If you are relying on neutral as being 'safe', you've already failed to design a proper appliance. That's why they're practically all double insulated to begin with. An appliance where there is a potential risk of the live OR the neutral (they're part of a loop once the appliance is connected (and switched on if the switch closes the circuit for either line) hitting user-accessible areas should have a grounding wire.. and thus a plug with grounding connectors (the two metal strips on the sides of the euro plugs, or the hole in the center of the plug for some european countries).
Live and neutral are indeed color coded for good reasons - when wiring a house to prevent silly mistakes leading to immediate short-circuits, for example.. or of more practical use, to know which one you hook up to the threaded part of a lamp fixture, and which to the deeply recessed pin (one of the few things where it matters quite a bit, as it is very easy to touch the lamp's tread while screwing in a new bulb, without there being an actual electrical failure at hand) - but electrical appliances are not really a reason.
Notable exceptions are 2- and 3-phase systems, e.g. for motors, where the phase differentials matter; but that's an entirely different plug and socket design.
Well there go the vast majority of Windows viruses, too.
In fact, from the test they did...
- didn't run Troj-Bredo-M W32/Autorun-ATK Troj/Banker-EUT
-- Ran Troj/FakeAV-AFY Mal/EncPk-KY Mal/EncPk-KP Troj/Agent-LIW Troj/FakeAV-AFX Troj/Zbot-JN W32/Autorun-ATC
So 6/10 were definite Trojans (Troj/). I.e. some piece of software saying it's all sorts of good stuff, but in reality is a virus.
Then there's the Autoruns - last I knew, autorun, even on Vista, by default doesn't open a darn thing. So I guess either they changed Autorun settings, or they simply told Windows to run the program (a virus).
Lastly, the Mal/EncPk ones. They're deemed malware because they're packaging and encryption signatures that often get used by malware authors (even though they have legitimate uses, blabla). What do they envelop? Mal/EncPk-KY: sadly sophos' site doesn't detail, but other sites will tell you that this, too, is a Trojan with Bredolab blargh. Mal/EncPk-KP: "About this threat: The Trojan arrives as an attachment in fake e-card messages, with text as follows"
So that's 8/10 trojans, and 2/10 that might as well be classified as such unless I'm wholly mistaken about autorun.
Again GP:
provided you're not stupid enough to run an executable from an untrusted source
That's the real issue - and one that applies to any operating system. Not saying Windows isn't less secure.. on the other hand, I don't remember Microsoft suggesting that UAC was a 100% solution against viruses. Just against those that try to do admin-y things when you yourself aren't running as admin. That's usually the thing people point out with Linux "it can't infect the rest of the system". Well that's great - but that won't stop it from, for example, turning your machine into a spam zombie as long as the user is allowed to send e-mail.
They're not failing due to a 'free' (as in speech-like) internet, but due to the 'free' (as in beer) copying of binary data.
If you could -copy- medicine so that you have a perfect copy of that medicine, and the person with the original keeps his, you bet that medicine companies would feel the hurt. See also Brazil's stance of happily ignoring patents and manufacturing medicine locally at a fraction of the cost (no R&D and advertising costs to recuperate goes a long way).
The same applies to food, clothing, cars, etc.
The only immediate restriction that would fall unto the above is that these are actual physical goods - and no element has yet been created out of a vacuum by scientists. Even transforming one element into another (alchemy, but way cooler) takes prohibitive amounts of energy and thus money. So you need a supply of base elements for the device - a star trek-style replicator if you will - to make the copies with. That would then be the last great industry.. the collection and distribution of the raw elements. But given that anybody in that industry can already replicate food, housing materials, etc. even they needn't necessarily be 'paid' in any way.
err... what money? I thought Hulu was ad-supported?
And what American advertiser is going to want to place ads for videos that are seen in countries where they may not even have an establishment? Even those that do - say, McDonald's - can't exactly advertise a burger that they're offering nation-wide in the U.S. for a particular price in another country where that product is not available, or is available but for a different price.
So, Hulu and the content rights holders would have to come to advertising agreements in all of the other nations being catered to while at the same time, trying not to piss off the the broadcasters in those areas too much (after all, the syndicated content -does- appear on TV much later, once these smaller broadcasters can actually afford it - but what advertisers are -they- going to attract if everybody's already seen it for free via Hulu?)... so good luck with that.
And if they -did- start charging cold hard cash... well, I guess one could claim iTunes as being highly successful, so if they did it well, it might even work. In due time, I suppose.
The LA Times has just been sucking overall, explaining their sharp drop.
Most of the others had been stable until relatively recently, as more and more people realize that they all just regurgitate the same news they can get online for free.
The exception noted in the article summary - the local publishers - and the major publisher lonely at the top and holding relatively steady, share the opposite of the above in common. They don't regurgitate news so much as that they report on the actual news and provided added value. In the case of local newspapers.. local news that strikes at the heart of the community (I've always wanted to say that). In the case of the WSJ.. in-depth investigation and background information, catering to their major audience (which tend not to be the target audience for the other major papers).
Another reason defrag -can- help is that when a write operation is performed and chunks have to be stored, the drive will write to empty blocks first, which is fast, and to non-empty (but non-full, obviously) blocks second. This later mode is a bit slower because it has to read the entire block, insert the new data, then write out the new block, rather than just writing away directly.
I don't know if there's any really noticeable performance increase from this beyond benchmarks, though.
On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.
So, then... if you hit a person in your car, get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort, and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop: TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?
In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
And what if that implantation fails? It happens, you know. Who do we look to blame then? Did the mom maybe eat something wrong? Should -she- be accused of involuntary manslaughter (or even murder, depending on the scenario)?
I respect your belief that life starts at 3 days, 2 days, heck, at conception - I may disagree, but I respect it. But only with the added note that ending a life is not necessariy murder (or even (in)voluntary manslaughter); see euthanasia for the other end of what that encompasses.
I'd imagine the conscious willing decision is to have sex. That does not imply that they were consciously willing to get (the girl) pregnant.
Let's say they're even having 'safe sex'. I.e. they make the decision to be on the pill / wear a condom, and thus similarly in the vast majority of cases the decision that they do -not- want to get (the girl) pregnant.
But the effectivity of both combined is still not 100%, so in this hypothetical case the girl does get pregnant. She had no particular reason to take a morning-after pill, or go to a doc, or etc. so a few weeks later.. 'oops'.
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
I'm not particularly pro-abortion, nor do I find all abortion to be murder. I've previously commented that I imagine 'life' to begin when the fruit - whatever stage it's in - is viable outside of the womb. Technology pushes this further and further toward the date of conception.
This is, of course, also a catch-22. The further it gets pushed forward to the date of conception, the more likely it is that eventually the IVF petri dishes/tubes would be viable outside of a womb and inside a technological creation of man as well. That's when we'll have some -really- interesting debates.
if I'm going out to eat in a restaurant, I cant first order the food and drinks and only after that decide if it was good enough to be paid
Actually, restaurants - aside from fast food restaurants - tend to be one of the few places where you routinely -do- pay after-the-fact, and can base your payment on your experience.
I'm not just talking about tipping the waiter either. I'm talking about telling the cashier that, for example, the steak was a bit rancid. Nevermind the fact that you could have complained about that when you had the first bite and probably gotten a replacement, the cashier will probably - on their own or through a manager - decide that you can pay a little less, or get a coupon for a next time you're there, etc.
Unfortunately, we can't play a game first and -then- decide how much we want to pay. Of course a big reason for that is because a lot of people would simply decide not to pay, even if they did enjoy the game ( as per your parent poster ).. the cheaptards.
If you were a pirate, would you knowingly and willingly send data to the developer that might point you out as being a pirate? I'd have thought that a pirate would do their best not to be noticed.
There's probably truth to both our statements; sadly there's no way to know which way things might swing if they'd gotten a full set.. e.g. by 'phoning home'. Maybe they'll try that next time - would be interesting. Though now they're known, which *also* affects the statistics because people might pirate their stuff on purpose now, or decidedly stay away. So some other dev would have to try it, really.
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
Yeah, it may be ridiculous, and yeah, a judge may decide that it is indeed ridiculous as well. But they -still- have to go through these claims in order to vigorously defend.
I don't know why these stories keep hitting Slashdot.. are the editors trying to effect change in the legal frameworks surrounding trademarks, or are they *really* just going for all the page views, comments, and thus ad exposures?
( Which they've graciously offered me to disable 'cos I made such positive contributions - but truth be told I enabled AdBlock the moment I saw a flash overlay ad. Sorry - you only get to make that mistake with me once. )
Then such distro's shouldn't use login music which comes from works to which they do not hold the rights for copying, distribution, and performance. ( Though Buma/Stemra has never claimed performance rights for such things - that's the American ASCAP, who were seeking compensation for ringtones on mobile phones. Buma/Stemra -have- claimed rights for copying/distribution from ringtone companies, of course - and I daresay rightly so. )
That's not even the court's job. The court's order need not list it - it's up to TPB and Brein to come to an understanding of which works would fall under Brein's claims and to keep this updated over time.
*cue the "if there is a list, we can work out how to work around that list - for teh lulz!" thoughts*
They have implicit permission by way of those rights holders being signed up with Brein. Brein really doesn't care much about an independent album/movie/piece of software* getting 'pirated' - just those of its members.
* The summary in the slashdot is inaccurate. RIAA = Buma/Stemra MPAA = NVPI BSA = BSA
Brein = something of all of the above combined, but as a separate entity... not so much the BSA, in fact.. they're for the 'entertainment industry'.. so more like games and such. Subsidiary for games would have been 'BIG' (Ban Illegal Games), which I *think* falls directly under Brein but I haven't looked into the company structures for that thing. afaik BIG has been fail-from-the-get-go... surprised the site's ( http://www.bigweb.nl/ ) still up, in fact.
As a regular to the movie theaters, I totally agree with all that you're saying.
However, the movie makes - largely, there are exceptions - are *not* giving away their movies for free, and people are also still coming to the theaters. I would imagine they did their math and saw no financial benefit (stockholders and all that) to releasing it all for free and banking on the idea that it would drive more people to the theater / to buy the DVD anyway. It may be more in line with the human nature to share (I'm not so sure that's human nature; after all, they don't people share their money as easily as they would share a movie?), though.
I don't think we would really see an increase in cultural output and quality - we already have voting systems for quality and output; our money. And we already have internet sites devoted to rating output. I think it would largely maintain the status quo.. some would make *great* movies, and many of the rest will make utter shite. And some people would still watch that shite. Heck, free shite is probably perceived as 'better' than shite you have to pay for - perhaps quality would even go down;)
quick re-cap: only torrent files pointing to files (mmm torrents) containing works of authors who are in the cahoots with Brein, as it were. so, no, an indie movie distributed through some obscure firm that is not with Brein nor owned by a parent company that -is-, etc. wouldn't be affected by this either.
Show me the script they use to filter child pornography so well that it has not become a haven for pedophiles, and I'll show you europol, interpol, etc. clamoring to get their hands on it instead of having to designate particular agents as the "you get to look at some seriously nasty crap tonight and decide whether or not it's child porn. sorry."
Humans are involved in some of the filtering, somewhere; the lawyer for TPB didn't contest this filtering.
Filtering out copyrighted works (to which no distribution license was given to the world by the rights holder - so don't fire up the Linux distro comment just yet) is in fact easier as audio, image and video fingerprinting are ubiquitous; if TPB -wanted to-, they could implement this. I doubt it'd work 100%, but to the courts that's still better than 0%.. in fact, it would comply with any order to -try-. Not that the verdict said anything about filtering, just a blanket "remove them or face penalties" - which is sure to be contested.
No claim, nor verdict, was made on the legality of torrent files.
In fact, I don't think that would even fly, as even the less intelligent judges in NL know the basic principle that guns don't kill people, people kill people. ( guns are still illegal to own unless, etc. but that doesn't make the gun illegal - just the ownership. crafty or sane - you decide! )
Therefore, your comment is moot.
The case was about TPB as a site, how it operated, especially with regard to the Dutch market. The verdict document even specifically noted that allowing torrent file uploads, indexing them, and offering them for download 'as is' does not constitute copyright infringement. By extension, that would imply that torrent files themselves do not constitute derivative-copyrighted works. But, again, that's not what the case was about, and thus no explicit statement was made on that.
7.2. Orders the contributors of TPB, each separately and together, to remove and keep removed any of the torrent files offered on TPB with which files containing works subject to the copyrights of authors who are members of The Brein Foundation [Stichting Brein] may be exchanged, with a penalty of EUR 5,000.00 each time they (TPB, ed.) do not conform to this order, with a maximum of EUR 3,000,000.00.
So, no, this isn't about ALL torrent files. Your Linux Distros and such are safe.
The very idea that something infinitely reproducible could be considered to have value is preposterous
value of (something infinitely reproducible) = $0.00 gotcha.
We are willing to pay for the services rendered, but your prices are ridiculous.
Yes, we know, you think the prices should be $0.00
Wait, no, that's not what you're saying. I know, I know. But let's say they make a movie... the cost of their services to make that movie.. let's put them at $100. Cheapest damn movie evar.. won't even play in theaters, commercial distribution alone would be more than that, but for sake of fun arguments we'll use $100 instead of the $100,000,0000 that some movies supposedly cost to make.
Now normally, a movie DVD on release might be.. what.. $15 in the states? $2.99 in a bargain bin?
But you've already demonstrated that their prices "are ridiculous". So if you find $2.99 ridiculous, then how do they get you to pay the $100 for their services?
Let's face it. You wouldn't. You'd sit back until -somebody- pays that $100 for their services, and then get the $0.00 copy from there. But that somebody sure ain't you.
This is the the chicken and egg problem that pops up every time when somebody suggests that people are more than happy to pay for services (e.g. pay a singer to sing for them) but not for their infinitely reproducible products (e.g. a CD), because the former is practically always more expensive than the latter.
Now some of us *might* in fact pay for a private session.. but I think they would tend to be the rich and wealthy, and not the average man.
I'm not saying many of these products aren't quite ridiculously priced (hence my mention of the bargain bin... I'll take the same movie for 1/5th of the price at the penalty of having to wait a few weeks, thanks), but pricing everything at $0.00 because "$N/infinity = $0.00 by limit" is way at the end of the reasonable spectrum there.
It's not just the name. The judge looked specifically at how TPB site is organized and works.
This includes endorsements and in fact calls for further torrent uploads, suggesting that people start up more -such- torrent sites, accepting torrent file uploads, indexing them, making them available for search, potentially filtering them (see an earlier comment re: empty files, viruses and child pornography), and so on.
5.7.1. It has been established that The Pirate Bay at least offers the capability to upload, search, and download torrent files. There is no disagreement between the two parties [Brein and TPB, ed.] that merely offering this capability does not violate copyright law.
In other words.. if you had a torrent search site that merely accepted uploads, indexed them, and offered them for download - at least in NL - you wouldn't be violating copyright law yourself in any way.
Whether it would protect you from the whole 'Aiding Copyright Infringement' debacle is another matter; I suspect if you didn't filter and the like, you might just be fine. You would also find your site to be immensely impopular by the masses (nothing would be easy to find), and popular with the ne'er-do-goods (seeing as you don't remove crap), including pedophiles.. which would likely land your site on a whole 'nother list altogether.
Just to note... the lawyer for TPB, Ernst-Jan Louwers, has already pointed out that the ruling is a bit conflicting, noting that the torrents must be removed and -remain- removed AND that Dutch citizens should not be allowed access. ( so which is it.. block, or delete? if they're deleted, they can't be blocked. If they're blocked, why still delete them? )
Furthermore, but this is not noted by TPB lawyer, as the ruling should only pertain to NL, deleting torrents would not fit in with the jurisdiction. This was noted by another laywer, Arnoud Engelfriet, but I'll stress here that I do not think he was acting -as a lawyer giving legal advice- when he made that statement. Though NL doesn't have the crazy "IANAL! IANAL!!!" bullcrap going on (yet).
The fact that TPB suggested that they remove such torrents actually worked against them in this case; after all, it means they do perform (some) filtering.
Both in Dutch; I wouldn't rely on babelfish/google translate, and user-provided translations tend to be rife with inexact translations of legal terms... should be a proper English translation in due time.
I'll translate the section that mentions these active filter claims, however...
5.9.2. In addition it has not been contested that contributors of The Pirate Bay are actively involved with torrents that are uploaded by users. Torrents that point to empty files, child pornography or viruses are removed. The Pirate Bay also offers the ability to chat with one of its contributors about the available torrents.
This is one of the findings under...
5.9. Remains the question of whether or not The Pirate Bay has illegaly acted against The Brein Foundation [Stichting Brein] by offering Torrents with which copyrighted files may be exchanged, as they (Brein) have noted in a subsidiary claim.
So as part of the findings of 5.9, determining whether TPB has acted illegaly against Brein, the active filtering issue has weighed against them; if they can filter those, then they should be able to filter torrents pointing to files of parties who are signed up with Brein.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are relying on neutral as being 'safe', you've already failed to design a proper appliance. That's why they're practically all double insulated to begin with.
An appliance where there is a potential risk of the live OR the neutral (they're part of a loop once the appliance is connected (and switched on if the switch closes the circuit for either line) hitting user-accessible areas should have a grounding wire.. and thus a plug with grounding connectors (the two metal strips on the sides of the euro plugs, or the hole in the center of the plug for some european countries).
Live and neutral are indeed color coded for good reasons - when wiring a house to prevent silly mistakes leading to immediate short-circuits, for example.. or of more practical use, to know which one you hook up to the threaded part of a lamp fixture, and which to the deeply recessed pin (one of the few things where it matters quite a bit, as it is very easy to touch the lamp's tread while screwing in a new bulb, without there being an actual electrical failure at hand) - but electrical appliances are not really a reason.
Notable exceptions are 2- and 3-phase systems, e.g. for motors, where the phase differentials matter; but that's an entirely different plug and socket design.
Exactly.
From GP:
Well there go the vast majority of Windows viruses, too.
In fact, from the test they did...
- didn't run
Troj-Bredo-M
W32/Autorun-ATK
Troj/Banker-EUT
-- Ran
Troj/FakeAV-AFY
Mal/EncPk-KY
Mal/EncPk-KP
Troj/Agent-LIW
Troj/FakeAV-AFX
Troj/Zbot-JN
W32/Autorun-ATC
So 6/10 were definite Trojans (Troj/). I.e. some piece of software saying it's all sorts of good stuff, but in reality is a virus.
Then there's the Autoruns - last I knew, autorun, even on Vista, by default doesn't open a darn thing. So I guess either they changed Autorun settings, or they simply told Windows to run the program (a virus).
Lastly, the Mal/EncPk ones. They're deemed malware because they're packaging and encryption signatures that often get used by malware authors (even though they have legitimate uses, blabla). What do they envelop?
Mal/EncPk-KY: sadly sophos' site doesn't detail, but other sites will tell you that this, too, is a Trojan with Bredolab blargh.
Mal/EncPk-KP: "About this threat: The Trojan arrives as an attachment in fake e-card messages, with text as follows"
So that's 8/10 trojans, and 2/10 that might as well be classified as such unless I'm wholly mistaken about autorun.
Again GP:
That's the real issue - and one that applies to any operating system.
Not saying Windows isn't less secure.. on the other hand, I don't remember Microsoft suggesting that UAC was a 100% solution against viruses. Just against those that try to do admin-y things when you yourself aren't running as admin. That's usually the thing people point out with Linux "it can't infect the rest of the system". Well that's great - but that won't stop it from, for example, turning your machine into a spam zombie as long as the user is allowed to send e-mail.
They're not failing due to a 'free' (as in speech-like) internet, but due to the 'free' (as in beer) copying of binary data.
If you could -copy- medicine so that you have a perfect copy of that medicine, and the person with the original keeps his, you bet that medicine companies would feel the hurt. See also Brazil's stance of happily ignoring patents and manufacturing medicine locally at a fraction of the cost (no R&D and advertising costs to recuperate goes a long way).
The same applies to food, clothing, cars, etc.
The only immediate restriction that would fall unto the above is that these are actual physical goods - and no element has yet been created out of a vacuum by scientists. Even transforming one element into another (alchemy, but way cooler) takes prohibitive amounts of energy and thus money. So you need a supply of base elements for the device - a star trek-style replicator if you will - to make the copies with. That would then be the last great industry.. the collection and distribution of the raw elements. But given that anybody in that industry can already replicate food, housing materials, etc. even they needn't necessarily be 'paid' in any way.
err... what money?
I thought Hulu was ad-supported?
And what American advertiser is going to want to place ads for videos that are seen in countries where they may not even have an establishment?
Even those that do - say, McDonald's - can't exactly advertise a burger that they're offering nation-wide in the U.S. for a particular price in another country where that product is not available, or is available but for a different price.
So, Hulu and the content rights holders would have to come to advertising agreements in all of the other nations being catered to while at the same time, trying not to piss off the the broadcasters in those areas too much (after all, the syndicated content -does- appear on TV much later, once these smaller broadcasters can actually afford it - but what advertisers are -they- going to attract if everybody's already seen it for free via Hulu?)... so good luck with that.
And if they -did- start charging cold hard cash... well, I guess one could claim iTunes as being highly successful, so if they did it well, it might even work. In due time, I suppose.
In fact.. yay, a graph:
http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades
( via Cool Infographics blog )
The LA Times has just been sucking overall, explaining their sharp drop.
Most of the others had been stable until relatively recently, as more and more people realize that they all just regurgitate the same news they can get online for free.
The exception noted in the article summary - the local publishers - and the major publisher lonely at the top and holding relatively steady, share the opposite of the above in common. They don't regurgitate news so much as that they report on the actual news and provided added value. In the case of local newspapers.. local news that strikes at the heart of the community (I've always wanted to say that). In the case of the WSJ.. in-depth investigation and background information, catering to their major audience (which tend not to be the target audience for the other major papers).
Another reason defrag -can- help is that when a write operation is performed and chunks have to be stored, the drive will write to empty blocks first, which is fast, and to non-empty (but non-full, obviously) blocks second. This later mode is a bit slower because it has to read the entire block, insert the new data, then write out the new block, rather than just writing away directly.
I don't know if there's any really noticeable performance increase from this beyond benchmarks, though.
So, then... if you hit a person in your car, get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort, and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop: TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?
And what if that implantation fails? It happens, you know. Who do we look to blame then?
Did the mom maybe eat something wrong? Should -she- be accused of involuntary manslaughter (or even murder, depending on the scenario)?
I respect your belief that life starts at 3 days, 2 days, heck, at conception - I may disagree, but I respect it. But only with the added note that ending a life is not necessariy murder (or even (in)voluntary manslaughter); see euthanasia for the other end of what that encompasses.
I'd imagine the conscious willing decision is to have sex. That does not imply that they were consciously willing to get (the girl) pregnant.
Let's say they're even having 'safe sex'. I.e. they make the decision to be on the pill / wear a condom, and thus similarly in the vast majority of cases the decision that they do -not- want to get (the girl) pregnant.
But the effectivity of both combined is still not 100%, so in this hypothetical case the girl does get pregnant.
She had no particular reason to take a morning-after pill, or go to a doc, or etc. so a few weeks later.. 'oops'.
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
I'm not particularly pro-abortion, nor do I find all abortion to be murder.
I've previously commented that I imagine 'life' to begin when the fruit - whatever stage it's in - is viable outside of the womb. Technology pushes this further and further toward the date of conception.
This is, of course, also a catch-22. The further it gets pushed forward to the date of conception, the more likely it is that eventually the IVF petri dishes/tubes would be viable outside of a womb and inside a technological creation of man as well. That's when we'll have some -really- interesting debates.
haha - NICE!
The world needs more classic beauties :\
We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little habbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!
Actually, restaurants - aside from fast food restaurants - tend to be one of the few places where you routinely -do- pay after-the-fact, and can base your payment on your experience.
I'm not just talking about tipping the waiter either. I'm talking about telling the cashier that, for example, the steak was a bit rancid. Nevermind the fact that you could have complained about that when you had the first bite and probably gotten a replacement, the cashier will probably - on their own or through a manager - decide that you can pay a little less, or get a coupon for a next time you're there, etc.
Unfortunately, we can't play a game first and -then- decide how much we want to pay. Of course a big reason for that is because a lot of people would simply decide not to pay, even if they did enjoy the game ( as per your parent poster ).. the cheaptards.
It's biased the other way around...
If you were a pirate, would you knowingly and willingly send data to the developer that might point you out as being a pirate? I'd have thought that a pirate would do their best not to be noticed.
There's probably truth to both our statements; sadly there's no way to know which way things might swing if they'd gotten a full set.. e.g. by 'phoning home'. Maybe they'll try that next time - would be interesting. Though now they're known, which *also* affects the statistics because people might pirate their stuff on purpose now, or decidedly stay away. So some other dev would have to try it, really.
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
Yeah, it may be ridiculous, and yeah, a judge may decide that it is indeed ridiculous as well. But they -still- have to go through these claims in order to vigorously defend.
I don't know why these stories keep hitting Slashdot.. are the editors trying to effect change in the legal frameworks surrounding trademarks, or are they *really* just going for all the page views, comments, and thus ad exposures?
( Which they've graciously offered me to disable 'cos I made such positive contributions - but truth be told I enabled AdBlock the moment I saw a flash overlay ad. Sorry - you only get to make that mistake with me once. )
Then such distro's shouldn't use login music which comes from works to which they do not hold the rights for copying, distribution, and performance.
( Though Buma/Stemra has never claimed performance rights for such things - that's the American ASCAP, who were seeking compensation for ringtones on mobile phones. Buma/Stemra -have- claimed rights for copying/distribution from ringtone companies, of course - and I daresay rightly so. )
That's not even the court's job. The court's order need not list it - it's up to TPB and Brein to come to an understanding of which works would fall under Brein's claims and to keep this updated over time.
*cue the "if there is a list, we can work out how to work around that list - for teh lulz!" thoughts*
They have implicit permission by way of those rights holders being signed up with Brein.
Brein really doesn't care much about an independent album/movie/piece of software* getting 'pirated' - just those of its members.
* The summary in the slashdot is inaccurate.
RIAA = Buma/Stemra
MPAA = NVPI
BSA = BSA
Brein = something of all of the above combined, but as a separate entity... not so much the BSA, in fact.. they're for the 'entertainment industry'.. so more like games and such. Subsidiary for games would have been 'BIG' (Ban Illegal Games), which I *think* falls directly under Brein but I haven't looked into the company structures for that thing. afaik BIG has been fail-from-the-get-go... surprised the site's ( http://www.bigweb.nl/ ) still up, in fact.
As a regular to the movie theaters, I totally agree with all that you're saying.
However, the movie makes - largely, there are exceptions - are *not* giving away their movies for free, and people are also still coming to the theaters. I would imagine they did their math and saw no financial benefit (stockholders and all that) to releasing it all for free and banking on the idea that it would drive more people to the theater / to buy the DVD anyway.
It may be more in line with the human nature to share (I'm not so sure that's human nature; after all, they don't people share their money as easily as they would share a movie?), though.
I don't think we would really see an increase in cultural output and quality - we already have voting systems for quality and output; our money. And we already have internet sites devoted to rating output. ;)
I think it would largely maintain the status quo.. some would make *great* movies, and many of the rest will make utter shite. And some people would still watch that shite. Heck, free shite is probably perceived as 'better' than shite you have to pay for - perhaps quality would even go down
see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1414777&cid=29839719
quick re-cap: only torrent files pointing to files (mmm torrents) containing works of authors who are in the cahoots with Brein, as it were.
so, no, an indie movie distributed through some obscure firm that is not with Brein nor owned by a parent company that -is-, etc. wouldn't be affected by this either.
Show me the script they use to filter child pornography so well that it has not become a haven for pedophiles, and I'll show you europol, interpol, etc. clamoring to get their hands on it instead of having to designate particular agents as the "you get to look at some seriously nasty crap tonight and decide whether or not it's child porn. sorry."
Humans are involved in some of the filtering, somewhere; the lawyer for TPB didn't contest this filtering.
Filtering out copyrighted works (to which no distribution license was given to the world by the rights holder - so don't fire up the Linux distro comment just yet) is in fact easier as audio, image and video fingerprinting are ubiquitous; if TPB -wanted to-, they could implement this. I doubt it'd work 100%, but to the courts that's still better than 0%.. in fact, it would comply with any order to -try-.
Not that the verdict said anything about filtering, just a blanket "remove them or face penalties" - which is sure to be contested.
No claim, nor verdict, was made on the legality of torrent files.
In fact, I don't think that would even fly, as even the less intelligent judges in NL know the basic principle that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
( guns are still illegal to own unless, etc. but that doesn't make the gun illegal - just the ownership. crafty or sane - you decide! )
Therefore, your comment is moot.
The case was about TPB as a site, how it operated, especially with regard to the Dutch market. The verdict document even specifically noted that allowing torrent file uploads, indexing them, and offering them for download 'as is' does not constitute copyright infringement.
By extension, that would imply that torrent files themselves do not constitute derivative-copyrighted works. But, again, that's not what the case was about, and thus no explicit statement was made on that.
From the verdict ( http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BK1067&u_ljn=BK1067 - Dutch ), emphasis mine...
So, no, this isn't about ALL torrent files. Your Linux Distros and such are safe.
value of (something infinitely reproducible) = $0.00
gotcha.
Yes, we know, you think the prices should be $0.00
Wait, no, that's not what you're saying. I know, I know. But let's say they make a movie... the cost of their services to make that movie.. let's put them at $100. Cheapest damn movie evar.. won't even play in theaters, commercial distribution alone would be more than that, but for sake of fun arguments we'll use $100 instead of the $100,000,0000 that some movies supposedly cost to make.
Now normally, a movie DVD on release might be.. what.. $15 in the states? $2.99 in a bargain bin?
But you've already demonstrated that their prices "are ridiculous". So if you find $2.99 ridiculous, then how do they get you to pay the $100 for their services?
Let's face it. You wouldn't. You'd sit back until -somebody- pays that $100 for their services, and then get the $0.00 copy from there. But that somebody sure ain't you.
This is the the chicken and egg problem that pops up every time when somebody suggests that people are more than happy to pay for services (e.g. pay a singer to sing for them) but not for their infinitely reproducible products (e.g. a CD), because the former is practically always more expensive than the latter.
Now some of us *might* in fact pay for a private session.. but I think they would tend to be the rich and wealthy, and not the average man.
I'm not saying many of these products aren't quite ridiculously priced (hence my mention of the bargain bin... I'll take the same movie for 1/5th of the price at the penalty of having to wait a few weeks, thanks), but pricing everything at $0.00 because "$N/infinity = $0.00 by limit" is way at the end of the reasonable spectrum there.
It's not just the name. The judge looked specifically at how TPB site is organized and works.
This includes endorsements and in fact calls for further torrent uploads, suggesting that people start up more -such- torrent sites, accepting torrent file uploads, indexing them, making them available for search, potentially filtering them (see an earlier comment re: empty files, viruses and child pornography), and so on.
In fact, the ruling ( http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BK1067&u_ljn=BK1067 - Dutch, sorry ) specifically states (emphasis mine):
In other words.. if you had a torrent search site that merely accepted uploads, indexed them, and offered them for download - at least in NL - you wouldn't be violating copyright law yourself in any way.
Whether it would protect you from the whole 'Aiding Copyright Infringement' debacle is another matter; I suspect if you didn't filter and the like, you might just be fine. You would also find your site to be immensely impopular by the masses (nothing would be easy to find), and popular with the ne'er-do-goods (seeing as you don't remove crap), including pedophiles.. which would likely land your site on a whole 'nother list altogether.
Just to note... the lawyer for TPB, Ernst-Jan Louwers, has already pointed out that the ruling is a bit conflicting, noting that the torrents must be removed and -remain- removed AND that Dutch citizens should not be allowed access. ( so which is it.. block, or delete? if they're deleted, they can't be blocked. If they're blocked, why still delete them? )
Furthermore, but this is not noted by TPB lawyer, as the ruling should only pertain to NL, deleting torrents would not fit in with the jurisdiction.
This was noted by another laywer, Arnoud Engelfriet, but I'll stress here that I do not think he was acting -as a lawyer giving legal advice- when he made that statement. Though NL doesn't have the crazy "IANAL! IANAL!!!" bullcrap going on (yet).
- empty torrents
- torrents with viruses
- child pornography torrents
The fact that TPB suggested that they remove such torrents actually worked against them in this case; after all, it means they do perform (some) filtering.
Judgment PDF: http://www.boek9.nl/www.delex-backoffice.nl/uploads/file/Boek9%20/Boek%209%20Uitspraken/Auteursrecht/Rb%20ASD%20Neij%20-%20Pirate%20Bay%20%2022%20oktober%202009.pdf
Judgment HTML: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BK1067&u_ljn=BK1067
Both in Dutch; I wouldn't rely on babelfish/google translate, and user-provided translations tend to be rife with inexact translations of legal terms... should be a proper English translation in due time.
I'll translate the section that mentions these active filter claims, however...
This is one of the findings under...
So as part of the findings of 5.9, determining whether TPB has acted illegaly against Brein, the active filtering issue has weighed against them; if they can filter those, then they should be able to filter torrents pointing to files of parties who are signed up with Brein.