I'd seriously like to know. If they honestly believe piracy is hurting their business and that their data is sound, they should put it on their taxes as a business loss.
The IRS will sort it out.
The biggest and most important achievements in science and art happened before the existence of copyright and patent laws.
To tell people that they cannot freely share the ideas of another person for one hundred years...it just seems to fly in the face of advancement. People act as if not paying money to someone for a hundred years will make art and music disappear.
If 14 years was considered an adequate amount of time to capitalize on an idea back then, before the days of speedy digital distribution (and speedy analog distribution!), why is it so long now?
Under current law, the FCC had no authority to do what they did. The idea was right, the execution was wrong.
We need to have clear laws about net neutrality so that the government DOES have the authority to tell ISPs when they are hurting consumers.
I think "The Jobs Delusion" would be a great title for a book. The tone that this article takes (and literally thousands of other articles in the last week) overlooks everything that is wrong about Apple and everything that is right about Microsoft.
Both companies have their faults, but it would be refreshing to see a journalist that isn't in some kind of transcendent state of euphoria every time they see a picture of Steve Jobs or hear about a new incremental Apple release.
That would be true if we didn't legally assign a corporation human rights. Corporations here in the U.S. make decisions and break laws just like individuals do. The difference is that they rarely get punished for doing wrong in a way that is meaningful to them. Many see fines as a part of the cost of doing business.
Corporations have attained supercitizenship and are immune to many of the concerns of common citizens.
What if the judicial system could find a company guilty of crimes to a degree that it could give the company the equivalent of a life sentence or a death sentence, or the equivalent of prison in general (with the government overseeing every aspect of the company's life)? That would keep them on their toes.
I am of the opinion that if you restrict someone to a life of poverty--punishing them in a way that guarantees that they can't get virtually any straight job--you will create a lifetime criminal. We need to have a solid system of re-entry after someone has paid their debt to society, and do as much as we can to help them become productive people.
Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.
I like these ideas very much, and I am quite an activist, willing to put my money (and time) where my mouth is. I will pursue some of these avenues...I would love to--for example--run a non-profit website that accepts and publicizes any artists who are willing to participate.
Imagine the art that might be produced if there wasn't such a heavy screen of publishers and labels between creative people and their earnings!
Art existed before copyright law. Art will exist after copyright law.
No amount of blind justification of strict government enforcement or ad hominem attacks against me and others like me will change that.
Defrauding people is and should always be illegal. Communicating ideas to another person should never be illegal, even if the ideas you are communicating to another person are not yours.
If these guys wanted to openly discuss something that should not be illegal, that's fine.
This whole copyright protection debate is just corporate-sponsored Prohibition for the 21st century. It's unenforceable without totalitarian government control.
There's a lot of subjects that are over-taught in schools.
Science has evolved much; this era of hyperspecialization makes forcing kids to memorize the birth and death years of insignificant Roman emperors seem so trivial.
I feel that society as a whole and my own safety and welfare specifically has not improved thanks to the government deciding what private citizens can and can't say (along with when they can and can't say it).
I'm not much of a slippery slope guy, but I feel that ANY encroachment of the government on free speech outside of our current laws is a surefire way to fall down it.
All the computation I do is orders of magnitude faster on GPUs than CPUs. Furthermore, my graphics card also handles a lot of non-parallel tasks better than a CPU. I think we're seeing the waning days of Intel's processor dominance, unless they evolve their processor business into something else.
I wonder how many billions of tax dollars a year are currently wasted on what substances people ingest, or (possibly coming up) fighting against people seeing and hearing information they aren't entitled to see and hear?
I honestly don't care if it's the ISPs deciding what is and isn't permissible communication, or if it's the government, or the copyright protection organizations.
An entity with broad control of what people can and can't communicate is more frightening to me than losing the.00000001% of people who make their millions from their personal art.
I'm sure they will improve it dramatically in the coming months and years, but I have not laughed so hard in a while at some of the stuff it comes up with. It's as funny as using a translator to translate a word into Korean and back again.
This would help competition not only in the ebook reader world, but in the inexpensive processor world as well, but having more than one manufacturer making 90% of the screens would be nice, too.
I'd like to see Ubisoft prove me wrong, but I have a feeling that the game won't do well, there will be a class action lawsuits, and more people will be driven to piracy than they could ever imagine.
We may find creatures someday that blur our current ideas of sentience, of what is a plant and what is an animal, and what does and doesn't traumatize the life we run in to.
We subjugate and/or consume many forms of life on earth (horses, dogs, sheep). What is the line at which we decide that a creature is no longer enslavable/edible?
Visa/Mastercard/Discover picks who owes what. Winning and losing a dispute is based on their rules. Loser eats it, unless the loser vanishes, then the bank eats it. If the dispute is ancient and the customer is beyond their rights period for the time needed to dispute the transaction, the customer eats it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd seriously like to know. If they honestly believe piracy is hurting their business and that their data is sound, they should put it on their taxes as a business loss. The IRS will sort it out.
Get everything CLEARLY in writing if you get the IP owner on board with it. They can act enthusiastic now and screw you over later.
The biggest and most important achievements in science and art happened before the existence of copyright and patent laws.
To tell people that they cannot freely share the ideas of another person for one hundred years...it just seems to fly in the face of advancement. People act as if not paying money to someone for a hundred years will make art and music disappear.
If 14 years was considered an adequate amount of time to capitalize on an idea back then, before the days of speedy digital distribution (and speedy analog distribution!), why is it so long now?
Under current law, the FCC had no authority to do what they did. The idea was right, the execution was wrong. We need to have clear laws about net neutrality so that the government DOES have the authority to tell ISPs when they are hurting consumers.
I think "The Jobs Delusion" would be a great title for a book. The tone that this article takes (and literally thousands of other articles in the last week) overlooks everything that is wrong about Apple and everything that is right about Microsoft.
Both companies have their faults, but it would be refreshing to see a journalist that isn't in some kind of transcendent state of euphoria every time they see a picture of Steve Jobs or hear about a new incremental Apple release.
That would be true if we didn't legally assign a corporation human rights. Corporations here in the U.S. make decisions and break laws just like individuals do. The difference is that they rarely get punished for doing wrong in a way that is meaningful to them. Many see fines as a part of the cost of doing business.
Corporations have attained supercitizenship and are immune to many of the concerns of common citizens. What if the judicial system could find a company guilty of crimes to a degree that it could give the company the equivalent of a life sentence or a death sentence, or the equivalent of prison in general (with the government overseeing every aspect of the company's life)? That would keep them on their toes.
I am of the opinion that if you restrict someone to a life of poverty--punishing them in a way that guarantees that they can't get virtually any straight job--you will create a lifetime criminal. We need to have a solid system of re-entry after someone has paid their debt to society, and do as much as we can to help them become productive people.
Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.
I like these ideas very much, and I am quite an activist, willing to put my money (and time) where my mouth is. I will pursue some of these avenues...I would love to--for example--run a non-profit website that accepts and publicizes any artists who are willing to participate.
Imagine the art that might be produced if there wasn't such a heavy screen of publishers and labels between creative people and their earnings!
Art existed before copyright law. Art will exist after copyright law.
No amount of blind justification of strict government enforcement or ad hominem attacks against me and others like me will change that.
Defrauding people is and should always be illegal. Communicating ideas to another person should never be illegal, even if the ideas you are communicating to another person are not yours.
If these guys wanted to openly discuss something that should not be illegal, that's fine.
This whole copyright protection debate is just corporate-sponsored Prohibition for the 21st century. It's unenforceable without totalitarian government control.
There's a lot of subjects that are over-taught in schools. Science has evolved much; this era of hyperspecialization makes forcing kids to memorize the birth and death years of insignificant Roman emperors seem so trivial.
I feel that society as a whole and my own safety and welfare specifically has not improved thanks to the government deciding what private citizens can and can't say (along with when they can and can't say it). I'm not much of a slippery slope guy, but I feel that ANY encroachment of the government on free speech outside of our current laws is a surefire way to fall down it.
All the computation I do is orders of magnitude faster on GPUs than CPUs. Furthermore, my graphics card also handles a lot of non-parallel tasks better than a CPU. I think we're seeing the waning days of Intel's processor dominance, unless they evolve their processor business into something else.
The wired speed is pretty good, but I also want to be able to stream HD movies on my home network.
Haha EXACTLY. Thanks! You hit that one on the head.
I wonder how many billions of tax dollars a year are currently wasted on what substances people ingest, or (possibly coming up) fighting against people seeing and hearing information they aren't entitled to see and hear?
I honestly don't care if it's the ISPs deciding what is and isn't permissible communication, or if it's the government, or the copyright protection organizations. .00000001% of people who make their millions from their personal art.
An entity with broad control of what people can and can't communicate is more frightening to me than losing the
I'm sure they will improve it dramatically in the coming months and years, but I have not laughed so hard in a while at some of the stuff it comes up with. It's as funny as using a translator to translate a word into Korean and back again.
Hell. Yes.
This would help competition not only in the ebook reader world, but in the inexpensive processor world as well, but having more than one manufacturer making 90% of the screens would be nice, too.
I'd like to see Ubisoft prove me wrong, but I have a feeling that the game won't do well, there will be a class action lawsuits, and more people will be driven to piracy than they could ever imagine.
We may find creatures someday that blur our current ideas of sentience, of what is a plant and what is an animal, and what does and doesn't traumatize the life we run in to.
We subjugate and/or consume many forms of life on earth (horses, dogs, sheep). What is the line at which we decide that a creature is no longer enslavable/edible?
Visa/Mastercard/Discover picks who owes what. Winning and losing a dispute is based on their rules. Loser eats it, unless the loser vanishes, then the bank eats it. If the dispute is ancient and the customer is beyond their rights period for the time needed to dispute the transaction, the customer eats it.
BRB...this girl I used to date will be at Subway in five minutes. Time to casually bump into her.