True, but Blu-Ray's regions are more encompassing than those of DVDs. Americans can't play discs from Europe, but they can play discs from Japan.
Also, Wikipedia's BD article says that about 2/3 of all released BD titles are region-free, so there's a slim chance the regions might not even be used in the long run.
To conserve power its main transmitter was shut off. Unfortunately due to a fault in its power supply it cannot be turned back on. I can only imagine the fit NASA had when they found this out. Millions of dollars for what is now a giant hunk of metal. I sure hope they got something out of the project before transmission was cut off.
Hmm. Still in college, so I can't comment on the real world, but I can't imagine that it would be a sound idea for a business to pre-test with a development version, what with them being unstable and all. I suppose release candidates could do the job, but that seems to give the business only a few months of pre-testing before the stable release comes out.
Aren't most distros sold or given away on pressed CDs, if not from the distro maker then at least from third-party online stores? Why not just buy one of those and make several copies?
I've always wondered why a group of people that bite off heads of chickens for the amusement of others would organize themselves into a squad. Knowing their location, it all makes sense now.
Yes. Lots of people get that copying is not theft. But some miss it on downloading. There is no such thing as "illegal downloading". Or there shouldn't be-- I fear that the MAFIAA may yet succeed in temporarily outlawing and prosecuting downloading. It is the uploading of copyrighted material without permission that is illegal. Wrong. Downloading copyrighted material without permission is illegal. It's just the uploaders who get caught because a technicality prevents the MAFIAA from suing downloaders.
Otherwise, anyone listening to radio, either old fashioned AM/FM or streaming via the Internet, could be a criminal, especially if they are recording the broadcast. Radio pays out to the ASCAP. Internet radio pays out to SoundExchange. Recording the broadcast would be time-shifting.
Anyone could put up a web site that plays some copyrighted jingle, and thus make every visitor into a crook. Again, downloading it is still illegal, but in practice the burden of getting permission to host is placed on the uploader.
How should anyone know without listening to it whether something labeled as a song by, say, Prince, is in fact what it says it is, or is some parody or karaoke performance or a free ringtone version or a fan's live recording of Prince in concert? Or is the real thing, a polished studio recording, but is totally legal to download because Prince gave it away or because its copyright has expired? All except the parody and the expired copyright are illegal. Prince did give away his latest album, but didn't permit it to be shared online. Now, it is possible that one could argue that they weren't infringing on the studio recording because the tags said it was a studio recording but it was in fact the live recording, as the studio and live recordings are usually owned by different copyright holders, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that would fly in court.
And note, an actual transfer has to occur, merely "making available" is not enough to be guilty of copyright infringement. This is still being debated by the courts, but so far it appears to be true (or at least the EFF's lawyers say it is).
In the case of a P2P system like BitTorrent, I would say only the person who ripped a copyrighted work and seeded an encoding of same without permission is committing copyright infringement. The rest of the people who participate in the sharing of some copyrighted work are only uploading what they downloaded, even starting to upload before they've finished downloading because that's how BitTorrent works. This is like saying that you aren't infringing by sharing songs on LimeWire that you originally got from LimeWire in the first place. The original uploader didn't have the right to share them, you didn't have the right to download from him or her because he or she didn't have the uploading rights to begin with, and consequently you don't have any right to upload the file yourself either.
Well I call bullshit on their "theft of service" argument, because it has the same flawed reasoning that file sharing=theft has and should be called "infringement of service." Likewise so-called "identity theft" is really identity fraud. Case in point: If someone found out a way to use your identity in such a way that you no longer have it, then there is no one to dump the fraudulent charges on except the fraudster himself/herself, making the crime moot.
Is it illegal to yell "whore"? No, and it shouldn't be. If it's false, then it's called slander, so yes it is illegal. Whether or not you want to sue in court is up to you.
Actually, thanks to anonymity, it's much easier to cyber-bully than bully in real life. Real-life bullying carries the consequence of hurting your reputation, since you aren't pretending to be someone else. But because you can disguise yourself online, it's much easier and more tempting to bully online.
This doesn't warrant new laws, but saying that they are exactly the same is a little naive.
Well, you could say that suicide is indeed murder - murder of the self. But because the victim is also the perpetrator, it would be ludicrous to press charges if the suicide was unsuccessful.
IMHO, the only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is for parents to teach their children to practice some form of common courtesy online and, should they not receive courteous behavior themselves, to take it with a grain of salt. My parents installed AOL parental controls and called it a day. I tricked them into giving the Automatic AOL service their password and was able to circumvent the controls in less than a week. I was not subjected to harassment both because I neither handed out my contact info to my "enemies" nor treated others like scum, and if I was to post something that could be seen in another context as hurtful, I made absolutely sure that it could not be misinterpreted in that context or by the audience as a message of hate or harassment.
Teach kids about practicing online civility. Tell them about the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (you don't have to call it that though), how they should dismiss most over-the-top messages as either some troll trying to get attention or some jerk venting off some steam, and how to resist this theory in their own online actions. Most importantly, tell them that they don't need to give out their IM screen name, e-mail, and cell phone number to everyone they've ever met, and how to use the block/ignore functions if that information somehow slips into the wrong hands anyway.
Exactly. We're in a time when a smartass teenager can effectively manipulate the justice system to his or her own benefit. Relationship (not necessarily intimate) with that kid from college not going so well? Cry statuary rape. Don't like your parents? Cry molestation. Never mind that what you are doing is just as illegal and will land you in a load of trouble if for some reason it backfires, because when the accuser is a minor it seems that almost everyone is willing to pass judgment even before the trial starts.
What defines asshatry, and how is it distinguished from, say, free speech? In the case of your mob example, the mob is the judge and jury, and make up that definition themselves, whereas a court could set precedence for future cases and give a fair set of governance to society at large as to what is asshatry and what is protected free speech.
The fact that this 16-year-old boy was really an adult is irrelevant. If it really was a boy then he should have been shunned with the same kind of treatment that we would do to a grown adult in this situation. If we completely excuse the behavior of minors but condemn the same behavior of adults, then all that teaches the kids is that they can get away with it, and just compounds the problem.
I'm not saying that arresting either an adult or a teenager is appropriate in this case, but if this were really a teenage boy then there's no reason that he shouldn't be shunned just as much as the adult would be.
Just noticed that this girl was 13, not 16 like I had thought, so everything beyond the first two sentences of my previous post doesn't really apply here. Sorry about that.
Slashdot Mirror
A Whois lookup for hymn-project.org says that they're hosted in TamilNadu, IN.
Why does anyone still shop at the iTunes Store for music if they want DRM-free songs? Just use Amazon.
True, but Blu-Ray's regions are more encompassing than those of DVDs. Americans can't play discs from Europe, but they can play discs from Japan.
Also, Wikipedia's BD article says that about 2/3 of all released BD titles are region-free, so there's a slim chance the regions might not even be used in the long run.
Damn. I've got to do that more often. My mistake.
I thought that RMS would have resigned a long time ago to focus on his life of activism. I'm surprised it has taken this long for him to step down.
Hmm. Still in college, so I can't comment on the real world, but I can't imagine that it would be a sound idea for a business to pre-test with a development version, what with them being unstable and all. I suppose release candidates could do the job, but that seems to give the business only a few months of pre-testing before the stable release comes out.
Aren't most distros sold or given away on pressed CDs, if not from the distro maker then at least from third-party online stores? Why not just buy one of those and make several copies?
I've always wondered why a group of people that bite off heads of chickens for the amusement of others would organize themselves into a squad. Knowing their location, it all makes sense now.
Depends on how gullible the populace is and how often you say it.
You can legitimately argue that something like unauthorized file sharing is like theft, but not that it is theft.
Well I call bullshit on their "theft of service" argument, because it has the same flawed reasoning that file sharing=theft has and should be called "infringement of service." Likewise so-called "identity theft" is really identity fraud. Case in point: If someone found out a way to use your identity in such a way that you no longer have it, then there is no one to dump the fraudulent charges on except the fraudster himself/herself, making the crime moot.
Whatever they're doing, it's slowly but surely working. There are actually some students at my college who think that downloading is in fact stealing.
But, But...
This is the Los Angeles Times!
Have you forgotten where the movie studios are located?
Actually, thanks to anonymity, it's much easier to cyber-bully than bully in real life. Real-life bullying carries the consequence of hurting your reputation, since you aren't pretending to be someone else. But because you can disguise yourself online, it's much easier and more tempting to bully online.
This doesn't warrant new laws, but saying that they are exactly the same is a little naive.
Well, you could say that suicide is indeed murder - murder of the self. But because the victim is also the perpetrator, it would be ludicrous to press charges if the suicide was unsuccessful.
So you're saying if some teenager kills himself/herself because he/she got busted by the RIAA for file sharing, then the lawsuits will stop?
IMHO, the only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is for parents to teach their children to practice some form of common courtesy online and, should they not receive courteous behavior themselves, to take it with a grain of salt. My parents installed AOL parental controls and called it a day. I tricked them into giving the Automatic AOL service their password and was able to circumvent the controls in less than a week. I was not subjected to harassment both because I neither handed out my contact info to my "enemies" nor treated others like scum, and if I was to post something that could be seen in another context as hurtful, I made absolutely sure that it could not be misinterpreted in that context or by the audience as a message of hate or harassment.
Teach kids about practicing online civility. Tell them about the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (you don't have to call it that though), how they should dismiss most over-the-top messages as either some troll trying to get attention or some jerk venting off some steam, and how to resist this theory in their own online actions. Most importantly, tell them that they don't need to give out their IM screen name, e-mail, and cell phone number to everyone they've ever met, and how to use the block/ignore functions if that information somehow slips into the wrong hands anyway.
Exactly. We're in a time when a smartass teenager can effectively manipulate the justice system to his or her own benefit. Relationship (not necessarily intimate) with that kid from college not going so well? Cry statuary rape. Don't like your parents? Cry molestation. Never mind that what you are doing is just as illegal and will land you in a load of trouble if for some reason it backfires, because when the accuser is a minor it seems that almost everyone is willing to pass judgment even before the trial starts.
What defines asshatry, and how is it distinguished from, say, free speech? In the case of your mob example, the mob is the judge and jury, and make up that definition themselves, whereas a court could set precedence for future cases and give a fair set of governance to society at large as to what is asshatry and what is protected free speech.
The fact that this 16-year-old boy was really an adult is irrelevant. If it really was a boy then he should have been shunned with the same kind of treatment that we would do to a grown adult in this situation. If we completely excuse the behavior of minors but condemn the same behavior of adults, then all that teaches the kids is that they can get away with it, and just compounds the problem.
I'm not saying that arresting either an adult or a teenager is appropriate in this case, but if this were really a teenage boy then there's no reason that he shouldn't be shunned just as much as the adult would be.
So then what about Tor and proxy servers?
Just noticed that this girl was 13, not 16 like I had thought, so everything beyond the first two sentences of my previous post doesn't really apply here. Sorry about that.