The problem with that, is that most cats refuse to learn english, it's an arrogance thing. Though, my cats are slowly teaching me Catinese, or whatever its called, so maybe I'll be able to write the sign in their language. They'll just ignore it though.
Quite a few of the pirate movies I've seen come with the flimsy case, most in fact. As for the inserts, they aren't the official ones too be sure, but many look quite professional. Maybe the pirates are hiring 2nd year graphic art students, I dunno. Hell, maybe they *are* graphic art students.
Jack, in case you haven't noticed, the product isn't the MPAA. And if you try to make the product the MPAA, we'll reject it. Even some of the stupid sheep you call customers will reject it. The product is movies, and it doesn't matter who sells it, for some people. It used to matter to me, but the more slack I give you, the more you want... now you want to force digital copyright conrtols onto my computer? The pirates may want to steal, but at least they aren't trying to make me a Disney digislave.
"Pirates seek to profit off the enormous popularity of DVDs by using the latest in technology to illegally manufacture DVD copies of Hollywood films, and again dupe consumers into purchasing a wholly inferior product,"
How is it wholly inferior? Are they skipping every 64th bit? Are they failing to copy the FBI warning at the beginning of it? Maybe they're disabling the commercials that you can't fast forward past.
See, I've ALWAYS been against people making copies, and selling them. But damned if this asshole doesn't make it impossible for me to have any sympathy.
Be that as it may, I'm willing to forget what has happened hundreds of years ago. Generally, I hate the catholic church and its ridiculous dogma, but somehow Pope John Paul strikes me as a pious and holy man. My only explanation was that it was an accident of politics (like Jimmy Carter). No doubt, the next one will favor Billybob Clinton.
For whatever reason, the Catholic church is a much better institution than it was 1000, 500, or even 100 years ago. Much of their money goes to real charity, and they consistently see a higher percentage of it used as such, than any secular charity organization. I can bash their religion any days of the week, but even *I* have trouble bashing the actions they perform now days.
Given a choice of being stranded on a desert island with 10 catholics or 10 scientologists, can anyone here claim that they'd rather be stuck with the scientologists?
He shouldn't release the raw footage. At the very least, don't download it from www.microsoft.com... they might be tempted to do a little "creative editing".
The "real AmigaOS" ? Hardly. Nor is this the new amiga, in anything other than name. Bill McEwen and his crowd are like those rich people that buy English titles, and think they are now nobility.
Gee. You're exactly right. No one forces you to work for them, and if they happened to build a society when every other employment choice you have, is a company exactly like the first... that's just tough luck. You still have the option of starving to death as a homeless bum. And if the company asks for your own resources, on your own time, you can just tell them to go fuck themselves, right? I mean, even if you politely point this out, you're gone, but you still have choices.
You're mixing different classes of intellectual property. I have major grievances with patents as they stand, except maybe software patents. And even these should be allowed, at a reduced time... maybe 3-5 years?
But you're "oh so close" to getting it. So let me challenge you a bit more. When you speak of licenses, you are actually talking contract law for the legal sense, and promises in the moral sense, both of which carry great weight. However, intellectual property advocates are failing both these... they are attempting to claim contractual agreements, even when they often keep the other party in the dark, either by ommission or lies. And in the moral sense, they are making no real promise, so it isn't that they fail to keep their promises that bothers me (they made none, none can be broken), but rather that these pseudo-promises are lies. Lying under these circumstances could be considered fraud.
So you're telling me, that what should be the greatest quality of intellectual property, is what software authors complain about?
Really, think about it. If you could make a car, that any number of people could share simultaneously... wouldn't that be cool as hell? Or would you be up here trying to defend Detroit, saying that these cars are bad in some way?
Or would it be time for an end of the automotive industry, freeing hundreds of thousands of workers to do something more productive?
No, I don't. A software developer can provide the title to every single computer capable of running it. Which isn't quite infinite, but it's far from the finite number of haircuts a hairdresser can perform within a day, or even a decade. Software that takes a day to write, takes a day to write whether or not one person uses it, or 100,000. Services and Ferrari's are really similar, not intellectual property and Ferrari's.
No, simply untrue. A hairdresser has a finite amount of service she can provide. Not to mention, you can't walk up and take it from her, short of committing kidnapping or something.
Besides, there is no service involved, not in the sense you mean. Redhat continues to sell services despite giving software away.
I do crank out little apps here and there. Currently, I'm trying to get lwared ready for 2.4 kernels... it was abandoned in the early 2.0's as far as I've been able to tell. As for your stupid, pretentious arguments, I don't know how to answer them. No, I'm not a troll, you're just a fool with too many preconceptions.
Circular reasoning. The only way that you could own a thought, is A) Keep it to yourself, or B) somehow prove or convince someone that you have a moral right to it. I've already conceded legal right... what are you arguing? Those exclusive rights, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, were for a limited period. They are only of a legal nature, and only so that the goverment might promote creativity. Since the spirit of the Consitution has been violated, I'm not sure that you can even claim constitutional rights.
As for me attacking developers, I've never done such a thing. But if they think that they deserve some special moral consideration, when they are constantly advocating draconian measures and laws designed to take my moral rights away, then they can go to hell.
I never claimed that "piracy" was the right thing to do, but apparently I questioned your religion, which can't bare the scrutiny. There obviously can't be any reason behind it, or you'd spend your time defending your cherished notions.
Maybe it wasn't obvious. No, they have no rights that are not moral rights. Since it is far from clear that there is such a moral right... is also follows that they may or may not have such a right. What you are talking about "they have the right to do as they please" amounts to the other, might. They have plenty of that.
If there is no need to loan a copy, they how can the authors be so upset over "piracy" ? Clearly, it's not theft at all. They're not upset that someone has taken a copy of the software that they can't sell... rather they've lost the chance at opportunistic extortion (though legal extortion). I'm supposed to be sympathetic?
Hell, M$ threatens economic treason, if the DOJ becomes uppity. The nerve that these people have, is incredible. No wonder it's such a mess.
Finally, MS can expand where ever it wants. They have no monopoly to leverage in Internet Services. Therefore, there can be no new violations.
Get your facts straight. They have a monopoly in OS's, that they will use to wedge themselves into the internet services industry. This is CLEARLY illegal. And any company that goes under due to this, is a victim, by definition... they were harmed by a criminal act.
I could also argue that M$ isn't likely to lose more than chump change to civil lawsuits. It would require a judgement in excess of $10 billion, to even faze them. That simply isn't going to happen.
And as for the parent post... it was vulgar, but much more accurate than your own.
I fail to see how this amounts to theft. It is a violation of a modern law, but theft is almost so obvious one has to think about it to even define it. Theft is the act of depriving someone of some 'thing' that they have exclusive rights to, either by earning it, or having been given it by someone who themselves earned it.
In this way, it's obvious that if you take a Ferrari from the dealer without paying, there is one less Ferrari the dealer can sell. This is not the case with 'intellectual property'. What's more, it is concievable, that were the authors so inclined, every single computer on the planet might have this shareware. The cost would be negligible. No matter how generous the exotic car dealer is though, there are a finite number of Ferraris. These are too completely seperate things.
I'm not sure that there are any moral rights to what modern law calls intellectual property. Certainly, someone has the right to take credit for software that they have written, and those attempting to infringe that right are in the wrong. Do they have a right to make certain no one is playing the shareware game, unless they have paid an arbitrary sum? Should the exotic car dealer be allowed to forbid you from loaning your Ferrari to a friend (not that he would have to, it would have to be a damn good friend) ? If the exotic car dealer has no rights once the car has left his possession, how can a software author? Can the author be certain, that the pirated copy they are trying to prevent, isn't just a legit copy that was loaned to another person? Lots of questions.
You could claim that I'm comparing apples and oranges, and that these are new laws for new problems. Except that I don't see a real problem. People with vested interests have decided they want to make a profit this way, and when normal human *non-pathological* nature gets in their way, they buy a bunch of laws. I think that deep down, most people can see how twisted this is... as I'm sure that shareware titles vs. open source titles statistics will show.
#1 For free? The M$ RD client/server isn't free, either free as in beer, or free as in speech. You pay for it in many ways, most importantly $$$ and lack of control.
#2 Why would you want to do something stupid like play sound 'through' the RD connection? Wouldn't it be better to just download the mp3, and play it locally? Both quality and network resources?
#3 Last I checked, RD doesn't support anything other than windows. And only new versions at that. VNC supports everything except OS/2 and Atari TOS. Not that most of the platforms really matter to most people, but there are at least others that might, linux (or some other unix) and MacOS. ANd hell, those people that can't afford to crank out $200 for a M$ bugfix (I won't bother to continue the new version charade).
#4 There may come a time when you would need to drive that Yugo. You won't be able to. And you might change your mind, want a Lambhourghini later on? Too bad again, not allowed.
#5 Restrictions such as the "no-Yugo" clause are specifically forbidden by law, even more so when practiced by a monopoly.
#6 Tightly integrated into the OS? As in illegal bundling of seperate products to destroy or dominate a new market?
#7 VNC has flaws. You're welcome to fix them, or if too lazy, at least point them out in a constructive manner that might inspire others to fix them.
#8 Need mulitple passwords? PAMize the server, and have it authenticate to an OpenLDAP server. I did.
#9 It's not that simple. You're just apparently simple-minded.
The sattelites themselves are redundant, for just this purpose. Someone will frag the US ones, but not the euro sats? C'mon. The risk is actually increased, by having a second system. There are two potential systems to subvert/destroy/use for terrorism, and only one has to fall into the wrong hands. Doubles the chance of such an occurrence, does it not?
How can it be a monopoly, or need competition? Normally, I'm very anti-monopoly, but I can't see how what is a universal free service, paid for by the US gov, counts. It would be different, were the US doing something half-assed (which we often do) like threatening to selectively deny it to Europe... but hell, they're just wasting their own money, and making it that much easier for psycho's to use it. And for what, national pride? Hell, if they wanted that, they could do something impressive, like go to the moon, something which sadly, the US is abandoning.
I don't buy this as the troll requirement. For one, I've seen too many obvious trolls, where they do beat the qualification, if only barely. It's not the failure to debate properly (often times, you may not know the other sides arguments, how can you bring them up? Someone has to start). True trolls though, aren't arguing for something they believe, they're just arguing to piss people off. That's why it can be tough to determine trolldom, you can imagine at least 1 idiot out of 6 billion believing such crap.
That's hardly fair, or preferable. If you beat everyone back down, anytime they take an extreme position, you end up with no one expressing an opinion at all, just a bunch of "me too's". It would make for a boring slashdot. Besides, this guy is only a troll because I suspect he didn't believe this, he was just saying what he calculated would get a flame war going. I've been moderated as a troll, even when I didn't qualify that way. I believe we would be really lucky, if we got one or two such trolls per story... it really does help to spur conversation along.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that, is that most cats refuse to learn english, it's an arrogance thing. Though, my cats are slowly teaching me Catinese, or whatever its called, so maybe I'll be able to write the sign in their language. They'll just ignore it though.
Quite a few of the pirate movies I've seen come with the flimsy case, most in fact. As for the inserts, they aren't the official ones too be sure, but many look quite professional. Maybe the pirates are hiring 2nd year graphic art students, I dunno. Hell, maybe they *are* graphic art students.
Jack, in case you haven't noticed, the product isn't the MPAA. And if you try to make the product the MPAA, we'll reject it. Even some of the stupid sheep you call customers will reject it. The product is movies, and it doesn't matter who sells it, for some people. It used to matter to me, but the more slack I give you, the more you want... now you want to force digital copyright conrtols onto my computer? The pirates may want to steal, but at least they aren't trying to make me a Disney digislave.
Quote, J. Valenti MPAA Chief Executive:
"Pirates seek to profit off the enormous popularity of DVDs by using the latest in technology to illegally manufacture DVD copies of Hollywood films, and again dupe consumers into purchasing a wholly inferior product,"
How is it wholly inferior? Are they skipping every 64th bit? Are they failing to copy the FBI warning at the beginning of it? Maybe they're disabling the commercials that you can't fast forward past.
See, I've ALWAYS been against people making copies, and selling them. But damned if this asshole doesn't make it impossible for me to have any sympathy.
Be that as it may, I'm willing to forget what has happened hundreds of years ago. Generally, I hate the catholic church and its ridiculous dogma, but somehow Pope John Paul strikes me as a pious and holy man. My only explanation was that it was an accident of politics (like Jimmy Carter). No doubt, the next one will favor Billybob Clinton.
For whatever reason, the Catholic church is a much better institution than it was 1000, 500, or even 100 years ago. Much of their money goes to real charity, and they consistently see a higher percentage of it used as such, than any secular charity organization. I can bash their religion any days of the week, but even *I* have trouble bashing the actions they perform now days.
Given a choice of being stranded on a desert island with 10 catholics or 10 scientologists, can anyone here claim that they'd rather be stuck with the scientologists?
He shouldn't release the raw footage. At the very least, don't download it from www.microsoft.com... they might be tempted to do a little "creative editing".
The "real AmigaOS" ? Hardly. Nor is this the new amiga, in anything other than name. Bill McEwen and his crowd are like those rich people that buy English titles, and think they are now nobility.
That were I to buy the OpenPPC bios board, and run AROS on it, that it would be more of an amiga than the final version?
You guys haven't hired me yet. Then again, I'm afraid to follow that thought to its logical conclusion.
Gee. You're exactly right. No one forces you to work for them, and if they happened to build a society when every other employment choice you have, is a company exactly like the first... that's just tough luck. You still have the option of starving to death as a homeless bum. And if the company asks for your own resources, on your own time, you can just tell them to go fuck themselves, right? I mean, even if you politely point this out, you're gone, but you still have choices.
You're mixing different classes of intellectual property. I have major grievances with patents as they stand, except maybe software patents. And even these should be allowed, at a reduced time... maybe 3-5 years?
But you're "oh so close" to getting it. So let me challenge you a bit more. When you speak of licenses, you are actually talking contract law for the legal sense, and promises in the moral sense, both of which carry great weight. However, intellectual property advocates are failing both these... they are attempting to claim contractual agreements, even when they often keep the other party in the dark, either by ommission or lies. And in the moral sense, they are making no real promise, so it isn't that they fail to keep their promises that bothers me (they made none, none can be broken), but rather that these pseudo-promises are lies. Lying under these circumstances could be considered fraud.
So you're telling me, that what should be the greatest quality of intellectual property, is what software authors complain about?
Really, think about it. If you could make a car, that any number of people could share simultaneously... wouldn't that be cool as hell? Or would you be up here trying to defend Detroit, saying that these cars are bad in some way?
Or would it be time for an end of the automotive industry, freeing hundreds of thousands of workers to do something more productive?
No, I don't. A software developer can provide the title to every single computer capable of running it. Which isn't quite infinite, but it's far from the finite number of haircuts a hairdresser can perform within a day, or even a decade. Software that takes a day to write, takes a day to write whether or not one person uses it, or 100,000. Services and Ferrari's are really similar, not intellectual property and Ferrari's.
No, simply untrue. A hairdresser has a finite amount of service she can provide. Not to mention, you can't walk up and take it from her, short of committing kidnapping or something.
Besides, there is no service involved, not in the sense you mean. Redhat continues to sell services despite giving software away.
I do crank out little apps here and there. Currently, I'm trying to get lwared ready for 2.4 kernels... it was abandoned in the early 2.0's as far as I've been able to tell. As for your stupid, pretentious arguments, I don't know how to answer them. No, I'm not a troll, you're just a fool with too many preconceptions.
Circular reasoning. The only way that you could own a thought, is A) Keep it to yourself, or B) somehow prove or convince someone that you have a moral right to it. I've already conceded legal right... what are you arguing? Those exclusive rights, as guaranteed by the US Constitution, were for a limited period. They are only of a legal nature, and only so that the goverment might promote creativity. Since the spirit of the Consitution has been violated, I'm not sure that you can even claim constitutional rights.
As for me attacking developers, I've never done such a thing. But if they think that they deserve some special moral consideration, when they are constantly advocating draconian measures and laws designed to take my moral rights away, then they can go to hell.
I never claimed that "piracy" was the right thing to do, but apparently I questioned your religion, which can't bare the scrutiny. There obviously can't be any reason behind it, or you'd spend your time defending your cherished notions.
Maybe it wasn't obvious. No, they have no rights that are not moral rights. Since it is far from clear that there is such a moral right... is also follows that they may or may not have such a right. What you are talking about "they have the right to do as they please" amounts to the other, might. They have plenty of that.
If there is no need to loan a copy, they how can the authors be so upset over "piracy" ? Clearly, it's not theft at all. They're not upset that someone has taken a copy of the software that they can't sell... rather they've lost the chance at opportunistic extortion (though legal extortion). I'm supposed to be sympathetic?
Hell, M$ threatens economic treason, if the DOJ becomes uppity. The nerve that these people have, is incredible. No wonder it's such a mess.
Finally, MS can expand where ever it wants. They have no monopoly to leverage in Internet Services. Therefore, there can be no new violations.
Get your facts straight. They have a monopoly in OS's, that they will use to wedge themselves into the internet services industry. This is CLEARLY illegal. And any company that goes under due to this, is a victim, by definition... they were harmed by a criminal act.
I could also argue that M$ isn't likely to lose more than chump change to civil lawsuits. It would require a judgement in excess of $10 billion, to even faze them. That simply isn't going to happen.
And as for the parent post... it was vulgar, but much more accurate than your own.
I fail to see how this amounts to theft. It is a violation of a modern law, but theft is almost so obvious one has to think about it to even define it. Theft is the act of depriving someone of some 'thing' that they have exclusive rights to, either by earning it, or having been given it by someone who themselves earned it.
In this way, it's obvious that if you take a Ferrari from the dealer without paying, there is one less Ferrari the dealer can sell. This is not the case with 'intellectual property'. What's more, it is concievable, that were the authors so inclined, every single computer on the planet might have this shareware. The cost would be negligible. No matter how generous the exotic car dealer is though, there are a finite number of Ferraris. These are too completely seperate things.
I'm not sure that there are any moral rights to what modern law calls intellectual property. Certainly, someone has the right to take credit for software that they have written, and those attempting to infringe that right are in the wrong. Do they have a right to make certain no one is playing the shareware game, unless they have paid an arbitrary sum? Should the exotic car dealer be allowed to forbid you from loaning your Ferrari to a friend (not that he would have to, it would have to be a damn good friend) ? If the exotic car dealer has no rights once the car has left his possession, how can a software author? Can the author be certain, that the pirated copy they are trying to prevent, isn't just a legit copy that was loaned to another person? Lots of questions.
You could claim that I'm comparing apples and oranges, and that these are new laws for new problems. Except that I don't see a real problem. People with vested interests have decided they want to make a profit this way, and when normal human *non-pathological* nature gets in their way, they buy a bunch of laws. I think that deep down, most people can see how twisted this is... as I'm sure that shareware titles vs. open source titles statistics will show.
#1 For free? The M$ RD client/server isn't free, either free as in beer, or free as in speech. You pay for it in many ways, most importantly $$$ and lack of control.
#2 Why would you want to do something stupid like play sound 'through' the RD connection? Wouldn't it be better to just download the mp3, and play it locally? Both quality and network resources?
#3 Last I checked, RD doesn't support anything other than windows. And only new versions at that. VNC supports everything except OS/2 and Atari TOS. Not that most of the platforms really matter to most people, but there are at least others that might, linux (or some other unix) and MacOS. ANd hell, those people that can't afford to crank out $200 for a M$ bugfix (I won't bother to continue the new version charade).
#4 There may come a time when you would need to drive that Yugo. You won't be able to. And you might change your mind, want a Lambhourghini later on? Too bad again, not allowed.
#5 Restrictions such as the "no-Yugo" clause are specifically forbidden by law, even more so when practiced by a monopoly.
#6 Tightly integrated into the OS? As in illegal bundling of seperate products to destroy or dominate a new market?
#7 VNC has flaws. You're welcome to fix them, or if too lazy, at least point them out in a constructive manner that might inspire others to fix them.
#8 Need mulitple passwords? PAMize the server, and have it authenticate to an OpenLDAP server. I did.
#9 It's not that simple. You're just apparently simple-minded.
The sattelites themselves are redundant, for just this purpose. Someone will frag the US ones, but not the euro sats? C'mon. The risk is actually increased, by having a second system. There are two potential systems to subvert/destroy/use for terrorism, and only one has to fall into the wrong hands. Doubles the chance of such an occurrence, does it not?
How can it be a monopoly, or need competition? Normally, I'm very anti-monopoly, but I can't see how what is a universal free service, paid for by the US gov, counts. It would be different, were the US doing something half-assed (which we often do) like threatening to selectively deny it to Europe... but hell, they're just wasting their own money, and making it that much easier for psycho's to use it. And for what, national pride? Hell, if they wanted that, they could do something impressive, like go to the moon, something which sadly, the US is abandoning.
Don't blame poor "aaaaa". Likely, NYT noticed that he was logging in 10,000 times within the space of an 6 hours, and got suspicious.
No incentives. Like being able to raise prices, knowing that their customers have to take it up the ass, or go without?
Oh, and let's try to micromanage cable service issues at the federal level. That will work.
That's sarcasm, for those who are wondering.
I don't buy this as the troll requirement. For one, I've seen too many obvious trolls, where they do beat the qualification, if only barely. It's not the failure to debate properly (often times, you may not know the other sides arguments, how can you bring them up? Someone has to start). True trolls though, aren't arguing for something they believe, they're just arguing to piss people off. That's why it can be tough to determine trolldom, you can imagine at least 1 idiot out of 6 billion believing such crap.
That's hardly fair, or preferable. If you beat everyone back down, anytime they take an extreme position, you end up with no one expressing an opinion at all, just a bunch of "me too's". It would make for a boring slashdot. Besides, this guy is only a troll because I suspect he didn't believe this, he was just saying what he calculated would get a flame war going. I've been moderated as a troll, even when I didn't qualify that way. I believe we would be really lucky, if we got one or two such trolls per story... it really does help to spur conversation along.