Try telling that the judge the next time you buy that truckload of cigarettes for 2 bucks a box. How were you supposed to know it was stolen? Huh? I say "its not legal to buy stolen property" so I'm guessing you must be saying "its legal to buy stolen property"? If so that makes no sense in the context of your second paragraph.
Mind you, his mindset will have been "if they are having 500 mill from us they can pay for the meal" When did Ballmer develop a russian accent? Or is it something he does to try to woo the ladies while they pay for dinner?
It's a bit like when the person who punched you in the face steps in some dog crap. It just kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Or like when someone who punched you (an aggressive and deliberate act) turns around and gets raped (another agressive and deliberate act)? Because AFAIK stepping into dog shit isn't a deliberate act for most people. Its not like someone could accidentally hack into Microsoft's network and then post the source code onto the internet.
Actually there are some crazy people who would protect your rights, such as your right to free speech, even if they don't like, or in my example don't like what you have to say. Unfortunately they're not particularly common here at slashdot it seems.
Can you tell me where you live and what time you typically empty your bowels? I'll be fishing through the sewers apartment connects to during those times for $15,000. I figure most people go once a day, so that's a pretty good wage for wading through shit.
If this person had hacked Microsoft and posted the Windows source code online you would all be heralding him as a true freedom fighter. However because he hacked someone you like you say what he did was wrong.
I guess the motto here at slashdot is "you must respect people's rights, unless we don't like them."
1/2 Million Dollars just in 2 movies, so yes!, they have to do something. A reasonable person would suggest thyey stop making shit movies. Unfortunately the MPAA companies aren't run by reasonable people.
So an association of businesses used legal methods Stop right there. There's nothing legal about buying stolen property especially if you know the property is stolen. It has yet to be determined if the MPAA knew the property was stolen.
Yeah, yeah. We heard this back when Vista was being created (then called Longhorn). It still hasn't happened yet despite mass amounts of nerds saying it would. Forgive me if I don't think the sky is falling chicken little.
I'm not seeing anyone besides the chicken littles here at slashdot saying anyone will have to do anything. And I'm sorry if I seem overly harsh but I'm hearing the same dribble about this article as I did about Windows Vista and how everything except Vista would be outlawed. I take such comments now with a hefty amount of salt given how accurate they've proven to be in the past.
The current duration of copyright is effectively infinite, and will be extended as necessary by the likes of Disney. Right, see my first post in this thread (you can get to it by constantly hitting parent or by clicking here.
Oh of course, how silly of me. We also heard how this was coming once Windows Vista was launched. How's that going again? Because I haven't heard of any computers refusing to run Linux yet.
However, the issue of digital content is bigger than this. What about the people who would not pay for your work anyway, and only download it because they can (which I believe is most people) ? What kind of ethic is it to hoard something that is infinitely reproducible, denying it from those that simply can not make the money to pay? This is where the "anarchist" ideal seems to break down. Whose desire is more important? A difficult question.
You may suffer, but many others benefit. Not ideal, you lose in this situation. Perhaps we can be more holistic in our analysis - how can we setup a system where people have food on the table, a roof over their head and be able to work on the art/craft of their choice....and give it to the world for free if its digital. It would/should be based on how many different people access the content (download it in the case of internet based content). As if a person was only provided enough to eat and sleep, why shouldn't that person have the ability to own a television? Or have broadband internet? Or have the ability to live in a life of luxury? In the current market we allow people the opportunity to have these things, but not the guarantee and an "anarchist setup" would have to do the same. Otherwise how would it be fair to only have a limited amount of belongings and experiences?
I want to make a living filing bug reports for Debian, posting on slashdot, and doing other things I do in the normal course of my day. Why should I be forced to get a second job because I have no hope of making a living from my work that others clearly enjoy? Fortunately here at the USofA you have the ability to try. In a society where there is no copyright protection you don't have the ability to try.
If I can't make enough money at something I feel like doing, why is it that I can't demand laws to keep cash flowing in my direction? You seem to misunderstand copyright law. A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution. Piracy is, funnily enough, unconstitutional.
Why is it that making music is? Because the constitution says it is, and we as a society also say it is. It is believed that the amount of quality creative works developed would decrease dramatically without copyright. This is one belief I believe in.
You seem to be saying it's somehow unfair that they need a real job because their music making isn't cutting it. No I say its unfair that they have a 0% chance at making a living from their music. No matter how dreadful it is, they currently have a greater than 0% chance at making a living from their music. As someone who enjoys the entertainment offered by copyrighted content, I would hate to see copyright law abolished.
You are paying them. You are supporting them. You are encouraging them. You are to blame. Many posts here at slashdot would indicate that the first point isn't always true.
actually, to be precise, people who don't use it will be ruled "negligent" and fined or arrested for aiding copyright infringment: this is great since there will be no need to involve democratic representatives and pay their usual "consulting fees" You misunderstand. There is content allovertheinternet that wouldn't be protected by this filter. Anyone could easily move to these content producers and enjoy their work and support them in not being overprotective with their copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there are some crazy people who would protect your rights, such as your right to free speech, even if they don't like, or in my example don't like what you have to say. Unfortunately they're not particularly common here at slashdot it seems.
Can you tell me where you live and what time you typically empty your bowels? I'll be fishing through the sewers apartment connects to during those times for $15,000. I figure most people go once a day, so that's a pretty good wage for wading through shit.
If this person had hacked Microsoft and posted the Windows source code online you would all be heralding him as a true freedom fighter. However because he hacked someone you like you say what he did was wrong.
I guess the motto here at slashdot is "you must respect people's rights, unless we don't like them."
There's no indication that it will be America-wide either.
Talk to me when they begin lobbying for it to become mandatory. Otherwise people are free to implement it or not, as they should be.
I've already got Gutsy Gibbon being mailed to me and I'll be installing that once it gets here.
I thought the parent was saying Drawn Together infringes on other people's copyright (with the Betty Boop character the most obvious example).
Yeah, yeah. We heard this back when Vista was being created (then called Longhorn). It still hasn't happened yet despite mass amounts of nerds saying it would. Forgive me if I don't think the sky is falling chicken little.
I'm not seeing anyone besides the chicken littles here at slashdot saying anyone will have to do anything. And I'm sorry if I seem overly harsh but I'm hearing the same dribble about this article as I did about Windows Vista and how everything except Vista would be outlawed. I take such comments now with a hefty amount of salt given how accurate they've proven to be in the past.
Oh of course, how silly of me. We also heard how this was coming once Windows Vista was launched. How's that going again? Because I haven't heard of any computers refusing to run Linux yet.
Oh, heh. Yeah I'm not fond of the show myself.
I think you'll find your post says more about you then it does me.
Given its been produced for 4 years and is published worldwide, I somehow doubt its going to suddenly come under attack tomorrow.
Why? Its fair use and as such would be protected from this filter if it were to be published on a website that used the filter.