I was addressing how the AC poster wanted to get or let Texas secede. Why, because they don't like the states politics.
Guess what, I hate California's politics. If you are going to remove one extreme political opinion state(extreme right), then make sure you remove the complete opposite extreme political state(far left).
Note to moderator:
Your a typical liberal, trying to silence anyone that disagree's with you. Fucking hypocrite.
Good, then if we are lucky. California will secede also. You bitch and moan about Texas trying to dictate to the rest of the nation.
What the fuck do you think California tries to do. Oh wait, thats ok because that is a leftist state.
Fucking hypocrite.
Apple is exactly like Microsoft. The only difference is the amount of money you pay for the product. Apple costs more.
Great, works for me. All for a company making money.
Won't be my money though. I want quality for my money, and I do not consider apple a quality product. They are on par with Microsoft. Shit products, shit attitudes, and asshole CEO's.
Should be the same with computers also and the software that runs on them. But we all know thats not true. We are constantly asked to opt in for anonymous data exchange.
Not saying I agree with this, because I don't. But this practice is nothing new for products we currently purchase.
reading comprehensive. Your the only person that didn't know what the original poster was talking about that replied to you.
Your still a fuckwad(there you happy cock sucker). By the way asshole, you couldn't prove that is one word if you tried. Again, an aragont cock sucker that thinks he should be taken at his word. Show me where that slang/cuss word is spelled specifically that way. Provide a link asshole.
hey dick head, put up or shut up. Provide links to back up your original statement and quit being a dick head. Also provide links to prove that fuckwad is one word, instead of 2.
I say your talking out your ass. You've never read a study backing up your original statement. Something you seen in a post but you never followed up to read the supporting evidence.
Why, because won't provide a link or proof of your statement and you expect to be taken at your word?
Actually, the last statement by you makes me think your original statement should be modded down. You offer no supporting evidence of your claim. Even when you have been asked for it
The content as is being discussed with this thread is media created from nothing. Concept thought of and carried through to delivery to the general public for a price. Wherer there was nothing, there is now something. Where there was not an idea, there is now content based on the idea.
Your argument, which has nothing in common. You are altering existing property/content which was never yours to start with.
I don't think its right for any burial place to not be respected, your example of mass transit.
I don't care what religion, nationality, heritage. That is just something that I find important to respect.
And just because their leadership are idiots has nothing to do with the families that are not happy with their families burial grounds being desecrated.
Going without is making the decesion to not own a copy of the material. By you downloading, you now have in your posession a copy of the material which you never purchased.
Compiled code, which in the code I have license agreements. Unless my licesne says free for use, it is theft to take it.
Music. Someone wrote the music. Someone performed the music. Someone paid for the equipment to record the music. Someone paid for marketing of the music. Someone paid for the production of the music. You downloaded it. All of that money was spent with a return on investment fully expected. sales. You took from that by your illegal download.
Movies, see music.
Every single download had to be created and produced to be delivered. It cost money to do that. Old school delivery methods being the fool. Point beiong though. I put out the money to create and deliver the content. You stole from me when you downloaded it without compensation or my permission.
He never intended to purchase the content. It wouldn't matter if he thought the content was the greatest thing sence bread. He wasn't going to compensate the person that created it. He admited it.
1). He doesn't care how much it cost to create the product, he will not compensate the people.
2). He does not care how many people rely on the sales of the content for a living, he will not copensate them.
What else is there to talk about. He is a theif. From the moment he logged on he was planning on stealing.
How is that relevant? Copyright law is not and has never been property law (in the USA). Here are a few key differences: Copyrights are not mandatory in the constitution; property rights are. -- Please provide a link to back this up. No offense, but I am not going to take your word for it. The content created is the property of individual creators. You copying it, without their permission is taking from them. Until I see case links, you have no counter point.
*If copyrights are implemented, the constitution mandates that they be valid for a limited time only; property rights are perpetual, assuming the property can be perpetually maintained (by the owner and whoever inherits or comes to own the property). --We are talking about downloading content. There has been examples of the movie Star Trek in the various threads. Even with a time limit for a copyright to be invalidated, Star Trek has not reached that point. Please, you really think that this conversation is about content that is years and years old? You are skewing the argument.
Copyrights are about the right to copy something; there is nothing in property law that governs a person's ability to replicate your property (i.e. if I like the way your house looks, I can build a copy of it on my land, and I have not violated your property rights). -- Really, your saying an architect didn't design the house you live in? Unless that design is of a certain age, your previous argument, that design is worth money to that architect. Did you purchase those designs from a architect? I’m copying your house, but guess what. I purchased the same designs. I compensated the creator. I did not steal his work.
Property can be owned by the government; all government works are automatically in the public domain (no copyrights).
We are not talking about the government, please stay on topic.
I'm not going to get into the copyright violation vs theft argument (again), but this is just plain WRONG. Drivel like this reeks of **AA and artist entitlement whining.
YOU are denying the person who created the content the sale.
No, because I had no plans on buying whatever it was I'm downloading. If I can get X for free, I'll grab it. If I can't, I'll do without. No sale lost.
Theft There is nothing left to even consider of your reply. You admit you never intended to buy it. No matter if you liked the movie or not.
Just like when you sneak into the drive in's in the trunk of your car. You watched the movie for free.
If the creator of the content wanted you to be able to watch the movie for free, he would have put it up for FREE download. See the word free there. That is the point. He fully expected the sale to anyone that WATCHED that movie.
Slashdot Mirror
I was addressing how the AC poster wanted to get or let Texas secede. Why, because they don't like the states politics. Guess what, I hate California's politics. If you are going to remove one extreme political opinion state(extreme right), then make sure you remove the complete opposite extreme political state(far left). Note to moderator: Your a typical liberal, trying to silence anyone that disagree's with you. Fucking hypocrite.
Good, then if we are lucky. California will secede also. You bitch and moan about Texas trying to dictate to the rest of the nation. What the fuck do you think California tries to do. Oh wait, thats ok because that is a leftist state. Fucking hypocrite.
Apple is exactly like Microsoft. The only difference is the amount of money you pay for the product. Apple costs more. Great, works for me. All for a company making money. Won't be my money though. I want quality for my money, and I do not consider apple a quality product. They are on par with Microsoft. Shit products, shit attitudes, and asshole CEO's.
Should be the same with computers also and the software that runs on them. But we all know thats not true. We are constantly asked to opt in for anonymous data exchange.
Not saying I agree with this, because I don't. But this practice is nothing new for products we currently purchase.
I knew you coldn't back up your posts.
Your a liar. Plain and simple.
hey asshole.
reading comprehensive. Your the only person that didn't know what the original poster was talking about that replied to you.
Your still a fuckwad(there you happy cock sucker). By the way asshole, you couldn't prove that is one word if you tried. Again, an aragont cock sucker that thinks he should be taken at his word. Show me where that slang/cuss word is spelled specifically that way. Provide a link asshole.
hey dick head, put up or shut up. Provide links to back up your original statement and quit being a dick head. Also provide links to prove that fuckwad is one word, instead of 2.
I say your talking out your ass. You've never read a study backing up your original statement. Something you seen in a post but you never followed up to read the supporting evidence.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
Who the fuck said I disagreed with your original statement.
My problem with you fuck wad is you think you should be taken at your word with out any supporting evidence.
I completely understood your original post and agreed, but I still think your a flame bate just from your attitude.
Why, because won't provide a link or proof of your statement and you expect to be taken at your word?
Actually, the last statement by you makes me think your original statement should be modded down. You offer no supporting evidence of your claim. Even when you have been asked for it
disone# dig +bufsize=1024 rs.dns-oarc.net txt
; > DiG 9.6.1-P1 > +bufsize=1024 rs.dns-oarc.net txt ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 1322 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;rs.dns-oarc.net. IN TXT ;; ANSWER SECTION: ;; Query time: 1031 msec ;; SERVER: 208.67.222.222#53(208.67.222.222) ;; WHEN: Fri Apr 30 12:18:28 2010 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 67
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
rs.dns-oarc.net. 49 IN CNAME rst.x476.rs.dns-oarc.net.
disone#
disone# dig +short rs.dns-oarc.net txt
rst.x476.rs.dns-oarc.net.
disone#
When I followed the command to specifiy a buffersize, I received the following.
disone# dig +bufsize=1024 rs.dns-oarc.net txt
; > DiG 9.6.1-P1 > +bufsize=1024 rs.dns-oarc.net txt ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADERhttps://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/replysizetest
???
By receiving a reply, without warnings about the size of the buffer. Does that indicate it worked?
Your argument has no merrit. None at all.
The content as is being discussed with this thread is media created from nothing. Concept thought of and carried through to delivery to the general public for a price. Wherer there was nothing, there is now something. Where there was not an idea, there is now content based on the idea.
Your argument, which has nothing in common. You are altering existing property/content which was never yours to start with.
I was doing just fine with your post until:
Government does just fine with all the roads
You don't live on the east coast do you? Seriously? Even federal highways suck(Route 80 and 81 come to mind) in certain areas.
I was hoping for Lake Erie
I don't think its right for any burial place to not be respected, your example of mass transit.
I don't care what religion, nationality, heritage. That is just something that I find important to respect.
And just because their leadership are idiots has nothing to do with the families that are not happy with their families burial grounds being desecrated.
Going without is making the decesion to not own a copy of the material. By you downloading, you now have in your posession a copy of the material which you never purchased.
Stealing
What is content? Seriously. What is content.
Compiled code, which in the code I have license agreements. Unless my licesne says free for use, it is theft to take it.
Music. Someone wrote the music. Someone performed the music. Someone paid for the equipment to record the music. Someone paid for marketing of the music. Someone paid for the production of the music. You downloaded it. All of that money was spent with a return on investment fully expected. sales. You took from that by your illegal download.
Movies, see music.
Every single download had to be created and produced to be delivered. It cost money to do that. Old school delivery methods being the fool. Point beiong though. I put out the money to create and deliver the content. You stole from me when you downloaded it without compensation or my permission.
Funny how you will be the first to complain because you are not compensated for your work, but will be the first to steal from others work.
Thats what it comes down to now doesn't it.
After I posted that, I knew that was a bull shit argument.
5 of us watched the movie. Not all of us paid for the movie, only I did.
Your still a fucking pussy. You don't have the balls to use your own alias because your afraid to lose karma points.
Still hiding in your moma's basemoent coward because all the bullies on the street corner are stealing your lunch money?
He never intended to purchase the content. It wouldn't matter if he thought the content was the greatest thing sence bread. He wasn't going to compensate the person that created it. He admited it.
1). He doesn't care how much it cost to create the product, he will not compensate the people.
2). He does not care how many people rely on the sales of the content for a living, he will not copensate them.
What else is there to talk about. He is a theif. From the moment he logged on he was planning on stealing.
There is nothing else to talk about.
How is that relevant? Copyright law is not and has never been property law (in the USA). Here are a few key differences:
Copyrights are not mandatory in the constitution; property rights are.
-- Please provide a link to back this up. No offense, but I am not going to take your word for it. The content created is the property of individual creators. You copying it, without their permission is taking from them. Until I see case links, you have no counter point.
*If copyrights are implemented, the constitution mandates that they be valid for a limited time only; property rights are perpetual, assuming the property can be perpetually maintained (by the owner and whoever inherits or comes to own the property).
--We are talking about downloading content. There has been examples of the movie Star Trek in the various threads. Even with a time limit for a copyright to be invalidated, Star Trek has not reached that point. Please, you really think that this conversation is about content that is years and years old? You are skewing the argument.
Copyrights are about the right to copy something; there is nothing in property law that governs a person's ability to replicate your property (i.e. if I like the way your house looks, I can build a copy of it on my land, and I have not violated your property rights).
-- Really, your saying an architect didn't design the house you live in? Unless that design is of a certain age, your previous argument, that design is worth money to that architect. Did you purchase those designs from a architect? I’m copying your house, but guess what. I purchased the same designs. I compensated the creator. I did not steal his work.
Property can be owned by the government; all government works are automatically in the public domain (no copyrights).
We are not talking about the government, please stay on topic.
Now, remind me, how is copying a form of theft?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:theft&ei=c8bYS_30C4KsM7uVrI4K&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAwQkAE ...
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
I'm not going to get into the copyright violation vs theft argument (again), but this is just plain WRONG. Drivel like this reeks of **AA and artist entitlement whining.
YOU are denying the person who created the content the sale.
No, because I had no plans on buying whatever it was I'm downloading. If I can get X for free, I'll grab it. If I can't, I'll do without. No sale lost.
Theft
There is nothing left to even consider of your reply. You admit you never intended to buy it. No matter if you liked the movie or not.
Your a theif. Simple as that.
The argument of advertisement does not stand. That is an arangement made in advance with the full knowledge of the creator of the content.
Thank you for the comment about the AC
Just like when you sneak into the drive in's in the trunk of your car. You watched the movie for free.
If the creator of the content wanted you to be able to watch the movie for free, he would have put it up for FREE download. See the word free there. That is the point. He fully expected the sale to anyone that WATCHED that movie.
It's theft.