It sounds like the judge took advantage of someone *treating* it as a currency to back-door define it as such in a precedent setting case.
Future cases involving bitcoin can now point to this case and say "it's a currency! The federal judge said so! That means we get to regulate it automatically".
I'm still rather disgusted that Monticello tried to start up a municipal fiber network only to get slapped with an injunction after the local telecom TDS got greedy and sued them over it.
If the copyright expires, it's no longer infringement or circumvention.
And returning copyright to sane terms won't help. SCOTUS just proved it's possible to retroactively take stuff out of the public domain even after its copyright expired.
However, the musicians who sell their souls to them aren't completely blameless.
Artists need to be braver about reaching out to their fans, and need to start filing anti-trust lawsuits against record companies who sabotage indie marketing.
One thing that the MAFIAA has right about "stealing profits"
Money is a finite resource, and you can only spend so much of it before you're broke.
So in a sense, when you pirate something instead of buying it, you are getting your cake for free, and money you could have spent on the media you "stole" instead goes to someone else. Whereas if you didn't pirate, you'd have to make a choice as to where you spend your finite money. Everyone having goods or services to sell you is competing for your money, and if you pirate something instead of paying for it, you cheat the producer out of his chance to win your dollars by satisfying you as a customer. In that sense, it's just like shoplifting. The common factor isn't deprivation of physical goods, but in cheating the producer out of compensation they are due for providing the good or service.
Don't get me wrong, the MAFIAA is a pack of greedy fucks. And everyone knows that marginal costs should reduce to zero becuase media is so cheap to reproduce, so I would very much like capitalism to flush out the rent seeking and economic profits.
They are however right that pirating deprives them of money that went to someone else when you still get your cake and eat it too, because the money you could have spent on their goods instead goes to someone else.
If you think media is overpriced for its quality, don't buy it. Boycott it. Making sacrifices because of a finite budget is just part of being a consumer, and providers of goods and services have to fight over your spending dollars just like everything else.
In one sense, piracy is not theft, because you're not taking anything physical. However, as far as cheating the producer out of compensation, it's no different from shoplifting. If it's valuable enough to pirate, it's valuable enough to pay for. If we don't like the price, we simply do without and hope that the producer plays ball and lowers the price.
How low they can go before they quit selling? Depends on how much it costs them to produce it. The free market can sort it out.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like the judge took advantage of someone *treating* it as a currency to back-door define it as such in a precedent setting case.
Future cases involving bitcoin can now point to this case and say "it's a currency! The federal judge said so! That means we get to regulate it automatically".
At least their maple syrup is probably pure and not that HFCS filled crap we eat down here in the states.
Gee, I wonder if that's one reason Americans are so unhealthy in the first place...
This is one reason I'm loving Google Fiber.
Competition to light a fire under their butts.
I'm still rather disgusted that Monticello tried to start up a municipal fiber network only to get slapped with an injunction after the local telecom TDS got greedy and sued them over it.
If the copyright expires, it's no longer infringement or circumvention.
And returning copyright to sane terms won't help. SCOTUS just proved it's possible to retroactively take stuff out of the public domain even after its copyright expired.
The blame lies on the record companies.
However, the musicians who sell their souls to them aren't completely blameless.
Artists need to be braver about reaching out to their fans, and need to start filing anti-trust lawsuits against record companies who sabotage indie marketing.
One thing that the MAFIAA has right about "stealing profits"
Money is a finite resource, and you can only spend so much of it before you're broke.
So in a sense, when you pirate something instead of buying it, you are getting your cake for free, and money you could have spent on the media you "stole" instead goes to someone else. Whereas if you didn't pirate, you'd have to make a choice as to where you spend your finite money. Everyone having goods or services to sell you is competing for your money, and if you pirate something instead of paying for it, you cheat the producer out of his chance to win your dollars by satisfying you as a customer. In that sense, it's just like shoplifting. The common factor isn't deprivation of physical goods, but in cheating the producer out of compensation they are due for providing the good or service.
Don't get me wrong, the MAFIAA is a pack of greedy fucks. And everyone knows that marginal costs should reduce to zero becuase media is so cheap to reproduce, so I would very much like capitalism to flush out the rent seeking and economic profits.
They are however right that pirating deprives them of money that went to someone else when you still get your cake and eat it too, because the money you could have spent on their goods instead goes to someone else.
If you think media is overpriced for its quality, don't buy it. Boycott it. Making sacrifices because of a finite budget is just part of being a consumer, and providers of goods and services have to fight over your spending dollars just like everything else.
In one sense, piracy is not theft, because you're not taking anything physical. However, as far as cheating the producer out of compensation, it's no different from shoplifting. If it's valuable enough to pirate, it's valuable enough to pay for. If we don't like the price, we simply do without and hope that the producer plays ball and lowers the price.
How low they can go before they quit selling? Depends on how much it costs them to produce it. The free market can sort it out.
Correlation is not causation.
Not on a protected OS you can't.
I imagine that if this is implemented it will be patented much like Blu-ray, and the only way to get a license is to swallow the DRM.
TPM could put a stop to that by requiring auditing of voltages.
MS already requires this of PVP drivers for vista and will revoke them if you allow copyrighted content to leak.
...you just HAD to say relatively didn't you...
This is more like everyone buying more locks, but the spooks have an insider at the lock factory making them easy to pick for the feds.
Furthermore, the lock and key guilds are chummy with the merchants who refuse to do business without them.
The lovely thing is that the CA would probably be forced to cooperate with this.
This is the problem with centralized encryption: single points of failure.
This general situation also reveals that the government already has us by the balls and can decrypt anyone they damn well please anyway.
What if your supplier is a GPL fanatic who planted the violation on purpose for the express reason of forcing you to cough up your own code?
It also gives GPL fanatics an incentive to sneak GPLed code into stuff they supply other developers, then tipping off the original licensor.
So what?
Maybe you shouldn't be spending effort that can easily be duplicated in the first place.
And besides that, if it's easily duplicated, the free market says it's in high supply and doesn't command a high price anyway.
Copyright is only for the benefit of those who care more about making money than they do about their work being produced.
A real artist cares more about art than money.
We don't need no stinkin copyright to protect it.
We already have HIPAA.
...this totally bites.
Since water was involved you'd be better off making a plumber joke. ...wait...
Statistically unsound to take only a single sample to judge the general status quo by.
Am I the only one who notices TFS has an unmatched "("?
Taxability does not imply legitimacy.
Just ask Al Capone.
As with most david vs goliath stories, the law applies however the side with the biggest legal budget says it does.
Surprise surprise.
Government that knows you can't do shit about them no longer cares to hide its moves.
Well they're right about that.
As many people keep chanting, we're the ones who "elected" them. *cough*elected*cough*
Guys, do you not get the reference in the guy's last name?