What the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is a FEDERAL matter. Ever notice the FBI warnings on the beginnings of videos? As in FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation?
Sigh, I know, you won't just put two and two together, so here is some more stuff for you to read, to exercise that "brain" between your ears:
I don't understand this. I really don't -- I have never had problems with Word "eating" documents. Never.
Oh, and by the way, Dvorak is a whiny Microsoft-hating bitch, so it's no surprise that he is attacking Word. Next month in PC Magazine he'll spin the Wheel-o-Microsoft and pick another product to attack with half-baked arguments.
Meaningless condemnations? OK, taking something that is being offered for sale without paying for it -- and it's definitely not anything you need to survive -- is immoral. How is it twisted? You aren't OWED a copy of the music. You aren't ENTITLED to a copy of the music. You have NO RIGHT to take it. Obedience to a malicious concept? They are offering copies of recordings for money! How is that malicious? If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT, AND DON'T TAKE IT. It's not YOURS to take! There is plenty of FREE (as in FREELY OFFERED) music available, why is piracy suddenly legitimate in your eyes? Because YOU think they're overcharging? No one forced you at gunpoint to pay the price, did they?
Please, show me how my definitions are oxymoronic OR relative. You can't just TAKE something without paying for it and expect everyone to think it's OK because you draw a line between theft and copyright violation and expect us to go "oh, well since it's not technically THEFT I guess it's not the same thing" even though ANYONE with ANY sense of decency can see that the two are pretty fucking similar. You are obviously one of those "letter-of-the-law", not "spirit-of-the-law" types.
Do you even know what oxymoronic means? You threw the word out, yet didn't even show me how my argument was oxymoronic. I think you are having trouble controlling the English language.
Furthermore: Unless of course you can point me to a dictionary that defines 'stealing' as "1. Altering data in ways considered immoral by a few CEOs - who would gladly rob you of your house and life savings - on your own computer which you paid for."
CEO's who would gladly rob me of my house and life savings? Here's a challenge: tell me who they are -- and then once you do, explain to me how your naming them is not libelous. Or, wait, is libel something that is also a meaningless condemnation? A malicious concept with no logic, no reason, nothing to stand on? Is there an oxymoronic definition, or a mindlessly relative term? Because speaking falsehoods about people is immoral too... nothing mindlessly relative about it.
Who does my hard drive belong to? Who owns the 1's and 0's? Who owns my cable connection? Me. Get this through your head, and one day you'll learn that what I've worked long and hard for belongs to me, NOT THEM.
The people that work hard on their music, that create the recordings, that find a means of distribution so people can pay for them so they can earn a living creating music -- who do the rights to distribute those recordings belong to?
Ok: if PARENTS are supposed to teach their children morality, then shouldn't PARENTS teach their children reading, writing, and 'rithmetic? And if so, why do schools exist at all?
And, obviously, PARENTS aren't teaching morality, or you wouldn't have so fucking many kids pirating music!
So SOMEBODY has to do it since PARENTS aren't getting the job done!
Like, for instance if you are too poor to buy medicine for your dying baby but you can steal some from your neighbour/local store.
First of all if your baby is dying you take it to the hospital. Second of all, if it is emergency care, the hospital is obligated by law to do everything it can for the child to make sure it survives. So, why the hell would you need to steal anything?
I get what you're saying, but your argument sucks and you need a new one -- especially if you're teaching a child. Teach them correctly, not with flawed arguments.
The reason people are anti-data-exchange is because some the data has a price tag, and people aren't respecting that. If people won't respect the price tags because it's the right thing to do, how can you blame companies for trying to force it to happen through law?
Yes, yes, some people make legit backup copies. More people are pirating. Don't blame the companies, blame the immoral screwheads that are bringing this on themselves.
('sending data is wrong! Obeying me is right! Dualism is right! Disobeying corporations is wrong!'), equating propaganda with morality ('you haven't paid for that tile so you have no right to stand on it!')
You sound like Sean Hannity, completely ignoring one side of the argument (the fact that piracy is immoral and obviously affects profits), and twisting the actions being taken and making them sound like motives (which they are not.)
trying with every last breath to turn listening to music into 'ripping off' the artist who, even if the outlandishly abstract concept of artists 'losing' money to data transfer were true, isn't getting the 8 cents he would have gotten had you bent over and bought the CD.
See... they decided to sign the contract with the record company. They want to make the 8 cents per CD. That's their decision, NOT YOURS.
So I guess we shouldn't teach our kids that stealing is wrong. Right? Wrong.
If you don't want to pay for the music, then don't pay for it -- but you don't have any right to listen to it if it's being offered for sale and you refuse to pay for it.
If you don't like that a movie screening costs $8, you don't have the right to go into the theater and watch it without paying.
I'm now waiting for your semantic argument that argues that copyright infringement is not the same as stealing, and therefore allows you to rationalize that ripping people off is OK. By all means, respond.
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe they are patenting things so lawsuit-happy morons can't go and patent the same things and file suit later? In all likelihood Microsoft is covering their ass and protecting other people, not following a lawsuit-based business model...
It doesn't matter what was said, because I was reading into it. There are many, many people who think they have a right to own copyrighted material regardless of whether or not it's in print -- "I can't buy it anywhere, so it's OK to download it!" -- which is absolutely absurd.
I agree with that to a point, but do want to bring up the fact that when a CD goes out of print, sometimes it is *VERY* hard to ever find an original copy. I know of quite a few artists that have released CDs that weren't chart-burners and wound up dropping out of print. I'd love to have the CDs, but they are friggin *IMPOSSIBLE* to find. NO record stores in the entire area have the CD. ("Ambition" by Tommy Shaw from Styx is a perfect example) - I was on the "watch list" at no less than 15 records here in the SF Bay Area. The CD was *NEVER* found. Nearly 8 years later, I found a copy on eBay - and paid $90 for it.
You don't have "the right to own a copy" -- you know that, right? If they only made X, and you didn't buy one of them, you don't suddenly gain the right to own it because there are none left...
There's also too many Americans, like you, that will give the Left whatever they want just because you think the Right is so EVIL. Before you forget, let me remind you -- the Democrats historically attack First and Second amendment rights.
The GOP does some things right, and the Democrats do some things right. The way you're talking, though, you sound just as bad as the "Jesus vote", blindly jumping on the "Bush does everything wrong" bandwagon. Hey, I guess you'd better stop breathing, since Bush does that too.
Arguing semantics doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of what you wrote.
This is not a new concept, and is a belief held by many people.
People may hold the view that IPO's are not a good idea. However, I am going to argue that most people do not hold your view that IPOs are "evil". Use of the word "evil" in pretty much ANY context (especially on Slashdot) borders on ridiculous, and is fair game for ridicule -- and hence, moderation downward.
Being a public company means you answer to shareholders and give up a good measure of your independence.
Not true, at all. For example, if I offer 1% of my company publicly and retain the other 99%, why do I have to answer to the 1%? I have a controlling interest, they don't, and if the other 1% doesn't like what I do, they can SELL.
World Wrestling Entertainment, as an example, operates this way. Vince McMahon (chairman) has said on numerous occasions that if you buy WWE stock, you are buying into HIS vision, and there is no room to try to impose YOUR vision on his company.
So what if moderators are offended by my viewpoint?
That's basically the point of Troll (-1) is to stop offensive (or offensively lame) posts...
Disagreement = invalid? It's an abuse of the moderation system to mod people down simply because you disagree.
That makes no sense -- following that logic, modding someone UP because you AGREE with them would also be an abuse of the moderation system. Yet, you have to agree with someone to find their thoughts Insightful or even Interesting.
"When Google has its IPO it officially becomes evil. Very few corporations adhere to their founding values when they must answer to shareholders. Google should just remain private."
Ranting about how money is evil is troll-like.
And I'm sure more than a few moderators are offended by the viewpoint that no one should ever make money, and everyone should give everything away for free. That's not how the world works.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is a FEDERAL matter. Ever notice the FBI warnings on the beginnings of videos? As in FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation?
p ?p=169520&seqNum=3
Sigh, I know, you won't just put two and two together, so here is some more stuff for you to read, to exercise that "brain" between your ears:
http://www.awprofessional.com/articles/article.as
Guess what? They can arrest you for violating federal law!
Did you pay attention in history class? Or are our high schools failing us...?
I don't understand this. I really don't -- I have never had problems with Word "eating" documents. Never.
Oh, and by the way, Dvorak is a whiny Microsoft-hating bitch, so it's no surprise that he is attacking Word. Next month in PC Magazine he'll spin the Wheel-o-Microsoft and pick another product to attack with half-baked arguments.
Well, amen to everything except the part about the prostitutes! :-)
Meaningless condemnations? OK, taking something that is being offered for sale without paying for it -- and it's definitely not anything you need to survive -- is immoral. How is it twisted? You aren't OWED a copy of the music. You aren't ENTITLED to a copy of the music. You have NO RIGHT to take it. Obedience to a malicious concept? They are offering copies of recordings for money! How is that malicious? If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT, AND DON'T TAKE IT. It's not YOURS to take! There is plenty of FREE (as in FREELY OFFERED) music available, why is piracy suddenly legitimate in your eyes? Because YOU think they're overcharging? No one forced you at gunpoint to pay the price, did they?
Please, show me how my definitions are oxymoronic OR relative. You can't just TAKE something without paying for it and expect everyone to think it's OK because you draw a line between theft and copyright violation and expect us to go "oh, well since it's not technically THEFT I guess it's not the same thing" even though ANYONE with ANY sense of decency can see that the two are pretty fucking similar. You are obviously one of those "letter-of-the-law", not "spirit-of-the-law" types.
Do you even know what oxymoronic means? You threw the word out, yet didn't even show me how my argument was oxymoronic. I think you are having trouble controlling the English language.
Furthermore:
Unless of course you can point me to a dictionary that defines 'stealing' as "1. Altering data in ways considered immoral by a few CEOs - who would gladly rob you of your house and life savings - on your own computer which you paid for."
CEO's who would gladly rob me of my house and life savings? Here's a challenge: tell me who they are -- and then once you do, explain to me how your naming them is not libelous. Or, wait, is libel something that is also a meaningless condemnation? A malicious concept with no logic, no reason, nothing to stand on? Is there an oxymoronic definition, or a mindlessly relative term? Because speaking falsehoods about people is immoral too... nothing mindlessly relative about it.
Who does my hard drive belong to? Who owns the 1's and 0's? Who owns my cable connection? Me. Get this through your head, and one day you'll learn that what I've worked long and hard for belongs to me, NOT THEM.
The people that work hard on their music, that create the recordings, that find a means of distribution so people can pay for them so they can earn a living creating music -- who do the rights to distribute those recordings belong to?
NOT YOU.
Ok: if PARENTS are supposed to teach their children morality, then shouldn't PARENTS teach their children reading, writing, and 'rithmetic? And if so, why do schools exist at all?
And, obviously, PARENTS aren't teaching morality, or you wouldn't have so fucking many kids pirating music!
So SOMEBODY has to do it since PARENTS aren't getting the job done!
Like, for instance if you are too poor to buy medicine for your dying baby but you can steal some from your neighbour/local store.
First of all if your baby is dying you take it to the hospital. Second of all, if it is emergency care, the hospital is obligated by law to do everything it can for the child to make sure it survives. So, why the hell would you need to steal anything?
I get what you're saying, but your argument sucks and you need a new one -- especially if you're teaching a child. Teach them correctly, not with flawed arguments.
The reason people are anti-data-exchange is because some the data has a price tag, and people aren't respecting that. If people won't respect the price tags because it's the right thing to do, how can you blame companies for trying to force it to happen through law?
Yes, yes, some people make legit backup copies. More people are pirating. Don't blame the companies, blame the immoral screwheads that are bringing this on themselves.
('sending data is wrong! Obeying me is right! Dualism is right! Disobeying corporations is wrong!'), equating propaganda with morality ('you haven't paid for that tile so you have no right to stand on it!')
You sound like Sean Hannity, completely ignoring one side of the argument (the fact that piracy is immoral and obviously affects profits), and twisting the actions being taken and making them sound like motives (which they are not.)
trying with every last breath to turn listening to music into 'ripping off' the artist who, even if the outlandishly abstract concept of artists 'losing' money to data transfer were true, isn't getting the 8 cents he would have gotten had you bent over and bought the CD.
See... they decided to sign the contract with the record company. They want to make the 8 cents per CD. That's their decision, NOT YOURS.
That was two years ago already, what the hell?
So I guess we shouldn't teach our kids that stealing is wrong. Right? Wrong.
If you don't want to pay for the music, then don't pay for it -- but you don't have any right to listen to it if it's being offered for sale and you refuse to pay for it.
If you don't like that a movie screening costs $8, you don't have the right to go into the theater and watch it without paying.
I'm now waiting for your semantic argument that argues that copyright infringement is not the same as stealing, and therefore allows you to rationalize that ripping people off is OK. By all means, respond.
Surprised no one responded that Microsoft's NX protection is evil and will rip you off.
Please, I know someone that uses GAIM and the fucking program can't even paste hyperlinks properly.
Just because something is FREE doesn't mean it's GOOD.
But please enlighten me, someone, anyone, why is GAIM so much better than the official AIM client?
How are you going to connect to someone else's WiFi network on a cellular signal?
This wallpaper is to keep people OUT, not to keep people IN.
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe they are patenting things so lawsuit-happy morons can't go and patent the same things and file suit later? In all likelihood Microsoft is covering their ass and protecting other people, not following a lawsuit-based business model...
Um, why can't you just post stuff to a web site? Why do you need p2p to post documents?
It doesn't matter what was said, because I was reading into it. There are many, many people who think they have a right to own copyrighted material regardless of whether or not it's in print -- "I can't buy it anywhere, so it's OK to download it!" -- which is absolutely absurd.
I agree with that to a point, but do want to bring up the fact that when a CD goes out of print, sometimes it is *VERY* hard to ever find an original copy. I know of quite a few artists that have released CDs that weren't chart-burners and wound up dropping out of print. I'd love to have the CDs, but they are friggin *IMPOSSIBLE* to find. NO record stores in the entire area have the CD. ("Ambition" by Tommy Shaw from Styx is a perfect example) - I was on the "watch list" at no less than 15 records here in the SF Bay Area. The CD was *NEVER* found. Nearly 8 years later, I found a copy on eBay - and paid $90 for it.
You don't have "the right to own a copy" -- you know that, right? If they only made X, and you didn't buy one of them, you don't suddenly gain the right to own it because there are none left...
Hey, you know, one time a black person stole something.
I guess all black people steal.
Can we please have some evidence that Microsoft pays IT execs off to recommend their products? Your little claim there sure sounds slanderous.
There's also too many Americans, like you, that will give the Left whatever they want just because you think the Right is so EVIL. Before you forget, let me remind you -- the Democrats historically attack First and Second amendment rights.
The GOP does some things right, and the Democrats do some things right. The way you're talking, though, you sound just as bad as the "Jesus vote", blindly jumping on the "Bush does everything wrong" bandwagon. Hey, I guess you'd better stop breathing, since Bush does that too.
Ugh.
(PS: Not a Republican. Independent.)
Yay let's bash Bush, since I guess it's not quite as sheeplike as bashing "Micro$oft"... sigh.
I said "IPO" not "money."
Arguing semantics doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of what you wrote.
This is not a new concept, and is a belief held by many people.
People may hold the view that IPO's are not a good idea. However, I am going to argue that most people do not hold your view that IPOs are "evil". Use of the word "evil" in pretty much ANY context (especially on Slashdot) borders on ridiculous, and is fair game for ridicule -- and hence, moderation downward.
Being a public company means you answer to shareholders and give up a good measure of your independence.
Not true, at all. For example, if I offer 1% of my company publicly and retain the other 99%, why do I have to answer to the 1%? I have a controlling interest, they don't, and if the other 1% doesn't like what I do, they can SELL.
World Wrestling Entertainment, as an example, operates this way. Vince McMahon (chairman) has said on numerous occasions that if you buy WWE stock, you are buying into HIS vision, and there is no room to try to impose YOUR vision on his company.
So what if moderators are offended by my viewpoint?
That's basically the point of Troll (-1) is to stop offensive (or offensively lame) posts...
Disagreement = invalid? It's an abuse of the moderation system to mod people down simply because you disagree.
That makes no sense -- following that logic, modding someone UP because you AGREE with them would also be an abuse of the moderation system. Yet, you have to agree with someone to find their thoughts Insightful or even Interesting.
I think we need SMTP2 before we worry about IRC2...
Because:
"When Google has its IPO it officially becomes evil. Very few corporations adhere to their founding values when they must answer to shareholders. Google should just remain private."
Ranting about how money is evil is troll-like.
And I'm sure more than a few moderators are offended by the viewpoint that no one should ever make money, and everyone should give everything away for free. That's not how the world works.
I... maybe I'm confused, but I don't understand your post.
I was explaining why murder should be illegal, and swearing shouldn't be...
Murder harms people.
Swearing, arguably, doesn't. "Oh, shit." Who is that harming?