Infinitely better than having someone on trial who couldn't be shown to have done terrible things being nevertheless convicted on the basis that 'we just know you did it'. Right, but still hardly something worth celebrating over, as many here at slashdot do.
a. on the assumption that the defendant actually did infringe on the copyrights Yes. As a human being I'm able to go with things such as common sense, common knowledge, reality and my gut unlike a court of law which has to find things on either a preponderance of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt. Are you truly saying you think this person hasn't shared music illegally over p2p?
It'd be like having on trial being found not guilty because the state couldn't prove it. It should read:
It'd be like having [insert person here who has done many criminal and despicable things] on trial being found not guilty because the state couldn't prove it. That and someone who has pirated many things found not liable because the RIAA couldn't prove it, both leave everyone dissatisfied. It doesn't mean they're not at fault. It means they got away with it this time. Either the law should recognize that sharing music over p2p programs without the copyright holder's permission is legal or people should stop doing it. Having the law say its illegal and people getting away with it on technicalities, that isn't good for anyone.
If they're found to have used a p2p program with the copyrighted material and still aren't found liable. This means that the law says that illegally distributing people's copyrighted content for free isn't something that companies should be able to sue you for.
However if he's found not liable because the RIAA couldn't prove he used the p2p program when everyone in court knows he did it then that's a bad thing, because he's getting away on a technicality. It'd be like having on trial being found not guilty because the state couldn't prove it. That's something that leaves everyone dissatisfied, except for the criminals of course.
When the chances of someone being a filesharer is greater then 50% if someone is chosen at random, it becomes difficult to celebrate this person's innocence.
But you shouldn't ask person A to do Person B's job. it would be like asking a programmer to develop the latest GUI (something better left to graphics designers). Joe User doesn't care who does it, but that doesn't change who should do it.
You,mean freedom fighters target civilians such as high schools and places where private companies perform financial transactions? Wow. I guess a revolution might not be what we need.
The day they can compete is the day they don't need to run cables through public property. Until then, the government must step in and regulate, at the very least they need to regulate the laying of the cables. I'm not hearing many people anxious to give up on cable internet in favor of satellite internet. Therefore we must have a regulated internet.
We will all thank you if you do this as it shows when comcast starts messing with things it causes problems for legitimate programs (not just p2p file sharing) Because p2p programs are never legitimate. Nope. The openSUSE install I downloaded from bittorrent is simply a figment of my imagination.
But they benefit from deliberately installing stuff on the computers of users who don't get pissed off. Oh yes. I was commenting on one part of the update, not the whole thing.
But most will still keep coming back for more: "it's really my fault Microsoft only slaps me when I do something silly". For an example of this mindset one needs look no further then to Slashdot
From TFA
Microsoft installed a resource-hogging search application on machines company-wide, even though administrators had configured systems not to use the program If they meant the program had never been installed or had been previously uninstalled, "configured systems not to use the program" is a pretty damn peculiar way to say it. So either: 1) the Register used peculiar wording because they're illiterate. 2) the Register used peculiar wording to deliberately mislead and misrepresent the issue. 3) the update turned the program on after it had been turned off.
It is NEVER okay for a company to install an application on my computer without my concent. Ever. Oh I agree. That WGA bullshit is a big reason why I've recommended my family not "upgrade" to Vista, even though they buy their OSes legitimately.
I think you'll find that the Desktop Search is completely inseparable from the desktop and that the latter would be rendered completely useless if it is uninstalled. Just like IE is.
I didn't say they do care about pissing off its users. I hinted that they'll only deliberately piss them off when they benefit from it. The contention of my post is they don't benefit from turning it on when people have already turned it off therefore it must be a mistake.
This sounds like a dumb mistake. While they might have meant to install it on all computers, I doubt they meant to turn it on if it had previously been turned off. Microsoft does not benefit by deliberately pissing off its users in this way.
I think you're reading into it something that isn't there. I was careful to make my comment neutral on whether or not uploading torrents is a bad thing. It's here that I make the subtle implication that the person isn't using torrents for legitimate purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Its great to see someone so enthusiastic about producing art, but you didn't respond to the article at all ;) But still, good luck on your dreams!
If they're found to have used a p2p program with the copyrighted material and still aren't found liable. This means that the law says that illegally distributing people's copyrighted content for free isn't something that companies should be able to sue you for.
However if he's found not liable because the RIAA couldn't prove he used the p2p program when everyone in court knows he did it then that's a bad thing, because he's getting away on a technicality. It'd be like having on trial being found not guilty because the state couldn't prove it. That's something that leaves everyone dissatisfied, except for the criminals of course.
When the chances of someone being a filesharer is greater then 50% if someone is chosen at random, it becomes difficult to celebrate this person's innocence.
But you shouldn't ask person A to do Person B's job. it would be like asking a programmer to develop the latest GUI (something better left to graphics designers). Joe User doesn't care who does it, but that doesn't change who should do it.
I didn't say anything about Washington. I simply said if "freedom fighters" do those things we should avoid a rebellion.
I'm guessing 9 times out of 10 this will make someone angrier then they already were. Although at least they won't be depressed!
You ,mean freedom fighters target civilians such as high schools and places where private companies perform financial transactions? Wow. I guess a revolution might not be what we need.
Its sad to see someone who tells the truth modded as a troll.
C:\Hello Kitty\
:)
Hope that helps you
The day they can compete is the day they don't need to run cables through public property. Until then, the government must step in and regulate, at the very least they need to regulate the laying of the cables. I'm not hearing many people anxious to give up on cable internet in favor of satellite internet. Therefore we must have a regulated internet.
Selling to people who don't want any choice in the hardware they use. I'd hardly call them and Microsoft a "choice".
Have you got any cites to prove that Desktop Search phones home? Isn't that what the Google desktop does, not the Microsoft one?
1) the Register used peculiar wording because they're illiterate.
2) the Register used peculiar wording to deliberately mislead and misrepresent the issue.
3) the update turned the program on after it had been turned off. It is NEVER okay for a company to install an application on my computer without my concent. Ever. Oh I agree. That WGA bullshit is a big reason why I've recommended my family not "upgrade" to Vista, even though they buy their OSes legitimately.
I think you'll find that the Desktop Search is completely inseparable from the desktop and that the latter would be rendered completely useless if it is uninstalled. Just like IE is.
But they said 2008 would be the year of Linux! Surely if they say that everything else they say must be true!
I didn't say they do care about pissing off its users. I hinted that they'll only deliberately piss them off when they benefit from it. The contention of my post is they don't benefit from turning it on when people have already turned it off therefore it must be a mistake.
This sounds like a dumb mistake. While they might have meant to install it on all computers, I doubt they meant to turn it on if it had previously been turned off. Microsoft does not benefit by deliberately pissing off its users in this way.
In which case you're not a home user, but a business user.
I think you're reading into it something that isn't there. I was careful to make my comment neutral on whether or not uploading torrents is a bad thing. It's here that I make the subtle implication that the person isn't using torrents for legitimate purposes.