Here in Sweden, it's the same, but you can get away if you can prove the model was 18 or older. The law is basically written to shift the burden of proof over on the accused.
If tens of millions of people stole corn from the farms every week, and the corn production just kept increasing, even though the farmers did nothing special to grow more corn, then we'd have to conclude that stealing corn somehow didn't affect the amount of corn on the fields.
If it were true of corn fields, it'd seem like magic. In the case of filesharing, we can explain it by 1) making a digital copy doesn't affect the original, and 2) people who pirate go ahead and spend their money on another entertainment product instead, so the sales stay roughly the same.
Just giving the facts. Regardless of whether you think piracy is good or bad, it's a fact that the media industry keep increasing their revenues despite piracy.
Really? The USA protects its failing industries with subsidies and regulations, and yet they keep failing... e.g, the automobile industry and the banking system.
If there is no financial reward or incentive, no one will invest the time or money to create content.
This is getting really old...
1. There have been numerous studies showing that the people who pirate the most, are also the ones who buy the most culture. 2. There have been several studies showing that the loss in potential music sales is roughly made up for by the free advertising provided by music piracy. 3. Despite rampant piracy since around the year 2000, the revenues of the film and computer game industries have continued to increase, year after year, and the decline among the record companies are made up for by the increase in online sales of music. The only two events which seem to have caused a measurable loss to the industry, are the economic recess around 2007 and the failed attempt at DRM. 4. There are several studies which show that music artists earn considerably *more* today than ten years ago, partly because they have decided to bypass the record companies and sell their music online directly to the consumers, or give their music away for free and earn money from concerts and merchandise. This includes a study which shows that Norwegian artists' revenues have increased by over 60% per artist during the first decade of the new millenium, and one which shows that Swedish artists' revenues have increased by over 30% per artist, despite the number of artists increasing in both countries.
Piracy IS a constructive activity. Every time you download something over BitTorrent, you help others download it. Piracy helps spread culture to the wider masses, without having a measurable impact on the income of artists (study after study shows that the people who pirate the most are also the ones who spend the most money on culture, and the loss in potential sales is roughly made up for by the free advertising provided by piracy).
a bunch of idiots who don't realise the impact of what they are demanding
Are you referring to the people who think they should be allowed to copy and distribute content even if it is unlawful ?
And what impact would that have?
Piracy has been rampant for ten years, and the film and computer game industries just keep increasing their revenues, year by year, while the sharp decline among record companies has been made up for by increased online sales.
Can you help me understand this ProtecTip thing? If you post something of mine (picture?) on facebook, does that make you or Facebok guilty?
Both of you will be guilty under ProtectIP. You will be sued for copyright infringement, and Facebook will be shut down, if the copyright owner so wishes.
It's american legal tradition to place the burden of proof on the accuser, and what we have right now here is more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent, repeatedly, and that's just doubly-wrong.
It's more than an American tradition, it's a fundamental principle in all modern democracies.
I think the GP's point is that the company doesn't actually do anything extra for those who pay "Premium" service - they just rearrange their queues to put the "Premiums" first.
That's interesting. I didn't know Al Qaeda was so dominantly political. It's always connected to Islam when it's talked about in media, so one gets the impression that Islam is a very important part of it.
Hitler is often used as an example of the most ruthless dictator possible, but the fact is he didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. Mustard gas had been deployed in World War I, and the effects had been so horrendous, no European nation dared to use it after that. I doubt Hitler would have used biological weapons if he'd had access to them. Of course, there are dictators who are a lot more unscrupulous than Hitler was, and for whom a new virus could be useful.
It's accectable that innocent civilians get hurt in a war, as long as the primary target is military or strategic (for example, a munitions factory, or a power plant). It would be nice if only soldiers got killed in wars, but we're not there yet.
But sure, there's a lot of Islamic terrorism, and it's not justified. The attacks on universities and schools are not justified. I haven't checked the numbers, but Islamic terrorism is probably the most common type in the world.
But to Europeans, I still think Catholic and political terrorism is a bigger threat. To Americans, I'm not sure - the 9/11 attacks took a huge number of lives, but it may have been a one-time ocurrence.
The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.
The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?
The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.
The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.
The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.
Why did someone mod the parent down? I think he has a point... much of what these neuroscientists say about human behaviour have nothing to do with neurology, but are merely their own common-sense guesses, which lend credibility from the fact that the person making the guess is a renowned neurologist.
No, accountability is just a mechanism through which trustworthiness CAN be achieved. Whether it actually works, we have to judge by looking at reality. And when we look at how democratic countries actually work, we see that there is still a lot of corruption, abuse of power and invasion of individual rights, in spite of systems for accountability being present.
There's a lot of room for improvement in the systems for accountability. For example, you can improve accountability by making processes more transparent, that is, by making as much information as possible available to the public. Corruption thrives in secrecy.
The US government has proven over and over again that it's not trustworthy by breaking its own laws about wiretapping, importing illegal drugs, weapons sales, due procedure, and so on and so on and so on. Other governments have done the same.
There are a multitude of smaller, simpler organisations which are more trustworthy, such as human rights groups, research organisations, consumer organisations, and so on.
Accountability doesn't work very well in governments because they're too large and complex for anyone to have proper oversight over them, and the power politicians and government officials have enable them to bend and corrupt the system to avoid accountability.
There will always be greedy and immoral people who believe the end justifies the means. The point is that these people can and do rise to power, again and again, and therefore, the government can't be trusted any further than we can keep checks on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Sweden, it's the same, but you can get away if you can prove the model was 18 or older. The law is basically written to shift the burden of proof over on the accused.
But unlike Diebold's voting machines, the worst thing that can happen from abuse is that the wrong people get free pudding...
And if they take pictures of themselves having sex, it's child pornography. Unless you can prove it was really an adult on the film.
If tens of millions of people stole corn from the farms every week, and the corn production just kept increasing, even though the farmers did nothing special to grow more corn, then we'd have to conclude that stealing corn somehow didn't affect the amount of corn on the fields.
If it were true of corn fields, it'd seem like magic. In the case of filesharing, we can explain it by 1) making a digital copy doesn't affect the original, and 2) people who pirate go ahead and spend their money on another entertainment product instead, so the sales stay roughly the same.
Just giving the facts. Regardless of whether you think piracy is good or bad, it's a fact that the media industry keep increasing their revenues despite piracy.
Really? The USA protects its failing industries with subsidies and regulations, and yet they keep failing... e.g, the automobile industry and the banking system.
If there is no financial reward or incentive, no one will invest the time or money to create content.
This is getting really old...
1. There have been numerous studies showing that the people who pirate the most, are also the ones who buy the most culture.
2. There have been several studies showing that the loss in potential music sales is roughly made up for by the free advertising provided by music piracy.
3. Despite rampant piracy since around the year 2000, the revenues of the film and computer game industries have continued to increase, year after year, and the decline among the record companies are made up for by the increase in online sales of music. The only two events which seem to have caused a measurable loss to the industry, are the economic recess around 2007 and the failed attempt at DRM.
4. There are several studies which show that music artists earn considerably *more* today than ten years ago, partly because they have decided to bypass the record companies and sell their music online directly to the consumers, or give their music away for free and earn money from concerts and merchandise. This includes a study which shows that Norwegian artists' revenues have increased by over 60% per artist during the first decade of the new millenium, and one which shows that Swedish artists' revenues have increased by over 30% per artist, despite the number of artists increasing in both countries.
Piracy IS a constructive activity. Every time you download something over BitTorrent, you help others download it. Piracy helps spread culture to the wider masses, without having a measurable impact on the income of artists (study after study shows that the people who pirate the most are also the ones who spend the most money on culture, and the loss in potential sales is roughly made up for by the free advertising provided by piracy).
a bunch of idiots who don't realise the impact of what they are demanding
Are you referring to the people who think they should be allowed to copy and distribute content even if it is unlawful ?
And what impact would that have?
Piracy has been rampant for ten years, and the film and computer game industries just keep increasing their revenues, year by year, while the sharp decline among record companies has been made up for by increased online sales.
I've seen people on Slashdot WORRY over jobs moving overseas, but I haven't yet seen anyone here who wants to OUTLAW it.
Can you help me understand this ProtecTip thing?
If you post something of mine (picture?) on facebook, does that make you or Facebok guilty?
Both of you will be guilty under ProtectIP. You will be sued for copyright infringement, and Facebook will be shut down, if the copyright owner so wishes.
Why does Slashdot report on Pirate Bay so much? Almost like it's pro-piracy or something.
I bet that many of its readers are pro-piracy.
Not that there's anything wrong with that :-p
It's american legal tradition to place the burden of proof on the accuser, and what we have right now here is more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent, repeatedly, and that's just doubly-wrong.
It's more than an American tradition, it's a fundamental principle in all modern democracies.
Good point.
I think the GP's point is that the company doesn't actually do anything extra for those who pay "Premium" service - they just rearrange their queues to put the "Premiums" first.
I assume the TFS meant it was surprising considering who funded the research...
That's interesting. I didn't know Al Qaeda was so dominantly political. It's always connected to Islam when it's talked about in media, so one gets the impression that Islam is a very important part of it.
Hitler is often used as an example of the most ruthless dictator possible, but the fact is he didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. Mustard gas had been deployed in World War I, and the effects had been so horrendous, no European nation dared to use it after that. I doubt Hitler would have used biological weapons if he'd had access to them. Of course, there are dictators who are a lot more unscrupulous than Hitler was, and for whom a new virus could be useful.
It's accectable that innocent civilians get hurt in a war, as long as the primary target is military or strategic (for example, a munitions factory, or a power plant). It would be nice if only soldiers got killed in wars, but we're not there yet.
But sure, there's a lot of Islamic terrorism, and it's not justified. The attacks on universities and schools are not justified. I haven't checked the numbers, but Islamic terrorism is probably the most common type in the world.
But to Europeans, I still think Catholic and political terrorism is a bigger threat. To Americans, I'm not sure - the 9/11 attacks took a huge number of lives, but it may have been a one-time ocurrence.
The first article is not about a terrorist attack, but about an attack against an enemy military base in a civil war. As long as you're not a soldier and don't step into the war zone, you're not at risk.
The second article is about an Israeli attack against Hezbollah. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; is Israel committing terrorism when they're fighting Hezbollah?
The third article is about a terrorist attack, since they targeted civilians, but it only killed 18 people. It's also part of the fight against an occupying force, so it's unlikely they'll target their attacks outside their own country.
The fourth article is, once again, about an attack against a military target, not a terrorist attack.
The fifth article is about a terrorist attack where nobody was hurt, except for a chicken coop and a propane tank.
Why did someone mod the parent down? I think he has a point... much of what these neuroscientists say about human behaviour have nothing to do with neurology, but are merely their own common-sense guesses, which lend credibility from the fact that the person making the guess is a renowned neurologist.
I think Theo de Raadt is very amusing, albeit not intentionally :)
No, accountability is just a mechanism through which trustworthiness CAN be achieved. Whether it actually works, we have to judge by looking at reality. And when we look at how democratic countries actually work, we see that there is still a lot of corruption, abuse of power and invasion of individual rights, in spite of systems for accountability being present.
There's a lot of room for improvement in the systems for accountability. For example, you can improve accountability by making processes more transparent, that is, by making as much information as possible available to the public. Corruption thrives in secrecy.
*cough* Excuse me, I almost spilled my tea.
The US government has proven over and over again that it's not trustworthy by breaking its own laws about wiretapping, importing illegal drugs, weapons sales, due procedure, and so on and so on and so on. Other governments have done the same.
There are a multitude of smaller, simpler organisations which are more trustworthy, such as human rights groups, research organisations, consumer organisations, and so on.
Accountability doesn't work very well in governments because they're too large and complex for anyone to have proper oversight over them, and the power politicians and government officials have enable them to bend and corrupt the system to avoid accountability.
There will always be greedy and immoral people who believe the end justifies the means. The point is that these people can and do rise to power, again and again, and therefore, the government can't be trusted any further than we can keep checks on it.