You can argue syntax and semantics all day, but reproducing a copyright work without permission is copyright infringement, plain and simple. Whether copyright infringement is justified, or has actually occurred, or whether someone is liable for it, is a completely different argument than what it should be called. That was the court of appeals Judge's point.
Like I said, syntax and semantics aside, it's close enough. While "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft" are technically distinct, they have more or less the same effect. Rights are being violated, people are getting ripped off, etc.
That brings me to the major issue here: people are trying as hard as they can to disassociate the term "Copyright Infringement" from "Theft" in an attempt to make "Copyright Infringement" a softer, gentler euphemism for something that, if it isn't theft exactly, is certainly theft's blood relative.
For the record, I have no problem with people giving their own Copyrighted works away for free. I have a huge problem with people pirating things that are being offered for sale, that they somehow (unjustifiably) feel entitled to.
I understand what the issue is... I am getting annoyed because most of the people bitching about GPL violations are the same people that think the Microsoft EULA's are non-binding, and Copyright infringement is A-OK. It doesn't go both ways, either honor licenses or don't.
That aside:
Oh, Adrian. You just don't understand. Your assertion is incorrect. Your statement belies an ideology concerned only with money. Remuneration comes in other forms, however. Payment in kind is consideration just the same as cash money.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They should stop infringing, comply with the license, etc. etc. But your argument is really baseless. phpAdsNew isn't making money from the software. There is no way, no matter how you twist the laws around in court, that the VX30 people would be compelled to "pay damages". They would have to give their source to people that paid for the product, end of story. There are no damages being wrought here that have any monetary impact whatsoever.
By all means, talk down to me some more -- but use an argument that MAKES SENSE before you do.
We can argue syntax and semantics all day, but depriving someone of payment due is close enough to theft that any arguments "justifying" copyright infringement lack weight.
phpAdsNew is free; I don't see what suing the VX30 peeps would accomplish other than getting them to distribute their source with the product when they sell it... or is that the point? You can't really argue that they're hurting phpAdsNew profits -- because there aren't any.
Last time I checked, it is legal to compete with other software companies. The only time it becomes illegal is if they use their "monopoly" (monopolies are legal, by the way) to leverage their product unfairly. You're basically declaring them guilty before they've even launched the product -- very stupid.
Offering software to protect consumers... how is that unethical? Oh wait, I get it: it's Microsoft, therefore, everything they do is unethical and wrong. That mind of yours smells squeaky-clean from all the brainwashing.
Do us all a favor, too -- please learn to spell before you respond. Thanks!
There have got to be reasonable people that accept intelligent design in tandem with evolution.
I myself have difficulty believing that complex life forms evolved from primordial soup, so I can see where Intelligent Design comes into play. But I also think it's painfully obvious that birds and lizards evolved from dinosaurs... and viruses and bacteria evolve to resist treatment... so it's not like evolution doesn't happen.
Why is everything so fucking polarized? I think my viewpoint makes way more sense -- from any standpoint, scientific or theological -- than an entirely ID or entirely evolutionary one.
Even the pre-installed copy on a new PC isn;t free. You're paying for the license. Compare the price of a PC with Windows to one without and tell me how Windows can possibly be considered free.
You are obviously conditioned to hate Microsoft, so you'll make baseless accusations and defy logic, so there is no reasoning with you.
What viruses specifically aren't being found? Which version of antivirus? When are the definitions dated? You have to be more specific... otherwise it sounds like you're making it up.
Opinions are like assholes. Half of this thread is retarded opinion on what is good music and what isn't. All of you, please, talk about the actual article, not whether or not you think Radiohead are, in fact, pussies. If you don't like it, it's really simple -- don't listen to it, and shut the hell up.
I'm sure they don't have blueprints of any of the cars that were ENGINEERED FROM BLUEPRINTS!
Or measure the road.
Or check the weather conditions for that area for that day and time.
Or rely on any eyewitness accounts.
I'm guessing you would probably claim that a videotape of the accident occuring would be unreliable, since there might be some "magnetic flutter" or something that would seemingly alter the perception of the scene...
That light is there for one reason and one reason alone: So that mechanics can rip you off.
Ok... your comments are ridiculous. So let's address this particular idiotic one.
It is not designed for mechanics to rip you off.
It is designed to tell you when your car has a problem so that you can get it fixed.
99 times out of 100, when there is a problem with a car, the average person cannot fix it. How many people have a mig welder in their garage to replace a catalytic converter? How many people have the gear to fix an emissions leak lying around their basement?
Programs give error codes when they crash -- is that, by design, to rip you off? No. No, it isn't. It's for the people that know what they're doing to fix it.
If there is something wrong, you take it to the mechanic. They can diagnose the problem and fix it. Faster than you.
And here is the best part: if you really wanted to, you could get a diagnostic code reader from Snap-On Tools or another auto repair vendor to READ THE DIAGNOSTIC CODES YOURSELF. Hell, you could buy repair manuals direct from the manufacturer -- or a Haynes or Chilton manual -- to fix common problems. (Not gonna put that catalytic converter on yourself, though, buddy.)
Why would the light magically come on after a set number of miles? You don't think any of these Slashdot nerds haven't poked around in the onboard computers? No, you're right, it's a giant automobile manufacturer conspiracy, and everyone keeps silent about the fact that they rig the cars to automatically warn you at predetermined intervals.
It can't possibly have anything to do with being user-friendly and not overwhelming the driver (who usually knows little to nothing about the car) with information that they can't use.
First off, I would argue that those shows hardly qualify as quality, but that's another matter.
Wow. Forget that there's millions of people that like those shows -- DORSEY here thinks they suck! Go buy some underground punk records that no one else likes while you're at it so you continue to be cooler than the rest of us.
I was pointing out that the current paradigm for the networks is to kill a high cost show if it isn't instantly a huge hit.
You never really pointed that out. You just said "Which show do you think is likely to get picked up for a new season?" Why not both?
You're an idiot.
Wow. You sure did get me there. That was fresh, creative, and original. Maybe you could make a hit show about yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox. Seven letters. Doesn't need an abbreviation. If someone's too lazy to type seven letters, their fingers should be smashed.
You can argue syntax and semantics all day, but reproducing a copyright work without permission is copyright infringement, plain and simple. Whether copyright infringement is justified, or has actually occurred, or whether someone is liable for it, is a completely different argument than what it should be called. That was the court of appeals Judge's point.
Like I said, syntax and semantics aside, it's close enough. While "Copyright Infringement" and "Theft" are technically distinct, they have more or less the same effect. Rights are being violated, people are getting ripped off, etc.
That brings me to the major issue here: people are trying as hard as they can to disassociate the term "Copyright Infringement" from "Theft" in an attempt to make "Copyright Infringement" a softer, gentler euphemism for something that, if it isn't theft exactly, is certainly theft's blood relative.
For the record, I have no problem with people giving their own Copyrighted works away for free. I have a huge problem with people pirating things that are being offered for sale, that they somehow (unjustifiably) feel entitled to.
I understand what the issue is... I am getting annoyed because most of the people bitching about GPL violations are the same people that think the Microsoft EULA's are non-binding, and Copyright infringement is A-OK. It doesn't go both ways, either honor licenses or don't.
That aside:
Oh, Adrian. You just don't understand. Your assertion is incorrect. Your statement belies an ideology concerned only with money. Remuneration comes in other forms, however. Payment in kind is consideration just the same as cash money.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They should stop infringing, comply with the license, etc. etc. But your argument is really baseless. phpAdsNew isn't making money from the software. There is no way, no matter how you twist the laws around in court, that the VX30 people would be compelled to "pay damages". They would have to give their source to people that paid for the product, end of story. There are no damages being wrought here that have any monetary impact whatsoever.
By all means, talk down to me some more -- but use an argument that MAKES SENSE before you do.
We can argue syntax and semantics all day, but depriving someone of payment due is close enough to theft that any arguments "justifying" copyright infringement lack weight.
phpAdsNew is free; I don't see what suing the VX30 peeps would accomplish other than getting them to distribute their source with the product when they sell it... or is that the point? You can't really argue that they're hurting phpAdsNew profits -- because there aren't any.
You forgot that the Shmos are at fault, as well.
Don't want ads?
Don't use the web.
Last time I checked, it is legal to compete with other software companies. The only time it becomes illegal is if they use their "monopoly" (monopolies are legal, by the way) to leverage their product unfairly. You're basically declaring them guilty before they've even launched the product -- very stupid.
Offering software to protect consumers... how is that unethical? Oh wait, I get it: it's Microsoft, therefore, everything they do is unethical and wrong. That mind of yours smells squeaky-clean from all the brainwashing.
Do us all a favor, too -- please learn to spell before you respond. Thanks!
Movie looks HORRIBLE.
Why charge at all for outdated content? Don't they remember the old journalistic saying that today's news is tomorrow's fishwrap?
If people are accessing it...
LexisNexis makes a fortune charging for access to their gigantic database of outdated content... why shouldn't NYT try to get a piece of the pie?
There have got to be reasonable people that accept intelligent design in tandem with evolution.
I myself have difficulty believing that complex life forms evolved from primordial soup, so I can see where Intelligent Design comes into play. But I also think it's painfully obvious that birds and lizards evolved from dinosaurs... and viruses and bacteria evolve to resist treatment... so it's not like evolution doesn't happen.
Why is everything so fucking polarized? I think my viewpoint makes way more sense -- from any standpoint, scientific or theological -- than an entirely ID or entirely evolutionary one.
"The actual evolution is not in dispute except among the fundies."
I don't think anyone disputes that evolution occurs.
The dispute is whether or not life came into being from primordial soup and evolved, or if life was intelligently designed...
Windows was never, ever free.
Even the pre-installed copy on a new PC isn;t free. You're paying for the license. Compare the price of a PC with Windows to one without and tell me how Windows can possibly be considered free.
You are obviously conditioned to hate Microsoft, so you'll make baseless accusations and defy logic, so there is no reasoning with you.
You mean the same way all that 32-bit software doesn't run on 16-bit processors?
What is your point??
Please, enlighten us. Give examples to support this totally ridiculous, totally unfactual claim of yours.
Ok tough guy, what's your address, I'll come on by and you can call me a pussy to my face.
Who cares? What kind of an idiot runs code if they don't know what it does?
Stick to the topic, quit bitching.
What viruses specifically aren't being found? Which version of antivirus? When are the definitions dated? You have to be more specific... otherwise it sounds like you're making it up.
Opinions are like assholes. Half of this thread is retarded opinion on what is good music and what isn't. All of you, please, talk about the actual article, not whether or not you think Radiohead are, in fact, pussies. If you don't like it, it's really simple -- don't listen to it, and shut the hell up.
I'm sure they don't have blueprints of any of the cars that were ENGINEERED FROM BLUEPRINTS!
Or measure the road.
Or check the weather conditions for that area for that day and time.
Or rely on any eyewitness accounts.
I'm guessing you would probably claim that a videotape of the accident occuring would be unreliable, since there might be some "magnetic flutter" or something that would seemingly alter the perception of the scene...
That light is there for one reason and one reason alone: So that mechanics can rip you off.
Ok... your comments are ridiculous. So let's address this particular idiotic one.
It is not designed for mechanics to rip you off.
It is designed to tell you when your car has a problem so that you can get it fixed.
99 times out of 100, when there is a problem with a car, the average person cannot fix it. How many people have a mig welder in their garage to replace a catalytic converter? How many people have the gear to fix an emissions leak lying around their basement?
Programs give error codes when they crash -- is that, by design, to rip you off? No. No, it isn't. It's for the people that know what they're doing to fix it.
If there is something wrong, you take it to the mechanic. They can diagnose the problem and fix it. Faster than you.
And here is the best part: if you really wanted to, you could get a diagnostic code reader from Snap-On Tools or another auto repair vendor to READ THE DIAGNOSTIC CODES YOURSELF. Hell, you could buy repair manuals direct from the manufacturer -- or a Haynes or Chilton manual -- to fix common problems. (Not gonna put that catalytic converter on yourself, though, buddy.)
Why would the light magically come on after a set number of miles? You don't think any of these Slashdot nerds haven't poked around in the onboard computers? No, you're right, it's a giant automobile manufacturer conspiracy, and everyone keeps silent about the fact that they rig the cars to automatically warn you at predetermined intervals.
It can't possibly have anything to do with being user-friendly and not overwhelming the driver (who usually knows little to nothing about the car) with information that they can't use.
Hello... how do you think cars, airplanes, etc. are engineered? They simulate this kind of data all the time...
Wow.
Software wasn't validated.
What a great fucking story.
First off, I would argue that those shows hardly qualify as quality, but that's another matter.
Wow. Forget that there's millions of people that like those shows -- DORSEY here thinks they suck! Go buy some underground punk records that no one else likes while you're at it so you continue to be cooler than the rest of us.
I was pointing out that the current paradigm for the networks is to kill a high cost show if it isn't instantly a huge hit.
You never really pointed that out. You just said "Which show do you think is likely to get picked up for a new season?" Why not both?
You're an idiot.
Wow. You sure did get me there. That was fresh, creative, and original. Maybe you could make a hit show about yourself?
Which is why the Simpsons, CSI, Alias, etc... are still in production.
Your argument fails.