It is pretty obvious he was acting as a filesharing hub pretty much as Napster did. This was not coincidental linking it was linking to copyright infringed material for the express pursuit of aquiring advertising revenue. He knew exactly what he was doing. No sympathy here.
Again the slashdot moral majority starts having a blabbering fit over thier rights being infringed and all that but this is a pretty simple case. He was actively using his website to encourage a very specifical criminal activity not a few coincidental links in a sea of other detail.
Metallica are *hard angry men* for marketting purposes.
Docotwrolwow ( or whatever ) is *anti DRM* for marketing purposes.
----
Metallica tells people to go out and break societies rules because that message matches thier audiences demographics.
Doctorwatchimac tells people to go out and break DRM because that message matches his audiences demographics
----
Metallica spat the dummy when people did just as they told them to and broke societies rules. It just happened that the rule they broke bit Metallica on the arse.
So what will it take to piss off Doctorwathimecallit. For starters why don't you go and scan his non downloadable books and place them on the internet and watch for the reaction.
I'd still pay for a paper book over a download just for the ability to sit in the sun on a deck chair with it. If E-book readers approach the quality, feel and experience of paper books I'm sure the assumption will hold just fine.
I think what is meant is that DRM doesn't stop people who want to get the media illegally AT ALL
Maybe it doesn't stop a core of people who know how to apply the patches, upgrade thier firmware or browse warez sites but there are plenty of people who wouldn't have a clue. These are the people the content providers have to muddle to keep them in the shops and they are the majority. It doesn't have to be impossible just inconvienient.
Being anti DRM is the flavor of the month with a certain demographic. This little rant above and the release of a non DRM'd book is great marketing. Look he got himself posted on slashdot!!!!
It is a bit like Metallica in reverse. Hard angry men encouraging other young angry men to break societies rules but wait.... somebody is downloading our music for free, lets run to the establishment.
Just as Metallica is hard and angry for *marketing* purposes when it suits them I can't quite believe this guy is anti DRM for any reasons other than it is good marketing for the moment.
DRM doesn't work. Every file ever released with DRM locks on it is currently available for free download on the Internet. You don't need any special skills to break DRM these days: you just have to know how to search Google for the name of the work you're seeking.
DRM does work. It doesn't have to work all the time. As long as it is still easier to purchased DRM'd stuff than search for cracked stuff on the internet there will still be sales of it and people will make money. People here kid themselves that if everything was available for free with no DRM at all content providers would still make some money. It's a war and nobody will ever trully win it. Content providers will come up with ingenious ways to protect thier new works which *will* work for a short while and then somebody will crack it. Content providers move to new tech. It doesn't have to work forever. Just enough time to cash in.
even if customers from the clueless masses will never know the difference.
I can hear the diesel engines now and the belch of smoke as the cattle trucks move off taking the unwashed masses to the re-education camps. What a world we have to look forward too.
>> I'd use linux if I could but my customers use >> software that only runs on windows.
> And will continue to be Windows-only as long as > you support it that way.
For krikes sake people. It is just computer software. Who cares if it is windows or linux or OSX or Grandmas special bake operating system. It is just business. Don't kid yourself that the majority of open source programmers are in it to make the world a better place. Money, ego, prestige, fame all the same things that drive the closed source shop, operate here.
Sure it helps people to have free software. But it would also help people if they had free cars, food, holidays in the sun, health care, education, etc etc. It's just that software happens to fit the free model exceedingly well but don't kid yourselves that you are anymore morally deserving of free software than you are of free anything else. You are just lucky to get it thats all so quit whinging when sometimes you have to pay for things and stop bitching about people who do pay for things causes it messes with your ideologically perfect little dilbert cubicle sized universe.
There are no legitimate reasons for running their software, whether you pay them or not.
Hi Mr troll... I'm no martyr. I'd use linux if I could but my customers use software that only runs on windows. This is the way it is with many embedded systems tools. You can nail yourself to a tree for your principles if you wish but I'm gonna take a holiday at the end of the year with the money I've earned using *immoral* software.
We have the ability to choose one outcome over another. In this case when several consequences are choosable, the argument that the "consequences are part of the natural order" is a moot point and at worst an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if *conservation* is a human concept it is a concept brought about by a desire to live in a world that is interesting, varied and reasonably stable for the majority of the human population.
Windows 98, 2000, Me or XP or Apple Macintosh with suitable Windows Emulator software installed.
Browser
Any version of Internet Explorer 6 or any version of Netscape 7. If you are using an earlier version browser, it must have the relevant 'patches' or high encryption pack capable of supporting 128bit SSL.
Note. e-tax will check your browser to ensure it meets the minimum requirements. More information will be provided online if you need to upgrade your browser.
"Justice IS Tenacious" - a new inscription from our collection of lawyer rings. The tradition of giving lawyers rings upon admittance to the Bar began in England in the early 1400's. These simple bands were inscribed in Latin around the outside with a verse that referred to a legal ideal. Our's reads "Justice Tenax" (Justice is Tenacious). The original of this ring can be found in the collection of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, London. Ring is cast in sterling silver or in 14 kt. gold and completely hand finished and hand polished. Gold rings available with an antique finish if requested. Gift box included.Lawyer Of The Rings
Moreover, when was the last time you actually looked forward to seeing the 9 PM news to learn about actual pressing North American and World news?
When was the last time you read anything *pressing* on slashdot: Google, Bittorrent, Google Apple, Evil Microsoft, Star Wars, Google, Chip Overclocking, Google, Ipod, Ipod, Ipod, Ipod, It aint stealing it's copyright infringement bahhhhhh!.......
The slashdot crowd are such a bunch of hypocrits. Here is an article on "Identity theft" and the words steal and stolen are being thrown about without the least sense of irony..... However just a few articles ago "Software Piracy Seen As Normal" there were the usual suspects complaining in all seriousness that stealing software was not stealing but copyright infringement because you can't steal software when the original owner still has a copy.
I don't believe identity thieves remove your identity when they steal it. You still have it or do you wake up in the morning and wonder who you are.
Missing the point as usual.... The physical removal of goods is not the issue of stealing. Stealing is the appropriation by illegal means of another entities $value$. Thus you can steal money, barter cards, identiy. Try this . type into google
"identity theft" site:slashdot.org
And see how many of the resident slashdot software pirate whinge about the term theft being used in relation to identity.
You could just as easily say that siphoning petrol from your neighbours car is not stealing as there is no trouble in going down to the petrol station to get some more. You haven't really stolen the petrol as the petrol is easily duplicated...
I allready see your objection and you write
But they don't have the petrol in thier car anymore and they have to go and $buy$ more petrol to drive thier car so that is stealing whereby if you steal software from the owner they can still use the software....
Sorry but no. The owner of the software isn't interested in using the software. The software is only usefull ( $valuable$ ) to them if it can be sold/licensed. If it has been stolen and distributed it can't be sold ( effectively ). It's value has been degraded. The $value$ in the petrol is it's ability to drive the car and the $value$ in the software is its return on being sold. Both the value in the petrol and the value in the car can be traded identically. If thier value can be identically traded it can be stolen as well.
Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense: There is no copyright on money. Counterfeiting laws don't derive from copyright law; they derive from the government's constitutional authority to print money.
Makes perfect sense. Most money stolen these days is not through physically appropriating bank notes. You can only clear a few thousand dollars if you are lucky if you walk into your local branch packing a Smith and Wesson, even less if you bag snatch from Grannies. Most money is stolen symbolically by fraud, electronic or otherwise. There may not even be a physical paper trail when money is siphoned off from one bank account to another. The concept of $value$ is extremely important in the transfer of money.
Stealing money by illegally transfering $value$ ownership is not too disimilar to stealing intelectual property. Nothing physically has changed hands. The only thing that changes is the transference of rights to excersise the $value$ of the commodity.
Money is just a symbol for $value$. $value$ can be represented in many ways other than money such as a barter system. For example in a barter system where you as a programmer swap your value as a programmer for a couple of pigs from the local farmer you have come to an agreement on the equal ( maybe ) transfer of value. However if you steal his pigs he has no value to purchase your software. Vice versa if he steals a copy of your software then you are unable to excersise $value$ to purchase his pigs.
I don't understand why so many programmers schooled in the ways of abstract thinking can't see software and services as a specialized sub classes of a commodity that can be bought sold and stolen.
By the way many courts do consider murder/violent assault a form of stealing and can impose penalties payable to the victim or families as compensation. There is also commonly held expressions such as "His life was stolen" or "She sole my heart" which the common man/woman understands to be the theft of value not just physical goods.
You can't just play around with words to make yourself feel ok for downloading and distributing things that you never paid for ( and some noddy will always reply to this that he has paid for it and has a right to make backup copies and we should feel so sorry for his rights being infinged and... snore )
Just simplify the issue for yourselves a little and it becomes pretty clear.
Most of you are coders and many of you do jobs for which you are paid to do. Say you Bob have arranged to do a job for XCorp for which you wish to be paid $10,000 for. Just before delivery you find the work has been *stolen* off your server by an employee of XCorp. They now have your code and don't need to pay you for it. According to the parent this is just copyright infringement, not stealing, cause they only took a copy of the software not the software itself. Even if that is so for the software itself they have still stolen something. It is still the slightly less tangible but still calculatable value of the software. The work you have done is now worth nothing. Previously you owned $value$ now you own nothing and this was due to the illegal actions of XCorp.
Following the parents logic, stealing money from the bank is copyright infringement not stealing because nothing has really disappeared except an intangible concept of value. However that intangible concept of value is what drives our economies and lives and is traded swapped and stolen all the time. Stealing software is no different than stealing money. You are appropriating somebody elses $value$ against the law. That is stealing.
Matlab does have closures though without the elegance of languages like Ruby. A trivial example...
function c = create_counter( init )
c = @counter
function i = counter
init = init + 1;
i = init;
end end
>> c = create_counter(10); >> c(); ans =
11 >> c(); ans =
12
If you have closures you can also fudge OOP by creating arrays or structures of function handles.
I've written a framework to do just that. If you really need cyclic references for your code and the majority of Matlab users don't then it is not hard to do.
And all the FUD posters who have never used Matlab are unaware that now all Matlab code goes through a JIT before running. This mean iterative loops run orders of magnitude faster than previous versions.
Slashdot Mirror
http://web.archive.org/web/20031010135440/http://w ww.mp3s4free.net/
It is pretty obvious he was acting as a filesharing hub pretty much as Napster did. This was not coincidental linking it was linking to copyright infringed material for the express pursuit of aquiring advertising revenue. He knew exactly what he was doing. No sympathy here.
Again the slashdot moral majority starts having a blabbering fit over thier rights being infringed and all that but this is a pretty simple case. He was actively using his website to encourage a very specifical criminal activity not a few coincidental links in a sea of other detail.
Don't feel bad about misunderstanding. It is a common Slashdot problem. Perhapps you need a sauna to relax.
Human: That way you can terminate yourself and let the AI live your life more efficiently.
ALICE: Oh I see. No I don't think I can do it.
Valid point! Mod him up !
Maybe I should explain again ....
Metallica are *hard angry men* for marketting purposes.
Docotwrolwow ( or whatever ) is *anti DRM* for marketing purposes.
----
Metallica tells people to go out and break societies rules because that message matches thier audiences demographics.
Doctorwatchimac tells people to go out and break DRM because that message matches his audiences demographics
----
Metallica spat the dummy when people did just as they told them to and broke societies rules. It just happened that the rule they broke bit Metallica on the arse.
So what will it take to piss off Doctorwathimecallit. For starters why don't you go and scan his non downloadable books and place them on the internet and watch for the reaction.
The difference went left and you went right. Back up a bit think a little and take the other road.
I'd still pay for a paper book over a download just for the ability to sit in the sun on a deck chair with it. If E-book readers approach the quality, feel and experience of paper books I'm sure the assumption will hold just fine.
Maybe it doesn't stop a core of people who know how to apply the patches, upgrade thier firmware or browse warez sites but there are plenty of people who wouldn't have a clue. These are the people the content providers have to muddle to keep them in the shops and they are the majority. It doesn't have to be impossible just inconvienient.
And that will be the same year I can run an AI on my computer posting witty comments to slashdot.
Being anti DRM is the flavor of the month with a certain demographic. This little rant above and the release of a non DRM'd book is great marketing. Look he got himself posted on slashdot!!!!
It is a bit like Metallica in reverse. Hard angry men encouraging other young angry men to break societies rules but wait
Just as Metallica is hard and angry for *marketing* purposes when it suits them I can't quite believe this guy is anti DRM for any reasons other than it is good marketing for the moment.
DRM doesn't work. Every file ever released with DRM locks on it is currently available for free download on the Internet. You don't need any special skills to break DRM these days: you just have to know how to search Google for the name of the work you're seeking.
DRM does work. It doesn't have to work all the time. As long as it is still easier to purchased DRM'd stuff than search for cracked stuff on the internet there will still be sales of it and people will make money. People here kid themselves that if everything was available for free with no DRM at all content providers would still make some money. It's a war and nobody will ever trully win it. Content providers will come up with ingenious ways to protect thier new works which *will* work for a short while and then somebody will crack it. Content providers move to new tech. It doesn't have to work forever. Just enough time to cash in.
Personally I like sitting in a deck chair in the sun with a nice paper book. My puter is for work or baiting slashdot copyright whingers .....
was a mirror ....
even if customers from the clueless masses will never know the difference.
I can hear the diesel engines now and the belch of smoke as the cattle trucks move off taking the unwashed masses to the re-education camps. What a world we have to look forward too.
>> I'd use linux if I could but my customers use
>> software that only runs on windows.
> And will continue to be Windows-only as long as
> you support it that way.
For krikes sake people. It is just computer software. Who cares if it is windows or linux or OSX or Grandmas special bake operating system. It is just business. Don't kid yourself that the majority of open source programmers are in it to make the world a better place. Money, ego, prestige, fame all the same things that drive the closed source shop, operate here.
Sure it helps people to have free software. But it would also help people if they had free cars, food, holidays in the sun, health care, education, etc etc. It's just that software happens to fit the free model exceedingly well but don't kid yourselves that you are anymore morally deserving of free software than you are of free anything else. You are just lucky to get it thats all so quit whinging when sometimes you have to pay for things and stop bitching about people who do pay for things causes it messes with your ideologically perfect little dilbert cubicle sized universe.
Hi Mr troll
We have the ability to choose one outcome over another. In this case when several consequences are choosable, the argument that the "consequences are part of the natural order" is a moot point and at worst an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if *conservation* is a human concept it is a concept brought about by a desire to live in a world that is interesting, varied and reasonably stable for the majority of the human population.
The system works pretty well.
Critical information is
Operating system
Windows 98, 2000, Me or XP or Apple Macintosh with suitable Windows Emulator software installed.
Browser
Any version of Internet Explorer 6 or any version of Netscape 7. If you are using an earlier version browser, it must have the relevant 'patches' or high encryption pack capable of supporting 128bit SSL.
Note. e-tax will check your browser to ensure it meets the minimum requirements. More information will be provided online if you need to upgrade your browser."Justice IS Tenacious" - a new inscription from our collection of lawyer rings. The tradition of giving lawyers rings upon admittance to the Bar began in England in the early 1400's. These simple bands were inscribed in Latin around the outside with a verse that referred to a legal ideal. Our's reads "Justice Tenax" (Justice is Tenacious). The original of this ring can be found in the collection of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, London. Ring is cast in sterling silver or in 14 kt. gold and completely hand finished and hand polished. Gold rings available with an antique finish if requested. Gift box included. Lawyer Of The Rings
Moreover, when was the last time you actually looked forward to seeing the 9 PM news to learn about actual pressing North American and World news?
.......
When was the last time you read anything *pressing* on slashdot: Google, Bittorrent, Google Apple, Evil Microsoft, Star Wars, Google, Chip Overclocking, Google, Ipod, Ipod, Ipod, Ipod, It aint stealing it's copyright infringement bahhhhhh!
The slashdot crowd are such a bunch of hypocrits. Here is an article on "Identity theft" and the words steal and stolen are being thrown about without the least sense of irony..... However just a few articles ago "Software Piracy Seen As Normal" there were the usual suspects complaining in all seriousness that stealing software was not stealing but copyright infringement because you can't steal software when the original owner still has a copy.
I don't believe identity thieves remove your identity when they steal it. You still have it or do you wake up in the morning and wonder who you are.
Missing the point as usual .... The physical removal of goods is not the issue of stealing. Stealing is the appropriation by illegal means of another entities $value$. Thus you can steal money, barter cards, identiy. Try this . type into google
...
....
"identity theft" site:slashdot.org
And see how many of the resident slashdot software pirate whinge about the term theft being used in relation to identity.
You could just as easily say that siphoning petrol from your neighbours car is not stealing as there is no trouble in going down to the petrol station to get some more. You haven't really stolen the petrol as the petrol is easily duplicated
I allready see your objection and you write
But they don't have the petrol in thier car anymore and they have to go and $buy$ more petrol to drive thier car so that is stealing whereby if you steal software from the owner they can still use the software
Sorry but no. The owner of the software isn't interested in using the software. The software is only usefull ( $valuable$ ) to them if it can be sold/licensed. If it has been stolen and distributed it can't be sold ( effectively ). It's value has been degraded. The $value$ in the petrol is it's ability to drive the car and the $value$ in the software is its return on being sold. Both the value in the petrol and the value in the car can be traded identically. If thier value can be identically traded it can be stolen as well.
Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense: There is no copyright on money. Counterfeiting laws don't derive from copyright law; they derive from the government's constitutional authority to print money.
Makes perfect sense. Most money stolen these days is not through physically appropriating bank notes. You can only clear a few thousand dollars if you are lucky if you walk into your local branch packing a Smith and Wesson, even less if you bag snatch from Grannies. Most money is stolen symbolically by fraud, electronic or otherwise. There may not even be a physical paper trail when money is siphoned off from one bank account to another. The concept of $value$ is extremely important in the transfer of money.
Stealing money by illegally transfering $value$ ownership is not too disimilar to stealing intelectual property. Nothing physically has changed hands. The only thing that changes is the transference of rights to excersise the $value$ of the commodity.
Money is just a symbol for $value$. $value$ can be represented in many ways other than money such as a barter system. For example in a barter system where you as a programmer swap your value as a programmer for a couple of pigs from the local farmer you have come to an agreement on the equal ( maybe ) transfer of value. However if you steal his pigs he has no value to purchase your software. Vice versa if he steals a copy of your software then you are unable to excersise $value$ to purchase his pigs.
I don't understand why so many programmers schooled in the ways of abstract thinking can't see software and services as a specialized sub classes of a commodity that can be bought sold and stolen.
By the way many courts do consider murder/violent assault a form of stealing and can impose penalties payable to the victim or families as compensation. There is also commonly held expressions such as "His life was stolen" or "She sole my heart" which the common man/woman understands to be the theft of value not just physical goods.
You can't just play around with words to make yourself feel ok for downloading and distributing things that you never paid for ( and some noddy will always reply to this that he has paid for it and has a right to make backup copies and we should feel so sorry for his rights being infinged and ... snore )
Just simplify the issue for yourselves a little and it becomes pretty clear.
Most of you are coders and many of you do jobs for which you are paid to do. Say you Bob have arranged to do a job for XCorp for which you wish to be paid $10,000 for. Just before delivery you find the work has been *stolen* off your server by an employee of XCorp. They now have your code and don't need to pay you for it. According to the parent this is just copyright infringement, not stealing, cause they only took a copy of the software not the software itself. Even if that is so for the software itself they have still stolen something. It is still the slightly less tangible but still calculatable value of the software. The work you have done is now worth nothing. Previously you owned $value$ now you own nothing and this was due to the illegal actions of XCorp.
Following the parents logic, stealing money from the bank is copyright infringement not stealing because nothing has really disappeared except an intangible concept of value. However that intangible concept of value is what drives our economies and lives and is traded swapped and stolen all the time. Stealing software is no different than stealing money. You are appropriating somebody elses $value$ against the law. That is stealing.
Matlab does have closures though without the elegance of languages like Ruby. A trivial example ...
function c = create_counter( init )
c = @counter
function i = counter
init = init + 1;
i = init;
end
end
>> c = create_counter(10);
>> c();
ans =
11
>> c();
ans =
12
If you have closures you can also fudge OOP by creating arrays or structures of function handles.
I've written a framework to do just that. If you really need cyclic references for your code and the majority of Matlab users don't then it is not hard to do.
And all the FUD posters who have never used Matlab are unaware that now all Matlab code goes through a JIT before running. This mean iterative loops run orders of magnitude faster than previous versions.