If people want to award the author with their money, that is fine. I don't really care, but pirates aren't actually taking anything.
Of course they are. You don't have a right to hear me sing just because I sang into a microphone somewhere. If you want that pleasure you will pay me money for it. You will not steal it from me and you certainly will not then give it for free to all your friends and dozens of other people you don't know who find your IP address on a p2p website somewhere.
It doesn't matter what they would have done. She gifted them with copies. They got illegal copies. She should pay for each copy distributed and they should pay for each copy received. Oh, yes, two people can pay for the same crime if they commit it together. The law is not a zero-sum game, and copyright law certainly isn't.
1. You gave it to them as a gift. Every one of those gifts is a copy you stole from me. Pay up. 2. Ibid. 3. So you want to cut yourself into my profits by keeping money that belongs to me? Fuck that.
I have no sympathy for thieves, but I also have no sympathy for people who have lobbyists who write laws so they can become legal thieves. The punishments specified in this law are outrageous, but so is the idea that people can just give away other people's property and not be at least proportionally punished for it.
The fairest penalty is no penalty. We need to end the war on sharing by legalizing noncommercial copyright infringement.
Utterly wrong in every respect.
To do what you are saying, to eliminate the market for my work through government fiat, is to commit a crime against me.
Diminishing my market by giving my product away for free is my right, not yours. As long as the scarcity of the product still gives me the opportunity to make money I have a right to profit from it, and nobody has a right to prevent me.
If you wish to reduce my market legally, you are free to criticize the quality of my work, or to sell your own creations in legal competition with mine.
The fact that something is easily manufactured once a master copy is created does not make it "natural" or "right" to give it for free to everyone.
Most institutions are concerned with whether they are legally covered and covered adequately for insurance purposes.
I have to say I don't know of a single insurance company that knows enough to require software quality.
Maybe they do, but while I've been in several situations where government authorities mandated the use of quality standards, I've never seen that on any non-government-regulated software system.
All the non-"elitist" universities tried to do exactly that. But the "elitist" universities out-competed them for competent staff and other marketable superiorities.
You'll be starting out at the bottom of the list. Just rejecting 90% of your applicant's won't help you climb it.
(And yes, I get the joke, but not everyone else will, because some of them didn't go to good schools...)
7% of a growing number is a growing number. And when there's another number growing (the number of $$ you can charge per student) then investing in growth is correct business strategy.
But this has nothing to do with education, so it really shouldn't matter to the student. Just do the math. If you're unaware of your ranking in Harvard's pool, assume it's just a gamble that you'll get in, and spread your other applications around to less-selective schools, including at least one where you are guaranteed to get in because of who or where you are not what you did in school. Plan on going somewhere that takes everyone who applies, and consider anything more selective as a bonus.
It doesn't take that long to fill out the forms, and eliminating the chance you'll be spending a year flipping burgers or shooting Iraqi children is sensible.
I looked at the wikipedia page linked from the summary and went "wtf#?"
As far as I can tell there's nothing in it that you can't do in C. It's got different keywords and formatting, but otherwise seems just the same.
Either that means F# is the same capability in a different wrapper, or the wikipedia page lost the plot and thinks recursion and modularity are unique to it.
The idea of making a physical copy is incidental to the idea of protecting intellectual property. That's why it's now called "intellectual property" instead of "books".
Yes, you have to make a copy of something in order to view it online, but I give you a free - or subscribed for a fee - license to copy it for the purpose of viewing it.
You do not automatically have a license to crib it into your own website, book, or magazine.
There are exceptions involving excerpting for criticism, but taking intellectual property and presenting it as your own creation, even as a small part of a larger work, is and should be illegal. And the size of the item copied is only a secondary consideration in determining the righteousness of the copying; totally subordinate to determining the intent of the copying. Making changes to it may constitute a separate crime of trying to cover up the first crime. And there's the whole matter of "derivative works", which I won't even go into because we're talking here about a simple case of plagiarism.
As for your scary example, it's counter to the results in the courts, so it can stay in the mythical land you've created for it. You own it, so you got that going for you.
I have no problem with people making money for their creations, but pirates (or people who break copyright laws) aren't doing any actual harm.
Since copyright is the only way to protect the rights of people who make money for their creations, you've just contradicted yourself. Breaking my copyright is the same as breaking a pipe open at my dairy or stealing my car. You didn't hurt me, but I'm not selling milk or getting to work today.
If you want to compete with me, create something yourself.
Your effort to learn how to do something and how to convey that information and the time and expense actually to convey the information is worth nothing to you? No matter how much it's worth at retail?
That's fine.
Print this out and sign it:
I, (insert your real name here), hereby donate all prior, current, and future works created by me to the public domain in perpetuity. Signed, ___________ Dated _____________
Then have it notarized and mail it to the US Copyright office.
Go ahead. You said copyright meant nothing, make it legal as well as practical.
Slashdot Mirror
And then sues Chuck Lorre.
They created a small version of the conditions that obtained in the event known to nearly everyone as "The Big Bang".
It's not merely a bang. It's a set of physical phenomena that heretofore have not been seen except at the inception of this universe.
The headline is just about as accurate as it can be, and isn't hyperbolic in the slightest.
If people want to award the author with their money, that is fine. I don't really care, but pirates aren't actually taking anything.
Of course they are. You don't have a right to hear me sing just because I sang into a microphone somewhere. If you want that pleasure you will pay me money for it. You will not steal it from me and you certainly will not then give it for free to all your friends and dozens of other people you don't know who find your IP address on a p2p website somewhere.
It doesn't matter what they would have done. She gifted them with copies. They got illegal copies. She should pay for each copy distributed and they should pay for each copy received. Oh, yes, two people can pay for the same crime if they commit it together. The law is not a zero-sum game, and copyright law certainly isn't.
1. You gave it to them as a gift. Every one of those gifts is a copy you stole from me. Pay up.
2. Ibid.
3. So you want to cut yourself into my profits by keeping money that belongs to me? Fuck that.
I have no sympathy for thieves, but I also have no sympathy for people who have lobbyists who write laws so they can become legal thieves. The punishments specified in this law are outrageous, but so is the idea that people can just give away other people's property and not be at least proportionally punished for it.
What constitution are you reading?
So I steal your car, sell it for $50, and that's all you want back?
Fine.
Have fun living in a world with that sort of economic balance.
The fairest penalty is no penalty. We need to end the war on sharing by legalizing noncommercial copyright infringement.
Utterly wrong in every respect.
To do what you are saying, to eliminate the market for my work through government fiat, is to commit a crime against me.
Diminishing my market by giving my product away for free is my right, not yours. As long as the scarcity of the product still gives me the opportunity to make money I have a right to profit from it, and nobody has a right to prevent me.
If you wish to reduce my market legally, you are free to criticize the quality of my work, or to sell your own creations in legal competition with mine.
The fact that something is easily manufactured once a master copy is created does not make it "natural" or "right" to give it for free to everyone.
Multiply the number of times the song was downloaded from her by the nominal wholesale price of the song in the marketplace.
That's compensatory. It's all the actual revenue the record company lost.
Triple it to get punitive. That's an arbitrary rule that courts use, but it seems reasonable and customary.
This horseshit about tens of thousands of dollars per incident is a ludicrous abuse of the legal system, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Man, you just gave me a delicious image of what Julian Assange should be strapped to when the count hits 0.
Most institutions are concerned with whether they are legally covered and covered adequately for insurance purposes.
I have to say I don't know of a single insurance company that knows enough to require software quality.
Maybe they do, but while I've been in several situations where government authorities mandated the use of quality standards, I've never seen that on any non-government-regulated software system.
So Microsoft should add a link to Trend Micro's product, and a column with a star-rating.
It'd cost them nothing but time to write the disclaimer.
One flaw in your plan:
All the non-"elitist" universities tried to do exactly that. But the "elitist" universities out-competed them for competent staff and other marketable superiorities.
You'll be starting out at the bottom of the list. Just rejecting 90% of your applicant's won't help you climb it.
(And yes, I get the joke, but not everyone else will, because some of them didn't go to good schools...)
7% of a growing number is a growing number. And when there's another number growing (the number of $$ you can charge per student) then investing in growth is correct business strategy.
But this has nothing to do with education, so it really shouldn't matter to the student. Just do the math. If you're unaware of your ranking in Harvard's pool, assume it's just a gamble that you'll get in, and spread your other applications around to less-selective schools, including at least one where you are guaranteed to get in because of who or where you are not what you did in school. Plan on going somewhere that takes everyone who applies, and consider anything more selective as a bonus.
It doesn't take that long to fill out the forms, and eliminating the chance you'll be spending a year flipping burgers or shooting Iraqi children is sensible.
As in, that made it easier, or as in, you can't write because you're a "No Child Left Behind" Scholar and it left a massive hole in your education?
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
Or is that how Security Essentials got there and the people "crying foul" are just sore that they'll have to pay, too?
I looked at the wikipedia page linked from the summary and went "wtf#?"
As far as I can tell there's nothing in it that you can't do in C. It's got different keywords and formatting, but otherwise seems just the same.
Either that means F# is the same capability in a different wrapper, or the wikipedia page lost the plot and thinks recursion and modularity are unique to it.
Everyone else is collateral incitement.
Not to the comptrollers at "FOX, NBC Universal, ABC, ABC Family, Biography, Lionsgate, Endemol, MGM, MTV Networks, National Geographic, Digital Rights Group, Paramount, PBS, Sony Pictures Television, Warner Bros. and more."
To them it's all +.
The idea of making a physical copy is incidental to the idea of protecting intellectual property. That's why it's now called "intellectual property" instead of "books".
Yes, you have to make a copy of something in order to view it online, but I give you a free - or subscribed for a fee - license to copy it for the purpose of viewing it.
You do not automatically have a license to crib it into your own website, book, or magazine.
There are exceptions involving excerpting for criticism, but taking intellectual property and presenting it as your own creation, even as a small part of a larger work, is and should be illegal. And the size of the item copied is only a secondary consideration in determining the righteousness of the copying; totally subordinate to determining the intent of the copying. Making changes to it may constitute a separate crime of trying to cover up the first crime. And there's the whole matter of "derivative works", which I won't even go into because we're talking here about a simple case of plagiarism.
As for your scary example, it's counter to the results in the courts, so it can stay in the mythical land you've created for it. You own it, so you got that going for you.
I have no problem with people making money for their creations, but pirates (or people who break copyright laws) aren't doing any actual harm.
Since copyright is the only way to protect the rights of people who make money for their creations, you've just contradicted yourself. Breaking my copyright is the same as breaking a pipe open at my dairy or stealing my car. You didn't hurt me, but I'm not selling milk or getting to work today.
If you want to compete with me, create something yourself.
It's G more than 3G.
Sheesh.
Your effort to learn how to do something and how to convey that information and the time and expense actually to convey the information is worth nothing to you? No matter how much it's worth at retail?
That's fine.
Print this out and sign it:
I, (insert your real name here), hereby donate all prior, current, and future works created by me to the public domain in perpetuity.
Signed, ___________
Dated _____________
Then have it notarized and mail it to the US Copyright office.
Go ahead. You said copyright meant nothing, make it legal as well as practical.
Why is that any different from printing it on a pamphlet and leaving it on a bus seat?
Should someone be allowed to copy your pamphlet and put it on other bus seats without your permission?
The legal answer is no.
Trade secrets aren't protected by law unless you patent them, i.e., tell everyone what they say.
Love the irony in that.