What if Google is using ISP X (and paying for every penny of bandwidth) and customer Y is using ISP Y. The customer is separated from Google by a large distance, and the traffic goes through Verizon's backbone. How does Verizon get paid?
The same way ISP Y gets paid when a Verizon customer is routed through their backbone.
The point of "civil disobedience" is that you make absolutely no effort to conceal your activities; you act as if you're doing nothing wrong because - and here's the point - in your eyes you're not.
The man who practically invented civil disobedience said "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." Now there are a quite a few people who want to avoid getting sued or going to jail yet still want to do something to topple the "IP" dictatorship that we currently live in and, since the **AAs love to throw out big numbers, the more they download the bigger the numbers get.
Hiding your activities and taking great pains to avoid being caught isn't the act of a citizen rightfully protesting an unjust law in the most direct way possible, it's the act of someone who knows that what they're doing is wrong.
No, it's the act of someone who's afraid that their government will punish them for doing what they think is right.
These guys weren't trying to make a statement, they were just trying to make money.
Make money how? By buying discs to upload, hardware to store it on, and bandwidth fees to upload files so others can download shit for free? Yeah that sure proves they were out to make a buck, doesn't it?
This isn't civil disobedience, since that is done publicly. This group apparantly took elaborate measures to conceal their activities.
What, do you think everyone just sat around in the speakeasy asking the cops come and raid the place? Mass disobedience, whether "civil" or not is what it takes to get unpopular laws changed.
It doesn't matter if you criminally conspire to evade taxes, to murder someone or to infringe on copyrights.
Conspiring to break laws is a crime and the police should deal with them as criminals.
Hmmm...so if you invite some friends to share a little grass you should get five years? Man, this country has been down this road a number of times and the people don't take kindly to the government throwing their kids in jail for stupid shit. Look, these aren't drug runners trying to get rich people hooked on crack. It's just a social thing that millions upon millions of hardworking Americans partake for the pure enjoyment of it.
The Constitution mandates that patents be awarded to inventors. That means the first inventor, not some johnny-come-lately. Whether he's the second, or third, or one thousandth person to invent something, he's not the inventor. That was the person who was first.
"Congress shall have the power.....To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Doesn't imply a mandate that patents must be awarded any more than....
"Congress shall have the power...to declare War"...implies that War must be made.
There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm]. And then there's non-free software for which there is not (yet) any competitive free equivalent - if it's protected then it's also more likely to be affordable.
Given that there are situations where it can be useful, why should a free software license restrict my freedom to use this technology? So long as we're going to be force fed it anyway, why not *encourage* free software implementations?
The new license doesn't restrict your freedom to use DRM, it protects your freedom to develop and modify it.
Yes, the COPY of the data on the usb device is LOST as in the company doesn't know where it is (or that it even existed in the first place). Let's say it contains people's credit card information, I hope you get why you wish to avoid "losing" such data.
No, I still don't get it. If a company still has the data then they have not lost it and they only need to look on their hard drive to find it unless they were stupid enough to delete the files when they were copied.
Just how much money do you think the federal government makes, in order that it can then pay it out as compensation, eh? Here's a clue: Absolutely none! Zero, nada, bupkis, zilch.
One of my pet peeves is people talking about governments "paying for things". They can't and they don't.
Since the government represents the people then it is the people who allowed the government to stay in power who are responsible for paying for things, and the only way to sue those people is to sue the government those people elected.
TFA is about losing or misplacing data because the USB drive it's stored on gets lost, not users stealing data as half the commenters (who obviously didn't RTFA) are talking about.
Are you saying that the data is lost when it is copied to a usb device? Why don't they just deny write priviledges to the source device to prevent deleting?
It's been present ever since Windows 2000 - if a company is worried about data loss via USB drives and the like, it's possible to disable access to USB drives using regular Windows security templates.
Wouldn't it be simpler to deny write access to the source media so that nobody can deprive the owner of the data? Disabling USB would only inhibit copying but what we are talking about here is theft.
Again: similar and derivative are totally different in copyright: -Taking a sample and reusing it is making a derivative work. -Creating a work to reproduce the function of an other work makes it a similar work.
I'm not quite at the point of the Pirate party when it comes to copyrights as I still believe it has some value but it is these "finer" points of the law along with the outrageous terms that have me leaning their way.
Duh! Using a sample makes it a derivative. It's exactly the same as reusing code (IMHO). I was thinking along the lines of GNU tar vs. BSD tar. They do exactly the same without being a derivative in the sense of copyrightlaws.
Hmmm...I'll wager without even looking at the code that they both make similar function calls and identifier names, which are the "notes" of programming.
This is a strange new idea, instead of following the law you instead try to gain political power and change the laws. I know there are a few people out there that actually can convince themselves that they are not stealing, but I doubt they could get 4% of a country to feel the same way.
Are there really that many people, even on Slashdot, that think stealing intellectual property is not wrong?
Yes, mostly due to the **AAs making it such a big issue. I'm constantly being surprised by how many people have been griping about the problems they have with DRM, rootkits, anti-piracy ads on DVDs and in theaters and am happy to point out to them that all these bad things can be easily legislated away if they elect the right representatives.
Hollywood and the music industry announced they will, be halting all production and put their money into stocks and bonds. Software companies are expected to follow their example.
Good riddance! I"m so sick and tired of their constant whining and privacy intrusions that I will be glad to see them gone.
There ain't no free ride. If no one wants to pay for it the product goes away, it's called capitalism.
If you're looking for free entertainment start here, if it's software you need go here. You will find the true capitalists barter their wares at places such as those.
A long duration may make the creator of a succesful product "lazy". But it would certainly spur competitors to create a similar product. ...and get sued for making an unauthorized derivative.
"And last but not least, you're cheating yourself out of the movie experiance!" What - I'm cheating myself out of sky high movie ticket prices, jackasses who wont shut up during the movie,..."
This is exactly why I won't take my rather large family to the theater...I'm just too afraid they will upset the other patrons. And besides, it sure is a hell of a lot cheaper to rent a movie and order a half a dozen pizzas to be delivered then to spring for a couple of hundred dollars worth of tickets and stale popcorn. Thank goodness for home theaters because the cinemaplex quit being entertainment for the family long ago.
Bullshit. Most people use p2p programs to download content without the copyright owner's permission.
Question...how do you know whether the copyright owner has given permission until you download the content and look at the license? Seriously, with all the millions upon millions of files available on the internet how is it even possible to know for certain what can be downloaded legally and what can not?
It is likely that you would not be able to reproduce without a prostate gland because it adds enzymes that nutralize acidic urine residue in the urethra and activate sperm.
There I go confusing the issues again... downloading from P2P networks IS theft (even in a world where CD/DVD prices are extortionate); making the most of your intellectual property license (ie CD/DVD purchase) by transforming the work into more convenient formats is not.
You really are quite confused, aren't you? Downloading from P2P, or any other type of network, is not theft...it's not even a copyright violation unless you live in a jurisdiction that requires the author's permission and that permission was not given.
Re:Development of GTK+
on
Why Use GTK+?
·
· Score: 1
These days any serious developer doesn't use plain GTK+ anymore.
Once you leave plain old 'C' a library's usefulness takes a serious hit. Even C++ requires contortions to be callable from other languages.
OK, I get it. You don't want anyone else to be the first guy to think of something, or find a more efficient way to do it.
No, obviously you don't. In order for someone to "think" of something he has to have previous somethings to build on and intellectual property laws lock out those who can not afford to pay for the knowledge necessary to do so.
Say he decides to start making his living writing software, or developing specialized business processes that can make him and his company more prosperous... ...and then finds out he can't because some US company has locked him out of the market with a patent.
Slashdot Mirror
What if Google is using ISP X (and paying for every penny of bandwidth) and customer Y is using ISP Y. The customer is separated from Google by a large distance, and the traffic goes through Verizon's backbone. How does Verizon get paid?
The same way ISP Y gets paid when a Verizon customer is routed through their backbone.
And who will route packets between municipalities?
Hey, eminent domain worked to get concrete superhighways built, didn't it?
The point of "civil disobedience" is that you make absolutely no effort to conceal your activities; you act as if you're doing nothing wrong because - and here's the point - in your eyes you're not.
The man who practically invented civil disobedience said "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." Now there are a quite a few people who want to avoid getting sued or going to jail yet still want to do something to topple the "IP" dictatorship that we currently live in and, since the **AAs love to throw out big numbers, the more they download the bigger the numbers get.
Hiding your activities and taking great pains to avoid being caught isn't the act of a citizen rightfully protesting an unjust law in the most direct way possible, it's the act of someone who knows that what they're doing is wrong.
No, it's the act of someone who's afraid that their government will punish them for doing what they think is right.
These guys weren't trying to make a statement, they were just trying to make money.
Make money how? By buying discs to upload, hardware to store it on, and bandwidth fees to upload files so others can download shit for free? Yeah that sure proves they were out to make a buck, doesn't it?
This isn't civil disobedience, since that is done publicly. This group apparantly took elaborate measures to conceal their activities.
What, do you think everyone just sat around in the speakeasy asking the cops come and raid the place? Mass disobedience, whether "civil" or not is what it takes to get unpopular laws changed.
The main charge is criminal conspiracy.
It doesn't matter if you criminally conspire to evade taxes, to murder someone or to infringe on copyrights.
Conspiring to break laws is a crime and the police should deal with them as criminals.
Hmmm...so if you invite some friends to share a little grass you should get five years? Man, this country has been down this road a number of times and the people don't take kindly to the government throwing their kids in jail for stupid shit. Look, these aren't drug runners trying to get rich people hooked on crack. It's just a social thing that millions upon millions of hardworking Americans partake for the pure enjoyment of it.
The Constitution mandates that patents be awarded to inventors. That means the first inventor, not some johnny-come-lately. Whether he's the second, or third, or one thousandth person to invent something, he's not the inventor. That was the person who was first.
"Congress shall have the power.....To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Doesn't imply a mandate that patents must be awarded any more than....
"Congress shall have the power...to declare War"
There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm]. And then there's non-free software for which there is not (yet) any competitive free equivalent - if it's protected then it's also more likely to be affordable.
Given that there are situations where it can be useful, why should a free software license restrict my freedom to use this technology? So long as we're going to be force fed it anyway, why not *encourage* free software implementations?
The new license doesn't restrict your freedom to use DRM, it protects your freedom to develop and modify it.
Yes, the COPY of the data on the usb device is LOST as in the company doesn't know where it is (or that it even existed in the first place). Let's say it contains people's credit card information, I hope you get why you wish to avoid "losing" such data.
No, I still don't get it. If a company still has the data then they have not lost it and they only need to look on their hard drive to find it unless they were stupid enough to delete the files when they were copied.
Just how much money do you think the federal government makes, in order that it can then pay it out as compensation, eh? Here's a clue: Absolutely none! Zero, nada, bupkis, zilch.
One of my pet peeves is people talking about governments "paying for things". They can't and they don't.
Since the government represents the people then it is the people who allowed the government to stay in power who are responsible for paying for things, and the only way to sue those people is to sue the government those people elected.
TFA is about losing or misplacing data because the USB drive it's stored on gets lost, not users stealing data as half the commenters (who obviously didn't RTFA) are talking about.
Are you saying that the data is lost when it is copied to a usb device? Why don't they just deny write priviledges to the source device to prevent deleting?
It's been present ever since Windows 2000 - if a company is worried about data loss via USB drives and the like, it's possible to disable access to USB drives using regular Windows security templates.
Wouldn't it be simpler to deny write access to the source media so that nobody can deprive the owner of the data? Disabling USB would only inhibit copying but what we are talking about here is theft.
And then no one will want to make music because if its free, they don't get paid.
---pulls out a couple of spoons from the kitchen drawer and starts banging on the table
"RATATATTATRATATATTAT"
There you go, take it and do what you want with it.
Again: similar and derivative are totally different in copyright:
-Taking a sample and reusing it is making a derivative work.
-Creating a work to reproduce the function of an other work makes it a similar work.
I'm not quite at the point of the Pirate party when it comes to copyrights as I still believe it has some value but it is these "finer" points of the law along with the outrageous terms that have me leaning their way.
Duh! Using a sample makes it a derivative. It's exactly the same as reusing code (IMHO). I was thinking along the lines of GNU tar vs. BSD tar. They do exactly the same without being a derivative in the sense of copyrightlaws.
Hmmm...I'll wager without even looking at the code that they both make similar function calls and identifier names, which are the "notes" of programming.
This is a strange new idea, instead of following the law you instead try to gain political power and change the laws. I know there are a few people out there that actually can convince themselves that they are not stealing, but I doubt they could get 4% of a country to feel the same way.
Are there really that many people, even on Slashdot, that think stealing intellectual property is not wrong?
Yes, mostly due to the **AAs making it such a big issue. I'm constantly being surprised by how many people have been griping about the problems they have with DRM, rootkits, anti-piracy ads on DVDs and in theaters and am happy to point out to them that all these bad things can be easily legislated away if they elect the right representatives.
Tell that to the Supreme Court ("My Sweet Lord", "He's So Fine").
Hollywood and the music industry announced they will, be halting all production and put their money into stocks and bonds. Software companies are expected to follow their example.
Good riddance! I"m so sick and tired of their constant whining and privacy intrusions that I will be glad to see them gone.
There ain't no free ride. If no one wants to pay for it the product goes away, it's called capitalism.
If you're looking for free entertainment start here, if it's software you need go here. You will find the true capitalists barter their wares at places such as those.
A long duration may make the creator of a succesful product "lazy". But it would certainly spur competitors to create a similar product.
"And last but not least, you're cheating yourself out of the movie experiance!" What - I'm cheating myself out of sky high movie ticket prices, jackasses who wont shut up during the movie,..."
This is exactly why I won't take my rather large family to the theater...I'm just too afraid they will upset the other patrons. And besides, it sure is a hell of a lot cheaper to rent a movie and order a half a dozen pizzas to be delivered then to spring for a couple of hundred dollars worth of tickets and stale popcorn. Thank goodness for home theaters because the cinemaplex quit being entertainment for the family long ago.
Bullshit. Most people use p2p programs to download content without the copyright owner's permission.
Question...how do you know whether the copyright owner has given permission until you download the content and look at the license? Seriously, with all the millions upon millions of files available on the internet how is it even possible to know for certain what can be downloaded legally and what can not?
Not to mention the prostate...
It is likely that you would not be able to reproduce without a prostate gland because it adds enzymes that nutralize acidic urine residue in the urethra and activate sperm.
There I go confusing the issues again... downloading from P2P networks IS theft (even in a world where CD/DVD prices are extortionate); making the most of your intellectual property license (ie CD/DVD purchase) by transforming the work into more convenient formats is not.
You really are quite confused, aren't you? Downloading from P2P, or any other type of network, is not theft...it's not even a copyright violation unless you live in a jurisdiction that requires the author's permission and that permission was not given.
These days any serious developer doesn't use plain GTK+ anymore.
Once you leave plain old 'C' a library's usefulness takes a serious hit. Even C++ requires contortions to be callable from other languages.
OK, I get it. You don't want anyone else to be the first guy to think of something, or find a more efficient way to do it.
No, obviously you don't. In order for someone to "think" of something he has to have previous somethings to build on and intellectual property laws lock out those who can not afford to pay for the knowledge necessary to do so.
Say he decides to start making his living writing software, or developing specialized business processes that can make him and his company more prosperous...