Except that there are, believe it or not, teens and young adults that actually side with the RIAA and their lawsuits. How do we know that it won't be these people who will be running the world?
(in signature)
Children, your performance was miserable. Your parents will all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less. Didn't think I'd see this quote on Slashdot.
Just because you already have a legal copy doesn't mean you have permission to download another. I can understand why many may think that they are entitled to download a work that they have already purchased in another format, and how it would not be damaging the copyright holder any more than a personal backup you made yourself, but that doesn't mean that the law protects you in the same way.
Actually, it's because it would be impossible to find someone guilty of infringement because of mere downloading.
When a person uploads, he or she gets caught by uploading to an enforcement agency. The agency is given permission to download the file from you, but because you didn't have distribution rights your act of uploading is still illegal.
However, the only way to catch a downloader would be for an enforcement agency to host a file themselves. Downloaders could easily defend themselves by pointing out that, because the agency was given permission to place it up on a publicly-accessible network, then the downloader was inherently given permission to download a copy from them to his or her computer.
SCO never had a leg to stand on, so they really weren't much of a threat to begin with. On the other hand, the RIAA has the law and the lawmakers on their side, making them a dangerous group.
One of those co-sponsors is the representative in my district. I plan to vote against him but he has the overwhelming support of the voters (although I don't think the majority of supporters know or care about his stance in copyright).
In my experience deactivation in DRM products seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I can't "deactivate" my retail copy of Windows XP or Microsoft Office for installing on a different computer after uninstalling from the previous one. If I buy a retail copy of Half-Life 2 and later decide that I want to get rid of it, I can't "deactivate" the copy from my Steam account.
KDE3.5 already has a smaller memory footprint than Gnome, thanks to QT4 KDE4 will have an even smaller footprint. If that's the case then why does my computer slow to a crawl (especially the video card) when I boot up a Kubuntu Gutsy LiveCD but not when I use an Ubuntu Gutsy LiveCD?
I'm completely against not giving private records without a subpeona or warant but to claim that there should never be a mechanism by which a court and or jury of our peers can't decide that you've commited a crime and should stand for it is much akin to saying that we shouldn't be able to enter a convicted murderer's home to arrest him once convicted. I'm not trying to sound like a grammar Nazi here, but I read this sentence about 5 times and still could not understand what you were trying to say.
As long as there is a court order and a legal and just system in place I fully support the ability to subpeona documents to catch criminals. So do I, as long as both of those conditions are in place. My support evaporates when either the court order or the legal and just system ceases to exist. My primary objection to the original post was that the poster made it sound like it should be easy for anyone to personally identify other people online, regardless as to whether or not they did something wrong.
Except that one could easily be masked by the accuser as the other. It probably wouldn't be difficult for me to sue a whistleblower for libel in my attempt to deny/cover up my shady actions if I know who the whistleblower is.
Just because some people decide to treat each other like dicks online doesn't mean that everyone should be easily identifiable. How would sites like Wikileaks work if everyone could be punished for rubbing someone the wrong way?
If the court rulings in member states had an effect on all Berne Convention countries, then CSS would be legal to circumvent everywhere because a Finnish court ruled it "Ineffective."
All the Pirate Bay administrators are doing is providing a tracker, which can very well (and does) link to legal content as well as illegal. The fact that they are generating income from ads placed on search results is irreverent. You might as well say that Google is guilty of infringement as well, since they index both legal and illegal material with a similar business model and are constantly defending their ability to do so.
Of course her success required risks. She could have easily had her videos removed by the ASCAP if she was singing top 40 songs.
And AFAIK, Timberland is a clothing company, while Timbaland is a pop artist. How I came to that conclusion is sort of a consequence of being forced to co-exist with industry-brainwashed college students on a regular basis.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading that long post, I still don't understand why you don't vote.
Except that there are, believe it or not, teens and young adults that actually side with the RIAA and their lawsuits. How do we know that it won't be these people who will be running the world?
MythTV already violates several patents in the US. I doubt that violating one more is going to knock them out of existence.
Actually I would imagine that anyone who is in IT would be far more likely to find this stupid than anyone who is not in IT.
Just because you already have a legal copy doesn't mean you have permission to download another. I can understand why many may think that they are entitled to download a work that they have already purchased in another format, and how it would not be damaging the copyright holder any more than a personal backup you made yourself, but that doesn't mean that the law protects you in the same way.
Actually, it's because it would be impossible to find someone guilty of infringement because of mere downloading.
When a person uploads, he or she gets caught by uploading to an enforcement agency. The agency is given permission to download the file from you, but because you didn't have distribution rights your act of uploading is still illegal.
However, the only way to catch a downloader would be for an enforcement agency to host a file themselves. Downloaders could easily defend themselves by pointing out that, because the agency was given permission to place it up on a publicly-accessible network, then the downloader was inherently given permission to download a copy from them to his or her computer.
SCO never had a leg to stand on, so they really weren't much of a threat to begin with. On the other hand, the RIAA has the law and the lawmakers on their side, making them a dangerous group.
One of those co-sponsors is the representative in my district. I plan to vote against him but he has the overwhelming support of the voters (although I don't think the majority of supporters know or care about his stance in copyright).
Sigh.
In my experience deactivation in DRM products seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I can't "deactivate" my retail copy of Windows XP or Microsoft Office for installing on a different computer after uninstalling from the previous one. If I buy a retail copy of Half-Life 2 and later decide that I want to get rid of it, I can't "deactivate" the copy from my Steam account.
I hope you realize that you just made the "nothing to hide" argument.
What parents? I don't know nor have ever heard of a single parent who cares about copyright infringement, at least with regards to file sharing.
And no, the Warner Music CEO doesn't count.
Which is probably responsible for no one knowing about the adware for so long.
But will it run on my killbot?
I would think so, considering that that probably counts as commercial infringement.
The industry tried a DRM'd P2P service a few years ago with PeerImpact. As far as I can tell the only difference is that Qtrax is ad-supported.
Except that one could easily be masked by the accuser as the other. It probably wouldn't be difficult for me to sue a whistleblower for libel in my attempt to deny/cover up my shady actions if I know who the whistleblower is.
Just because some people decide to treat each other like dicks online doesn't mean that everyone should be easily identifiable. How would sites like Wikileaks work if everyone could be punished for rubbing someone the wrong way?
If the court rulings in member states had an effect on all Berne Convention countries, then CSS would be legal to circumvent everywhere because a Finnish court ruled it "Ineffective."
All the Pirate Bay administrators are doing is providing a tracker, which can very well (and does) link to legal content as well as illegal. The fact that they are generating income from ads placed on search results is irreverent. You might as well say that Google is guilty of infringement as well, since they index both legal and illegal material with a similar business model and are constantly defending their ability to do so.
Of course her success required risks. She could have easily had her videos removed by the ASCAP if she was singing top 40 songs.
And AFAIK, Timberland is a clothing company, while Timbaland is a pop artist. How I came to that conclusion is sort of a consequence of being forced to co-exist with industry-brainwashed college students on a regular basis.