> When someone sells you a movie they have created, they can sell it to you > with any encryption and any restrictions that they damn well please. That is > their right as the creator of the work. If you don't agree with their terms, > then you have the right to not purchase it. In no way do you ever get the > right to demand that an artist or distributor give you their work in a certain way.
Sure, we don't get to demand that a copyright holder provide a work in a certain way. Flip a bit, and that copyright holder gets very little control of the work post-sale aside from copyright-related actions such as unauthorized distribution. If I want to crack the encryption on my Blu-rays or DVDs or PS3 games or whatever and drop them onto a hard drive, I have the right to do so. (Don't tell me about the DMCA; cracking copy protection itself is not copyright infringement and should absolutely not be illegal.)
> You may not like it, but the law is 100% clear: It is a violation of the DMCA to circumvent any copy-protection schemes. Then that makes the DMCA an unjust law. It is therefore a citizen's moral duty to ignore it.
> I dont want made you associate Family with Censorship. It's not the GP's fault. Just think of the wide usage of the term "family-friendly" to mean "hostile to anything that could potentially offend someone."
Is there a catch to Walmart's offerings? You bet. The available data plans are blindingly expensive, locking out much of the lucrative and quickly growing smartphone market. A single gigabyte of prepaid data through Walmart costs $40, which is quite steep compared to AT&T's 2GB for $25 per month, or T-Mobile's $30 per month for unlimited data.
So says Ars Technica, anyway. I don't know much about the market for mobile Internet, but $40 per gigabyte sounds unbelievable. I'm just passing on what I've read.
> Microsoft sucks cock. Their shitty fucking proprietary software makes you a slave to their corporate religion. Only the truly free and enlightened throw off the chains of M$ and embrace the pure open power of GNU/Linux. If you use Micro$oft Winblows, congratulations because you've proven to the world that you're a faggish corporate whore.
> LOL @ Linux. The OS of filthy freetard communist hippies who can't afford anything that actually works. Here's an idea, since you're incapable of forming your own: Move out of your mom's basement, shave your beard, and get a fucking job. Grow up and pay for what you use. Get back on Windows like everyone else.
They are different in that one is anti-Microsoft and one is anti-Linux. More importantly, they are the same because although both of them express an opinion which others might strongly disagree on, they do so in an inflammatory manner that doesn't add anything valuable to the thread. The posts are, essentially, a waste of bandwidth.
> The terms upon which the music was provided to you did not allow for this, so you should have no expectation that it would be allowed. I was not subjected to terms and conditions the last time I bought a CD in Borders.
> No other personal possessions offer such a compensatory provision No other personal possessions are infinitely copyable like music is.
> Nobody has a God-given right to media. If you like a piece of media, obtain and use it in a way sanctioned by the media producer. Your post carries the premise that the media producer has a God-given right to control their media after the sale. This premise is not self-evident and must be adequately supported before it can be stated that people should not be able to download things for free.
> Software companies imposing restrictions on customers through licensing agreements helps them perform price discrimination, which often benefits customers Software companies imposing restrictions on customers through licensing agreements take away fair use and right of first sale, both of which hurt customers far more than price discrimination could ever help them.
> What to learn from this? Don't agree to this sort of licence. In the case of consumer software, people often don't have much choice. The EULA is presented to them after the purchase and after they've already opened the package to install the software. Naturally, vendors and resellers won't accept opened software packages or refund them, so that customer can either accept the EULA or be the proud owner of a new shiny frisbee.
This was a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, specifically. With any luck whatsoever, this unacceptable ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit is apparently the most overturned court in the country, so hopefully this won't stand for long.
> But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion. You really can't understand why you're getting modded down? That comment is essentially a troll.
Troll mod? Really? The parent is 100% correct. I certainly wouldn't sleep as well at night if I knew that a business that fucked up with any personal data they had on me could get away with it by calling it a "mistake."
> Never had a need to backup a game and I don't consider it a right. Blu-rays have a special protective layer and are pretty hard to screw up with scratches. If you somehow break one by stepping on it or lose it in a fire I don't see why you think you should have a right to a replacement. > The argument for backups is used as a justification for piracy. Wow, really? Now I can't tell if you honestly believe what you post or if you're just trolling. No right to backups, huh? Only pirates want to back up their games, huh? I guess you don't think we ought to be able to rip our DVDs for backup purposes either. Or our CDs. Is it copyright infringement to copy a purchased track to an external hard drive for backup purposes? Do the parents of a messy kid have to buy another copy of The Lion King each time he all but destroys the disc? Should somebody with a library of thousands of CDs/DVDs/games be forced to physically hunt through their collection for a certain disc when they want to hear/watch/play something, instead of relying on the convenience of local digital storage?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, you have the same mindset as the entertainment industries and are therefore a good representation of what's wrong with copyright today.
Did you intentionally ignore the content of my post, or simply forget to read it?
>I agree with the OP. Drop the shenanigans and at least be an adult. Admit this is for piracy, with occasional, almost accidental legitimate usage.
I said that it doesn't matter why it was created; what matters is what's done with it. People have the right to back up their games, whether you like it or not.
Oh, and who cares if it enables piracy? Piracy is the scapegoat for entertainment corporations, one of the boogeymen of the Internet. It doesn't cause substantial harm to anyone. Cracking down on it is unfair persecution of millions of otherwise innocent people. Too often it leads to persecution of non-pirates, those who are completely innocent. As we've seen with the OtherOS fuck-up.
So a company's intellectual property rights trump a consumer's rights to exceptions to those intellectual property rights? In what twisted world does that make any sense?
First they came for my heated steering wheel, but I did not speak out, because I had heated seats, heat, AC, power windows, headlights, signals, engine and transmission...
> Why are you blaming Sony and not the hacker that exploited OtherOS and ruined it for everyone else? Because that hacker was perfectly in his rights to do what he did?
> The Other OS option was used to hack it. That's why they removed it. It had already been used to compromise the security. And that justifies remotely removing a function of the device after the sale? Telling somebody that they cannot hack a device they've bought is outrageous.
> That isn't an exaggeration, numerous indy developers have reported piracy rates of over 80%. Which is a completely meaningless statistic on its own. I'm sure numerous indy developers would prefer 2000 sales and 8000 unauthorized downloads to 1000 sales and 0 downloads.
> I'd like to see as many disincentives as possible with console piracy. Even at the expense of important rights like making backups, right of first sale, and right of fair use?
Slashdot Mirror
> When someone sells you a movie they have created, they can sell it to you
> with any encryption and any restrictions that they damn well please. That is
> their right as the creator of the work. If you don't agree with their terms,
> then you have the right to not purchase it. In no way do you ever get the
> right to demand that an artist or distributor give you their work in a certain way.
Sure, we don't get to demand that a copyright holder provide a work in a certain way. Flip a bit, and that copyright holder gets very little control of the work post-sale aside from copyright-related actions such as unauthorized distribution. If I want to crack the encryption on my Blu-rays or DVDs or PS3 games or whatever and drop them onto a hard drive, I have the right to do so. (Don't tell me about the DMCA; cracking copy protection itself is not copyright infringement and should absolutely not be illegal.)
> You may not like it, but the law is 100% clear: It is a violation of the DMCA to circumvent any copy-protection schemes.
Then that makes the DMCA an unjust law. It is therefore a citizen's moral duty to ignore it.
> but the manufacturers also have the "right" to put encryption on media.
Cool. We have the right to try to break it, and to succeed.
Where is there any indication that "pirates" were behind the leak of this master key?
> I dont want made you associate Family with Censorship.
It's not the GP's fault. Just think of the wide usage of the term "family-friendly" to mean "hostile to anything that could potentially offend someone."
I don't see why he got modded Troll.
Is there a catch to Walmart's offerings? You bet. The available data plans are blindingly expensive, locking out much of the lucrative and quickly growing smartphone market. A single gigabyte of prepaid data through Walmart costs $40, which is quite steep compared to AT&T's 2GB for $25 per month, or T-Mobile's $30 per month for unlimited data.
So says Ars Technica, anyway. I don't know much about the market for mobile Internet, but $40 per gigabyte sounds unbelievable. I'm just passing on what I've read.
Note the following two statements:
> Microsoft sucks cock. Their shitty fucking proprietary software makes you a slave to their corporate religion. Only the truly free and enlightened throw off the chains of M$ and embrace the pure open power of GNU/Linux. If you use Micro$oft Winblows, congratulations because you've proven to the world that you're a faggish corporate whore.
> LOL @ Linux. The OS of filthy freetard communist hippies who can't afford anything that actually works. Here's an idea, since you're incapable of forming your own: Move out of your mom's basement, shave your beard, and get a fucking job. Grow up and pay for what you use. Get back on Windows like everyone else.
They are different in that one is anti-Microsoft and one is anti-Linux. More importantly, they are the same because although both of them express an opinion which others might strongly disagree on, they do so in an inflammatory manner that doesn't add anything valuable to the thread. The posts are, essentially, a waste of bandwidth.
Your post is much the same, hence the troll mod.
> The terms upon which the music was provided to you did not allow for this, so you should have no expectation that it would be allowed.
I was not subjected to terms and conditions the last time I bought a CD in Borders.
> No other personal possessions offer such a compensatory provision
No other personal possessions are infinitely copyable like music is.
> Nobody has a God-given right to media. If you like a piece of media, obtain and use it in a way sanctioned by the media producer.
Your post carries the premise that the media producer has a God-given right to control their media after the sale. This premise is not self-evident and must be adequately supported before it can be stated that people should not be able to download things for free.
> Software companies imposing restrictions on customers through licensing agreements helps them perform price discrimination, which often benefits customers
Software companies imposing restrictions on customers through licensing agreements take away fair use and right of first sale, both of which hurt customers far more than price discrimination could ever help them.
> What to learn from this? Don't agree to this sort of licence.
In the case of consumer software, people often don't have much choice. The EULA is presented to them after the purchase and after they've already opened the package to install the software. Naturally, vendors and resellers won't accept opened software packages or refund them, so that customer can either accept the EULA or be the proud owner of a new shiny frisbee.
This was a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, specifically. With any luck whatsoever, this unacceptable ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit is apparently the most overturned court in the country, so hopefully this won't stand for long.
> But apparantly all the 12 year olds with Ubuntu has mod points today, and I probably offended their religion.
You really can't understand why you're getting modded down? That comment is essentially a troll.
Bollywood is bigger in its region than Hollywood is in the US. Not so much in the US, though.
Troll mod? Really? The parent is 100% correct. I certainly wouldn't sleep as well at night if I knew that a business that fucked up with any personal data they had on me could get away with it by calling it a "mistake."
> Never had a need to backup a game and I don't consider it a right. Blu-rays have a special protective layer and are pretty hard to screw up with scratches. If you somehow break one by stepping on it or lose it in a fire I don't see why you think you should have a right to a replacement.
> The argument for backups is used as a justification for piracy.
Wow, really? Now I can't tell if you honestly believe what you post or if you're just trolling. No right to backups, huh? Only pirates want to back up their games, huh? I guess you don't think we ought to be able to rip our DVDs for backup purposes either. Or our CDs. Is it copyright infringement to copy a purchased track to an external hard drive for backup purposes? Do the parents of a messy kid have to buy another copy of The Lion King each time he all but destroys the disc? Should somebody with a library of thousands of CDs/DVDs/games be forced to physically hunt through their collection for a certain disc when they want to hear/watch/play something, instead of relying on the convenience of local digital storage?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, you have the same mindset as the entertainment industries and are therefore a good representation of what's wrong with copyright today.
> No they'd proabably prefer 10,000 sales.
Oh, I'm sure they would, but the point is moot since 8000 downloads != 8000 lost sales.
Did you intentionally ignore the content of my post, or simply forget to read it?
>I agree with the OP. Drop the shenanigans and at least be an adult. Admit this is for piracy, with occasional, almost accidental legitimate usage.
I said that it doesn't matter why it was created; what matters is what's done with it. People have the right to back up their games, whether you like it or not.
Oh, and who cares if it enables piracy? Piracy is the scapegoat for entertainment corporations, one of the boogeymen of the Internet. It doesn't cause substantial harm to anyone. Cracking down on it is unfair persecution of millions of otherwise innocent people. Too often it leads to persecution of non-pirates, those who are completely innocent. As we've seen with the OtherOS fuck-up.
Obvious trolling doesn't work. You have to be more subtle than that.
So a company's intellectual property rights trump a consumer's rights to exceptions to those intellectual property rights? In what twisted world does that make any sense?
> I'm sorry, but the cold hard truth is that the OtherOS doesn't have all that much value.
To you.
First they came for my heated steering wheel, but I did not speak out, because I had heated seats, heat, AC, power windows, headlights, signals, engine and transmission...
> Why are you blaming Sony and not the hacker that exploited OtherOS and ruined it for everyone else?
Because that hacker was perfectly in his rights to do what he did?
> The Other OS option was used to hack it. That's why they removed it. It had already been used to compromise the security.
And that justifies remotely removing a function of the device after the sale? Telling somebody that they cannot hack a device they've bought is outrageous.
> That isn't an exaggeration, numerous indy developers have reported piracy rates of over 80%.
Which is a completely meaningless statistic on its own. I'm sure numerous indy developers would prefer 2000 sales and 8000 unauthorized downloads to 1000 sales and 0 downloads.
But hey, any excuse to bash those pirates, right?
> I'd like to see as many disincentives as possible with console piracy.
Even at the expense of important rights like making backups, right of first sale, and right of fair use?