If that's the case, why would Apple have to be involved in order for you to transfer ownership of that file to someone else, and why would they have any control over the price?
You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
Sure it is.
Of course, that's only if you ignore the fact that Apple is still in charge of what you can sell, who you can sell it too, and how much you can sell it for.
So really, less a step towards 'breaking down artificial barriers,' and more just a novel approach to erecting them.
Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?
Like the legislation brought forth by the uppity bitch whose site you linked to, you know damn good an well that there will be an exemption for government agents and LEOs.
Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers.
Then perhaps President "Constitutional Scholar" should consider reading the document he supposedly went to school to study, specifically:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
In short, I don't give two fucks what some asshat politician 'asserts,' the definition is there, in plain fucking English, so that everyone will know their rights.
Just being a government official doesn't reduce your rights, and EVERY CITIZEN CAN ALREADY DO WHAT Rand Paul is TECHNICALLY arguing against. If I happen to have a drone and its armed and I see something happening I can shoot people with it. In the state I live in I can do that if I am reasonably sure that force is necessary to prevent loss of life, commission of crimes, etc.
Interesting....
I think you may have, unknowingly, touched upon the one rationale that may cause our venerable Representatives to rethink their position regarding domestic drone usage...
"What, you mean The People can use them to shoot at US TOO??!! BAN THEM!! BAN THEM AAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"
Not really all that odd, when you consider their philosophy is that since software is not a tangible good, it is impossible to steal (copies aren't stolen, because the original is still there).
Besides, even if they did see it as theft, it still wouldn't be that odd that thieves would take a moral stance against despotic, iron-fisted dictators. "No honour among thieves," and all.
What I find odd is the fallacy of equivocation, i.e. stealing software is morally the same as forced labor and state-sanctioned murder.
This is what is most disappointing. It's hard to take people seriously when they're pulling childish pranks like this. And there are a lot of issues regarding copyright and piracy that we *should* be taking seriously and debating. Stunts like this are annoying distractions, and only strengthen the RIAA/MPAA and its ilk.
Read: "I totally fell for it."
You know what makes it really hard to take someone seriously? When the get all butthurt because they didn't get the joke.
I have an idea, for everyone who receives this kind of warning from Comcast to respond with the following:
Dear Comcast,
Let me remind you that i am innocent until proven guilty, and that the only place where i could be found guilty is the court, and that if you try to imply that i am guilty of something, without due process, and punishing me on top of that, you are either blackmailing me, or you are trying to replace the court, both of which are unconstitutional, and would force me to sue you personally (corporations are persons now, right?), not for the before mentioned "infringement", but for blackmailing.
Please consider this letter as a legal warning, and the fact that you read it, as an acknowledgment that you have read it.
Sincerely. Yours
THE CUSTOMER
P.S. make sure you send that bad boy certified mail, that way they can't say they never received it.
Real scientific thought process you have there, Chief./sarc
No, it's basic common sense.
I.e., bullshit.
FYI, "Common sense" is seldom all that common, and rarely makes any sense. It's just a buzz-phrase trotted out by those to lazy or dumb to actually provide reputable sourcing.
NYT haven't been exactly silent about defending themselves. If they suspected the logs either did not exist or were falsified they would have said so loudly.
So, I take it you're convinced Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, since he never went on Glenn Beck's show and "loudly" defended himself?
Angering or annoying the wrong cop can be very dangerous or even fatal and standing up for your so called "rights" pisses most of them off. The honest ones won't do anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, why would Apple have to be involved in order for you to transfer ownership of that file to someone else, and why would they have any control over the price?
is a VP8?
Is that, like, some kind of veggie drink fortified with piss?
even when 740 out of 833 people give something a one star review, 20 people will still give it 5 stars.
You mean, EA has only 20 employees?
Only 20 dedicated to astroturfing on Amazon.
The tree of Innovation must be refreshed at times with the blood of failed product launches.
FTFY
Whaddayamean, "Now??!!"
... because the "except" clause is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Unless, of course, President Obama declared War on The People. Then it would be relevant.
Only when they're considering quitting.
You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
Sure it is.
Of course, that's only if you ignore the fact that Apple is still in charge of what you can sell, who you can sell it too, and how much you can sell it for.
So really, less a step towards 'breaking down artificial barriers,' and more just a novel approach to erecting them.
Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?
So, in other words, he's been driven to piracy due to a denial of his liberty to choose what equipment he gets to use?
Yea, okay, I can get with that...
...if I buy an analog tuner it won't be useful for that much longer as the analog cable spectrum is about to be removed.
Aw,sure it will! Just swap the leads, and voilà! Instant analog transmitter!
Maybe your standards are too high.
What if we agree to limit the drones to magazines of less than ten rounds, would that be OK?
Like the legislation brought forth by the uppity bitch whose site you linked to, you know damn good an well that there will be an exemption for government agents and LEOs.
Thus, not a compromise at all...
Now go away, or I shall taunt you for a second time!
Classic.
Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers.
Then perhaps President "Constitutional Scholar" should consider reading the document he supposedly went to school to study, specifically:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
In short, I don't give two fucks what some asshat politician 'asserts,' the definition is there, in plain fucking English, so that everyone will know their rights.
Sorry, maybe I'm just being picky but I think it's an important point.
You are not, because it is.
Just being a government official doesn't reduce your rights, and EVERY CITIZEN CAN ALREADY DO WHAT Rand Paul is TECHNICALLY arguing against. If I happen to have a drone and its armed and I see something happening I can shoot people with it. In the state I live in I can do that if I am reasonably sure that force is necessary to prevent loss of life, commission of crimes, etc.
Interesting....
I think you may have, unknowingly, touched upon the one rationale that may cause our venerable Representatives to rethink their position regarding domestic drone usage...
"What, you mean The People can use them to shoot at US TOO??!! BAN THEM!! BAN THEM AAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.
Re: Mods
THAT'S NOT FUNNY! It's the crux of the fucking problem!
They're just a bunch of kids, and no need to trust them.
You forgot to tell them to get off your lawn.
Damn you, Alzheimers!
Stellar comeback, Little Johnny.
Got any other playground gems to bandy about?
Not really all that odd, when you consider their philosophy is that since software is not a tangible good, it is impossible to steal (copies aren't stolen, because the original is still there).
Besides, even if they did see it as theft, it still wouldn't be that odd that thieves would take a moral stance against despotic, iron-fisted dictators. "No honour among thieves," and all.
What I find odd is the fallacy of equivocation, i.e. stealing software is morally the same as forced labor and state-sanctioned murder.
This is what is most disappointing. It's hard to take people seriously when they're pulling childish pranks like this. And there are a lot of issues regarding copyright and piracy that we *should* be taking seriously and debating. Stunts like this are annoying distractions, and only strengthen the RIAA/MPAA and its ilk.
Read: "I totally fell for it."
You know what makes it really hard to take someone seriously? When the get all butthurt because they didn't get the joke.
As in, "I was going to move my server farm to North Korea, but the Ping count is just way too high."
I have an idea, for everyone who receives this kind of warning from Comcast to respond with the following:
Dear Comcast,
Let me remind you that i am innocent until proven guilty, and that the only place where i could be found guilty is the court, and that if you try to imply that i am guilty of something, without due process, and punishing me on top of that, you are either blackmailing me, or you are trying to replace the court, both of which are unconstitutional, and would force me to sue you personally (corporations are persons now, right?), not for the before mentioned "infringement", but for blackmailing.
Please consider this letter as a legal warning, and the fact that you read it, as an acknowledgment that you have read it.
Sincerely. Yours
THE CUSTOMER
P.S. make sure you send that bad boy certified mail, that way they can't say they never received it.
Real scientific thought process you have there, Chief. /sarc
No, it's basic common sense.
I.e., bullshit.
FYI, "Common sense" is seldom all that common, and rarely makes any sense. It's just a buzz-phrase trotted out by those to lazy or dumb to actually provide reputable sourcing.
NYT haven't been exactly silent about defending themselves. If they suspected the logs either did not exist or were falsified they would have said so loudly.
So, I take it you're convinced Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, since he never went on Glenn Beck's show and "loudly" defended himself?
That's sad, yo. Tragic even.
Angering or annoying the wrong cop can be very dangerous or even fatal and standing up for your so called "rights" pisses most of them off. The honest ones won't do anything about it.
Then there are no honest ones.