Why would anyone want to go to see a movie about someone from a different country? A good (if unintentional) example of how words today don't always mean what they did a century ago.
I think the effect is overrated at best.
Agreed. Personally, the word "pirate" conjures up the Disney version of Captain Hook...hardly the epitome of evil! Doctor Hook has far more sinister connotations...
"I have a 1-year old child, and seeing the midnight debut of Ep III was a MAJOR hassle."
Speaking as someone who saw Ep 4 at the cinema 7 times in its first run, I'd point out that the most hassle-free legal way for you to see it would have been to wait twelve hours. First screening, first post, not a huge difference really...
"If I don't get a movie from p2p or somebody I know doesn't rent it, I simply don't see it. Therefore, I would like to think that I am in absolutely no way stealing."
To play devil's advocate, whether or not you would have watched a program otherwise is purely hypothetical, the fact remains that if you do watch something you have recieved benefit without offering recompense to the person who provided you with the entertainment (either a fee to the producers, or renting movies so your friends can see them in return). It isn't stealing, but it is parasitic behaviour.
Re:I use my phone for three vital functions
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 1
"3. tetris on the shitter"
Dude, the "blocks" don't magically disappear, you have to flush...
"OK, so I wanted them guiding little rockets, but still..."
I tried something similar in the early 80's with snails (because they're easier to catch than cockroaches). However, tests quickly proved that snails don't have fast enough reaction times to effectively steer a D-6-0 powered rocket, although on the plus side the 'chute ejection charge would shoot the "pilot" an extra 50 meters or so.
You live, you learn, you find something else to blow up in the name of science...
You find the idea that a large organization can multitask and plan for future projects is laughable? I hope nobody ever puts you in charge of anything significant...
Careful what you wish for, the last show I can think of that was set on a "moon base" involved a rather serious accident with a large stockpile of discarded nuclear weapons. Personally, I like the moon where it is.
Personally, I regard protecting individuals from unfair/unethical/violent treatment being one of the principal roles of government, which is why I support some laws that have been decried in the past as being a push to a "nanny state" (like occupational health and safety, minimum wage requirements, or reduced speed limits in school zones). Mostly its a matter of perspective, I find; but I'm hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that fits the bill apart from the internet porn ban (a spectacularly successful law, just ask Abbey Winters...). Some might cite the more stringent gun laws, but since lethal shootings have gone down since the law was passed it could be argued that it had the desired (or at least the stated) effect.
I'm in favour of this law, like any law that prohibits destructive antisocial behaviour. By itself I don't think it will make a scrap of difference, since (almost?) no spyware originates in.au, but if it can be used to show best practice and inspire similar legislation in other countries then it will do some good. And like any law, this won't stop someone determined to behave in an antisocial manner, but it will stop the 99% of people who only behave antisocially because its convenient. Not perfect (what is?), but definitely an improvement.
"Hell, the idea of copyright didn't even exist anywhere until 1710 -- but there's a lot of art that was created before then."
But nearly all of the art that survives from the pre-copyright era was commissioned by wealthy individuals (the patrons) and wasn't made available to the general public, in some cases for centuries. Using this to argue for the "public good" is ignoring the historical context; before copyright, public good was not even a consideration in the creation of art.
"When cars came along, all the people that worked at the buggy whip factories were out of jobs. That doesn't mean motorizing was a bad idea. It just means that those people needed to find a different line of work."
Except that in this case those involved in the production of art aren't being put out of business by an alternative or superior technology. Writing still takes authors, music still needs musicians, films still require actors and crews; there is no technology that has supplanted the need for human talent, imagination and effort in the creation of art.
I think everyone's interests would best be served not by eliminating or even severely restricting copyright durations (though I think 20 years is adequate), but by introducing a system where exclusive distribution contracts are prohibited, and anyone can make commercial copies as long they pay the correct royalties to the artists and a fixed percentage of the sales price to any party that provided investment capital to produce a work. That way there would be genuine competition, production costs get paid without sacrificing quality, and derivative works would also be possible without authorization or fear of litigation regardless of the original creators' desires; everyone wins.
"...(teach people how to 1. Avoid spyware and 2. Avoid giving any kind of financial incentive to any company associated with spyware)"
That's on the list, right after we teach people the following:
1) MS Word is a word processor, not an operating system; 2) Nobody in Nigeria really wants to give them $millions; 3) Their bank hasn't really lost their details, and they don't need to go to a website to re-enter them; 4) Passwords shouldn't be something as blindingly obvious as the name of their cat/favourite band/significant other;...and so on. A strategy that involves educating everyone is doomed because not everyone is willing to be educated (sad but true).
"By that logic selling series sets of shows on DVD must 'hurt syndication sales'. Bullshit."
Perhaps that's why the DVD comes out after the syndicated airing. 'Syndication sales' means sales to TV networks for broadcast, not DVD sales to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
...they see "Alien" or the like.
Why would anyone want to go to see a movie about someone from a different country? A good (if unintentional) example of how words today don't always mean what they did a century ago.
I think the effect is overrated at best.
Agreed. Personally, the word "pirate" conjures up the Disney version of Captain Hook...hardly the epitome of evil! Doctor Hook has far more sinister connotations...
"Its a _really_ poor craftsman who blames someone else's tool!"
Prostitutes excepted. Hey, it can happen to anyone...
"I have a 1-year old child, and seeing the midnight debut of Ep III was a MAJOR hassle."
Speaking as someone who saw Ep 4 at the cinema 7 times in its first run, I'd point out that the most hassle-free legal way for you to see it would have been to wait twelve hours. First screening, first post, not a huge difference really...
"If I don't get a movie from p2p or somebody I know doesn't rent it, I simply don't see it. Therefore, I would like to think that I am in absolutely no way stealing."
To play devil's advocate, whether or not you would have watched a program otherwise is purely hypothetical, the fact remains that if you do watch something you have recieved benefit without offering recompense to the person who provided you with the entertainment (either a fee to the producers, or renting movies so your friends can see them in return). It isn't stealing, but it is parasitic behaviour.
"3. tetris on the shitter"
Dude, the "blocks" don't magically disappear, you have to flush...
"OK, so I wanted them guiding little rockets, but still..."
I tried something similar in the early 80's with snails (because they're easier to catch than cockroaches). However, tests quickly proved that snails don't have fast enough reaction times to effectively steer a D-6-0 powered rocket, although on the plus side the 'chute ejection charge would shoot the "pilot" an extra 50 meters or so.
You live, you learn, you find something else to blow up in the name of science...
You find the idea that a large organization can multitask and plan for future projects is laughable? I hope nobody ever puts you in charge of anything significant...
Small technical point: a "maiden" doesn't have children, nor has she had the opportunity to make any.
So I suppose that makes it a fair deal...
Careful what you wish for, the last show I can think of that was set on a "moon base" involved a rather serious accident with a large stockpile of discarded nuclear weapons. Personally, I like the moon where it is.
"And can I have my O2 in gold sovereigns?"
r evengecybermen/
Breathing gold may not be the best idea, especially if you're partly mechanical according to this documentary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/episodeguide/
If Freudian slips really are an insight into the subconscious mind, I don't want to know...
"Are you not at least as smart as an 11 year old girl?"
I'd back the learning capacity of an 11 year old over any adult any day of the week. A lack of preconceptions is sometimes very useful.
"Details appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."
Which means this article will reappear on Slashdot's front page on Friday.
The RIAA doesn't need soldiers, they've got Ted Nugent!u gent/Ted-Nugent-CD.jpg
http://www.rocktrip.net/imagenes/clasicos/Ted%20N
You raise a good safety issue: its a very bad idea getting people used to holding gun-shaped objects in Clippy's presence.
Personally, I regard protecting individuals from unfair/unethical/violent treatment being one of the principal roles of government, which is why I support some laws that have been decried in the past as being a push to a "nanny state" (like occupational health and safety, minimum wage requirements, or reduced speed limits in school zones). Mostly its a matter of perspective, I find; but I'm hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that fits the bill apart from the internet porn ban (a spectacularly successful law, just ask Abbey Winters...). Some might cite the more stringent gun laws, but since lethal shootings have gone down since the law was passed it could be argued that it had the desired (or at least the stated) effect.
.au, but if it can be used to show best practice and inspire similar legislation in other countries then it will do some good. And like any law, this won't stop someone determined to behave in an antisocial manner, but it will stop the 99% of people who only behave antisocially because its convenient. Not perfect (what is?), but definitely an improvement.
I'm in favour of this law, like any law that prohibits destructive antisocial behaviour. By itself I don't think it will make a scrap of difference, since (almost?) no spyware originates in
"Hell, the idea of copyright didn't even exist anywhere until 1710 -- but there's a lot of art that was created before then."
But nearly all of the art that survives from the pre-copyright era was commissioned by wealthy individuals (the patrons) and wasn't made available to the general public, in some cases for centuries. Using this to argue for the "public good" is ignoring the historical context; before copyright, public good was not even a consideration in the creation of art.
"When cars came along, all the people that worked at the buggy whip factories were out of jobs. That doesn't mean motorizing was a bad idea. It just means that those people needed to find a different line of work."
Except that in this case those involved in the production of art aren't being put out of business by an alternative or superior technology. Writing still takes authors, music still needs musicians, films still require actors and crews; there is no technology that has supplanted the need for human talent, imagination and effort in the creation of art.
I think everyone's interests would best be served not by eliminating or even severely restricting copyright durations (though I think 20 years is adequate), but by introducing a system where exclusive distribution contracts are prohibited, and anyone can make commercial copies as long they pay the correct royalties to the artists and a fixed percentage of the sales price to any party that provided investment capital to produce a work. That way there would be genuine competition, production costs get paid without sacrificing quality, and derivative works would also be possible without authorization or fear of litigation regardless of the original creators' desires; everyone wins.
"Long answer, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo."
You work as a script editor for George Lucas, right?
"Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?"
If the number if installations pushes the fines into the multi-million dollar range, then quite probably.
"...(teach people how to 1. Avoid spyware and 2. Avoid giving any kind of financial incentive to any company associated with spyware)"
...and so on. A strategy that involves educating everyone is doomed because not everyone is willing to be educated (sad but true).
That's on the list, right after we teach people the following:
1) MS Word is a word processor, not an operating system;
2) Nobody in Nigeria really wants to give them $millions;
3) Their bank hasn't really lost their details, and they don't need to go to a website to re-enter them;
4) Passwords shouldn't be something as blindingly obvious as the name of their cat/favourite band/significant other;
"By that logic selling series sets of shows on DVD must 'hurt syndication sales'. Bullshit."
Perhaps that's why the DVD comes out after the syndicated airing. 'Syndication sales' means sales to TV networks for broadcast, not DVD sales to the public.
It's an anonymous post. How will you know who not to piss off?
Hmm, I think life just got a little more dangerous...
Stoning isn't permitted in Australian courts. Being stoned might land you in court, though...
"The exceptions sound rather broad"
/ ca1968133/
/ caaa2000294/
They aren't, they're very clearly specified and quite limited. You have to read the act to realise that the summary is rather lacking.
Here's the 1968 copyright act:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act
And here's the 2000 Digital Agenda act (already in place, you might notice):
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act
Ordinarily I'd answer your question in greater detail, but...well, sorry, I can't be arsed, I'm going home for the day. Start at section 10.
A fine idea, but there will always be some smartass who asks for a precise definition of "is"...