You are erroneously assuming that someone would have paid $1 for the song in the first place. There is no way to prove that. Furthermore, theft is the act of depriving someone of something physical.
And before someone gets up in arms and calls me stupid, look it up in a goddamn dictionary. All the people who are yelling "YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR SAYING THAT!" don't know their own language.
Yes, and who has the money to purchase stuff? Why, it's the adults, of course. As long as the people with the money don't want the product, there's no demand. Economics 101, baby.
Right. Okay. It's just easier, after all, to scream "PIRACY!" instead of actually realizing that, oh, THE MUSIC SUCKS THESE DAYS. That's what's driving a lot of people away -- in addition to, like others have pointed out, the fact that you don't need to go to a local store anymore. I buy from iTunes these days when I do buy music. I only buy Elton John CDs these days. So a store would blame my no longer coming in on piracy, right, because it's easier?
Only one problem with that: the easy answer is wrong.
I know. But why wouldn't pros be able to use them? Pros seem to be using Final Cut just fine. It didn't happen right away, so give Aperture some time, for heavens sake.
All well and good if you follow the rules of the road -- my rant was about someone who was not following the rules of the road. Also, what were you doing driving around with me? I don't even know you.;)
Actually, the net was rather nice without the idiots all over it...
And I'm proud of being what I am. I don't have to worry about compensating for anything like all you men seem to be doing all the time.
Aperture isn't meant to replace Photoshop. It's designed to complement it. It's an organizer, RAW tweaker, and workflow app. Photoshop works alongside it for the more heavy-duty stuff. Aperture even includes an "external editor" setting, which I set to use Photoshop CS2. It's an apples-and-oranges kind of situation.
See my comment #14188966. I'm sick of this same bullshit being spewed over and over and I'm not going to retype the entire thing, but consider it said to you, too.
That doesn't mean that it can't be used for fewer images. I'm a hobbyist who does landscape, car, and nature photography. I don't generate that many images -- nowhere near that many. Yet I still find Aperture useful. Like Photoshop, it doesn't guide you toward doing anything specific -- it presents you with the tools, and it's up to you to decide how to use them.
I use Photoshop to make 3-D images out of pairs of electron micrographs. Do most people do that? Heck no -- that's a pretty unique use. But is it an invalid use? Nope. Does it use most of the tools Photoshop offers? Nope. Can Photoshop do it? Yes, because it's flexible enough to accomodate even weird uses like that.
I bet Aperture is little different. It won't replace Photoshop for most people, but it, too, is just a tool that enables the final result.
This is ignoring the fact that the OP probably pirated the software in the first place.
I'm not the original poster, but I don't see anything in his/her message to indicate that the software was pirated. On what do you base this allegation? On the fact that the camera being used cost less than the software? What kind of "evidence" is that? (other than totally unrelated, as other people have already pointed out).
I don't get the "in thing" among both ordinary posters and corporations in assuming that everyone is a scumbag. Most people are honest, and there's a reason why "innocent until proven guilty" is at least theoretically still the legal standard, at least here in the US.
And there are hobbyists who acquired the software legally (like me; working at a university has a lot of perks, and cheap apps is one of them). The OP could be someone like me. Or be someone with enough disposable income to pay the standard retail price.
Your post just makes baseless accusations, on the other hand. If you can't justify a comment like that, don't make it.
How exactly do you feel FCP and DVDSP aren't used by pros? They most certainly are; just because they're not made by the (former? I don't know the state of the film market) "standards" Avid, etc., doesn't mean they aren't suitable for pro use.
Some of the effects in at least one of the Harry Potter films, for example (I believe it was the Quidditch game in the first one) were done with Final Cut.
I don't think there is any product out there that is perfect (or even "great") at 1.0. That said, how is a product supposed to improve without people actually using it and providing feedback? I will be using Aperture and I will be offering feedback -- and like a car (many people don't buy the first year of a new model, either) it will get better over time. There will be free upgrades for a while, and probably reduced upgrade fees for existing users, just like with any software.
Was Photoshop great at v1.0? Probably not. It's pretty good now, but it's on v9.0 now. It's had a lot more time to be refined.
I swear I saw a squirrel! (There's no way to prove one way or the other; all I have to do is say there was a road hazard that I braked for - and the guy behind me sure was - and because I would have been hit from behind that makes it not my fault -- especially with the prevailing traffic condition of 2 empty lanes to my left for passing in).
Actually, you asshole fucktard, it's NOT legal to go 40 on an interstate, you idiotic moron. The signs clearly state that the minimum is higher, or are you incapable of basic reading comprehension like is apparently the case? If you are too fucking stupid to add and subtract AND read, what the hell are you doing driving much less posting on the internet, which I WISH was still reserved for people who don't have their fucking head up their asses? And as much as you'd like to imagine it weren't so, slow drivers ARE a hazard as much as fast ones are, or there wouldn't be a legal range of speeds. Try driving 20mph and wait until someone reams you and see if you don't get a ticket for driving too slow and for obstructing traffic, idiot.
Failing to follow the law means that you ARE responsible for the accident. Now get the fuck off the highway and drive on a road where the legal range of speeds DOES include 40.
And even little green trolls like you should know that someone who's driving 40 in a 65 zone is as much a traffic hazard as the fucktard who is doing 100.
Go back to your bridge. And if you don't like my tone? You get what you dish.
But I don't feel the law is wrong. Every single day I see people like you out there disregarding the law and what's more, you even admit that you will break the law and then try to weasel your way out of it by trying to get out of the fine imposed on you because you broke the law. You admit you're breaking the law AND you refuse to pay the fine. That's not civil disobedience -- civil disobedience is refusing to follow a law that oppressess someone or violates their human rights. Civil disobedience is not thinking you have the right to put other people in danger and do whatever the hell you want on public roads and putting people like me, who work within the law, at risk due to your selfish belief that you are somehow above the law.
You're not above the law. And what's more, I don't respect people like you who think it doesn't apply to them and that they shouldn't be called to pay, financially or otherwise, if they break it. You swore you wouldn't break the law when you got a license. You accept law and order as a condition of living in today's society.
If you don't like the law, campaign to have it changed. But if you break the law and then bitch about its existence, that makes you no better than the next criminal.
Where did I say I was arguing about that? I'm not. I'm saying that the guy is legally in the wrong to try to extort more money out of people. I did say farther up that ethically people probably should have said something, but legally they didn't have to -- and once the offer of sale was taken and an item bought, the obligation of the purchaser to pay any additional money ended. The guy made a mistake. He now has to eat it. "I didn't know I made a mistake" doesn't hold water when you are committing extortion that you claim to be committing "because I can't afford to eat the loss". Your having made a mistake and failed to catch it soon enough doesn't excuse your violating the law.
Ah, thanks. I knew about extortion but it didn't come to mind. Duh! That sounds right. While I sympathize with the loss of money, and it it always hurts a business to make a mistake like that, I don't sympathize with his tactics. He's out the money, it's his problem now. It sounds to me as if the guy is arguing "But I did not mean to offer it at that price" -- to which, I say, tough shit -- he did, and people took the offer.
He's an asshole not for making a mistake but for trying to blame it on other people and for trying to do something illegal to fix HIS MISTAKE. Might he go out of business? Depends on how much he lost. But do we really need to have businesses around that are run by extortionists? Let someone honest step in.
Sure -- but with the profiteering that's been going on lately, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy. And I doubt these customers do either; while ethically they should say something, legally they aren't required to do so.
The oil companies have admitted that they aren't passing on price decreases as efficiently as they passed on the increases -- and people knew that even before the admissions came. And most smart people know that the law is on their side because of all the now-outlawed price-switch scams that merchants have tried in the past.
With any luck, enough of those customers know the law and will hire lawyers to fight this guy's attempt at after-the-fact price increases and refuse to pay money that, under the law, they do not owe so that more people will own up to their own mistakes and will stop running around blaming other people and trying to force other people to bear the financial cost.
Most do now, however the system is supposed to only reveal where you are when you're in the emergency mode and have dialled 911. The usual method of locating a phone is triangulation by figuring out the difference in the phone's signal to several known locations (towers). That's the method you described. You can also track where a phone has been by looking at the records collected by the towers over the previous day/week/whatever.
It's illegal to slow down in case there's an obstruction coming up on the blind curve? I wasn't feeling safe anymore at the speed I was having to drive with that little space behind me. And I tried slowing down first. I only try the "BACK THE FUCK OFF YOU ASSHOLE" method if nothing else works. Besides, I'm a small woman and it would not be a lie to say "I wasn't feeling safe". Slowing down from above the speed limit TO the speed limit on a blind curve isn't reckless, it's being safe. If the cop pushes it, I know a good lawyer and I have the right to go to court.
I've had to drive cars with woefully underpowered engines in hilly situations. You get good at thinking ahead and knowing when to hit the gas and when to hit the brake to be able to properly operate with the flow of traffic. And no, it didn't send my fuel consumption through the proverbial roof.
Uh, dude, the customers bought the item offered for sale at the listed price. They didn't do anything wrong. There are laws stating that items offered at a displayed price have to be sold at the displayed price to prevent scam artists from taking advantage of people. The price is shown clearly for review at the point of sale and it's your responsibility to verify that it's correct before you put your stuff on sale, just like a store has a chance to check to make sure that its signs are correct before they open for the day.
You're not stealing if you read the advertised amount and the item being sold matches the description of the item sold at that price. The guy fucked up and he's the one who has to pay for his mistake. If someone tried to get me this way, he'd quickly find himself on the wrong end of my lawyer.
If anyone tried to get me post-sale for having bought something at the price advertised on the item (or on the pump) I'd like to see how they weasel out of criminal charges. You cannot raise the price of an item post-sale and then threaten your buyers with theft. That is bait and switch, or false advertising (whichever is appropriate; I'm not sure).
If you post the wrong price on something, someone buys it from you and leaves, you have to eat the difference. It was up to you to change the price -- which WAS DISPLAYED for review -- before someone bought the item. You now have to eat the difference.
The laws in place to prevent this kind of scam are there to prevent unscrupulous sellers from cheating people out of their money, and unfortunately for this guy, they also protect the buyers who legally bought his product while the advertised price wasn't the one he meant to post.
Slashdot Mirror
You are erroneously assuming that someone would have paid $1 for the song in the first place. There is no way to prove that. Furthermore, theft is the act of depriving someone of something physical.
And before someone gets up in arms and calls me stupid, look it up in a goddamn dictionary. All the people who are yelling "YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR SAYING THAT!" don't know their own language.
Yes, and who has the money to purchase stuff? Why, it's the adults, of course. As long as the people with the money don't want the product, there's no demand. Economics 101, baby.
Right. Okay. It's just easier, after all, to scream "PIRACY!" instead of actually realizing that, oh, THE MUSIC SUCKS THESE DAYS. That's what's driving a lot of people away -- in addition to, like others have pointed out, the fact that you don't need to go to a local store anymore. I buy from iTunes these days when I do buy music. I only buy Elton John CDs these days. So a store would blame my no longer coming in on piracy, right, because it's easier?
Only one problem with that: the easy answer is wrong.
ActiveX is useful? Yeah right. Try "walking security hole". Well, er, security holes don't walk, but you get the idea.
I know. But why wouldn't pros be able to use them? Pros seem to be using Final Cut just fine. It didn't happen right away, so give Aperture some time, for heavens sake.
All well and good if you follow the rules of the road -- my rant was about someone who was not following the rules of the road. Also, what were you doing driving around with me? I don't even know you. ;)
Actually, the net was rather nice without the idiots all over it...
And I'm proud of being what I am. I don't have to worry about compensating for anything like all you men seem to be doing all the time.
Aperture isn't meant to replace Photoshop. It's designed to complement it. It's an organizer, RAW tweaker, and workflow app. Photoshop works alongside it for the more heavy-duty stuff. Aperture even includes an "external editor" setting, which I set to use Photoshop CS2. It's an apples-and-oranges kind of situation.
See my comment #14188966. I'm sick of this same bullshit being spewed over and over and I'm not going to retype the entire thing, but consider it said to you, too.
That doesn't mean that it can't be used for fewer images. I'm a hobbyist who does landscape, car, and nature photography. I don't generate that many images -- nowhere near that many. Yet I still find Aperture useful. Like Photoshop, it doesn't guide you toward doing anything specific -- it presents you with the tools, and it's up to you to decide how to use them.
I use Photoshop to make 3-D images out of pairs of electron micrographs. Do most people do that? Heck no -- that's a pretty unique use. But is it an invalid use? Nope. Does it use most of the tools Photoshop offers? Nope. Can Photoshop do it? Yes, because it's flexible enough to accomodate even weird uses like that.
I bet Aperture is little different. It won't replace Photoshop for most people, but it, too, is just a tool that enables the final result.
This is ignoring the fact that the OP probably pirated the software in the first place.
I'm not the original poster, but I don't see anything in his/her message to indicate that the software was pirated. On what do you base this allegation? On the fact that the camera being used cost less than the software? What kind of "evidence" is that? (other than totally unrelated, as other people have already pointed out).
I don't get the "in thing" among both ordinary posters and corporations in assuming that everyone is a scumbag. Most people are honest, and there's a reason why "innocent until proven guilty" is at least theoretically still the legal standard, at least here in the US.
And there are hobbyists who acquired the software legally (like me; working at a university has a lot of perks, and cheap apps is one of them). The OP could be someone like me. Or be someone with enough disposable income to pay the standard retail price.
Your post just makes baseless accusations, on the other hand. If you can't justify a comment like that, don't make it.
How exactly do you feel FCP and DVDSP aren't used by pros? They most certainly are; just because they're not made by the (former? I don't know the state of the film market) "standards" Avid, etc., doesn't mean they aren't suitable for pro use.
Some of the effects in at least one of the Harry Potter films, for example (I believe it was the Quidditch game in the first one) were done with Final Cut.
I don't think there is any product out there that is perfect (or even "great") at 1.0. That said, how is a product supposed to improve without people actually using it and providing feedback? I will be using Aperture and I will be offering feedback -- and like a car (many people don't buy the first year of a new model, either) it will get better over time. There will be free upgrades for a while, and probably reduced upgrade fees for existing users, just like with any software.
Was Photoshop great at v1.0? Probably not. It's pretty good now, but it's on v9.0 now. It's had a lot more time to be refined.
I swear I saw a squirrel! (There's no way to prove one way or the other; all I have to do is say there was a road hazard that I braked for - and the guy behind me sure was - and because I would have been hit from behind that makes it not my fault -- especially with the prevailing traffic condition of 2 empty lanes to my left for passing in).
Actually, you asshole fucktard, it's NOT legal to go 40 on an interstate, you idiotic moron. The signs clearly state that the minimum is higher, or are you incapable of basic reading comprehension like is apparently the case? If you are too fucking stupid to add and subtract AND read, what the hell are you doing driving much less posting on the internet, which I WISH was still reserved for people who don't have their fucking head up their asses? And as much as you'd like to imagine it weren't so, slow drivers ARE a hazard as much as fast ones are, or there wouldn't be a legal range of speeds. Try driving 20mph and wait until someone reams you and see if you don't get a ticket for driving too slow and for obstructing traffic, idiot.
Failing to follow the law means that you ARE responsible for the accident. Now get the fuck off the highway and drive on a road where the legal range of speeds DOES include 40.
And I'm female, you insensitive clod.
So how long before the city declares the building blighted and takes it anyway via eminent domain?
"Troll me"? Look who's talking, fucktard.
And even little green trolls like you should know that someone who's driving 40 in a 65 zone is as much a traffic hazard as the fucktard who is doing 100.
Go back to your bridge. And if you don't like my tone? You get what you dish.
But I don't feel the law is wrong. Every single day I see people like you out there disregarding the law and what's more, you even admit that you will break the law and then try to weasel your way out of it by trying to get out of the fine imposed on you because you broke the law. You admit you're breaking the law AND you refuse to pay the fine. That's not civil disobedience -- civil disobedience is refusing to follow a law that oppressess someone or violates their human rights. Civil disobedience is not thinking you have the right to put other people in danger and do whatever the hell you want on public roads and putting people like me, who work within the law, at risk due to your selfish belief that you are somehow above the law.
You're not above the law. And what's more, I don't respect people like you who think it doesn't apply to them and that they shouldn't be called to pay, financially or otherwise, if they break it. You swore you wouldn't break the law when you got a license. You accept law and order as a condition of living in today's society.
If you don't like the law, campaign to have it changed. But if you break the law and then bitch about its existence, that makes you no better than the next criminal.
Where did I say I was arguing about that? I'm not. I'm saying that the guy is legally in the wrong to try to extort more money out of people. I did say farther up that ethically people probably should have said something, but legally they didn't have to -- and once the offer of sale was taken and an item bought, the obligation of the purchaser to pay any additional money ended. The guy made a mistake. He now has to eat it. "I didn't know I made a mistake" doesn't hold water when you are committing extortion that you claim to be committing "because I can't afford to eat the loss". Your having made a mistake and failed to catch it soon enough doesn't excuse your violating the law.
Ah, thanks. I knew about extortion but it didn't come to mind. Duh! That sounds right. While I sympathize with the loss of money, and it it always hurts a business to make a mistake like that, I don't sympathize with his tactics. He's out the money, it's his problem now. It sounds to me as if the guy is arguing "But I did not mean to offer it at that price" -- to which, I say, tough shit -- he did, and people took the offer.
He's an asshole not for making a mistake but for trying to blame it on other people and for trying to do something illegal to fix HIS MISTAKE. Might he go out of business? Depends on how much he lost. But do we really need to have businesses around that are run by extortionists? Let someone honest step in.
Sure -- but with the profiteering that's been going on lately, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy. And I doubt these customers do either; while ethically they should say something, legally they aren't required to do so.
The oil companies have admitted that they aren't passing on price decreases as efficiently as they passed on the increases -- and people knew that even before the admissions came. And most smart people know that the law is on their side because of all the now-outlawed price-switch scams that merchants have tried in the past.
With any luck, enough of those customers know the law and will hire lawyers to fight this guy's attempt at after-the-fact price increases and refuse to pay money that, under the law, they do not owe so that more people will own up to their own mistakes and will stop running around blaming other people and trying to force other people to bear the financial cost.
Most do now, however the system is supposed to only reveal where you are when you're in the emergency mode and have dialled 911. The usual method of locating a phone is triangulation by figuring out the difference in the phone's signal to several known locations (towers). That's the method you described. You can also track where a phone has been by looking at the records collected by the towers over the previous day/week/whatever.
It's illegal to slow down in case there's an obstruction coming up on the blind curve? I wasn't feeling safe anymore at the speed I was having to drive with that little space behind me. And I tried slowing down first. I only try the "BACK THE FUCK OFF YOU ASSHOLE" method if nothing else works. Besides, I'm a small woman and it would not be a lie to say "I wasn't feeling safe". Slowing down from above the speed limit TO the speed limit on a blind curve isn't reckless, it's being safe. If the cop pushes it, I know a good lawyer and I have the right to go to court.
I've had to drive cars with woefully underpowered engines in hilly situations. You get good at thinking ahead and knowing when to hit the gas and when to hit the brake to be able to properly operate with the flow of traffic. And no, it didn't send my fuel consumption through the proverbial roof.
Uh, dude, the customers bought the item offered for sale at the listed price. They didn't do anything wrong. There are laws stating that items offered at a displayed price have to be sold at the displayed price to prevent scam artists from taking advantage of people. The price is shown clearly for review at the point of sale and it's your responsibility to verify that it's correct before you put your stuff on sale, just like a store has a chance to check to make sure that its signs are correct before they open for the day.
You're not stealing if you read the advertised amount and the item being sold matches the description of the item sold at that price. The guy fucked up and he's the one who has to pay for his mistake. If someone tried to get me this way, he'd quickly find himself on the wrong end of my lawyer.
If anyone tried to get me post-sale for having bought something at the price advertised on the item (or on the pump) I'd like to see how they weasel out of criminal charges. You cannot raise the price of an item post-sale and then threaten your buyers with theft. That is bait and switch, or false advertising (whichever is appropriate; I'm not sure).
If you post the wrong price on something, someone buys it from you and leaves, you have to eat the difference. It was up to you to change the price -- which WAS DISPLAYED for review -- before someone bought the item. You now have to eat the difference.
The laws in place to prevent this kind of scam are there to prevent unscrupulous sellers from cheating people out of their money, and unfortunately for this guy, they also protect the buyers who legally bought his product while the advertised price wasn't the one he meant to post.