Great, there's a difference. But the bottom line is: but how is one any different than the other when, at the end of the day, both actions have deprived the rightful owner of something?
1. The amount of theft greatly outweighs the amount of legitimate copying. Don't believe me? How many people do you know that download illegal mp3's or warez off the Internet. And don't lie to yourself about it, either, be honest -- practically everybody.
2. OK, so if the 7-Eleven is selling soda, and you take the soda without paying for it, you are depriving 7-Eleven of POTENTIAL profits, but not ACTUAL profits. What is your point?
And, legislation should ABSOLUTELY be dictated by morality. The only question then is "whose morality?" which, of course, degenerates into philosophical debate... but most people agree that theft is wrong, until you point out what it is that they're stealing...
They wouldn't do it because they would get caught, that's the only difference here.
And last time I checked, the copyrights have not run out on the majority of popular music and software, even if the copyright law had not been modified and extended.
Outright theft is more immoral than overcharging for / copyright extending something -- you have a choice not to buy the product that is being overcharged or copyright extended. No one FORCES you to buy these products. But just because someone is overcharging doesn't entitle you to steal it. You can't go to the Porsche dealer and steal a brand new Boxster S just because the price is too high, how is that any different from a copy of Photoshop (besides the chance of being caught?)
The other violations I listed become more hazardous as speeds increase. Therefore, decreasing speed via the use of a speed governor reduces the danger, reduces the fatality, etc.
I'm not an idiot, you're just incapable of using your brain. Ass.
By copying the contents of the CD which you did not pay for, you are depriving the rightful owner of the due payment his due payment. So, if you want to mince words, fine, it's copyright violation, but I still view it as theft.
It is too easy to get your driver's license. That is evidenced by the sheer ineptitude of so many licensed drivers currently on the road driving aggressively, cutting people off, tailgating, speeding through residential areas, street racing, etc. etc.
So, I don't see what the problem is with a mandated speed governor either. Most people don't race their cars, so they don't need to go faster than whatever limit is posted. And, unlike DRM, people actually DIE when traffic laws are violated.
I understand why people are upset about DRM, you should be able to mp3 your own songs, yadda yadda yadda.
But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People spend time and money to create software, music, movies, etc., and people go and steal it because they believe
a) they are entitled to it b) they believe industy X is overcharging
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled to a product. Argument (b) is also stupid. There is plenty of free music and software available on the internet that isn't illegal. If you're truly upset about overcharging, then use free software. The fact that you steal (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the companies you are stealing from that they have a product you want, and the fact that you won't pay them for it forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the thieves that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go to Best Buy and steal a copy of Photoshop or the new Eminem CD?
No, it isn't Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience is a noble action, and entails breaking the law without regard for the law -- which, by the nature of the action, means you are willing to suffer the consequences for what you are doing.
Stealing things while hiding behind Kazaa isn't noble. It's knowingly hiding your identity and committing crime.
Look at it this way, are drug dealers committing Civil Disobedience? Hardly.
I never addressed your first question -- yes, I have had to wait. I forget what game site it is, (gamespot maybe?) that has that wait-in-line system where I got assigned ticket number #2000 and they were up to #50 in line or something.
My question to you is this: so what? Are you that desperate to play a game that you have to go jump onto a P2P network and download the patch illegally? Wait in line like everybody else. Your OS multitasks, you can do something else while you wait.
Why is it that without visible policing most people will steal like this? If you were in a shop and nobody was looking would you really steal food and clothes and walk away? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
That just raises the issue of accountability again. Modern P2P networks are designed to mask identity, to aid people in obtaining what they want, when they want, without having to pay for it (and to find it easily). In a store, people would see you, remember your face in case you got away, attempt to detain you, and call the police to throw you in prison.
Microsoft wants you to obtain it directly from them. This way they can claim a stronger guarantee of file integrity. And, if you had bothered to look for two seconds, you would know that:
a) you can obtain Service Pack 1 for Windows XP without using Windows Update b) order a CD with Service Pack 1 for a nominal fee
Microsoft wants you to obtain it from them for good reason. Getting it over P2P is illegal. Just because *you* think it was a good idea doesn't justify your action.
Kazaa is the only company distributing their software via P2P. Every other company is interested in file integrity, something that cannot be guaranteed over a P2P network.
P2P is a horrible way to distribute programs if you actually care about getting your file from point A to point B in one piece, unmolested. So, obviously, no legitimate company would use it to distribute software.
Most of those patches are being distributed illegally as well. I'm pretty sure if you read the licensing agreement, you have to download it from their site or from an authorized mirror. And if you don't like it, that's just too damn bad -- that's the license agreement.
Porn, as well, is freely available in some places without Kazaa, and most of the Kazaa porn is pirated as well. (I'm sure all those ripped porno DVDs were public domain, right?)
HTML is just a language. You can use English to say something illegally too.
Firstly, FTP has greater accountability. You can't open a Warez FTP site to the public and not get caught. And secondly, FTP was created to transfer files, not to transfer files *AND* mask identities *AND* advertise to pirates.
Kazaa knows that a ton of people are using their network to illegally traffic things, and so they can get money by advertising to them. They know that illegal activity is rampant on their network, and they don't monitor it or report it, which is basically aiding and abetting. So I guess if you wanted to get really technical, we could make a federal case out of this...?
But, going strictly on intent, they are knowingly aiding pirates, which means less money is making it into the hands of the people that are supposed to be getting paid for their work, which means civil suit, and a completely justified one in my opinion.
Can't wait to see this one go down the shitter as well.
P2P networks serve no legitimate purpose. They only exist to mask the identities of software pirates, and to make it easier for people to find whatever copyrighted warez/mp3s/videos/etc. they are trying to steal.
If anything anybody wanted to download from a P2P network was legitimate, they could find it elsewhere on the internet (download.com, mp3.com, etc.)
Fight back? Look, seriously, what legitimate uses are there for P2P networks? There aren't any. The whole reason P2P networks exist is to make it harder to catch pirates in the act; no one will put up and FTP or Web server because it's too easy to get caught. The only purpose P2P networks serve is to facilitate the sharing of pirated software, mp3s, videos, etc.
How hard is it really to just grab a fucking pack of pop-tarts???
Re:Excellent things for the work place..
on
Assorted CES Gizmos
·
· Score: 2
And don't forget, it's Microsoft -- it will broadcast your blood type and pressure, how often you check your watch, and oh yeah, it will STEAL YOUR SOUL!!
Well, it is the first time it's been measured. I'm sure that they'll refine the experiment and continue to study the subject; I'd say though, at first look, getting.95 is pretty fn close (and, as the poster states, is in holding with the theory of relativity) so it can't exactly be discarded. The worst that can happen is a later experiment will say "well, we were wrong."
The order of universal forces, from strongest to weakest, is Electomagnetic, Strong, Weak, and Gravitational. So gravity, you see, is the weakest force in the universe.
You obviously don't know me very well to be asking me that question. Once again, someone who attacks me with completely off-target assumptions without even knowing me.
Your kind of attitude is what makes the world a shitty place to live in.
It's not snobbish; just because something is a part of our culture doesn't make it good for the culture. Drugs would be a good example. So would the "everybody for themselves" mentality. Among other things.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, there's a difference. But the bottom line is: but how is one any different than the other when, at the end of the day, both actions have deprived the rightful owner of something?
1. The amount of theft greatly outweighs the amount of legitimate copying. Don't believe me? How many people do you know that download illegal mp3's or warez off the Internet. And don't lie to yourself about it, either, be honest -- practically everybody.
2. OK, so if the 7-Eleven is selling soda, and you take the soda without paying for it, you are depriving 7-Eleven of POTENTIAL profits, but not ACTUAL profits. What is your point?
And, legislation should ABSOLUTELY be dictated by morality. The only question then is "whose morality?" which, of course, degenerates into philosophical debate... but most people agree that theft is wrong, until you point out what it is that they're stealing...
They wouldn't do it because they would get caught, that's the only difference here.
And last time I checked, the copyrights have not run out on the majority of popular music and software, even if the copyright law had not been modified and extended.
Outright theft is more immoral than overcharging for / copyright extending something -- you have a choice not to buy the product that is being overcharged or copyright extended. No one FORCES you to buy these products. But just because someone is overcharging doesn't entitle you to steal it. You can't go to the Porsche dealer and steal a brand new Boxster S just because the price is too high, how is that any different from a copy of Photoshop (besides the chance of being caught?)
The other violations I listed become more hazardous as speeds increase. Therefore, decreasing speed via the use of a speed governor reduces the danger, reduces the fatality, etc.
I'm not an idiot, you're just incapable of using your brain. Ass.
By copying the contents of the CD which you did not pay for, you are depriving the rightful owner of the due payment his due payment. So, if you want to mince words, fine, it's copyright violation, but I still view it as theft.
And, no matter how you look at it, it's immoral.
It is too easy to get your driver's license. That is evidenced by the sheer ineptitude of so many licensed drivers currently on the road driving aggressively, cutting people off, tailgating, speeding through residential areas, street racing, etc. etc.
So, I don't see what the problem is with a mandated speed governor either. Most people don't race their cars, so they don't need to go faster than whatever limit is posted. And, unlike DRM, people actually DIE when traffic laws are violated.
I understand why people are upset about DRM, you should be able to mp3 your own songs, yadda yadda yadda.
But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People spend time and money to create software, music, movies, etc., and people go and steal it because they believe
a) they are entitled to it
b) they believe industy X is overcharging
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled to a product. Argument (b) is also stupid. There is plenty of free music and software available on the internet that isn't illegal. If you're truly upset about overcharging, then use free software. The fact that you steal (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the companies you are stealing from that they have a product you want, and the fact that you won't pay them for it forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the thieves that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go to Best Buy and steal a copy of Photoshop or the new Eminem CD?
No, it isn't Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience is a noble action, and entails breaking the law without regard for the law -- which, by the nature of the action, means you are willing to suffer the consequences for what you are doing.
Stealing things while hiding behind Kazaa isn't noble. It's knowingly hiding your identity and committing crime.
Look at it this way, are drug dealers committing Civil Disobedience? Hardly.
Well, you yourself admitted what you did was illegal. So how is that libelous?
NEWS FLASH: The United States tries to control everything for the entire world.
It sucks, I hate the way the US behaves.
But, I also hate the way Kazaa behaves, and I think this particular lawsuit is perfectly justified.
I never addressed your first question -- yes, I have had to wait. I forget what game site it is, (gamespot maybe?) that has that wait-in-line system where I got assigned ticket number #2000 and they were up to #50 in line or something.
My question to you is this: so what? Are you that desperate to play a game that you have to go jump onto a P2P network and download the patch illegally? Wait in line like everybody else. Your OS multitasks, you can do something else while you wait.
Why is it that without visible policing most people will steal like this? If you were in a shop and nobody was looking would you really steal food and clothes and walk away? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
That just raises the issue of accountability again. Modern P2P networks are designed to mask identity, to aid people in obtaining what they want, when they want, without having to pay for it (and to find it easily). In a store, people would see you, remember your face in case you got away, attempt to detain you, and call the police to throw you in prison.
Microsoft wants you to obtain it directly from them. This way they can claim a stronger guarantee of file integrity. And, if you had bothered to look for two seconds, you would know that:
a) you can obtain Service Pack 1 for Windows XP without using Windows Update
b) order a CD with Service Pack 1 for a nominal fee
Microsoft wants you to obtain it from them for good reason. Getting it over P2P is illegal. Just because *you* think it was a good idea doesn't justify your action.
Kazaa is the only company distributing their software via P2P. Every other company is interested in file integrity, something that cannot be guaranteed over a P2P network.
P2P is a horrible way to distribute programs if you actually care about getting your file from point A to point B in one piece, unmolested. So, obviously, no legitimate company would use it to distribute software.
Most of those patches are being distributed illegally as well. I'm pretty sure if you read the licensing agreement, you have to download it from their site or from an authorized mirror. And if you don't like it, that's just too damn bad -- that's the license agreement.
Porn, as well, is freely available in some places without Kazaa, and most of the Kazaa porn is pirated as well. (I'm sure all those ripped porno DVDs were public domain, right?)
HTML is just a language. You can use English to say something illegally too.
Firstly, FTP has greater accountability. You can't open a Warez FTP site to the public and not get caught. And secondly, FTP was created to transfer files, not to transfer files *AND* mask identities *AND* advertise to pirates.
Kazaa knows that a ton of people are using their network to illegally traffic things, and so they can get money by advertising to them. They know that illegal activity is rampant on their network, and they don't monitor it or report it, which is basically aiding and abetting. So I guess if you wanted to get really technical, we could make a federal case out of this...?
But, going strictly on intent, they are knowingly aiding pirates, which means less money is making it into the hands of the people that are supposed to be getting paid for their work, which means civil suit, and a completely justified one in my opinion.
Can't wait to see this one go down the shitter as well.
P2P networks serve no legitimate purpose. They only exist to mask the identities of software pirates, and to make it easier for people to find whatever copyrighted warez/mp3s/videos/etc. they are trying to steal.
If anything anybody wanted to download from a P2P network was legitimate, they could find it elsewhere on the internet (download.com, mp3.com, etc.)
Fight back? Look, seriously, what legitimate uses are there for P2P networks? There aren't any. The whole reason P2P networks exist is to make it harder to catch pirates in the act; no one will put up and FTP or Web server because it's too easy to get caught. The only purpose P2P networks serve is to facilitate the sharing of pirated software, mp3s, videos, etc.
How hard is it really to just grab a fucking pack of pop-tarts???
And don't forget, it's Microsoft -- it will broadcast your blood type and pressure, how often you check your watch, and oh yeah, it will STEAL YOUR SOUL!!
Well, it is the first time it's been measured. I'm sure that they'll refine the experiment and continue to study the subject; I'd say though, at first look, getting .95 is pretty fn close (and, as the poster states, is in holding with the theory of relativity) so it can't exactly be discarded. The worst that can happen is a later experiment will say "well, we were wrong."
Are you sure about that? I'm no astrophysicist, but as far as I can tell practically everything has mass, even things (light) which we thought didn't.
The order of universal forces, from strongest to weakest, is Electomagnetic, Strong, Weak, and Gravitational. So gravity, you see, is the weakest force in the universe.
Try telling Sonny Bono that.
You obviously don't know me very well to be asking me that question. Once again, someone who attacks me with completely off-target assumptions without even knowing me.
Your kind of attitude is what makes the world a shitty place to live in.
You are worthless.
It's not snobbish; just because something is a part of our culture doesn't make it good for the culture. Drugs would be a good example. So would the "everybody for themselves" mentality. Among other things.
Especially those that don't care about what happens to other human beings.
Had no idea... you had me convinced that you were serious. :-)
You have to hint at the sarcasm somewhere man!