That coming from the people who refuse to speak the Nationally accepted Castllian and insist on speaking Catalan dialect. No better than the Basq separatist really. I'll take my references from people who dont demand separate culture/history from the rest of the country. Thanks.
Well, they have a separate history and culture; they just weren't as lucky as the Portuguese to stay a separate country despite Spanish attempts at annexation.
I don't know about you, but the last time I took a long trip I used a map on my laptop. I figured out what was coming up by using a fantastic new technology called "zooming out and scrolling a bit". I planned stuff by either writing it down in a text file, or by dropping a waypoint on the map.
Not only that, but my laptop map had a street-level diagram of every city I went through. Considering that I was driving from SF to Anchorage, without any particular route in mind besides "drive to Las Vegas, then approximately northish", I don't really want to think about how many paper maps I would have needed to procure in order to get that sort of detail.
While I'm generally a fan of keeping old technology around when it has advantages, I'm really unsure of what advantages paper maps have over electronic maps at this point, besides the fact that they still function if your power goes out . . . and I'm having a real hard time coming up with a scenario where both car battery and laptop battery have died, but your paper map is still helpful.
While a laptop map is very flexible and you probably can do anything on it as you do on a paper map, I still see paper maps more useful while driving for the following reasons:
They are easier to pass around in the car
The can be folded, cut into strips, written on with pen or pencil
They're easier to take out of the car and show to someone
The viewing angle is wider than for a laptop screen
I can stick it in a small space between the seat or in teh door for storage when not needed.
If it gets stolen, who cares?
I'm not saying they are intrinsically better, just that paper maps have advantages in ease of use over an electronic one in some situations.
Do I use one when I am planning a trip at home? no. Do I use a GPS? Yes Do I still carry a paper map that i can markup - yes, because I find it useful over having to fire up a laptop and check a route.
On a broader note, my point is that new technology does not automatically obsolete old tech nor is it necessarily better or more convenient in all cases.
Satnav is faster, more reliable and easier to use than paper maps.
That's why they are popular. It's also possible to update a Satnav with new data if roads change, or new ones are built. Most people's car-atlases are obsolete if more than a few years old - meaning we have to replace them regularly to keep up-to-date. While the cost is small, it adds up with a new atlas every couple of years.
Every buy a satnav update? They aren't cheap either, and satnav gets out of date as quickly as a paper map.
The advantage of paper maps is it's easy to figure out what's coming, plan a stop, etc; especially on along trip. While you can do that with satnav, it's easier on a paper map to figure out what lies ahead.
Both technologies have pros and cons, and actually work quite well together.
I'm sure the next generation won't even know what the phrase "getting lost" really means, just as being "out of contact" will have no meaning to them. A map will be about as useful to them as a sextant is to us (what? You sold yours on Ebay years ago? Shameful!). And personally, I wish them all the best with it!
While a sextant is not easily used on land; it is a critical skill to have at sea. What happens when the sat nav or Loran goes away? DR your way to home? Technology doesn't end teh need for older skills; in fact I think it's often important to retain them because technology doesn't always work and if you become relienat on it to the point where you cannot function without it you're in real trouble when it fails.
'Sat-nav feeds into this long-held fear that the cold-blooded modern world is destroying local knowledge, that roads no longer lead to real places but around and through them.'"
Are there still signs on the side? If yes, you have everything you need to get anywhere. (Ok, it doesn't hurt to know the major cities you want to go through.)
I don't know about where you live, but in many areas of where I live if you rely on street signs you risk getting hopelessly lost. Signs that lead to a motorway, signaling turn here, turn here, etc., all of a sudden no longer exist and the entrance to the road is no where in sight. Or the street named XY - is it XY Road, XY Street, XY Lane, etc - you can literally be at the corner of XY and XY. In addition, where is the 6415 - many cities do not have clear markings on buildings, and reading street sign markers can be difficult when driving.
It'd be nice to have good signage, but often it's confusing or incomplete.
I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I suppose that at some point they'll either come up with a foolproof DRM scheme, which people will reject and they'll face major financial problems, or they'll go too far with one of the laws they buy from Congress and face a major backlash. Either way it will bring change. It just hasn't happened yet since it's so easy to just bypass their crap completely.
Not all downloading is done just because people want something for free. Hell, I download MP3s of albums that I own, just because it's easier than ripping them. I've got boxes full of PC games that I've bought over the years, but I've probably downloaded at least half of them again since then, just for convenience sake. I get a version without the DRM crap installed, and often one that's patched up to date and doesn't require any long install process even. Of course the industry probably considers all of this piracy anyway.
Yes, we can agree to disagree - although we probably agree on more than is obvious from this thread; for example and that the two examples you give is not piracy, the industry's viewpoint not withstanding. I think we should be able to use material we own on various devices, and remove DRM from games so they actually work well.
I agree this focus on DRM is ultimately counter-productive; it's just a race between the two groups that ultimately hurt the consumer. To me, the real issue is how to get enough people aware and interested in this issue to get Congress to notice. The only thing that beats money is votes.
You seem to think that there's some sort of inalienable right to own ideas. There isn't.
Copyrights do not protect ideas, only the expression of the idea. To that end, yes, I think that people ought to be able to control how their creations get used.
While you say that the need for copyright law reform doesn't justify piracy, I don't know how you justify the currently ridiculous state of copyright.
I don't, and it needs to be changed.
I think it certainly justifies piracy.
Why? How does the current state of affairs justify someone d/l a rip of a just released movie, for example? People that do that, for the most part, do it because its free and they'd rather not pay for it. I do not think it unreasonable for someone to be compensated for their work, and not liking the current laws do not justify avoiding paying for something simply because you can get it for free; which is what seems to drive many pirates.
I think the argument that "I wouldn't buy it so it's OK to copy it," is simply a rationalization and not reasonable. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy something then either the price will drop or teh company will go out of business.
I don't necessary pirate everything because of this, as I do understand the need for creators to earn a living, but I also know that the public interest has been all but completely cut out of copyright law by the media industry's lobbying. I don't see why I should give a damn about their interests either.
You don't have to, but don't expect me to agree with you. To me, the best way to change the law is to get people to push their representatives for change, and to not buy stuff. Of course, people find it easier to simply pirate it and remain apathetic; so the fundamental problems with current laws remain.
Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?
Probably not. If I remember correctly, civil cases do not establish precedents.
But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
No, it's an easy way to distort the issue.
Not really. It's pretty easy to see that if you pirate a movie or song the copyright owner is not getting paid for it; so I can see where a reasonable person would view that as theft, even if it isn't in a strict legal sense.
Despite people's argument that they would have not bought it anyway, then if they assign no value to it then why bother to pirate it? Many people use that to rationalize what they do, but that doesn't make it right.
Of course, for many people it depends whose ox is gored. I wonder how many people who pirate songs/movies/software get all incensed if someone violates the GPL? After all, the same argument made for piracy - nobody loses anything since they have the original, holds for a GPL violation. They haven't lost th unmodified code, so why is it viewed any differently, other than it's now one of their creations that is "hurt?"
Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
Because congress is in the pocket of the media industry that has a vested interest in distorting the issue as much as possible. They're they reason copyright law is so amazingly ridiculous now.
That's another issue. While I think copyright law needs to be reformed, that doesn't justify piracy.
At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
Actually it's illegal to infringe on a copyright. I'm really not convinced that it's wrong to do so given the current state of copyright law. Also, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that copyright infringement is not theft:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
First off all, you are speaking of US federal criminal codes; which does not cover a myriad of state and other countries law.
But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
Sure, except that there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. I'd say that's case closed.
While I agree it's more appropriate, there is nothing to prevent someone from making a rational argument for a theft claim as well.
At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
unless you know the accident rate and have enough data points over time, you can't tell if the billboard works. It may simply not been in place long enough for it to work. Even if yo see a reduction in accidents over time - was it the novelty of a bleedboard or did simply having something new in place cause people to slow down? Once they get used to it, accidents may revert to their old level.
They're gonna be really pissed when we get Star Trek-style replicators that allow just that.
They are starting to exist - tools today can recreate part remotely from electronic data; making it unnecessary to ship a part from a warehouse or stock large number of spares.
Anyways, stealing is not necessarily defined by depriving one person of an experience or possession, it's defined by obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy.
Are you sure? IANAL, but here's a few definitions I found from different legal texts around the world... (bold emphasis mine)
"A person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.": UK Theft Act 1968, Section 1
"Unlawfully appropriating property with intent to deprive the owner of property" : Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Paragraph 31.03
"Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;": Canada Criminal Code, Section 322
"A person is guilty of an offence if: the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.": Australian Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000, Part 7.2, Division 131.1
I certainly won't argue that piracy isn't a crime, but it definitely does NOT appear to be "theft"...
I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
I do think people use theft in a more common usage in these discussions - simply because it is a term most people understand in concept, if not in a strict legal sense.
In essence, many make what I call the "feet of the duck" argument - when accused of stealing a chicken, show them teh feet of their duck to prove you didn't steal a chicken.
you seem to be assuming the intent would be to out-compete Goldman by re-implementing this system, perhaps with some changes/optimizations. for that, sure, you'd need the rest of the environment. but a good understanding of the algorithm and implementation could be obtained without the rest of the environment (like i can read C# code and extract the algorithms without having the rest of the environment). that seems like it would be enough to game Goldman's system (which is a sizable part of the system overall)
I often wonder if people don't think something to be more valuable than it really is.
For example, let's assume someone wanted ti implement a similar program elsewhere. So I hire away teh coder, who decides to bring the code along. If they are smart enough to understand the code they're probably smart enough to re-implement it and avoid criminal charges. Unless it is a stand alone program that is easily transferred, having the code vs having the knowledge of how it works, is probably of limited use. Yes you can refer to it and jog your memory; but it's probably cheaper in the long run just to hire away the developers. can't do that? Then you probably aren't able to run with the big dogs anyway.
Know, if you wanted to game the system and had an insider why would you want them to leave. As with any espionage operation, having a well placed mole is worth a lot since they can get real time information which you can analyze and use to direct their efforts. Once they leave, they're knowledge becomes less valuable with every passing minute; which is why you try to keep them in place as long as possible.
They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.
"Worthwhile" is a judgment call - what you consider worthwhile I might think a horrid waste.
Your reference, however, points out a different economic concept - the idea that destroying something is good because you need to pay to fix it which creates jobs, while ignoring that you could of bought something else with the money, is false.
In Bugatti's case, they are creating a product o fill a potential demand - not slashng tires and burning cars to sell new ones;, which would be more in line with the parable.
Unfortunately, the fallacy is wide spread - such as when Southern California politicians said "at least the fires will create jobs when we rebuild."
I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.
140mph is just a tad over my _cruising_ speed, mate. Stop thinking in terms of your idiotic US highway system. There are plenty of stretches in Europe where you can go this fast for quite a while.
What is the longest no speed limit stretch? My experience is much of teh Autobahn has some limits; plus given the size of Germany you get what, 100 miles between a major city?
While I enjoy the Autobahn, I find I never can really go flat out for all that long before hitting traffic or construction.
Germany, with it's rigid vehicle inspections (no 10 year old clapped out ex-cop car on bald tires and a mini spare passing you at 80+mph) and relatively good drivers who actually obey traffic laws at least on the Autobahn make it a relatively enjoyable place to drive. Although I did get a good scare one night when I was cruising at 100+mph from Berlin and saw headlights coming at me. Luckly no one was behind me when I went from speed to near stop in a hurry. Turned out to be an idiot on the shoulder facing in my direction.
Now, the pre-NMSL American west; there was a place that has great stretches of long flat roads. Too bad the no speed limit days are gone; I know of no roads with no limits anymore.
I don't think that's a fitting analogy. A better one would be a clock where a collection of internet geeks argue whether it is 2 PM or 3 PM, one insists it's 2 AM, and one insists time is not notable.
and they all spend hours changing the setting on the clock to revert it to the "correct" time. Until, of course, the editors decide it's always 5 o'clock somewhere and prohibit further edits.
Tell that to every high school teacher in america. As far as they're concerned the ability to memorize every piece of useless trivia thrown at you over an entire year means far more than your ability to actually find the solution to a given problem.
Flip side: Talk to high school students. They feel they should not actually have to learn anything, and just get A's. Any test that requires them to actually know something, use a little reason, and come up with an answer that is not directly word for word from a book is unfair; and their parent's will let you know that and expect you to give their darling an A.
We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?
Well, the court was deciding if Kaspersky was illegally interfering with Zango's business and customers. That's been a role of teh court in the US for a long time. You can be held liable for interfering with someone else's business; the flip side of this is if someone's software blocked you from installing a competitors or accessing their web pages, even if you wanted to use the competitor product as well.
And to stave off the inevitable "but Zango is evil and so deserved it..." responses:
Yes, and I think the court was correct in let Kaspersky block them; however,
simply because we may not like a business model does not mean that it should be illegal or that others should automatically be allowed to interfere with it.
That's why, to my non-legal eye, I don't like that this appears to be a rather narrow decision hinging on specific application of a statute; it does appear to open the door to more egarious behavior by others. For example, could a computer manufacturer block installation of any products it wants under the guise of being an "interactive service provider" by having a machine phone home to get an OK to install?
Should Apple be allowed to block iPhone apps it deems offensive from working an an iPhone that's been jail-broken??
$199 x 260,000 customers = $51,740,000.
This company shut down for "financial" reasons. Like they took the money and ran?
I'm not surprised, the TSA and its money grubbing sycophantic associates are a steaming pile of shit.
All this company does is do background checks and issue a plastic card, and they can't do it for 51 million gross?
Typical government contractor type boondoggle (strictly speaking, they were not a contractor).
They also invested in scanners at checkpoints and staff to manage them. And may of those users didn't pay, but got them for free as a result of an affinity program; Delta, Marriot, et. al. no doubt paid way less for large numbers of memberships. Plus any active duty military got a free membership as well.
the EU has started down that road and I would not be surprised at efforts to extend the law
Of course the copyright lobbyists will try, but Europe seems to be more sympathetic to individual artist's rights than corporates. They're the only ones who have stood up to Microsoft and such, for instance.
Which is why I think, if they go down that path, it will be to "help the artists that created the art - i.e. musicians, singers, artists, writers" and not pitched as more money for the corporate owners of the material.
It's all in the pitch, not the results, that count.
Thank you for restating how supply and demand curves work.
It's worse than that, what he's saying is selective economics. You want to see how selective economics works? I will now prove that used game sales increase the sales of games at retail prices: Everyone today knows they can resell a $60 PS3 game for $15 to Gamestop. So when they are figuring out the price, they are assuming that the game retains a resale value of $15--much like a person shopping for a car takes note of its blue book value.
I think we both are making the same point - the situation is more complex than the article implies; with games helping and hurting sales. What is the net impact? Hard to say, and it depends on your assumptions
Got to love economics, where two people can get Nobels for saying the opposite thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That coming from the people who refuse to speak the Nationally accepted Castllian and insist on speaking Catalan dialect. No better than the Basq separatist really. I'll take my references from people who dont demand separate culture/history from the rest of the country. Thanks.
Well, they have a separate history and culture; they just weren't as lucky as the Portuguese to stay a separate country despite Spanish attempts at annexation.
I don't know about you, but the last time I took a long trip I used a map on my laptop. I figured out what was coming up by using a fantastic new technology called "zooming out and scrolling a bit". I planned stuff by either writing it down in a text file, or by dropping a waypoint on the map.
Not only that, but my laptop map had a street-level diagram of every city I went through. Considering that I was driving from SF to Anchorage, without any particular route in mind besides "drive to Las Vegas, then approximately northish", I don't really want to think about how many paper maps I would have needed to procure in order to get that sort of detail.
While I'm generally a fan of keeping old technology around when it has advantages, I'm really unsure of what advantages paper maps have over electronic maps at this point, besides the fact that they still function if your power goes out . . . and I'm having a real hard time coming up with a scenario where both car battery and laptop battery have died, but your paper map is still helpful.
While a laptop map is very flexible and you probably can do anything on it as you do on a paper map, I still see paper maps more useful while driving for the following reasons:
They are easier to pass around in the car
The can be folded, cut into strips, written on with pen or pencil
They're easier to take out of the car and show to someone
The viewing angle is wider than for a laptop screen
I can stick it in a small space between the seat or in teh door for storage when not needed.
If it gets stolen, who cares?
I'm not saying they are intrinsically better, just that paper maps have advantages in ease of use over an electronic one in some situations.
Do I use one when I am planning a trip at home? no. Do I use a GPS? Yes Do I still carry a paper map that i can markup - yes, because I find it useful over having to fire up a laptop and check a route.
On a broader note, my point is that new technology does not automatically obsolete old tech nor is it necessarily better or more convenient in all cases.
Satnav is faster, more reliable and easier to use than paper maps.
That's why they are popular. It's also possible to update a Satnav with new data if roads change, or new ones are built. Most people's car-atlases are obsolete if more than a few years old - meaning we have to replace them regularly to keep up-to-date. While the cost is small, it adds up with a new atlas every couple of years.
Every buy a satnav update? They aren't cheap either, and satnav gets out of date as quickly as a paper map.
The advantage of paper maps is it's easy to figure out what's coming, plan a stop, etc; especially on along trip. While you can do that with satnav, it's easier on a paper map to figure out what lies ahead.
Both technologies have pros and cons, and actually work quite well together.
I'm sure the next generation won't even know what the phrase "getting lost" really means, just as being "out of contact" will have no meaning to them. A map will be about as useful to them as a sextant is to us (what? You sold yours on Ebay years ago? Shameful!). And personally, I wish them all the best with it!
While a sextant is not easily used on land; it is a critical skill to have at sea. What happens when the sat nav or Loran goes away? DR your way to home? Technology doesn't end teh need for older skills; in fact I think it's often important to retain them because technology doesn't always work and if you become relienat on it to the point where you cannot function without it you're in real trouble when it fails.
'Sat-nav feeds into this long-held fear that the cold-blooded modern world is destroying local knowledge, that roads no longer lead to real places but around and through them.'"
Are there still signs on the side? If yes, you have everything you need to get anywhere. (Ok, it doesn't hurt to know the major cities you want to go through.)
I don't know about where you live, but in many areas of where I live if you rely on street signs you risk getting hopelessly lost. Signs that lead to a motorway, signaling turn here, turn here, etc., all of a sudden no longer exist and the entrance to the road is no where in sight. Or the street named XY - is it XY Road, XY Street, XY Lane, etc - you can literally be at the corner of XY and XY. In addition, where is the 6415 - many cities do not have clear markings on buildings, and reading street sign markers can be difficult when driving.
It'd be nice to have good signage, but often it's confusing or incomplete.
I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I suppose that at some point they'll either come up with a foolproof DRM scheme, which people will reject and they'll face major financial problems, or they'll go too far with one of the laws they buy from Congress and face a major backlash. Either way it will bring change. It just hasn't happened yet since it's so easy to just bypass their crap completely. Not all downloading is done just because people want something for free. Hell, I download MP3s of albums that I own, just because it's easier than ripping them. I've got boxes full of PC games that I've bought over the years, but I've probably downloaded at least half of them again since then, just for convenience sake. I get a version without the DRM crap installed, and often one that's patched up to date and doesn't require any long install process even. Of course the industry probably considers all of this piracy anyway.
Yes, we can agree to disagree - although we probably agree on more than is obvious from this thread; for example and that the two examples you give is not piracy, the industry's viewpoint not withstanding. I think we should be able to use material we own on various devices, and remove DRM from games so they actually work well.
I agree this focus on DRM is ultimately counter-productive; it's just a race between the two groups that ultimately hurt the consumer. To me, the real issue is how to get enough people aware and interested in this issue to get Congress to notice. The only thing that beats money is votes.
You seem to think that there's some sort of inalienable right to own ideas. There isn't.
Copyrights do not protect ideas, only the expression of the idea. To that end, yes, I think that people ought to be able to control how their creations get used.
While you say that the need for copyright law reform doesn't justify piracy, I don't know how you justify the currently ridiculous state of copyright.
I don't, and it needs to be changed.
I think it certainly justifies piracy.
Why? How does the current state of affairs justify someone d/l a rip of a just released movie, for example? People that do that, for the most part, do it because its free and they'd rather not pay for it. I do not think it unreasonable for someone to be compensated for their work, and not liking the current laws do not justify avoiding paying for something simply because you can get it for free; which is what seems to drive many pirates.
I think the argument that "I wouldn't buy it so it's OK to copy it," is simply a rationalization and not reasonable. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy something then either the price will drop or teh company will go out of business.
I don't necessary pirate everything because of this, as I do understand the need for creators to earn a living, but I also know that the public interest has been all but completely cut out of copyright law by the media industry's lobbying. I don't see why I should give a damn about their interests either.
You don't have to, but don't expect me to agree with you. To me, the best way to change the law is to get people to push their representatives for change, and to not buy stuff. Of course, people find it easier to simply pirate it and remain apathetic; so the fundamental problems with current laws remain.
Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?
Probably not. If I remember correctly, civil cases do not establish precedents.
But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
No, it's an easy way to distort the issue.
Not really. It's pretty easy to see that if you pirate a movie or song the copyright owner is not getting paid for it; so I can see where a reasonable person would view that as theft, even if it isn't in a strict legal sense.
Despite people's argument that they would have not bought it anyway, then if they assign no value to it then why bother to pirate it? Many people use that to rationalize what they do, but that doesn't make it right.
Of course, for many people it depends whose ox is gored. I wonder how many people who pirate songs/movies/software get all incensed if someone violates the GPL? After all, the same argument made for piracy - nobody loses anything since they have the original, holds for a GPL violation. They haven't lost th unmodified code, so why is it viewed any differently, other than it's now one of their creations that is "hurt?"
Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
Because congress is in the pocket of the media industry that has a vested interest in distorting the issue as much as possible. They're they reason copyright law is so amazingly ridiculous now.
That's another issue. While I think copyright law needs to be reformed, that doesn't justify piracy.
At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
Actually it's illegal to infringe on a copyright. I'm really not convinced that it's wrong to do so given the current state of copyright law. Also, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that copyright infringement is not theft:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
First off all, you are speaking of US federal criminal codes; which does not cover a myriad of state and other countries law.
But that's not my point - legal distinctions aside, "copyright infringement is theft" is used because it is an easy way to make your case. We may not agree with that connection but as it takes root the legal distinctions will be moot.
Congress has already started to consider the issue with the "Artist Protection and Theft Prevention Act" so are some point the distinction in federal law may cease to exist as well.
I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
Sure, except that there's already a much more specific law that covers that scenario, and it calls it "copyright infringement" rather than theft. I'd say that's case closed.
While I agree it's more appropriate, there is nothing to prevent someone from making a rational argument for a theft claim as well.
At any rate, the common vernacular leans to theft; and that's the usage, form a non-legal standpoint, that will probably win out as well. Though, in the end, what you call it doesn't change that it it is wrong to use copyrighted material without permission, except in a few very limited cases.
unless you know the accident rate and have enough data points over time, you can't tell if the billboard works. It may simply not been in place long enough for it to work. Even if yo see a reduction in accidents over time - was it the novelty of a bleedboard or did simply having something new in place cause people to slow down? Once they get used to it, accidents may revert to their old level.
someone sees Jesus in one of the billboards?
They're gonna be really pissed when we get Star Trek-style replicators that allow just that.
They are starting to exist - tools today can recreate part remotely from electronic data; making it unnecessary to ship a part from a warehouse or stock large number of spares.
Anyways, stealing is not necessarily defined by depriving one person of an experience or possession, it's defined by obtaining said item without giving the original author or owner the compensation requested for your copy.
Are you sure? IANAL, but here's a few definitions I found from different legal texts around the world... (bold emphasis mine)
I certainly won't argue that piracy isn't a crime, but it definitely does NOT appear to be "theft"...
I would say it depends on how you define property - an argument could be made that you have deprived the owner of the the property - control of the distribution - and so it would be theft. I don't necessarily agree with that argument, but see where it could be made.
I do think people use theft in a more common usage in these discussions - simply because it is a term most people understand in concept, if not in a strict legal sense.
In essence, many make what I call the "feet of the duck" argument - when accused of stealing a chicken, show them teh feet of their duck to prove you didn't steal a chicken.
you seem to be assuming the intent would be to out-compete Goldman by re-implementing this system, perhaps with some changes/optimizations. for that, sure, you'd need the rest of the environment. but a good understanding of the algorithm and implementation could be obtained without the rest of the environment (like i can read C# code and extract the algorithms without having the rest of the environment). that seems like it would be enough to game Goldman's system (which is a sizable part of the system overall)
I often wonder if people don't think something to be more valuable than it really is.
For example, let's assume someone wanted ti implement a similar program elsewhere. So I hire away teh coder, who decides to bring the code along. If they are smart enough to understand the code they're probably smart enough to re-implement it and avoid criminal charges. Unless it is a stand alone program that is easily transferred, having the code vs having the knowledge of how it works, is probably of limited use. Yes you can refer to it and jog your memory; but it's probably cheaper in the long run just to hire away the developers. can't do that? Then you probably aren't able to run with the big dogs anyway.
Know, if you wanted to game the system and had an insider why would you want them to leave. As with any espionage operation, having a well placed mole is worth a lot since they can get real time information which you can analyze and use to direct their efforts. Once they leave, they're knowledge becomes less valuable with every passing minute; which is why you try to keep them in place as long as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Fallacy_of_the_argument
They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.
"Worthwhile" is a judgment call - what you consider worthwhile I might think a horrid waste.
Your reference, however, points out a different economic concept - the idea that destroying something is good because you need to pay to fix it which creates jobs, while ignoring that you could of bought something else with the money, is false.
In Bugatti's case, they are creating a product o fill a potential demand - not slashng tires and burning cars to sell new ones;, which would be more in line with the parable.
Unfortunately, the fallacy is wide spread - such as when Southern California politicians said "at least the fires will create jobs when we rebuild."
I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.
140mph is just a tad over my _cruising_ speed, mate. Stop thinking in terms of your idiotic US highway system. There are plenty of stretches in Europe where you can go this fast for quite a while.
What is the longest no speed limit stretch? My experience is much of teh Autobahn has some limits; plus given the size of Germany you get what, 100 miles between a major city?
While I enjoy the Autobahn, I find I never can really go flat out for all that long before hitting traffic or construction.
Germany, with it's rigid vehicle inspections (no 10 year old clapped out ex-cop car on bald tires and a mini spare passing you at 80+mph) and relatively good drivers who actually obey traffic laws at least on the Autobahn make it a relatively enjoyable place to drive. Although I did get a good scare one night when I was cruising at 100+mph from Berlin and saw headlights coming at me. Luckly no one was behind me when I went from speed to near stop in a hurry. Turned out to be an idiot on the shoulder facing in my direction.
Now, the pre-NMSL American west; there was a place that has great stretches of long flat roads. Too bad the no speed limit days are gone; I know of no roads with no limits anymore.
So is a broken clock.
I don't think that's a fitting analogy. A better one would be a clock where a collection of internet geeks argue whether it is 2 PM or 3 PM, one insists it's 2 AM, and one insists time is not notable.
and they all spend hours changing the setting on the clock to revert it to the "correct" time. Until, of course, the editors decide it's always 5 o'clock somewhere and prohibit further edits.
Tell that to every high school teacher in america. As far as they're concerned the ability to memorize every piece of useless trivia thrown at you over an entire year means far more than your ability to actually find the solution to a given problem.
Flip side: Talk to high school students. They feel they should not actually have to learn anything, and just get A's. Any test that requires them to actually know something, use a little reason, and come up with an answer that is not directly word for word from a book is unfair; and their parent's will let you know that and expect you to give their darling an A.
So create a company that buys .it domains and rents them out to foreign companies...
Or just say fuck.it and move on...
We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?
Well, the court was deciding if Kaspersky was illegally interfering with Zango's business and customers. That's been a role of teh court in the US for a long time. You can be held liable for interfering with someone else's business; the flip side of this is if someone's software blocked you from installing a competitors or accessing their web pages, even if you wanted to use the competitor product as well.
And to stave off the inevitable "but Zango is evil and so deserved it..." responses:
Yes, and I think the court was correct in let Kaspersky block them; however,
simply because we may not like a business model does not mean that it should be illegal or that others should automatically be allowed to interfere with it.
That's why, to my non-legal eye, I don't like that this appears to be a rather narrow decision hinging on specific application of a statute; it does appear to open the door to more egarious behavior by others. For example, could a computer manufacturer block installation of any products it wants under the guise of being an "interactive service provider" by having a machine phone home to get an OK to install?
Should Apple be allowed to block iPhone apps it deems offensive from working an an iPhone that's been jail-broken??
$199 x 260,000 customers = $51,740,000. This company shut down for "financial" reasons. Like they took the money and ran? I'm not surprised, the TSA and its money grubbing sycophantic associates are a steaming pile of shit. All this company does is do background checks and issue a plastic card, and they can't do it for 51 million gross? Typical government contractor type boondoggle (strictly speaking, they were not a contractor).
They also invested in scanners at checkpoints and staff to manage them. And may of those users didn't pay, but got them for free as a result of an affinity program; Delta, Marriot, et. al. no doubt paid way less for large numbers of memberships. Plus any active duty military got a free membership as well.
the EU has started down that road and I would not be surprised at efforts to extend the law
Of course the copyright lobbyists will try, but Europe seems to be more sympathetic to individual artist's rights than corporates. They're the only ones who have stood up to Microsoft and such, for instance.
Which is why I think, if they go down that path, it will be to "help the artists that created the art - i.e. musicians, singers, artists, writers" and not pitched as more money for the corporate owners of the material.
It's all in the pitch, not the results, that count.
Thank you for restating how supply and demand curves work.
It's worse than that, what he's saying is selective economics. You want to see how selective economics works? I will now prove that used game sales increase the sales of games at retail prices: Everyone today knows they can resell a $60 PS3 game for $15 to Gamestop. So when they are figuring out the price, they are assuming that the game retains a resale value of $15--much like a person shopping for a car takes note of its blue book value.
I think we both are making the same point - the situation is more complex than the article implies; with games helping and hurting sales. What is the net impact? Hard to say, and it depends on your assumptions
Got to love economics, where two people can get Nobels for saying the opposite thing.