I more thought it would work like the code that detects speed hacks in MMORPGs. You got from point A to point B in X amount of time. The minimum possible speed without teleporting is Y. X Y, therefore you teleported or otherwise speed hacked the client.
Geologists recently discovered that "earthquakes" are nothing more than Bruce Schneier and Chuck Norris communicating via a roundhouse kick-based cryptosystem.
Sure. But what gives the band the right to stop them? Copyright gives them the power.. but what gives em the right? If the band were to explain to these two that if their fans don't support them they won't be able to produce more of the music they like, that's great, in fact, it's fantastic, because most of the time they don't even try.. because why would you try to convince someone of your opinion when you have the power to just crush them like a bug.
Show a programmer taking OSS code and placing it into his closed-source commercial app.
If that's theft then it's a theft that copyright enables. If you actually had to show that you wrote the software *before* you could slap your own copyright on, it'd be a different story.
It's not about being rich. It's about having more power than everyone else. The victim of theft has less power than the perp, and that's why it's a crime. With copyright it appears to be the other way around.
I like to compare it to surfing. A lot of people would love to surf all day and get paid to do it. Unless they build their own private beach and charge admission to "surf with the king" or watch, they're not going to be able to do it. That is, of course, unless they videotape their surfing and find people who want to buy it. All of a sudden copyright enables them to make a living surfing. Now I gotta ask you, what's the benefit to society of people surfing all day long? Nothin', that's what. Same goes for music.
They pay to go to their concerts. Ya know, they actually pay to receive a service, not just a bunch of copied bits. Was a time when that's the only way artists got paid, and it's still the way the majority of musicians get paid today. Only a select few ever "make it big" and collect a royalty cheque.
It's not theft. It may be something you don't like, but that doesn't make it theft. Oh, and here's a tip for you, just about everyone does pirate music, or completely go without. The number of people who actually go to the store and buy a CD, even once a month, is a tiny fraction of the population. That's why online mp3 sharing took off with such a bang, all of the people who would never think of going and paying for a music collection suddenly discovered they could get one without cost. Most people are more than happy to listen to whatever is on the radio.
Sigh, no. See, if it was just a contract we were entering into there would be no need for copyright law.. contract law would be more than adequate. Copyright is so much worse than that. Copyright is like a contract that I have entered into before I've even met you.
Why is it everyone focuses on what people 'should do' to compensate artists, instead of focusing on the real issue: restriction. If copyright was just a social nicety there'd be no issue, but it's not. It's not about whether or not the creator of a work has a right to be compensated.. it's about whether or not the creator of a work has the right to restrict the actions of others. If the law was simply that you had to pay a tax every time you made a copy, people may well complain about the copy tax man being a bastard, but they'd have little reason to be morally opposed to it - and the creators would get compensated just fine - but that's not the way things went. Instead, copyright is a government mandate that gives an absentee the right to interfere with the dealings of others. How can you tolerate that?
They don't need me, they've got bozos like you swallowing whatever they say. Most people these days think that it's not entirely legal to whistle pop songs in public.
Well the music industry is one which functions in *spite* of embezzlement.. If you can give me just one example of an artist who has lost their contract with a label because of piracy I'll eat my hat.
The goal isn't to "make a living", any guy who sings at the pub can do that. The goal is to "make it big" and every artist who can hold a tune thinks they have a god given right to it, if only they could get "discovered". Who puts this nonsense into their heads? Why, the labels of course.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's the easiest way to tyranny.
I more thought it would work like the code that detects speed hacks in MMORPGs. You got from point A to point B in X amount of time. The minimum possible speed without teleporting is Y. X Y, therefore you teleported or otherwise speed hacked the client.
Not taking away, just strategically moving it daily.
Geologists recently discovered that "earthquakes" are nothing more than Bruce Schneier and Chuck Norris communicating via a roundhouse kick-based cryptosystem.
Bruce Schneier can compress arbitary random data... with his fists.
Sorry, wrong thread :)
He asked for references, not for a repeat performance of your comment.
Sure. But what gives the band the right to stop them? Copyright gives them the power.. but what gives em the right? If the band were to explain to these two that if their fans don't support them they won't be able to produce more of the music they like, that's great, in fact, it's fantastic, because most of the time they don't even try.. because why would you try to convince someone of your opinion when you have the power to just crush them like a bug.
It aint the artists, it's the labels.
That's a bit of a straw man isn't it? Why don't they build some heavy lift vehicles?
I don't think anyone can assess the capabilities of his systems from that article. I also don't think that was unintentional.
Show a programmer taking OSS code and placing it into his closed-source commercial app.
If that's theft then it's a theft that copyright enables. If you actually had to show that you wrote the software *before* you could slap your own copyright on, it'd be a different story.
It's not about being rich. It's about having more power than everyone else. The victim of theft has less power than the perp, and that's why it's a crime. With copyright it appears to be the other way around.
I like to compare it to surfing. A lot of people would love to surf all day and get paid to do it. Unless they build their own private beach and charge admission to "surf with the king" or watch, they're not going to be able to do it. That is, of course, unless they videotape their surfing and find people who want to buy it. All of a sudden copyright enables them to make a living surfing. Now I gotta ask you, what's the benefit to society of people surfing all day long? Nothin', that's what. Same goes for music.
But why does that entitle you to get in everyone's face, isn't that the government's job? Why do they have to outsource it to you?
News at 11.
They pay to go to their concerts. Ya know, they actually pay to receive a service, not just a bunch of copied bits. Was a time when that's the only way artists got paid, and it's still the way the majority of musicians get paid today. Only a select few ever "make it big" and collect a royalty cheque.
It's not theft. It may be something you don't like, but that doesn't make it theft. Oh, and here's a tip for you, just about everyone does pirate music, or completely go without. The number of people who actually go to the store and buy a CD, even once a month, is a tiny fraction of the population. That's why online mp3 sharing took off with such a bang, all of the people who would never think of going and paying for a music collection suddenly discovered they could get one without cost. Most people are more than happy to listen to whatever is on the radio.
Sigh, no. See, if it was just a contract we were entering into there would be no need for copyright law.. contract law would be more than adequate. Copyright is so much worse than that. Copyright is like a contract that I have entered into before I've even met you.
Why is it everyone focuses on what people 'should do' to compensate artists, instead of focusing on the real issue: restriction. If copyright was just a social nicety there'd be no issue, but it's not. It's not about whether or not the creator of a work has a right to be compensated.. it's about whether or not the creator of a work has the right to restrict the actions of others. If the law was simply that you had to pay a tax every time you made a copy, people may well complain about the copy tax man being a bastard, but they'd have little reason to be morally opposed to it - and the creators would get compensated just fine - but that's not the way things went. Instead, copyright is a government mandate that gives an absentee the right to interfere with the dealings of others. How can you tolerate that?
He was only going to buy one CD and he still only bought one CD, so what's the problem here?
They don't need me, they've got bozos like you swallowing whatever they say. Most people these days think that it's not entirely legal to whistle pop songs in public.
losing money to piracy. Riiiight. Lemme ask ya. Do you think natural medicine is good for you? Also, I have this lovely bridge you might like to buy.
Who's that? Can you name them? Or are you just talking out of your ass. Yeah. I thought so.
Well the music industry is one which functions in *spite* of embezzlement.. If you can give me just one example of an artist who has lost their contract with a label because of piracy I'll eat my hat.
The goal isn't to "make a living", any guy who sings at the pub can do that. The goal is to "make it big" and every artist who can hold a tune thinks they have a god given right to it, if only they could get "discovered". Who puts this nonsense into their heads? Why, the labels of course.