Unless, of course, the re-wiring job resulted in overheat and a fire killing people. But, that is just crazy talk, right?
Here, let me make your post more clear:
Yes, I think only the laws I don't like should be repealed, because I know so much more than everyone else. It shouldn't matter that I am a self-serving asshole.
While that is a possible use, I am not sure it could be argued that it was a common use. And, all it would take would be for the prosecution to show that the one of the consoles was not used for that, or even that the consoles were used to play pirated games.
The exercise is to demonstrate an actual, legal use for the modifications. If there is no legal use for the modifications, then by making the modifications one is being an accessory to a crime before the fact.
Once modified, the consoles are used. Under your own examples, once modified there is no legal use.
If the beverage companies got a law passed so that no one could re-use their bottles would you find that law valid?
That is not a comparable law. Not even close. No one is re-using anything in the current example. Someone is modifying, for profit, systems to allow them to play pirated games. That is against the law and is in furtherance of other crimes. Refilling bottles one owns for one's own use involves no modification, no profit, and does not further other crimes. Refilling bottles one owns and then selling those bottles as containing the original contents is against the law. Refilling the bottles one owns and then selling those bottles as containing what one has put in is not necessarily illegal, assuming one is following applicable laws. Taking a bottle one owns and turning it into a bong or pipe for smoking marijuana and then selling it as such is against the law.
So, you solution to people breaking the law is to do away with the law. What an interesting suggestion. What laws should we do away with? Just the ones you don't like? Or should we include the ones I don't like as well?
Of course, getting rid of the ones I don't like could very well be fatal to you.
That statement does not pertain specifically to mod chips or software, but is a general statement about such goods.
Hardware, batteries, etc that are counterfeit can and have caused injury and death. Counterfeit medicine, vitamins, and supplements have caused sickness and death. Counterfeit toys and children's clothing contain dangerous chemicals, lead based paint, are missing flame retardants, or are made of flammable material.
Damn straight! And if someone wants to remove the catalytic converter and muffler from his car, that should be legal too! Fuck the environment and the neighbors!
And, if someone wants to roll back an odometer, that should be legal. Caveat emptor, baby.
And, if someone wants to remove the seat belts in his car. Who cares if he and/or his passengers die?
Fuck all these laws that control how we use stuff we own!
She was a C student. That means there are plenty of A and B students vying for the same jobs she is. Who are you going to hire: the git who did a half-assed job getting her degree with a C average or the person who worked hard to get his or her degree with an A average? Which one do you think will work harder and be a better employee?
While we are at it, what has she done to get a job? Is she acting like most spoiled brats with an entitlement mentality, applying for jobs she is not qualified for and expecting to get same because she wants the job? A degree and a few years of experience is more valuable than just a degree, especially a degree earned with a 2.7 GPA. In fact, a lot of experience is often more valuable than a 2.7 GPA degree.
That fact is that this pathetic excuse for a human being is blaming the college and it's placement assistance office because companies are more interested in graduates who have high GPAs rather than her with her half-assed 2.7 GPA.
I have suddenly realized you are a fucking moron. This is obvious now that you have said someone elses work, effort, speech is your to do with as you will because it is your speech.
That was your logic now cough up the info or admit you are lying hypocrite.
But, you would still be compensating the owner of the sandwich. You just wouldn't be paying what the owner wanted. No one is the worse off. The owner is compensated and you have the sandwich.
Apparently, you think it is OK to deprive someone of their legally granted rights. That, or you don't believe in legally granted rights. Which is it?
If a song is on sale for $1, which I think is too much, and I decide not to download it for free, no one benefits from that decision. I'm worse off because I'm not listening to the song (which I might value at 50 cents), and the artist and record label are exactly in the same place -- they're not getting my money either way.
You have assigned a value, and then deprived the copyright holder of that value. There goes that "not depriving anyone".
Rationally, there's no reason I should go without the song rather than downloading it for free, other than the negligible legal risk.
So, doing the right thing is not enough of a reason. More proof you are an asshole. Do you think you deserve to have access to the song because it is available and that you should not have to pay for the privilege of being able to listen to it? Do you think you have some right to it? Do you think you wants somehow negates the copyright owner's legal rights?
The copyright holder is not involved in private acts of copying. Nothing is imposed on him; he isn't even aware the transaction is going on.
By definition, the copyright holder has the right to control the copying of the work. By making a copy without the copyright holder's permission, you have imposed your will on him and denied him his legally granted right to control the copying of his work
You have agreed that I have the right to impose your logic on you. Therefore, you are to give me everything you own for exactly US$1.00. Tell me where I can pick it up and I will bring you your US$1.00.
As we both know, millions of people feel that law is illegitimate and don't hesitate to break it. Go ahead, keep expecting people to restrict their own speech just to put money in your pocket; see how well that works out for you.
Since when is MY WORK your speech? It is not YOUR SPEECH. Get that through your ignorant fucking skull.
Now, post your name and address. I am going to come pick up what is soon to be my stuff.
Please provide a non-biased source for the usage statistics. You may also include the a summary of the statistics. Remember, in your usage, average means it is in line with all other items.
So, the fact one does not need to make as many printouts abrogates the need for a good text processor. I see. That is like saying "Because I live within walking distance to work and walk to work, I don't need a car. At all. Ever."
Does that mean you would take the sandwich without paying or just paying what you thought was appropriate instead of the price put on by the owner? Are you going to impose upon the lawful owner of something the price you prefer instead of what he prefers simply because you don't agree? Shall we apply your logic to what YOU own?
Are you enough of an adult to accept that just because you wrote a song, you don't get to stop other people from repeating it?
Actually, thanks to copyright law, I have that right. Or, did you forget about the law? Are you done making an ignorant ass out of yourself?
But, that is not what he was asked, was it, Ray? You, a lawyer, should know that, but you want to spin it.
What was actually said? Let's take a look:
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum..
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" is not asking "Are you liable", it is asking "Are you doing what you seem to be doing". Completely different questions and you should know that. The fun part comes in that dumbass could have answered "No, I am not saying that".
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, he wouldn't be fired.
He would just choke on his own vomit.
Unless, of course, the re-wiring job resulted in overheat and a fire killing people. But, that is just crazy talk, right?
Here, let me make your post more clear:
But, there would be no penalty for removing that function with modification chips, ergo a law to prevent such modification.
Thanks. I am not sure how that would play though.
While that is a possible use, I am not sure it could be argued that it was a common use. And, all it would take would be for the prosecution to show that the one of the consoles was not used for that, or even that the consoles were used to play pirated games.
The exercise is to demonstrate an actual, legal use for the modifications. If there is no legal use for the modifications, then by making the modifications one is being an accessory to a crime before the fact.
Once modified, the consoles are used. Under your own examples, once modified there is no legal use.
That is not a comparable law. Not even close. No one is re-using anything in the current example. Someone is modifying, for profit, systems to allow them to play pirated games. That is against the law and is in furtherance of other crimes. Refilling bottles one owns for one's own use involves no modification, no profit, and does not further other crimes. Refilling bottles one owns and then selling those bottles as containing the original contents is against the law. Refilling the bottles one owns and then selling those bottles as containing what one has put in is not necessarily illegal, assuming one is following applicable laws. Taking a bottle one owns and turning it into a bong or pipe for smoking marijuana and then selling it as such is against the law.
Thanks for playing, you lose
No, I am not arguing that. By stating that, you are attempting to change the discussion which means you lose. Have a nice day, dumbass.
So, you solution to people breaking the law is to do away with the law. What an interesting suggestion. What laws should we do away with? Just the ones you don't like? Or should we include the ones I don't like as well?
Of course, getting rid of the ones I don't like could very well be fatal to you.
That statement does not pertain specifically to mod chips or software, but is a general statement about such goods.
Hardware, batteries, etc that are counterfeit can and have caused injury and death.
Counterfeit medicine, vitamins, and supplements have caused sickness and death.
Counterfeit toys and children's clothing contain dangerous chemicals, lead based paint, are missing flame retardants, or are made of flammable material.
Damn straight! And if someone wants to remove the catalytic converter and muffler from his car, that should be legal too! Fuck the environment and the neighbors!
And, if someone wants to roll back an odometer, that should be legal. Caveat emptor, baby.
And, if someone wants to remove the seat belts in his car. Who cares if he and/or his passengers die?
Fuck all these laws that control how we use stuff we own!
[/sarcasm]
Please provide a list of, preferably all, the games that are not signed by the vendor.
She was a C student. That means there are plenty of A and B students vying for the same jobs she is. Who are you going to hire: the git who did a half-assed job getting her degree with a C average or the person who worked hard to get his or her degree with an A average? Which one do you think will work harder and be a better employee?
While we are at it, what has she done to get a job? Is she acting like most spoiled brats with an entitlement mentality, applying for jobs she is not qualified for and expecting to get same because she wants the job? A degree and a few years of experience is more valuable than just a degree, especially a degree earned with a 2.7 GPA. In fact, a lot of experience is often more valuable than a 2.7 GPA degree.
That fact is that this pathetic excuse for a human being is blaming the college and it's placement assistance office because companies are more interested in graduates who have high GPAs rather than her with her half-assed 2.7 GPA.
I have suddenly realized you are a fucking moron. This is obvious now that you have said someone elses work, effort, speech is your to do with as you will because it is your speech.
That was your logic now cough up the info or admit you are lying hypocrite.
Funny, that has never happened to me.
But, you would still be compensating the owner of the sandwich. You just wouldn't be paying what the owner wanted. No one is the worse off. The owner is compensated and you have the sandwich.
Apparently, you think it is OK to deprive someone of their legally granted rights. That, or you don't believe in legally granted rights. Which is it?
You have assigned a value, and then deprived the copyright holder of that value. There goes that "not depriving anyone".
So, doing the right thing is not enough of a reason. More proof you are an asshole. Do you think you deserve to have access to the song because it is available and that you should not have to pay for the privilege of being able to listen to it? Do you think you have some right to it? Do you think you wants somehow negates the copyright owner's legal rights?
By definition, the copyright holder has the right to control the copying of the work. By making a copy without the copyright holder's permission, you have imposed your will on him and denied him his legally granted right to control the copying of his work
You have agreed that I have the right to impose your logic on you. Therefore, you are to give me everything you own for exactly US$1.00. Tell me where I can pick it up and I will bring you your US$1.00.
Since when is MY WORK your speech? It is not YOUR SPEECH. Get that through your ignorant fucking skull.
Now, post your name and address. I am going to come pick up what is soon to be my stuff.
Except for the blazing heat; the frequent, heavy thunderstorms; and the deadly traffic. I live in one of the worst locations for riding a bike.
Please provide a non-biased source for the usage statistics. You may also include the a summary of the statistics. Remember, in your usage, average means it is in line with all other items.
Are you saying that Word is not a good text processor?
If so, would you care to support that assertion?
Yes, I can make that 5 mile journey to store on horse back. Oh, use the bus you say? And, walk 4 miles to the closest stop? No thanks.
So, the fact one does not need to make as many printouts abrogates the need for a good text processor. I see. That is like saying "Because I live within walking distance to work and walk to work, I don't need a car. At all. Ever."
I knew you would resort to that because you know I am right. You know that you are misrepresenting the facts. What do that call that, Ray?
Does that mean you would take the sandwich without paying or just paying what you thought was appropriate instead of the price put on by the owner? Are you going to impose upon the lawful owner of something the price you prefer instead of what he prefers simply because you don't agree? Shall we apply your logic to what YOU own?
Actually, thanks to copyright law, I have that right. Or, did you forget about the law? Are you done making an ignorant ass out of yourself?
But, that is not what he was asked, was it, Ray? You, a lawyer, should know that, but you want to spin it.
What was actually said? Let's take a look:
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum..
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" is not asking "Are you liable", it is asking "Are you doing what you seem to be doing". Completely different questions and you should know that. The fun part comes in that dumbass could have answered "No, I am not saying that".
If $20 was too much to pay for the music, then you didn't really want the music anyway. Therefore, you should not make illegal copies of the music.
Oh, wait, that would mean acting like an adult and accepting that, just because you want something, you don't get to get it for free.
Most of the people on here don't know what they are paying for. They are concerned about 15 seconds when they are charged in 1 min increments.