You are comparing two different things. When you buy a book, you can resell that book. The exact physical pieces of paper you bought. You can not make a copy of the book and sell it. You can not make an audio recording of the book and sell it.
Likewise, when you buy software, even in the absence of licenses, the only thing you can resell is exactly what you bought - the physical DVD. You may not make a copy of the software by installing it, then call that a 'first sale'. It isn't. It is a copy, which you have no rights to sell or otherwise distribute.
stalling OS X on a hackintosh one at a time the way home users do and then selling it would be distributing a modified original, not a copy, and therefore be OK (which is the point I've been trying to make).
No, it would not be distributing a modified original, it would be distributing a copy. The original is what Apple sold, a CD or DVD. Installing it is making a copy. For the sake of argument we will pretend that the license does not exist, and making a copy by installing is permissible under copyright law. However, it is still a copy, not an original, and you have no right to distribute that copy, by selling the machine or otherwise.
So how did they modify the 'original' (DVD)? Did they draw on it with a Sharpie or something? No. They copied AN original to a master disk (illegal copy), modified that, then copied that to the system being manufactured (illegal copy). Then they sold the system, which is distribution (again illegal), including the original DVD. So now somehow this single 'original' has morphed into at least three copies (original, master, customer).
Need we point out that this lawsuit was against a distributor, not a user, of the software. In other words, this is the EXACT sort of case that the GPL relies on.
Don't know about your first example. Your second example is in fact common practice, so no need for a 'what if'.
However, I must point out that your book comes with an implied license - you are allowed to read it. You are not allowed to make a movie of it. You are not allowed to make an audio recording of it.
There is no such implication when you buy a book, why do you think there is? Can you make a movie or play from your copy of the book? No. Can you read it aloud in public? No. Can you make an audio recording of someone reading the book? No.
You can do whatever you want with the physical 'book', such as burning it. What you can do with the contents of the book is very much restricted. Same with software - if you want to destroy the media the software came on, go for it. Nobody will stop you.
Other than "I hate the FBI so everything they do is wrong", what evidence (or even suggestion) of entrapment is in any one of those statements?
""There is no information to indicate he was connected to a foreign terrorist organization. It appears he was radicalized watching videos on the internet. He was given the opportunity to back down, but he never wavered" from his intention to carry out the attacks, the source said."
Given the opportunity to back out, but didn't? Doesn't sound like entrapment.
"The FBI agents also gave Ferdaus six AK-47 assault rifles and three grenades, but they weren't functional,"
Did he ask for weapons? If so, not entrapment
"he began supplying the FBI undercover agents with cell phones rigged to act as electric switches for improved explosive devices"
He supplied the stuff? How is that entrapment?
Undercover federal agents also gave Ferdaus 25 pounds of fake C-4 explosives"
Again, did he request the explosives
"The investigation also involved a cooperating witness"
And???
law enforcement official said Ferdaus posed no immediate danger to the public because undercover operatives kept in close contact with him"
Again, what does that show?
Yep, pretty much the same story as the other "terrorists" the authorities have caught: (not the incompetent real terrorists that the public caught) Entrapment.
Which cases were dismissed (or found not guilty) because of entrapment?
I didn't say that anywhere, did I? Nope. What I said was that company B got to avoid a whole bunch of expense by letting company A spend the money and then using their results for free. This lets company B either sell an identical product for a whole lot less than company A, or they can spend a little bit of money making their product slightly better than company A. In either case the consumer is likely to choose company B, even though it was company A that did all the work/invested all the money.
So your idea of competition is: company A invests tons of money in developing something useful (like 3G), company B takes company A's invention and adds ROUND CORNERS, and we let the consumer decide how the money is split up? Sounds unfair, stupid, and ultimately about as anti-competitive as you can get.
If you trust TFA that he was actually sued for DOWNloading, then maybe. However, I don't think any of these cases were about downloading, they were all about sharing (which is how they find you in the first place). If, in fact, he was accused of uploading, that moves him into the category of (illegal) competitor, who happened to buy a copy so he could share it. That does not make him a customer.
It seems pretty unlikely that a smaller customer is going to get a better deal than the largest customer. At least, I have never heard of that happening anywhere else. Other sites may pay a smaller total amount, but on a per-subscriber basis they are sure to pay more.
The cost means everything when someone says that 'for $30M per movie it would be cheaper to produce their own movies'. On the other hand, the things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with how much it costs to make a movie.
What makes you think Blockbuster (or anyone else) is going to get a better deal than Netflix? Right now we are in a transition phase. A lot of contracts were done before streaming was popular, so streaming providers are currently getting a great deal (at the expense of the studios). As those contracts end and are renegotiated, no-one is going to be getting those cheap deals anymore, and their choices will be a) absorb the loss (not likely), b) pass the higher cost to the customer (what Netflix is doing), or c) don't offer the content.
And what interest would Netflix possibly have in doing that? This way, they get an exclusive deal, which gives them a leg up on the competition. With CARP rates they are essential in a commodity, race-to-the-bottom industry.
Pretty damn easy to 'pioneer' that stuff when you have zero cost because you are freeloading off the people who actually do the work. Oddly enough, it appears that most stolen and counterfeit items are cheaper than legally obtained things. I guess all the thieves and counterfeiters are also 'pioneers' in your mind too?
Um, if you are either downloading from unauthorized sources, or especially if you are uploading, you are not a customer. And when the guy says he doesn't watch movies, that really takes him even further out of the 'customer' category. So again, what customers, acting in their role as customer, have they sued?
Wait, did you really think that you were going to continue to be able to get more content than your $100/mo cable service offers for only $8/mo? People aren't really that dumb, are they?
Yep. This whole 'experiment' reminds me of the Monty Python Great Actor skit:
Sir Edwin: Ah, well, I don't want you to get the impression it's just a question of the number of words... um... I mean, getting them in the right order is just as important. Old Peter Hall used to say to me, 'They're all there Eddie, now we've got to get them in the right order.'
Nonsense. While anyone can bring a lawsuit about anything, chances of winning one on grounds of 'discrimination' for something like this are pretty slim. Discrimination suits where the discrimination is against something you can't (or can't be expected to) change are valid. That is things like race, color, sex, religion,age, etc. Saying you are discriminated against because of your accent is like a would-be teacher complaining that they are discriminated against because they have no teaching certificate, or an 'engineer' being discriminated against because he has never attended college. You can be trained to speak with an accent other than your own, thousands of actors and radio and TV announcers demonstrate that every day.
Eh, no. For your first example, that is only within well-defined parameters (ie what the machine was designed to do). Yes, the machine can execute stock trades on your behalf, that is what it is designed to do. No, it can not agree to sell your house just because someone tricked it into doing that.
For your second example - tricking a vending machine into accepting a worthless photocopy of a dollar is NOT evidence that you (or the machine on your behalf) agreed to sell you a soda for nothing - it is evidence that YOU have committed fraud.
For the third example. no tricking a hung-over supermarket checking into giving you incorrect change (for example) is NOT evidence that the supermarket agreed to sell you something for a price you supposedly specified, it is evidence to YOU have conned the checker.
If you have any evidence of a case where someone (or something) not specifically authorized to enter into a contract was found to have actually entered into a contract, please present it.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of hard to hack something that doesn't exist. There is no 3G support at all in the device.
The keyboard does come in handy when playing word games (crossword puzzles, ThreadWords, etc). Also, entering notes is much easier with a keyboard.
You are comparing two different things. When you buy a book, you can resell that book. The exact physical pieces of paper you bought. You can not make a copy of the book and sell it. You can not make an audio recording of the book and sell it.
Likewise, when you buy software, even in the absence of licenses, the only thing you can resell is exactly what you bought - the physical DVD. You may not make a copy of the software by installing it, then call that a 'first sale'. It isn't. It is a copy, which you have no rights to sell or otherwise distribute.
stalling OS X on a hackintosh one at a time the way home users do and then selling it would be distributing a modified original, not a copy, and therefore be OK (which is the point I've been trying to make).
No, it would not be distributing a modified original, it would be distributing a copy. The original is what Apple sold, a CD or DVD. Installing it is making a copy. For the sake of argument we will pretend that the license does not exist, and making a copy by installing is permissible under copyright law. However, it is still a copy, not an original, and you have no right to distribute that copy, by selling the machine or otherwise.
So how did they modify the 'original' (DVD)? Did they draw on it with a Sharpie or something? No. They copied AN original to a master disk (illegal copy), modified that, then copied that to the system being manufactured (illegal copy). Then they sold the system, which is distribution (again illegal), including the original DVD. So now somehow this single 'original' has morphed into at least three copies (original, master, customer).
Need we point out that this lawsuit was against a distributor, not a user, of the software. In other words, this is the EXACT sort of case that the GPL relies on.
Don't know about your first example. Your second example is in fact common practice, so no need for a 'what if'.
However, I must point out that your book comes with an implied license - you are allowed to read it. You are not allowed to make a movie of it. You are not allowed to make an audio recording of it.
There is no such implication when you buy a book, why do you think there is? Can you make a movie or play from your copy of the book? No. Can you read it aloud in public? No. Can you make an audio recording of someone reading the book? No.
You can do whatever you want with the physical 'book', such as burning it. What you can do with the contents of the book is very much restricted. Same with software - if you want to destroy the media the software came on, go for it. Nobody will stop you.
Other than "I hate the FBI so everything they do is wrong", what evidence (or even suggestion) of entrapment is in any one of those statements?
""There is no information to indicate he was connected to a foreign terrorist organization. It appears he was radicalized watching videos on the internet. He was given the opportunity to back down, but he never wavered" from his intention to carry out the attacks, the source said."
Given the opportunity to back out, but didn't? Doesn't sound like entrapment.
"The FBI agents also gave Ferdaus six AK-47 assault rifles and three grenades, but they weren't functional,"
Did he ask for weapons? If so, not entrapment
"he began supplying the FBI undercover agents with cell phones rigged to act as electric switches for improved explosive devices"
He supplied the stuff? How is that entrapment?
Undercover federal agents also gave Ferdaus 25 pounds of fake C-4 explosives"
Again, did he request the explosives
"The investigation also involved a cooperating witness"
And???
law enforcement official said Ferdaus posed no immediate danger to the public because undercover operatives kept in close contact with him"
Again, what does that show?
Yep, pretty much the same story as the other "terrorists" the authorities have caught: (not the incompetent real terrorists that the public caught) Entrapment.
Which cases were dismissed (or found not guilty) because of entrapment?
I didn't say that anywhere, did I? Nope. What I said was that company B got to avoid a whole bunch of expense by letting company A spend the money and then using their results for free. This lets company B either sell an identical product for a whole lot less than company A, or they can spend a little bit of money making their product slightly better than company A. In either case the consumer is likely to choose company B, even though it was company A that did all the work/invested all the money.
So your idea of competition is: company A invests tons of money in developing something useful (like 3G), company B takes company A's invention and adds ROUND CORNERS, and we let the consumer decide how the money is split up? Sounds unfair, stupid, and ultimately about as anti-competitive as you can get.
If you trust TFA that he was actually sued for DOWNloading, then maybe. However, I don't think any of these cases were about downloading, they were all about sharing (which is how they find you in the first place). If, in fact, he was accused of uploading, that moves him into the category of (illegal) competitor, who happened to buy a copy so he could share it. That does not make him a customer.
It seems pretty unlikely that a smaller customer is going to get a better deal than the largest customer. At least, I have never heard of that happening anywhere else. Other sites may pay a smaller total amount, but on a per-subscriber basis they are sure to pay more.
The cost means everything when someone says that 'for $30M per movie it would be cheaper to produce their own movies'. On the other hand, the things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with how much it costs to make a movie.
These are Dreamworks Animation films they are getting, not some cheap indie stuff. Just the 4 Shrek movies cost $535M to make.
What makes you think Blockbuster (or anyone else) is going to get a better deal than Netflix? Right now we are in a transition phase. A lot of contracts were done before streaming was popular, so streaming providers are currently getting a great deal (at the expense of the studios). As those contracts end and are renegotiated, no-one is going to be getting those cheap deals anymore, and their choices will be a) absorb the loss (not likely), b) pass the higher cost to the customer (what Netflix is doing), or c) don't offer the content.
And what interest would Netflix possibly have in doing that? This way, they get an exclusive deal, which gives them a leg up on the competition. With CARP rates they are essential in a commodity, race-to-the-bottom industry.
Pretty damn easy to 'pioneer' that stuff when you have zero cost because you are freeloading off the people who actually do the work. Oddly enough, it appears that most stolen and counterfeit items are cheaper than legally obtained things. I guess all the thieves and counterfeiters are also 'pioneers' in your mind too?
Um, if you are either downloading from unauthorized sources, or especially if you are uploading, you are not a customer. And when the guy says he doesn't watch movies, that really takes him even further out of the 'customer' category. So again, what customers, acting in their role as customer, have they sued?
Wait, did you really think that you were going to continue to be able to get more content than your $100/mo cable service offers for only $8/mo? People aren't really that dumb, are they?
Lost half their customers? Where did you get that nonsense? They lost about 4% of the customers, which they made up for in revenue with higher prices.
No, the MPAA is not a licensing organization. And what customers have they sued?
Yep. This whole 'experiment' reminds me of the Monty Python Great Actor skit:
Sir Edwin: Ah, well, I don't want you to get the impression it's just a question of the number of words... um... I mean, getting them in the right order is just as important. Old Peter Hall used to say to me, 'They're all there Eddie, now we've got to get them in the right order.'
Nonsense. While anyone can bring a lawsuit about anything, chances of winning one on grounds of 'discrimination' for something like this are pretty slim. Discrimination suits where the discrimination is against something you can't (or can't be expected to) change are valid. That is things like race, color, sex, religion,age, etc. Saying you are discriminated against because of your accent is like a would-be teacher complaining that they are discriminated against because they have no teaching certificate, or an 'engineer' being discriminated against because he has never attended college. You can be trained to speak with an accent other than your own, thousands of actors and radio and TV announcers demonstrate that every day.
Eh, no. For your first example, that is only within well-defined parameters (ie what the machine was designed to do). Yes, the machine can execute stock trades on your behalf, that is what it is designed to do. No, it can not agree to sell your house just because someone tricked it into doing that.
For your second example - tricking a vending machine into accepting a worthless photocopy of a dollar is NOT evidence that you (or the machine on your behalf) agreed to sell you a soda for nothing - it is evidence that YOU have committed fraud.
For the third example. no tricking a hung-over supermarket checking into giving you incorrect change (for example) is NOT evidence that the supermarket agreed to sell you something for a price you supposedly specified, it is evidence to YOU have conned the checker.
If you have any evidence of a case where someone (or something) not specifically authorized to enter into a contract was found to have actually entered into a contract, please present it.