This is just more evidence of the Open Sores community's intention to launder* the code before Darl can prove how evil they are in a court of law. Buy SCOX before it goes through the roof!
Hmm, I didn't know that. To be honest, I use Exploder as-is, for the few sites that are genuinely borked on actual browsers. I can't say that I'm surprised.
Did you get the memo that the Cold War is over? Nobody cares about whatever liberties USians still believe that they have, they just want to kill you and stop you taking their oil. Liberties. Phwah.
We agree that there have been no prosecutions for VCR space shifting, so there's no warning precedent there.
I haven't seen or heard any RIAA advertising. If I didn't read sites like Slashdot, I wouldn't be aware of the issue. I think we're too close to the issue to be able to comment on it objectively.
Tools->Internet options->Accessibility->Ignore colours specified on web pages
Tools->Internet options->Accessibility->Ignore font styles specified on web pages
Tools->Internet options->Accessibility->Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
I'm assuming that you're using Intarweb Exploder, on the basis that there's a fair overlap between that demographics and those that don't understand that markup is a set of hints, not dictats.
You seem to be having a great deal of trouble dealing with the question as asked. I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever else you just wrote up there, I'm just calling you out on your assertion that it's "Hardly an issue" whether little orphan Annie and her friends give more money to the RIAA or not.
You're clearly in denial that you said it, so I'll leave you to fire off another rambling rant about whatever point it is that you're so hell bent on making. Joy and love.
That doesn't exactly refute my argument. What's the tread limit on tires where you live? Off the top of your head. Heck, surely if there was one, someone would tell you. How can you make an informed decision about whether to do the crime if you don't know that it's a crime? Do you assume everything is a crime until proven otherwise?
When it's possible to hear music in a dozen different ways without paying for it (want me to list them?), some of which are technically unlawful but aren't prosecuted, why should it be so apparent that making digital copies of mp3s is both unlawful and liable to prosecution?
As for case law precedent, has there been a case yet where using a VCR to space shift copy righted material one doesn't hold a license to duplicate has been prosecuted?
Sounds reasonable, given their comments about the GPL as well. It looks like they're going to argue (after translation into appropriate lawyerese) that open/free licenses, well, you know, they don't really mean anything, your honour. That all they really are is just codification of fair use, so they don't really apply in commercial applications.
Only they're not going to argue that at all, because they can't afford to let this get to court, where inconvenient "facts" might be dragged into it.
When Darl and his buddies finally dump this thing, it's going to make a splash big enough to swamp California.
On the other hand, every morsel we feed him gets crapped out the other end and sold as shinola to greedy, ignorant speculators.
SCO's stock is up, but so is Red Hat's. Nobody except the greedy and ignorant give Darl any credence, so who is he hurting, really? It sucks that he's causing lawyers to get paid, but balance that against the sheer amusement value of his antics, and I think it comes out about even.
TennesseeJeff said: I wonder how much music this girl will actually buy
You said: Hardly an issue, from the RIAA's perspective. The real question is, "how much music will this girl ever download again -- and influence her friends never to download again?"
I asked: Um, what do they care about that? If she and her friends don't actually buy more pieces of crippled plastic, what's the benefit to the RIAA?
Why did you say that it's not an issue about how much music (and moichandise) she actually buys?
Don't answer another question, answer that question. You chose to disagree with that. Why?
If she stops downloading today, but never buys another CD or poster again, what's the benefit to the RIAA?
Or check out the inbred hick chipmunk that Taco married. She's the girl that couldn't get onto the second string cheerleading reserve list, so she decided to become Queen of the AV Club.
>"how much music will this girl ever download again -- and influence her friends never to download again?"
Um, what do they care about that? If she and her friends don't actually buy more pieces of crippled plastic, what's the benefit to the RIAA?
They can scream all they want about how filesharing is stealing, but it doesn't cost them a damn penny. Their costs are recording, marketing and crack whores. Their income is CDs, tapes and moichandising sales. Filesharing doesn't figure in that equation either way.
The original question was right. How exactly does suing people directly generate more money for the RIAA (other than from the settlements and court victories, that is)?
Slashdot Mirror
This is just more evidence of the Open Sores community's intention to launder* the code before Darl can prove how evil they are in a court of law. Buy SCOX before it goes through the roof!
* "launder" is Darl's actual choice of term.
Hmm, I didn't know that. To be honest, I use Exploder as-is, for the few sites that are genuinely borked on actual browsers. I can't say that I'm surprised.
Did you get the memo that the Cold War is over? Nobody cares about whatever liberties USians still believe that they have, they just want to kill you and stop you taking their oil. Liberties. Phwah.
Plus an unbudgeted couple of hundred billion (give or take, after all, who's counting?) in Iraq.
How many scientists does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer: one, obviously.
How many munitions factory workers does it take to imagine and invent the lightbulb? Answer: all of them plus one scientist.
And is it still 1/16"? Bet your license on it?
We agree that there have been no prosecutions for VCR space shifting, so there's no warning precedent there.
I haven't seen or heard any RIAA advertising. If I didn't read sites like Slashdot, I wouldn't be aware of the issue. I think we're too close to the issue to be able to comment on it objectively.
Say, Coward, how many Iraqi WMDs did you find today?
Tools->Internet options->Accessibility->Ignore colours specified on web pages
Tools->Internet options->Accessibility->Ignore font styles specified on web pages
Tools->Internet options->Accessibility->Ignore font sizes specified on web pages
I'm assuming that you're using Intarweb Exploder, on the basis that there's a fair overlap between that demographics and those that don't understand that markup is a set of hints, not dictats.
You seem to be having a great deal of trouble dealing with the question as asked. I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever else you just wrote up there, I'm just calling you out on your assertion that it's "Hardly an issue" whether little orphan Annie and her friends give more money to the RIAA or not.
You're clearly in denial that you said it, so I'll leave you to fire off another rambling rant about whatever point it is that you're so hell bent on making. Joy and love.
That doesn't exactly refute my argument. What's the tread limit on tires where you live? Off the top of your head. Heck, surely if there was one, someone would tell you. How can you make an informed decision about whether to do the crime if you don't know that it's a crime? Do you assume everything is a crime until proven otherwise?
When it's possible to hear music in a dozen different ways without paying for it (want me to list them?), some of which are technically unlawful but aren't prosecuted, why should it be so apparent that making digital copies of mp3s is both unlawful and liable to prosecution?
As for case law precedent, has there been a case yet where using a VCR to space shift copy righted material one doesn't hold a license to duplicate has been prosecuted?
Yes, I saw that, but I don't want to pay for it. Why should I? I've been told that I'm a thief so many times that I'm beginning to believe it.
Oh no, the Anonymous Coward is (mistakenly) flaming me. Look out everyone, the Anonymous Coward is on the war path! Oooh, Anonymous Coward, scaaaary.
Where can I rip off his entire back catalogue for free?
Yeah, I know, I know, but it's OK, really. Big newspapers are big business, and we're among friends here. It's not as though it's stealing, right?
Try This Modern World. The archive links are on the left.
George, show us the weapons.
Darl, show us the source.
Everything - and I mean everything - else is bullshit.
Sounds reasonable, given their comments about the GPL as well. It looks like they're going to argue (after translation into appropriate lawyerese) that open/free licenses, well, you know, they don't really mean anything, your honour. That all they really are is just codification of fair use, so they don't really apply in commercial applications.
Only they're not going to argue that at all, because they can't afford to let this get to court, where inconvenient "facts" might be dragged into it.
When Darl and his buddies finally dump this thing, it's going to make a splash big enough to swamp California.
On the other hand, every morsel we feed him gets crapped out the other end and sold as shinola to greedy, ignorant speculators.
SCO's stock is up, but so is Red Hat's. Nobody except the greedy and ignorant give Darl any credence, so who is he hurting, really? It sucks that he's causing lawyers to get paid, but balance that against the sheer amusement value of his antics, and I think it comes out about even.
ESR should "inform the proper authorities", but are you arguing that Saddam Hussein should be returned to power?
Burn in hell, straw man.
Therefore all Chevy drivers are gay.
That's about the standard of independence, evidence and conclusion we're seeing here.
Try sticking to the question as asked.
Why did you say that it's not an issue about how much music (and moichandise) she actually buys?
Don't answer another question, answer that question. You chose to disagree with that. Why?
If she stops downloading today, but never buys another CD or poster again, what's the benefit to the RIAA?
Or check out the inbred hick chipmunk that Taco married. She's the girl that couldn't get onto the second string cheerleading reserve list, so she decided to become Queen of the AV Club.
Copyright: Sharman Networks Ltd does not condone activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners. As a Kazaa Media Desktop user you have agreed to abide by the End User License Agreement and it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country.
Hey, I bought a gun. Surely that means I'm allowed to shoot people. Why else would they sell it?
>And where's her dad?
Defending freedom and puppies in Iraq, you insensitive clod.
>"how much music will this girl ever download again -- and influence her friends never to download again?"
Um, what do they care about that? If she and her friends don't actually buy more pieces of crippled plastic, what's the benefit to the RIAA?
They can scream all they want about how filesharing is stealing, but it doesn't cost them a damn penny. Their costs are recording, marketing and crack whores. Their income is CDs, tapes and moichandising sales. Filesharing doesn't figure in that equation either way.
The original question was right. How exactly does suing people directly generate more money for the RIAA (other than from the settlements and court victories, that is)?
Um, they were probably typing one handed, if you know what I mean.