> Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to > the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are > directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony > Music's RIAA...
Perhaps, but they are probably more concerned about the impact of an unfavorable precedent on their own ability to seize property and impose draconian fines via civil rather than criminal prosecution. They like being able to punish people without having to prove criminal cases.
>...it costs no money to copy [and distribute] something...
Copying and distributing is what publishers do. The NYT is a publisher. They are obsolete.
> it still costs money to create something.
Publishers don't create. If you want to be compensated for what you create you had better come up with a method that does not involve the obsolete publishing industry. The details are up to you.
>...every hour spent watching television was associated with an 18% greater > risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, an 11% greater risk of all causes > of death, and a 9% increased risk of death from cancer.
According to these numbers you're all dead and have been for decades!
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
> So in other words you have no idea what this discussion is about, how Google > works, or what the word contract means.
Yes, I do. Unlike you.
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
> I hate to be the one to break it to you but downloading is stealing.
I will assume that by "downloading" you mean "downloading unauthorized copies". The US Federal courts do not agree with you. Making unauthorized copies of works protected by copyright is (usually) copyright infringement and illegal but it is not theft.
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 0
> If one uses Google and expects them to keep their part of the bargain then > they should hold up their end.
I have no contract with Google (and I doubt that you do either). Consequently I require nothing of them and they have no right to require anything of me (nor do they).
> That "clever stealth" is, by any other name, still stealing.
Bullshit. If Google doesn't want me to block their cookies they can make their search engine not work without them. If they don't want me to block JavaScript they can require it (as some of their competitors do). If they want to require me to open an account they can. They know how the Web works. They know that Web pages are public by default and they know how to restrict access. They do not do so.
...by copyright, as long as CBS owns the only copies they control it and it is, therefor, not in the public domain. The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.
...not having a Google account, disabling scripts, and blocking all Google cookies including Analytics doesn't do except give Mr. Moxie a chance to track me? Why should I trust him more than Google? I know what Google is after. What does he want?
>...step 2 is usually full-out block of the ip's / user agent.
Inconceivable to a Microsoft manager. No one could tolerate the resulting loss in traffic and therefor ad revenue. What's that you say? You operate a small, noncommercial site? Then it couldn't possibly have any content of interest to Bing users.
The standard clearly specifies lower case. However, if you are correct there's a simple way to send bingbots one way and all other bots another: create Robots.txt and robots.txt with different contents.
Slashdot Mirror
> Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to
> the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are
> directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony
> Music's RIAA...
Perhaps, but they are probably more concerned about the impact of an unfavorable precedent on their own ability to seize property and impose draconian fines via civil rather than criminal prosecution. They like being able to punish people without having to prove criminal cases.
> Real physics is cool, but it doesn't often make for good arcade games.
He wrote *physics* based, not *astronomy* based.
> ...costs me 5 cents per page, paid in $5 units whenever I run out of :)
> "pages". (But you knew that.
No, I didn't, actually. Slashdot frequently suggests that I subscribe but never gives details.
> ...it costs no money to copy [and distribute] something...
Copying and distributing is what publishers do. The NYT is a publisher. They are obsolete.
> it still costs money to create something.
Publishers don't create. If you want to be compensated for what you create you had better come up with a method that does not involve the obsolete publishing industry. The details are up to you.
True. For home users you just pop up a window saying "Click here to install keylogger".
> Guess I'm glad I run 64bit.
Why do you assume that you are not subject to a different but equally appalling set vulnerabilities? The same people wrote 64bit Windows.
> I'd like to see a study done on people that are disabled and compare them
> against those that are not.
A bit of googling indicates that being wheelchair-bound takes about ten years off the lifespan.
Of course, many able-bodied Americans might as well be wheelchair-bound given the amount of walking they do.
> Fortunately I don't watch TV at all, since I read Slashdot all day...
I'm not alone!
That would not be an excuse. It would be a reason.
> Do some physical labor and what do you feel like the next day?
Same as I do every day.
> That's right, you're in pain.
That's wrong, I feel fine. Perhaps that's because I do physical labor every day.
> I go to "working man's" bars where construstion workers hang out. These guys
> spend all day in heavy exersize...
No they don't. They spend all day operating machines that do heavy exercise. And all night drinking, gobbling burgers, and watching TV.
> ...every hour spent watching television was associated with an 18% greater
> risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, an 11% greater risk of all causes
> of death, and a 9% increased risk of death from cancer.
According to these numbers you're all dead and have been for decades!
> So in other words you have no idea what this discussion is about, how Google
> works, or what the word contract means.
Yes, I do. Unlike you.
> I hate to be the one to break it to you but downloading is stealing.
I will assume that by "downloading" you mean "downloading unauthorized copies".
The US Federal courts do not agree with you. Making unauthorized copies of works protected by copyright is (usually) copyright infringement and illegal but it is not theft.
> If one uses Google and expects them to keep their part of the bargain then
> they should hold up their end.
I have no contract with Google (and I doubt that you do either). Consequently I require nothing of them and they have no right to require anything of me (nor do they).
> That "clever stealth" is, by any other name, still stealing.
Bullshit. If Google doesn't want me to block their cookies they can make their search engine not work without them. If they don't want me to block JavaScript they can require it (as some of their competitors do). If they want to require me to open an account they can. They know how the Web works. They know that Web pages are public by default and they know how to restrict access. They do not do so.
...by copyright, as long as CBS owns the only copies they control it and it is, therefor, not in the public domain. The copies are their property to do with as they see fit.
> ...you are Google's product which they sell to their customers.
And said customers are getting swindled when they buy me.
...not having a Google account, disabling scripts, and blocking all Google cookies including Analytics doesn't do except give Mr. Moxie a chance to track me? Why should I trust him more than Google? I know what Google is after. What does he want?
> Actually the possibility that robots/computers will rebel against humans is
> plausible (even if "rebel" may be the wrong word).
No it isn't.
> we've all seen Terminator.
No we haven't.
> That just strikes me as spooky.
Why? You should expect "spooky" results from a thought experiment that cannot be performed without violating the laws of physics.
I'm aware of the various meanings of the word "issue". It is now being used as a synonym for "problem", thus diluting the meaning of both words.
> ...step 2 is usually full-out block of the ip's / user agent.
Inconceivable to a Microsoft manager. No one could tolerate the resulting loss in traffic and therefor ad revenue. What's that you say? You operate a small, noncommercial site? Then it couldn't possibly have any content of interest to Bing users.
The standard clearly specifies lower case. However, if you are correct there's a simple way to send bingbots one way and all other bots another: create Robots.txt and robots.txt with different contents.
> I find the poster's use of "in lieu" to be the penultimate atrocity
> vis-a-vis the English language.
The ultimate one being use of "irregardless"?
This is Slashdot. Every summary must have at least one grammatical error.
> ...the web app developers should have their Geek status revoked...
Most Web developers don't qualify for geek status.