Charge them with petty or grand theft as appropriate, if you ask me. If you want to change the youth culture it's really simple. Get all of this copyright infringement and DRM bullshit out of the picture and start hitting them with theft charges.
Yeah, because making something criminal totally removes the problem. It never causes it to just go underground or use alternative means to avoid detection. That's why there are zero illegal drugs in this country. Yep.
I'm just sick of the entitlement mentality that is wedded to a near Stockholm Syndrome among a lot of younger people. If the music and movie industries are so bad, stop downloading their shit. Ignore them, make them irrelevant. I swear, it's like a bunch of rich kids crying about exploitation, while they shop at the Gap and A&F.
Now here I agree with you. Crying "THEY DONT DSRV MONY BCUZ THEY R TCH SUK" and then downloading it anyway is hypocrisy in its simplest form. Even if the action was legal, you're still a hypocrite for saying a song is terrible but still enjoying it.
The problem with the terminology is that words like "theft" and "steal" (which gain merit from the word "piracy," as this was one thing sea pirates did) are deliberately used by the powers that be to confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property. Only a moron would believe that you can receive spam (the food) through e-mail.
I don't know where you went to college, but my college makes us pay for our bandwidth. Campus wireless is part of a "Technology Fee" and dorm Internet was part of room and board. So please don't make the assumption that every college student is getting Internet access for no charge.
Really? History has shown to me that the removal of control has caused the opposite effect. It's only when that control was never really wanted by the majority in the first place that it gives the appearance of "working." And even then that's no guarantee that problems won't arise later on because of that removal of control.
So we should take away control from everyone just because some do not use that control in a responsible manner? Why not just lay the blame on those who's fault it actually is when and if these machines get infected? Namely - the malware writer for infecting other people's machines, and to a far lesser extent the users for not following good security practices.
But no. We must remember to think of the children^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H adults!
I sat through 3+ years of my college life playing GH games at my roommates' expense. They bought game after game--each version of the game was nearly identical to the others, the only thing substantially different being the songs. It hit me that people were paying $50 (and $60 for current gen consoles) for only new songs.
That's nothing new. Madden has been doing the same thing for a decade.
Kill switches are bad because grant their controllers power over products beyond the point of purchase. If Google wants to control the Market, they can pull apps from the store and make them unavailable for future customers. The kill switch allows Google to terminate programs that people have already paid for.
Except that if I install a package via my package manager's repositories, and the maintainers later discover that that package has malware, that doesn't mean that the malware-infested package I installed before the discovery suddenly disappears. Everything my package manager does, including security updates, requires my consent before any changes are made to my computer. The only consent the kill switch requires is Google's.
So if I buy an Android app from Google, and they later decide to terminate it from my phone without my consent, should I be expected to just buy it again from somewhere else?
Every analogy to the physical world of products and retailers I can think of where a store tries something like this would result in outrage, even if you can purchase the product elsewhere. Why do we allow it to happen online?
These are not Google's phones. These phones belong to their owners and it is the owners who should have control over their own equipment, not Google. Google can control the Market, as it is their store and they can set their own rules as they please. The line is crossed where they feel that they can decide that purchases that have already occurred are no longer valid. People seem to see this when it comes to DRM. Why is it so hard to grasp when it is Google who's doing it, especially when they don't even hold the copyrights for these apps?
Imagine that a store accidentally sold a big anticipated product earlier than corporate wanted them to. Does that mean that they should be able to force their customers to return everything they rightfully purchased during that early sale, especially without explanation or a refund? This is the power that Google is giving themselves.
No amount of fines in the world will get my personal data back. Once it's out there, it cannot be retracted. At least if the mechanic loses my car I can sue and use the money to invest in a new car. No one can use the car to impersonate me or make copies of the car to allow others to do the same. The car is just an object. It way have sentimental value, but I can ultimately live without that particular car. Personal data breaches, however, can adversely affect people for life. Data can be copied and distributed infinitely, and a lot of the time it can't be as easily replaced or changed. Trying to sue the company for a breach when that won't stop the data from spreading is about as effective as the RIAA/MPAA's prosecution of those who leak music/movies.
But wouldn't this necessitate that the central air would have to run more often to cool the processors during the summer, canceling out any overall cost savings? It may be that Google's servers ultimately use more juice than their air conditioning, but there's still the nagging problem that a lot more of the electrical energy is dissipated as heat, and to me that sounds very inefficient.
You have provided assistance to those who wish to commit criminal activity. Your post has exited the realm of protected speech and you are now in violation of the law. We will be at your doorstep with a search warrant momentarily.
That depends. What is his voting record? How well does he listen to those he represents? What are his actual stances on political issues?
If he takes his job very seriously and doesn't succumb to corruption and lobbyists while ignoring the voters, then he could be a secret furry for all I care.
OK, could someone please explain to me how running hotter processors saves money on cooling costs? It seems that it would actually increase cooling costs.
Now, if your research showed there were two products that might do what you want: Foo v1.01 and Bar v6.0. Which one would you choose, based solely on version number?
That depends on the versioning scheme. If both were free software, I'd choose Foo. Bar having 6 milestones without existing for decades sounds very suspicious to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the Kindle version DRM'd enough for you?
Charge them with petty or grand theft as appropriate, if you ask me. If you want to change the youth culture it's really simple. Get all of this copyright infringement and DRM bullshit out of the picture and start hitting them with theft charges.
Yeah, because making something criminal totally removes the problem. It never causes it to just go underground or use alternative means to avoid detection. That's why there are zero illegal drugs in this country. Yep.
I'm just sick of the entitlement mentality that is wedded to a near Stockholm Syndrome among a lot of younger people. If the music and movie industries are so bad, stop downloading their shit. Ignore them, make them irrelevant. I swear, it's like a bunch of rich kids crying about exploitation, while they shop at the Gap and A&F.
Now here I agree with you. Crying "THEY DONT DSRV MONY BCUZ THEY R TCH SUK" and then downloading it anyway is hypocrisy in its simplest form. Even if the action was legal, you're still a hypocrite for saying a song is terrible but still enjoying it.
The problem with the terminology is that words like "theft" and "steal" (which gain merit from the word "piracy," as this was one thing sea pirates did) are deliberately used by the powers that be to confuse people into thinking that the infringement of copyright carries exactly the same consequences as shoplifting or other deprivation of physical property. Only a moron would believe that you can receive spam (the food) through e-mail.
I don't know where you went to college, but my college makes us pay for our bandwidth. Campus wireless is part of a "Technology Fee" and dorm Internet was part of room and board. So please don't make the assumption that every college student is getting Internet access for no charge.
Really? History has shown to me that the removal of control has caused the opposite effect. It's only when that control was never really wanted by the majority in the first place that it gives the appearance of "working." And even then that's no guarantee that problems won't arise later on because of that removal of control.
So we should take away control from everyone just because some do not use that control in a responsible manner? Why not just lay the blame on those who's fault it actually is when and if these machines get infected? Namely - the malware writer for infecting other people's machines, and to a far lesser extent the users for not following good security practices.
But no. We must remember to think of the children^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H adults!
I sat through 3+ years of my college life playing GH games at my roommates' expense. They bought game after game--each version of the game was nearly identical to the others, the only thing substantially different being the songs. It hit me that people were paying $50 (and $60 for current gen consoles) for only new songs.
That's nothing new. Madden has been doing the same thing for a decade.
FoF works with the Guitar Hero and Rock Band controllers too, so keyboards aren't really necessary.
Kill switches are bad because grant their controllers power over products beyond the point of purchase. If Google wants to control the Market, they can pull apps from the store and make them unavailable for future customers. The kill switch allows Google to terminate programs that people have already paid for.
Except that if I install a package via my package manager's repositories, and the maintainers later discover that that package has malware, that doesn't mean that the malware-infested package I installed before the discovery suddenly disappears. Everything my package manager does, including security updates, requires my consent before any changes are made to my computer. The only consent the kill switch requires is Google's.
So if I buy an Android app from Google, and they later decide to terminate it from my phone without my consent, should I be expected to just buy it again from somewhere else?
Every analogy to the physical world of products and retailers I can think of where a store tries something like this would result in outrage, even if you can purchase the product elsewhere. Why do we allow it to happen online?
So, by the same rationale, should Microsoft or Apple get a kill switch to disable programs on PCs?
These are not Google's phones. These phones belong to their owners and it is the owners who should have control over their own equipment, not Google. Google can control the Market, as it is their store and they can set their own rules as they please. The line is crossed where they feel that they can decide that purchases that have already occurred are no longer valid. People seem to see this when it comes to DRM. Why is it so hard to grasp when it is Google who's doing it, especially when they don't even hold the copyrights for these apps?
Imagine that a store accidentally sold a big anticipated product earlier than corporate wanted them to. Does that mean that they should be able to force their customers to return everything they rightfully purchased during that early sale, especially without explanation or a refund? This is the power that Google is giving themselves.
United 93 was the fourth plane.
No amount of fines in the world will get my personal data back. Once it's out there, it cannot be retracted. At least if the mechanic loses my car I can sue and use the money to invest in a new car. No one can use the car to impersonate me or make copies of the car to allow others to do the same. The car is just an object. It way have sentimental value, but I can ultimately live without that particular car. Personal data breaches, however, can adversely affect people for life. Data can be copied and distributed infinitely, and a lot of the time it can't be as easily replaced or changed. Trying to sue the company for a breach when that won't stop the data from spreading is about as effective as the RIAA/MPAA's prosecution of those who leak music/movies.
Best line in that site: "i do not know what I am saying either."
But wouldn't this necessitate that the central air would have to run more often to cool the processors during the summer, canceling out any overall cost savings? It may be that Google's servers ultimately use more juice than their air conditioning, but there's still the nagging problem that a lot more of the electrical energy is dissipated as heat, and to me that sounds very inefficient.
You've been running Vista since late 2005?
Not to mention this.
You have provided assistance to those who wish to commit criminal activity. Your post has exited the realm of protected speech and you are now in violation of the law. We will be at your doorstep with a search warrant momentarily.
--The FBI.
If you think that this has anything to do with combating child pornography, then you are seriously naive.
That depends. What is his voting record? How well does he listen to those he represents? What are his actual stances on political issues?
If he takes his job very seriously and doesn't succumb to corruption and lobbyists while ignoring the voters, then he could be a secret furry for all I care.
The joke goes: "The RIAA called. They want their $222,000 verdict back."
OK, could someone please explain to me how running hotter processors saves money on cooling costs? It seems that it would actually increase cooling costs.
Now, if your research showed there were two products that might do what you want: Foo v1.01 and Bar v6.0. Which one would you choose, based solely on version number?
That depends on the versioning scheme. If both were free software, I'd choose Foo. Bar having 6 milestones without existing for decades sounds very suspicious to me.