Not only are they missing the boat and stifling innovation, they're attacking and going after consumers who don't believe the purchase is worth the money and then lobby governments to put in CRAZY laws that illegally downloading a movie can cost you $250,000 + 5 years in jail if you're charged and found guilty. Yet get in your car drunk and kill a family of 5, spend 2-3 years in jail + $50,000 in legal fees.
Is it me, or does the who copyright debate sound complete like corporate sheit they've bought and paid for and then rammed down our throats?
The moral to this story is that when a piracy crime is worse than a murder charge, you should simply kill anyone threatening you with a copyright lawsuit and get away with a slap on the wrist. Shakespeare's "But first let's kill all the lawyers" has never made more sense than it does now.
Well, duh. It should come as no surprise that trying to seize entire domains to crack down on a single offender would fail both on an operational and PR level. Can you imagine what would happen if the police tried to stop crystal meth trafficking by shutting down entire neighbourhoods based on the mere suspicion that someone might be renting a room to a meth lab? The criminal would have no trouble relocating in a hurry, leaving dozens of irate home owners to vent their fury on the public place.
And when you (the customer) agree to a contract that says "tethering costs extra," and then you tether anyway without paying that extra fee... aren't you violating the very basic principles of how agreements work as well?
My internet company charges you extra if you want to buy their router, but I didn't. Should they get to charge me because I got my own?
How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?
Your phone company squeezing more charge for something they don't even provide themselves, and netting hundreds of thousands of subscriptions because many people will likely not even pay attention to that notice that was sent out? I'd say you figured out exactly the whole situation with crystal clear insight.
This "legal torrent, honest!" deal is pretty much the Sheriff of Nottingham setting up the archery contest in order for Robin Hood and his men to reveal themselves.
Do you still expect us to pay in that case? Look, I understand that the Slashdot overlords expects us to worship all things Australian these days, but I'm not paying for a shitty movie just because it's being distributed via BT.
Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious set a very low standard for australian movies here in north america. We're not exactly holding our collective breath.
It's just as probable that the next generation consoles will not be significantly more secure than this generations are.
True, just listen to what these companies say about their current gen being hacked beyond hope but the NEXT gen being "too hard to crack THIS time"... it always ends up like Doctor Klaw waving his armored fist and yelling "I'll get you next time, Gadget, NEXT TIME!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Not only are they missing the boat and stifling innovation, they're attacking and going after consumers who don't believe the purchase is worth the money and then lobby governments to put in CRAZY laws that illegally downloading a movie can cost you $250,000 + 5 years in jail if you're charged and found guilty. Yet get in your car drunk and kill a family of 5, spend 2-3 years in jail + $50,000 in legal fees. Is it me, or does the who copyright debate sound complete like corporate sheit they've bought and paid for and then rammed down our throats?
The moral to this story is that when a piracy crime is worse than a murder charge, you should simply kill anyone threatening you with a copyright lawsuit and get away with a slap on the wrist. Shakespeare's "But first let's kill all the lawyers" has never made more sense than it does now.
We should outlaw wax cylinder voice phonographs! They will put all music-halls out of business and destroy music forever!
Its very FIRST strip in 1997 tells it like it is: http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=970825
LOTS of cocaine.
Well, duh. It should come as no surprise that trying to seize entire domains to crack down on a single offender would fail both on an operational and PR level. Can you imagine what would happen if the police tried to stop crystal meth trafficking by shutting down entire neighbourhoods based on the mere suspicion that someone might be renting a room to a meth lab? The criminal would have no trouble relocating in a hurry, leaving dozens of irate home owners to vent their fury on the public place.
That reward should be taken out of the robber's own bank account. That's the punishment for being so goddamn stupid!
And when you (the customer) agree to a contract that says "tethering costs extra," and then you tether anyway without paying that extra fee... aren't you violating the very basic principles of how agreements work as well?
My internet company charges you extra if you want to buy their router, but I didn't. Should they get to charge me because I got my own?
Joseph McCarthy is doing a happy jig.
How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?
Your phone company squeezing more charge for something they don't even provide themselves, and netting hundreds of thousands of subscriptions because many people will likely not even pay attention to that notice that was sent out? I'd say you figured out exactly the whole situation with crystal clear insight.
Isn't it against regulation to force you into an added-charge service unless you opt out?
... will finally do something!
At first I read it and I was like O.o
Then I went :P
And finally I did a :D
This "legal torrent, honest!" deal is pretty much the Sheriff of Nottingham setting up the archery contest in order for Robin Hood and his men to reveal themselves.
Do you still expect us to pay in that case? Look, I understand that the Slashdot overlords expects us to worship all things Australian these days, but I'm not paying for a shitty movie just because it's being distributed via BT.
Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious set a very low standard for australian movies here in north america. We're not exactly holding our collective breath.
It's just as probable that the next generation consoles will not be significantly more secure than this generations are.
True, just listen to what these companies say about their current gen being hacked beyond hope but the NEXT gen being "too hard to crack THIS time"... it always ends up like Doctor Klaw waving his armored fist and yelling "I'll get you next time, Gadget, NEXT TIME!!!"
The more you increase your security to keep hackers out, the more feverishly they'll work to take down what they see as a challenge.
Every Google dollar will be worth five British pounds. That is the exchange rate that the bank of England will implement after I kidnap their queen.
Smart money says people still end up in court being sued for distributing it anyway.
On the other, my Pepsi tastes like orange peels and coffee grounds.
The show creators did mention in interviews that they never specified which one was the insane one...
Didn't think it would be earth shattering, but apparently it moved some people.
Well played, sir, well played.
Pinky, I know what we're going to do tonight, TRY TO SUE THE WORLD!
In this version, they're both insane.
Let's see now what the MPAA intends to do with this information.
It just put its foot up our axis.