I'd prefer criminals learn that crime won't be rewarded with luxuries that, in many cases, they wouldn't otherwise have access to.
As it is, prisons provide inmates with warm and dry shelter, three square meals a day, cable television, and access to recreation facilities, healthcare, education, and jobs.
That's a far cry better than a lot of law-abiding people have, yet they bear the cost of supporting these criminals.
"But I'm also for simply turning off networking support in pirated copies to trump the reasoning above. If an unlicensed copy of Windows checks in to Microsoft's update service, don't update it, downgrade it."
I would be perfectly OK with that too, or as another user posted, have the ISP cut off access to the Internet. But can you imagine the pissing and moaning that would ensue here if that were to happen?
Shouldn't your angst also be directed at the creators of viruses and malware? Just because Microsoft is an easy target, that doesn't make them (solely) responsible for the problem.
I often hear people (rightfully) bemoaning Windows' security flaws, but rarely do I hear any calls for people to stop creating malware.
The idea here, it would seem, is to provide an incentive for non-paying users to buy a legit copy. If Microsoft can sell the idea that legit copies were "safer", the effort may be successful (to Microsoft's bottom line, of course).
Microsoft has no obligation to the Internet as a whole; only to thier paying customers.
If anything, it might nudge some people to a Mac. Apple has the brand recognition, and you can buy "For Macintosh OS X" software in stores. In other words, they know what they're getting with a Mac.
With Linux, on the other hand, most people wouldn't have any idea whether or not they would be able to use the software they want, let alone how to get it even if it did exist for Linux.
Why should they be expected to support copies of Windows that people didn't pay for? Sure, this is an issue of customer support. But then, the people with 'pirated' copies of Windows aren't Microsoft's customers.
"But there's nothing in the First Amendment about the right not to convey some messages as a proxy, only the right to express one's own messages without restraint."
True, but then what law compells someone to convey a message as a proxy? None that I'm aware of! That's why such an obligation can only be created by a legal contract between the two parties. Sorry, but it's still not a constitutional issue.
"...then how long before they're held liable for music files being transferred over their networks?"
What? If they are aware that their customers are using their network to commit copyright infringement, why shouldn't they be considered a liable party?
Good point. So if someone won't rent an apartment to me, and I don't have enough money to build my own house, I can't live where I want? Does that mean only rich people get to live where they want?
That's exactly what I'm saying. If The Planet had a hosting contract with this ISP (and that stands to reason), such a termination would clearly be a violation of that contract. Unless there are some other details that we are not aware of, I would think that The Planet would have grounds to sue the ISP. Still, that's only a matter for a civil court.
I'd have to say this is a good example of free speech in practice.
Here we have an ISP that didn't want to be associated with The Planet's message. They exercised their rights by NOT broadcasting that message. Remember, free speech includes the right to not speak too.
The Planet is still free to find someone who is willing to host their site, or they can acquire the necessary systems to host their own.
Anyone who thinks it is needs to educate themselves on the free market.
Yes, in this country, you have a right to say whatever you want. However nobody is obligated to broadcast your message, especially if they believe that your message could be harmful to their own wellbeing.
Now The Planet may have grounds to sue for breach of contract, but that hardly makes this an issue of constitutional law.
"Set up a place in game to function as the radio station and have events. Radio "call-in" contests giving away in-game items might be cool to do."
Maybe I'm not really getting the concept of this game, but that seems somewhat out-of-place in a post-apocalyptic struggle for the freedom of humanity.
But then, the three-hour rave scene in Reloaded hardly seemed appropriate either.
Now if only children in third-world countries depended on free software for their daily physical needs.
I may be WAAAAY ouf of left field here, but I imagine vaccines against deadly and preventable diseases are much more valuable to these kids than software to install on computers they will likely never own.
Guess what? Bill Gates didn't make this contribution to pacify angry Slashbots like yourself.
You see, the kids who benefit from these vaccines aren't going to give a shit about your pissy little gripes about Gates' business practices. They are going to be grateful; a sentiment I think a lot of Slashbots are incapable of.
So why not, for once, set aside your consipracy theories about ulterior motives, and acknowledge that Gates did a Good Thing(tm) here?
Hmm... from reading Slashdot, I was under the impression that the only files being traded through P2P were research papers, Linux distributions, and independent music files.
What is this 'piracy' you speak of? Surely there aren't people using P2P networks to commit copyright infringement!
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, heaven forbid that prison becomes a place that people want to avoid.
Or more likely (as most companies do), keep it for themselves.
Let's not forget that Apple is still a for-profit corporation.
I'd prefer criminals learn that crime won't be rewarded with luxuries that, in many cases, they wouldn't otherwise have access to.
As it is, prisons provide inmates with warm and dry shelter, three square meals a day, cable television, and access to recreation facilities, healthcare, education, and jobs.
That's a far cry better than a lot of law-abiding people have, yet they bear the cost of supporting these criminals.
And the problem is?
Why should criminals be given such luxuries, at taxpayer expense, when we have millions of law-abiding citizens living in poverty?
I would be perfectly OK with that too, or as another user posted, have the ISP cut off access to the Internet. But can you imagine the pissing and moaning that would ensue here if that were to happen?
Shouldn't your angst also be directed at the creators of viruses and malware? Just because Microsoft is an easy target, that doesn't make them (solely) responsible for the problem.
I often hear people (rightfully) bemoaning Windows' security flaws, but rarely do I hear any calls for people to stop creating malware.
The idea here, it would seem, is to provide an incentive for non-paying users to buy a legit copy. If Microsoft can sell the idea that legit copies were "safer", the effort may be successful (to Microsoft's bottom line, of course).
Microsoft has no obligation to the Internet as a whole; only to thier paying customers.
If anything, it might nudge some people to a Mac. Apple has the brand recognition, and you can buy "For Macintosh OS X" software in stores. In other words, they know what they're getting with a Mac.
With Linux, on the other hand, most people wouldn't have any idea whether or not they would be able to use the software they want, let alone how to get it even if it did exist for Linux.
Why should they be expected to support copies of Windows that people didn't pay for? Sure, this is an issue of customer support. But then, the people with 'pirated' copies of Windows aren't Microsoft's customers.
But it was a real BitCh to learn.
True, but then what law compells someone to convey a message as a proxy? None that I'm aware of! That's why such an obligation can only be created by a legal contract between the two parties. Sorry, but it's still not a constitutional issue.
What? If they are aware that their customers are using their network to commit copyright infringement, why shouldn't they be considered a liable party?
Good point. So if someone won't rent an apartment to me, and I don't have enough money to build my own house, I can't live where I want? Does that mean only rich people get to live where they want?
Oh the injustice of it all!
Your're right: the First Amendment gives them that right.
There is nothing in the Constitution that obligates someone to broadcast a message they do not want to be associated with.
If The Planet's action violated a contract they had with ISNA, then that's a matter for a civil court.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If The Planet had a hosting contract with this ISP (and that stands to reason), such a termination would clearly be a violation of that contract. Unless there are some other details that we are not aware of, I would think that The Planet would have grounds to sue the ISP. Still, that's only a matter for a civil court.
I'd have to say this is a good example of free speech in practice.
Here we have an ISP that didn't want to be associated with The Planet's message. They exercised their rights by NOT broadcasting that message. Remember, free speech includes the right to not speak too.
The Planet is still free to find someone who is willing to host their site, or they can acquire the necessary systems to host their own.
Anyone who thinks it is needs to educate themselves on the free market.
Yes, in this country, you have a right to say whatever you want. However nobody is obligated to broadcast your message, especially if they believe that your message could be harmful to their own wellbeing.
Now The Planet may have grounds to sue for breach of contract, but that hardly makes this an issue of constitutional law.
Maybe I'm not really getting the concept of this game, but that seems somewhat out-of-place in a post-apocalyptic struggle for the freedom of humanity.
But then, the three-hour rave scene in Reloaded hardly seemed appropriate either.
After stripping all of the hyperbole from your post, your only real complaint seems to be that Gates has money because he built a successful business.
It isn't for you to decide how generous anyone else should be. Charity, when it is expected or coerced, is just a nice word for slavery.
Now if only children in third-world countries depended on free software for their daily physical needs.
I may be WAAAAY ouf of left field here, but I imagine vaccines against deadly and preventable diseases are much more valuable to these kids than software to install on computers they will likely never own.
Guess what? Bill Gates didn't make this contribution to pacify angry Slashbots like yourself.
You see, the kids who benefit from these vaccines aren't going to give a shit about your pissy little gripes about Gates' business practices. They are going to be grateful; a sentiment I think a lot of Slashbots are incapable of.
So why not, for once, set aside your consipracy theories about ulterior motives, and acknowledge that Gates did a Good Thing(tm) here?
No, the record industry's Nazis will come kicking down your door for illegally distributing copyrighted music.
Hmm... from reading Slashdot, I was under the impression that the only files being traded through P2P were research papers, Linux distributions, and independent music files.
What is this 'piracy' you speak of? Surely there aren't people using P2P networks to commit copyright infringement!
And how would a game that people could download and compile and play make any money for the company producing it?