Not really - because I knew what I was getting into when I bought the car from you in our license agreement. You never mentioned anything about breaking in, you said the car would generate a printout of its internals, and I would hand this to you when you came by and asked for it. The car didn't collect any information that I don't want you to see because I have a nonmetallic chapeau. So it seemed pretty easy and straightforward, the car was even designed to do it.
I'd still prefer a car that doesn't treat it's owner like a suspected criminal. Wouldn't want to get stuck in a parking lot somewhere when my car refuses to start because I replaced the wipers and now need to call the vendor for authorization to drive again.
so if you don't think it's worth the price, then why did you obtain it and infringe copyright!?! It doesn't make it "right" or "moral" or anything, it just makes you a freeloader - which, again, is what copyright is meant to prevent (by providing incentive to creative people).
Just because you're willing to be a freeloader doesn't mean you are also able and willing to pay for a license to do the same. Moral or not, there an endless number of reasons why you might do something for free, but not pay to do the same. Personally, I advocate refraining from increasing the market share of something you don't value.
However, I don't think we should be equating something with many shades of gray to something else that is as black and white as theft. Whether you have ever sung Happy Birthday or installed Windows, you were violating someone's copyright unless you paid them for that permission. It bothers me when people refuse to see the difference between stuff like that and, as the RIAA likes to say, jacking someone's car.
Some of the sins microsoft commit though according to the site are just rubbish.
They list inspecting your hard disk for pirated copies of their software as a sin. Is it really a sin for microsoft to try and find out if you are stealing from them?
Next thing you know they will be complaining about me putting a lock on my front door to stop someone emptying my house while I am at work.
copyright infringement != stealing
When you steal from someone, they have actually lost something of value. When you infringe on someone's copyright, they aren't necessarily losing anything of value. Sure, they may have gotten money from you if you had purchased a license. However, you may not have felt that the license was worth the price they were asking and would not have given them anything regardless. It's a complicated concept, but to equate it with stealing requires many assumptions that aren't always true.
I'm sure they have plenty of cameras around their offices to find out if anyone is stealing from them. Would you let them put cameras in your house to find out if you are stealing from them?
Except one doesn't have to go through those extra steps when using Windows which is kind of the point.
Except that one doesn't have to go through those extra steps when using Linux either. However, if one wants to take the advice that was suggested, then yes you would have go to through extra steps whether you're running Windows or Linux. The suggestion was not specific to either OS, which is kind of the point.
Easier still, just have a non-admin guest account without a password
Which opens you up to local exploits, boot disks, etc. If you have any valuable information on your laptop, you damn well better be using whole disc encryption.
Since they already have physical possession of the machine, they can already boot from whatever media they want as well as access any unencrypted data on your disk, The point in the unprotected account is to lure them into turning it on, connecting to a wireless network, and using it while your tracking software reports home, logs the thief's activity, records their face/voice, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really - because I knew what I was getting into when I bought the car from you in our license agreement. You never mentioned anything about breaking in, you said the car would generate a printout of its internals, and I would hand this to you when you came by and asked for it. The car didn't collect any information that I don't want you to see because I have a nonmetallic chapeau. So it seemed pretty easy and straightforward, the car was even designed to do it.
I'd still prefer a car that doesn't treat it's owner like a suspected criminal. Wouldn't want to get stuck in a parking lot somewhere when my car refuses to start because I replaced the wipers and now need to call the vendor for authorization to drive again.
so if you don't think it's worth the price, then why did you obtain it and infringe copyright!?! It doesn't make it "right" or "moral" or anything, it just makes you a freeloader - which, again, is what copyright is meant to prevent (by providing incentive to creative people).
Just because you're willing to be a freeloader doesn't mean you are also able and willing to pay for a license to do the same. Moral or not, there an endless number of reasons why you might do something for free, but not pay to do the same. Personally, I advocate refraining from increasing the market share of something you don't value.
However, I don't think we should be equating something with many shades of gray to something else that is as black and white as theft. Whether you have ever sung Happy Birthday or installed Windows, you were violating someone's copyright unless you paid them for that permission. It bothers me when people refuse to see the difference between stuff like that and, as the RIAA likes to say, jacking someone's car.
Also I am looking forward to see what the SDK looks like, never worked with Maemo before.
http://wiki.maemo.org/Documentation/Maemo_5_Developer_Guide
Nokia also hosts VM images with the development environment already setup. http://tablets-dev.nokia.com/maemo-dev-env-downloads.php
Some of the sins microsoft commit though according to the site are just rubbish.
They list inspecting your hard disk for pirated copies of their software as a sin. Is it really a sin for microsoft to try and find out if you are stealing from them?
Next thing you know they will be complaining about me putting a lock on my front door to stop someone emptying my house while I am at work.
copyright infringement != stealing
When you steal from someone, they have actually lost something of value. When you infringe on someone's copyright, they aren't necessarily losing anything of value. Sure, they may have gotten money from you if you had purchased a license. However, you may not have felt that the license was worth the price they were asking and would not have given them anything regardless. It's a complicated concept, but to equate it with stealing requires many assumptions that aren't always true.
I'm sure they have plenty of cameras around their offices to find out if anyone is stealing from them. Would you let them put cameras in your house to find out if you are stealing from them?
Except one doesn't have to go through those extra steps when using Windows which is kind of the point.
Except that one doesn't have to go through those extra steps when using Linux either. However, if one wants to take the advice that was suggested, then yes you would have go to through extra steps whether you're running Windows or Linux. The suggestion was not specific to either OS, which is kind of the point.
Easier still, just have a non-admin guest account without a password
Which opens you up to local exploits, boot disks, etc. If you have any valuable information on your laptop, you damn well better be using whole disc encryption.
Since they already have physical possession of the machine, they can already boot from whatever media they want as well as access any unencrypted data on your disk, The point in the unprotected account is to lure them into turning it on, connecting to a wireless network, and using it while your tracking software reports home, logs the thief's activity, records their face/voice, etc.
You just call the company and verify that the tech's visit is legit.