We, as a society, give copyrights to people and limit what they can do about this. They can profit enough with traditional sells. There is no motive to allow for things like limited licenses.
However you may thing it acceptable there is a motive why abusive practices like these cannot be allowed. The distribution market is far from being a free competition market. It is dominated by a few huge distributors. Without laws forcing them to behave they can pretty much make deals between themselves and use the policies they want regardless of what users want.
I am quite sure that you, as a member of the Court of Appeals, know exactly what they want, and what they will decide, but I will reserve myself the right to be skeptic about your credentials here.
No exactly. Your logic goes against everything the justice system was designed to accomplish. By your logic there would be no motive to have more than a single instance. If she had done a really good job, chances are the higher instances would just uphold her verdict. Higher instances take into consideration the results of lower instances. Furthermore in all other tasks she may have the same could be said, as appeals are available for all.
I agree somewhat with your last statement, but the odd cases of people who become obsessive with a game do not define the average player of the game. Eve does not "waste" your time, being obsessive about it does, as being obsessive about anything else will.
Even going 10% above the speed limit is a much more dangerous behavior than downloading copyrighted files, and apparently the fines are much cheaper. Buy the data provided by you the break even point is when one is exceeding the limit by 50 km/h which is extremely dangerous most of the time. Additionally if the person is caught again downloading illegal files I bet the fines won't be the same.
Good luck with that. I am quite sure you will achieve by yourself the world without criminals or violence that Humanity was unable to do in thousands of years of civilization.
By speeding you can actually kill people. Any deterrence fine applied to this practice should be much larger than the deterrence for illegal downloads. That is not the case, so it is reasonable to infer that something is wrong here.
If we weren't moving in the exact opposing way I would say you have a point. Trying to concentrate memory, processing power and bandwidth in servers is a great recipe to failure. The cost of these resources and the logistic problems associated do not escalate linearly.
Fortunately they are not the only economical power and their interests are not universal among those that grab for political power. At the moment they are the strongest lobby, but as they grab for more power the tendency is that they start to piss off the wrong people, as happened on SOPA, for example.
Maybe, IANAL and can`t go further than this in my arguments, but still the more fronts are opened the harder it gets for the AAs to keep going. Add that to the fact that to end points of the Darknet can be offshored and you create still another front.
The best way to guarantee that things will go down the drain is to admit defeat even before starting fighting. People like you would go willingly to the abattoir because you'd think it is useless to fight for your life.
There are times when things do go right, and is all but impossible to predict how things will go until they actually do. Giving up without even trying is defeatism and it is the only assured way to fail.
Truth is SOPA block worked, because, regardless of the motives people got pissed enough, and it will happen again. As the few who want to absolutely control content press for Internet control, not only end users start to get pissed, but other powerful interests, whom a lot of people follow, like Wikipedia and Google in the blackout, for example.
Not all economic interests always converge. That is why we do not have slavery anymore, that is why we use cars and not wagons, etc. In their fight for control the MAFIAAs will alienate more and more a lot of powerful people, and soon enough they will become so troublesome that they will be more trouble than they are worth it, and their heads will end cut.
The DCMA uses "common carrier" in its definition, it does not by any means define in itself what is a "common carrier". By its legal definition "common carrier" can arguably apply to anyone who offers the service to carry anything for all in opposition to "contract carriers" which offer the service to transport only for specific clients.
Slashdot Mirror
We can go further than that. How about making copyright illegal by the same motives?
Fortunately that is not allowed by law in many countries, including Germany.
We, as a society, give copyrights to people and limit what they can do about this. They can profit enough with traditional sells. There is no motive to allow for things like limited licenses.
Nope. Suing them to hell seems better to me as the law don't allow for their practices.
GOG has many newer games in its catalog currently. Including releases.
However you may thing it acceptable there is a motive why abusive practices like these cannot be allowed. The distribution market is far from being a free competition market. It is dominated by a few huge distributors. Without laws forcing them to behave they can pretty much make deals between themselves and use the policies they want regardless of what users want.
I am quite sure that you, as a member of the Court of Appeals, know exactly what they want, and what they will decide, but I will reserve myself the right to be skeptic about your credentials here.
No exactly. Your logic goes against everything the justice system was designed to accomplish. By your logic there would be no motive to have more than a single instance. If she had done a really good job, chances are the higher instances would just uphold her verdict. Higher instances take into consideration the results of lower instances. Furthermore in all other tasks she may have the same could be said, as appeals are available for all.
Patenting ideas is not allowed (at least theoretically) even in US. Ideas are not patentable, only specific implementations.
Youtube received 150 take down notices this week.
I agree somewhat with your last statement, but the odd cases of people who become obsessive with a game do not define the average player of the game. Eve does not "waste" your time, being obsessive about it does, as being obsessive about anything else will.
Even going 10% above the speed limit is a much more dangerous behavior than downloading copyrighted files, and apparently the fines are much cheaper. Buy the data provided by you the break even point is when one is exceeding the limit by 50 km/h which is extremely dangerous most of the time. Additionally if the person is caught again downloading illegal files I bet the fines won't be the same.
Good luck with that. I am quite sure you will achieve by yourself the world without criminals or violence that Humanity was unable to do in thousands of years of civilization.
By speeding you can actually kill people. Any deterrence fine applied to this practice should be much larger than the deterrence for illegal downloads. That is not the case, so it is reasonable to infer that something is wrong here.
The point is not that people shouldn't do illegal stuff. the point is how much we will punish people for doing specific illegal stuff.
Even if you are ok with death penalty for every single crime, no matter how small it may be, I am certainly not.
Everything done obsessively is bad, including relationships and work.
That was a very insightful observation. I wish I had mod points today.
If you find having hobbies "wrong" I truly pity you.
No. You jump to where you want to jump. The problem is that what you want to do is not always wise to do...
As many people choose to spend their times in other equally "useless" hobbies.
If we weren't moving in the exact opposing way I would say you have a point. Trying to concentrate memory, processing power and bandwidth in servers is a great recipe to failure. The cost of these resources and the logistic problems associated do not escalate linearly.
Fortunately they are not the only economical power and their interests are not universal among those that grab for political power. At the moment they are the strongest lobby, but as they grab for more power the tendency is that they start to piss off the wrong people, as happened on SOPA, for example.
Maybe, IANAL and can`t go further than this in my arguments, but still the more fronts are opened the harder it gets for the AAs to keep going. Add that to the fact that to end points of the Darknet can be offshored and you create still another front.
The best way to guarantee that things will go down the drain is to admit defeat even before starting fighting. People like you would go willingly to the abattoir because you'd think it is useless to fight for your life.
There are times when things do go right, and is all but impossible to predict how things will go until they actually do. Giving up without even trying is defeatism and it is the only assured way to fail.
Truth is SOPA block worked, because, regardless of the motives people got pissed enough, and it will happen again. As the few who want to absolutely control content press for Internet control, not only end users start to get pissed, but other powerful interests, whom a lot of people follow, like Wikipedia and Google in the blackout, for example.
Not all economic interests always converge. That is why we do not have slavery anymore, that is why we use cars and not wagons, etc. In their fight for control the MAFIAAs will alienate more and more a lot of powerful people, and soon enough they will become so troublesome that they will be more trouble than they are worth it, and their heads will end cut.
The DCMA uses "common carrier" in its definition, it does not by any means define in itself what is a "common carrier". By its legal definition "common carrier" can arguably apply to anyone who offers the service to carry anything for all in opposition to "contract carriers" which offer the service to transport only for specific clients.