IMO, there should be created some kind of special department which will deal with such a cases. In that department all judges should have also technical education (probably some kind of engineer degree) so that they could understand the cases, and not demonstrate their incompetence in their rulings.
Seems like Sony tries to punish end user for trying to use pirated copy of disk, in spite of the fact that the end user can be uninformed of fact of illegal copying.
In addition, it makes possible for various evil thinking persons to damage playback systems belonging to other people (or community) simply by inserting and playing illegal copied disk.
Again, what about fair use issues?
Correct, when I first heard of it, I found it reasonable too. But they decided to charge, IMHO, in wrong way.
They want users to pay $50/year for the information. That's acceptable for users who constantly use Britannica and therefore get the needed information relatively cheap.
But for users like me, who use Britannica rarely (for example, 5-10 times per year) it would be nice to have possibility to pay per view of article (I think $0.2-0.3 would be reasonable price). As I understood, they won't allow such a possibility, and for me pay around $5 for viewing single article seems too much.
Therefore, their decision prevents users like me accessing Brinannica on line, which is not so good for both users and Britannica itself, because I think, that such users are majority of Britannica users.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's
1 trillion, 152 thousand, 921 billion, 504 thousand, 606 million, 846 thousand, 976
IMO, there should be created some kind of special department which will deal with such a cases. In that department all judges should have also technical education (probably some kind of engineer degree) so that they could understand the cases, and not demonstrate their incompetence in their rulings.
Seems like Sony tries to punish end user for trying to use pirated copy of disk, in spite of the fact that the end user can be uninformed of fact of illegal copying. In addition, it makes possible for various evil thinking persons to damage playback systems belonging to other people (or community) simply by inserting and playing illegal copied disk. Again, what about fair use issues?
Correct, when I first heard of it, I found it reasonable too. But they decided to charge, IMHO, in wrong way. They want users to pay $50/year for the information. That's acceptable for users who constantly use Britannica and therefore get the needed information relatively cheap. But for users like me, who use Britannica rarely (for example, 5-10 times per year) it would be nice to have possibility to pay per view of article (I think $0.2-0.3 would be reasonable price). As I understood, they won't allow such a possibility, and for me pay around $5 for viewing single article seems too much. Therefore, their decision prevents users like me accessing Brinannica on line, which is not so good for both users and Britannica itself, because I think, that such users are majority of Britannica users.