If you could scan the barcode, pay a nominal fee and begin downloading immediately, directly from the author - instead of buying it at a significant markup in the store from the distributor, would that still be wrong by any objective standard?
Not the OP but in my case, if it scanned the barcode and then ordered from Amazon I'd have a bit of an issue and that's all perfectly legal. The store exists (from a shopper's point of view) because it's convenient for the shopper. The store exists from the owners point of view because it makes money. By not giving the store an opportunity to make money, it feels like I'm taking unfair advantage of the service they provide.
If IP rights are immoral, you should have nothing to do with it. Don't buy non-free software, don't watch commercial movies, don't download them, don't download non-free music.
By pirating you are making it clear that you want this particular media - the media that the producers insist only gets created because of IP protection. Stop supporting them and stop endorsing them.
The Winklevoss twins offer no contract, no NDA and no reason not to work for a competitor. They had nothing to stop him from stealing their ideas. Ideas aren't copyrightable. They're easy to come up with. It's execution that matters.
Now these guys had money, or at least access to money. The could easily have hired a coder, full time, got a site together in a month. Maybe nothing amazing but it would have done the job, and been first to market and that's what's important.
They made a bad Business decision. Zuckerberg took advantage of this bad business decision. That's the world of business for you.
, they're so minor that nothing more than a single roof tile has ever moved*
It's a bit worse than that. but only slightly. Every 30 years or so there's one big enough to do minor structural damage to a few buildings. Occasionally a church gets destroyed
My iron has the warning "Do not iron clothes while wearing them." then adds "No, don't laugh. I've seen it done"
I like to think that the instruction writer who wrote these instructions fought for that addendum and insisted that if they have to treat some customers as idiots, at least assume some of them have a sense of humour.
Nature of the use. It's not being used to promote Wikipedia, simply to illustrate it. It's being used in the nature of information about the original work or the work for which it was licensed.
It looks to me like a derivative work. It's a verbatim copy, and not just something included incidentally,
It's not some ingenious reinterpretation of the original artwork, using the original purely for reference. To a casual observer, it's pretty much the same image without any new creativity being added. It's not being used as a commentary on the original, or an enhancement. Just a slightly modified version apparently chosen in order to benefit from the similarities to the original, while avoiding the requirement to pay a royalty.
He was right to settle. It could very easily have gone against him.
Quite a few people had the same idea at the same time. The Winklevoss twins decided that even though they had access to considerable amounts of cash, not to take the risk, and hire a developer to work for free. They offer no contract, no NDA and no reason not to work for a competitor. Not only that but the guy was quite clearly something of a sociopath.
"Ideas" aren't copyrightable (there are dozens of facebook clones, as well as clones of every other type of successful site). Whether he "stole" their idea or not is beside the point. It had zero value. Zuckerberg invested something in facebook that did have real value - his time! While the twins were dithering about hoping for this guy to build their site, Zuckerberg was working for a rival company actually producing something. They made a bad business decision and want a share of something they've put no effort into.
But neither are, in themselves, supporting terrorism. If a terrorist robs a bank or extorts you then technically it is, but merely performing these acts is not terrorism
Why does AVM want to prevent this behaviour? It seems, if anything, Cybits is simply adding value to the router. AVM presumably makes money selling the routers. If people want to modify them or use them as door stops for that matter, what difference does it make to the company?
If I knowingly give you the tools to give to someone else to help them facilitate a crime, then I'm an accessory. If I give you some tools that you then go and use to commit a crime then I'm not guilty.
There's no decay rate here. Slashdot and The Inquirer are innocent because it is clearly demonstrably concerned with reporting technology news and this is clearly a key aspect of the technology news. TV shack existed to show TV shows that the creator knew (or should have known) he had no rights to show.
No. I agree with you. There many things wrong with this, but the fact that he's not actually hosting the infringing material himself and only making a profit from facilitating isn't one of them.
Well, youtube, Google and Facebook do not exist for the sole purpose of activities that infringe copyright. They also take measures to ensure that the infringing material is blocked or that the copyright holders are recompensed for it.
TV shack exists purely to allow people access to copyright information without the copyright holder's permission.
Isn't that the same with everything? Gold is valuable because it takes time and energy to extract from the ground. Manufactured goods are valuable because they take time and energy to make.
Slashdot Mirror
When something appears to exist for the sole purpose of illegal activities, then a handful of legitimate activities don't really mitigate that.
Really? My 4 year old nephew seems to know how to treat a DVD properly.
I'm sure if you let them destroy a couple and not replace them, they'll learn pretty quickly.
If you could scan the barcode, pay a nominal fee and begin downloading immediately, directly from the author - instead of buying it at a significant markup in the store from the distributor, would that still be wrong by any objective standard?
Not the OP but in my case, if it scanned the barcode and then ordered from Amazon I'd have a bit of an issue and that's all perfectly legal. The store exists (from a shopper's point of view) because it's convenient for the shopper. The store exists from the owners point of view because it makes money. By not giving the store an opportunity to make money, it feels like I'm taking unfair advantage of the service they provide.
If IP rights are immoral, you should have nothing to do with it. Don't buy non-free software, don't watch commercial movies, don't download them, don't download non-free music.
By pirating you are making it clear that you want this particular media - the media that the producers insist only gets created because of IP protection. Stop supporting them and stop endorsing them.
The Winklevoss twins offer no contract, no NDA and no reason not to work for a competitor. They had nothing to stop him from stealing their ideas. Ideas aren't copyrightable. They're easy to come up with. It's execution that matters.
Now these guys had money, or at least access to money. The could easily have hired a coder, full time, got a site together in a month. Maybe nothing amazing but it would have done the job, and been first to market and that's what's important.
They made a bad Business decision. Zuckerberg took advantage of this bad business decision. That's the world of business for you.
Well, fair enough Just pointing out that it's a little worse than occasional roof tiles.
, they're so minor that nothing more than a single roof tile has ever moved*
It's a bit worse than that. but only slightly. Every 30 years or so there's one big enough to do minor structural damage to a few buildings. Occasionally a church gets destroyed
Renewables take space.
The UK has 255 people per square km. Norway has 13!
My iron has the warning "Do not iron clothes while wearing them." then adds "No, don't laugh. I've seen it done"
I like to think that the instruction writer who wrote these instructions fought for that addendum and insisted that if they have to treat some customers as idiots, at least assume some of them have a sense of humour.
Nature of the use. It's not being used to promote Wikipedia, simply to illustrate it. It's being used in the nature of information about the original work or the work for which it was licensed.
It looks to me like a derivative work. It's a verbatim copy, and not just something included incidentally,
It's not some ingenious reinterpretation of the original artwork, using the original purely for reference. To a casual observer, it's pretty much the same image without any new creativity being added. It's not being used as a commentary on the original, or an enhancement. Just a slightly modified version apparently chosen in order to benefit from the similarities to the original, while avoiding the requirement to pay a royalty.
He was right to settle. It could very easily have gone against him.
Very rich people would. They see it as a challenge. The money becomes a way of keeping score.
Quite a few people had the same idea at the same time. The Winklevoss twins decided that even though they had access to considerable amounts of cash, not to take the risk, and hire a developer to work for free. They offer no contract, no NDA and no reason not to work for a competitor. Not only that but the guy was quite clearly something of a sociopath.
"Ideas" aren't copyrightable (there are dozens of facebook clones, as well as clones of every other type of successful site). Whether he "stole" their idea or not is beside the point. It had zero value. Zuckerberg invested something in facebook that did have real value - his time! While the twins were dithering about hoping for this guy to build their site, Zuckerberg was working for a rival company actually producing something. They made a bad business decision and want a share of something they've put no effort into.
But neither are, in themselves, supporting terrorism. If a terrorist robs a bank or extorts you then technically it is, but merely performing these acts is not terrorism
Why does AVM want to prevent this behaviour? It seems, if anything, Cybits is simply adding value to the router. AVM presumably makes money selling the routers. If people want to modify them or use them as door stops for that matter, what difference does it make to the company?
All very odd.
Yes, except Kilo means 1000. Not 1024. RAM manufacturers use an approximation, but the official IEC term is .
The waters have been muddy for a long time now. For a lot of major sites, the .net .org and .com will redirect to the same place.
.com just means "on the internet". It's redundant. This is just a roundabout way of eliminating the need for ".com"
We've reached the stage where
To find out whether it's true!
If I knowingly give you the tools to give to someone else to help them facilitate a crime, then I'm an accessory. If I give you some tools that you then go and use to commit a crime then I'm not guilty.
There's no decay rate here. Slashdot and The Inquirer are innocent because it is clearly demonstrably concerned with reporting technology news and this is clearly a key aspect of the technology news. TV shack existed to show TV shows that the creator knew (or should have known) he had no rights to show.
No. I agree with you. There many things wrong with this, but the fact that he's not actually hosting the infringing material himself and only making a profit from facilitating isn't one of them.
It looks like this was "in the course of business though". I had a look at the website, and it looks like the guy is making money of popup ads.
Well, youtube, Google and Facebook do not exist for the sole purpose of activities that infringe copyright. They also take measures to ensure that the infringing material is blocked or that the copyright holders are recompensed for it.
TV shack exists purely to allow people access to copyright information without the copyright holder's permission.
They don't do so in order to deliberately encourage unlawful copyright infringement.
Dammit Slashdot! Please understand the concept of INTENT when it comes to law. It's really pretty damn important!
Why would you keep that type of cash in bitcoin?
Because if he bought them more than a few weeks ago they'd have gained a lot of value and could conceivably gain more.
Isn't that the same with everything? Gold is valuable because it takes time and energy to extract from the ground. Manufactured goods are valuable because they take time and energy to make.