I've met plenty of qualified people who don't know how to fix simple problems. I have also met highly qualified people who don't know how to deal with clients.
This doesn't apply to all degrees, but generally without experience and the ability deal with people, a degree doesn't count for much.
I'm surprised by how many people will encounter a problem that is out of their depth only to continue, making the problem worse when a simple phone call to another technician would have resolved it.
With a novel such as "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the rings" it may be a little harder to justify piracy.
But anything produced as "non-fiction" should be up for grabs. We already have libraries for this so I think copyright on books is purely to protect them and their outdated model of obtaining information.
Suppose somebody cannot afford to buy a certain book. So I give them one for free, they know have access to that knowledge that they would not have otherwise.
It will cost you nothing for me to reproduce electronic copies of your book any cost that is incurred will be mine.
Artists lose control over their art as soon as it's sold, they are paid just once and it is gone.
Actually it is pretty clear - if the source is illegal, then it's illegal. If you rip your own CD to MP3s it's legal because the source is legal, if you download the same MP3s from P2P it's illegal. It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same, the legality depends on how you get there.
I share all my DVDs via bit torrent, they are from a legal source.
It is always ok to make copies, not from a legal standpoint but from a moral one. The free flow of information benefits all of society, opposed to a select few.
Piracy helps the flow of information keep going, I for one would be grateful if anything I published got free publicity.
Slashdot Mirror
My ISP throttles the connection once I reach my quota, so how am I going to get a $4500?
In that case the user should be removed from the human race, for the benefit of our species.
Wait until the bullshit report has MPAA backing
The ISPs started this war, I say bring it on.
That's what spell checkers are for, this is the 21st century after all.
I've met plenty of qualified people who don't know how to fix simple problems. I have also met highly qualified people who don't know how to deal with clients.
This doesn't apply to all degrees, but generally without experience and the ability deal with people, a degree doesn't count for much.
I'm surprised by how many people will encounter a problem that is out of their depth only to continue, making the problem worse when a simple phone call to another technician would have resolved it.
So why should they be paid for nothing?
They already got paid for the originals, I'm making the copies for them, perhaps they will now sell more originals thanks to me.
With a novel such as "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the rings" it may be a little harder to justify piracy.
But anything produced as "non-fiction" should be up for grabs. We already have libraries for this so I think copyright on books is purely to protect them and their outdated model of obtaining information.
Suppose somebody cannot afford to buy a certain book. So I give them one for free, they know have access to that knowledge that they would not have otherwise.
It will cost you nothing for me to reproduce electronic copies of your book any cost that is incurred will be mine.
Artists lose control over their art as soon as it's sold, they are paid just once and it is gone.
But how many people will now read their book who otherwise would not have, if I did not distribute it.
Actually it is pretty clear - if the source is illegal, then it's illegal. If you rip your own CD to MP3s it's legal because the source is legal, if you download the same MP3s from P2P it's illegal. It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same, the legality depends on how you get there.
I share all my DVDs via bit torrent, they are from a legal source.
The publisher has no way of knowing what gets sold and what doesn't, not second hand at least.
Looking at bit torrent stats would be a better way to determine this.
It is always ok to make copies, not from a legal standpoint but from a moral one. The free flow of information benefits all of society, opposed to a select few.
Piracy helps the flow of information keep going, I for one would be grateful if anything I published got free publicity.
Please explain how sharing knowledge could be un-ethical. Piracy is the RIGHT thing to do, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The ethical thing to do would be to keep seeding.
The Internet is a service it costs money to keep such a service running.
A book is a product it costs the creator nothing if I produce a few thousand copies of it. I am doing them a favour by promoting their book.
Piracy would have to be an unethical practice to begin with.
Get a fucking clue and save yourself the embarrassment.
I suppose you think IPods are illegal, good luck buddy!
If it's out of print then it hurts no one. Why should someone miss out on knowledge and information just because it is no longer printed?
Why should I care what the camera is made of?
If you get a unique opportunity to film something, don't fuck it keep the dam thing in frame.
It's no different that the amateurs who shake cameras while walking with them.
Click on an Article Link?
Why the hell would I do that?
Dam that's one hard game of space invaders. The trick is just trying to hit them.
That's ok, I often cite myself.
Hell, it would be good practical exercise for the 'cyber warfare' divisions to boot.
They are too busy pleasing their MPAA masters.
We need to get the control domain, then all the bullshit stops in it's tracks. If the spammers can do it why can't the anti-spammers.