In that case decide on a set time, say 20 hours, and set the timer on 25 (numbers are pulled out of my ass)7. Tell little timmy that there'll be no punishment if he uses all 25 hours, however his father will be severely disappointed in little Timmy. Hopefully over time little Timmy will learn self-discipline, but if he doesn't then the timer is simply limiting how much trouble he's getting into.
So you have children playing because the box said 'okay' even though the circumstances for that minute/hour/day make it definitely not okay. This is why its better for a week rather then a day. If you know of something that will effect the entire week ahead of time, you can set the timer lower. This is also where self discipline comes into play.
Being a granted a monopoly on a specific implementation is copyright No it isn't. At least it isn't suppose to be. Once upon a time inventions weren't copyrightable and copyrightable material wasn't patentable. The fact that the patent system has been twisted to what it is now doesn't change how it once worked and how it should work.
The claim
Well of course. This study makes it perfectly clear that P2P downloading leads to CD purchasing, so P2P is obviously helping the music industry. also isn't supported by evidence either. I find it interesting you call him up on one point, but not the other.
Got any studies to show that people who have been sued by the RIAA buy less music? What about those the RIAA scare into ceasing their illegal activities? Do they buy less as well?
Until you can say yay or nay to these questions the RIAA will not see a profit in ceasing their activities beyond no longer losing the money they're paying the lawyers. Until now keeping that money hasn't been enough of an incentive.
This study drives a stake through nothing. Yes, people who buy more music also download more then people who buy less music. Would these people (from either category) have bought more music if they couldn't download anything? Both sets of people have equal access to illegal music and legal music. If we take away the access to the illegal music, does the amount of legal purchases increase? The RIAA says yes, most slashdotters say no. This study says nothing.
Well, they will stop. Really? What part of
I already watch Heroes, without ads, and the amount I pay is a very round fucking figure. suggests to you this person is willing to pay anything for a tv show?
This post just goes to show: not all of those that pirate aren't going to stop just because a legal alternative comes up. Chasing after these people is pointless, which is why you don't see companies hopping on the e-bandwagon.
If Itunes is making profits impossible then the companies will stop selling the music on Itunes or go bankrupt, Itunes will stop having music to sell and will go bankrupt. Or maybe, just maybe, the companies are making profits from Itunes sales, they simply want more profit. In that case, STFU.
FILESHARING = RAPE No, that isn't what I said. I find it quite sad you do not grasp the most basic rudiments of the English language to realize this. You are a prime example on why no child left behind does more harm then good. I hope its repealed in time for your children.
Considering Google could at most have 170 million people using it in China (and the likelihood is that it has significantly less as not all of China's 1 billion people would use the internet) worth the morals of Google's leadership? I guess the answer is yes. I know everyone has a price, but considering how many people use Google worldwide, its quite sad that Google's price is an extra 170 million pairs of eyes.
No I'm not saying its okay. I'm just saying lets not celebrate this person getting off. Its like if a rapist was arrested. I would want him to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt or otherwise set free. I wouldn't be happy if he was set free and was the rapist, I certainly wouldn't celebrate it. As people here at slashdot do anytime someone gets away with copyright infringement because the RIAA couldn't prove they did it with a preponderance of evidence.
No I'm not objecting to due process. What I'm objecting to is people celebrating a criminal getting away with a crime. While yes we must let criminals go free for the system to work, that doesn't make it worth celebrating.
The Judge's answer was that there would need to be SOME proof this guy actually shared a file. Not someone using his account or his connection - but him. You need to show a tanglible link - some evidence that the defendant cannot counter with evidence to the contrary - that supports your position. Which means little more then people are able to break the law until you get caught. And people here celebrate this as if its a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Your father punished you for an honest mistake? Damn glad I didn't have him as a father.
It must also be nice to live in a two-parent household where both parents are actually good parents.
Considering these people are underaged I certainly hope you wouldn't. Or are you someone who gets off on underage naked kids?
I already bypass Windows. It isn't as fast as this sounds like its going to be, but it is certainly versatile.
They were paid by spammers to produce a bot for Second Life and wanted to do it on university time so they put in this bullshit research.
Which he of course was not.
Got any studies to show that people who have been sued by the RIAA buy less music? What about those the RIAA scare into ceasing their illegal activities? Do they buy less as well?
Until you can say yay or nay to these questions the RIAA will not see a profit in ceasing their activities beyond no longer losing the money they're paying the lawyers. Until now keeping that money hasn't been enough of an incentive.
This study drives a stake through nothing. Yes, people who buy more music also download more then people who buy less music. Would these people (from either category) have bought more music if they couldn't download anything? Both sets of people have equal access to illegal music and legal music. If we take away the access to the illegal music, does the amount of legal purchases increase? The RIAA says yes, most slashdotters say no. This study says nothing.
Why is a patch needed? Is it due to DRM?
This post just goes to show: not all of those that pirate aren't going to stop just because a legal alternative comes up. Chasing after these people is pointless, which is why you don't see companies hopping on the e-bandwagon.
If Itunes is making profits impossible then the companies will stop selling the music on Itunes or go bankrupt, Itunes will stop having music to sell and will go bankrupt. Or maybe, just maybe, the companies are making profits from Itunes sales, they simply want more profit. In that case, STFU.
Considering Google could at most have 170 million people using it in China (and the likelihood is that it has significantly less as not all of China's 1 billion people would use the internet) worth the morals of Google's leadership? I guess the answer is yes. I know everyone has a price, but considering how many people use Google worldwide, its quite sad that Google's price is an extra 170 million pairs of eyes.
No I'm not saying its okay. I'm just saying lets not celebrate this person getting off. Its like if a rapist was arrested. I would want him to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt or otherwise set free. I wouldn't be happy if he was set free and was the rapist, I certainly wouldn't celebrate it. As people here at slashdot do anytime someone gets away with copyright infringement because the RIAA couldn't prove they did it with a preponderance of evidence.
Aaah. Well it was different at my schools. Glad to see the school you work at though has a professional admin.
Because there's nothing like REPLACING EVERY SINGLE COMPUTER to keep the IT budget down in a school.
Its also harder for teachers to administrate.
I'm sorry, is downloading and uploading copyrighted music without the copyright owner's permission legal now?
No I'm not objecting to due process. What I'm objecting to is people celebrating a criminal getting away with a crime. While yes we must let criminals go free for the system to work, that doesn't make it worth celebrating.
Well I prefer not to celebrate people breaking the law and getting away with it. Different strokes for different folks I guess.