Currently yes, it is. And the reason is simple... it was recognized by our founders that it is essential to a democracy for the citizenry to be able to, if need be, defend themselves fromt he government.
Which just goes to show the founding fathers were high on something.
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
I don't agree that is what the ruling says:
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement.... One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement,... And both companies communicated a clear message by responding affirmatively to requests for help in locating and playing copyrighted materials.... The unlawful objective [Of Grokster and Streamcast] is unmistakable.... There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement, and summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast was error.
Then they hand it back down saying: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Ie, The betamax case isn't relevant, these people encuraged others to break the law, they are guility as hell, now will you place give them a sentence while we take a nap.
A moral person isn't someone who makes a confusion of rash, instinctive decisions about right and wrong. Moral people struggle to figure out what to do, and often their decisions are qualified by the stuff they've considered along the way. It's called being a danged adult.
that is typical leftist groupthink. some fuck for brains says it on a website, and viola', it's true. you idiots will believe anything.
New York times actually - try getting out of your hole and stop the denial. Oh, and your message came across as you were frothing at the mouth, if you actually wish to convince something you would do well with less name calling and more proof.
I suspect this may exactly be the case - much like Roddenberry Whedon doesn't really know why it was a hit. And by all accounts the movie is different from the series - for my tastes it sounds too different. Alas.
If you will, please answer me this simple question.
What word would you use?
Who cares.
Instead of getting stuck over word-definitions, let's talk about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG. Morally, ethically, legally. In all cases, it is WRONG.
What is wrong? The laws as they currently are? Yes, they are very wrong - most of us know that.
You may (and in fact you probably will) argue (whinge) that the big business are wrong first with their over-pricing and bugged s/w and 72 minute albums with 6 filler tracks of crap forced on the artist by the record studio. How very childish.
You would prefer to be a zombie like drone just doing what your masters tell you? That would seem.. childish is not the word... retarded is!
The rules are the rules, legally.
Yep.
The rules are the rules, ethically.
No.
The rules are the rules, morally.
No.
You know it, but you are re-jinking your moral-compass to allow yourself to continue to get away with it.
Hell no, the law is wrong and should be changed - but the politicians are more interested the support of industy than ordinary people.
People do this all the time, I'm not saying I am flawless, but please do not try to skip out of it on a technicality "Uh, I wasn't wearing an eye-patch, so it's not piracy", or "Uh, I didn't rob the cd, and WarezCorp still have their bits, so it's not theft".
The only people who fall for that crock are people who are copying stuff ilegally already.
Actually people who can think can see its not theft.
I re-iterate my simple question. If it's not theft, not piracy, what word would you use?
People rebelling against a corrupt system... Freedom fighting?
These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"
Thats only because there is no money in being humane. If you want it to be for all the state has to inforce it, because a lot of people don't care about their neighbor.
First of all, let's can the idealism and be a little realistic here. You're a web site publisher with little ad revenue left. What do you do? Your training is not in marketing, it's maybe in business development. Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?
Going out of business a week later because people don't want to pay for it.
Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.
No it won't. It may kill some of the commercial crap. But there will always be something (perhaps especially in europe where bandwith seems to be less expensive)
By the reasoning of most of the posters here, unless your home is as secure as fort knox, anyone who breaks in and steals stuff isn't really to blame...
I haven't seen that. What I have seen are people saying that because of hackers the firewalls have been made better. Which is true.
The grandparent and parent both touch on something important. The vandal/repairman example comes straight from Hazlitt and is indeed an old fallacy.
Did he prove that, or did people just agree with him?
People see the new improved and rock-resistent glass and they say 'now that's progress'. What they don't see is the resources the shopkeeper had wanted to purchase with the money that had to go to the new window. The shopkeeper could have spent that money to become more efficient or expand. Or as in Hazlitt's example, bought a new suit. Then the tailor would have had more resources to put into play.
But now the shopkeeper spend the money on something else and the wheel still spins, who is to say it was worse.
I hated the swearing in Chinese; after watching Deadwood I find just about everything else is completely boring if its sanitised for a G rating.
Well, you see the people on Firefly could ACTUALLY WRITE DIALOGUE (they also didn't wish to appeal to a monosyllabic crow who find #### endearing) - so there was no reason to swear all the time. It wasn't sanitised, it was just to give it color (and a lot of that what they say isn't rude or swearing) - Its Whedon trying to add texture.
Slashdot Mirror
Emotional experience...
Oh well.
You mean they were paid to not make a Linux version? Interesting.
..look at the download page - instead of a normal download link, they use a form action - tsk tsk.
Being slow is a consequence of today's complexity and modern development techniques...
Actually its a case of sloppy development. They don't care about making the programs fast, so you don't get that.
you simply can't say "Java" and expect it to mean "slow".
Oh yes I can.
Yeah, because terrorists would really plan their attack based on old fuzzy pictures - ridicilous.
...as a member of the Supreme Court, I'll answer your question.
So which of them are you?
Currently yes, it is. And the reason is simple... it was recognized by our founders that it is essential to a democracy for the citizenry to be able to, if need be, defend themselves fromt he government.
Which just goes to show the founding fathers were high on something.
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
... ... ... ...
I don't agree that is what the ruling says:
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement.
One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement,
And both companies communicated a clear message by responding affirmatively to requests for
help in locating and playing copyrighted materials.
The unlawful objective [Of Grokster and Streamcast] is unmistakable.
There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement, and summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast was error.
Then they hand it back down saying: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Ie, The betamax case isn't relevant, these people encuraged others to break the law, they are guility as hell, now will you place give them a sentence while we take a nap.
A moral person isn't someone who makes a confusion of rash, instinctive decisions about right and wrong. Moral people struggle to figure out what to do, and often their decisions are qualified by the stuff they've considered along the way. It's called being a danged adult.
Its called an endangered species...
that is typical leftist groupthink. some fuck for brains says it on a website, and viola', it's true. you idiots will believe anything.
New York times actually - try getting out of your hole and stop the denial. Oh, and your message came across as you were frothing at the mouth, if you actually wish to convince something you would do well with less name calling and more proof.
I suspect this may exactly be the case - much like Roddenberry Whedon doesn't really know why it was a hit. And by all accounts the movie is different from the series - for my tastes it sounds too different. Alas.
So its ok for you to go "off topic" but not others - hypocrite.
You wouldn't be one of those who abuse moderation as well? Mod UP, people will stray slightly of topic - that is fine, thats the way it works.
If you will, please answer me this simple question.
... retarded is!
What word would you use?
Who cares.
Instead of getting stuck over word-definitions, let's talk about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG. Morally, ethically, legally. In all cases, it is WRONG.
What is wrong? The laws as they currently are? Yes, they are very wrong - most of us know that.
You may (and in fact you probably will) argue (whinge) that the big business are wrong first with their over-pricing and bugged s/w and 72 minute albums with 6 filler tracks of crap forced on the artist by the record studio. How very childish.
You would prefer to be a zombie like drone just doing what your masters tell you? That would seem.. childish is not the word
The rules are the rules, legally.
Yep.
The rules are the rules, ethically.
No.
The rules are the rules, morally.
No.
You know it, but you are re-jinking your moral-compass to allow yourself to continue to get away with it.
Hell no, the law is wrong and should be changed - but the politicians are more interested the support of industy than ordinary people.
People do this all the time, I'm not saying I am flawless, but please do not try to skip out of it on a technicality "Uh, I wasn't wearing an eye-patch, so it's not piracy", or "Uh, I didn't rob the cd, and WarezCorp still have their bits, so it's not theft".
The only people who fall for that crock are people who are copying stuff ilegally already.
Actually people who can think can see its not theft.
I re-iterate my simple question. If it's not theft, not piracy, what word would you use?
People rebelling against a corrupt system... Freedom fighting?
But in large numbers, all these individuals refusing to pay for the material (to the copyright owners) make a huge impact.
Might be theoretically be able to make a huge impact.
These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"
Thats only because there is no money in being humane. If you want it to be for all the state has to inforce it, because a lot of people don't care about their neighbor.
Which browser do you use?
First of all, let's can the idealism and be a little realistic here. You're a web site publisher with little ad revenue left. What do you do? Your training is not in marketing, it's maybe in business development. Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?
Going out of business a week later because people don't want to pay for it.
Forget the jargon and use some common sense. If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears,
Well since we don't click on them, we can just tell them we viewed them - ok?
Rob will or will not keep offering free access?
Get somewhere with cheaper bandwith rates.
Perhaps, but requiring the creation of completely new forms and models of web content hardly contradicts Smith's point, does it?
If it means there is free content - yes it would seem to contradict him.
Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.
No it won't. It may kill some of the commercial crap. But there will always be something (perhaps especially in europe where bandwith seems to be less expensive)
Grow the hell up!
By the reasoning of most of the posters here, unless your home is as secure as fort knox, anyone who breaks in and steals stuff isn't really to blame...
I haven't seen that. What I have seen are people saying that because of hackers the firewalls have been made better. Which is true.
The grandparent and parent both touch on something important. The vandal/repairman example comes straight from Hazlitt and is indeed an old fallacy.
Did he prove that, or did people just agree with him?
People see the new improved and rock-resistent glass and they say 'now that's progress'. What they don't see is the resources the shopkeeper had wanted to purchase with the money that had to go to the new window. The shopkeeper could have spent that money to become more efficient or expand. Or as in Hazlitt's example, bought a new suit. Then the tailor would have had more resources to put into play.
But now the shopkeeper spend the money on something else and the wheel still spins, who is to say it was worse.
I hated the swearing in Chinese; after watching Deadwood I find just about everything else is completely boring if its sanitised for a G rating.
Well, you see the people on Firefly could ACTUALLY WRITE DIALOGUE (they also didn't wish to appeal to a monosyllabic crow who find #### endearing) - so there was no reason to swear all the time. It wasn't sanitised, it was just to give it color (and a lot of that what they say isn't rude or swearing) - Its Whedon trying to add texture.
...but better late than never ;)