If this were a page mocking Obama's race and accentuating certain facial features, you Captain Crunch wannabes would be screaming racism
So wait - are you saying that Glenn Beck *DID* rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Because otherwise that comparison makes no sense!
That's quite a bombshell you have there - if you have proof that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, you should come forward with it immediately! I mean, I didn't believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, but if you have proof, then *wow*!
Instead he's now suing people who say he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990!
Actually, no, he's not. He's suing people who are asking why he won't deny that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Note that these people (like you and me) don't believe he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990 - they just want him to set the record straight and deny these hideous allegations.
Hey, I'm the messenger here not the message - calling it like I see it.
XBMC isn't a replacement for Myth if what you want is a DVR - I didn't claim that it was.
OK - the post I replied to says that XBMC is a replacement for MythTV - full stop. As MythTV is primarily a PVR (the ability to view DVDs/imported movies are plugins, not part of the core program) I interpreted that to mean that XBMC was a PVR. Because if it wasn't it's not a replacement.
I'm not married to MythTV, and if there was a better solution, I'd use it - which is why I asked about XBMC's recording abilities in the first place.. someone suggested it as a replacement, and I wanted to get some first-hand information from someone who uses it.
XBMC is a media front-end, it has NO recording capabilities nor will it apparently.
So how is it a replacement for MythTV then?
Rather than reinventing the wheel the developers intend to make it easy to interface with other back-ends, including Myth.
So.. instead of dealing with "hideous complexities in keeping the damn thing running", the solution is to deal with "hideous complexities in keeping the damn thing running"?
It's not without it's warts, but they're pretty easily hidden, and my wife and daughter both love it.
I've never used XBMC - how good it it's PVR capabilities? For scheduling does it support Schedules Direct, or some other listings service (or does it require screen-scraping of some sort?)
And you know *why* that is? Because *IT'S NOT THE SAME*. If copyright infringement *WAS* the same as theft, we wouldn't need a special law dealing with it - it could be covered by theft laws. The fact that it isn't should tell you something.
It literally fits the non-legal definition.
No, it doesn't. It fits the propaganda term. Just because some media trade groups misapply a term as an act of propaganda does not make it so.
A) Didn't choose to come on their free will B) Can't leave when they choose C) Are mentally stable and can make their own decisions and D) are being held against their will.
By your intrepretation a toddler put in a crib is also a prisoner.
It was not, giving 28 year terms of copyright to a populace that would live only 35 on average.
Statistics. You fail it.
If you have 1000 people, 500 of which died before they reached one year, and 500 of which die when they're 70, what is the average life expectancy?
In that time period, most adults lived into their 60's, not mid-thirties. The "35 year lifespan" is a garbage statistic spouted by people who don't understand math.
Thank you for supporting my viewpoint that copyright has been hijacked. It's meant to benefit the originators of the idea, not suits that were not even born when the songs were first created.
Actually, that's incorrect. Before copyright, there were no artists or writers clamouring for "protection". The people pushing copyright were the publishers, who wanted copyright to benefit themselves (which is exactly what we have right now.) The whole "think of the artists" stuff is propaganda invented to create support for copyright from artists and "average" people.
Before copyright, artists considered it a complement that their work was replayed and enjoyed by others.
This, of course, doesn't make the hoarding of our cultural works and the impingement on free expression right, but I just wanted to point out that it was never meant to protect artists, only publishers.
Correct, but only if you are downloading it for your own personal use.
It's illegal to provide downloads
Incorrect.
There is no law against "making available", and "making available" is not covered under copyright. If you deliberately make copies to provide them to others, that would be illegal. If you make copies for yourself (by downloading or ripping them), and those copies just happen to be shared by filesharing software, that is not illegal.
cats are still wild beasties. The only reason they don't eat your face when they're mad at you is that they are too small.
No, they're only "wild beasties" if their owners are idiots who don't know anything about how they should be treated.
If you want to own a cat, you need to be responsible for it. Part of that responsibility is to keep it safe. Letting your cat outsite unsupervised "just because it wants to" is plain irresponsibility.
5. The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ. I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.
6. The US started the ACTA talks in 2007, over a year before the "Obama administration" was a glint in the Democrats' eyes.
There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.
No, that's not true.
The section you mentioned allows them to confiscate all your possessions if they suspect there might have been a single infringing item on any electronic device you own.
If only they hadn't done the show in a way that voids the third movie.
Why? The third movie sucked. When Sarah Connor Chronicles was first announced, I read an interview with the creator who said "The show happens in a different timeline than the third movie" - which I interpreted as "the third movie sucked - this is how it *should* have happened."
I'm glad they threw the third movie under the bus and forged their own story - it was the only decent way to save the storyline.
As I understand it, that could include sequels to Terminator: Salvation or the Terminator 3 plotlines
Unless it included the time machine that would allow the purchaser to go back in time and ensure those were never made, I still have trouble seeing the value.
There is no moral dilemma in "killing" a zombie, because it's already dead. People with Rage aren't dead, the're sick. It's entirely possible that a cure could be found, and so killing someone with Rage is taking a life (even though it's self-defense.)
If this is true, then the only logically-consistent way to interpret your question is that you are stating that it's perfectly acceptable to punish people for something they have not done, and that punishing people for things they have not done is a way to reduce copyright infringement.
The former is an indefensible position that makes you a troll, and the latter is a non-sequitur.
So, are you an illogical troll, or are you just stupid?
just how do you propose that someone actually illegally downloading or uploading stuff get's threated then
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
For clarity this case -- assuming they are quilty --.
This is the root of your problem. You are assuming that everyone who is accused is guilty.
So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it.
Slashdot Mirror
If this were a page mocking Obama's race and accentuating certain facial features, you Captain Crunch wannabes would be screaming racism
So wait - are you saying that Glenn Beck *DID* rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Because otherwise that comparison makes no sense!
That's quite a bombshell you have there - if you have proof that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, you should come forward with it immediately! I mean, I didn't believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, but if you have proof, then *wow*!
Instead he's now suing people who say he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990!
Actually, no, he's not. He's suing people who are asking why he won't deny that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Note that these people (like you and me) don't believe he did rape and murder a young girl in 1990 - they just want him to set the record straight and deny these hideous allegations.
Hey, I'm the messenger here not the message - calling it like I see it.
XBMC isn't a replacement for Myth if what you want is a DVR - I didn't claim that it was.
OK - the post I replied to says that XBMC is a replacement for MythTV - full stop. As MythTV is primarily a PVR (the ability to view DVDs/imported movies are plugins, not part of the core program) I interpreted that to mean that XBMC was a PVR. Because if it wasn't it's not a replacement.
I'm not married to MythTV, and if there was a better solution, I'd use it - which is why I asked about XBMC's recording abilities in the first place.. someone suggested it as a replacement, and I wanted to get some first-hand information from someone who uses it.
XBMC is a media front-end, it has NO recording capabilities nor will it apparently.
So how is it a replacement for MythTV then?
Rather than reinventing the wheel the developers intend to make it easy to interface with other back-ends, including Myth.
So.. instead of dealing with "hideous complexities in keeping the damn thing running", the solution is to deal with "hideous complexities in keeping the damn thing running"?
I still use it.
It's not without it's warts, but they're pretty easily hidden, and my wife and daughter both love it.
I've never used XBMC - how good it it's PVR capabilities? For scheduling does it support Schedules Direct, or some other listings service (or does it require screen-scraping of some sort?)
Copyright infringement IS stealing
No, it isn't. Here is a handy guide illustrating the difference.
it just has a different legal definition.
And you know *why* that is? Because *IT'S NOT THE SAME*. If copyright infringement *WAS* the same as theft, we wouldn't need a special law dealing with it - it could be covered by theft laws. The fact that it isn't should tell you something.
It literally fits the non-legal definition.
No, it doesn't. It fits the propaganda term. Just because some media trade groups misapply a term as an act of propaganda does not make it so.
A) Didn't choose to come on their free will B) Can't leave when they choose C) Are mentally stable and can make their own decisions and D) are being held against their will.
By your intrepretation a toddler put in a crib is also a prisoner.
Methinks you skipped some of the criteria there.
Advertising doesn't work for me. I use a DVR to skip all commercials all the time.
What you mean is that "Commercial interruption doesn't work for you". Watch this video.
It was not, giving 28 year terms of copyright to a populace that would live only 35 on average.
Statistics. You fail it.
If you have 1000 people, 500 of which died before they reached one year, and 500 of which die when they're 70, what is the average life expectancy?
In that time period, most adults lived into their 60's, not mid-thirties. The "35 year lifespan" is a garbage statistic spouted by people who don't understand math.
Thank you for supporting my viewpoint that copyright has been hijacked. It's meant to benefit the originators of the idea, not suits that were not even born when the songs were first created.
Actually, that's incorrect. Before copyright, there were no artists or writers clamouring for "protection". The people pushing copyright were the publishers, who wanted copyright to benefit themselves (which is exactly what we have right now.) The whole "think of the artists" stuff is propaganda invented to create support for copyright from artists and "average" people.
Before copyright, artists considered it a complement that their work was replayed and enjoyed by others.
This, of course, doesn't make the hoarding of our cultural works and the impingement on free expression right, but I just wanted to point out that it was never meant to protect artists, only publishers.
Let the user [...] be responsible for their own security
Yes, because as all of the botnets have shown, that works so well in practice.
Iirc, it's legal to download music in Canada.
Correct, but only if you are downloading it for your own personal use.
It's illegal to provide downloads
Incorrect.
There is no law against "making available", and "making available" is not covered under copyright. If you deliberately make copies to provide them to others, that would be illegal. If you make copies for yourself (by downloading or ripping them), and those copies just happen to be shared by filesharing software, that is not illegal.
cats are still wild beasties. The only reason they don't eat your face when they're mad at you is that they are too small.
No, they're only "wild beasties" if their owners are idiots who don't know anything about how they should be treated.
If you want to own a cat, you need to be responsible for it. Part of that responsibility is to keep it safe. Letting your cat outsite unsupervised "just because it wants to" is plain irresponsibility.
tomhudson is absolutely correct here.
5. The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ. I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.
6. The US started the ACTA talks in 2007, over a year before the "Obama administration" was a glint in the Democrats' eyes.
There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.
No, that's not true.
The section you mentioned allows them to confiscate all your possessions if they suspect there might have been a single infringing item on any electronic device you own.
If only they hadn't done the show in a way that voids the third movie.
Why? The third movie sucked. When Sarah Connor Chronicles was first announced, I read an interview with the creator who said "The show happens in a different timeline than the third movie" - which I interpreted as "the third movie sucked - this is how it *should* have happened."
I'm glad they threw the third movie under the bus and forged their own story - it was the only decent way to save the storyline.
What makes a work "cultural"
The fact that it's part of our culture?
why does that mean that you do not need the author's permission to copy it?
Mu. Please take your straw men elsewhere.
As I understand it, that could include sequels to Terminator: Salvation or the Terminator 3 plotlines
Unless it included the time machine that would allow the purchaser to go back in time and ensure those were never made, I still have trouble seeing the value.
Buffy never appealed to me, but obviously a lot of people disagree with me on that one.
So.. a lot of people say it *did* appeal to you?
Were you hit on the head and suffered partial amnesia of some sort? What?
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people
I find it particularly ironic that people who are sharing cultural works with others for free are being called "greedy" and "selfish".
I think the point of the article
I'm sorry, you've lost me... you expect people to read the article?
Okay, then, what's the functional difference?
Zombies can't be cured.
There is no moral dilemma in "killing" a zombie, because it's already dead. People with Rage aren't dead, the're sick. It's entirely possible that a cure could be found, and so killing someone with Rage is taking a life (even though it's self-defense.)
Think there's no difference? Go watch Old Yeller.
No, it doesn't t presuppose anything
If this is true, then the only logically-consistent way to interpret your question is that you are stating that it's perfectly acceptable to punish people for something they have not done, and that punishing people for things they have not done is a way to reduce copyright infringement.
The former is an indefensible position that makes you a troll, and the latter is a non-sequitur.
So, are you an illogical troll, or are you just stupid?
just how do you propose that someone actually illegally downloading or uploading stuff get's threated then
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
For clarity this case -- assuming they are quilty --.
This is the root of your problem. You are assuming that everyone who is accused is guilty.
So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of opening the sealed letter. It's the act of opening it that's the issue.
So in other words you're agreeing with me that ROT-13 would be subject to privacy, but that plaintext wouldn't?