They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system. Someone who murders his wife deserves access to the civilian justice system, someone who murders 20 college students deserves access to the civilian justice system, and someone who assists in the murder of 3000 people deserves access to the civilian justice system. It's called rule of law, you can't circumvent it just because you fell like it.
It's a matter of principle. It's not about tea being 20% more expensive, it's about taxation without representation. It's not about the video game, it's about censorship.
The "exact same time" thing is not a random coincidence at all. It's because technology has been advancing so fast, which makes a whole bunch of things change at the same time.
You can't control all variables, but conditions have to be, aside from the variable you're looking at, at least similar for the two groups. Here we don't have that at all.
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
I'll rebutt the dollar bill analogy as well. When someone downloads a movie, they can watch it privately without telling anyone, so there is no consequence to the outside world from the act of privately watching a pirated movie. Copying a dollar bill, however, is useless until you use it, at which point the counterfeit money enters circulation and you harmed everyone else who owns money through devaluation.
You maintain that making a copy of goods "doesn't hurt anyone". But you're missing the point of copyright altogether, I think. The point is to product the value of the product for the creator in order to provide future incentive for the creation of original property.
You just repeated my argument against distribution, not downloading. Two different things, two different sets of arguments.
That is feasible for simple formats like BMP and ASCII, but the problem is that more efficient formats with data compression are common, and in these formats a change of one bit can change much more than one pixel for 33 miliseconds.
Copyright infringement does not reduce anyone else's ability to use the original.
This is why I, and many others, believe that we do have a right to download whatever we want - it doesn't hurt anyone. And please don't lump use and distribution into one. Use doesn't harm anyone unless you're using the software to launch nuclear weapons or something. The argument that distribution is harmful is a much more feasible one: distributing something means that you're competing with the original distributor (unfairly competing, since you didn't have to pay development costs), and therefore hurting their ability to sell their product.
First of all, no I don't know those money booths where you can get cash for free.
Second, that's a completely flawed analogy. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create music/video/software. If people are doing those things without the copyright incentive, that means that we don't need copyright after all.
Obviously, nobody wants to spend thousands of hours creating something then letting someone else (a corporation) sell it without royalties. Or letting people download it for free off the internet.
Linux. Firefox. MySQL. Apache. Gnome. KDE.
And if you're going to redefine your original statement so that GPL counts as payment, I give you:
Well, you've voluntarily decided to do business with Microsoft. Clearly since you're not willing to change your job that "never, ever" isn't strictly accurate.
Where did I say DRM is the answer? I'm just stating that if publishers use DRM that kind of market segmentation is what will happen. What exactly do you mean by "Don't use DRM"? Are you making a recommendation to the publishers, the authors (who are, as you said, powerless) or the consumer? I'm not arguing against you, just trying to understand what you're saying.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't acting on behalf of a sovereign state, so they can't be war criminals. They're common criminals. It doesn't matter how heinous their crime is, everyone deserves access to the civilian justice system. Someone who murders his wife deserves access to the civilian justice system, someone who murders 20 college students deserves access to the civilian justice system, and someone who assists in the murder of 3000 people deserves access to the civilian justice system. It's called rule of law, you can't circumvent it just because you fell like it.
It's a matter of principle. It's not about tea being 20% more expensive, it's about taxation without representation. It's not about the video game, it's about censorship.
You can choose to ignore Verizon. You can't choose to ignore an invading force.
what 7*9 is
end in a preposition
Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Or civil disobedience. Setup an otherwise legal shack to resell copies of the game until someone takes you down.
It only truly mattered back when you needed to do that kind of thing to get a PC running Linux.
Not, really. IE will probably be listed as "Microsoft Internet Explorer" and people, familiar with the Microsoft name, will still go for that one.
272. It's about breaking up a problem into small parts, a very useful skill.
The people in the staff lounge are squeezing both intelligence and life out of the others pretty well.
people who couldn't pass math because they weren't able to figure out their calculator.
Or, alternatively, people who were given a calculator way too early and thus couldn't pass math because without one they couldn't say what 7*9 is.
How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have? I've heard that it's about 70%, so what's their problem, anyway?
70% markup != you get to keep 30%. If you only get to keep 30%, that's a 233% markup not a 70% one.
The "exact same time" thing is not a random coincidence at all. It's because technology has been advancing so fast, which makes a whole bunch of things change at the same time.
You can't control all variables, but conditions have to be, aside from the variable you're looking at, at least similar for the two groups. Here we don't have that at all.
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it. To accurately determine whether or not cell phones affect brain cancer rates you need to control all the other variables. Otherwise, it's just like looking at the correlation between lack of pirates and global warming and saying that one causes the other.
I'll rebutt the dollar bill analogy as well. When someone downloads a movie, they can watch it privately without telling anyone, so there is no consequence to the outside world from the act of privately watching a pirated movie. Copying a dollar bill, however, is useless until you use it, at which point the counterfeit money enters circulation and you harmed everyone else who owns money through devaluation.
You maintain that making a copy of goods "doesn't hurt anyone". But you're missing the point of copyright altogether, I think. The point is to product the value of the product for the creator in order to provide future incentive for the creation of original property.
You just repeated my argument against distribution, not downloading. Two different things, two different sets of arguments.
Sorry, that was my mistake. I meant theft when I said piracy in my diagram.
That is feasible for simple formats like BMP and ASCII, but the problem is that more efficient formats with data compression are common, and in these formats a change of one bit can change much more than one pixel for 33 miliseconds.
Ok, fine, I'll explain it.
Piracy:
[X] -> [] X
Piracy removes the original.
Copyright infringement:
[X] -> [X] X
Copyright infringement does not reduce anyone else's ability to use the original.
This is why I, and many others, believe that we do have a right to download whatever we want - it doesn't hurt anyone. And please don't lump use and distribution into one. Use doesn't harm anyone unless you're using the software to launch nuclear weapons or something. The argument that distribution is harmful is a much more feasible one: distributing something means that you're competing with the original distributor (unfairly competing, since you didn't have to pay development costs), and therefore hurting their ability to sell their product.
First of all, no I don't know those money booths where you can get cash for free.
Second, that's a completely flawed analogy. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create music/video/software. If people are doing those things without the copyright incentive, that means that we don't need copyright after all.
Have you looked at the licenses on the last three?
Obviously, nobody wants to spend thousands of hours creating something then letting someone else (a corporation) sell it without royalties. Or letting people download it for free off the internet.
Linux.
Firefox.
MySQL.
Apache.
Gnome.
KDE.
And if you're going to redefine your original statement so that GPL counts as payment, I give you:
Chromium (browser and OS)
Open BSD
Free BSD
Hey Pirates, you think you aren't stealing?
Do we HAVE to go over this again?
But if there's only 1 good game then no one would buy a console. In this case, more is better.
Well, you've voluntarily decided to do business with Microsoft. Clearly since you're not willing to change your job that "never, ever" isn't strictly accurate.
Where did I say DRM is the answer? I'm just stating that if publishers use DRM that kind of market segmentation is what will happen. What exactly do you mean by "Don't use DRM"? Are you making a recommendation to the publishers, the authors (who are, as you said, powerless) or the consumer? I'm not arguing against you, just trying to understand what you're saying.
man woman
No manual entry for woman.
I swear, whoever made Linux is a sick, twisted person.