Based on this article I don't see why. The article (and even the Slashdot summary) makes it quite clear that under the new Canadian law, it's necessary to prove that there was intent to re-distribute the illegal recording before any charges can be laid.
No it doesn't.
Until the new law took effect in 2007, prosecutors had to show evidence of distribution to get a conviction; now, recording without permission is sufficient.
The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was disappointed that jail time was not given.
The fact that someone could get jail time for recording a movie is scary enough. The fact that the CMPDA wants to throw everyone caught recording a film into the slammer is just plain terrifying.
A DVD is not a license to watch a film, it is a copy of the film that you are legally allowed to buy and then watch however you please, and then do with the disc itself however you please. The only exception is that you are not allowed to distribute copies of the disc or show it in a public setting.
Second, how the heck does Steamboat Willy promote "the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? How does Britney Spears promote it? They don't, and should never have been granted copyright in the first place.
You seem to be arguing that copyrights should be based on taste. Well I hate to tell you this, but your tastes differ from others. Who exactly sets the bar here on whether an art is "good" or "bad"? You might not like Steamboat Willie, but there are many that find it to be a milestone in animation. Granting copyright based on taste can only result in the government (as they are the ones giving out copyrights) dictating what is "good" and "desirable" to the public, by withholding copyrights from "bad" works. It doesn't take a sharp mind to see how this can be abused.
I downloaded it (the full version) to try it out. It's neat, but it's not my cup of tea so I deleted it. In my case there's no lost sale, as I was using the game as a demo.
No, but from the game publisher's case it is. If you bought the game, hated it, and sold it at a break-even price, they still have your money. They honestly don't care whether or not you like the game, just that you buy it. Why do you think that most media is packaged in non-refundable shrink wrap?
Media publishers in the past were able to get rich off of hype and deceptive marketing because the potential buyers did not have the actual product yet. The Internet has, practically speaking, lessened the risk of buyer's remorse. It is harder to rely on customer ignorance than in the past since the bits can be downloaded free of charge, so from their perspective copyright infringement is costing them sales.
I seriously doubt that each letter costs less than $3000 to send out, when all of the legal and P2P spying costs are factored in.
From what I've heard, the money "earned" from the legal crusade of the RIAA mostly goes right back into the costs incurred in perusing new victims. Not a cent goes to artists, but I highly doubt that any of it does to the executives either.
The first sale doctrine is the good excuse. For someone who claims to have nothing against it, you seem to be all too eager to restrict markets that don't even need restriction, not counting of course the harm caused by these restrictions. (Used record stores, for example, could not exist without the first sale doctrine.)
I don't know what used stores you are taking about where the used copy is sold far above the price of a new game, but if they exist, then customers will just buy from the retailer selling the new games. Any business reselling games at or higher than the price of a new game is not going to be in business for long.
Do you seriously think that they won't? Most people I know who play video games gladly pay their money (hard-earned or otherwise) for either the same damn sports games from EA that have nothing more than a roster update or DLC that will either vanish or otherwise become unplayable in a few years when the servers are finally taken offline. One might think that these people are too fickle to ever want to play these games again in the future, but these same people love the classic titles on consoles that have long been out of production (and are more than willing to pay again for the same titles on DLC). By my observation, either most of the gaming market is too nearsighted to think of how much their investments are going to pay off in the long term or they just don't care. It really makes me glad that I ceased being a customer quite some time ago.
Make sure you get enough "toilet paper" to own 51% of the company. It really helps when it's about to get taken over by an evil conglomerate. Just be careful not to sell the shares for a sandwich before then.
Except that a lot of distributions are based on only a handful of larger distributions. Any bugs present in the parent distribution can surface in all of the others that are based on it. Debian's OpenSSL flaws are a good example.
Click the arrow next to the tags to add your own. You need to be a member for at least six months, but I assume that's the case seeing as your UID is lower than mine and I can add tags just fine.
What marketing? Microsoft didn't have to market until recently because everyone already knew about their products, and most of them were already customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else see the abbreviation "IV" in the summary and immediately think "four"?
Someone should let America know that they can't get away with that either.
Based on this article I don't see why. The article (and even the Slashdot summary) makes it quite clear that under the new Canadian law, it's necessary to prove that there was intent to re-distribute the illegal recording before any charges can be laid.
No it doesn't.
Until the new law took effect in 2007, prosecutors had to show evidence of distribution to get a conviction; now, recording without permission is sufficient.
Let's not forget this little gem:
The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was disappointed that jail time was not given.
The fact that someone could get jail time for recording a movie is scary enough. The fact that the CMPDA wants to throw everyone caught recording a film into the slammer is just plain terrifying.
What exactly does your first sentence have to do with the rest of your post?
A DVD is not a license to watch a film, it is a copy of the film that you are legally allowed to buy and then watch however you please, and then do with the disc itself however you please. The only exception is that you are not allowed to distribute copies of the disc or show it in a public setting.
Second, how the heck does Steamboat Willy promote "the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? How does Britney Spears promote it? They don't, and should never have been granted copyright in the first place.
You seem to be arguing that copyrights should be based on taste. Well I hate to tell you this, but your tastes differ from others. Who exactly sets the bar here on whether an art is "good" or "bad"? You might not like Steamboat Willie, but there are many that find it to be a milestone in animation. Granting copyright based on taste can only result in the government (as they are the ones giving out copyrights) dictating what is "good" and "desirable" to the public, by withholding copyrights from "bad" works. It doesn't take a sharp mind to see how this can be abused.
I downloaded it (the full version) to try it out. It's neat, but it's not my cup of tea so I deleted it. In my case there's no lost sale, as I was using the game as a demo.
No, but from the game publisher's case it is. If you bought the game, hated it, and sold it at a break-even price, they still have your money. They honestly don't care whether or not you like the game, just that you buy it. Why do you think that most media is packaged in non-refundable shrink wrap?
Media publishers in the past were able to get rich off of hype and deceptive marketing because the potential buyers did not have the actual product yet. The Internet has, practically speaking, lessened the risk of buyer's remorse. It is harder to rely on customer ignorance than in the past since the bits can be downloaded free of charge, so from their perspective copyright infringement is costing them sales.
I seriously doubt that each letter costs less than $3000 to send out, when all of the legal and P2P spying costs are factored in.
From what I've heard, the money "earned" from the legal crusade of the RIAA mostly goes right back into the costs incurred in perusing new victims. Not a cent goes to artists, but I highly doubt that any of it does to the executives either.
still not enough to power my DeLorean's time circuits.
when one wears deodorant or perfume? Does the smell go away?
Really? How many stores sell new out-of-print records from old artists?
The first sale doctrine is the good excuse. For someone who claims to have nothing against it, you seem to be all too eager to restrict markets that don't even need restriction, not counting of course the harm caused by these restrictions. (Used record stores, for example, could not exist without the first sale doctrine.)
I don't know what used stores you are taking about where the used copy is sold far above the price of a new game, but if they exist, then customers will just buy from the retailer selling the new games. Any business reselling games at or higher than the price of a new game is not going to be in business for long.
Do you seriously think that they won't? Most people I know who play video games gladly pay their money (hard-earned or otherwise) for either the same damn sports games from EA that have nothing more than a roster update or DLC that will either vanish or otherwise become unplayable in a few years when the servers are finally taken offline. One might think that these people are too fickle to ever want to play these games again in the future, but these same people love the classic titles on consoles that have long been out of production (and are more than willing to pay again for the same titles on DLC). By my observation, either most of the gaming market is too nearsighted to think of how much their investments are going to pay off in the long term or they just don't care. It really makes me glad that I ceased being a customer quite some time ago.
I'm having a tough time figuring out how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional.
Well there's always ClamWin, which uses the cross-platform ClamAV engine.
Of course, ClamAV is primarily designed to target Windows viruses, as there are viruses for Windows than for other systems.
Make sure you get enough "toilet paper" to own 51% of the company. It really helps when it's about to get taken over by an evil conglomerate. Just be careful not to sell the shares for a sandwich before then.
$ reboot
reboot: Need to be root
Why pick the lesser evil?
Will someone please make a BugMeNot account for this site? I'm not registering just to view one PDF file.
Except that a lot of distributions are based on only a handful of larger distributions. Any bugs present in the parent distribution can surface in all of the others that are based on it. Debian's OpenSSL flaws are a good example.
Click the arrow next to the tags to add your own. You need to be a member for at least six months, but I assume that's the case seeing as your UID is lower than mine and I can add tags just fine.
What could this possibly have to do with iPods? How could it possibly be confused with them?
What marketing? Microsoft didn't have to market until recently because everyone already knew about their products, and most of them were already customers.
I do often wonder whether Vuse, Inc. can sue Microsoft for trademark infringement because of the similarities between Azure and Azureus.