Welcome to our minority. My personal filter is that if I wouldn't feel comfortable approaching them randomly to strike up a conversation then they shouldn't be on my list. There's lots of people from high school I denied because I didn't talk to them then, what's changed? Just because we knew 'of' each other it doesn't mean we need to put on a fake smile and pretend we were all buddy buddy.
False. A crime must have a potential victim. If I walk up to you on the street and aim a gun at your head, pull the trigger and miss have I commited a crime? No one was really hurt here? Or what about speeding? If I go roaring down the highway at 140+ but don't crash is it illegal?
I'm not trying to troll you. I really side with your point of view but the law and law enforcement do not. They're labeling this poor victim as a potential offender which a lot of evidence points that he is not.
(Well now that I think of it, shooting at your head probably would leave some mental/emotional scarring)
That is typically only true when the EULA does one of two things:
1) Contradicts itself; meaning the EULA both says something is allowed and is not whereas users can argue that they did follow EULA and companies cannot "pick and choose"
2) The contract conflicts with law in place. AKA The EULA tries to remove privileges provided by national law.
Modding your Xbox and accessing a company's network breaks neither of these and does not pose any threat to health or well-being of people. As the OP stated: you entered a contract and you broke said contract, play by the rules or get out.
"It was never to stop piracy, it was to sell more consoles!"
And your proof to this claim is where? My honest opinion (See that? I'm not trying to pass it off as fact!) is that they were looking to improve the game experience for other customers. Sure not every modded box is used for cheating but many are, and those modded ones are open to doing it in the future. So by banning infringing consoles they 1) remove cheaters impacting the service to legit customers and 2) remove potential future threat to their customers.
I never bought a 360, but I did have a regular Xbox with Halo 2 back in the day. My worst experiences on XBL were competing with modded players who hacked the game. Companies aren't out there to screw every individual they can find. They do realize that a customer base grants them money. So when they take action that benefits the majority they're doing themselves a favor.
We voted for them because we were tired of getting sat on by the Liberals. They're all evil, just have to give each one its turn to screw us over even more. Its not fair to let Liberals have all the fun!
Except for Quebec's party... they can just shoo; they have no interests except for that of a single province.
"since ISPs are protected by safe harbour provisions, and the MPAA has to file lawsuits against individuals, even if it's a jane/john doe discovery thing"
Tell that to AFACT (a company representing multiple major media corporations battling a lawsuit against a Australian ISP [iiNet] over infringements of their customers)
It isn't necessarily ethical as much as it isn't unethical. If the situation was true where no one is directly harmed and nothing is lost then its not unethical. Digital copying isn't the exact same as stealing a physical object because the original remains untouched in a digital copy. The ethics come in where there is a theoretical argument that something was lost, but cannot be proven. If that file was copied it is potentially seen as lost revenue harming those who laboured to make that file exist. In some cases this is so, but in others it is not and most likely impossible to prove due to human nature.
Just because I'm against something doesn't mean I actively break the law. Please review a quote from my first submission: "While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical' or 'not hurting anyone'."
I believe in an eye for an eye but I don't go killing people who have committed murder. I still have faith in our judicial system.
You rule out the option that content will be created that has little cost that people will still want. I enjoyed Paranormal Activity more than I did Transformers 2. Guess which had a smaller budget?What about movies that rely solely on donations and ARE being successful?
One of the changes that needs to occur is the consumers need more power over what they want to watch, not what they want us to see. I've stopped watching TV because I hate the dribble that's on there and the only things I *do* want to watch appear when I'd rather be out with friends.
Comcast has it wrong. I'm working for a telecommunications company and we ARE looking into how to make the experience work for the consumer who wants it now and wants it cheap. People will still pay for content, they just don't want to be charged $20+ for a DVD.
Now I agree with you. While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical' or 'not hurting anyone'. Our job, as the citizens of a country, is to have it changed through legal matters. Consult your local representative and let them know your position. This online 'revolution' is just digging a hole.
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated. They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work. This inspired people to create original content and not copy others. Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.
There's a very small market for the kind of shows that we were choking on during our high-school years. The drone and monotone voice doesn't exactly draw in the viewer.
Mythbusters are a means to entertaining the average idiot. Many people would simply skip over a program that might contain interesting content but presented poorly. I like Mythbusters because of their interesting and upbeat presentation of somewhat simple knowledge. Hell, if they can't make it work they strap some dynamite to it and blow it up!
Dear subscriber,
We know where you live. We are coming with our ALL NEW TOYOTA MATRIX WITH SEATING FOR 5, FULLY LOADED, LEATHER INTERIOR to take your children away in our FIVE STAR SAFETY TESTED FAMILY SEDAN!
Don't try to run, we'll still find you with our GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM!
Stalkingly yours,
Joe
Please click here to remove yourself from these Toyota promotional messages
Yeah because having a stalker enter your home is better... The parent poster made a valid point. I'd let police rummage through my crap any day to help save my life over a potential killer.
Sorry if I'm mistaken but once an idea is revealed publicly the idea holder has one year to secure a patent before it can be ravaged by competition's dogs? Couldn't the publishing be made as a market test to gain interest and support for said idea and then secure the patent after testing the waters?
Excellent job with reading comprehension. The point of the article isn't that his music was pulled from MySpace. That is simply the introduction that led him to discover that a MAJOR RECORD LABEL is distributing his COPYRIGHTED content without license and making money off him.
This is an ironic article because these thieving corporations are currently taking people to court based on copyright infringement.
Its funny that you say that because we used to do that "by accident" at my last job. 90% of our "contestants" never noticed by the time I quit and moved on despite their cost centers being charged for the increased support cost.
I want the public to be a free and open place. This means that I think all areas of public use should always be public and those cannot restrict my access to locations within the public sector. So next time you go use a public washroom, you have to leave the door open. It isn't neutral if you do otherwise.
Seriously, its neutral as long as they don't discriminate against the traffic. Sites have all the rights they want to limit their customers based on location because they have signed agreement for the content they provide. These contracts and signatures do not extend beyond the US so why should they be forced to break contract? I choose to limit membership to my private web server: is this breaking net neutrality?
In reality his argument is more logical than yours. As stated above the country REALLY only is 'created' once a new government is in place. Would you argue that Germany is the same country in 1939 as it is today? I'd hope not because there has been a DRASTIC change in culture and the way it functions.
Certainly the land was there, borders existed, and people inhabited the area but when we speak of a country in terms of this argument it is the government that is the subject of the metaphore.
So is it safe to assume this patent was designed to stop people from making little 'copies' of Google with some Java feature added? No doubt people profit from taking the Google site and tweaking a feature for no real use.
I still find it funny about how much time my company spends fixing security issues and crashes with their IE6 intranet instead of investing in IE8 or more compliant software. They're rather be reactive than proactive.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to our minority. My personal filter is that if I wouldn't feel comfortable approaching them randomly to strike up a conversation then they shouldn't be on my list. There's lots of people from high school I denied because I didn't talk to them then, what's changed? Just because we knew 'of' each other it doesn't mean we need to put on a fake smile and pretend we were all buddy buddy.
"The older users had more than 4x the friends each, on average, than the young."
Breaking news, those who have lived longer have created more social connections than those who have not.
"A crime must have a victim, period."
False. A crime must have a potential victim. If I walk up to you on the street and aim a gun at your head, pull the trigger and miss have I commited a crime? No one was really hurt here? Or what about speeding? If I go roaring down the highway at 140+ but don't crash is it illegal?
I'm not trying to troll you. I really side with your point of view but the law and law enforcement do not. They're labeling this poor victim as a potential offender which a lot of evidence points that he is not.
(Well now that I think of it, shooting at your head probably would leave some mental/emotional scarring)
That is typically only true when the EULA does one of two things:
1) Contradicts itself; meaning the EULA both says something is allowed and is not whereas users can argue that they did follow EULA and companies cannot "pick and choose"
2) The contract conflicts with law in place. AKA The EULA tries to remove privileges provided by national law.
Modding your Xbox and accessing a company's network breaks neither of these and does not pose any threat to health or well-being of people. As the OP stated: you entered a contract and you broke said contract, play by the rules or get out.
"It was never to stop piracy, it was to sell more consoles!"
And your proof to this claim is where? My honest opinion (See that? I'm not trying to pass it off as fact!) is that they were looking to improve the game experience for other customers. Sure not every modded box is used for cheating but many are, and those modded ones are open to doing it in the future. So by banning infringing consoles they 1) remove cheaters impacting the service to legit customers and 2) remove potential future threat to their customers.
I never bought a 360, but I did have a regular Xbox with Halo 2 back in the day. My worst experiences on XBL were competing with modded players who hacked the game. Companies aren't out there to screw every individual they can find. They do realize that a customer base grants them money. So when they take action that benefits the majority they're doing themselves a favor.
We voted for them because we were tired of getting sat on by the Liberals. They're all evil, just have to give each one its turn to screw us over even more. Its not fair to let Liberals have all the fun!
Except for Quebec's party... they can just shoo; they have no interests except for that of a single province.
"since ISPs are protected by safe harbour provisions, and the MPAA has to file lawsuits against individuals, even if it's a jane/john doe discovery thing"
Tell that to AFACT (a company representing multiple major media corporations battling a lawsuit against a Australian ISP [iiNet] over infringements of their customers)
It isn't necessarily ethical as much as it isn't unethical. If the situation was true where no one is directly harmed and nothing is lost then its not unethical. Digital copying isn't the exact same as stealing a physical object because the original remains untouched in a digital copy. The ethics come in where there is a theoretical argument that something was lost, but cannot be proven. If that file was copied it is potentially seen as lost revenue harming those who laboured to make that file exist. In some cases this is so, but in others it is not and most likely impossible to prove due to human nature.
Just because I'm against something doesn't mean I actively break the law. Please review a quote from my first submission: "While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical' or 'not hurting anyone'."
I believe in an eye for an eye but I don't go killing people who have committed murder. I still have faith in our judicial system.
You rule out the option that content will be created that has little cost that people will still want. I enjoyed Paranormal Activity more than I did Transformers 2. Guess which had a smaller budget?What about movies that rely solely on donations and ARE being successful?
One of the changes that needs to occur is the consumers need more power over what they want to watch, not what they want us to see. I've stopped watching TV because I hate the dribble that's on there and the only things I *do* want to watch appear when I'd rather be out with friends.
Comcast has it wrong. I'm working for a telecommunications company and we ARE looking into how to make the experience work for the consumer who wants it now and wants it cheap. People will still pay for content, they just don't want to be charged $20+ for a DVD.
Unfortunately your argument holds as little ground as the ones you shunned in your post.
The fact of the matter is if:
A) No sales are lost because of pirating (disputable)
and B) Nothing is being destroyed
Then why is it unethical? Digital reproduction isn't killing babies (despite what 60 minutes will have you believe)
Now I agree with you. While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical' or 'not hurting anyone'. Our job, as the citizens of a country, is to have it changed through legal matters. Consult your local representative and let them know your position. This online 'revolution' is just digging a hole.
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated. They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work. This inspired people to create original content and not copy others. Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.
There's a very small market for the kind of shows that we were choking on during our high-school years. The drone and monotone voice doesn't exactly draw in the viewer.
Mythbusters are a means to entertaining the average idiot. Many people would simply skip over a program that might contain interesting content but presented poorly. I like Mythbusters because of their interesting and upbeat presentation of somewhat simple knowledge. Hell, if they can't make it work they strap some dynamite to it and blow it up!
From: marketing@toyota.com
Subject: I'ma get joo!
Dear subscriber,
We know where you live. We are coming with our ALL NEW TOYOTA MATRIX WITH SEATING FOR 5, FULLY LOADED, LEATHER INTERIOR to take your children away in our FIVE STAR SAFETY TESTED FAMILY SEDAN!
Don't try to run, we'll still find you with our GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM!
Stalkingly yours,
Joe
Please click here to remove yourself from these Toyota promotional messages
Yeah because having a stalker enter your home is better... The parent poster made a valid point. I'd let police rummage through my crap any day to help save my life over a potential killer.
Sorry if I'm mistaken but once an idea is revealed publicly the idea holder has one year to secure a patent before it can be ravaged by competition's dogs? Couldn't the publishing be made as a market test to gain interest and support for said idea and then secure the patent after testing the waters?
Excellent job with reading comprehension. The point of the article isn't that his music was pulled from MySpace. That is simply the introduction that led him to discover that a MAJOR RECORD LABEL is distributing his COPYRIGHTED content without license and making money off him.
This is an ironic article because these thieving corporations are currently taking people to court based on copyright infringement.
Its funny that you say that because we used to do that "by accident" at my last job. 90% of our "contestants" never noticed by the time I quit and moved on despite their cost centers being charged for the increased support cost.
"So sorry, your analogy fails."
How so? Your game is functional without those three extra maps is it not?
I want the public to be a free and open place. This means that I think all areas of public use should always be public and those cannot restrict my access to locations within the public sector. So next time you go use a public washroom, you have to leave the door open. It isn't neutral if you do otherwise.
Seriously, its neutral as long as they don't discriminate against the traffic. Sites have all the rights they want to limit their customers based on location because they have signed agreement for the content they provide. These contracts and signatures do not extend beyond the US so why should they be forced to break contract? I choose to limit membership to my private web server: is this breaking net neutrality?
"If a car is discovered with a flaw in it's design, then yes, they WILL cover a fix. Warranty or not."
Wrong. They WILL cover it if they deem the cost of recall to be less than that of payout for individual lawsuits.
In reality his argument is more logical than yours. As stated above the country REALLY only is 'created' once a new government is in place. Would you argue that Germany is the same country in 1939 as it is today? I'd hope not because there has been a DRASTIC change in culture and the way it functions.
Certainly the land was there, borders existed, and people inhabited the area but when we speak of a country in terms of this argument it is the government that is the subject of the metaphore.
1,000,000 users @ $30/mo > 500,000 users @ $40/mo
So is it safe to assume this patent was designed to stop people from making little 'copies' of Google with some Java feature added? No doubt people profit from taking the Google site and tweaking a feature for no real use.
I've watched Chris' work since D1. He deserves it.
I still find it funny about how much time my company spends fixing security issues and crashes with their IE6 intranet instead of investing in IE8 or more compliant software. They're rather be reactive than proactive.