Hard to argue that you're costing a company sales when they arent providing that product.
How's this :
Once the product is released and groups cease redistribution, there is a disincentive among those who have
previously downloaded it, to but the official release.
Gosh. It turns out that that's not hard to argue at all.
kind of like haveing a japanese freind send you this weeks episode with a resume of what goes on.
Or, more accurately, kind of like having a japanese friends who bootlegs the episodes, adds a brief summary, and then illegally re-distributes them to every interested anime fan in North America.
In summary:
Redistribution to one person -- likely to be ignored by copyright owners.
Redistribution to the entire fucking planet -- likely draw a certain amount of attention.
Most of those assessments were made when the "graphologists" in question were under the belief the doodle was Blair's. So we should withhold judgement until we have second opinions from the Phrenologists, Dowsers and any other Pseudo-Scientific Charlatans who feel like chipping in with their worthless, substance less opinions...
That 12.7% is a distortion. Firstly, it doesn't count net users, it counts people who, in theory, have net access.
So, if you live in a town with 1 cyber-cafe, you're counted, even if you don't even know where it is, you're counted. Do you have a local library with a net connection? You're counted.
Secondly, that only counts adults. Sorry folks, but the world's population is 1/3 children -- and pro rata, there are one hell of lot more of those in developing nations than the western world.
5 seems a little low. I know of at least 2 in Swansea
I thought it seemed a little low, too, although I only know of two in Cardiff (both on Queen Street).... According to Starbucks.com there are 6 Starbucks retail stores in Wales, four in Cardiff and one each in Swansea (in Borders) and Newport.
3.5 million people which is around 0.5% of the World population.
The world population is 700 million people? I didn't know that. Last I heard, China alone had a population roughly twice that.
And the fact that you've "proved" 1% of the world's population live in Switzerland and it hasn't even occured to you how unbelievably wrong that must be..
That's so endearing, in a way only that combination of smugness and stupidity can be.
Seeing Starbucks in there reminded me of a great ad I saw in Sunday's paper. Wales is now advertising itself as a tourist destination based on its historical heritage, and the fact it's still relatively unspoiled by the various global brands that homogenise most city centres in England. The advert is a double page photo of the inside of Cardiff Castle with the slogan
So he applies for the job, only to have it rejected because he's "overqualified"
Anybody working in HR for a company that required skilled, intelligent personnel who rejects an applicant as "overqualified" wants shooting. In effect, the applicant has said "I could do something much better paid, but I want to do your job."
And the HR has said "No, I want you to be rich but miserable, and I want us to employ someone working at the extremes of his ability who is, in all likelihood, angling to leave for somewhere better paid..."
But it is unethical to post such a link under your own username
Not really, because as a rule the concepts of ethical / unethical behaviour apply only to contexts that actually mean something, as opposed to the pointless accumulation of worthless slashdot karma, which means absolutely diddly-squat to anyone with a sense of proportion.
Yes. Nearly all those things are contributory infringement, under US copyright law. Knowingly helping other people to commit crimes is almost always a crime itself.
Err. No. If they tell people that you're stealing their stuff, they may be guilty of slander. If they delete the files without your permission, they'd be liable for whatever Unauthorised Computer Misuse law applies. If they copy your files and redistribute them, sure, but thats pretty unlikely.
At the moment, this software doesn't do any of these things. So, no. They haven't copied your stuff, so your copyright is unaffected.
They've had those patents for more than 10 years without enforcing them
Untrue. They sued Intel in 1997.
Oh, I know, lets develop this cache stuff for our new processors, then not produce them
They tried to produce them in association with Intel, but Intel screwed them over. So Intergraph sued, and Intel then tied them up with lawyers for 6 years.
I'm a small OEM and have shipped a few intel processor based machines
No. You should be protected by section 2-312 of the Uniform Commerical Code.
Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like...
Slashdot Mirror
These things do not belong to you. You did not create them. They are not yours to redistribute, either legally or morally.
No? Then that's shutting the stable door after the horse has already gone, isn't it?
In summary:
Redistribution to one person -- likely to be ignored by copyright owners.
Redistribution to the entire fucking planet -- likely draw a certain amount of attention.
Most of those assessments were made when the "graphologists" in question were under the belief the doodle was Blair's. So we should withhold judgement until we have second opinions from the Phrenologists, Dowsers and any other Pseudo-Scientific Charlatans who feel like chipping in with their worthless, substance less opinions...
Anyone in the UK can use slashdot's services for free by going into a public library and using an internet-connected computer.
Doesn't make them the world's biggest brand, though, does it?
That 12.7% is a distortion. Firstly, it doesn't count net users, it counts people who, in theory, have net access.
So, if you live in a town with 1 cyber-cafe, you're counted, even if you don't even know where it is, you're counted. Do you have a local library with a net connection? You're counted.
Secondly, that only counts adults. Sorry folks, but the world's population is 1/3 children -- and pro rata, there are one hell of lot more of those in developing nations than the western world.
And the fact that you've "proved" 1% of the world's population live in Switzerland and it hasn't even occured to you how unbelievably wrong that must be..
That's so endearing, in a way only that combination of smugness and stupidity can be.
Zeitgeist means "Spirit of the time/age" (in German). Sadly, I don't know what "cockbarrel" means, and some how I think I don't want to know, either.
Right. And its pretty funny/idiotic to suggest that in a world where global internet connectivity is about 1%, that Google is one of the top brands.
Laughable.
Seeing Starbucks in there reminded me of a great ad I saw in Sunday's paper. Wales is now advertising itself as a tourist destination based on its historical heritage, and the fact it's still relatively unspoiled by the various global brands that homogenise most city centres in England. The advert is a double page photo of the inside of Cardiff Castle with the slogan
:
"Wales
641 Castles
5 Starbucks."
And the HR has said "No, I want you to be rich but miserable, and I want us to employ someone working at the extremes of his ability who is, in all likelihood, angling to leave for somewhere better paid..."
Yes. Nearly all those things are contributory infringement, under US copyright law. Knowingly helping other people to commit crimes is almost always a crime itself.
At the moment, this software doesn't do any of these things. So, no. They haven't copied your stuff, so your copyright is unaffected.
Kids, eh?
That happened to me too. Of course, our problem was that we forgot to check if we'd been given the same homework assignments.
Come again?
section 2-312 of the Uniform Commerical Code.Thanks to an anonymous coward who pointed this out to me.