I think you are confusing a copyright license with a contract. (not surprising since most so called EULAs are contracts despite their name)
If you have bought a legal copy of a song, you own that copy and can use it however you like.
What law do you think you would be breaking by listening to a song without a license? It certainly aint copyright law.
On the other hand if you have a contractual agreement, you may have agreed to further limitations but that is not true if you simply buy a cd from a shop. I can't speak about itms because I haven't read the terms and I don't know if they form a legal contract.
The real problem with attitudes on slashdot is the generalisation to the point of prejudice.
Some slashdotters generalise windows problems to the extent that "anything windows is automatically bad and evil".
Others generalise fellow slashdotters to the extent that "if event x happened you would all have a fit"
Both (and many more examples) are equally unhelpful.
I suggest that in the former case we should try treating individual events with the scrutiny they deserve and in the latter case we should try treating individual slashdotters with the respect they deserve.
I only ever have driver problems on windows. Most of my old usb stuff doesn't work under winxp and there are no drivers available. Under linux it all works with drivers included in the default kernel.
With linux I can be almost certain that if I put a machine together from random bits of hardware it will all just work. With windows I would have to search around for driver disks or google for downloads for everything.
Apart from obscure hardware, or very new hardware (linux drivers not written yet) the only area where windows has significantly more drivers available is wireless cards.
it's also true that downloaders would almost always pay for at least one thing they watch, or a substitute.
And its also true that many of them do still spend as much, regardless of how much they download. They are simply watching more different films instead of watching the same few more often. Many people are just not prepared to spend more than a certain amount on films and music and stopping their illegal access will not make them spend more.
Also, particularly with music rather than films, a number of people I know now buy more music after downloading mp3s as a sample. For some reason many find this difficult to believe.
Oh, I take copyright infringemen seriously. I just don't like people pretending that breaking those laws is somehow equivalent to common theft. I'm not even saying it isn't as serious. Just that it is very different.
But theft (where the victim actually loses something) is very different to copyright infringement (where they don't) so that's not a good comparison. Copyright infringement is more like trespassing. You are using somebody elses property without permission, but once you stop they still have everything they had before.
Before anyone jumps in and talks about lost sales, let me just say I don't believe you. There is _no way_ all the people I know who download this stuff would have bought it if it weren't available "for free" They all buy just as much (or just as little) as they did before they got broadband.
(As for those selling large quantities of counterfeit dvds etc, that's another issue. Usually people buy those instead of the genuine ones and quite possibly would have bought the genuine one if the counterfeit ones did not exist.)
That's okay for musicians, but what about movies which can cost millions of times more to make?
Also, it's not always about profiting, it's about control. The question is, to what extent should the creator of a work be entitled to limit the ways in which others can use it?
Remember, even the GNU GPL relies on the restrictions provided by copyright to prevent the source being locked up by someone else.
The law is there to uphold the beliefs of society. If enough people are breaking a law, who is that law representing exactly? In those cases, it is that law itself that is wrong. History teaches us that the most effective way to get rid of unjust laws is to ignore them.
NB. I'm making a point about laws, not about my opinion on current intellectual property laws.
C# and the CLI are both ECMA and ISO standards. As such, any patents have to be licenced under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms. In this case though, microsoft etc. have gone further and said that they will be made available royalty free in addition.
We all know where Iraq got by not having any serious weapons, by allowing inspectors in, and generally doing what the west told them. That's right, they got illegally invaded and the place turned to chaos.
If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.
So you didn't see the Paxman' Gates interview a few years ago then? Whoever researched for Paxman should have been fired. The questions were so vague that Gates could have said anything and it seemed like an answer. Secondly, Paxman (great though he is) could't really full understand the answers and so wasn't in a position to say "you are just avoiding the question" because he wasn't sure enough.
Honestly, Paxman is brilliant, but I could have interviewed Bill Gates better than that. (and that's saying something)
(warning: the following is not backed up with links because I can't find the info right now, so mod me down if you want)
.. In the UK, women drivers tend to make more insurance claims than men. Why then, you might ask, do man generally have to pay more for insurance? Well, its because when men make a claim it tends to be for a complete smash-up whereas women tend to reverse into lampposts.
In summary, men have fewer, more serious accidents and women have more less serious ones.
Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?
Or am I way off and its neither of those? Or could it be either of those and the distinction is not important?
Copyright infringement is not a crime, it is a civil offence. (In my country at least)
You can easily tell the difference. Try calling the police to report copyright infringement. They will tell you they cannot arrest anyone. For copyright infringement to be prosecuted a civil case (a lawsuit) must be brought to the courts by the copyright owner.
The police on the other hand will arrest suspected criminals who can ultimately be prosecuted by the CPS.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need a license to listen to a song.
I think you are confusing a copyright license with a contract. (not surprising since most so called EULAs are contracts despite their name)
If you have bought a legal copy of a song, you own that copy and can use it however you like.
What law do you think you would be breaking by listening to a song without a license? It certainly aint copyright law.
On the other hand if you have a contractual agreement, you may have agreed to further limitations but that is not true if you simply buy a cd from a shop. I can't speak about itms because I haven't read the terms and I don't know if they form a legal contract.
Normally you shouldn't, but this is corrective action given as punishment to Microsoft for illegal monopolistic practices.
No, its like saying that hiding Quantum Physics textbooks from the general public robs them of learning.
The real problem with attitudes on slashdot is the generalisation to the point of prejudice.
Some slashdotters generalise windows problems to the extent that "anything windows is automatically bad and evil".
Others generalise fellow slashdotters to the extent that "if event x happened you would all have a fit"
Both (and many more examples) are equally unhelpful.
I suggest that in the former case we should try treating individual events with the scrutiny they deserve and in the latter case we should try treating individual slashdotters with the respect they deserve.
I only ever have driver problems on windows. Most of my old usb stuff doesn't work under winxp and there are no drivers available. Under linux it all works with drivers included in the default kernel.
With linux I can be almost certain that if I put a machine together from random bits of hardware it will all just work. With windows I would have to search around for driver disks or google for downloads for everything.
Apart from obscure hardware, or very new hardware (linux drivers not written yet) the only area where windows has significantly more drivers available is wireless cards.
it's also true that downloaders would almost always pay for at least one thing they watch, or a substitute.
And its also true that many of them do still spend as much, regardless of how much they download. They are simply watching more different films instead of watching the same few more often. Many people are just not prepared to spend more than a certain amount on films and music and stopping their illegal access will not make them spend more.
Also, particularly with music rather than films, a number of people I know now buy more music after downloading mp3s as a sample. For some reason many find this difficult to believe.
Oh, I take copyright infringemen seriously. I just don't like people pretending that breaking those laws is somehow equivalent to common theft. I'm not even saying it isn't as serious. Just that it is very different.
But theft (where the victim actually loses something) is very different to copyright infringement (where they don't) so that's not a good comparison. Copyright infringement is more like trespassing. You are using somebody elses property without permission, but once you stop they still have everything they had before.
Before anyone jumps in and talks about lost sales, let me just say I don't believe you. There is _no way_ all the people I know who download this stuff would have bought it if it weren't available "for free" They all buy just as much (or just as little) as they did before they got broadband.
(As for those selling large quantities of counterfeit dvds etc, that's another issue. Usually people buy those instead of the genuine ones and quite possibly would have bought the genuine one if the counterfeit ones did not exist.)
I don't want more power, I want more charge supplied at the same power.
Perhaps that's what they mean.
But the unix copyrights are quite possibly owned by Novell.
That's okay for musicians, but what about movies which can cost millions of times more to make?
Also, it's not always about profiting, it's about control. The question is, to what extent should the creator of a work be entitled to limit the ways in which others can use it?
Remember, even the GNU GPL relies on the restrictions provided by copyright to prevent the source being locked up by someone else.
In English there is no such word. :-)
Remember though that slashdot is American and that Americans can't speak English.
The law is there to uphold the beliefs of society. If enough people are breaking a law, who is that law representing exactly? In those cases, it is that law itself that is wrong. History teaches us that the most effective way to get rid of unjust laws is to ignore them.
NB. I'm making a point about laws, not about my opinion on current intellectual property laws.
C# and the CLI are both ECMA and ISO standards. As such, any patents have to be licenced under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.
In this case though, microsoft etc. have gone further and said that they will be made available royalty free in addition.
more info here
to advocate for more North Koreas is to advocate for dictatorship, concentration camps, mass starvation, and zero freedom.
Whereas the US prefers to starve the children of other nations. It's okay though because it's worth it.
A country that has the ability to obliterate one of it's neighbors and uses that fact for negotiations.
Sounds more like the US to me. Except that for the US the neighborhood it "negotiates" with extends across the world.
And what exactly is "another North Korea"?
We all know where Iraq got by not having any serious weapons, by allowing inspectors in, and generally doing what the west told them. That's right, they got illegally invaded and the place turned to chaos.
If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.
If you want to write an application and not release it under the GPL, you must purchase a commercial licence.
No. If you want to write an application and not release it under the GPL and you want to distribute it, you must purchase a commercial license.
Remember the GNU GPL does not restrict any kind of use whatsoever unless you want to distribute.
So you didn't see the Paxman' Gates interview a few years ago then? Whoever researched for Paxman should have been fired. The questions were so vague that Gates could have said anything and it seemed like an answer. Secondly, Paxman (great though he is) could't really full understand the answers and so wasn't in a position to say "you are just avoiding the question" because he wasn't sure enough.
Honestly, Paxman is brilliant, but I could have interviewed Bill Gates better than that. (and that's saying something)
since the mods probably haven't even read TFA and so didn't recognise it as a copy and paste.
I just tried the same and got this mangled error ..
P la tform_ID&p_donation_amount=0&p_donation_reference=
.. printed on the screen. I wonder if they changed something to reject lynx now?
p_success=F&p_error_msg=ERROR_000056_-_Invalid_
It could just be that I have an old version? (Lynx Version 2.8.5dev.7)
Depends what you mean by "worst drivers" ....
.. In the UK, women drivers tend to make more insurance claims than men. Why then, you might ask, do man generally have to pay more for insurance? Well, its because when men make a claim it tends to be for a complete smash-up whereas women tend to reverse into lampposts.
(warning: the following is not backed up with links because I can't find the info right now, so mod me down if you want)
In summary, men have fewer, more serious accidents and women have more less serious ones.
But there is such a thing as a sense of humour.
Help me out.
Do intelligent design believers argue that God designed humans, animals etc directly or is it that God designed the physical laws of the universe such that everything could naturally evolve on its own?
Or am I way off and its neither of those? Or could it be either of those and the distinction is not important?
How about the crime of copyright infringment?
Copyright infringement is not a crime, it is a civil offence. (In my country at least)
You can easily tell the difference. Try calling the police to report copyright infringement. They will tell you they cannot arrest anyone. For copyright infringement to be prosecuted a civil case (a lawsuit) must be brought to the courts by the copyright owner.
The police on the other hand will arrest suspected criminals who can ultimately be prosecuted by the CPS.
Your country may vary.