Not only that, they want you to look at MS content and MS premium content too.
Pretty soon we will have MSNews, and well call it "independant". Oh wait.. scrap that.
"/Dread"
It sure sounds like it, the -BBC- killed Kelly? Oh yeah right. The independant media reporting about governement fallacies is actually resposible for the consequences of the actions by the same governement.
BLAIR (or his spin-minions) leaked Kellies name, ruined his life, and ultimately killed him. No matter that the original BBC story was not entirely correct, semantics is a stupid game to play anyway, it was NOT the BBC leaking Kellies name.
Any other conclusion is in the "lets blame the messenger" department.
This is NOT (only) funny. This should be modded insightfull folks, or perhaps this sub-questions should be added, "If no girls, how do YOU feel about that?"
This patent seems chanceless in EU anyway. Pure software patents are not allowed, and even patents that involve software, but not just software have exceptions for "compatibility" sake.
At least, thats how I, nonlawyer, interpret it so far.
I do not understand why Free Software cannot serve the "needs of every retard".
You see the principle of mutual exclusivity between "easy" and "flexible" as a hard coded rule.
It is not.
It is all about quality. It is all about simplicity.
Sure, having more choices may mean spending time to pick, but even that needs not be a hard coded rule, the word "default" comes to mind. KISS comes to mind.
I wish more people took heed of what programming really is: read Dijkstra
and lets slowly but surely build the perfect future.
1. No. Of course not. And for THE LAST BLOODY time: NOT all p2p is "knowingly copyright infringing on a mass scale"
2. The RIAA has ALL the right to do whatever they damn well please as long as it is NOT illegal. Ah, the peado argument, the last straw of a desperate man. The answer is YES even "peado's" have a right to privacy. Newsflash: please surf to the latimes.com, and read on why Sharman (kazaa) will be suing RIAA for "unligitemate use" of THEIR software.
You seem to believe it is OK, to give up privacy, because it will only hurt those that do illegal things.
The THING is, if you want to catch smart fileswappers, or smart peado's, you will HAVE to break their privacy. The essential liberty, temporary safety US presidential quote comes to mind...
In a similar case: can I check you for bodily hidden cocaine, next time you enter The Netherlands? You would not mind, because you are not hiding anything "up there" eh?
"What I really don't understand is, if you already own a legal copy of the music."
I was promised an indefinatly keepable medium, the Compact Disk. They Lied. The things scratch. Im quickly loosing thousends of Euro worth of investment by their crappy products and lies.
For those that I cannot flawlessly rip myself, I download.
Of course the RIAA is of our interest, that US is still a pwetty big example for the rest of the world. And we have some silly outfit called the breain foundation. Essentially the same thing. Lamers. Ours forbode the webcast of a concert series, whilst the ARTISTS had already given permission.
The original poster said:
"Have some sort of way to filter out the fake files"
This is basic error correcting, nothing more nothing less. You get all moral on the poor sob for the next bit:
"put out by record companies and the RIAA."
May I add "and general assholes" to that list? Shurely you would agree that it is ok, to use whatever means possible to prevent general assholes polluting information?
IT IS ERROR correction! Thats what it is!
If you are all for "fair use etc." it offends me even more deeply that you have lost the battle with your intellect.
If -I- write software, than I damn well decide what it does. There is just one small exception: It cannot be written SOLELY for illegal things. ALL software can potentially be used for illegality, its just those things that are designed exclusively for illegality that can be forbidden on their existance alone.
Lastly, I DO totally agree with you last sentence, being able to pee, does not either. Nor does it give the RIAA, Foundation Brain, or any other dinasour industry the right to forbid me to error correct, or to encrypt.
On THIS planet, we have innocence until prooven guilty, we have the right for privacy, we have the right to encrypt.
The thing that offends me is NOT you. The thing that offends me is the likes of you are giving in to bullshit like "bendover backwards to thwart the RIAA" or to "deliberatly hinder" them or "20 albums a week never paying" sjeebes, even the Bush spinmeisters can learn something from the RIAA it seems, if the likes of you are swallowing this nonsense. Again, NOTHING forces me to "bendover forewards" for the RIAA. NOTHING forces me to "assist them in earning money" and I OWN 400 CD's dammit.
Then you proceed to ask ME what law ENABLES me to do this.
As you seem to want me to provide evidence for YOUR claims, Ill try to be humorous here, but do you happen to work for SCO?;-)
The answer is simple: there is NO law forbidding me to do so. And, unlike -some- countries, -I- live in the free world...
It gets even better, there is COURT precendence that DOWNLOADING copyrighted songs, is NOT copyright infringement AT ALL. Even if you DO NOT own ANY copy of it legally.
Its the sharer who is legally infringing here.
Ill give the spirit of the law some benefit thou; You -should- own a legal copy.
I agree with that alleged comment from "the DUTCH goverment" apparently, but please DO provide a source? It hint salso that downloading is legal, however;-)
"Writing a P2P application isn't against the law, but I bet designing a P2P application that uses such measures to intentionally block RIAA (or any other copyright holder) from trying to track down individuals that are wantonly infringing on their copyrights will be severely frowned upon by the courts."
So you want to be flamed to hell? Well, I wont bite.
Ill just rip your argument to bits.
You are basically saying it is legal for a "copyright holder" to null the privacy of "non copyright holders".
Im glad to inform you: privacy is NOT designed for exclusive use by "copyright holders"
And some other newsflash for you: Not all downloading infringes copyright. Under Dutch law Im am totally legally able to download music WHICH I ALREADY OWN A LEGAL COPY OFF.
Please, get of your high-moral horse, and start paying attention to the REAL issues (fair use, privacy, and IMHO overly long copyright terms.)
Spews makes my point to management stick. (we never ever can block all spam, but using static keyword based exchange filters, instead of RBL's and baysian filtering makes the problem WORSE.)
Getting half an hour excercise per day can be hard. I mean, I have dogs, but you guys all sit inside all day and are pale. So instead of killing your boss (Virtually, in your mind, so you wont in rl) with your fingertips, youd have to work for it. Perhaps even for thirty minutes.
First off, wheter Hugh likes it or not (I bet he does) the words Playboy and Playmate have become common words to mean the norm in what they represent. Brand names like Asperine and Coke have become just so. Do you see them suing search engines?
Whatya think search engines will do anyway, when they loose this battle? Maybe they will scrap the word from the dictonary ALLTOGETHER eh? How smart! Pyrric vitory a-la lettre, je pense.
Slashdot Mirror
to fix it...
"/Dread"
Not only that, they want you to look at MS content and MS premium content too.
Pretty soon we will have MSNews, and well call it "independant". Oh wait.. scrap that.
"/Dread"
Well if Rise Of Nations((C) MS) would just run WITHOUT being an admin, id switch to a normal user in a blink..
"/Dread"
Do the people running these systems have a UltraVeryHigh lawsuit insurance?
Or do the recipies smallprint standard incorporate "Warning, recipy might be utter bullshit" clauses?
"/Dread"
Dont be fooled; the goal of pms is to have power, not to make "better projects"
Sometimes that works, sometimes not. Useless it is, I'll give you that.
"/Dread"
I guess OSDN is not a -real- job...
"/Dread"
Tony Blair?
It sure sounds like it, the -BBC- killed Kelly? Oh yeah right. The independant media reporting about governement fallacies is actually resposible for the consequences of the actions by the same governement.
BLAIR (or his spin-minions) leaked Kellies name, ruined his life, and ultimately killed him. No matter that the original BBC story was not entirely correct, semantics is a stupid game to play anyway, it was NOT the BBC leaking Kellies name.
Any other conclusion is in the "lets blame the messenger" department.
"/Dread"
on every computer in Iraq?
"/Dread"
This is NOT (only) funny. This should be modded insightfull folks, or perhaps this sub-questions should be added, "If no girls, how do YOU feel about that?"
"/Dread"
"We dont trust Brazilians"
"Fuck Brazilians for not trusting us"
This patent seems chanceless in EU anyway. Pure software patents are not allowed, and even patents that involve software, but not just software have exceptions for "compatibility" sake.
At least, thats how I, nonlawyer, interpret it so far.
"/Dread"
I do not understand why Free Software cannot serve the "needs of every retard".
You see the principle of mutual exclusivity between "easy" and "flexible" as a hard coded rule.
It is not.
It is all about quality. It is all about simplicity.
Sure, having more choices may mean spending time to pick, but even that needs not be a hard coded rule, the word "default" comes to mind. KISS comes to mind.
I wish more people took heed of what programming really is: read Dijkstra
and lets slowly but surely build the perfect future.
peace
"/Dread"
1. No. Of course not. And for THE LAST BLOODY time: NOT all p2p is "knowingly copyright infringing on a mass scale"
2. The RIAA has ALL the right to do whatever they damn well please as long as it is NOT illegal.
Ah, the peado argument, the last straw of a desperate man. The answer is YES even "peado's" have a right to privacy.
Newsflash: please surf to the latimes.com, and read on why Sharman (kazaa) will be suing RIAA for "unligitemate use" of THEIR software.
You seem to believe it is OK, to give up privacy, because it will only hurt those that do illegal things.
The THING is, if you want to catch smart fileswappers, or smart peado's, you will HAVE to break their privacy. The essential liberty, temporary safety US presidential quote comes to mind...
In a similar case: can I check you for bodily hidden cocaine, next time you enter The Netherlands? You would not mind, because you are not hiding anything "up there" eh?
peace
"/Dread"
"What I really don't understand is, if you already own a legal copy of the music."
I was promised an indefinatly keepable medium, the Compact Disk. They Lied. The things scratch. Im quickly loosing thousends of Euro worth of investment by their crappy products and lies.
For those that I cannot flawlessly rip myself, I download.
"/Dread"
Of course the RIAA is of our interest, that US is still a pwetty big example for the rest of the world. And we have some silly outfit called the breain foundation. Essentially the same thing. Lamers. Ours forbode the webcast of a concert series, whilst the ARTISTS had already given permission.
The original poster said:
"Have some sort of way to filter out the fake files"
This is basic error correcting, nothing more nothing less. You get all moral on the poor sob for the next bit:
"put out by record companies and the RIAA."
May I add "and general assholes" to that list? Shurely you would agree that it is ok, to use whatever means possible to prevent general assholes polluting information?
IT IS ERROR correction! Thats what it is!
If you are all for "fair use etc." it offends me even more deeply that you have lost the battle with your intellect.
If -I- write software, than I damn well decide what it does. There is just one small exception: It cannot be written SOLELY for illegal things. ALL software can potentially be used for illegality, its just those things that are designed exclusively for illegality that can be forbidden on their existance alone.
Lastly, I DO totally agree with you last sentence, being able to pee, does not either.
Nor does it give the RIAA, Foundation Brain, or any other dinasour industry the right to forbid me to error correct, or to encrypt.
On THIS planet, we have innocence until prooven guilty, we have the right for privacy, we have the right to encrypt.
The thing that offends me is NOT you. The thing that offends me is the likes of you are giving in to bullshit like "bendover backwards to thwart the RIAA" or to "deliberatly hinder" them or "20 albums a week never paying" sjeebes, even the Bush spinmeisters can learn something from the RIAA it seems, if the likes of you are swallowing this nonsense. Again, NOTHING forces me to "bendover forewards" for the RIAA. NOTHING forces me to "assist them in earning money" and I OWN 400 CD's dammit.
peace
"Dread"
Dude,
;-)
;-)
"No You are not"
Then you proceed to ask ME what law ENABLES me to do this.
As you seem to want me to provide evidence for YOUR claims, Ill try to be humorous here, but do you happen to work for SCO?
The answer is simple: there is NO law forbidding me to do so. And, unlike -some- countries, -I- live in the free world...
It gets even better, there is COURT precendence that DOWNLOADING copyrighted songs, is NOT copyright infringement AT ALL. Even if you DO NOT own ANY copy of it legally.
Its the sharer who is legally infringing here.
Ill give the spirit of the law some benefit thou; You -should- own a legal copy.
I agree with that alleged comment from "the DUTCH goverment" apparently, but please DO provide a source? It hint salso that downloading is legal, however
"/Dread"
"Writing a P2P application isn't against the law, but I bet designing a P2P application that uses such measures to intentionally block RIAA (or any other copyright holder) from trying to track down individuals that are wantonly infringing on their copyrights will be severely frowned upon by the courts."
So you want to be flamed to hell? Well, I wont bite.
Ill just rip your argument to bits.
You are basically saying it is legal for a "copyright holder" to null the privacy of "non copyright holders".
Im glad to inform you: privacy is NOT designed for exclusive use by "copyright holders"
And some other newsflash for you: Not all downloading infringes copyright. Under Dutch law Im am totally legally able to download music WHICH I ALREADY OWN A LEGAL COPY OFF.
Please, get of your high-moral horse, and start paying attention to the REAL issues (fair use, privacy, and IMHO overly long copyright terms.)
peace
"/Dread"
Bah, will it have a windows menu button? Will it have a default off "flock" button?? (THAT one is a misspelled "fock" Im sure)
Not that -I- want those. But I flock some sheep that do.
"/Dread"
welcome are new spam blocking overlords.
Spews makes my point to management stick. (we never ever can block all spam, but using static keyword based exchange filters, instead of RBL's and baysian filtering makes the problem WORSE.)
Their shit works.
"/Dread"
Why do you think we gave you Windows in the first place?
"/Dread"
10c
Anything more is a ripoff.
A DOLLAR a song? WHAT! For that money they could press it on digital media, make a nice cover and ship it you!
When it is a dime, Ill buy, and yes, that may be Euridimes.
"/Dread"
Imagine... all of us back to home dialin BBS's :-)
"/Dread"
Im all for geeks with glasses, running MIDI stuff, connecting it to Keyboards and sequencers, and synths.
I have a Yamaha Master keybord, I have shitloads of computers. So whats next? What gear does MOBY use? I am pretty sure it is not this geeky hybrid.
"/Dread"
had as first thought, -ooh- GT3, must... have...
"/Dread"
Getting half an hour excercise per day can be hard.
I mean, I have dogs, but you guys all sit inside all day and are pale.
So instead of killing your boss (Virtually, in your mind, so you wont in rl) with your fingertips, youd have to work for it. Perhaps even for thirty minutes.
THEN eat less, and sure nuff, youd loose weight.
"/Dread"
Are all you layers so daft?
Sure, fine, trademark and all that.
First off, wheter Hugh likes it or not (I bet he does) the words Playboy and Playmate have become common words to mean the norm in what they represent. Brand names like Asperine and Coke have become just so. Do you see them suing search engines?
Whatya think search engines will do anyway, when they loose this battle? Maybe they will scrap the word from the dictonary ALLTOGETHER eh? How smart! Pyrric vitory a-la lettre, je pense.
Hampster! All of ya!
"/Dread"