Copyright is a law. If you don't like the law, change the law. But, don't knowingly break the law then whine that it is not fair that you are being punished under the law just because you don't like the law.
The length if copyright protections are set in law by Congress. What is patentable is set in the rules of the patent office and in the law. The law takes precedence over the rules of the patent office.
Someone who offers good that costs X, forces ads (more cost), and has lockout/anticopy annoyances (more cost) vs. Someone who gives it free ( 0 cost), ads removed ( more value) and easy to copy ( more value)
The only problem with your little scenario is that the later is giving away the work and product of the former without regard to the wishes or rights of the former. I like how you conveniently leave that part out. Perhaps you would like someone to be able to take your work and give it away for you. I know, you can work for your boss and he can give your paycheck to other employees and charities. I am sure you will go for that.
150 years does not approach infinity. Maybe you should go back to high school and retake the mathematics courses.
Your arguments are those of a selfish child and are based on the flawed concept of "It is easy to copy and I don't want to pay for it so it is acceptable for me to copy it."
You are not being denied any physical property rights. Your physical property rights, which are legally granted rights, are limited by the copy rights of the copyright holder, which are legally granted rights. The law says you can not make a copy of a work to sell or give away unless you own the copyright.
Your rights are not absolute. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. You do NOT have a right to copy works if you do not have the copyright to said works.
Suppose someone tried to press criminal charges against the owner of a building where a gun show was held, simply because one of the guns bought there was used in a shooting.
If the original poster wants use bad analogies, I will accommodate him by proving counterpoint from real life that proves his analogy false.
I could have just as easily referred to the lawsuits brought by one state against the gun stores in ANOTHER state because the first state see those gun stores as the source of guns used in crimes in the second state.
And, again, my counterpoint comes from real life law. The OPs is making a false comparison, which is what you accuse me of. And, yours is an appeal to ridicule using an improbable event.
You need to be slapped in the mouth with a copy of that book for thinking that you have a civil right entitling you to violate the copyrights of others.
Just because you do not like the outcome, it does not follow that the prosecution did not make it's case. Just because you do not like their successful argument, it does not follow that the prosecution did not make it's case.
Your self-centered, selfish attitude of entitlement is why you fail.
every used book, CD, or DVD transaction is a lost sale.
No. Every download creates a new copy of the work in question. Selling a used book, CD, or DVD does not create a new copy. If person A sells a used CD to person C and then wants to own the CD again, he must buy a new copy. If person B provides the same CD for download and person C downloads the CD, C has a copy of the CD and B still has a copy of the CD.
Flip on the TV or radio (excluding NPR here, but lets face it, NPR listners are not the majority) and you will mostly hear a bunch of bullshit, no matter who you listen to.
Why are you excluding NPR? Over the last few days, I have listened to reports on NPR about illegal aliens in the U.S. I have heard NPR reporters refer to illegal aliens as immigrants, undocumented immigrants, undocumented workers, and unauthorized immigrants, but I don't recall them using the word illegal. I did hear some of the interviewees refer to the illegal aliens as illegal immigrants. No one actually used the proper term for these people: illegal aliens.
I heard people who are against illegal aliens and illegal immigration as "anti-immigration" which is a bald face lie.
The NPR reports on illegal aliens in the United States defended the illegal aliens and denigrated those that want the laws of the United States upheld. That is a bunch of bullshit.
And, don't get me started on the NPR reporter who, during a report last year, repeated referred to "Mr. Bush" and "President Clinton".
NPR reflects your personal biases, so you falsely exempt it from the accusation of spewing bullshit.
a kid spent the majority of his waking day playing games, gets exceptionally good at it, and was able to enter tournaments, win prize money, travel the world etc., would we then talk about his addiction, or would we be talking about his achievement?
But, the majority of people who spend excessive amounts of time playing games do not get exceptionally good a it, enter tournaments , win prize money and travel the world. The majority of people who are "addicted" to games end up spending all their time playing the games just to get away from their drab real life existence.
Just like most people who abuse and get addicted to real drugs don't "write incredible novels, poetry, or music" and end up as thieves and/or blowing strangers in a park bathroom for $5.00 to get their next fix.
[The government is telling people]... if you take normal steps to protect your privacy, we're going to view you as a more sophisticated criminal
does not follow from
The new federal rules would make the use of proxy servers count as 'sophistication' in a crime
Using a proxy to hide one's identity during the commission of a crime does show 'sophistication' as it shows a sophisticated knowledge of the crime and techniques to avoid detection and/or capture.
His use of Linux, in and of itself, was not the reason for the warrant or the suspicion. Whether it was pertinent to the investigation doesn't matter. The submission and the title imply that it was solely his use of Linux that brought him under suspision, which is not the case. The case is not about him using Linux, it is about what he may have done while using Linux.
Nothing in the facts say the use of Linux, in and of itself, was suspicious. Rather, it appears someone told the police the student was committing crimes and was hiding the evidence by use of dual-booting into Linux.
It is not required that they believe in or personally support the positions of their clients. Lawyers will gladly bite the hand of anyone who is NOT paying them.
I am guessing that blogspammer not-so-miraculous Miracle Jones has never hear of Hanlon's razor.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have to wonder why Jones has such a hate-on for Amazon. What did they do to this tin-pot hate-monger to earn his bloviating wrath? Is he just a disciple of Jackson, Sharpton, and the race-baiters? Is he projecting his own hatred and malice upon others? Or is he just another petty internet thug spewing hate to cover how ineffectual he is and his own short-comings in real life?
Perhaps, but if you don't lock your door, it's not breaking and entering, just entering. Theft is another matter.
Actually, you are wrong. Under the law, "breaking and entering" covers any use of force, however slight, to make unauthorized entry. That includes opening an unlocked door and even pushing open an unlatched door or lifting an unlocked window.
So, I can shoot at your house with various caliber weapons as proof-of-concept research and it will be OK because I can say "If I didn't do it, somebody else would", right?
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is a law. If you don't like the law, change the law. But, don't knowingly break the law then whine that it is not fair that you are being punished under the law just because you don't like the law.
The length if copyright protections are set in law by Congress.
What is patentable is set in the rules of the patent office and in the law. The law takes precedence over the rules of the patent office.
The only problem with your little scenario is that the later is giving away the work and product of the former without regard to the wishes or rights of the former. I like how you conveniently leave that part out. Perhaps you would like someone to be able to take your work and give it away for you. I know, you can work for your boss and he can give your paycheck to other employees and charities. I am sure you will go for that.
150 years does not approach infinity. Maybe you should go back to high school and retake the mathematics courses.
Your arguments are those of a selfish child and are based on the flawed concept of "It is easy to copy and I don't want to pay for it so it is acceptable for me to copy it."
You are lazy, selfish, and arrogant.
The part where you extend your property rights to the contents and duplicating the content and then giving away the content or selling the content.
Once again, your property rights end where the copyright holder's rights begin.
Is that clear enough for you?
You are not being denied any physical property rights. Your physical property rights, which are legally granted rights, are limited by the copy rights of the copyright holder, which are legally granted rights. The law says you can not make a copy of a work to sell or give away unless you own the copyright.
Your rights are not absolute. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. You do NOT have a right to copy works if you do not have the copyright to said works.
My post was in response to the GPP which said:
If the original poster wants use bad analogies, I will accommodate him by proving counterpoint from real life that proves his analogy false.
I could have just as easily referred to the lawsuits brought by one state against the gun stores in ANOTHER state because the first state see those gun stores as the source of guns used in crimes in the second state.
And, again, my counterpoint comes from real life law. The OPs is making a false comparison, which is what you accuse me of. And, yours is an appeal to ridicule using an improbable event.
Are you done being an asshole now?
And, I did say "killed or injured".
You would have just illegally downloaded it, so your boycott is meaningless.
You need to be slapped in the mouth with a copy of that book for thinking that you have a civil right entitling you to violate the copyrights of others.
Just because you do not like the outcome, it does not follow that the prosecution did not make it's case.
Just because you do not like their successful argument, it does not follow that the prosecution did not make it's case.
Your self-centered, selfish attitude of entitlement is why you fail.
Suppose someone decided to sue a bar just because one of the patrons left, drove drunk, was in a wreck, and killed or injured someone.
Oh, wait...
No. Every download creates a new copy of the work in question. Selling a used book, CD, or DVD does not create a new copy. If person A sells a used CD to person C and then wants to own the CD again, he must buy a new copy. If person B provides the same CD for download and person C downloads the CD, C has a copy of the CD and B still has a copy of the CD.
Why are you excluding NPR? Over the last few days, I have listened to reports on NPR about illegal aliens in the U.S. I have heard NPR reporters refer to illegal aliens as immigrants, undocumented immigrants, undocumented workers, and unauthorized immigrants, but I don't recall them using the word illegal. I did hear some of the interviewees refer to the illegal aliens as illegal immigrants. No one actually used the proper term for these people: illegal aliens.
I heard people who are against illegal aliens and illegal immigration as "anti-immigration" which is a bald face lie.
The NPR reports on illegal aliens in the United States defended the illegal aliens and denigrated those that want the laws of the United States upheld. That is a bunch of bullshit.
And, don't get me started on the NPR reporter who, during a report last year, repeated referred to "Mr. Bush" and "President Clinton".
NPR reflects your personal biases, so you falsely exempt it from the accusation of spewing bullshit.
But, the majority of people who spend excessive amounts of time playing games do not get exceptionally good a it, enter tournaments , win prize money and travel the world. The majority of people who are "addicted" to games end up spending all their time playing the games just to get away from their drab real life existence.
Just like most people who abuse and get addicted to real drugs don't "write incredible novels, poetry, or music" and end up as thieves and/or blowing strangers in a park bathroom for $5.00 to get their next fix.
GAAAAHHHHH! My eyes! My Brain!!
[The government is telling people] ... if you take normal steps to protect your privacy, we're going to view you as a more sophisticated criminal
does not follow from
Using a proxy to hide one's identity during the commission of a crime does show 'sophistication' as it shows a sophisticated knowledge of the crime and techniques to avoid detection and/or capture.
His use of Linux, in and of itself, was not the reason for the warrant or the suspicion. Whether it was pertinent to the investigation doesn't matter. The submission and the title imply that it was solely his use of Linux that brought him under suspision, which is not the case. The case is not about him using Linux, it is about what he may have done while using Linux.
Nothing in the facts say the use of Linux, in and of itself, was suspicious. Rather, it appears someone told the police the student was committing crimes and was hiding the evidence by use of dual-booting into Linux.
This is bullshit FUD.
It is not required that they believe in or personally support the positions of their clients. Lawyers will gladly bite the hand of anyone who is NOT paying them.
The reason I asked was that he could just as well give his money to Cupertino and get tax software, financial software, and games for the kids.
That diatribe is just weird to me.
Please explain why.
Yeah, that was just you.
I didn't think of that one, but I guess you could be right.
I am guessing that blogspammer not-so-miraculous Miracle Jones has never hear of Hanlon's razor.
I have to wonder why Jones has such a hate-on for Amazon. What did they do to this tin-pot hate-monger to earn his bloviating wrath? Is he just a disciple of Jackson, Sharpton, and the race-baiters?
Is he projecting his own hatred and malice upon others?
Or is he just another petty internet thug spewing hate to cover how ineffectual he is and his own short-comings in real life?
Breaking and entering is a crime no matter where one is.
Actually, you are wrong. Under the law, "breaking and entering" covers any use of force, however slight, to make unauthorized entry. That includes opening an unlocked door and even pushing open an unlatched door or lifting an unlocked window.
Thanks for playing, you lose.
So, I can shoot at your house with various caliber weapons as proof-of-concept research and it will be OK because I can say "If I didn't do it, somebody else would", right?
Stealing bandwidth and storage from Wikis, abandoned or not, is wrong. /. is good.
Stealing bandwidth and storage from companies unpopular on