I'm going to have to slightly disagree about who makes the copy. Clearly both the uploader and downloader take part in the copy action. The uploader isn't giving free access to his computer to the downloaders; the downloaders are requesting specific subsections of the work to be downloaded. He is then reading off those bytes to the downloader who then writes those bytes down on his hard drive.
It'd be the equivalent of me reading Harry Potter to you and you writing it out while I read it to you. We were both active participants in the copying activity even if you're the one that put pen to paper since without me you wouldn't have been able to copy the book unless you came over and picked it off my bookshelf.
So let's say one person buys a single with a single song on it for $1. He then seeds it. 1/10th of that song is downloaded by each of ten individuals. However, he has since "made available" ten times and it was downloaded ten times, so the actual damages are then $10.
But wait. Each of those ten downloaders cross-polinated to nine other downloaders. So they all "made available" nine times and were downloaded from nine times, so the actual damages for each of them are $9.
So they all pay up.
The RIAA gets: $1 for the original sale. $10 for the original seeder making it available to others. 10 x $9 for the subsequent downloaders cross-trading the tenths of the song.
Total bill: $101 for 11 copies of a $1 song.
How is it that/one/ of the downloaders (Jammie Thomas) should be liable for 30 songs x 1000 individuals?
Agreed. We currently devote how many years to creating people with knowledge? What if instead of taking 22, 26, 35 or more years to gain the necessary knowledge and experience to start up in a field you spent 18 years maturing socially and two hours downloading 100 years of knowledge and experience?
They actually own a lot of things. They bought a website I used to frequent. Things didn't change much if at all from what I could tell after they bought it though.
It's the principle of the matter and it follows logically from the following axioms: 1. I will not purchase DRM'd content from Ubisoft because I refuse to support Ubisoft's DRM scheme. 2. I will not pirate games because studios see it as cause for ever more restrictive DRM.
Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, purchase or pirate Ubisoft games.
Though I agree that there may be a few games I'll buy if this actually happens.
paulproteus actually found exactly what I wanted. It's called CC+ -- it's a way of saying "this is CC under these terms and available under these types of alternate licenses." The part that I could not find was the explicit declaration that you're open to other licensing agreements. I didn't just want an implicit acceptance that anyone can offer an alternate licensing deal.
Yeah, I understand that you could always figure out alternate licensing terms with the author. I meant a flavor of NC that explicitly claims that the author is open to alternate licensing terms if this is NC is the only reason you couldn't use the asset.
CC should craft a NC flavor that says you don't want it used commercially in general but are willing to license for free under alternate terms. This would probably be enough to make Zynga skip it while still allowing indie-game-maker to pop you an email.
I don't think you quite understand the A/B testing system. You produce two samples at the same time, an A sample and a B sample. The A sample is put through a quick and crude test that should have a high false positive rate and a low false negative rate. If the A sample comes up positive then the B sample is put through a much more thorough (expensive) test that should have both a low false positive and false negative rate. Only if the B sample fails is it considered a "failed" test because the B sample is the only one that "proves" (within an accuracy threshold) you were doping. The A sample only narrows the field.
On the day of 9/11, in class, after we had the TVs wheeled into the classrooms and we were watching the newscasts one student actually said, "What if we're next?"
Slashdot Mirror
So make a Turing computer that acts as a Minecraft server, then emulate a 32-bit CPU on Minecraft on M:TG, then run Linux on Minecraft on M:TG...
I'm going to have to slightly disagree about who makes the copy. Clearly both the uploader and downloader take part in the copy action. The uploader isn't giving free access to his computer to the downloaders; the downloaders are requesting specific subsections of the work to be downloaded. He is then reading off those bytes to the downloader who then writes those bytes down on his hard drive.
It'd be the equivalent of me reading Harry Potter to you and you writing it out while I read it to you. We were both active participants in the copying activity even if you're the one that put pen to paper since without me you wouldn't have been able to copy the book unless you came over and picked it off my bookshelf.
So let's say one person buys a single with a single song on it for $1.
He then seeds it.
1/10th of that song is downloaded by each of ten individuals. However, he has since "made available" ten times and it was downloaded ten times, so the actual damages are then $10.
But wait. Each of those ten downloaders cross-polinated to nine other downloaders. So they all "made available" nine times and were downloaded from nine times, so the actual damages for each of them are $9.
So they all pay up.
The RIAA gets:
$1 for the original sale.
$10 for the original seeder making it available to others.
10 x $9 for the subsequent downloaders cross-trading the tenths of the song.
Total bill: $101 for 11 copies of a $1 song.
How is it that /one/ of the downloaders (Jammie Thomas) should be liable for 30 songs x 1000 individuals?
However every noob knows 2005 is more recent than 2000.
Unless it's 65 million B.C. "Why do the numbers keep getting smaller and smaller? I mean, what are we counting down for? What are we waiting for?"
Agreed. We currently devote how many years to creating people with knowledge? What if instead of taking 22, 26, 35 or more years to gain the necessary knowledge and experience to start up in a field you spent 18 years maturing socially and two hours downloading 100 years of knowledge and experience?
Removing tin foil hat now....
Only to find you were never wearing it in the first place!
Declaration ending with a period.
I wish I'd read this before commenting earlier. This is the other side of the proverbial coin it seems.
They actually own a lot of things. They bought a website I used to frequent. Things didn't change much if at all from what I could tell after they bought it though.
Sure, there are other reasons not to pirate games, obviously. I was just posting one that I feel gets the most traction with potential "pirates."
It's the principle of the matter and it follows logically from the following axioms:
1. I will not purchase DRM'd content from Ubisoft because I refuse to support Ubisoft's DRM scheme.
2. I will not pirate games because studios see it as cause for ever more restrictive DRM.
Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, purchase or pirate Ubisoft games.
Though I agree that there may be a few games I'll buy if this actually happens.
DRM free
to 5 devices with Apple
Methinks you don't quite understand the complaint.
Perhaps it includes the cost of the surgery and the $313 is net savings?
And it's thinking like this that keeps California in such debt. Honestly, people, does the statue have to be any taller than 57 ft?
paulproteus actually found exactly what I wanted. It's called CC+ -- it's a way of saying "this is CC under these terms and available under these types of alternate licenses." The part that I could not find was the explicit declaration that you're open to other licensing agreements. I didn't just want an implicit acceptance that anyone can offer an alternate licensing deal.
Well, there ya go. Someone mod this guy informative, this is exactly what I was talking about.
Yeah, I understand that you could always figure out alternate licensing terms with the author. I meant a flavor of NC that explicitly claims that the author is open to alternate licensing terms if this is NC is the only reason you couldn't use the asset.
CC should craft a NC flavor that says you don't want it used commercially in general but are willing to license for free under alternate terms. This would probably be enough to make Zynga skip it while still allowing indie-game-maker to pop you an email.
I don't think you quite understand the A/B testing system. You produce two samples at the same time, an A sample and a B sample. The A sample is put through a quick and crude test that should have a high false positive rate and a low false negative rate. If the A sample comes up positive then the B sample is put through a much more thorough (expensive) test that should have both a low false positive and false negative rate. Only if the B sample fails is it considered a "failed" test because the B sample is the only one that "proves" (within an accuracy threshold) you were doping. The A sample only narrows the field.
It would fall under "intimidating display" 'round these parts. Be safe and have fun though.
But it's an intentional /flaw/? I thought logos tried to introduce subconscious connections like the famous FedEx arrow?
I don't like the spacing between the f and t, aesthetically, but I like clean lines and simple designs so it works pretty well for me.
Nice. Can I ask what state? Here I think you could get a brandishing charge for that!
But did they refund them the cost of the hotel? Or compensate them for their lost time at all?
On the day of 9/11, in class, after we had the TVs wheeled into the classrooms and we were watching the newscasts one student actually said, "What if we're next?"