But can't you see that GPL code is not free as in freedom?
Say I work for a human rights orginization and I don't want to advertise I use crypto. I can't use GPL software then.
But also having huge companies use it is not a bad idea.
My libs are free [as in freedom] and I've had suggestions/bug fixes come from all sorts of companies [bitmover, sony, Compaq, etc...] as well as many universities and such...
You say "STOLEN by a company." I say "I've helped someone do their job, earn a living and support their family".
I could say the same to the GPL people. If you want to free your code don't impose restrictions on distribution. I mean shouldn't free as in in both freedom/beer mean that some company can take your code and use it for a billion dollar project all hush-hush without making it public?
Sure it may suck but in reality people are still likely to contribute to a project even if it's public domain.
Why is depriving people of a physical object the only way to define theft?
Intelectual theft doesn't involve physical objects. In fact you still have the idea in your head. So by your logic you can't commit IP theft.
I think theft is depriving people of something earned. I shelved a product and you stole it from my shop. I should have earned the retail price of the product but you deprived me of that.
I sell songs over the net for 0.99$ each and you copied them. You deprived me of the 0.99$ I should have earned.
See the problem is you guys keep repeating the same thing without really making a convincing argument. You say theft is only of tangible objects. I say why is that so. It's too limited. There are more ways to hurt people then buy stealing tangible objects.
Why are they not the same? I think saying "they're not the same" is just a scape goat to legitimize the action.
To use your own logic against you, just because you keep saying "it's not theft" doesn't make your arguement any more reasonable or correct.
If you'd have to pay for the media and you have it without paying, that my friend, is theft. You're in possesion of something you didn't pay for that wasn't given to you legally.
I think the spirit of the law is much broader than the little pirates like you would like to think.
Well considering my laptop is loaded I doubt that. I've got 768MB of ram, a 1.7Ghz processor, 60GB of disk, a DVD-CDRW, etc, etc
Aside from components wearing out I doubt my next laptop will be "much better" in terms of specs.
However, for both series of Compaqs [presario and pavillion] they seem to use the same battery. That's smart since most components [short of the keyboard and lcd] are replaceable now. My HD dies, I buy another laptop HD and reinstall my OS, etc...
Well yeah things don't last forever, the idea though is that during it's lifetime a rechargeable battery will pay for itself.
Take rechargeable AA's. A four pack of AA's cost about 4$, a four pack of AA NiMH cost about 7$ [depends on if you get them in bulk or not]. However, you can charge the latter a few hundred times.
Similarly for the laptop batteries, my 129$ Compaq 2100 battery [and fortunately their later models use the same batteries... smart!] will last me a few years. However, this enables me to use my laptop [for say, work] anywhere. I'm sure I'll earn more than 50$/yr to pay for the new battery just by having the laptop around.
There is always the alternative less recommended route of just replacing the cells in the battery. I personally wouldn't do this unless forced.
Hopefully Compaq will be using the same battery model [or compatible type] for the next while to come [not much reason to change] since I really wouldn't want to buy a new laptop just to use a new battery... So far this has been the trend. All of their presarios use the same. phew.
"Yes, that's the law. But it doesn't mean that the author suffers a loss of X if I illegally copy it."
Yes it does. Had you followed the rules you would have to pay X for the product. You decided to circumvent the authors distribution. In the end, you have something the author sells for X for free.
That's just like stealing a 1$ chocolate bar as a kid. You have to pay the store back 1$ not the 0.39$ they paid for it. Did you steal the 0.61$? Yes.
Li-ion batteries have controllers for a reason. When my laptop battery is charged exactly 0mAh is supposed to go in/out of the battery.
In fact my laptop battery led will blink if I take the battery out while running on AC. This kinda tells me the engineers want to make sure I keep a battery in there.
It does make me a bit weary to think I'm hurting my battery by leaving it in but really if I have to buy another battery in three years... so be it.
Fairuse is limited to viewing though. I invite a friend over to listen to my new CD they can't replay the CD whenever and never buy the CD.
So sharing an mp3 with a friend is not fairuse [though I'd argue making an mp3 copy of your own copy of a CD is fair use].
The idea is that you are consuming something, you're not legally entitled to it, it's of value [to you and them], that's theft. Plain and simple.
Sure you're not depriving people of a physical object but that's not the strictest definition of theft. For example, stocks are not physical yet you can steal that too right?
And in the end the argument "it's not worth X dollars to me" doesn't pan out. The owner wants to sell/license/rent/whatever the property for X dollars, you pay X dollars or do without.
Actually no it isn't. Trespassing is being where you are not wanted [among private property].
In Canada for instance, you can go and camp on someones front lawn. Until the minute they post a sign visible from public property or tell you otherwise you are not breaking a law.
I'd say you are steal from the owner though since you are using the land [even if you're only sleeping on it] which is obviously of value to you.
Except there in that case you are protected by your rights. You have a right to be there. [And as we know you can't restrict your rights with civil law, e.g. I can't sue you to stop breathing or something]
You're not legally entitled to that mp3 in any sense. So your argument is not even close to similar.
Similar would be if you were on private property. Then yes, you are enjoying the value of the property without paying for it so that is theft.
That's still theft [both you and your ISP]. Only since your ISP is probably a common carrier [or whatever local law has] only you and the source are liable.
Again that's not the point. The fact that the game has worth/value to you [e.g. playability factor, time spent downloading, whatever] and you didn't pay for it shows that you stole it.
What else do you call acquiring things of value that you didn't pay for?
That's just it. It isn't upto you how much it's worth. The fact that it has any worth at all means that you're cheating the system [and ultimately theft is just cheating in capitalism].
My point was to debunk the argument "I wasn't going to buy it anyways". Then it has no value to you which means you shouldn't be downloading it.
And you don't generally download something unless it has some value. Even if the value to you personally is minute it's more than worthless [otherwise you waste bandwidth and really ought todo something else with your time...]
Here's a new line on "theft". Stealing potential value.
The "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways but since I got it for free I'll use it now" line of thinking is highly hypocritical.
If you're going to use it [song, movie, application, media of sorts] then it's obviously of value to you. If you didn't create it then you're not entitled to it [unless the author gives permission]. Therefore you have stolen the value of the media from the author.
So yes, you can steal an "mp3". For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you. Just because you haven't paid for it yet doesn't mean it has no value.
You know what's scarier is I can remember a time when branding was "new" and the real channels didn't do it...
And I'm only 21!!!
[Well, heck I remember quality shows like SquareOne, Mathnet, ewok adventures, etc...]
I think it all this "polution" is just people not appreciating the laws of diminishing returns. TBS for example, runs ads every 81 seconds, puts animations all over the bottom.... and right now I'm watching the discovery channel.
CNN promotes their "we're right because when we covered it first [and then 80000 times afterwards] we got most of the details right!" I still watch local news anyways.
For that matter, anyone remember when CNN didn't have a marquee at the bottom?
Um, renting movies still puts money into hollywood. A single DVD could be rented out probably around 20 times [at a minimum] before it starts getting all messed up [like game DVDs for the PS2 which are almost always damaged].
It costs about 5.99$ to rent a movie anywhere [a new release]. That's 20x5.99 or about 120$ per DVD. How much do you think Blockbuster pays for each DVD they buy from their suppliers? [or distribution rights or whatever they need].
That's a lot of money that still goes into the pockets of the MPAA.
Unless you hate democracy laws were put in place by the majority. If you want to go against the majority and be an anarchist then by all means go ahead. Just don't call your way of life democratic.
This doesn't mean bad laws don't get passed. It means that if you think a law is bad, well why did you vote them in in the first place and why not form action to repeal the law.
In this case though, copyright infringement is not likely to become legal. So why not try, say, not pirate media? If you think the RIAA should change it's policies concerning the distribution of media stop buying teeny-bopper CDs. The fact though is that many people still buy them and that's why the RIAA thinks its ok.
Slashdot Mirror
But can't you see that GPL code is not free as in freedom?
Say I work for a human rights orginization and I don't want to advertise I use crypto. I can't use GPL software then.
But also having huge companies use it is not a bad idea.
My libs are free [as in freedom] and I've had suggestions/bug fixes come from all sorts of companies [bitmover, sony, Compaq, etc...] as well as many universities and such...
You say "STOLEN by a company." I say "I've helped someone do their job, earn a living and support their family".
Tom
I could say the same to the GPL people. If you want to free your code don't impose restrictions on distribution. I mean shouldn't free as in in both freedom/beer mean that some company can take your code and use it for a billion dollar project all hush-hush without making it public?
Sure it may suck but in reality people are still likely to contribute to a project even if it's public domain.
Tom
Um the site is run by the CEO of www.certainkey.com. I seriously doubt he uses an easily guessable password.
Tom
Why is depriving people of a physical object the only way to define theft?
Intelectual theft doesn't involve physical objects. In fact you still have the idea in your head. So by your logic you can't commit IP theft.
I think theft is depriving people of something earned. I shelved a product and you stole it from my shop. I should have earned the retail price of the product but you deprived me of that.
I sell songs over the net for 0.99$ each and you copied them. You deprived me of the 0.99$ I should have earned.
See the problem is you guys keep repeating the same thing without really making a convincing argument. You say theft is only of tangible objects. I say why is that so. It's too limited. There are more ways to hurt people then buy stealing tangible objects.
Tom
Why are they not the same? I think saying "they're not the same" is just a scape goat to legitimize the action.
To use your own logic against you, just because you keep saying "it's not theft" doesn't make your arguement any more reasonable or correct.
If you'd have to pay for the media and you have it without paying, that my friend, is theft. You're in possesion of something you didn't pay for that wasn't given to you legally.
I think the spirit of the law is much broader than the little pirates like you would like to think.
Tom
Well considering my laptop is loaded I doubt that. I've got 768MB of ram, a 1.7Ghz processor, 60GB of disk, a DVD-CDRW, etc, etc
Aside from components wearing out I doubt my next laptop will be "much better" in terms of specs.
However, for both series of Compaqs [presario and pavillion] they seem to use the same battery. That's smart since most components [short of the keyboard and lcd] are replaceable now. My HD dies, I buy another laptop HD and reinstall my OS, etc...
Tom
Well yeah things don't last forever, the idea though is that during it's lifetime a rechargeable battery will pay for itself.
Take rechargeable AA's. A four pack of AA's cost about 4$, a four pack of AA NiMH cost about 7$ [depends on if you get them in bulk or not]. However, you can charge the latter a few hundred times.
Similarly for the laptop batteries, my 129$ Compaq 2100 battery [and fortunately their later models use the same batteries... smart!] will last me a few years. However, this enables me to use my laptop [for say, work] anywhere. I'm sure I'll earn more than 50$/yr to pay for the new battery just by having the laptop around.
There is always the alternative less recommended route of just replacing the cells in the battery. I personally wouldn't do this unless forced.
Hopefully Compaq will be using the same battery model [or compatible type] for the next while to come [not much reason to change] since I really wouldn't want to buy a new laptop just to use a new battery... So far this has been the trend. All of their presarios use the same. phew.
Tom
"Yes, that's the law. But it doesn't mean that the author suffers a loss of X if I illegally copy it."
Yes it does. Had you followed the rules you would have to pay X for the product. You decided to circumvent the authors distribution. In the end, you have something the author sells for X for free.
That's just like stealing a 1$ chocolate bar as a kid. You have to pay the store back 1$ not the 0.39$ they paid for it. Did you steal the 0.61$? Yes.
Tom
overcharge?
Li-ion batteries have controllers for a reason. When my laptop battery is charged exactly 0mAh is supposed to go in/out of the battery.
In fact my laptop battery led will blink if I take the battery out while running on AC. This kinda tells me the engineers want to make sure I keep a battery in there.
It does make me a bit weary to think I'm hurting my battery by leaving it in but really if I have to buy another battery in three years... so be it.
Tom
Fairuse is limited to viewing though. I invite a friend over to listen to my new CD they can't replay the CD whenever and never buy the CD.
So sharing an mp3 with a friend is not fairuse [though I'd argue making an mp3 copy of your own copy of a CD is fair use].
The idea is that you are consuming something, you're not legally entitled to it, it's of value [to you and them], that's theft. Plain and simple.
Sure you're not depriving people of a physical object but that's not the strictest definition of theft. For example, stocks are not physical yet you can steal that too right?
And in the end the argument "it's not worth X dollars to me" doesn't pan out. The owner wants to sell/license/rent/whatever the property for X dollars, you pay X dollars or do without.
Tom
Actually no it isn't. Trespassing is being where you are not wanted [among private property].
In Canada for instance, you can go and camp on someones front lawn. Until the minute they post a sign visible from public property or tell you otherwise you are not breaking a law.
I'd say you are steal from the owner though since you are using the land [even if you're only sleeping on it] which is obviously of value to you.
Tom
Except there in that case you are protected by your rights. You have a right to be there. [And as we know you can't restrict your rights with civil law, e.g. I can't sue you to stop breathing or something]
You're not legally entitled to that mp3 in any sense. So your argument is not even close to similar.
Similar would be if you were on private property. Then yes, you are enjoying the value of the property without paying for it so that is theft.
That's like paying for fenced goods.
That's still theft [both you and your ISP]. Only since your ISP is probably a common carrier [or whatever local law has] only you and the source are liable.
Tom
Again that's not the point. The fact that the game has worth/value to you [e.g. playability factor, time spent downloading, whatever] and you didn't pay for it shows that you stole it.
What else do you call acquiring things of value that you didn't pay for?
Tom
Um no. That doesn't follow.
For instance, I steal a 100$ cpu from a local store then proceed to sell it to a "friend". How much do I charge him?
And besides that, that's not the point. The point is it has at least *SOME* value to you. Therefore you're stealing.
Tom
That's just it. It isn't upto you how much it's worth. The fact that it has any worth at all means that you're cheating the system [and ultimately theft is just cheating in capitalism].
My point was to debunk the argument "I wasn't going to buy it anyways". Then it has no value to you which means you shouldn't be downloading it.
And you don't generally download something unless it has some value. Even if the value to you personally is minute it's more than worthless [otherwise you waste bandwidth and really ought todo something else with your time...]
Tom
[OT]
Here's a new line on "theft". Stealing potential value.
The "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways but since I got it for free I'll use it now" line of thinking is highly hypocritical.
If you're going to use it [song, movie, application, media of sorts] then it's obviously of value to you. If you didn't create it then you're not entitled to it [unless the author gives permission]. Therefore you have stolen the value of the media from the author.
So yes, you can steal an "mp3". For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you. Just because you haven't paid for it yet doesn't mean it has no value.
Tom
He makes it sound like he's the victim because people block his emails.
Maybe he should figure out that those are not his networks he is sending the emails over.
And the "if you don't like it unsubscribe..." bit is funny. How about, if I want it I'll subscribe?
Tom
You know what's scarier is I can remember a time when branding was "new" and the real channels didn't do it...
And I'm only 21!!!
[Well, heck I remember quality shows like SquareOne, Mathnet, ewok adventures, etc...]
I think it all this "polution" is just people not appreciating the laws of diminishing returns. TBS for example, runs ads every 81 seconds, puts animations all over the bottom.... and right now I'm watching the discovery channel.
CNN promotes their "we're right because when we covered it first [and then 80000 times afterwards] we got most of the details right!" I still watch local news anyways.
For that matter, anyone remember when CNN didn't have a marquee at the bottom?
Tom
Um, renting movies still puts money into hollywood. A single DVD could be rented out probably around 20 times [at a minimum] before it starts getting all messed up [like game DVDs for the PS2 which are almost always damaged].
It costs about 5.99$ to rent a movie anywhere [a new release]. That's 20x5.99 or about 120$ per DVD. How much do you think Blockbuster pays for each DVD they buy from their suppliers? [or distribution rights or whatever they need].
That's a lot of money that still goes into the pockets of the MPAA.
Tom
Is there foul-play? Yes. Do two wrongs make a right? No.
/. crowd who moan and bitch about the MPAA have gone out and seen the latest hollywood crapbuster.
If many people feel the way you will have a majority. Stop buying MPAA/RIAA crap.
However, that's not likely. I bet a good 90% of the
Tom
Unless you hate democracy laws were put in place by the majority. If you want to go against the majority and be an anarchist then by all means go ahead. Just don't call your way of life democratic.
This doesn't mean bad laws don't get passed. It means that if you think a law is bad, well why did you vote them in in the first place and why not form action to repeal the law.
In this case though, copyright infringement is not likely to become legal. So why not try, say, not pirate media? If you think the RIAA should change it's policies concerning the distribution of media stop buying teeny-bopper CDs. The fact though is that many people still buy them and that's why the RIAA thinks its ok.
Tom
STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE.
Sincerely,
Tom St Denis
lameness filter....lameness filter....
Just buy another board? I mean my A7V600 cost like 130$...
If you're so worried about having performers at least get a new board like a Socket A [which runs from cheapo durons to barton]
Tom
Or open office. Sure while it's all in the cache it loads quickly but the first time is always a 20 second delay I could do without.
Tom