But maybe you meant to address Reality Master 101?
For what it costs to run and host a major site like that, it's a lot more likely that "reality 101" is that there is a cost involved. In the real world, some people really do host web sites as hobbies.
But I've got an idea. Instead of arguing about this, because we can both argue this until the sun goes out, someone could, you know, ask them?
Don't you mean "Don't drive a late model auto"? Seems like you're suggesting "always drive a new or nearly-new car". To clarify -- are you trying to say "buy a used car that's been checked by a mechanic, at least a year or two old so someone else ate the depreciation"?
I drive a six-year-old VW Golf. I've driven it for six years. I chose carefully when I was buying a new vehicle, and I've got a very practical but very driveable (VW means it when they say they design for drivers) vehicle that I wouldn't give up even if I weren't a VW fanatic. It's very fuel-efficient, carries lots of stuff, has four doors foreasy access, and looks real nice. What do I need to waste money on a new car for? I spend a bit on customizing it but that's far less costly than totally replacing my car every 2-4 years like some people do.
I am not sure what you are getting at with the reference, although I do know the poem. My point is that PDF is too well-entrenched and widely-used and works very well. Why should all the people who have already invested in PDF change? It would be like the difficulty of starting up a Paypal competitor -- Paypal is already too well-entrenched, especially on eBay, where a new service would have to gain a foothold to have a chance of success. I know I've specifically passed up interesting items in the past because the seller wouldn't take Paypal like everyone else does -- why should I register for Bidpay when I already have an account on the service that nearly everyone else uses for auctions and donations and all sorts of other stuff?
The right time to strike would have been before PDF and Paypal hit critical mass. It's already happened in both cases and is too late to change.
Thanks for the link. I skimmed it, and it does say that Adobe will enforce its copyright and it also lists the patent numbers in question. So, I imagine it is well within Adobe's rights to say "We generally permit people to use this stuff, but in your specific case, the license is denied."
It would be like me generally allowing anyone to use my garage for working on their car, but telling you specifically, for whatever reason I wanted, that you couldn't. And if you went in anyway, I could have you removed for trespassing, and press charges against you.
Which of the two assertions do you support? You're contradicting yourself.
Both. It's not contradiction when you realize that "platform non-neutrality" usually means "only runs on Windows" and therefore the printing business won't be able to use the software, therefore anyone who depends on Windows-only software will lose a huge portion of their customer base.
the ads will go aways and TPB won't profit from them any more.
Did it ever cross your mind that just maybe, there is no profit to be made here and the ads plus voluntary donations plus whatever the admins spend covers the hosting costs? Or are you one of those people who don't have any hobbies? You know, things that you enjoy doing that usually cost you money. Yes, it costs money out of pocket to have a hobby, but the tradeoff is the enjoyment.
Some people like me enjoy reading or drawing or building models. We spend money on books, art supplies, and model kits. Some people enjoy running websites, and spend money on software, web hosting, tutorials, education, and such.
Or had it not even crossed your mind that the notion that someone might be paying for this out of pocket might just be true?
how is it possible artist receive only an handful of the revenus
Because they were stupid enough to sign a one-sided contract. If you are too lazy to do the work on your own or find someone who will give you a better deal, it's no one's fault but yours.
You can't really expect the rest of the world to stand by and let this happen.
They have no choice in the matter unless they are going to disrespect sovereignty, which is as wrong as a forced invasion a la Iraq/Kuwait in 1991 and Germany/Poland in 1939. Since Sweden is a sovereign nation with its own laws, it doesn't matter what the US or any other nation wants -- it doesn't have the right to make those choices. The Swedish people, and the Swedish government, are the only ones who can do that.
So yes, I do expect the rest of the world to stand by and let it happen.
Oh come on. You really think all the people who currently depend on PDF are suddenly going to turn around and change all that in the blink of an eye? Presses, graphic artists, publishers, websites, scientific journals, and the like. The time when a shift might reasonably have been imaginable was past a long time ago.
Uh. No. If Adobe holds the patents, what Adobe says goes, as long as the patents are valid. We may disagree with software patents, but until the law is changed, what the law says goes.
Ah, but what about the fact that graphic designers use Macintoshes extensively and it's PDF that Mac OS X is built upon, and the fact that Microsoft isn't very likely to port this to Mac?
Platform non-neutrality is shooting yourself in the foot in the printing business.
Simple -- because file sharing is seen as socially okay because of how music has been such a vital and everyday part of society and until recently was freely shared at will. The GPL requirements, too, can be explained that way -- because the GPL requires free and unlimited sharing of ideas.
There's no inconsistency here unless you don't believe that people should be perfectly free to share as they wish.
I wouldn't want someone taking my work and giving it away for free or a pittance unless I was getting properly paid for it and I don't see that happening.
I suggest you do some more research on the issue, particularly the bits regarding compulsory licensing and agencies that distribute those compulsory licensing fees to the proper parties. You don't see it happening because you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand because you've accepted the FUD that because the RIAA doesn't like it, it can't possibly be legal anywhere.
But the more I looked at it, the more uneasy I felt about how legitimate it could be. This latest story confirms my hunch... they aren't.
Uh... no, they're not illegal. If someone is doing something in another country that is legal there, and you don't like it, you can dislike it all you want but you cannot do anything about it. They are legal. Individual purchasers may not be doing something legal, however.
All of the coverage I've seen that goes into detail state that the site has a warning that you're responsible for following local laws. Stop shifting blame onto people that don't deserve that, and take some fucking personal responsibility.
Oh, wait, apparently personal responsibility is out of style.
Next time, think a bit before posting something that stupid.
They need to receive payment for that effort, or they will go out of business.
But don't you think it's about time that outdated businesses like the RIAA died? The world has changed and they don't want to deal with it because there's no longer a need for them. They want to legislate a rollback to the 1980s, and the rest of the world is moving forward.
They're going to go out of business soon with things the way they are? Good!
What I really don't get is the wiki that I've seen for an SF novel "universe" -- you can't edit it, and if you create an article it gets deleted. So what's the point of having a wiki? I thought the whole point of wikis was that the community would form itself, and instead this particular wiki sure as hell doesn't act like a wiki should...
I haven't found a wiki I really liked outside of wikipedia -- I even got yelled at once for writing an article that had too much information in it! (and it was well written even)
So you'd spend some time chatting with a dude in India, and if he thinks you're human, you're in!
I'm hearing-impaired and can't understand their accents, you insensitive clod!
(seriously, I am, and I cannot stand outsourcing to India for support services on that basis... your idea is not a good one. Using US agents, who will be more understandable for US callers, is a marginally better idea.)
I've done it for the corporate CD I have, just not for the regular Pro disk. Thanks for the link -- I didn't print out the how-to or bookmark it and hadn't gotten around to doing so again.
(or can the Corporate version be installed as a Pro copy if a standard Pro key is entered? I am not sure since the installer says "enter volume license key", I think, when it gets to that step).
A CD key isn't locked to a specific CD, just a specific version of windows.
More like "a hardware configuration identical to this one, or very close to it" (whatever was submitted at activation time).
I think your solution is the best one and is the one I use when reinstalling Windows on boxes at work when people tell me they have too much crap on their machine. I have an XP Pro CD and I just type in whatever license code is on the sticker attached to the box in question. Then I install SP2. Then I make sure the firewall is on, and then plug in the network cable. Then I let the activation wizard run.
I'm sorry but the average home user doesn't have the cash for a copy of Photoshop, so yeah, they pirate it.
Or maybe they go and buy a copy of Paint Shop Pro or GraphicConverter or one of the other quite-capable yet reasonably-priced alternatives that do everything that most home and many business users want?
The simple fact that someone chooses not to buy Photoshop yet has a potential valid use for it doesn't mean they pirated Photoshop. That kind of argument doesn't account for the fact that alternatives exist.
I actually once saw the fact that an admitted college student was using Apple's Aperture software turned against said student. If he's a student, the argument went, he must have pirated it because he wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Never mind that the academic price (at the time) was hundreds cheaper than the $500 (at the time) the standard version cost. Never mind that some students DO have the money to buy academically-priced apps (that's the whole point of academic pricing!). Never mind that people are often naturally honest whenever they can be.
Of course, this being Slashdot, it wasn't too surprising but it disgusted me greatly that the assumption was that illegal activity had occurred when there was absolutely no evidence for it. It disgusts me now, too.
Slashdot Mirror
But maybe you meant to address Reality Master 101?
For what it costs to run and host a major site like that, it's a lot more likely that "reality 101" is that there is a cost involved. In the real world, some people really do host web sites as hobbies.
But I've got an idea. Instead of arguing about this, because we can both argue this until the sun goes out, someone could, you know, ask them?
Drive a late model auto.
Don't you mean "Don't drive a late model auto"? Seems like you're suggesting "always drive a new or nearly-new car". To clarify -- are you trying to say "buy a used car that's been checked by a mechanic, at least a year or two old so someone else ate the depreciation"?
I drive a six-year-old VW Golf. I've driven it for six years. I chose carefully when I was buying a new vehicle, and I've got a very practical but very driveable (VW means it when they say they design for drivers) vehicle that I wouldn't give up even if I weren't a VW fanatic. It's very fuel-efficient, carries lots of stuff, has four doors foreasy access, and looks real nice. What do I need to waste money on a new car for? I spend a bit on customizing it but that's far less costly than totally replacing my car every 2-4 years like some people do.
I am not sure what you are getting at with the reference, although I do know the poem. My point is that PDF is too well-entrenched and widely-used and works very well. Why should all the people who have already invested in PDF change? It would be like the difficulty of starting up a Paypal competitor -- Paypal is already too well-entrenched, especially on eBay, where a new service would have to gain a foothold to have a chance of success. I know I've specifically passed up interesting items in the past because the seller wouldn't take Paypal like everyone else does -- why should I register for Bidpay when I already have an account on the service that nearly everyone else uses for auctions and donations and all sorts of other stuff?
The right time to strike would have been before PDF and Paypal hit critical mass. It's already happened in both cases and is too late to change.
Thanks for the link. I skimmed it, and it does say that Adobe will enforce its copyright and it also lists the patent numbers in question. So, I imagine it is well within Adobe's rights to say "We generally permit people to use this stuff, but in your specific case, the license is denied."
It would be like me generally allowing anyone to use my garage for working on their car, but telling you specifically, for whatever reason I wanted, that you couldn't. And if you went in anyway, I could have you removed for trespassing, and press charges against you.
Which of the two assertions do you support? You're contradicting yourself.
Both. It's not contradiction when you realize that "platform non-neutrality" usually means "only runs on Windows" and therefore the printing business won't be able to use the software, therefore anyone who depends on Windows-only software will lose a huge portion of their customer base.
the ads will go aways and TPB won't profit from them any more.
Did it ever cross your mind that just maybe, there is no profit to be made here and the ads plus voluntary donations plus whatever the admins spend covers the hosting costs? Or are you one of those people who don't have any hobbies? You know, things that you enjoy doing that usually cost you money. Yes, it costs money out of pocket to have a hobby, but the tradeoff is the enjoyment.
Some people like me enjoy reading or drawing or building models. We spend money on books, art supplies, and model kits. Some people enjoy running websites, and spend money on software, web hosting, tutorials, education, and such.
Or had it not even crossed your mind that the notion that someone might be paying for this out of pocket might just be true?
how is it possible artist receive only an handful of the revenus
Because they were stupid enough to sign a one-sided contract. If you are too lazy to do the work on your own or find someone who will give you a better deal, it's no one's fault but yours.
And the DMCA doesn't apply in Sweden, in case you hadn't noticed.
You can't really expect the rest of the world to stand by and let this happen.
They have no choice in the matter unless they are going to disrespect sovereignty, which is as wrong as a forced invasion a la Iraq/Kuwait in 1991 and Germany/Poland in 1939. Since Sweden is a sovereign nation with its own laws, it doesn't matter what the US or any other nation wants -- it doesn't have the right to make those choices. The Swedish people, and the Swedish government, are the only ones who can do that.
So yes, I do expect the rest of the world to stand by and let it happen.
A civil case like this is not a matter of national security and is therefore subject to the FOIA.
Oh come on. You really think all the people who currently depend on PDF are suddenly going to turn around and change all that in the blink of an eye? Presses, graphic artists, publishers, websites, scientific journals, and the like. The time when a shift might reasonably have been imaginable was past a long time ago.
Uh. No. If Adobe holds the patents, what Adobe says goes, as long as the patents are valid. We may disagree with software patents, but until the law is changed, what the law says goes.
Ah, but what about the fact that graphic designers use Macintoshes extensively and it's PDF that Mac OS X is built upon, and the fact that Microsoft isn't very likely to port this to Mac?
Platform non-neutrality is shooting yourself in the foot in the printing business.
Simple -- because file sharing is seen as socially okay because of how music has been such a vital and everyday part of society and until recently was freely shared at will. The GPL requirements, too, can be explained that way -- because the GPL requires free and unlimited sharing of ideas.
There's no inconsistency here unless you don't believe that people should be perfectly free to share as they wish.
suing kids and old ladies
"I sue dead people..."
I wouldn't want someone taking my work and giving it away for free or a pittance unless I was getting properly paid for it and I don't see that happening.
I suggest you do some more research on the issue, particularly the bits regarding compulsory licensing and agencies that distribute those compulsory licensing fees to the proper parties. You don't see it happening because you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand because you've accepted the FUD that because the RIAA doesn't like it, it can't possibly be legal anywhere.
But the more I looked at it, the more uneasy I felt about how legitimate it could be. This latest story confirms my hunch... they aren't.
... no, they're not illegal. If someone is doing something in another country that is legal there, and you don't like it, you can dislike it all you want but you cannot do anything about it. They are legal. Individual purchasers may not be doing something legal, however.
Uh
All of the coverage I've seen that goes into detail state that the site has a warning that you're responsible for following local laws. Stop shifting blame onto people that don't deserve that, and take some fucking personal responsibility.
Oh, wait, apparently personal responsibility is out of style.
Next time, think a bit before posting something that stupid.
They need to receive payment for that effort, or they will go out of business.
But don't you think it's about time that outdated businesses like the RIAA died? The world has changed and they don't want to deal with it because there's no longer a need for them. They want to legislate a rollback to the 1980s, and the rest of the world is moving forward.
They're going to go out of business soon with things the way they are? Good!
What I really don't get is the wiki that I've seen for an SF novel "universe" -- you can't edit it, and if you create an article it gets deleted. So what's the point of having a wiki? I thought the whole point of wikis was that the community would form itself, and instead this particular wiki sure as hell doesn't act like a wiki should ...
I haven't found a wiki I really liked outside of wikipedia -- I even got yelled at once for writing an article that had too much information in it! (and it was well written even)
And yet, she sued over burning her lap with hot coffee. Duh. Coffee is hot no matter whether it's hotter than normal, or is just normal.
But what the fuck was she doing in a MOVING VEHICLE with COFFEE IN HER LAP!?!
Think, McFly, THINK!
So you'd spend some time chatting with a dude in India, and if he thinks you're human, you're in!
I'm hearing-impaired and can't understand their accents, you insensitive clod!
(seriously, I am, and I cannot stand outsourcing to India for support services on that basis... your idea is not a good one. Using US agents, who will be more understandable for US callers, is a marginally better idea.)
You gotta watch those ticks. Might catch Lyme disease...
I've done it for the corporate CD I have, just not for the regular Pro disk. Thanks for the link -- I didn't print out the how-to or bookmark it and hadn't gotten around to doing so again.
(or can the Corporate version be installed as a Pro copy if a standard Pro key is entered? I am not sure since the installer says "enter volume license key", I think, when it gets to that step).
A CD key isn't locked to a specific CD, just a specific version of windows.
More like "a hardware configuration identical to this one, or very close to it" (whatever was submitted at activation time).
I think your solution is the best one and is the one I use when reinstalling Windows on boxes at work when people tell me they have too much crap on their machine. I have an XP Pro CD and I just type in whatever license code is on the sticker attached to the box in question. Then I install SP2. Then I make sure the firewall is on, and then plug in the network cable. Then I let the activation wizard run.
Hasn't failed yet.
I'm sorry but the average home user doesn't have the cash for a copy of Photoshop, so yeah, they pirate it.
Or maybe they go and buy a copy of Paint Shop Pro or GraphicConverter or one of the other quite-capable yet reasonably-priced alternatives that do everything that most home and many business users want?
The simple fact that someone chooses not to buy Photoshop yet has a potential valid use for it doesn't mean they pirated Photoshop. That kind of argument doesn't account for the fact that alternatives exist.
I actually once saw the fact that an admitted college student was using Apple's Aperture software turned against said student. If he's a student, the argument went, he must have pirated it because he wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Never mind that the academic price (at the time) was hundreds cheaper than the $500 (at the time) the standard version cost. Never mind that some students DO have the money to buy academically-priced apps (that's the whole point of academic pricing!). Never mind that people are often naturally honest whenever they can be.
Of course, this being Slashdot, it wasn't too surprising but it disgusted me greatly that the assumption was that illegal activity had occurred when there was absolutely no evidence for it. It disgusts me now, too.