My point is that Law != justice/moral/ethic. Law is determined by the powers of the time. In our times, the corporations.
Whatever. You have yet to make the case that coopting others' expressions for your own use (profit or not) without their authorization is legal, just, moral OR ethical.
My point isn't either that it's ethically correct to steal, or that we should condone it. My point is that it's a sharade, a hoax, an illusion that you are buying into to believe that these companies would have been making profit. It's a lie.
But I never suggested that they would have had to make a profit from a work in order for it to be protected by copyright. That seems to be your take on it, but I don't see any moral arguments to support it.
Again, right aside the point. You heard of Alias|Wavefront? They make Maya. Maya sells for $7000. You can also download Maya on their site for free. How does that work, have you ever thought?
It works because they chose to do it that way. I have not suggested that trying to wring every penny out of a work makes good business sense. I have only asserted (and nothing you have said has dissuaded me from it) that copyright holders have a right to protect (and therefore restrict) the distribution of their works. In fact I think the MPAA/RIAA would do much better for themselves if they just let people purchase cheap mp3s (no billions spent on DRM crap that won't work anyway), factor into the cost the fact that people will distribute them illegally, go after the big-time pirates (online and offline) and enjoy life. But they choose not to, and that is their choice.
What's different from the MPAA here? Do you *still* not see?
What's different is that the MPAA's target market is not individuals and corporations who will shell out $7000 for a copy of Shrek. Their market is comprised of individuals who can pay 3-10 dollars for a movie. Just because Alias|Wavefront's business model targets higher-end customers and therefore allows them to offer others a freeware version doesn't mean the model suits MPAA.
On the otherhand, both the recording industry and the movie industry take big risks with new talent/movies/etc. They spend a lot of money up front in promotion and the like, and many of those ventures don't pan out. They use the money they get from the very successful ventures to be able to take those risks. Now, I'm not saying they use all that money or don't take a nice big fat slice of the pie just to line their own profits, but that fact does remain.
Sure, go ahead, sue Loki torrent. My question to you is: what are you achieving? What really, are you achieving? Are you squarely saying that someone is going to make *more* money because of it?
Actually, they sent Lokitorrent a cease and desist letter telling them to remove all material covered by copyrights owned by their clients. They aren't suing yet. And the message they are sending? How about "hey, these files are unauthorized copies and you are aiding in their distribution, illegally, so stop it." What does it matter if they make more money or not? That's their problem, I'm not the MPAA's accountant.
I'm saying that no, and I'm saying that supporting actions like these is only making the industry more lazy.
And I counter that watching/listening to the majority of their stuff is making them more lazy (whether you pay for it or not). If you feel oppressed going to watch a movie or listening to a recording that is not in the public domain, then don't. It's that simple. Why do you feel you have a right to watch whatever movie you want, or run whatever software you want just because you say you're not going to turn a profit from it?
Once again: what does turning a profit have to do with the fact that you are coopting someone else's work without permission? I suppose it just lets you sleep at night, but it's time for a reality check. You're a leech. Have some honor and admit it. It's the first step toward recovery.
Get off your little socialist high horse that makes you think that content providers (be they rich corporate entities or starving artists) OWE YOU FUCKING ART.
Then don't sign up for it. Or, if you do, cancel it. Come on you can't expect marketing companies to work in your best interest can you?
I did the 2 week free trial of blockbuster and was quite happy (they offered me another free month on top of that, which I took advantage of and promptly cancelled on the last day before any charges).
You see, I don't agree with you in any bit. And I'm not going to quote your every sentence to prove you wrong point by point, because you are wrong ideologically.
So you are willing to lose point by point but make up for it in volume?:) At any rate, you are free to make your diatribes and I'll feel free to take them apart point by point.
Copyrights weren't created so people could selectively deny others from hearing your oh so precious jingle. They were created so that if you came up with a clever jingle, your neighbour couldn't just go ahead and use it to make money behind your back (or in your face).
I see nothing in the history of copyright law which says it only applies to for-profit uses. Fair Use laws are explicit exceptions to copyright protections granted to authors, so beyond those limited allowances, what is the basis for your statement that it was designed only prohibit profits from copying?
It comes down to basic human dynamics here, fuck the law, because you know what: back in ancient greece, the equivalent of our times' going bankrupt was becoming a slave. A hardcore real ass slave. That's what their legal system dictated back then. It doesn't anymore.
Actually, in ancient Greece slaves were more like indentured servants and often led their own lives, paying a sort of tax to their 'owners'. It barely resembled the slavery in America. At any rate, I have nothing against civil disobedience, if that is what you are calling for. I simply think that civil disobedience should be reserved for more worthwhile causes than being able to download a copy of the latest Shrek movie for no more cost than your internet service. That's a value judgement, and if you value copying those movies so much, then go for it. But a tenet of civil disobedience has always been that you must be ready to accept the penalties incurred by your actions. If the penalty is a cease and desist order for aiding the mass illegal copying of copyrighten works... well I'm not in a tiffy over that.
Stealing is not related to the people who hear you shout despite what all these corporations want you to believe...
Neither is this matter. This is not a case of people recounting movie details or even reading or reenacting the script. Copyright does not protect against these things (although it may protect the script itself). Copyright protects a specific expression of ideas, and in this case, the expression is through a movie. If what is being copied is the movie itself (in the same or shifted format), then it is protected and has nothing to do with "shouting" anything to your neighbors.
It doesn't cost Adobe or Microsoft anything (physically) when a copy of their software is pirated over the internet.
Well first of all you have contradicted yourself by using the term "pirated", but I'll assume you meant to put quotes around that. And certainly it doesn't cause them direct damage, but yes it does lower the amount of revenues they would have brought in. Whether or not their revenue projections are inflated (as you point out, a significant portion of the offenders may simply have chosen not to use the software/media if they could not pirate it) is not material.
Allow me to turn your argument around: if someone is obtaining an unauthorized copy of a work (be it software, movie, etc.) and not using it for profit, then presumably they suffer no damages if that work is prohibited to them. You do not have a 1st Amendment right to duplicate another person's work (that's why the Constitution explicitely allows for patents and copyrights, and grants Congress the power to enforce them), so that also is not damaged. Neither do you have a right to use whatever software you want to create your own expressions (for instance, using an unauthorized copy of Photoshop to create art).
I say that unless I am a business making profit out of the softwar
The MPAA has hit the end of the road, and they're on a witch hunt to save their status-quo. The fucking problem is not so much rooted in these people who steal who should be sued sensless for stealing, it's rooted in the fact that Corporate America has gotten fat and greedy, and is now using 'below the belt' tactics to obtain what is 'duefully theirs'. It's a problem because America is slowly going down the hill of being industrious towards (quite ironically) the plain of being leechers themselves.
Hrmm. So the corporate 'goons' of hollywood are leechers for making popular (good or not is your decision) movies that people want to transfer illegally online? Or are the leechers the ones who feel they are above paying for what they consider drivel but yet they break the law to obtain it?
I download software *all* the time. Do I feel guilty? Absolutely not. Why? Because I'm professional in IT, and to this day I have never used software professionally (i.e. made a profit off of it) without buying it. But then again, I've never bought software that I haven't used before.
Yes, you should feel guilty. Copyright law doesn't exclude violations simply because you don't make money off of them. People buy games not usually to make money but to enjoy the recreational aspects of them- is that not worth anything to you? Is the time spent my the developers to come up with those games and other software not worth anything to you? The question should be especially poignant to someone who works in IT.
Torrent sites, are an unfortunate side effect of the grass fuckers in Hollywood, and big corporations, who think that squeezing every cent of profit out of The Consummer is the only thing that's worth a damn.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it legal, or morally correct. If you don't think the movies are worth the money on opening night, howabout simply not watching the movies, or waiting until they come to the discount theatre ($3) and/or video store ($3) and/or pay-per-view ($3)?
Most of these people that download photoshop for free are kids in their basements, people who would not buy the software in any case.
No matter. Let them download GIMP, it's free. I can't go to a car dealership and steal a Cadillac just because I can't afford it and would not buy the car in any case.
But business men and lawyers love to add those pretty numbers up and project what should have been theirs but is now 'lost' because of these nefarious social deviants... and they oh so love to make up all that lost money by suing people... because, suing after all, is the American way (oh, aren't we so proud of that).
Well, in cases of intellectual property, companies (and individuals) often have to protect their assets whenever they are threatened. Regardless, if someone is actually wronged (and someone is wronged when their intellectual property is coopted without permission), they have a right to demand that the actions cease (which is what the MPAA did) and failing that, they have a right to sue. That's what the civil court system is for, like it or not.
Fuck you all who hide behind the pretense that it's wrong to steal while simultaneously and implicitly condoning this destructive corporate behaviour.
I think it is wrong to steal whether you are an individual or a corporation. Just because I think that copyright holders should be able to protect their rights (even if they are greedy bastards) doesn't mean I think corporations should have carte blance in their actions, and the implication is ridiculous. For example, I think the continuous extension of copyright years granted at the behest of companies like Disney is attrocious.
You obviously haven't paid attention. You don't usually give out people's email addresses for these things, you get people to sign up and then they willingly provide an email address (throw-away or not).
Since the person has the choice of what trial offer to sign up for, and most of them don't cost you if you cancel the offer before the automatic renewal, it's not a pyramid scheme (if it were, you could bet it would be shut down by now), it's a multi-level marketing (advertising?) program.
Or, you could split your investments between equities and bond funds (such as VBMFX or VIPSX for inflation protection), and throw in a couple alternative funds like REIT funds. Or if you really don't want to manage your investments, put your money in a targetted retirement fund, such as VTTHX (for more examples, check out this yahoo search).
It sounds like IBM's argument is "since SCO's arguments reject the legality of the GPL, they cannot protect themselves from it on other products; therefore they do not have permission to copy IBM's copyrightten material."
While that is an interesting argument, it is not really testing the terms of the GPL per se. The motion doesn't say SCO is violating the GPL, it is only saying they are no longer protected by it.
Windows 98 is 6 years old and isn't sold with computers anymore. This test just shows remaining Windows 98 users they should keep up to date or upgrade to XP.
That's right, Windows XP definately has a lower Total Cost of 0wnership.
Not to mention the fact that it will be difficult to show damages for members of the class going back to 2001, since even after the 20% stock drop, stock was still priced higher than in 2001 (or most of 2003 for that matter).
What you have to keep in mind is that all documentaries have bias. They only seem not to because they use footage of real events to make their (often salient) points. But you have to ask yourself- what information is the maker leaving out? Have things been edited to leave an impression of how things happened different from how they actually happened?
Michael Moore was challenged on some of these points by George Stephenopolous (specifically, having to do with his asking Congressmen to sign their kids up for the military- one scene was edited to make it appear the Congressman blew Moore off, but in actuality he commented that he would look at the material and that he already had a son going to Afghanistan). Moore's response to this was to say that his work is an "op-ed" peice, not a documentary. Really? Is that what the commercials and promotions are saying about it?
I am very interested in seeing the other side of Moore, and hope to see the movie "Michael Moore Hates America" by Michael Wilson get picked up by a distributor and played where I am. Check out the trailer, it is not just conservative drivel (despite its inciting name).
I'm an avid user of Gnome, though a less avid user of nautilus (I tend to prefer the good ole terminal window, myself). I have nothing against the "spatial" nautilus or its detractors/competitors.
However, reading this article is like a HOWTO on the philosophy of poor user-interface design. Software engineers in general make bad user-interface designers because of the philosophy of those like Radoslaw. That philosophy is that you can engineer a perfect design and ram it down the throats of users who don't like it, because it is based on "sound" engineering. A desktop "metaphor" is only as good as it does its job- which is to aid the user in doing what he or she wants to do (in whichever context you're in).
"Spatial" nautilus (and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it differs from the Windows 95 file manager, but as I said, I don't use Nautilus very much) may be great, but it won't be because it rests soundly on some abstract file drawer metaphor. Hell, if I want to something that matches the usability of a file drawer 100%, I'll buy a file drawer, thank you very much. Nautilus, and any other piece of desktop software will be great if and only if it helps its users get their jobs done. If users are clamoring for an option to turn it off, then that's probably an indication that they are not buying the new UI, or at least not ready for it. Provide them the option (apparently there is one, buried somewhere in gconf no doubt) and move on. Stop trying to deliver a "revolution" to the unwilling, and stop developing user interfaces in a vacuum.
You really mean "the House Unamerican Activities Comittee" years, since McCarthy was a senator and went primarly after individuals in the army and defense department (as well as whoever happened to be his political opponent at any given time). He was not involved in the Hollywood blacklist, even though that is the event most associated with his name.
It compiled to 10310 bytes on my system. Dynamic library dependancies were as follows: libstdc++.so.5, libm.so.6, libgcc_s.so.1,/lib/libgcc_s.so.1, libc.so.6,/lib/ld-linux.so.2
I think the complaint is that when google matches multiple words (for instance, i did "Mark Maughan accountant"), it shows parts of the page that contain those words, with "..." between the parts. In the case of the search I did, I get this text:
".. Respondent was also alleged to have continued to practice as a certified public accountant after his permit to practice public... MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184)..."
I think Mr. Maughan's complaint is that this leaves the impression that he was disciplined for the cited reason (or depending on your search criteria, for another reason).
Free speech does not imply that other people have to listen to you. Since the students were a captive audience, they had no choice but to be subjected to the religious messages, even if only so far as to decide to throw them away. Whether or not the messages were coming from the teacher is moot, Morgan was utilizing the fact that the students had no choice but to be in class, and were participating in a school-sponsored exchange of greetings to relay her religious messages.
Although the school administration should have done more to explain to Morgan (and most importantly, her parents) what the problem was, I can't say I disagree with them not wanting her to distribute relgious messages to other students in the class (although they probably shouldn't have made her collect them once passed out).
A public school is a state-run institution, and the children are required to attend (unless they receive an alternative education). As such, Morgan's fellow students were basically a captive audience as Morgan distributed her individually-targetted religious messages to them. Morgan does not have a right to use the public school as an opportunity to hand out religious materials, no matter how naive her intentions were.
Seems like an awful amount of work, compared to just burning a CD/DVD with the data you've meticulously preserved in its original format and playing it in a CD/DVD player.
Slashdot Mirror
On the otherhand, both the recording industry and the movie industry take big risks with new talent/movies/etc. They spend a lot of money up front in promotion and the like, and many of those ventures don't pan out. They use the money they get from the very successful ventures to be able to take those risks. Now, I'm not saying they use all that money or don't take a nice big fat slice of the pie just to line their own profits, but that fact does remain.
Actually, they sent Lokitorrent a cease and desist letter telling them to remove all material covered by copyrights owned by their clients. They aren't suing yet. And the message they are sending? How about "hey, these files are unauthorized copies and you are aiding in their distribution, illegally, so stop it." What does it matter if they make more money or not? That's their problem, I'm not the MPAA's accountant. And I counter that watching/listening to the majority of their stuff is making them more lazy (whether you pay for it or not). If you feel oppressed going to watch a movie or listening to a recording that is not in the public domain, then don't. It's that simple. Why do you feel you have a right to watch whatever movie you want, or run whatever software you want just because you say you're not going to turn a profit from it?Once again: what does turning a profit have to do with the fact that you are coopting someone else's work without permission? I suppose it just lets you sleep at night, but it's time for a reality check. You're a leech. Have some honor and admit it. It's the first step toward recovery.
Get off your little socialist high horse that makes you think that content providers (be they rich corporate entities or starving artists) OWE YOU FUCKING ART.
Then don't sign up for it. Or, if you do, cancel it. Come on you can't expect marketing companies to work in your best interest can you?
I did the 2 week free trial of blockbuster and was quite happy (they offered me another free month on top of that, which I took advantage of and promptly cancelled on the last day before any charges).
You just gotta make sure to follow up on it.
So you are willing to lose point by point but make up for it in volume? :) At any rate, you are free to make your diatribes and I'll feel free to take them apart point by point.
I see nothing in the history of copyright law which says it only applies to for-profit uses. Fair Use laws are explicit exceptions to copyright protections granted to authors, so beyond those limited allowances, what is the basis for your statement that it was designed only prohibit profits from copying?
Actually, in ancient Greece slaves were more like indentured servants and often led their own lives, paying a sort of tax to their 'owners'. It barely resembled the slavery in America. At any rate, I have nothing against civil disobedience, if that is what you are calling for. I simply think that civil disobedience should be reserved for more worthwhile causes than being able to download a copy of the latest Shrek movie for no more cost than your internet service. That's a value judgement, and if you value copying those movies so much, then go for it. But a tenet of civil disobedience has always been that you must be ready to accept the penalties incurred by your actions. If the penalty is a cease and desist order for aiding the mass illegal copying of copyrighten works... well I'm not in a tiffy over that.
Neither is this matter. This is not a case of people recounting movie details or even reading or reenacting the script. Copyright does not protect against these things (although it may protect the script itself). Copyright protects a specific expression of ideas, and in this case, the expression is through a movie. If what is being copied is the movie itself (in the same or shifted format), then it is protected and has nothing to do with "shouting" anything to your neighbors.
Well first of all you have contradicted yourself by using the term "pirated", but I'll assume you meant to put quotes around that. And certainly it doesn't cause them direct damage, but yes it does lower the amount of revenues they would have brought in. Whether or not their revenue projections are inflated (as you point out, a significant portion of the offenders may simply have chosen not to use the software/media if they could not pirate it) is not material. Allow me to turn your argument around: if someone is obtaining an unauthorized copy of a work (be it software, movie, etc.) and not using it for profit, then presumably they suffer no damages if that work is prohibited to them. You do not have a 1st Amendment right to duplicate another person's work (that's why the Constitution explicitely allows for patents and copyrights, and grants Congress the power to enforce them), so that also is not damaged. Neither do you have a right to use whatever software you want to create your own expressions (for instance, using an unauthorized copy of Photoshop to create art).
Because a cursory look at their website shows glaring examples of contributory infringement of copyright.
You obviously haven't paid attention. You don't usually give out people's email addresses for these things, you get people to sign up and then they willingly provide an email address (throw-away or not).
Since the person has the choice of what trial offer to sign up for, and most of them don't cost you if you cancel the offer before the automatic renewal, it's not a pyramid scheme (if it were, you could bet it would be shut down by now), it's a multi-level marketing (advertising?) program.
I'm pretty sure socialism has something to do with nationalized industry, and centralization of production and distribution. Maybe that's just me.
Or, you could split your investments between equities and bond funds (such as VBMFX or VIPSX for inflation protection), and throw in a couple alternative funds like REIT funds. Or if you really don't want to manage your investments, put your money in a targetted retirement fund, such as VTTHX (for more examples, check out this yahoo search).
Now if only the OTA channels had anything worth copying...
Calm down, buddy. It's just a Rubik's Cube knockoff. That's quite a slippery slope into nazism.
It sounds like IBM's argument is "since SCO's arguments reject the legality
of the GPL, they cannot protect themselves from it on other products; therefore
they do not have permission to copy IBM's copyrightten material."
While that is an interesting argument, it is not really testing the terms of the
GPL per se. The motion doesn't say SCO is violating the GPL, it is only saying
they are no longer protected by it.
At least they didn't steal MCA from SCO :)
That's right, Windows XP definately has a lower Total Cost of 0wnership.
Not to mention the fact that it will be difficult to show damages for members of the class going back to 2001, since even after the 20% stock drop, stock was still priced higher than in 2001 (or most of 2003 for that matter).
What you have to keep in mind is that all documentaries have bias. They only seem not to because they use footage of real events to make their (often salient) points. But you have to ask yourself- what information is the maker leaving out? Have things been edited to leave an impression of how things happened different from how they actually happened?
Michael Moore was challenged on some of these points by George Stephenopolous (specifically, having to do with his asking Congressmen to sign their kids up for the military- one scene was edited to make it appear the Congressman blew Moore off, but in actuality he commented that he would look at the material and that he already had a son going to Afghanistan). Moore's response to this was to say that his work is an "op-ed" peice, not a documentary. Really? Is that what the commercials and promotions are saying about it?
I am very interested in seeing the other side of Moore, and hope to see the movie "Michael Moore Hates America" by Michael Wilson get picked up by a distributor and played where I am. Check out the trailer, it is not just conservative drivel (despite its inciting name).
I'm an avid user of Gnome, though a less avid user of nautilus (I tend to prefer the good ole terminal window, myself). I have nothing against the "spatial" nautilus or its detractors/competitors.
However, reading this article is like a HOWTO on the philosophy of poor user-interface design. Software engineers in general make bad user-interface designers because of the philosophy of those like Radoslaw. That philosophy is that you can engineer a perfect design and ram it down the throats of users who don't like it, because it is based on "sound" engineering. A desktop "metaphor" is only as good as it does its job- which is to aid the user in doing what he or she wants to do (in whichever context you're in).
"Spatial" nautilus (and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it differs from the Windows 95 file manager, but as I said, I don't use Nautilus very much) may be great, but it won't be because it rests soundly on some abstract file drawer metaphor. Hell, if I want to something that matches the usability of a file drawer 100%, I'll buy a file drawer, thank you very much. Nautilus, and any other piece of desktop software will be great if and only if it helps its users get their jobs done. If users are clamoring for an option to turn it off, then that's probably an indication that they are not buying the new UI, or at least not ready for it. Provide them the option (apparently there is one, buried somewhere in gconf no doubt) and move on. Stop trying to deliver a "revolution" to the unwilling, and stop developing user interfaces in a vacuum.
You really mean "the House Unamerican Activities Comittee" years, since McCarthy was a senator and went primarly after individuals in the army and defense department (as well as whoever happened to be his political opponent at any given time). He was not involved in the Hollywood blacklist, even though that is the event most associated with his name.
It compiled to 10310 bytes on my system. Dynamic library dependancies were as follows: libstdc++.so.5, libm.so.6, libgcc_s.so.1, /lib/libgcc_s.so.1, libc.so.6, /lib/ld-linux.so.2
I think the complaint is that when google matches multiple words (for instance, i did "Mark Maughan accountant"), it shows parts of the page that contain those words, with "..." between the parts. In the case of the search I did, I get this text:
... MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184) ..."
".. Respondent was also alleged to have continued to practice as a certified public
accountant after his permit to practice public
I think Mr. Maughan's complaint is that this leaves the impression that he was disciplined for the cited reason (or depending on your search criteria, for another reason).
Free speech does not imply that other people have to listen to you. Since the students were a captive audience, they had no choice but to be subjected to the religious messages, even if only so far as to decide to throw them away. Whether or not the messages were coming from the teacher is moot, Morgan was utilizing the fact that the students had no choice but to be in class, and were participating in a school-sponsored exchange of greetings to relay her religious messages.
Although the school administration should have done more to explain to Morgan (and most importantly, her parents) what the problem was, I can't say I disagree with them not wanting her to distribute relgious messages to other students in the class (although they probably shouldn't have made her collect them once passed out).
A public school is a state-run institution, and the children are required to attend (unless they receive an alternative education). As such, Morgan's fellow students were basically a captive audience as Morgan distributed her individually-targetted religious messages to them. Morgan does not have a right to use the public school as an opportunity to hand out religious materials, no matter how naive her intentions were.
Seems like an awful amount of work, compared to just burning a CD/DVD with the data you've meticulously preserved in its original format and playing it in a CD/DVD player.
I believe that should be "you're stupid". Thank you.
Actually, it's GNU/RMS (or GNU/Stallman), pronounced "GNU slash Stallman".