See my second point about how people are already pirating, so this isn't exactly going to change anything there. If anything, trying to somehow game or exploit this system in order to make illegal copies is pointless because YOU CAN ALREADY MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES. This is for people who want to transfer things legally, and they should have a way. They shouldn't be forced to make illegal copies. This is how you cut down on piracy, which is very much already a thing.
Exactly. The first person in Hollywood to realize it is going to make trillions. All market evidence shows this, but they seem to be too entitled to admit it.
See all of Valve's latest experiments, where for instance everybody told them "you cant' sell in Russia, its full of pirates." When they started doing proper, good localizations to Russian, and started releasing games there at the same time as the States, piracy completely fell off the map. They're still making 3x as much money in Russia as any analyst expects them to.
Or the steam sales, where offering a product at a fair price to market perception caused UNBELIEVABLE number of purchases. Valve's minds are literally blown by how much more games sell when you slash the price in half. I mean, a sale traditionally increases how much people buy, but we're talking over a hundred-fold more. Thats why you've seen sale after sale after sale on Steam; by charging LESS, they actually make MORE.
The particular service in question, ReDigi, works with iTunes. Once the song is removed from your iTunes account transactionally, you cannot use it anymore.
You're free to copy a pirated version back into iTunes, but iTunes won't recognize it officially and you won't be able to download the song elsewhere from iTunes servers. So it is, in some ways, an inferior product. And its illegal, and once you make the cost and the penalties fair, people will understand. There will always be a few who pirate, but that isn't the issue here; THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY PIRATING MUSIC, and will continue to do so. Furthermore, those people are not lost sales, but that is an argument for another day.
Are you a lawyer? There's probably a whole lot in law you aren't aware of. Lots of words have contextual definitions, especially within an expert craft.
Whats stopping you from xeroxing your favorite new book and mailing it to your friends? Nothing. Except the law.
Most of piracy is a problem in how companies treat customers, availability, restrictions (the pirated version has more features, is more usable) and cost.
If books started to cost more money, people would start xeroxing them to each other. Its how it goes. This is all a reaction to the RIAA thinking they can dictate terms to the masses and rake in money. You have to respect your customer and provide value.
Actually, since electrons have mass, you could make such a calculation. Somebody calculated the mass of some data awhile ago for humorous purposes... Can't remember which story it was...
If you were being serious, "Material" at this point has its own legal definition, and they do not just mean "physical".
Funny how you just said the exact same thing.
If the brain doesn't delete anything, then the memory isn't "usually" there, its always there, just hard to access. But then you admit not always, that sometimes it can truly fade away, so that then means it CAN be deleted. Unless you're making some awkward distinction between "actively delete" and "fade away", which seems rather arbitrary. I think you put too much meaning in the word "delete".
For the purposes of this case, either a memory can be gone forever, or it can't. Unless you can prove or link to proof that we either can or cannot lose a memory forever, you haven't added anything worthwhile.
You can get 20 years for destroying evidence and obstructing justice, so this isn't really all that smart. "I forgot" is a much better defense.
Taking the 5th should be the best defense, but apparently we need SCOTUS to weigh in on this one.
Has a court ever tried to force someone to give up a wall safe combination? Seems like it would be the perfect precedent.
As pointed out above, Justice Stevens dissention, "Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe - by word or deed."
It seems that this issue hasn't been settled directly in court. There was a similar case where the above quote comes from, but the details are a little different. Maybe this one will end up going to SCOTUS.
Exactly, memory is extremely fickle. The brain tries to prioritize memories and delete anything that isn't important, so after she stopped using the password daily she very well could have just forgotten it. I've forgotten a password I used on Friday (and had been used daily up until) on Monday. Just gone.
Regardless of whether she forgot it or not, I think its wrong to even ask her to decrypt the drive. I agree with Justice Stevens,
"Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe - by word or deed."
Whether she "forgot" or not shouldn't matter; anybody in this situation would say they forgot. You should be protected under the 5th and shouldn't be asked to do so in the first place. This is no different than demanding that a possible murderer admit that he killed someone or be held for contempt. It defeats the entire point of the law process.
Seems like CS majors would definitely have a good use for kinects (Have a CS degree myself, sadly there wasn't a kinect to play with in computer vision class, but we got by ^ ^ ) but couldn't they get by fine with the existing xbox kinect and the workarounds? If anybody can google, its some CS majors.
And education for computer majors still seems like a TINY niche. Maybe you're buying 15, but even if every college buys 15, is that worth much? Eh.
There are obvious differences between EVERY one of us and "us masses". No man IS the average. We're all abnormal, really.
Speak for yourself, I live in my head as much as I can. Jersey Shore just doesn't hold the appeal that epistemology does.
Lol, he does look like Theodin. But... so what? Like you said yourself, he looks that way ON PURPOSE.
Its a barrier to keep the fools away who might be put off by things like the length of your hair or beard. Which is very silly, when things like morality and character matter much, much more.
Slashdot Mirror
See my second point about how people are already pirating, so this isn't exactly going to change anything there. If anything, trying to somehow game or exploit this system in order to make illegal copies is pointless because YOU CAN ALREADY MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES. This is for people who want to transfer things legally, and they should have a way. They shouldn't be forced to make illegal copies. This is how you cut down on piracy, which is very much already a thing.
Sorry, IANAL either :(
You can sell it, if you give up your right to the licence over it as soon as you do. How much does it weigh? I have no clue :)
Exactly. The first person in Hollywood to realize it is going to make trillions. All market evidence shows this, but they seem to be too entitled to admit it.
See all of Valve's latest experiments, where for instance everybody told them "you cant' sell in Russia, its full of pirates." When they started doing proper, good localizations to Russian, and started releasing games there at the same time as the States, piracy completely fell off the map. They're still making 3x as much money in Russia as any analyst expects them to.
Or the steam sales, where offering a product at a fair price to market perception caused UNBELIEVABLE number of purchases. Valve's minds are literally blown by how much more games sell when you slash the price in half. I mean, a sale traditionally increases how much people buy, but we're talking over a hundred-fold more. Thats why you've seen sale after sale after sale on Steam; by charging LESS, they actually make MORE.
The particular service in question, ReDigi, works with iTunes. Once the song is removed from your iTunes account transactionally, you cannot use it anymore.
You're free to copy a pirated version back into iTunes, but iTunes won't recognize it officially and you won't be able to download the song elsewhere from iTunes servers. So it is, in some ways, an inferior product. And its illegal, and once you make the cost and the penalties fair, people will understand. There will always be a few who pirate, but that isn't the issue here; THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY PIRATING MUSIC, and will continue to do so. Furthermore, those people are not lost sales, but that is an argument for another day.
Oh? HOW is it bogus? How do you know that? Link, please?
Your fellow slashdotters could benefit from your wisdom, instead of just throwing out "nuh-uh"
Are you a lawyer? There's probably a whole lot in law you aren't aware of. Lots of words have contextual definitions, especially within an expert craft.
Did you mean to use both the assignment operator and the conditional test?
"=" != "=="
Whats stopping you from xeroxing your favorite new book and mailing it to your friends? Nothing. Except the law.
Most of piracy is a problem in how companies treat customers, availability, restrictions (the pirated version has more features, is more usable) and cost.
If books started to cost more money, people would start xeroxing them to each other. Its how it goes. This is all a reaction to the RIAA thinking they can dictate terms to the masses and rake in money. You have to respect your customer and provide value.
You can give them away, but then you have to give up ownership of them. So you can only give it away once.
Actually, since electrons have mass, you could make such a calculation. Somebody calculated the mass of some data awhile ago for humorous purposes... Can't remember which story it was...
If you were being serious, "Material" at this point has its own legal definition, and they do not just mean "physical".
Three cheers! Score one for the right of first sale!
Funny how you just said the exact same thing.
If the brain doesn't delete anything, then the memory isn't "usually" there, its always there, just hard to access. But then you admit not always, that sometimes it can truly fade away, so that then means it CAN be deleted. Unless you're making some awkward distinction between "actively delete" and "fade away", which seems rather arbitrary. I think you put too much meaning in the word "delete".
For the purposes of this case, either a memory can be gone forever, or it can't. Unless you can prove or link to proof that we either can or cannot lose a memory forever, you haven't added anything worthwhile.
"doesn't really delete anything" and "usually" kind of contradict each other.
Just a hop, skip, and a jump later, and we've got thoughtcrime.
You can get 20 years for destroying evidence and obstructing justice, so this isn't really all that smart. "I forgot" is a much better defense.
Taking the 5th should be the best defense, but apparently we need SCOTUS to weigh in on this one.
Has a court ever tried to force someone to give up a wall safe combination? Seems like it would be the perfect precedent.
I stored the keyfile on megaupload.
Brilliant. :D
As pointed out above, Justice Stevens dissention, "Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe - by word or deed."
It seems that this issue hasn't been settled directly in court. There was a similar case where the above quote comes from, but the details are a little different. Maybe this one will end up going to SCOTUS.
Exactly, memory is extremely fickle. The brain tries to prioritize memories and delete anything that isn't important, so after she stopped using the password daily she very well could have just forgotten it. I've forgotten a password I used on Friday (and had been used daily up until) on Monday. Just gone.
Torture isn't judicial.
Regardless of whether she forgot it or not, I think its wrong to even ask her to decrypt the drive. I agree with Justice Stevens,
"Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe - by word or deed."
Whether she "forgot" or not shouldn't matter; anybody in this situation would say they forgot. You should be protected under the 5th and shouldn't be asked to do so in the first place. This is no different than demanding that a possible murderer admit that he killed someone or be held for contempt. It defeats the entire point of the law process.
By your argument putting a lock on my front door is suspicious activity. Wrong. People are allowed security and privacy.
A politician is a politician. If you're using the terms democrat and republican, then they've already tricked you.
Seems like CS majors would definitely have a good use for kinects (Have a CS degree myself, sadly there wasn't a kinect to play with in computer vision class, but we got by ^ ^ ) but couldn't they get by fine with the existing xbox kinect and the workarounds? If anybody can google, its some CS majors.
And education for computer majors still seems like a TINY niche. Maybe you're buying 15, but even if every college buys 15, is that worth much? Eh.
I think Microsoft has higher hopes for this.
There are obvious differences between EVERY one of us and "us masses". No man IS the average. We're all abnormal, really.
Speak for yourself, I live in my head as much as I can. Jersey Shore just doesn't hold the appeal that epistemology does.
Lol, he does look like Theodin. But... so what? Like you said yourself, he looks that way ON PURPOSE.
Its a barrier to keep the fools away who might be put off by things like the length of your hair or beard. Which is very silly, when things like morality and character matter much, much more.
You wanna mod me uninformative or flamebait, maybe I'd understand, but troll? I'm being quite genuine with my feelings here. I don't see this selling.