I'm glad to see that somebody is going after these theives. Now, if only law enforcement agencies would press criminal charges against them, and help ordinary people out the way they do for corporations, we'd be all set.
i have the right to determine who enters my house. even if there are outsiders that can help me out, ultimately i make the decision whether or not they enter my house.
But what if people could enter your house without you knowing it, without depriving you of the use of anything in your house. That's what file sharing is. They copyright owners are not being deprived of the use of their work an any way. Using your example, it would be as if an invisible, incorporial being were to enter your house, without using anything-or only made copies of things.
My only problem with this is that these identity theives are not getting hit with criminal charges. This is not at all like the AA lawsuits. In the file sharing lawsuits, there was no actual damage, only potential damages (I'd be supprised if.001% of the file sharers would have actually bought the content in question). In this case, there is identity theft going on. Identity theft must be cracked down on if we want Mom and Pop to get online.
-The content is priced reasonably
-I can put it on as many computers as I want
-I can burn it to CD/DVD, and do what I want with that copy
-I don't have to jump through hoops to do any of this
He violated the iTunes Music Store Terms of Service and Terms of Sale, breach of contract as it were, which is illegal in most countries. Apple could easily sue him for such things, not that they will.
Would you be so defensive of EULAs, DRM, etc if this happened to, say, Microsoft? Or are only certain companies worthy of such protection? The/. community seems very selective in this regard
Does this mean that if, for example, I say something on the Internet critical of Islam, I can be extradited to Saudi Arabia? The only law thay should apply should be the law of the person's domicile, which, in this case, is Australia.
OK, but why should people who don't want content filtering be forced to subsidize (the ISPs will pass this cost on to their customers) it for those that do? I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: Parents, you had the brats, you pay for them!
It is the responsibility of the parents, not ISPs, the government "society" or anyone else, to make sure kids don't see stuff their parents don't want them to see. Utah parents, there is filtering software out there. Use it!. Don't force your standards on everyone else.
Hey, there's a selling point right there. Buy linux, and don't have to call anyone who will make you answer stupid pointless questions.
Of course, you'll also have to add being able to buy software off the shelf, and Plug and Play hardware, and not having to learn how to compile or write drivers, or search forums filled with people calling you a "st00pid n00b" to find said drivers.
A community is simply a group of individuals. If those individuals decide to pool their money together for community wide broadband Internet access, how is that different from those individuals pooling their money together for schools, or parks, or utilities (franchise agreements)?
But what if my making a copy of your car caused your personal banking account to drop. In other words - what if you were paying for my car? And you had no choice in the matter?
But if you make a copy of my car, it doesn't cause my personal bank account to drop. At worst, it simply doesn't add to it. If, theoretically, somebody downloads Photoshop, Adobe does not lose any money. They just don't gain anything. As to your analogies-they all fail because they all involve depriving somebody of the use of their property. With your chicken analogy, if I decied to eat the other half of the chicken, I can't because you deprive me of the use of it. With your room analogy, if I decide that I want to use the room, I can't, you're depriving me of the use of it. But if you make a copy of these things, I am not deprived of their use. I don't lose anything. At worst, I just don't gain anything. It would be nice if you had the right to gain things, but that's not how the world works, sorry.
Yeah, I hate the fact that legal music downloads have the restrictive DRM on it. So I don't buy music online - I buy used CDs and just rip'em onto my computer.
The RIAA is putting software onto CDs that prevents them from being ripped. What will you when every CD has this?
Aw - you can't see a TV show in your area? Have to wait a whole extra month to see that movie you wanna see? Tough shit - that still doesn't make it yours. It's someone else's property and they can distribute it however they please.
If it's not being sold, no sales are being lost by it being downloaded, so how is downloading it bad?
I've been saving up for a new car - but my childish impatience doesn't give me the right to come steal yours in the meantime.
No, you can't deprive me of the use of my car-which is the traditional definition of steeling, but if you want to make a copy of my car, in such a manner that I can still know my car and not even know that the car is being copied, then go right ahead.
They don't want to have to program their TV and block out Sex and the City for them! They want the government to make sure their children never, ever see something bad.
You've hit the nail on the head. The problem is that parents don't want to be parents any more. They want the government to do that for them. However, experience shows that the government does not always relinquish any parental role it plays whan people turn 18...
I'm 20. There were never any limits on what games I could play as a kid, and guess how I turned out-I'm on the Dean's List at college with a 3.5 average. These kinds of laws are not needed. What's needed is for parents (not government) to make sure their kids don't cross the line, like mine did. I'm glad I'm getting older. Two parents kept me in line. If the government acted as a third, I'd probably be neurotic
What surprises me is that nobody yet seems to have seriously jumped into a potentially great business opportunity of offering remote linux administrations for home users. Essentially it'd be linux by subscription, ironically enough.
For this to even have a chance of working, you'd have to get it preinstalled, and include things like setting up wine (for games) and tracking down/writing drivers in the package. Because otherwise, the sitiation would be "OK, I can use Windows for free (if it came with my computer) or for, at most $150, and I can just go to the store and find a game or a printer that will Just Work with it without doing a huge amount of research. Or, I can get this Linux administration package, and pay, say, $20 a month for as long as I use computers, and I'll have to to a huge amount of research every time I want to buy hardware or a game." Gee, which do you think I'd choose (Hint: I'm a college student, and I do enough research for papers.)?
I would answer no. It won't be ready for consumers until Joe Enduser, who doesn't want to learn how to program, or compile, or write drivers, who just wants to play games and go on the Internet and write letters, can go to Best Buy, buy a computer with Linux preinstalled, buy a printer at Best Buy, have that Just Work (as in it comes with a Linux driver; he doesn't have to write it himself or hunt one down in a forum where he will be derided for being a "st00pid n00b lol"), and buy Half Life 2 for Linux at Best Buy and have that Just Work-just install the game, no need to compile a binary for it or learn how to use wine. And don't say "Oh, he can research that (where "that" is what hardware works with Linux, how to run wine, etc)!" This is not somebody like us who is interested in computers. This is somebody who just wants to get his work done, buy some stuff off Amazon, and play some games. He has enough on his plate without having to learn a lot about computers. (For an excellent rebuttal to the "stupid user/luser" sterotype by Jakob Nielsen, click here)
I don't see what's wrong with getting a fansub of anime that's not avaiable in the US. The company is not losing sales, because I would not buy the anime in question if there were no subs, even if the Japanese DVDs were free.
What about the countless ignorants who left their computer unpatched when it's so easy. They're the ones who should be prevented to own a computer in the first place.
You're right! And also, if someone's house gets robbed, why, it's their fault! They should have had the place locked up like Ft. Knox, and had a security system, and guards and not had breakable glass windows! They should be prevented from owning homes in the first place! Seriously, lawbreakers are always held fully responsible for their actions (under the law at least) in the real world. Why should it be any different in the virtual world. As for Microsoft, every OS has bugs. Windows just gets targeted more because it is the most popular.
thats ridiculous, almost all crimes are the same for adults and children (except of course things like drinking under age etc). thats equivilent to say a 16 year old robbing a department store in a grand way (a few people and a getaway car) maybe stealing $5,000 worth of clothes and then saying, WELL HES ADULT ENOUGH TO COMMIT GRAND THEFT, reread parent before you make such statements.
Actually, I would try the kid as an adult in your example. If someone is smart enough to organize a gang and arrange for a getaway car, he's smart enough to know the consequences for his actions. And as to the drinking age, I actually would not punish kids for drinking underage unless they were DUI or something like that. I feel that kids who act like adults should be treated like adults-both regarding privileges and responsibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to see that somebody is going after these theives. Now, if only law enforcement agencies would press criminal charges against them, and help ordinary people out the way they do for corporations, we'd be all set.
But what if people could enter your house without you knowing it, without depriving you of the use of anything in your house. That's what file sharing is. They copyright owners are not being deprived of the use of their work an any way. Using your example, it would be as if an invisible, incorporial being were to enter your house, without using anything-or only made copies of things.
My only problem with this is that these identity theives are not getting hit with criminal charges. .001% of the file sharers would have actually bought the content in question). In this case, there is identity theft going on. Identity theft must be cracked down on if we want Mom and Pop to get online.
This is not at all like the AA lawsuits. In the file sharing lawsuits, there was no actual damage, only potential damages (I'd be supprised if
This is bad news for gamers.
Is there any hope for a stay, and that Sony will prevail on appeal?
-The content is priced reasonably
-I can put it on as many computers as I want
-I can burn it to CD/DVD, and do what I want with that copy
-I don't have to jump through hoops to do any of this
Would you be so defensive of EULAs, DRM, etc if this happened to, say, Microsoft? Or are only certain companies worthy of such protection? The /. community seems very selective in this regard
I think vendors are already responsible for all chargeback, including ones due to fraud.
Does this mean that if, for example, I say something on the Internet critical of Islam, I can be extradited to Saudi Arabia? The only law thay should apply should be the law of the person's domicile, which, in this case, is Australia.
OK, but why should people who don't want content filtering be forced to subsidize (the ISPs will pass this cost on to their customers) it for those that do? I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: Parents, you had the brats, you pay for them!
It is the responsibility of the parents, not ISPs, the government "society" or anyone else, to make sure kids don't see stuff their parents don't want them to see. Utah parents, there is filtering software out there. Use it!. Don't force your standards on everyone else.
I will forward him every spam I get, and I think everyone should do the same. After all, he will have no "rational basis" for complaining, right?
Why should I subtract even 3-5 seconds from my live to solve their problems?
Of course, you'll also have to add being able to buy software off the shelf, and Plug and Play hardware, and not having to learn how to compile or write drivers, or search forums filled with people calling you a "st00pid n00b" to find said drivers.
A community is simply a group of individuals. If those individuals decide to pool their money together for community wide broadband Internet access, how is that different from those individuals pooling their money together for schools, or parks, or utilities (franchise agreements)?
I would hope they go after neither, and concentrate their efforts on fraudsters. Big companies don't need protection as much as consumers do.
But if you make a copy of my car, it doesn't cause my personal bank account to drop. At worst, it simply doesn't add to it. If, theoretically, somebody downloads Photoshop, Adobe does not lose any money. They just don't gain anything.
As to your analogies-they all fail because they all involve depriving somebody of the use of their property. With your chicken analogy, if I decied to eat the other half of the chicken, I can't because you deprive me of the use of it. With your room analogy, if I decide that I want to use the room, I can't, you're depriving me of the use of it. But if you make a copy of these things, I am not deprived of their use. I don't lose anything. At worst, I just don't gain anything. It would be nice if you had the right to gain things, but that's not how the world works, sorry.
The RIAA is putting software onto CDs that prevents them from being ripped. What will you when every CD has this?
Aw - you can't see a TV show in your area? Have to wait a whole extra month to see that movie you wanna see? Tough shit - that still doesn't make it yours. It's someone else's property and they can distribute it however they please.
If it's not being sold, no sales are being lost by it being downloaded, so how is downloading it bad?
I've been saving up for a new car - but my childish impatience doesn't give me the right to come steal yours in the meantime.
No, you can't deprive me of the use of my car-which is the traditional definition of steeling, but if you want to make a copy of my car, in such a manner that I can still know my car and not even know that the car is being copied, then go right ahead.
You've hit the nail on the head. The problem is that parents don't want to be parents any more. They want the government to do that for them. However, experience shows that the government does not always relinquish any parental role it plays whan people turn 18...
I'm 20. There were never any limits on what games I could play as a kid, and guess how I turned out-I'm on the Dean's List at college with a 3.5 average. These kinds of laws are not needed. What's needed is for parents (not government) to make sure their kids don't cross the line, like mine did.
I'm glad I'm getting older. Two parents kept me in line. If the government acted as a third, I'd probably be neurotic
Now I can't tell any non-family my birthday without Amazon suing me for breaking their copy protection.
For this to even have a chance of working, you'd have to get it preinstalled, and include things like setting up wine (for games) and tracking down/writing drivers in the package. Because otherwise, the sitiation would be "OK, I can use Windows for free (if it came with my computer) or for, at most $150, and I can just go to the store and find a game or a printer that will Just Work with it without doing a huge amount of research. Or, I can get this Linux administration package, and pay, say, $20 a month for as long as I use computers, and I'll have to to a huge amount of research every time I want to buy hardware or a game."
Gee, which do you think I'd choose (Hint: I'm a college student, and I do enough research for papers.)?
I would answer no.
It won't be ready for consumers until Joe Enduser, who doesn't want to learn how to program, or compile, or write drivers, who just wants to play games and go on the Internet and write letters, can go to Best Buy, buy a computer with Linux preinstalled, buy a printer at Best Buy, have that Just Work (as in it comes with a Linux driver; he doesn't have to write it himself or hunt one down in a forum where he will be derided for being a "st00pid n00b lol"), and buy Half Life 2 for Linux at Best Buy and have that Just Work-just install the game, no need to compile a binary for it or learn how to use wine.
And don't say "Oh, he can research that (where "that" is what hardware works with Linux, how to run wine, etc)!" This is not somebody like us who is interested in computers. This is somebody who just wants to get his work done, buy some stuff off Amazon, and play some games. He has enough on his plate without having to learn a lot about computers. (For an excellent rebuttal to the "stupid user/luser" sterotype by Jakob Nielsen, click here)
I don't see what's wrong with getting a fansub of anime that's not avaiable in the US. The company is not losing sales, because I would not buy the anime in question if there were no subs, even if the Japanese DVDs were free.
You're right!
And also, if someone's house gets robbed, why, it's their fault! They should have had the place locked up like Ft. Knox, and had a security system, and guards and not had breakable glass windows! They should be prevented from owning homes in the first place!
Seriously, lawbreakers are always held fully responsible for their actions (under the law at least) in the real world. Why should it be any different in the virtual world.
As for Microsoft, every OS has bugs. Windows just gets targeted more because it is the most popular.
Actually, I would try the kid as an adult in your example. If someone is smart enough to organize a gang and arrange for a getaway car, he's smart enough to know the consequences for his actions.
And as to the drinking age, I actually would not punish kids for drinking underage unless they were DUI or something like that. I feel that kids who act like adults should be treated like adults-both regarding privileges and responsibilities.