The question is not "Can a tortuous attack on definitions of words such as 'permission' protect me from the law I'm violating". It's more a case of "Would a reasonable man of average intelligence believe that he has the right to use an unsecured network?"
On one hand, we know that such a network can be secured. On the other hand, a lot of people have no idea that they need to do this, and aren't aware that people are likely to use their network without permission. Then there's the knowledge that some people deliberately allow others to use their network. The owners of the wireless router did not knowingly invite you in.
If you were arrested and charged with computer trespass laws, then the court would weigh up all the evidence, decide whether it was reasonable for you to assume that you had permission and sentence or not accodingly.
well, given that it's a dpownloadm and what you're doing is illegal, I'd say "yes".
Fair use and the AHRA allow you to copy from a CD you own. Not one that someone else owns. I know they're identical, but what differenct does that make? The law can still be illogical.
You make it too complicated. Here's a more accurate breakdown:
"a tremendous step forward in terms of giving advertisers what they want"
I'm lying.
"But what does it mean for advertisers? And how will players react? We sat down with Terri Perkins, Product Manager for Funcom, and Nicholas Longano, President of New Media at Massive, to find out."
I'm lying.
"the response to these ads has been very positive, according to Perkins and Longano"
I'm lying.
"This is the beginning of a new revolution in in game advertising and it will be fascinating to watch how it evolves and what creative things we can bring to the table."
I'm lying.
And so on....
True. It works in sports games. It actually works pretty well anywhere there's a billboard space to fill. Developers really shouldn't let the advertisers call the shots though. If they want to put their ads in the game, then great. Supply the artwork to use as a texture, and outbid everyone else who wants their ad. Don't sacrifice the integrity of the game to score some extra money. The people who buy the game will feel cheated.
Okay - here's the deal. The developers really don't like it because they want to create games, and advertising just distracts from that. It also limits freedom, since advertisers tend to be pretty demanding and forces the game to be set in the present or near future. The players don't like it, but will probably be reasonably happy with the idea if it makes the game free. The advertisers are fairly neutral about it. They're willing to give it a shot, but if it fails, they're not going to lose sleep over it. Small scale trials are low risk, high reward.
So, the result is that advertising is only worthwhile if you're going to make more money from fairly ambivalent advertisers than you would from game purchases and/or subscription fees. Who keeps pushing the concept? People have been atalking about game advertising for years.
They're getting fibres to their homes with a capacity of 2.5Gb. It's possible that this bandwidth is only between a home and the other end of the cable. This doesn't mean it's plugged into a router with that bandwidth. They're probably going to be using it for other purposes such as HD-VoD.
But do you expect to get third degree burns? This is a substance that is designed for direct contact with the skin. If it was used normally, it would also cause serious damage. It's quite obvious that people are going to spill coffee from time to time, just like with the Ford Pinto, its quite obvious that people are going to drive into the back of a car filled with an explosive chemical, but it's Fords fault that this caused ruptured fuel tanks. Even if this isn't obvious, McDonalds clearly knew that this was happeneing, but still didn't do anything about it.
The problem here IMO, is that McDonalds deserved to be fined a couple of day's coffee sales in punitive damages. The victim, however, didn't really deserve more than compensation for her injuries. This should have been the same regardless of which fast food chain sold her dangerous coffee.
True. It would suggest that only the rich are protected from the MPAA's lawsuits though. Even if he gets all him money back, he had to have some to gamble on this in the first place.
But does it matter? Even if only one state was involved, the only possible results would be the popular vote wins, or whoever would be the winner in the current electoral college system wins.
Proving this to the public would, of course, not be easy.
The article is a summary written by a journalist who isn't a legal expert. It's more likely that he's got it wrong than the MPAA are suing him for something that's not unlwaful.
But shouldn't the penalty also be a deterrent. Why would the criminally minded pay for anything if they can buy $2000 worth of stuff or they can steal $2000 worth of stuff, and only work for it if they get caught.
Yes they can. My understanding is that a counterclaim is a separate claim against the plaintiff. The MPAA can stop that from going to court by conceding that too.
Er. Owning it does give you the right, seeing as you've already paid for it.
Morally, but not legally. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to control copying. Fair use offers some exceptions, but the exceptions are limited. It generally doesn't include downloading from the internet and most certainly doesn't include uploading.
They want to give lots of tickets, and specifically to the people who will just pay the fines and move along. Then hoping that the "watch out, you could get a ticket" mentality will help them get the desired end result.
I'd like it if this was the way it worked. If there was an affordable but annoying cost to piracy (say $50-100), and easy means for the industry to obtain it, and an easy way to appeal against it, then piracy would be discouraged, the media cartels would be able to fund their anti-piracy efforts, and the pirates wouldn't get nearly as much sympathy as some poor schmuck being threatened by a zillion dollar lawsuit.
Unless the MPAA are 100% certain that they're going to win. They don't really believe that a pirated movie costs them $2500. They do know that these threats have a huge effect as a deterrent. If they lose the case, they'll lose the deterrent. If they drop the case (after costing Mr. Hogan a modest amount in legal costs), they'll retain the deterrent.
In what way is it in the MPAA's interest to see this all the way to the court?
In most countries taping a conversation without consent is a crime.
Not true. The laws vary depending on jurisdiction, and many countries and US states allow people to record the call as long as one party is aware that they are being recorded.
You inform them at the beginning you are recording, then you can assume consent. Otherwise they have the option to hang up.
Slashdot Mirror
35.99999468.
I really must upgrade my old Pentium 60.
It's not as simple as that.
The question is not "Can a tortuous attack on definitions of words such as 'permission' protect me from the law I'm violating". It's more a case of "Would a reasonable man of average intelligence believe that he has the right to use an unsecured network?"
On one hand, we know that such a network can be secured. On the other hand, a lot of people have no idea that they need to do this, and aren't aware that people are likely to use their network without permission. Then there's the knowledge that some people deliberately allow others to use their network. The owners of the wireless router did not knowingly invite you in.
If you were arrested and charged with computer trespass laws, then the court would weigh up all the evidence, decide whether it was reasonable for you to assume that you had permission and sentence or not accodingly.
Did that get counted as an illegal download?
well, given that it's a dpownloadm and what you're doing is illegal, I'd say "yes".
Fair use and the AHRA allow you to copy from a CD you own. Not one that someone else owns. I know they're identical, but what differenct does that make? The law can still be illogical.
You make it too complicated. Here's a more accurate breakdown:
"a tremendous step forward in terms of giving advertisers what they want" I'm lying. "But what does it mean for advertisers? And how will players react? We sat down with Terri Perkins, Product Manager for Funcom, and Nicholas Longano, President of New Media at Massive, to find out." I'm lying. "the response to these ads has been very positive, according to Perkins and Longano" I'm lying. "This is the beginning of a new revolution in in game advertising and it will be fascinating to watch how it evolves and what creative things we can bring to the table." I'm lying. And so on....
True. It works in sports games. It actually works pretty well anywhere there's a billboard space to fill. Developers really shouldn't let the advertisers call the shots though. If they want to put their ads in the game, then great. Supply the artwork to use as a texture, and outbid everyone else who wants their ad. Don't sacrifice the integrity of the game to score some extra money. The people who buy the game will feel cheated.
Okay - here's the deal. The developers really don't like it because they want to create games, and advertising just distracts from that. It also limits freedom, since advertisers tend to be pretty demanding and forces the game to be set in the present or near future. The players don't like it, but will probably be reasonably happy with the idea if it makes the game free. The advertisers are fairly neutral about it. They're willing to give it a shot, but if it fails, they're not going to lose sleep over it. Small scale trials are low risk, high reward.
So, the result is that advertising is only worthwhile if you're going to make more money from fairly ambivalent advertisers than you would from game purchases and/or subscription fees. Who keeps pushing the concept? People have been atalking about game advertising for years.
Good point...
I should have learned by now that I shouldn't trust Slashdot summaries.
I thought search engines stopped using meta-tags years ago because of this sort of problem.
They're getting fibres to their homes with a capacity of 2.5Gb. It's possible that this bandwidth is only between a home and the other end of the cable. This doesn't mean it's plugged into a router with that bandwidth. They're probably going to be using it for other purposes such as HD-VoD.
But do you expect to get third degree burns? This is a substance that is designed for direct contact with the skin. If it was used normally, it would also cause serious damage. It's quite obvious that people are going to spill coffee from time to time, just like with the Ford Pinto, its quite obvious that people are going to drive into the back of a car filled with an explosive chemical, but it's Fords fault that this caused ruptured fuel tanks. Even if this isn't obvious, McDonalds clearly knew that this was happeneing, but still didn't do anything about it.
The problem here IMO, is that McDonalds deserved to be fined a couple of day's coffee sales in punitive damages. The victim, however, didn't really deserve more than compensation for her injuries. This should have been the same regardless of which fast food chain sold her dangerous coffee.
Ooops. cocked up the link. Try this. It's not as stupid as McDonalds' spin machine makes out.
You mean this
True. It would suggest that only the rich are protected from the MPAA's lawsuits though. Even if he gets all him money back, he had to have some to gamble on this in the first place.
And that's one of the many problems. The kid who loses is out, and has nothing to do until all the other players are eliminated.
But does it matter? Even if only one state was involved, the only possible results would be the popular vote wins, or whoever would be the winner in the current electoral college system wins.
Proving this to the public would, of course, not be easy.
The article is a summary written by a journalist who isn't a legal expert. It's more likely that he's got it wrong than the MPAA are suing him for something that's not unlwaful.
But shouldn't the penalty also be a deterrent. Why would the criminally minded pay for anything if they can buy $2000 worth of stuff or they can steal $2000 worth of stuff, and only work for it if they get caught.
Yes they can. My understanding is that a counterclaim is a separate claim against the plaintiff. The MPAA can stop that from going to court by conceding that too.
Er. Owning it does give you the right, seeing as you've already paid for it.
Morally, but not legally. Copyright law gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to control copying. Fair use offers some exceptions, but the exceptions are limited. It generally doesn't include downloading from the internet and most certainly doesn't include uploading.
They want to give lots of tickets, and specifically to the people who will just pay the fines and move along. Then hoping that the "watch out, you could get a ticket" mentality will help them get the desired end result.
I'd like it if this was the way it worked. If there was an affordable but annoying cost to piracy (say $50-100), and easy means for the industry to obtain it, and an easy way to appeal against it, then piracy would be discouraged, the media cartels would be able to fund their anti-piracy efforts, and the pirates wouldn't get nearly as much sympathy as some poor schmuck being threatened by a zillion dollar lawsuit.
Okay? Having the thing doesn't give you a right to download a copy.
I'm not sure that's the point. I think this is instead evidence that he didn't download the movie. Why would he if he already owned a copy?
Unless the MPAA are 100% certain that they're going to win. They don't really believe that a pirated movie costs them $2500. They do know that these threats have a huge effect as a deterrent. If they lose the case, they'll lose the deterrent. If they drop the case (after costing Mr. Hogan a modest amount in legal costs), they'll retain the deterrent.
In what way is it in the MPAA's interest to see this all the way to the court?
What? Not even one of these
In most countries taping a conversation without consent is a crime.
Not true. The laws vary depending on jurisdiction, and many countries and US states allow people to record the call as long as one party is aware that they are being recorded.
You inform them at the beginning you are recording, then you can assume consent. Otherwise they have the option to hang up.
No, but if there's a dispute, proving the terms can be next to impossible.