*Obviously* this case is only dealing with superhero movies. Maybe because when you are flying at close to the speed of light, relative time progresses much slower - the flying man thinks only 1 hour has gone by, but when he gets home he finds out that 10,000 years have passed. So the copyright on all his favorite movies has expired and he can watch copied disks as much as he likes. Alone. Because the human race has become extinct and he doesn't much like the intelligent cockroaches that have inherited the earth.
The Pirate Bay case was based on the idea that Pirate Bay was somehow facilitating or aiding and abetting the "crime" of copyright infringement. This is clearly the area of law that this Canadian case is exploring.
I think it is worthwhile pointing out that, according to the OP, this case was brought by Isohunt. Not thr RIAA. So I think Isohunt is hoping to clearly point out that in Canada there is no crime of aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
I own an Asus Eee PC, which has a 4GB SSD. I take it with me everywhere and, being a butter-fingered oaf, I tend to drop it everywhere too.
If the Eee had a conventional HDD I'm sure it would have given up the ghost long ago. But the Eee bounces along quite happily with no damage to the SSD.
Solid state is great, especially for children and folk like me!
Snekking right! The Aussie govt buy 4 million laptops, the software creators should be clambering over each other to get a contract.
This would be a wonderful opportunity for Free software. Aussies should start lobbying their representatives *now*, to shun the Microsoft solution and get the children some of the good stuff.
As for the "software in the cloud" solution: is Microsoft going to give each child a free internet connection at home? Somehow I doubt it. Which means poorer children won't be able to do their homework. The information divide gets wider...
"Dell have been selling servers, workstations and desktops with Linux installed for *years*."
Yes, but Dell hasn't been *advertising* Linux very heavily. And that was the point made by the post you replied to.
If you *want* to pay for the file, why don't you just go ahead and pay for it?
Is it too difficult for you to pay if there isn't a little button for you to click? Diddums.
No matter what Gates' motives and Microsoft's practices, the fact is: America was built on, by and for immigrants. Maybe that's unfashionable, now y'all got mortgages to pay. But it'sw a fact nevertheless, and I don't remember being taught that the Founding Fathers put a use-by date on the Truths that they saw as Self-evident.
PS: I'm a Brit and I live in the UK, so my grasp of US history is a bit shaky. But the basic truth of what I've written is just that: TRUTH.
Concerning whether this will contravene the First Amendment. I'm from the UK, so have very little knowledge of US Constitutional matters. So maybe someone can tell me: in the USA, can't an organization say that if you want to join the organization, you must give up some rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? For example, if you want to join the size8 society, the society rules state basically that you must give up the right to free speech - "You can't say size8 seems nasty, you must constantly state that size8 is akin to a god on earth". And if you don't like the idea of your freedom of speech being taken away in society business, then hey, don't join the society!
My example is frivolous, sure, but the underlying point is anything but. So you don't like some of the rules of the local high school because they contravene the Constitution - so don't send your kid to that school. There are more than one high school in the vast majority of American towns, I'm sure.
So, whether you agree with what I'm coming out with here... am I, in general, correct in this? (By which I don't mean it's okay for schools to do away with their students rights - I mean that strictly speaking, the schools have the right to say to parents "You wannaq send your kid to our school, you gotta accept our draconian rules". Am I right in thinking this?
After all, I'm sure the KKK has some rules that are not constitutional... don't klansmen have the right to know that the other guy with a bedsheet over his head is opposed to desegregation? (And I'm not a KKK sympathizer!)
Using the word "mob" to describe disgruntled consumers who've got together to demand their rights is just just another way for corporations and their apologists to cast these protestors in a bad light. The use of insults and defamatory terms is an old tactic.
It's good that wronged consumers are using the web and related available technology to fight the corporations. In the past, protesting consumers were pretty much isolated. The corporation would have a gang of lawyers and coordinating tactics, while the complaining consumer was on his own - even if there were a whole bunch of other consumers in the same situation, chances are they would never learn of each others' existence. The only way to disseminate such info was through the media - newspapers, TV and radio, etc - organizations that are owned by corporations and so have a vested interest in keeping these matters quiet.
But now, the decentralized nature of the web and the existence of many sites that are willing to discuss these matters means the average consumer now has a decent chance to fight back. These cases will become more and more commonplace. We now have a chance of winnning battles that we should rightfully win in any case. No wonder they want to call us "mobs".
Slashdot Mirror
*Obviously* this case is only dealing with superhero movies. Maybe because when you are flying at close to the speed of light, relative time progresses much slower - the flying man thinks only 1 hour has gone by, but when he gets home he finds out that 10,000 years have passed. So the copyright on all his favorite movies has expired and he can watch copied disks as much as he likes. Alone. Because the human race has become extinct and he doesn't much like the intelligent cockroaches that have inherited the earth.
The Pirate Bay case was based on the idea that Pirate Bay was somehow facilitating or aiding and abetting the "crime" of copyright infringement. This is clearly the area of law that this Canadian case is exploring. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that, according to the OP, this case was brought by Isohunt. Not thr RIAA. So I think Isohunt is hoping to clearly point out that in Canada there is no crime of aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
I own an Asus Eee PC, which has a 4GB SSD. I take it with me everywhere and, being a butter-fingered oaf, I tend to drop it everywhere too. If the Eee had a conventional HDD I'm sure it would have given up the ghost long ago. But the Eee bounces along quite happily with no damage to the SSD. Solid state is great, especially for children and folk like me!
Snekking right! The Aussie govt buy 4 million laptops, the software creators should be clambering over each other to get a contract. This would be a wonderful opportunity for Free software. Aussies should start lobbying their representatives *now*, to shun the Microsoft solution and get the children some of the good stuff. As for the "software in the cloud" solution: is Microsoft going to give each child a free internet connection at home? Somehow I doubt it. Which means poorer children won't be able to do their homework. The information divide gets wider...
"Dell have been selling servers, workstations and desktops with Linux installed for *years*." Yes, but Dell hasn't been *advertising* Linux very heavily. And that was the point made by the post you replied to.
Go on then wolfy.
If you *want* to pay for the file, why don't you just go ahead and pay for it? Is it too difficult for you to pay if there isn't a little button for you to click? Diddums.
No matter what Gates' motives and Microsoft's practices, the fact is: America was built on, by and for immigrants. Maybe that's unfashionable, now y'all got mortgages to pay. But it'sw a fact nevertheless, and I don't remember being taught that the Founding Fathers put a use-by date on the Truths that they saw as Self-evident. PS: I'm a Brit and I live in the UK, so my grasp of US history is a bit shaky. But the basic truth of what I've written is just that: TRUTH.
Concerning whether this will contravene the First Amendment. I'm from the UK, so have very little knowledge of US Constitutional matters. So maybe someone can tell me: in the USA, can't an organization say that if you want to join the organization, you must give up some rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? For example, if you want to join the size8 society, the society rules state basically that you must give up the right to free speech - "You can't say size8 seems nasty, you must constantly state that size8 is akin to a god on earth". And if you don't like the idea of your freedom of speech being taken away in society business, then hey, don't join the society! My example is frivolous, sure, but the underlying point is anything but. So you don't like some of the rules of the local high school because they contravene the Constitution - so don't send your kid to that school. There are more than one high school in the vast majority of American towns, I'm sure. So, whether you agree with what I'm coming out with here... am I, in general, correct in this? (By which I don't mean it's okay for schools to do away with their students rights - I mean that strictly speaking, the schools have the right to say to parents "You wannaq send your kid to our school, you gotta accept our draconian rules". Am I right in thinking this? After all, I'm sure the KKK has some rules that are not constitutional... don't klansmen have the right to know that the other guy with a bedsheet over his head is opposed to desegregation? (And I'm not a KKK sympathizer!)
Using the word "mob" to describe disgruntled consumers who've got together to demand their rights is just just another way for corporations and their apologists to cast these protestors in a bad light. The use of insults and defamatory terms is an old tactic. It's good that wronged consumers are using the web and related available technology to fight the corporations. In the past, protesting consumers were pretty much isolated. The corporation would have a gang of lawyers and coordinating tactics, while the complaining consumer was on his own - even if there were a whole bunch of other consumers in the same situation, chances are they would never learn of each others' existence. The only way to disseminate such info was through the media - newspapers, TV and radio, etc - organizations that are owned by corporations and so have a vested interest in keeping these matters quiet. But now, the decentralized nature of the web and the existence of many sites that are willing to discuss these matters means the average consumer now has a decent chance to fight back. These cases will become more and more commonplace. We now have a chance of winnning battles that we should rightfully win in any case. No wonder they want to call us "mobs".