This comes from one of the US anime production companies:
When a series gets licensed, generally part of that license is that the production company for North America helps stop illegal trading of the works here.
Yes, it is illegal, regardless of whether you want to purchase the work when it is licensed and sold here. However, will a Japanese company who's solely in Japan bother with the legal fees to hire someone to act on their behalf to shut down a free trading spot in the US or Canada? Probably not.
But lack of action does not mean condoning the act, so please don't confuse the two.
No, Copyrights are to progress useful arts; that is, they guarantee artists and authors limited monopolies on distribution and derivations, in exchange that some day they will be given to the public domain.
You're thinking of patents for innovation. Copyrights and trademarks aren't for innovation.
But are you hurting anyone? No. Would it really hurt to ask the companies? No. Try it some time.
Is for a state to start cracking down on advertised prices which really aren't the advertised prices. From mail-in rebate prices ($799, after $300 mail-in rebates), which may be applicable to one per household, so really, you only get one of that price if you get it at all, to ads which include prices for a multitude of prices, details at store, wherein a person must purchase another item at retail to get the reduced price on the second.
Seriously, consumers need regulations against businesses when they purposely attempt to mislead to get sales. Let's start forcing business to print details of sales on the same media in the same print as the sales itself, and eliminate pricing after mail-in or non-instant rebates on any advertisement, including in store.
I'm glad California's helping consumers who get hit with hidden or hard-to-determine fees and locked into harsh contracts when the service ends up being horrible, but let's get more states helping with more problems!
Plus, if it were that powerful to bake animals, would not the water temperature rise, and the air bake the animals which did survive, and destroy the birds as they're not too good about going underwater, and melt the ice at the caps, and...
Sorry, but this theory doesn't even sound plausible. What could they base it on? (Sorry, article/.'ed)
Yet another Your Rights Online that doesn't have anything to do with alerting the Slashdot crowd that perhaps one of our basic rights in the electronic age is being infringed or will be degraded to the point that someday it will be gone.
This is a way, it seems, to help prevent spoofed header information in spam. I'm certainly glad that right is not infringed, thanks Slashdot.
Really, the constant usage of YRO for these kinds of articles is diluting the effectiveness that YRO is supposed to handle. Keep these in articles, editors, please!
This, like nearly half of the YROs recently, have NOTHING to do with ANY rights, online or not. Paypal's a business, and decided it no longer wished to do business with a company who fell into a category that is against their terms of service. Paypal is sending them their money.
So what's the terrible, rights-infringing or rights-squashing act performed here?
Sorry. Wrong answer. You established in your cute little scenerio that the guy wouldn't buy it anyways, so the possible outcomes are as follows:
a) Guy doesn't buy or use software. Software company doesn't get money.
b) Guy doesn't buy but uses software. Software company doesn't get money.
Where's the missing profit? Answer: nowheresville.
And like the parent to my reply, you simply make up what I don't say. I never said there was a missing profit; I said someone takes a profit away.
However, no one should be allowed to insist that there is money missing because someone is using that software, unless that software is being resold to someone else illegally. Just a little logic I have with that.
The simple truth is we don't need record companies anymore. They used to distribute music because no one else could really make records or tapes with any reasonable amount of quality. That's not a service anyone needs anymore.
And yet, later on, you admit to buying CDs. Do you buy any from RIAA members, from those P2P services?
People can obtain a copy on their own. Sure you need a source and the source worked hard to create their art and everything, but so the ass what? You don't have a god given right to be a rich rock star. At most you have the government telling people they ought to not make a copy of a song because of some misguided notion that no one will want to record new and interesting songs if they don't get compensated.
Yeah, the people who created Unreal Tournament 2004 worked their asses off, as did the people who are working on Doom III. But hey, what right do they have to make money off their hard work? They should license those engines for free and give away free copies, because no one deserves to profit from their "art".
But wait, if we impose a limited government monopoly on distribution, these people can pay salaries of the employees who shape and beautify these games. They'd want to come back to work at a software company, rather than go find work at a textile plant.
Funny, I don't see any free versions of games that are nearly as good as Q3A or UT2K4 have been. So it seems to me that copyright helps produce really quality first-person shooters.
Same with music. People choose whether they want to release it for free or charge for distribution of their songs. This model does work. And if you don't feel that artists should be compensated, then choose the people who agree with you. If you don't seem to enjoy their music, lower your standards or suck up the fact that what you want costs money.
Justifying piracy because no one deserves to make money from an idea is moronic.
The fact that the MPAA and RIAA lobby to have copyright terms extended nigh indefinitely tells you all you need to know about the purpose of modern copyright law's existence. I'll give you a clue if you still aren't sure, though. It has to do with shareholders and government officials liking money a lot.
How many people on Slashdot get out the pitchforks and torches the moment someone allegedly breaks a GPL? Or those who claim parts or all of Linux belong to them? After all, without current copyright laws, these would perfectly be permissable.
Seems to me that copyright laws today have also made LAMP one of the best packageable software bundles around. Would Linux be how it was today without copyright? I highly doubt it.
That these corporations have effectively removed the part where works are supposed to go into the public domain for society's benefit as a whole pretty much nullifies any moral ground copyright laws once had. In my eyes (and I'm sure hundreds of you will disagree) downloading songs or what have you is pretty much the only effective form of civil disobedience against these fuckholes.
This is too funny. Show me where in copyright law it says that no one may place their work into the public domain until it woul
Sorry, but you completely changed the point just to fit something unfunny. I'll bypass it for the points you attempt to make:
Your attitude wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious, if the subhumans you were apologizing for didn't try so hard to murder every single bit of free entertainment there used to be.
How's this? I'm not apologizing for anyone, nor supporting the actions of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm against anyone who thinks that if they can't afford something, then they're perfectly allowed to steal it. Steal, as in, not pay for something which can only legally be obtained by paying.
You can't afford Windows XP Pro, but hate Windows XP Home, so you should be allowed to pirate it because it's too high a price. Same with Photoshop and Acrobat Writer.
No one's being hurt, after all, since you couldn't afford them anyways.
Except, well, you're gaining something from their use and taking away a profit from those who created it. There are free alternatives to nearly every software package out there, so why not use them? If they don't meet your needs, lower your needs or raise your disposable income.
For music and movies, there are free alternatives. Nick Park released one of his ten mini-films for free on his website. Many big bands have free music on their websites. There are concerts you should be able to find in your area which have little to no charge to attend.
So, again, how on earth are the RIAA/MPAA killing free entertainment? Oh, yeah, they're trying to retain their monopolies and losing. So what? Help them die off by NOT listening to/watching their productions, even if you could do it for free, and support those who meet your price range or code of ethics.
How long til they actively start lobbying against it? With software, we already see the "free/open software threatens the livelyhood's of programmers!" bullshit, and that being true (god, that was hard to type, even as a "for the sake of the argument"), does not the guy that puts up a free novel on the web not steal from those trying to sell theirs?
So? Educate the opposite. Pass out free copies of software you legally can. Offer to train a person or two in how to use it so that perhaps they can show off to others, and pass along the knowledge.
But playing the "Someone else put this up for free, so we must stop it" bit is boring already. There are free novels available, and free stories, free music, free movies, free everything. As much as people hate competition and will try what they can to limit the damage competition does, supporting free alternatives helps them to grow. So please stop using this as an argument that free alternatives are dying; they won't if people like you help them out.
If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?
No, and I have no idea why you bothered with this logic. It's not based on anything in my post.
You arguments are old and tired, and have nothing to do with logic. If they want to be artists, fine, you'd think they'd be flattered so many want their "art".
How does it have nothing to do with logic? The parent poster suggested that if people cannot afford a service, they are not morally obligated to pay for it, but can still receive it. Where's the logic in that? And I provided examples of how stupid it really sounds when it does not involve a geek trying to get free entertainment.
But no one said that they had a god-given right to make a job of it, or that they have any say in how I arrange bits on my hard drive. That they could make a living out of it, for a few decades, that doesn't make it any more profound or righteous.
Nor did I even imply it. However, no one has a god-given right to get services for free that are otherwise only obtainable through paying channels. Whether or not you could afford it makes no difference. You want that welfare, contact the gove
If a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated by ethics? Excuse me?
So a homeless man who can't afford to pay a cab driver can just go ahead and make the cabbie drive him somewhere, because he's not morally obligated to pay for it?
Oh, wait, the gas and the driver's time cost money. Well, guess what? Recording, engineering, writing music costs money, as does filming and producing movies and television shows. Don't they deserve to make money from their efforts?
No, I guess you'd think they should assume people can take whatever they want because "it hurts no one". Neverminding that it's JUST ENTERTAINMENT and no one is entitled to the right to be entertained by others for free.
Except look at how the Bush team and much of the media portrayed anyone going against Bush. Question Bush's authority, you're anti-American. Protest, you're aiding the enemy.
Imagine what voting against the PATRIOT ACT, which just sounds so patriotic in its name alone, would do?
"John Kerry voted against the PATRIOT ACT, used to help protect the US"
Doesn't matter what it does, most of the voting public does not know its powers. Why? Because Bush has been pounding how it helps us investigate terrorists in our own back yard.
Yeah, there was a choice to vote against this bill at that time, but then those who voted against it would not have a shot at re-election.
Don't forget, you never purchase the DVD directly from the production company itself. The DVD must go through channels, as this is an easier model of doing business.
So no, the ~$18.50 is not all going to the studio. Some of that goes to the retail outlet where you purchased it, some went to the warehouse which stored it, some went to the distributor who shipped it to the warehouses across the nation . ..
All in all, probably only 1/4 to 1/3 of the retail price of a DVD goes back to the original production company. So if a DVD is $20, assume at most probably $8 goes back to the company. $1.50 for media and jewel case production, probably $.25 each disc for marketing, and you've got just over $6 going to profit.
A far cry from the $18.50 you proposed was the license to view.
Why can't Microsoft settle for allowing people who have not purchased a valid key for XP/Server 2K3 to have the upgrade, but also make any TCP/IP connection drop after a certain time?
That is, except for more updates from Microsoft.
This way people can still "try" Windows, use it for the programs they need, but if they want to go online or play games, etc., they'll have to do it in the time frame before Windows needs to reboot or wait a certain time before connecting again, or purchase a key.
Rizon IRC Networks is the Astalavista Box of IRC. IRC itself is not the problem, and places like Dal Net or EfNet that are just too large for their own good cannot always stop problematic clients or channels. Rizon, though, prouds itself as a haven of warez, cracks and piracy of movies and music. Have a problem with someone distributing your software and bring it up with the admins, they will k-line you, not the traders.
To see how massive such an idea of illegality is, and probably how little people in law enforcement care about IRC, just see the server listing from Search IRC of currently linked servers on the network. It's frightening.
P.S. This message is provided as education, as I do not condone nor promote piracy or warez in any format.
I hope you didn't assume I meant all writers, just like I never said all legal professionals. But WordPerfect is more focused on these two niches than any other software package to date that I'm aware, that's currently on the shelves at CompUSA and other retailers.
I know writers who also use alternatives. Though none have been happy with OOo, none have been happy with Word, either. I'm glad you've found OOo to your liking.
I never said that writers don't write with OO.o, but I did said it has far to go before it's used by the profession itself as a whole.
(And as an aside, I use Hollywood Screenplay for screenplay and script writing, as it is far superior in markup than WordPerfect for these)
Besides the fact that WordPerfect's format has not changed since 6? And even now, with Version 12, you can still open WP 4.2 docs and save as 5.1?
Neverminding the other formats that are commonly popular.
I would hope that a book publisher would be using a typesetting program over a word processor for many of the steps. OOo integration for a copyeditor would be fine, but for the layout department? I'm curious what you would use for laying out the final and print the galleys?
Yeah... I got so good with 5.1 that I didn't even need that fuction-key placard to tell me what keys managed what functions.
Those were the good ol' days. I was hoping that the emulation of 5.1 would truly be a DOS text screen with the function menus on the bottom, but it just seems to be (from the screenshot) a color shift of a graphical window.
Hah! I knew someone would bring up the "Why should I pay for something when there's a perfectly good version for free!" argument on this.
I've used WordPerfect since version 4.x. I also use Linux (and Windows). I've tested many different word processing programs (and still do), including StarOffice and OpenOffice.org
WordPerfect will continue to be the word processing program for me because of many features that OO.o seems not to want to include.
Among them? A good Grammatik checker. Advanced typesetting features. Legal templates. Perfect listing of paper and label types purchasable from the store. Great print-as-booklet/double-sided printing. Advanced print-spooling functions (how do you want them to print? Set batches and WP does the rest).
The main problem with ALL other word processing programs is that typesetting. I haven't found one single program, free or proprietary, that has the ability for me to assign an advance-from that works, besides WordPerfect. And I believe they've been doing it since at least 6.
OpenOffice has NOT taken over. It's installed on nearly every distribution of desktop Linux, but it still pales in comparison to WordPerfect for both writers and legal professionals. Until it can come near WordPerfect in the above-mentioned abilities, it'll still be just a glorified vim to me.
And please, before you make statements that OO.o is taking over and giving MS Office a challenge, make sure it's fact and not your opinion. Where's the data that OO.o is in use enough to make a challenge soon for MS Office share?
No, entrapment is when law enforcement requests or forces you to do something for the purpose of catching you doing that, so as to arrest you.
It's perfectly legal for law enforcement to setup dummy outfits to catch criminals doing bad things. Stings for drug buys, murder-for-hire and prostitution are just some samples of perfectly legal operations to catch criminals.
How about, if you don't like the pricetag, don't buy it? Companies price them at what the market will bear. If they can't make a profit, they change price or try to make the products fit the price better.
Because it's too expensive is never a good reason to pirate, not that I'm accusing you. Just in general.
Ugh, thread after thread of the usual/. whining and pining about how copyright infringement isn't a "real crime".
Yes, the US is at war. However, saying that the FBI should be focusing on terrorists and not on catching serious acts of infringement is like saying cops shouldn't be pulling over speeding cars because there are rapists and murderers who still are on the loose.
Speeding is still a crime, and it *does* cause harm. Infringement is still a crime and it also does cause harm.
The FBI has plenty of men throughout the country. Raiding a school to seize computers will not disrupt their investigation of internal terrorist organizations. After all, they can't be searching internationally, since that would be the CIA's jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
This comes from one of the US anime production companies:
When a series gets licensed, generally part of that license is that the production company for North America helps stop illegal trading of the works here.
Yes, it is illegal, regardless of whether you want to purchase the work when it is licensed and sold here. However, will a Japanese company who's solely in Japan bother with the legal fees to hire someone to act on their behalf to shut down a free trading spot in the US or Canada? Probably not.
But lack of action does not mean condoning the act, so please don't confuse the two.
And with each new Sermon (release), they pass around the Offering Plate (donations please?). Definitely a religious lot, those Linux Zealots.
*note: meant in humor, not sarcasm*
How is it different?
Valve still has the code, the music companies still have their audio.
How on earth is there a distinction? Because one needed another illegal means to get the files, while other it just downloading?
If you call one theft, you have to call the other theft.
No, Copyrights are to progress useful arts; that is, they guarantee artists and authors limited monopolies on distribution and derivations, in exchange that some day they will be given to the public domain.
You're thinking of patents for innovation. Copyrights and trademarks aren't for innovation.
But are you hurting anyone? No. Would it really hurt to ask the companies? No. Try it some time.
Is for a state to start cracking down on advertised prices which really aren't the advertised prices. From mail-in rebate prices ($799, after $300 mail-in rebates), which may be applicable to one per household, so really, you only get one of that price if you get it at all, to ads which include prices for a multitude of prices, details at store, wherein a person must purchase another item at retail to get the reduced price on the second.
Seriously, consumers need regulations against businesses when they purposely attempt to mislead to get sales. Let's start forcing business to print details of sales on the same media in the same print as the sales itself, and eliminate pricing after mail-in or non-instant rebates on any advertisement, including in store.
I'm glad California's helping consumers who get hit with hidden or hard-to-determine fees and locked into harsh contracts when the service ends up being horrible, but let's get more states helping with more problems!
Plus, if it were that powerful to bake animals, would not the water temperature rise, and the air bake the animals which did survive, and destroy the birds as they're not too good about going underwater, and melt the ice at the caps, and...
/.'ed)
Sorry, but this theory doesn't even sound plausible. What could they base it on? (Sorry, article
Yet another Your Rights Online that doesn't have anything to do with alerting the Slashdot crowd that perhaps one of our basic rights in the electronic age is being infringed or will be degraded to the point that someday it will be gone.
This is a way, it seems, to help prevent spoofed header information in spam. I'm certainly glad that right is not infringed, thanks Slashdot.
Really, the constant usage of YRO for these kinds of articles is diluting the effectiveness that YRO is supposed to handle. Keep these in articles, editors, please!
This, like nearly half of the YROs recently, have NOTHING to do with ANY rights, online or not. Paypal's a business, and decided it no longer wished to do business with a company who fell into a category that is against their terms of service. Paypal is sending them their money.
So what's the terrible, rights-infringing or rights-squashing act performed here?
Saw this on a forum earlier today:
i d=1084620601&user=ukresistance
http://www.b2g3.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&
Anyone know whether this is accurate?
Sorry. Wrong answer. You established in your cute little scenerio that the guy wouldn't buy it anyways, so the possible outcomes are as follows:
a) Guy doesn't buy or use software. Software company doesn't get money.
b) Guy doesn't buy but uses software. Software company doesn't get money.
Where's the missing profit? Answer: nowheresville.
And like the parent to my reply, you simply make up what I don't say. I never said there was a missing profit; I said someone takes a profit away.
However, no one should be allowed to insist that there is money missing because someone is using that software, unless that software is being resold to someone else illegally. Just a little logic I have with that.
The simple truth is we don't need record companies anymore. They used to distribute music because no one else could really make records or tapes with any reasonable amount of quality. That's not a service anyone needs anymore.
And yet, later on, you admit to buying CDs. Do you buy any from RIAA members, from those P2P services?
People can obtain a copy on their own. Sure you need a source and the source worked hard to create their art and everything, but so the ass what? You don't have a god given right to be a rich rock star. At most you have the government telling people they ought to not make a copy of a song because of some misguided notion that no one will want to record new and interesting songs if they don't get compensated.
Yeah, the people who created Unreal Tournament 2004 worked their asses off, as did the people who are working on Doom III. But hey, what right do they have to make money off their hard work? They should license those engines for free and give away free copies, because no one deserves to profit from their "art".
But wait, if we impose a limited government monopoly on distribution, these people can pay salaries of the employees who shape and beautify these games. They'd want to come back to work at a software company, rather than go find work at a textile plant.
Funny, I don't see any free versions of games that are nearly as good as Q3A or UT2K4 have been. So it seems to me that copyright helps produce really quality first-person shooters.
Same with music. People choose whether they want to release it for free or charge for distribution of their songs. This model does work. And if you don't feel that artists should be compensated, then choose the people who agree with you. If you don't seem to enjoy their music, lower your standards or suck up the fact that what you want costs money.
Justifying piracy because no one deserves to make money from an idea is moronic.
The fact that the MPAA and RIAA lobby to have copyright terms extended nigh indefinitely tells you all you need to know about the purpose of modern copyright law's existence. I'll give you a clue if you still aren't sure, though. It has to do with shareholders and government officials liking money a lot.
How many people on Slashdot get out the pitchforks and torches the moment someone allegedly breaks a GPL? Or those who claim parts or all of Linux belong to them? After all, without current copyright laws, these would perfectly be permissable.
Seems to me that copyright laws today have also made LAMP one of the best packageable software bundles around. Would Linux be how it was today without copyright? I highly doubt it.
That these corporations have effectively removed the part where works are supposed to go into the public domain for society's benefit as a whole pretty much nullifies any moral ground copyright laws once had. In my eyes (and I'm sure hundreds of you will disagree) downloading songs or what have you is pretty much the only effective form of civil disobedience against these fuckholes.
This is too funny. Show me where in copyright law it says that no one may place their work into the public domain until it woul
[snipping sarcastic rebuttal]
Sorry, but you completely changed the point just to fit something unfunny. I'll bypass it for the points you attempt to make:
Your attitude wouldn't be nearly so obnoxious, if the subhumans you were apologizing for didn't try so hard to murder every single bit of free entertainment there used to be.
How's this? I'm not apologizing for anyone, nor supporting the actions of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm against anyone who thinks that if they can't afford something, then they're perfectly allowed to steal it. Steal, as in, not pay for something which can only legally be obtained by paying.
You can't afford Windows XP Pro, but hate Windows XP Home, so you should be allowed to pirate it because it's too high a price. Same with Photoshop and Acrobat Writer.
No one's being hurt, after all, since you couldn't afford them anyways.
Except, well, you're gaining something from their use and taking away a profit from those who created it. There are free alternatives to nearly every software package out there, so why not use them? If they don't meet your needs, lower your needs or raise your disposable income.
For music and movies, there are free alternatives. Nick Park released one of his ten mini-films for free on his website. Many big bands have free music on their websites. There are concerts you should be able to find in your area which have little to no charge to attend.
So, again, how on earth are the RIAA/MPAA killing free entertainment? Oh, yeah, they're trying to retain their monopolies and losing. So what? Help them die off by NOT listening to/watching their productions, even if you could do it for free, and support those who meet your price range or code of ethics.
How long til they actively start lobbying against it? With software, we already see the "free/open software threatens the livelyhood's of programmers!" bullshit, and that being true (god, that was hard to type, even as a "for the sake of the argument"), does not the guy that puts up a free novel on the web not steal from those trying to sell theirs?
So? Educate the opposite. Pass out free copies of software you legally can. Offer to train a person or two in how to use it so that perhaps they can show off to others, and pass along the knowledge.
But playing the "Someone else put this up for free, so we must stop it" bit is boring already. There are free novels available, and free stories, free music, free movies, free everything. As much as people hate competition and will try what they can to limit the damage competition does, supporting free alternatives helps them to grow. So please stop using this as an argument that free alternatives are dying; they won't if people like you help them out.
If I play the guitar on my front lawn, am I not robbing poor little Britney Spears?
No, and I have no idea why you bothered with this logic. It's not based on anything in my post.
You arguments are old and tired, and have nothing to do with logic. If they want to be artists, fine, you'd think they'd be flattered so many want their "art".
How does it have nothing to do with logic? The parent poster suggested that if people cannot afford a service, they are not morally obligated to pay for it, but can still receive it. Where's the logic in that? And I provided examples of how stupid it really sounds when it does not involve a geek trying to get free entertainment.
But no one said that they had a god-given right to make a job of it, or that they have any say in how I arrange bits on my hard drive. That they could make a living out of it, for a few decades, that doesn't make it any more profound or righteous.
Nor did I even imply it. However, no one has a god-given right to get services for free that are otherwise only obtainable through paying channels. Whether or not you could afford it makes no difference. You want that welfare, contact the gove
How is this insightful?
If a person can't afford to buy something, they're not morally obligated by ethics? Excuse me?
So a homeless man who can't afford to pay a cab driver can just go ahead and make the cabbie drive him somewhere, because he's not morally obligated to pay for it?
Oh, wait, the gas and the driver's time cost money. Well, guess what? Recording, engineering, writing music costs money, as does filming and producing movies and television shows. Don't they deserve to make money from their efforts?
No, I guess you'd think they should assume people can take whatever they want because "it hurts no one". Neverminding that it's JUST ENTERTAINMENT and no one is entitled to the right to be entertained by others for free.
Except look at how the Bush team and much of the media portrayed anyone going against Bush. Question Bush's authority, you're anti-American. Protest, you're aiding the enemy.
Imagine what voting against the PATRIOT ACT, which just sounds so patriotic in its name alone, would do?
"John Kerry voted against the PATRIOT ACT, used to help protect the US"
Doesn't matter what it does, most of the voting public does not know its powers. Why? Because Bush has been pounding how it helps us investigate terrorists in our own back yard.
Yeah, there was a choice to vote against this bill at that time, but then those who voted against it would not have a shot at re-election.
Don't forget, you never purchase the DVD directly from the production company itself. The DVD must go through channels, as this is an easier model of doing business.
.
So no, the ~$18.50 is not all going to the studio. Some of that goes to the retail outlet where you purchased it, some went to the warehouse which stored it, some went to the distributor who shipped it to the warehouses across the nation . .
All in all, probably only 1/4 to 1/3 of the retail price of a DVD goes back to the original production company. So if a DVD is $20, assume at most probably $8 goes back to the company. $1.50 for media and jewel case production, probably $.25 each disc for marketing, and you've got just over $6 going to profit.
A far cry from the $18.50 you proposed was the license to view.
I live in the Cleveland area, home of the non-winning Sports Teams.
Depends on what you want in a turntable, and whether it's needle or laser read.
Best Buy has turntables starting at $99, Circuit City the same, etc.
Flea markets and thrift stores should have turntables as well. Just check around.
And $99 for a component isn't too expensive, even with $29 DVD players from Wal-Mart (which is worthless).
Why can't Microsoft settle for allowing people who have not purchased a valid key for XP/Server 2K3 to have the upgrade, but also make any TCP/IP connection drop after a certain time?
That is, except for more updates from Microsoft.
This way people can still "try" Windows, use it for the programs they need, but if they want to go online or play games, etc., they'll have to do it in the time frame before Windows needs to reboot or wait a certain time before connecting again, or purchase a key.
Rizon IRC Networks is the Astalavista Box of IRC. IRC itself is not the problem, and places like Dal Net or EfNet that are just too large for their own good cannot always stop problematic clients or channels. Rizon, though, prouds itself as a haven of warez, cracks and piracy of movies and music. Have a problem with someone distributing your software and bring it up with the admins, they will k-line you, not the traders.
To see how massive such an idea of illegality is, and probably how little people in law enforcement care about IRC, just see the server listing from Search IRC of currently linked servers on the network. It's frightening.
P.S. This message is provided as education, as I do not condone nor promote piracy or warez in any format.
I hope you didn't assume I meant all writers, just like I never said all legal professionals. But WordPerfect is more focused on these two niches than any other software package to date that I'm aware, that's currently on the shelves at CompUSA and other retailers.
I know writers who also use alternatives. Though none have been happy with OOo, none have been happy with Word, either. I'm glad you've found OOo to your liking.
I never said that writers don't write with OO.o, but I did said it has far to go before it's used by the profession itself as a whole.
(And as an aside, I use Hollywood Screenplay for screenplay and script writing, as it is far superior in markup than WordPerfect for these)
Besides the fact that WordPerfect's format has not changed since 6? And even now, with Version 12, you can still open WP 4.2 docs and save as 5.1?
Neverminding the other formats that are commonly popular.
I would hope that a book publisher would be using a typesetting program over a word processor for many of the steps. OOo integration for a copyeditor would be fine, but for the layout department? I'm curious what you would use for laying out the final and print the galleys?
Yeah... I got so good with 5.1 that I didn't even need that fuction-key placard to tell me what keys managed what functions.
Those were the good ol' days. I was hoping that the emulation of 5.1 would truly be a DOS text screen with the function menus on the bottom, but it just seems to be (from the screenshot) a color shift of a graphical window.
Hah! I knew someone would bring up the "Why should I pay for something when there's a perfectly good version for free!" argument on this.
I've used WordPerfect since version 4.x. I also use Linux (and Windows). I've tested many different word processing programs (and still do), including StarOffice and OpenOffice.org
WordPerfect will continue to be the word processing program for me because of many features that OO.o seems not to want to include.
Among them? A good Grammatik checker. Advanced typesetting features. Legal templates. Perfect listing of paper and label types purchasable from the store. Great print-as-booklet/double-sided printing. Advanced print-spooling functions (how do you want them to print? Set batches and WP does the rest).
The main problem with ALL other word processing programs is that typesetting. I haven't found one single program, free or proprietary, that has the ability for me to assign an advance-from that works, besides WordPerfect. And I believe they've been doing it since at least 6.
OpenOffice has NOT taken over. It's installed on nearly every distribution of desktop Linux, but it still pales in comparison to WordPerfect for both writers and legal professionals. Until it can come near WordPerfect in the above-mentioned abilities, it'll still be just a glorified vim to me.
And please, before you make statements that OO.o is taking over and giving MS Office a challenge, make sure it's fact and not your opinion. Where's the data that OO.o is in use enough to make a challenge soon for MS Office share?
No, entrapment is when law enforcement requests or forces you to do something for the purpose of catching you doing that, so as to arrest you.
It's perfectly legal for law enforcement to setup dummy outfits to catch criminals doing bad things. Stings for drug buys, murder-for-hire and prostitution are just some samples of perfectly legal operations to catch criminals.
How about, if you don't like the pricetag, don't buy it? Companies price them at what the market will bear. If they can't make a profit, they change price or try to make the products fit the price better.
Because it's too expensive is never a good reason to pirate, not that I'm accusing you. Just in general.
Ugh, thread after thread of the usual /. whining and pining about how copyright infringement isn't a "real crime".
Yes, the US is at war. However, saying that the FBI should be focusing on terrorists and not on catching serious acts of infringement is like saying cops shouldn't be pulling over speeding cars because there are rapists and murderers who still are on the loose.
Speeding is still a crime, and it *does* cause harm. Infringement is still a crime and it also does cause harm.
The FBI has plenty of men throughout the country. Raiding a school to seize computers will not disrupt their investigation of internal terrorist organizations. After all, they can't be searching internationally, since that would be the CIA's jurisdiction.