No assumptions changed, and the laws were updated to reflect reality. The 'assumption' of copyright is and always has been that the creator of a work needs protection from those who would take his work without permission. That still is true. What shifted was the number of people he needs protection from: it is now not only those who would profit financially from unauthorized distribution, but also those who distribute just because they can. The laws were updated to reflect that. No distinction is required between the two groups, because to the person who needs protection they are exactly the same.
You can't prove a sale was taken away even if money was exchanged. The only way you could actually claim a lost sale would be in the case of a counterfeit copy (ie looks exactly the same),sold at the same price, in the same retail environment as legitimate copies, such that the buyer didn't know he was getting a counterfeit. Otherwise the exact same silly arguments can be made: sure, they paid $0.75 for my bootleg, but there is no proof they would have paid $0.99 for the real thing. Sure, they paid the same price as the real thing, but that is because I sold it at a flea market where they happened to be - there is no proof they would actually have bought it in a store. Sure, they bought it online for the same price as the real thing, but it is obviously a bootleg, so there is no proof they would have bought it from the evil RIAA.
You can not draw a line between 'profit' and 'no profit' as having any provably different harm to the copyright holder.
Only true if the cost of the pirated copy is exactly the same as (or more than) the genuine thing. It never is, which is why people buy them. Therefore, the exact same bogus arguments could apply (I was selling the song for $0.75, they were charging $0.99, you have no proof that they would have purchased at $0.99).
The problem with your thinking is that it is completely backwards. The purpose of copyright law is NOT to prevent someone else from profiting, it is to protect the rights of the CREATORs. The harm to the creator is exactly the same if someone is selling copies for profit or someone else is giving them away for free.
The principle of copyright is to give people an incentive to create and share their works with the world. For some people, the ego boost of having as wide a distribution as possible is incentive enough. These people do not need copyright protection. For other people, the incentive is financial. For those people, the EASIER it is to make copies, the more protection that is needed. Unless we either a) decide we don't want the works of anyone whose incentive is financial, or b) come up with a way to reward those people independent of 'selling copies', we are pretty much stuck with what we have. Option A is pretty much moot, because that option exists right now. If you don't want the works of anyone whose incentive is financial, pretend the works don't exist and don't use them. Nobody (elective representative or not) has come up with a realistic option B.
Complete nonsense. The purpose of copyright and IP laws is to give people incentive to create and share those creations with the world (sharing does not imply 'for free'). The constitution says 'In order to promote progress...' not 'in order to ensure no-one else profits...'. The only reason that copyright was not applied more often to individuals in the past is because they didn't have the means to make perfect copies. Patent law in particular says 'Any person who use, makes, sells, or offers to sell...'. Profit isn't even first or second on the list.
Picking one at random: the CEO of AT&T had total compensation of about $18M last year ($6M of that was cash). If he worked for nothing, that would give AT&T a whole $18M to play with. You're not going to buy much bandwidth with $18M.
What is the big deal? They are not giving you a quote (which would require them to do credit checks, etc), they are showing you a marketing rate. If they can get a certain percentage of their customers to bite on a higher rate, why wouldn't they? So maybe they have some formula that says '10% of the time we will show our best rate, 80% of the time our average rate, and 10% an above-average rate'. Now all they have to do is decide which one to show you. Maybe their distribution corresponds roughly to the distribution of browers that visit the site - might as well just make the determination based on that. Maybe it is random. Maybe someone who connects in the first 6 seconds of a minute gets the best rate. If they show you a high rate and you take it, they make more money. If they show you a high rate and you decline it, they don't. On the other hand, if they always show the best rate they have to beat the competition every time.
How do you codify this better understanding? Write it into a law? Or do you just let each individual cop, prosecutor, judge, and jury apply their own 'better understanding'?
Say you go into a coffee shop and use their wifi. The neighborhood cop comes in and the owner of the shop complains to him that you have been sitting there using their wifi without buying anything, even though the sign says 'customers only'. Does the cop arrest you for fraud (you are pretending to be a customer when you're not)? Trespass (you are using their network without permission)? Theft of services? Any of those COULD be applied in that case if the laws were broad enough (which is what you seem to be advocating). It is much better to have many narrowly written specific laws than a few broad laws that can be interpreted differently by everyone.
It isn't really that simple though. Let's say you have several applications affected by this. It is pretty obvious that you are not going to go home Friday and come back Monday to find that not only have all the applications been upgraded, but also all the PCs in the company have been upgraded to a newer browser. So that means that you have to support both the IE6 version and the new standards-compliant version for some period of time (the length of time between the rollout of the first compliant application through the rollout of the last compliant brower). That is probably on the order of years.
The next problem is that people are used to the IE6 version. The new compliant version better look and act exactly the same, or people are going to make mistakes (especially experienced people who never have to actually look up at the screen).
Throwing money at the problem (licensing the virtual IE6 images) is probably the most prudent thing to do, from a business perspective.
Well, it is not the board of directors who goes to jail necessarily, it is who committed the fraud. Ever hear of Enron (CEO - 24 years, CFO - 6 years)? WorldCom (CEO - 25 years)? Bernie Madoff (150 years)?
You don't need permission to copy software into RAM if you have a valid license and are using the software under the terms of the license. This prevents a copyright holder from basically terminating an otherwise valid license by claiming you are violating copyright by running the program. However, several courts have ruled that if the license is being violated, then copying into RAM IS making an unauthorized copy.
Modifying your Xbox is not illegal, and Microsoft does not claim it is. Running Microsoft's SOFTWARE on your modified Xbox is a copyright violation however, because you have made a copy (into RAM) without permission (Microsoft does not license their software to run on modified Xboxes). You can modify your Xbox all you want, just don't run their firmware or games (or games from anyone else that only licenses them for Xbox).
The mistake you are making is that you think that investors care about the companies they invest in. They do not - they care about their investments. If you have invested in a company and you win a lawsuit because they didn't perform their duty, all you really want to do is get as much of your money back as you can. If they have to liquidate the company to do it, that is not your concern.
When wood structures fail in a hurricane, it is usually not the building materials that failed. The problem with many houses is that they are made up of a roof sitting on top of walls sitting on a floor. The individual roof, walls, and floors are pretty strong. The problem is how they are fastened together. For instance, in the video in the article, you see that bottom of the front wall is pushed in to the house. The wall itself stays intact. Then the whole house basically just slides off the foundation. It is also not uncommon to see an entire roof structure come off a house as a single unit. And that is why labs like this one are important - they allow testing of techniques used to hold things together. You'll notice that the second house in the video was also made of wood, and did not come apart.
Correct. When you look at a wood structure failing (like in the video), you do not see wood being ripped apart or anything like that. What you see is that big structures are separated from each other. The structures remain intact (at least until they fly into something else). The problem is how the structures are fastened to each other (ie wall to floor and roof). Strapping the roof to the walls with metal instead of just using nails makes a big difference.
Because the whole discussion is about his probation, he is obviously not in detention. He either doesn't have parents, or all their parental rights have been stripped. In either case, the state is acting as his parents now.
It is punishment. It is the judicial equivalent of 'you cut the hair off your sister's doll, no TV for you'. Considering he could have gotten jail time, it doesn't look so bad.
Of course you should ask yourself the same questions in either case. No-one disputes that. What I do dispute is your suggestion that the first link is no longer needed, because we have the second one. The second link is no more trustworthy than the first one. In fact, since it is on a site called 'hipsterjew' I am very inclined to suspect that the version it presents is somewhat more biased than the first one (not that it is necessarily wrong, but somehow I suspect that if the roles in that video were reversed it would not have presented the video at all).
So, in addition to being no more trustworthy, the 'raw video' also provides zero context or backstory. It is completely useless as news, although it may serve to refute or confirm other reports.
As for the laughable commentary on that page, I hope THAT is not what you are trying to present as news. Not a single quote from anyone, even an 'anonymous source'. 100% pure speculation ("the kids were sent, probably by their parents" - according to who). This site makes your 'FAUX News' look positively unbiased and professional by comparison.
Are you really that naive? The second link just ran a little longer and showed some people with cameras. How do you know that if your supposedly 'raw, unfiltered, and uneditted' footage started earlier or ran even longer it wouldn't show something else that changed the situation even more?
As for calling that second link 'news' - are you kidding? All you can get from that video is that some children, somewhere, were throwing rocks at a car, and the car hit one of them, and people were filming it. Where was it? Why were they throwing rocks? Was there something that led up to this (either immediately or over a longer period of time). What happened after this? What does this mean to anyone who was not at the scene?
Slashdot Mirror
No assumptions changed, and the laws were updated to reflect reality. The 'assumption' of copyright is and always has been that the creator of a work needs protection from those who would take his work without permission. That still is true. What shifted was the number of people he needs protection from: it is now not only those who would profit financially from unauthorized distribution, but also those who distribute just because they can. The laws were updated to reflect that. No distinction is required between the two groups, because to the person who needs protection they are exactly the same.
You can't prove a sale was taken away even if money was exchanged. The only way you could actually claim a lost sale would be in the case of a counterfeit copy (ie looks exactly the same),sold at the same price, in the same retail environment as legitimate copies, such that the buyer didn't know he was getting a counterfeit. Otherwise the exact same silly arguments can be made: sure, they paid $0.75 for my bootleg, but there is no proof they would have paid $0.99 for the real thing. Sure, they paid the same price as the real thing, but that is because I sold it at a flea market where they happened to be - there is no proof they would actually have bought it in a store. Sure, they bought it online for the same price as the real thing, but it is obviously a bootleg, so there is no proof they would have bought it from the evil RIAA.
You can not draw a line between 'profit' and 'no profit' as having any provably different harm to the copyright holder.
Only true if the cost of the pirated copy is exactly the same as (or more than) the genuine thing. It never is, which is why people buy them. Therefore, the exact same bogus arguments could apply (I was selling the song for $0.75, they were charging $0.99, you have no proof that they would have purchased at $0.99).
The problem with your thinking is that it is completely backwards. The purpose of copyright law is NOT to prevent someone else from profiting, it is to protect the rights of the CREATORs. The harm to the creator is exactly the same if someone is selling copies for profit or someone else is giving them away for free.
The principle of copyright is to give people an incentive to create and share their works with the world. For some people, the ego boost of having as wide a distribution as possible is incentive enough. These people do not need copyright protection. For other people, the incentive is financial. For those people, the EASIER it is to make copies, the more protection that is needed. Unless we either a) decide we don't want the works of anyone whose incentive is financial, or b) come up with a way to reward those people independent of 'selling copies', we are pretty much stuck with what we have. Option A is pretty much moot, because that option exists right now. If you don't want the works of anyone whose incentive is financial, pretend the works don't exist and don't use them. Nobody (elective representative or not) has come up with a realistic option B.
Complete nonsense. The purpose of copyright and IP laws is to give people incentive to create and share those creations with the world (sharing does not imply 'for free'). The constitution says 'In order to promote progress...' not 'in order to ensure no-one else profits...'. The only reason that copyright was not applied more often to individuals in the past is because they didn't have the means to make perfect copies. Patent law in particular says 'Any person who use, makes, sells, or offers to sell...'. Profit isn't even first or second on the list.
Picking one at random: the CEO of AT&T had total compensation of about $18M last year ($6M of that was cash). If he worked for nothing, that would give AT&T a whole $18M to play with. You're not going to buy much bandwidth with $18M.
What is the big deal? They are not giving you a quote (which would require them to do credit checks, etc), they are showing you a marketing rate. If they can get a certain percentage of their customers to bite on a higher rate, why wouldn't they? So maybe they have some formula that says '10% of the time we will show our best rate, 80% of the time our average rate, and 10% an above-average rate'. Now all they have to do is decide which one to show you. Maybe their distribution corresponds roughly to the distribution of browers that visit the site - might as well just make the determination based on that. Maybe it is random. Maybe someone who connects in the first 6 seconds of a minute gets the best rate. If they show you a high rate and you take it, they make more money. If they show you a high rate and you decline it, they don't. On the other hand, if they always show the best rate they have to beat the competition every time.
How do you codify this better understanding? Write it into a law? Or do you just let each individual cop, prosecutor, judge, and jury apply their own 'better understanding'?
Say you go into a coffee shop and use their wifi. The neighborhood cop comes in and the owner of the shop complains to him that you have been sitting there using their wifi without buying anything, even though the sign says 'customers only'. Does the cop arrest you for fraud (you are pretending to be a customer when you're not)? Trespass (you are using their network without permission)? Theft of services? Any of those COULD be applied in that case if the laws were broad enough (which is what you seem to be advocating). It is much better to have many narrowly written specific laws than a few broad laws that can be interpreted differently by everyone.
It isn't really that simple though. Let's say you have several applications affected by this. It is pretty obvious that you are not going to go home Friday and come back Monday to find that not only have all the applications been upgraded, but also all the PCs in the company have been upgraded to a newer browser. So that means that you have to support both the IE6 version and the new standards-compliant version for some period of time (the length of time between the rollout of the first compliant application through the rollout of the last compliant brower). That is probably on the order of years.
The next problem is that people are used to the IE6 version. The new compliant version better look and act exactly the same, or people are going to make mistakes (especially experienced people who never have to actually look up at the screen).
Throwing money at the problem (licensing the virtual IE6 images) is probably the most prudent thing to do, from a business perspective.
How exactly can a corporation commit murder? If individuals in a corporation commit murder, they are punished just like everyone else.
Well, it is not the board of directors who goes to jail necessarily, it is who committed the fraud. Ever hear of Enron (CEO - 24 years, CFO - 6 years)? WorldCom (CEO - 25 years)? Bernie Madoff (150 years)?
You don't need permission to copy software into RAM if you have a valid license and are using the software under the terms of the license. This prevents a copyright holder from basically terminating an otherwise valid license by claiming you are violating copyright by running the program. However, several courts have ruled that if the license is being violated, then copying into RAM IS making an unauthorized copy.
Modifying your Xbox is not illegal, and Microsoft does not claim it is. Running Microsoft's SOFTWARE on your modified Xbox is a copyright violation however, because you have made a copy (into RAM) without permission (Microsoft does not license their software to run on modified Xboxes). You can modify your Xbox all you want, just don't run their firmware or games (or games from anyone else that only licenses them for Xbox).
It is not the same as suing yourself. What you want is your investment back. If they have to liquidate the company to do that, so be it.
The mistake you are making is that you think that investors care about the companies they invest in. They do not - they care about their investments. If you have invested in a company and you win a lawsuit because they didn't perform their duty, all you really want to do is get as much of your money back as you can. If they have to liquidate the company to do it, that is not your concern.
When wood structures fail in a hurricane, it is usually not the building materials that failed. The problem with many houses is that they are made up of a roof sitting on top of walls sitting on a floor. The individual roof, walls, and floors are pretty strong. The problem is how they are fastened together. For instance, in the video in the article, you see that bottom of the front wall is pushed in to the house. The wall itself stays intact. Then the whole house basically just slides off the foundation. It is also not uncommon to see an entire roof structure come off a house as a single unit. And that is why labs like this one are important - they allow testing of techniques used to hold things together. You'll notice that the second house in the video was also made of wood, and did not come apart.
Correct. When you look at a wood structure failing (like in the video), you do not see wood being ripped apart or anything like that. What you see is that big structures are separated from each other. The structures remain intact (at least until they fly into something else). The problem is how the structures are fastened to each other (ie wall to floor and roof). Strapping the roof to the walls with metal instead of just using nails makes a big difference.
They cannot change their model because what they are selling is no longer needed.
Certainly looks to me like said it wasn't needed.
Because the whole discussion is about his probation, he is obviously not in detention. He either doesn't have parents, or all their parental rights have been stripped. In either case, the state is acting as his parents now.
The government is this kids parents. He is a ward of the state.
That is exactly what it is. A minor punishment for a minor crime.
It is punishment. It is the judicial equivalent of 'you cut the hair off your sister's doll, no TV for you'. Considering he could have gotten jail time, it doesn't look so bad.
Of course you should ask yourself the same questions in either case. No-one disputes that. What I do dispute is your suggestion that the first link is no longer needed, because we have the second one. The second link is no more trustworthy than the first one. In fact, since it is on a site called 'hipsterjew' I am very inclined to suspect that the version it presents is somewhat more biased than the first one (not that it is necessarily wrong, but somehow I suspect that if the roles in that video were reversed it would not have presented the video at all).
So, in addition to being no more trustworthy, the 'raw video' also provides zero context or backstory. It is completely useless as news, although it may serve to refute or confirm other reports.
As for the laughable commentary on that page, I hope THAT is not what you are trying to present as news. Not a single quote from anyone, even an 'anonymous source'. 100% pure speculation ("the kids were sent, probably by their parents" - according to who). This site makes your 'FAUX News' look positively unbiased and professional by comparison.
Are you really that naive? The second link just ran a little longer and showed some people with cameras. How do you know that if your supposedly 'raw, unfiltered, and uneditted' footage started earlier or ran even longer it wouldn't show something else that changed the situation even more?
As for calling that second link 'news' - are you kidding? All you can get from that video is that some children, somewhere, were throwing rocks at a car, and the car hit one of them, and people were filming it. Where was it? Why were they throwing rocks? Was there something that led up to this (either immediately or over a longer period of time). What happened after this? What does this mean to anyone who was not at the scene?