That's the entire point - I *want* to buy the movie, but I won't until it plays on my hardware.
I have hardware that is capable of playing HD content, but the content providers are erecting artifical barriers to prevent me from doing it. Once the stupid DRM is cracked, I'll buy it.
stop giving the people that back this shit your money. Put your money where your mouth is.
The problem with this is that it's *not* a solution.
What happens when you do this is that they say "hey our sales are down, we need more DRM and government restrictions - send some more lobbyists to Washington to buy some more laws."
And drop in sales is attributed to "piracy", whether it's really the cause or not.
It goes deeper than that though - "attractive" meant "the guy who could kill or maim his rivals".
Look at animal species that are polygamous - even the "docile" herbivores engage in violence as the males compete for females. In species that engage in pair-bonding, violence is much less common.
Monogamy (enforced by law/church) was a way of reducing societal violence.
Many of the diseases that are more common now affect relatively old people. If you have a disease that rarely kills anyone under the age of 40, you will have seen a marked increase in it over the last hundred years or so.
Why is that exactly? Are you one of those people who failed math and therefore doesn't understand the difference between median and mean?
Several forms of cancer are good examples of this. They are a lot more prevalent now than a century ago because few people lived long enough to develop them to a fatal degree.
Yup, looks like you failed math alright.
Allow me to ask you some questions:
Assume 50% of a population dies before they turn 2 years old. Assume the other 50% die at age 60. What is the average (mean) life exepctancy?
Now, 100 years later, only 1% die before they turn two, and 99% die at age 60. What is the average (mean) life expectancy?
Now, if your "magic" age is 40, and the only contributing factor is age, what percentage of the adult population (in each instance) will contract cancer?
If you get different answers for each group, you still fail, and need to go back to the beginning.
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)
Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.
For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."
If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.
Simply stopping the infringement at this point might be enough to resolve the matter
And what if there *isn't* any actual infringement?
What if (oh, I don't know) someone spoofed the IP address to direct attention away from themselves?
Cavis didn't actually say that he found Limewire, or any warez on the affected IP address (or even if it was in use at the time of the alleged infringement.) Maybe the first step might be to determine if the letter is accurate before "disciplining" anyone?
SCO in its day was very intimidating, with Darl Bride as an eloquent and persuasive spokesman. His pronouncements sounded factual and reasonable, until people like Groklaw looked behind the curtain and showed us the truth.
Sorry, but I think you and I have very different recollections of what happened.
Darl may have been eloquent - right up until he had to answer questions. But once he did, it was quite obvious that it was a scam.
For example, when he said that every Linux user owed him $699, the immediate question was "why? Where is the code?" His response was always "I can't show it to you."
You don't have to be a genius to understand that was an outright lie. If he can't show it to you, then you don't have to pay him. The excuse that they had NDAs that prohibited it was laughable. Any attorney who signed a deal saying that said that the company wasn't allowed to identify their own code, even if someone else made it publically available would be disbarred. It's just absurd.
Darl came across as a sleazy con-man. Persuasive he was not.
Toyota is probably trying to protect its trademarks.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Toyota's legal department might have actually gone to law school, and thus would understand the difference between copyright and trademark.
Mickey and Minnie *were* married, but they got divorced a few years back. Disney did an awesome job of keeping it out of the press, but I got the following story from an insider:
While it was happening, Mickey went to his lawyer and explained why things weren't working out between them. He ranted for over an hour, and when he was finished, his lawyer said
"Well Mr. Mouse, while I can sympathize with you, I'm afraid you can't divorce your wife simply because you think she's a bit odd."
Mickey jumped up and shouted "No! I didn't say she was odd - I said she was fucking Goofy!"
Profit is the amount of money you have after your expenses, therefore it's wouldn't be "relative" to anything. You either have profit or you don't.
jfengel said that there was no profit (note, that's *NONE*, not "not enough".) If they go ahead and do it anyway, then they're violating their corporate charter.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the entire point - I *want* to buy the movie, but I won't until it plays on my hardware.
I have hardware that is capable of playing HD content, but the content providers are erecting artifical barriers to prevent me from doing it. Once the stupid DRM is cracked, I'll buy it.
Yeah, it's much better when read in thread.
You should read some of the other stuff on that site though - it's hilarious.
I think my favourite is http://jerryleecooper.com/2008/01/21/can-you-build-a-decent-pc-on-a-budget-of-500%E2%80%9D-notice-500/
I think you have just created the perfect troll.
No, he didn't.
Pat doesn't like PAM, which is why it isn't in Slackware.
And it's also why I'm still using Slackware. :)
The black hole is four million times heavier than our Sun
Don't worry, I hear black is a very slimming colour. :)
stop giving the people that back this shit your money. Put your money where your mouth is.
The problem with this is that it's *not* a solution.
What happens when you do this is that they say "hey our sales are down, we need more DRM and government restrictions - send some more lobbyists to Washington to buy some more laws."
And drop in sales is attributed to "piracy", whether it's really the cause or not.
You forgot this gem :)
It goes deeper than that though - "attractive" meant "the guy who could kill or maim his rivals".
Look at animal species that are polygamous - even the "docile" herbivores engage in violence as the males compete for females. In species that engage in pair-bonding, violence is much less common.
Monogamy (enforced by law/church) was a way of reducing societal violence.
The war on drugs makes a lot of money for a lot people on both sides of the law.
As a taxpayer, I disagree.
Then you're woefully ignorant, and need to watch The Prison Industrial Complex (the first 50 seconds are in Dutch, but the rest is in english.)
Many of the diseases that are more common now affect relatively old people. If you have a disease that rarely kills anyone under the age of 40, you will have seen a marked increase in it over the last hundred years or so.
Why is that exactly? Are you one of those people who failed math and therefore doesn't understand the difference between median and mean?
Several forms of cancer are good examples of this. They are a lot more prevalent now than a century ago because few people lived long enough to develop them to a fatal degree.
Yup, looks like you failed math alright.
Allow me to ask you some questions:
Assume 50% of a population dies before they turn 2 years old. Assume the other 50% die at age 60. What is the average (mean) life exepctancy?
Now, 100 years later, only 1% die before they turn two, and 99% die at age 60. What is the average (mean) life expectancy?
Now, if your "magic" age is 40, and the only contributing factor is age, what percentage of the adult population (in each instance) will contract cancer?
If you get different answers for each group, you still fail, and need to go back to the beginning.
When human life is involved, this case regarding the RIAA's profits should take a back seat in any civilized and just society.
Agreed, but what about in the USA? :) /me ducks
can you recommend a decent, inexpensive player that supports Ogg + mp3? My range is ~$40 as long as it has at least 1GB of space.
Samsung Pebble plays OGG, has 2GB of storage and retails for ~$50 here.
I use a rock to keep away MediaSentry. It uses less resources than PeerGuardian and is just as effective.
<voice style="Homer Simpson">
I would like to buy your rock.
</voice>
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)
Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.
For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."
If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.
The answer is the same for the RIAA.
a crazy woman who was convinced she could influence George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin through her TV.
By any chance.. her last name wasn't Palin was it? :) :) :)
I think you're reading more into Shivetya's post than was said.
Nobody said anything about censoring a report about health care.
Simply stopping the infringement at this point might be enough to resolve the matter
And what if there *isn't* any actual infringement?
What if (oh, I don't know) someone spoofed the IP address to direct attention away from themselves?
Cavis didn't actually say that he found Limewire, or any warez on the affected IP address (or even if it was in use at the time of the alleged infringement.) Maybe the first step might be to determine if the letter is accurate before "disciplining" anyone?
The problem is that it's not just the software industry.
SCO in its day was very intimidating, with Darl Bride as an eloquent and persuasive spokesman. His pronouncements sounded factual and reasonable, until people like Groklaw looked behind the curtain and showed us the truth.
Sorry, but I think you and I have very different recollections of what happened.
Darl may have been eloquent - right up until he had to answer questions. But once he did, it was quite obvious that it was a scam.
For example, when he said that every Linux user owed him $699, the immediate question was "why? Where is the code?" His response was always "I can't show it to you."
You don't have to be a genius to understand that was an outright lie. If he can't show it to you, then you don't have to pay him. The excuse that they had NDAs that prohibited it was laughable. Any attorney who signed a deal saying that said that the company wasn't allowed to identify their own code, even if someone else made it publically available would be disbarred. It's just absurd.
Darl came across as a sleazy con-man. Persuasive he was not.
the Photoshop artist made it that sharp and natural looking, it was an incredible job.
Don't tell me, let me guess:
You thought the CGI spaceships in Babylon5 were realistic and natural looking too, right? :)
he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
I thought about it.
All I was really left with is that Alaskans must be really hard up for role-models.
They would have had a special election.
Am I the only one who read the "special" in "special election" with the same connotation as "special olympics"? :)
Toyota is probably trying to protect its trademarks.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Toyota's legal department might have actually gone to law school, and thus would understand the difference between copyright and trademark.
Nonono..
Mickey and Minnie *were* married, but they got divorced a few years back. Disney did an awesome job of keeping it out of the press, but I got the following story from an insider:
While it was happening, Mickey went to his lawyer and explained why things weren't working out between them. He ranted for over an hour, and when he was finished, his lawyer said
"Well Mr. Mouse, while I can sympathize with you, I'm afraid you can't divorce your wife simply because you think she's a bit odd."
Mickey jumped up and shouted "No! I didn't say she was odd - I said she was fucking Goofy!"
Turn a profit relative to what
Uhh, not turning a profit?
Profit is the amount of money you have after your expenses, therefore it's wouldn't be "relative" to anything. You either have profit or you don't.
jfengel said that there was no profit (note, that's *NONE*, not "not enough".) If they go ahead and do it anyway, then they're violating their corporate charter.