"Beats the heck out of everyone learning to be considerate of each others' property. What benefit would that have in real life? ~"
Seriously, moderated flaimbait? Now you've got to be kidding. Funny or insightful at least, come on meta mods, please catch this one if it's not fixed now.
Mod me down for off topic if you must but I'm actually willing to take a hit if it gets this parent back into the + The parent is a valid point about the topic.
A natural resouce doesn't need to be physical any longer. The children that start out learning to program their own laptops to do what they want can become valuable assets to a nation looking to improve itself. Combine that with a dose of pride and the technology will go to them. Offices will be built and companies will invest in their economy to use the services of the people that can do the job. I don't hesitate to say that they might rival our local programmers in this area since they aren't growing up with the constant bombardment that "we are the best" repetedly pushed in their faces. They might have a better work ethic and drive than another more prosperous nation. They just need the tools to be able to learn. After that it's the market that will decide, and the government that will open or close that door.
That is what alpha and beta testing is supposed to address. It's not unreasonable to expect that during the beta testing of a piece of software that they would try and make sure it was compatable with at least the software packages they sell.
And secondly, this is what happens when software isn't sectioned off from the os and contained with reasonable restrictions and documented APIs. This would be a really simple thing for them if they even stuck to their own standards. How would if break another application if they had communicated a set of standards to both departments on how to program properly. Or even built an OS that contained programs to a reasonable level and didn't always throw crap into the OS directory./rant
That is the sound of the smallest violin being transmitted in 6.1 ch dolby HD to every IP in america.
Seriously though, didn't we just get the report that we are in the top percentage of internet ready nations? Doesn't that mean that we "can do it" before it reaches the "I can't give it any more captn' she'll blow" stage?
Thanks for playing, you might want to actually read this time.
"Any company can buy out competition if the competition is willing to pay. So what? If group A wants to freely trade X amount of property that it rightly owns, to group B in exchange for Y compensation, what right does anyone have to stop them? On the same token, nobody has the right to stop group C from coming into existence and providing a competing service."
This is a non-point and I do not, and never have tried to argue it. The statements were:
1. ""How did it become a monopoly in the first place?" A1. They used valid legal practices and shrewd business planning like any other successfull company to grow market share. A2. They used the market share to leverage other competitors out of business, also legal and a regular business practice. A3. They were left the only company to choose in an area because of the startup costs to compete with such a large company that has the numbers on their side. They can charge people less and less if they want to. Since they have such a large market share they have so many customers their operating costs are exponentially low. Less per user.
2. "What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper?" A1. The existing company being able to undercut the competition from established recurring income. A2. The existing company already having recouped their startup costs (cables) and therefore having more available resources.
3. "So the monopoly is with the cable lines? And what stops another company from supplying their own lines - you guessed it, government regulation." A1. Again you use no actual facts or real logic to sustain your point. You just assume that you are correct. This is a logical fallacy since no actual connection is being made for your assumption of a direct connection between government regulation and the failure of a startup competing business. A2. If the monopoly is with the cable lines: the investment is so massive to deploy a competing system over a large enough area that the initial output of funds would take years to recoup at a minimum with an "average" monthly charge. The existing company that has already recouped that investment can lower their charges below the ability of the other company to pay back even their interest and still pay their employees to keep their system maintained. This is called the market entrance cost and is there in some form for most business models. This is what keeps most startups from competing with the big boys directly. If they are left alone and not seen as a threat they can flourish, but if they are targetted by the larger companies they can be pushed out of business because of the flexability of the large company to undercut their business temporarily so they cannot survive without further investments. Once they are gone the large company raises their rates again to recoup the losses and continues to leave them high since they are the only game in town again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So if you've enjoyed playing, cite your assinine assumptions about govt corruption or shut up. You're trying to argue that standard market forces don't exist, or don't effect things as much as some unknown government practice heretofore unseen to the business realm, and that it is conspiring to bring down small businesses with secret laws and actions you can't name. Please.
"I loved ridiculously ignorant statements like this."
So do I, and so I loved your post.
"How did it become a monopoly in the first place?" By buying out the competition. Ever read the history of the company?
"What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper?" The ones who own the copper/fiber and connections. They are trying to stop third party use of their lines as required by some laws. Laws that were put there by the Govt BTW. So your own answer is 180 degrees from true. "Answer - government intervention." Point it out. What exactly did the government do to interviene to stop an ISP startup, use citations or your homework will be discounted.
The rest of your statement is based on this logic and so is flawed. Therefore disregarded.
Regulation has its place, it is able to protect the people if used correctly and has been shown to do just that in the past. The big Bell breakup worked for a long time and you have some choices left even now. They've been whittled away for years but without them being broken up you would have had no choices. None, as they were too powerful in any market they wanted to have. They could undercut prices to drive out competition since they were large enough to take a temporary hit in any area. Then they could raise prices again when the threat had passed. I think you need to go read up on your economic history since it sounds like you didn't live through it (with your eyes open anyway).
This is actually a really good thing. Now every case that needs an example of the need for net neutrality can just point to this. It's like a precident present! All the BS about how it's not needed goes completely out the window since you can just point to this. So I for one say thanks and hope he tips the boat over for all the other ISPs out there that have lobbied and bribed their way out of this for so long. Now all those arguments that sounded like responses to chicken little are gonna get crushed by the tiered service "sky" falling.
Stating that this is standard legal stuff and then assuming that it has been around for 500 years kinda shows how little you know about what you speak up about.
An employee is only under the protection by the company if they do not voilate the company rules. Like if they go and break the law when the company says that they will obey the law in their handbook, which is why they say things like that in there. Google didn't tell them to go to a specific lat/lon, they were tasked to follow the public roads and cover as much ground as they could while doing so.
If this goes to court all google has to say is "we asked the drivers to do X Y and Z" and they did w instead. Without instructions do tresspass the drivers are left with their own decisions and subsequent consequences. If google is a regular company and had the drivers sign a form that states they read the employee handbook, and they put in the employee handbook some clause to the effect of "don't break the law." then they are legally in the clear. PR and emotional juries notwithstanding of course.
And to pre-empt any of you who have not read the article and feel the need to show off your knowledge just to argue:
FTA: "The fuses were manufactured for use on a Minuteman strategic nuclear missile and are linked to the triggering mechanism in the nose cone, but they contain no nuclear materials." it was also in the summary if you even got that far.
Also in the same article: "Four of the cone-shaped fuses were shipped to Taiwanese officials in fall 2006 instead of the helicopter batteries they had ordered."
These were not the "Nuclear Nose Cones" themselves but cone shaped fuses that are "linked" to the complex triggering system that makes up most of the nose cone volume. This is how CBS refers to them: "... four electrical fuses for nose cone assemblies for ICBMs" and if you take a second to look up the way these things work you will see that the majority of the system is not the fuses themselves but the triggering system.
The editor that put this blatant sensationalism on the front page should be exposed to radioactive material to get the point across that calling something "Nuclear Nose Cones" when refering to an electric firing pin is not journalism and has a better place in checkout stand tabloids.
No, you cite where entanglement id destroyed by any interaction with the universe. as in: " That means effectively in their own little world, not intereacting with the universe in any way."
For the proof of actual entanglement you have to interact with the pair in some way to test it. Which means that they must be effected by the universe to have any use or proof of existance. And for all I can remember tachions are the closest to non interactive as we've been able to imagine. If you were to actually read the article you are replying to you would already have known the answer to your question. Yes it can have an effect but FTA:
"But there are challenges in setting up a global system of quantum communication. Not least is the problem of decoherence, in which noise destroys the quantum nature of the information as it travels though the atmosphere. This has limited the distance record for this kind of transmission to 144km (although longer distances are possible through optical fibres)."
If you had also read many books on the subject you would have known that there are many detectable states of the transmitted particle that are not easily changed by passing interactions like scattering and lease of all reflection. Go do your homework before stating basic misconceptions.
"You need the photons to be "entangled". That means effectively in their own little world, not intereacting with the universe in any way."
What are you smoking? Where did you get that definition of entanglement? Read up on the topic. Pay special attention to the "faster than light discussion" parts to see why they need to send the photon.
Is this supposed to be over thinking or thinking without knowledge of how others socially percieve you?
It could be done either way, making yourself look stupidly guilty to throw off the scent (aka movie plot #6) or a real personality issue that is so stereotyped that we now have at least one major box office movie and major tv sitcom dedicated to it.
I'm not saying it's right, but these arguments are rather dubious:
A: It's theft. The theif gets something they want and they value it, yet do not pay. By that logic, me reading Slashdot is theft, because I get something I want, I value it, yet I do not pay. Clearly there is more to something being "theft". Your argument is a logical fallacy - just because something shares some properties with something else does not make it the same as that thing.
Denying that slashdot is free in the first place to compare it to something that you have no right to own unless you purchase it is stretching things a bit to make your point. I was trying to be short for the shallow thinkers out there but I admit that I shortened that one a bit too much. How about "they value it and it is sold not free" instead to clear that one up?
The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal. It is in the UK at least. OTOH there are some countries where downloading is not illegal, I believe.
Got me on that one since I didn't know that about the UK.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was.
This is hardly proof, because it is countered by people "at least once" claiming that they went on to buy things after downloading.
Uh, paying for something after stealing it is not right and childish logic at best. That's what the radio and samples on legal download sites are for. So no. Purchasing it after is not really an issue in this case since they still have to download it in the first place so they have to know that they might want it to search for it and they could just as easily preview the song legitimatly.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft. It's not theft because it's copyright infringment. Simple as that. That doesn't make it right, but I don't understand why people insist on conflating different laws - if copyright infringement is so bad, shouldn't it be sufficient to call it that, rather than pretending it's something else?
Would it be copyright infringement if someone broke into your computer and copied your personal pictures to put online and share with whoever wanted them without your permission?
Now what if you were a professional photographer? What if you developed training slideshows as your main source of income? Copyright infringement wasn't developed to stop direct theft it was to stop misuse of another competing product. The roots are getting in the way of the basic concept of theft. you do not own the song, you want the song and have the option to pay for it. You choose not to and download the song without paying the artist who created it. For any physical good this would be theft, just because it is in the form of data shouldn't change the mindset of the people breaking the moral compas to get what they want. And just a side note, why do they call it identity theft if all they steal is information? Isn't the act of impersonating fraud? Isn't tha act of buying under another persons name covered in other laws? The actual theft of identity can be done with nothing more than bits and bytes, how is this really different? The only "effort" involved is using the dictionary, or having basic knowledge of language and legal terms. I find it worrying if this is now viewed as too much "effort".
I agree, theft is theft - and copyright infringement is copyright infringment.
These are the analogies that hurt filesharing. They make no actual effort to understand the real association. Just because something actually free is similar to something you are getting for free does not make them the same.
Theft as defined by webster: 1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property.
So the argument about wether it is actual property is up for grabs at this point but I'm pretty sure that you'd define your OS and all the work you've put into it with software and settings and files and so forth as yours. This is all digital bits and bytes and just as imaginary as the data in an mp3 but you've put work into it and if I downloaded it from your computer without your permission you'd be upset about it. Especially if you had the intent to sell the software you'd written or a report you'd created or some, I don't know, song you had recorded. If you are the creator or distributor of something ov value and you are selling it, and people take that right away from you and give it away for free you are the victim of theft. You have copied property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of the rights to that property. With all of the GPL violation news out there I'd think that people who read slashdot would get at least that point.
A: It's theft. The theif gets something they want and they value it, yet do not pay. B: There are widely known methods to aquire the exact same or better object. (ripping to lossless from CD for example) But there is both the cost to leagally aquire the original and the time converting it to consider. C: The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal. Yet filesharing or "Making available" is much more obviously in that area.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was. 2: These lost sales are in no way a direct representation of actual lost dollar amounts since the choice is between free and not free, DRM'd and non DRM format. Not authorized vs identical bootleg at the same cost. 3: There must be some damage to the seller if the product is being downloaded and no monetary compensation for the production of the good is received.
This whole argument about the definition of theft is manufactured just as much as the amounts being claimed lost due to piracy by the other side.
Thery're both wrong and need to get over themselves and admit what we all know. It's theft, but not of the things that they are trying to sell us. The two are not equal.
It doesn't cost the same to manufacture and ship a CD as it does in bandwidth to download a set of 13 songs. The price/ea of other objects goes down when the number produced goes up but with CDs and downloads the price remains the same. If they sell 1 million CDs they make a certain amount of money, they make more than double if they sell 2 million because of reduces retooling and shipping discounts alone. If they sell 1 million downloads they make a certain amount. If they sell 2 million they make more than double that because of les web delevopment and bandwidth discounts. Yet we see absolutely no effort by the labels to reduce the price per song that we pay and instead see them trying to reduce the amount paid to the artists that actually make the content that they are selling. They are the most horrible group of middle men around.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft. Since no money leaves their pockets and they get something that they would normally have to pay for, it's an effort not to equate that with stealing. The same people would have a hard time justifying to a friend that they downloaded their software or song without paying for it (if it weren't GPL or CC licensed). Just because a big corporation is running the show the facts don't change. Theft is theft. If you want it and can get it legally and choose not to, you're a theif. You are making the *AA look good in comparison by not admitting it.
Uh, it doesn't have to be with a person that knows who you are. How many times have you talked with a person that didn't know your name or could't identify you? So these wiretappinhg issues are also about the right to privacy when you wish the privacy te remain intact. Calling to find out when a certain church is open, calling to ask the location of a certain bookstore, adult vieo rental store, or any other general information conversation can be logged with very real weight but the second person doesn't have the same need for privacy in these cases since they are tied to the location in other fashions. the wiretapping issue completely dissolves the privacy of phone conversations unless there are stopgaps in place to prohibit the misuse of data collection. Namely warrants and limitation scopes of information retrieved. That's why they were put there in the first place. So that people in the future wouldn't abuse the access to this type of information, not so that they could do an end run around the constitutional rights of the citizens and bypass the checks and ballances. The "it makes it harder" line is BS since making it easy isn't the only goal. We're protecting our way of life as well as our lives here. So to all those who claim patriotism without knowing what it means to sacrifice ease of safety for peace of moral mind, go look up the history from where we came and what we've been through to get the rights that are being stripped from us.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
That's because fear is the only thing that will always lead us to hurt ourselves while we are under its control. The fear of dying will strip us of our rights to live. The threat of anonymous terrorists will allow the domestic terrorists we elected to weild impending doom over our heads and threaten us with more attacks unless we bow to the demands to give them more power. If we do not obey or question that power we are labled enemy combatants and no longer have the rights we were afforded as citizens and we are then shipped away to where the remaining laws we haven't lost cannot even protect us. Torture by any other name, and terror by any guise are both using fear to conquor the will. And we are letting it happen./rant (got a little carried away there)
It's special because of two things, the history of the name and the goal of the product. DVD Jon is creating a friendly all encompasing media bridge between online media, local collections and portable devices that "your parents could use" according to the article. This means mass adoption if it works and doesn't get legally raped.
Preventing the resale is one thing, direct access to a market is unprecidented. Since scientology doesn't actually own these devices any longer and ebay has given then direct access to removing these devices from private sale this is definatly a step over the line.
Imagine if the makers of the other products out there followed suit. You would not be able to purchase second hand goods. Only directly from the original outlet. Kinda stifles the economy since the majority of vehicles out there are purchased as used items. Just one example but it would have a very bad impact if this method of controlling profit spreads.
Slashdot Mirror
"Beats the heck out of everyone learning to be considerate of each others' property. What benefit would that have in real life? ~"
Seriously, moderated flaimbait? Now you've got to be kidding. Funny or insightful at least, come on meta mods, please catch this one if it's not fixed now.
Mod me down for off topic if you must but I'm actually willing to take a hit if it gets this parent back into the +
The parent is a valid point about the topic.
A natural resouce doesn't need to be physical any longer. The children that start out learning to program their own laptops to do what they want can become valuable assets to a nation looking to improve itself. Combine that with a dose of pride and the technology will go to them. Offices will be built and companies will invest in their economy to use the services of the people that can do the job. I don't hesitate to say that they might rival our local programmers in this area since they aren't growing up with the constant bombardment that "we are the best" repetedly pushed in their faces. They might have a better work ethic and drive than another more prosperous nation. They just need the tools to be able to learn. After that it's the market that will decide, and the government that will open or close that door.
Use the italics tag much?
Here here!!!
That is what alpha and beta testing is supposed to address. It's not unreasonable to expect that during the beta testing of a piece of software that they would try and make sure it was compatable with at least the software packages they sell.
/rant
And secondly, this is what happens when software isn't sectioned off from the os and contained with reasonable restrictions and documented APIs. This would be a really simple thing for them if they even stuck to their own standards. How would if break another application if they had communicated a set of standards to both departments on how to program properly. Or even built an OS that contained programs to a reasonable level and didn't always throw crap into the OS directory.
That is the sound of the smallest violin being transmitted in 6.1 ch dolby HD to every IP in america.
Seriously though, didn't we just get the report that we are in the top percentage of internet ready nations? Doesn't that mean that we "can do it" before it reaches the "I can't give it any more captn' she'll blow" stage?
Thanks for playing, you might want to actually read this time.
"Any company can buy out competition if the competition is willing to pay. So what? If group A wants to freely trade X amount of property that it rightly owns, to group B in exchange for Y compensation, what right does anyone have to stop them? On the same token, nobody has the right to stop group C from coming into existence and providing a competing service."
This is a non-point and I do not, and never have tried to argue it. The statements were:
1. ""How did it become a monopoly in the first place?"
A1. They used valid legal practices and shrewd business planning like any other successfull company to grow market share.
A2. They used the market share to leverage other competitors out of business, also legal and a regular business practice.
A3. They were left the only company to choose in an area because of the startup costs to compete with such a large company that has the numbers on their side. They can charge people less and less if they want to. Since they have such a large market share they have so many customers their operating costs are exponentially low. Less per user.
2. "What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper?"
A1. The existing company being able to undercut the competition from established recurring income.
A2. The existing company already having recouped their startup costs (cables) and therefore having more available resources.
3. "So the monopoly is with the cable lines? And what stops another company from supplying their own lines - you guessed it, government regulation."
A1. Again you use no actual facts or real logic to sustain your point. You just assume that you are correct. This is a logical fallacy since no actual connection is being made for your assumption of a direct connection between government regulation and the failure of a startup competing business.
A2. If the monopoly is with the cable lines: the investment is so massive to deploy a competing system over a large enough area that the initial output of funds would take years to recoup at a minimum with an "average" monthly charge. The existing company that has already recouped that investment can lower their charges below the ability of the other company to pay back even their interest and still pay their employees to keep their system maintained. This is called the market entrance cost and is there in some form for most business models. This is what keeps most startups from competing with the big boys directly. If they are left alone and not seen as a threat they can flourish, but if they are targetted by the larger companies they can be pushed out of business because of the flexability of the large company to undercut their business temporarily so they cannot survive without further investments. Once they are gone the large company raises their rates again to recoup the losses and continues to leave them high since they are the only game in town again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So if you've enjoyed playing, cite your assinine assumptions about govt corruption or shut up. You're trying to argue that standard market forces don't exist, or don't effect things as much as some unknown government practice heretofore unseen to the business realm, and that it is conspiring to bring down small businesses with secret laws and actions you can't name. Please.
"I loved ridiculously ignorant statements like this."
So do I, and so I loved your post.
"How did it become a monopoly in the first place?"
By buying out the competition. Ever read the history of the company?
"What stops another company from springing up to provide cable internet services for cheaper?"
The ones who own the copper/fiber and connections. They are trying to stop third party use of their lines as required by some laws. Laws that were put there by the Govt BTW.
So your own answer is 180 degrees from true. "Answer - government intervention." Point it out. What exactly did the government do to interviene to stop an ISP startup, use citations or your homework will be discounted.
The rest of your statement is based on this logic and so is flawed. Therefore disregarded.
Regulation has its place, it is able to protect the people if used correctly and has been shown to do just that in the past. The big Bell breakup worked for a long time and you have some choices left even now. They've been whittled away for years but without them being broken up you would have had no choices. None, as they were too powerful in any market they wanted to have. They could undercut prices to drive out competition since they were large enough to take a temporary hit in any area. Then they could raise prices again when the threat had passed. I think you need to go read up on your economic history since it sounds like you didn't live through it (with your eyes open anyway).
This is actually a really good thing. Now every case that needs an example of the need for net neutrality can just point to this. It's like a precident present! All the BS about how it's not needed goes completely out the window since you can just point to this. So I for one say thanks and hope he tips the boat over for all the other ISPs out there that have lobbied and bribed their way out of this for so long. Now all those arguments that sounded like responses to chicken little are gonna get crushed by the tiered service "sky" falling.
Stating that this is standard legal stuff and then assuming that it has been around for 500 years kinda shows how little you know about what you speak up about.
An employee is only under the protection by the company if they do not voilate the company rules. Like if they go and break the law when the company says that they will obey the law in their handbook, which is why they say things like that in there. Google didn't tell them to go to a specific lat/lon, they were tasked to follow the public roads and cover as much ground as they could while doing so.
If this goes to court all google has to say is "we asked the drivers to do X Y and Z" and they did w instead. Without instructions do tresspass the drivers are left with their own decisions and subsequent consequences. If google is a regular company and had the drivers sign a form that states they read the employee handbook, and they put in the employee handbook some clause to the effect of "don't break the law." then they are legally in the clear. PR and emotional juries notwithstanding of course.
We are El Asso WIPO and we will break fair use like SO, With our knee?
How many mini projectors will have to "be comming soon" to get the editors to stop posting these stories?
And to pre-empt any of you who have not read the article and feel the need to show off your knowledge just to argue:
FTA:
"The fuses were manufactured for use on a Minuteman strategic nuclear missile and are linked to the triggering mechanism in the nose cone, but they contain no nuclear materials."
it was also in the summary if you even got that far.
Also in the same article:
"Four of the cone-shaped fuses were shipped to Taiwanese officials in fall 2006 instead of the helicopter batteries they had ordered."
These were not the "Nuclear Nose Cones" themselves but cone shaped fuses that are "linked" to the complex triggering system that makes up most of the nose cone volume. This is how CBS refers to them: "... four electrical fuses for nose cone assemblies for ICBMs" and if you take a second to look up the way these things work you will see that the majority of the system is not the fuses themselves but the triggering system.
Completely misleading title
The editor that put this blatant sensationalism on the front page should be exposed to radioactive material to get the point across that calling something "Nuclear Nose Cones" when refering to an electric firing pin is not journalism and has a better place in checkout stand tabloids.
No, you cite where entanglement id destroyed by any interaction with the universe. as in:
" That means effectively in their own little world, not intereacting with the universe in any way."
For the proof of actual entanglement you have to interact with the pair in some way to test it. Which means that they must be effected by the universe to have any use or proof of existance. And for all I can remember tachions are the closest to non interactive as we've been able to imagine. If you were to actually read the article you are replying to you would already have known the answer to your question. Yes it can have an effect but FTA:
"But there are challenges in setting up a global system of quantum communication. Not least is the problem of decoherence, in which noise destroys the quantum nature of the information as it travels though the atmosphere. This has limited the distance record for this kind of transmission to 144km (although longer distances are possible through optical fibres)."
If you had also read many books on the subject you would have known that there are many detectable states of the transmitted particle that are not easily changed by passing interactions like scattering and lease of all reflection. Go do your homework before stating basic misconceptions.
"You need the photons to be "entangled". That means effectively in their own little world, not intereacting with the universe in any way."
What are you smoking? Where did you get that definition of entanglement?
Read up on the topic.
Pay special attention to the "faster than light discussion" parts to see why they need to send the photon.
Dude, seriously?
FTA:
"After installing the packages, I had to reboot my computer to get the Tux software daemons to start."
Dude you missed:
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
Is this supposed to be over thinking or thinking without knowledge of how others socially percieve you?
It could be done either way, making yourself look stupidly guilty to throw off the scent (aka movie plot #6) or a real personality issue that is so stereotyped that we now have at least one major box office movie and major tv sitcom dedicated to it.
I'm not saying it's right, but these arguments are rather dubious:
A: It's theft. The theif gets something they want and they value it, yet do not pay.
By that logic, me reading Slashdot is theft, because I get something I want, I value it, yet I do not pay. Clearly there is more to something being "theft". Your argument is a logical fallacy - just because something shares some properties with something else does not make it the same as that thing.
Denying that slashdot is free in the first place to compare it to something that you have no right to own unless you purchase it is stretching things a bit to make your point. I was trying to be short for the shallow thinkers out there but I admit that I shortened that one a bit too much. How about "they value it and it is sold not free" instead to clear that one up?
The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal.
It is in the UK at least. OTOH there are some countries where downloading is not illegal, I believe.
Got me on that one since I didn't know that about the UK.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was.
This is hardly proof, because it is countered by people "at least once" claiming that they went on to buy things after downloading.
Uh, paying for something after stealing it is not right and childish logic at best. That's what the radio and samples on legal download sites are for. So no. Purchasing it after is not really an issue in this case since they still have to download it in the first place so they have to know that they might want it to search for it and they could just as easily preview the song legitimatly.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft.
It's not theft because it's copyright infringment. Simple as that. That doesn't make it right, but I don't understand why people insist on conflating different laws - if copyright infringement is so bad, shouldn't it be sufficient to call it that, rather than pretending it's something else?
Would it be copyright infringement if someone broke into your computer and copied your personal pictures to put online and share with whoever wanted them without your permission?
Now what if you were a professional photographer? What if you developed training slideshows as your main source of income? Copyright infringement wasn't developed to stop direct theft it was to stop misuse of another competing product. The roots are getting in the way of the basic concept of theft. you do not own the song, you want the song and have the option to pay for it. You choose not to and download the song without paying the artist who created it. For any physical good this would be theft, just because it is in the form of data shouldn't change the mindset of the people breaking the moral compas to get what they want. And just a side note, why do they call it identity theft if all they steal is information? Isn't the act of impersonating fraud? Isn't tha act of buying under another persons name covered in other laws? The actual theft of identity can be done with nothing more than bits and bytes, how is this really different?
The only "effort" involved is using the dictionary, or having basic knowledge of language and legal terms. I find it worrying if this is now viewed as too much "effort".
I agree, theft is theft - and copyright infringement is copyright infringment.
These are the analogies that hurt filesharing. They make no actual effort to understand the real association. Just because something actually free is similar to something you are getting for free does not make them the same.
Theft as defined by webster:
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property.
So the argument about wether it is actual property is up for grabs at this point but I'm pretty sure that you'd define your OS and all the work you've put into it with software and settings and files and so forth as yours. This is all digital bits and bytes and just as imaginary as the data in an mp3 but you've put work into it and if I downloaded it from your computer without your permission you'd be upset about it. Especially if you had the intent to sell the software you'd written or a report you'd created or some, I don't know, song you had recorded. If you are the creator or distributor of something ov value and you are selling it, and people take that right away from you and give it away for free you are the victim of theft. You have copied property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of the rights to that property. With all of the GPL violation news out there I'd think that people who read slashdot would get at least that point.
A: It's theft. The theif gets something they want and they value it, yet do not pay.
B: There are widely known methods to aquire the exact same or better object. (ripping to lossless from CD for example) But there is both the cost to leagally aquire the original and the time converting it to consider.
C: The major excuse "there isn't a legal alternative" is lost by point B. since ripping for ones own personal use has not been solidly confirmed as illegal. Yet filesharing or "Making available" is much more obviously in that area.
1: The content developers/distributors lose sales since the people downloading have at least once claimed in court under oath that they didn't think it was illegal and would have purchased the cd if they thought it was.
2: These lost sales are in no way a direct representation of actual lost dollar amounts since the choice is between free and not free, DRM'd and non DRM format. Not authorized vs identical bootleg at the same cost.
3: There must be some damage to the seller if the product is being downloaded and no monetary compensation for the production of the good is received.
This whole argument about the definition of theft is manufactured just as much as the amounts being claimed lost due to piracy by the other side.
Thery're both wrong and need to get over themselves and admit what we all know.
It's theft, but not of the things that they are trying to sell us. The two are not equal.
It doesn't cost the same to manufacture and ship a CD as it does in bandwidth to download a set of 13 songs. The price/ea of other objects goes down when the number produced goes up but with CDs and downloads the price remains the same. If they sell 1 million CDs they make a certain amount of money, they make more than double if they sell 2 million because of reduces retooling and shipping discounts alone. If they sell 1 million downloads they make a certain amount. If they sell 2 million they make more than double that because of les web delevopment and bandwidth discounts. Yet we see absolutely no effort by the labels to reduce the price per song that we pay and instead see them trying to reduce the amount paid to the artists that actually make the content that they are selling. They are the most horrible group of middle men around.
The users that download the songs must activly be searching for ways not think of it as theft. Since no money leaves their pockets and they get something that they would normally have to pay for, it's an effort not to equate that with stealing. The same people would have a hard time justifying to a friend that they downloaded their software or song without paying for it (if it weren't GPL or CC licensed). Just because a big corporation is running the show the facts don't change. Theft is theft. If you want it and can get it legally and choose not to, you're a theif. You are making the *AA look good in comparison by not admitting it.
Uh, it doesn't have to be with a person that knows who you are. How many times have you talked with a person that didn't know your name or could't identify you? So these wiretappinhg issues are also about the right to privacy when you wish the privacy te remain intact. Calling to find out when a certain church is open, calling to ask the location of a certain bookstore, adult vieo rental store, or any other general information conversation can be logged with very real weight but the second person doesn't have the same need for privacy in these cases since they are tied to the location in other fashions. the wiretapping issue completely dissolves the privacy of phone conversations unless there are stopgaps in place to prohibit the misuse of data collection. Namely warrants and limitation scopes of information retrieved. That's why they were put there in the first place. So that people in the future wouldn't abuse the access to this type of information, not so that they could do an end run around the constitutional rights of the citizens and bypass the checks and ballances. The "it makes it harder" line is BS since making it easy isn't the only goal. We're protecting our way of life as well as our lives here. So to all those who claim patriotism without knowing what it means to sacrifice ease of safety for peace of moral mind, go look up the history from where we came and what we've been through to get the rights that are being stripped from us.
/rant (got a little carried away there)
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
That's because fear is the only thing that will always lead us to hurt ourselves while we are under its control. The fear of dying will strip us of our rights to live. The threat of anonymous terrorists will allow the domestic terrorists we elected to weild impending doom over our heads and threaten us with more attacks unless we bow to the demands to give them more power. If we do not obey or question that power we are labled enemy combatants and no longer have the rights we were afforded as citizens and we are then shipped away to where the remaining laws we haven't lost cannot even protect us. Torture by any other name, and terror by any guise are both using fear to conquor the will. And we are letting it happen.
It's special because of two things, the history of the name and the goal of the product. DVD Jon is creating a friendly all encompasing media bridge between online media, local collections and portable devices that "your parents could use" according to the article. This means mass adoption if it works and doesn't get legally raped.
Preventing the resale is one thing, direct access to a market is unprecidented. Since scientology doesn't actually own these devices any longer and ebay has given then direct access to removing these devices from private sale this is definatly a step over the line.
Imagine if the makers of the other products out there followed suit. You would not be able to purchase second hand goods. Only directly from the original outlet. Kinda stifles the economy since the majority of vehicles out there are purchased as used items. Just one example but it would have a very bad impact if this method of controlling profit spreads.