online, had been sued, and lost, he'd go bankrupt (maybe even before he got to the point of winning or losing, if he couldn't afford the legal fees).
at least that's what seems to be the consensus so far here on /. (obviously IANAL)
I don't know if he/it exists or not. If I had to bet, i'd probably bet on 'no'; but frankly, the main reason I'm an agnostic is that I don't really care either way :)
I can't believe that for once I agree with a post from cts =P
I'm an agnostic and that didn't prevent me from understanding the religious/spiritual theme in the show, which I enjoyed immensely.
Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't understand why religious people do or that I think they're wrong to do so.
I hope they can reconstruct my own personal Milla Jovovich from fragment DNA :)
seh, meti la pata por no prestar atencion. Ya lo corregi mas arriba :)
(yeah, messed up the numbers 'cause I wasn't paying attention, fixed it up above)
Yeah, sorry, typed it wrong. It's 1 dollar = 3.52 pesos.
113.35 USD isn't insanely high when your salary is in dollars.
When your sallary is in pesos, 113.35 dollars is a fortune.
Well here in argentina the Peso is devaluating (1 peso = 3.52 dollars, last week it was 3.50, and it keeps devaluating), and a game like GTAIV for xbox360 costs 399 pesos at a retail store. .ar can make ar$2k a month), so it's no wonder everyone gets pirated copies.
Now, imagine that salaries are similar to, say, salaries in the us but in pesos (i.e.: where an us worker makes u$s2k a month, the same job in
Imagine if you had to pay 399 euro or 399 dollars for a game. If it weren't easy to copy them, most people wouldn't play them at all.
Ironically, I just bought World of Goo for linux at 20 dollars over the net, which is about 70 pesos.. that's as if you had to pay 70 euros for it, but I bought it for two main reasons.
1) I wanted to support non-drm, linux native efforts
2) I really like the game. Not 70-bucks-like-it, but having reason 1) there, I thought the occasion warranted an extra effort.
WTF??? who modded this -1 Troll ????
That is probably a myth, but this one is real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Montero
Couldn't agree more.
I feel something similar every time there's news about some new kind of weapon or gun, and I see some people posting like they just got a new toy to play with :(
Not to mention that the hammer tends to be a *bit* easier to dodge
An example of Google's filtering in Argentina can be seen by searching for "susana gimenez sexshop" which will result in three links at the bottom of the page to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse -- a project that tracks these incidents and seeks to inform users of their rights.
On Google.com.ar:
Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 2.700 de susana gimenez sexshop. (0,06 segundos)
On Google.com (through US Proxy):
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,670 for susana gimenez sexshop. (0.11 seconds)
And about the same sites/news on both..
Google's search algorithm produces different results in different localizations, I would think it gives more relevance to results in the same language and/or geography (i.e., in Google Argentina, results in spanish and from places close/in Argentina would be somewhat higher in ranking than the same results in Google.com).
whoosh!!!
Even better is a billion for free.
I applaud you man. I wish more people had that kind of integrity.
www.storyofstuff.com
+1 Pratchettian reference
Turns out torturing small monarchs to modulate the signal wasn't very practical after all :)
I play football (soccer for our yank friends) 4 times a week, one hour at a time in 5vs5 fields. There's *PLENTY* of those here in Buenos Aires. Dunno where you live, but maybe there's another sport you like that you could practice. The hard part is getting your friends to agree on a schedule, but it's good exercise and we have a good laugh too.
I hate the idea of just running (especially on a machine) but having an objective, and playing with a team is lots of fun. Kinda like playing CS ;)
It's not that it more or less restrictive (and I do think EULAs are more restrictive in general, as they are restrictions -in addition- to what copyright law already states. The fact that no one cares about either is another matter). What bothers me the most is the general perception that (generally through licensing) authors get the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with what you've bought and is yours. One thing is the government telling you that through laws, which (we suppose) are set by people democratically elected, and another quite different is some individual getting to tell you that. Sure, we can discuss all night about corruption, lobbying, etc etc, but there's a huge ethical and ideological difference there. :) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize it if we don't agree, because today they don't care about us ignoring the EULA, but tomorrow things could change, and enforcing it would certainly suck.
The fact that we couldn't care less about the license doesn't mean they're ok. Heck, most of your assumptions were spot on
Oh and by eulas being restrictive I was thinking of software allowed to be used commercially or not, allowed to be installed in VMs, charging for allowed connections, that sort of crap. The important thing is that even if today it's not terribly worrying, we're going down a path I don't like at all.
Having said all of that, I also happen to think copyright law as it is sucks donkey balls, but that's another story.. we could write a book about that (and Bruce Sterling already did:))
You apparently didn't read my comment very well.
I think a Software Product should be sold as a copy, protected only by explicit copyright law (i.e.: you can't redistribute it without permission), period. None of this nonsense of dictating how you can or can't use it.
What I despise is the author telling you what you can or cannot do with my own copy, ASIDE from what copyright law says. One thing is what the law says, another thing is what the guy who sold me the software says.
Using the typical car analogy, it's as if Ford sold you a car. You're subject by law not to use it to run over someone, or use it without driver license or a license plate, but the 'author' sure as hell has no right at all to tell you which roads you're allowed to use the car on or to forbid you from putting racing tyres on it if you want to. The brand, design, etc of the car belongs to them, but THAT car is yours.
And then there's the issue of Software being seen as a product, but not being sold, and it being -licensed- instead (even tho you usually don't get to read the license until after you've bought and installed the copy).
Of course it's debatable, but personally I HATE the idea of licensing software. I think a Software Product should be sold as a copy, protected only by explicit copyright law (i.e.: you can't redistribute it without permission), period. None of this nonsense of dictating how you can or can't use it. If I want to use it for business, I will, or at home, or for whatever purpose the author didn't intend. It's my copy, and with it I should be able to do absolutely anything I want to as long as I don't redistribute it without permission.
I want to BUY a COPY, not just a limited set of permissions from someone to only do a couple of things with it.. where did this idea that just because someone's the author of some work he gets to dictate what others do with it once it's been paid for?
If I buy a copy, that copy is mine, I do whatever I want with it (as long as it's not explicitely forbidden by law).
This is all fucked up.