Indeed:) I suspect that by "some of which can't be found on rival mobile platforms" they mean "is available on every other mobile phone that's been around for years, but can't be found on the Iphone". Since the Iphone gets so much hype despite lacking these basic features, you can't blame them for making a dig;) (Though I do worry that consumer perception is being changed by this marketing, making them think that things like Internet access and video recording are new - but again, you've got Apple to blame for that too.)
1. http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Battle_of_the_Somme.htm clearly states it was in WW1. I'm not sure why that shows up in their WW2 list, but that looks to be some kind of index, possibly based on the fact that WW2 is mentioned as a "related" subject. Even if it is a blooper, it's an indexing mistake, and it's incorrect to claim they "have the Battle of the Somme taking place during World War II" when the article explicitly does not state that.
2,3. Not covering everything you consider important makes it total crap? (Wikipedia does have an article on it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk - FWIW, not sure why they didn't select it too.)
4. Again, that it doesn't cover everything doesn't equate to "total crap" to me. And issues such as relative importance of what should be covered, and factors in WW2, sound very much to be something that there will be differing opinions. Why should I take the opinion of an anonymous poster on Slashdot as authoritative? I mean:
The great American lesson of WWII is that self reliant industrial capacity wins wars and if any lesson about the war is relevant to the USA today, it is that one.
Is it? Says who? (Also remember that Wikipedia is an international project, so it is not solely concerned with looking at things from an American viewpoint - though I admit that may be something that is disliked, because people tend to prefer teaching versions focused on their own country. Similarly here in the UK, where the history that is taught is almost entirely focused on British history.)
5. Whatever the sexuality of certain Nazis (sources?), there is plenty of evidence regarding their treatment of homosexuals, e.g., in concentration camps (which bit are you referring to when you say "the argument that the Nazis were more anti-gay than anti-jewish").
Possibly you mean "Wikischools is total crap, because of one indexing blooper, and the rest of it doesn't fit into my personal viewpoint of what I think is important".
Yes, but in that sense the question of "What was the first netbook?" is no longer a question of technology, but one of marketing, because it's then down to who was first to use that term. It would be like asking "What was the first notebook?" and then ignoring laptops on the grounds they weren't the first to use the term "notebook".
Yes, since the term "netbook" was only popularised with the advent of cheap devices, it's reasonable to consider it part of the definition.
However, that's not necessarily a definition everyone agrees with - you also have to be careful of biasing the result (devices which are "first" will often have been released before a common term for the device became popular - precisely because they were first). So I think it's still interesting to ask "What was the first computer that was as small as today's netbooks, and offered wireless Internet access?" - regardless of cost.
This is like people claiming that CDTVs were the first convergence of games consoles, TV, optical disc players, stereo/surround sound, and front room hi-fi entertainment centres.... that the playstation 2 etc. really started to make that market.
It's also just like people claiming that Playstations 2 did it first.
I can't say I've heard a common argument that the CDTV did things first (except in response to someone claiming something else did it first, at a later date - e.g., "Imacs were the first to drop floppy disks!"). The point is that a lot of "firsts" when it comes to vague concepts like convergence, or netbooks, are ill-defined.
Now the CDTV wasn't first, because at least the CDi came out before it (I think?). But the rest of your arguments don't make sense - if we're talking about what was first, it doesn't matter if a device was poorly marketed or not very good (I remember how the people in Amiga community themselves generally seemed to dislike the CDTV). Similarly it doesn't matter whether it "kicked off" anything. A classification of "First, except for things that were 'too early'" isn't a very well-defined category at all...
And I also fail to see how this is like the netbook issue at all - the OP put forward the reasonable claim that being cheap was a fundamental part of the definition of the "netbook", which doesn't relate to your criticisms of the CDTV.
Yeah, if your computer is ever stolen, the thief will get shitty customer service from Alienware. That'll show him, and make him think twice about doing it again!
No, but it is a contract, and contracts are enforced by law.
Only if he really agrees with it. Which is dubious in EULs generally, but in the case of a sale, it's especially unlikely that the new buyer agreed to the original EULs.
(Replying to this post means you agree to pay me $1000, btw.)
Building a new one entirely from scratch, maybe. But when it comes to a failure in a component, or wanting to upgrade the motherboard, it's an awful lot cheaper to just replace the required bits, rather than having to buy a complete new machine.
as is increasingly the case where people use Wikipedia as an authoritative source for information, for example.
Yeah that's right, an article with references couldn't possibly be trusted if it's on Wikipedia, but we'll trust everything from the media, blogs, and random commenters on a forum without question...
Bottom line: how does Mr. Paget know that his laptop isn't stolen merchandise?
What has this speculation got to do with anything?
Whether or not it is really stolen, I fail to see how Alienware can know this - computers don't have an identification number (he even later states in his blog that he was unable to send them the warranty number). So this looks to be a blanket response. It's unclear why they would care - yes, car manufacturers may have a legal obligation to report theft, but neither they nor Alienware have any legal obligation to not deal with any customer who may conceivably have stolen the product.
Note, with phones and netbooks, the contract offers typically involve you getting it for free (at least, here in the UK). If you pay for the device, you don't have any strings attached. Whilst admittedly it is a problem with phones that there's less choice on Pay As You Go, there are loads of netbooks available without conditions (indeed, it seems more the other way round - most netbooks are just sold like normal laptops, and only a few allow you to get them as part of a contract).
Although given Apple's Iphone, it wouldn't surpise me if they expect people to both pay for the machine, and then sign into a contract...
Heh:) Well although it seems barmy, I think this follows from the greater complexities of software compared with food (I'm talking about the limit of liability / advertising what the product's intended use is - I think that EULAs OTOH are stupid and are unenforcable, but that's a different debate; and yes, it should be that descriptions of intended use should be presented on the packaging, and not just inside the box when you install).
As I say in another comment, I think it's like the "May Contain Nuts" issue - when faced with a liability issue that was difficult for them to deal with, the food industry did respond with a blanket "We can't guarantee anything at all". So I'd argue there is no fundamental difference here, it's just that software is more likely to have these difficult problems.
(Although I agree that it's better that "May Contain Nuts" is put on the packaging, rather than coming in the form of a contract hidden inside, that you have to sign in order to eat it...)
As a number of people pointed out, there are exceptions to this. Basically, laws can restrict what types of agreements can be entered into. The most extreme example of this is that you can't enter into a contract to be a slave. A less extreme example would be a law that voids all "no warranty" clauses of software licenses.
I never claimed otherwise. Can you give me an example which would void "This software can only be used for XYZ"? And why non-edible substances aren't held to the same standard (i.e., you can't sue someone for eating something that wasn't labelled as food)?
What if it's loss of data? Besides, time is worth money, too.
TFA talks about malware - the primary fault is the illegal actions committed by malware. Whether a car manufacturer is liable for someone stealing from the car isn't clear (same with whether house builders are liable for a burglar) (other than issues where say things that claim to work don't work, such as a lock not working). And there have to be reasonable limits - should a car manufacturer be 100% liable because your priceless ming vase got stolen?
Part of the problem here is that things that are considered acceptable in a physical product are seen as "security flaws" in software. Personally I'd say it's a security flaw that someone can smash the windscreen, but we accept that as a risk. And software is immensely more complex when it comes to security issues. Both software developers and car manufacturers try to come up with new ways to prevent illegal acts on their product, but it's not clear to me that either is liable if someone gets round it - unless they advertised it as an "anti-theft/malware" device, and it didn't work. Which car manufacturers tend to, but software developers could always not mention them, or state that they aren't intended for use.
It's a bit similar to "May Contain Nuts" - faced with the problem that they were liable for unexpected nuts, but being unable to guarantee them not being there, we end up with large numbers of products saying "May Contain Nuts". The complexities of software suggest that we'll see the same thing happening there - "This product may crash or delete your data". Except for software where you pay at least ten times the price for it.
And if for some reason a court decides this isn't good enough (which, imo means holding software to a higher standard than physical products), then expect to see "This software cannot be sold/used in Europe", or for the cost of software to go rapidly up, and development times to slow, as far more effort is invested in fixing security issues, bugs, and Q/A rather than developing new features. Is that what the market wants?
A car breaking down because of a faulty design is quite another. You can sue in the latter case but not the former.
But there has to be a reasonable limit to liability. If I put something in the cloakroom of a nightclub and it gets stolen, I might have some claim from the owners for letting it get stolen. If I put my priceless ming vase in there however, it seems far less reasonable that they pay the price for it - anyone reasonable would say I was stupid to put it there in the first place if I wasn't willing to accept the risk.
And the next step after that will be to ban computer games where you pretend to play a paintballer...
Actually though, there have been calls to ban computer games too ("other ideas include a violence quota for television"). All in the name of "parents of victims" - never underestimate the political power of a grieving parent. I've seen it happen here in the UK too. It seems like if someone you know dies, you get national media attention for whatever political cause you want to lobby for. Personally I think it's sick to use a murdered person's name in order to push your own political agenda - if I should get murdered, I hope no one ever dares try to use my name.
Actually I think some real batshittery is that whilst actual guns merely get some greater controls on access to them, paintballing on the other hand gets an outright ban!
(I'm not saying whether the extra controls on guns are right or wrong, I just think this case exemplifies the way that role-playing and simulation are not only scapegoated as a cause, but sometimes treated worse than the things which can actually kill.)
you can sue a soup kitchen if it gives you food poisoning.
But equally, people should be free to say what use their product is intended for. You can sue someone if they sell you food, you can't sue someone if they sell you some substance, and you decide to eat it (especially if it has warnings not to eat it).
The GPL states (similarly to most licences):
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
If this isn't enough for a new law, then expect to see many software developers using a licence that states "This software should not be used for commerical purposes" or even "at all [except perhaps for a few limited, restricted uses]".
I also fail to see how causing injury is comparable to alleged liability of Microsoft - there Windows did not in itself cause damage, the problem is loss caused by downtime. It's the difference between a car blowing up in your face, and a car not working so you miss an important meeting. (And if you take a car and drive it into the sea, you don't get to sue no matter how annoying the results are to you.)
There may well be a market for software that does allow liabilities for loss (i.e., they say it is intended to be used commercially). Expect to pay at least ten times the price for it.
So you think that torrent search engines shouldn't be allowed, or should be subject to a higher standard? Consider, what if I want to run a legal torrent search engine - how can I do so? The fact that most people might use bittorrent for copyright infringement isn't relevant to my question here, because my interest is in running a legal one. Why should I be held to a different standard to Google?
What if I have a torrent search engine that also implements some basic search of web pages, is that enough to get round any additional restrictions? You see, I'm not sure that having a different standard for Google and torrent search engines is workable.
Fair enough, but as I said "I don't think anyone would deny that bittorrent is mainly used for copyright infringement".
(If I cared about Lost, I might download it - the same episodes incidentally that I'm already paying for it via my cable fees.)
FWIW, I agree that Mininova shouldn't be made to filter their content, but how do you expect the **AA to listen when so many of the for-Net -Neutrality crowd are openly stating that they won't use Mininova because they don't give access to unlicensed media any more?
Well we both disagree with the filtering, so a valid reponse to that might be to not use their site as a matter of principle - you mean that we should keep quiet about this, and we aren't allowed to protest openly against filtering?
That something may be called ethical doesn't make it permissible
Another straw man - at least, if you mean "permissible" in a legal sense, it obviously isn't; in an ethical sense, that is what is under debate. The point is that those people commenting on the post have every right to express their ethical view, just as you are expressing your view here. This is not "proving the RIAA / MPAA right", as the OP claimed.
but it doesn't entitle a person to flaunt it simply because they feel like it.
I hope you don't own an mp3 player then, or maybe you are lucky to live in a better country than I.
It's really quite tiring. It's just a different version of the 15 year-old brat complaining that the car she's being offered to replace her Toyota is a $40,000 Lexus instead of the $77,000 E-Class she demanded.
Another straw man. By "different version", you mean "different argument".
If I say that Google shouldn't have to actively search out and filter content (which they don't, nor do they have to by US law), does that mean Google is predominantly used for copyright infringement? I don't think so.
Your argument is a straw man anyway. I don't think anyone would deny that bittorrent is mainly used for copyright infringement, but the issues are whether search engines should be liable. Also consider that even though something is copyright infringement by law doesn't mean it is unethical - e.g., someone downloading something they already bought in another format, or a BBC licence payer in the UK downloading BBC produced content, and another example would be using it as a form of timeshifting, downloading a show you just missed on TV you pay for. Consider, in the UK it's copyright infringement to copy a CD you've bought onto your own mp3 player. So it would be accurate to say that "MP3 players are used almost entirely for copyright infringement" - however that's not really a fair statement, and doesn't mean people are downloading things they haven't paid for.
After all, if you've pledged allegiance to a nation under God, and then it turns evil, it's not really under God any more, so you've got an escape clause.
This isn't D&D where an alignment change is obvious. Typically regimes or religious people that go corrupt or "evil" will still believe they have "God" on their side. Indeed, their belief of being "under God" can allow them to justify such acts.
Consider WW2, generally seen as a just war - do you think that the Germans and Japanese weren't praying to God too?
Currently mininova - knowing full well the reason why people use their site - simply go by the strict laws.. if a copyright holder / representative tells them they're hosting particular copyrighted content, they'll take it down.
Well I'm curious what the law is in wherever-it-is-that-Mininova is filtered?
In the US, responding to takedown notices is all that's required, and there is no obligation ("good faith" or otherwise) to do more. My understanding is that the problem with TPB was that they didn't respond to takedown notices (can anyone confirm?)
Furthermore, installing filtering software may run the risk of them being more liable, as they surely give up any claim of being a "common carrier".
I would be extremely worried if Mininova were found guilty for not actively filtering, even when they responded to takedown notices. Consider, how would one hypothetically run a legal bittorrent search engine (because there are at least a few legal bittorrents out there)? Would a bittorrent search engine be illegal simply because they fail to remove the link to copyrighted information even without a takedown notice? How does that make them any different to Google (not to mention ISPs and other hosts that make host actual copyrighted material, and not merely links to them)?
So one intentional act of vandalism means that Wikipedia as a whole is unreliable? The irony here is great - Wikipedia is criticised for a single such case, yet we accept opinion as fact from people posting anonymously on a forum here.
That's what gets to me here, the fact that it was intentionally done by a vandal. It's no different to someone feeding misinformation to the media, or getting a job at Britannica and slipping in a single error. In any other case, it would be a clear case that the vandal was being an arse. But here, it's used to jump on the anti-Wikipedia band wagon.
How many sources are there that are more reliable than Wikipedia? And how many to the extent that Wikipedia is reasonably seen as considerably untrustworthy in comparison? How many of these sources are free? (Note, I use "source" in the broad sense of including tertiary sources, because Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, nor does it claim to be.)
Btw, I do hope you never ever trust the media. They have errors too, both on their own, and in that they cite the entirely unreliable Wikipedia.
Which also means, you shouldn't trust this story either! Hah - how can you prove it's true? We can't trust the media. By your same reasoning, "phony media article" is a tautology too.
millions of blogs that cite it
And how many reliable sources did your comment cite? Please provide references from Britannica, otherwise I obviously can't believe a word you say.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed :) I suspect that by "some of which can't be found on rival mobile platforms" they mean "is available on every other mobile phone that's been around for years, but can't be found on the Iphone". Since the Iphone gets so much hype despite lacking these basic features, you can't blame them for making a dig ;) (Though I do worry that consumer perception is being changed by this marketing, making them think that things like Internet access and video recording are new - but again, you've got Apple to blame for that too.)
What's next? Broadcast TV? True SMTP email? Intuitive UIs?
I look forward to copy/paste, MMS, tethering, and maybe there's this new fangled Java in the works too?
1. http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Battle_of_the_Somme.htm clearly states it was in WW1. I'm not sure why that shows up in their WW2 list, but that looks to be some kind of index, possibly based on the fact that WW2 is mentioned as a "related" subject. Even if it is a blooper, it's an indexing mistake, and it's incorrect to claim they "have the Battle of the Somme taking place during World War II" when the article explicitly does not state that.
2,3. Not covering everything you consider important makes it total crap? (Wikipedia does have an article on it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk - FWIW, not sure why they didn't select it too.)
4. Again, that it doesn't cover everything doesn't equate to "total crap" to me. And issues such as relative importance of what should be covered, and factors in WW2, sound very much to be something that there will be differing opinions. Why should I take the opinion of an anonymous poster on Slashdot as authoritative? I mean:
The great American lesson of WWII is that self reliant industrial capacity wins wars and if any lesson about the war is relevant to the USA today, it is that one.
Is it? Says who? (Also remember that Wikipedia is an international project, so it is not solely concerned with looking at things from an American viewpoint - though I admit that may be something that is disliked, because people tend to prefer teaching versions focused on their own country. Similarly here in the UK, where the history that is taught is almost entirely focused on British history.)
5. Whatever the sexuality of certain Nazis (sources?), there is plenty of evidence regarding their treatment of homosexuals, e.g., in concentration camps (which bit are you referring to when you say "the argument that the Nazis were more anti-gay than anti-jewish").
Possibly you mean "Wikischools is total crap, because of one indexing blooper, and the rest of it doesn't fit into my personal viewpoint of what I think is important".
Yes, but in that sense the question of "What was the first netbook?" is no longer a question of technology, but one of marketing, because it's then down to who was first to use that term. It would be like asking "What was the first notebook?" and then ignoring laptops on the grounds they weren't the first to use the term "notebook".
Yes, since the term "netbook" was only popularised with the advent of cheap devices, it's reasonable to consider it part of the definition.
However, that's not necessarily a definition everyone agrees with - you also have to be careful of biasing the result (devices which are "first" will often have been released before a common term for the device became popular - precisely because they were first). So I think it's still interesting to ask "What was the first computer that was as small as today's netbooks, and offered wireless Internet access?" - regardless of cost.
This is like people claiming that CDTVs were the first convergence of games consoles, TV, optical disc players, stereo/surround sound, and front room hi-fi entertainment centres. ... that the playstation 2 etc. really started to make that market.
It's also just like people claiming that Playstations 2 did it first.
I can't say I've heard a common argument that the CDTV did things first (except in response to someone claiming something else did it first, at a later date - e.g., "Imacs were the first to drop floppy disks!"). The point is that a lot of "firsts" when it comes to vague concepts like convergence, or netbooks, are ill-defined.
Now the CDTV wasn't first, because at least the CDi came out before it (I think?). But the rest of your arguments don't make sense - if we're talking about what was first, it doesn't matter if a device was poorly marketed or not very good (I remember how the people in Amiga community themselves generally seemed to dislike the CDTV). Similarly it doesn't matter whether it "kicked off" anything. A classification of "First, except for things that were 'too early'" isn't a very well-defined category at all...
And I also fail to see how this is like the netbook issue at all - the OP put forward the reasonable claim that being cheap was a fundamental part of the definition of the "netbook", which doesn't relate to your criticisms of the CDTV.
Yeah, if your computer is ever stolen, the thief will get shitty customer service from Alienware. That'll show him, and make him think twice about doing it again!
No, but it is a contract, and contracts are enforced by law.
Only if he really agrees with it. Which is dubious in EULs generally, but in the case of a sale, it's especially unlikely that the new buyer agreed to the original EULs.
(Replying to this post means you agree to pay me $1000, btw.)
Building a new one entirely from scratch, maybe. But when it comes to a failure in a component, or wanting to upgrade the motherboard, it's an awful lot cheaper to just replace the required bits, rather than having to buy a complete new machine.
as is increasingly the case where people use Wikipedia as an authoritative source for information, for example.
Yeah that's right, an article with references couldn't possibly be trusted if it's on Wikipedia, but we'll trust everything from the media, blogs, and random commenters on a forum without question...
Bottom line: how does Mr. Paget know that his laptop isn't stolen merchandise?
What has this speculation got to do with anything?
Whether or not it is really stolen, I fail to see how Alienware can know this - computers don't have an identification number (he even later states in his blog that he was unable to send them the warranty number). So this looks to be a blanket response. It's unclear why they would care - yes, car manufacturers may have a legal obligation to report theft, but neither they nor Alienware have any legal obligation to not deal with any customer who may conceivably have stolen the product.
You can connect to the mobile network from OS X already with either a 3G phone that supports bluetooth or a dongle.
Just so long as your phone isn't an Iphone, of course ;)
Note, with phones and netbooks, the contract offers typically involve you getting it for free (at least, here in the UK). If you pay for the device, you don't have any strings attached. Whilst admittedly it is a problem with phones that there's less choice on Pay As You Go, there are loads of netbooks available without conditions (indeed, it seems more the other way round - most netbooks are just sold like normal laptops, and only a few allow you to get them as part of a contract).
Although given Apple's Iphone, it wouldn't surpise me if they expect people to both pay for the machine, and then sign into a contract...
Heh :) Well although it seems barmy, I think this follows from the greater complexities of software compared with food (I'm talking about the limit of liability / advertising what the product's intended use is - I think that EULAs OTOH are stupid and are unenforcable, but that's a different debate; and yes, it should be that descriptions of intended use should be presented on the packaging, and not just inside the box when you install).
As I say in another comment, I think it's like the "May Contain Nuts" issue - when faced with a liability issue that was difficult for them to deal with, the food industry did respond with a blanket "We can't guarantee anything at all". So I'd argue there is no fundamental difference here, it's just that software is more likely to have these difficult problems.
(Although I agree that it's better that "May Contain Nuts" is put on the packaging, rather than coming in the form of a contract hidden inside, that you have to sign in order to eat it...)
As a number of people pointed out, there are exceptions to this. Basically, laws can restrict what types of agreements can be entered into. The most extreme example of this is that you can't enter into a contract to be a slave. A less extreme example would be a law that voids all "no warranty" clauses of software licenses.
I never claimed otherwise. Can you give me an example which would void "This software can only be used for XYZ"? And why non-edible substances aren't held to the same standard (i.e., you can't sue someone for eating something that wasn't labelled as food)?
What if it's loss of data? Besides, time is worth money, too.
TFA talks about malware - the primary fault is the illegal actions committed by malware. Whether a car manufacturer is liable for someone stealing from the car isn't clear (same with whether house builders are liable for a burglar) (other than issues where say things that claim to work don't work, such as a lock not working). And there have to be reasonable limits - should a car manufacturer be 100% liable because your priceless ming vase got stolen?
Part of the problem here is that things that are considered acceptable in a physical product are seen as "security flaws" in software. Personally I'd say it's a security flaw that someone can smash the windscreen, but we accept that as a risk. And software is immensely more complex when it comes to security issues. Both software developers and car manufacturers try to come up with new ways to prevent illegal acts on their product, but it's not clear to me that either is liable if someone gets round it - unless they advertised it as an "anti-theft/malware" device, and it didn't work. Which car manufacturers tend to, but software developers could always not mention them, or state that they aren't intended for use.
It's a bit similar to "May Contain Nuts" - faced with the problem that they were liable for unexpected nuts, but being unable to guarantee them not being there, we end up with large numbers of products saying "May Contain Nuts". The complexities of software suggest that we'll see the same thing happening there - "This product may crash or delete your data". Except for software where you pay at least ten times the price for it.
And if for some reason a court decides this isn't good enough (which, imo means holding software to a higher standard than physical products), then expect to see "This software cannot be sold/used in Europe", or for the cost of software to go rapidly up, and development times to slow, as far more effort is invested in fixing security issues, bugs, and Q/A rather than developing new features. Is that what the market wants?
A car breaking down because of a faulty design is quite another. You can sue in the latter case but not the former.
But there has to be a reasonable limit to liability. If I put something in the cloakroom of a nightclub and it gets stolen, I might have some claim from the owners for letting it get stolen. If I put my priceless ming vase in there however, it seems far less reasonable that they pay the price for it - anyone reasonable would say I was stupid to put it there in the first place if I wasn't willing to accept the risk.
And the next step after that will be to ban computer games where you pretend to play a paintballer...
Actually though, there have been calls to ban computer games too ("other ideas include a violence quota for television"). All in the name of "parents of victims" - never underestimate the political power of a grieving parent. I've seen it happen here in the UK too. It seems like if someone you know dies, you get national media attention for whatever political cause you want to lobby for. Personally I think it's sick to use a murdered person's name in order to push your own political agenda - if I should get murdered, I hope no one ever dares try to use my name.
What I want to know though is does this ban on paintballing also cover water pistols - I mean, does this image from Doctor Who not "trivialise violence"???
they are locking down on guns
Actually I think some real batshittery is that whilst actual guns merely get some greater controls on access to them, paintballing on the other hand gets an outright ban!
(I'm not saying whether the extra controls on guns are right or wrong, I just think this case exemplifies the way that role-playing and simulation are not only scapegoated as a cause, but sometimes treated worse than the things which can actually kill.)
you can sue a soup kitchen if it gives you food poisoning.
But equally, people should be free to say what use their product is intended for. You can sue someone if they sell you food, you can't sue someone if they sell you some substance, and you decide to eat it (especially if it has warnings not to eat it).
The GPL states (similarly to most licences):
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
If this isn't enough for a new law, then expect to see many software developers using a licence that states "This software should not be used for commerical purposes" or even "at all [except perhaps for a few limited, restricted uses]".
I also fail to see how causing injury is comparable to alleged liability of Microsoft - there Windows did not in itself cause damage, the problem is loss caused by downtime. It's the difference between a car blowing up in your face, and a car not working so you miss an important meeting. (And if you take a car and drive it into the sea, you don't get to sue no matter how annoying the results are to you.)
There may well be a market for software that does allow liabilities for loss (i.e., they say it is intended to be used commercially). Expect to pay at least ten times the price for it.
So you think that torrent search engines shouldn't be allowed, or should be subject to a higher standard? Consider, what if I want to run a legal torrent search engine - how can I do so? The fact that most people might use bittorrent for copyright infringement isn't relevant to my question here, because my interest is in running a legal one. Why should I be held to a different standard to Google?
What if I have a torrent search engine that also implements some basic search of web pages, is that enough to get round any additional restrictions? You see, I'm not sure that having a different standard for Google and torrent search engines is workable.
Fair enough, but as I said "I don't think anyone would deny that bittorrent is mainly used for copyright infringement".
(If I cared about Lost, I might download it - the same episodes incidentally that I'm already paying for it via my cable fees.)
FWIW, I agree that Mininova shouldn't be made to filter their content, but how do you expect the **AA to listen when so many of the for-Net -Neutrality crowd are openly stating that they won't use Mininova because they don't give access to unlicensed media any more?
Well we both disagree with the filtering, so a valid reponse to that might be to not use their site as a matter of principle - you mean that we should keep quiet about this, and we aren't allowed to protest openly against filtering?
That something may be called ethical doesn't make it permissible
Another straw man - at least, if you mean "permissible" in a legal sense, it obviously isn't; in an ethical sense, that is what is under debate. The point is that those people commenting on the post have every right to express their ethical view, just as you are expressing your view here. This is not "proving the RIAA / MPAA right", as the OP claimed.
but it doesn't entitle a person to flaunt it simply because they feel like it.
I hope you don't own an mp3 player then, or maybe you are lucky to live in a better country than I.
It's really quite tiring. It's just a different version of the 15 year-old brat complaining that the car she's being offered to replace her Toyota is a $40,000 Lexus instead of the $77,000 E-Class she demanded.
Another straw man. By "different version", you mean "different argument".
If I say that Google shouldn't have to actively search out and filter content (which they don't, nor do they have to by US law), does that mean Google is predominantly used for copyright infringement? I don't think so.
Your argument is a straw man anyway. I don't think anyone would deny that bittorrent is mainly used for copyright infringement, but the issues are whether search engines should be liable. Also consider that even though something is copyright infringement by law doesn't mean it is unethical - e.g., someone downloading something they already bought in another format, or a BBC licence payer in the UK downloading BBC produced content, and another example would be using it as a form of timeshifting, downloading a show you just missed on TV you pay for. Consider, in the UK it's copyright infringement to copy a CD you've bought onto your own mp3 player. So it would be accurate to say that "MP3 players are used almost entirely for copyright infringement" - however that's not really a fair statement, and doesn't mean people are downloading things they haven't paid for.
Oops, I mean "Well I'm curious what the law is in wherever-it-is-that-Mininova is hosted" of course.
After all, if you've pledged allegiance to a nation under God, and then it turns evil, it's not really under God any more, so you've got an escape clause.
This isn't D&D where an alignment change is obvious. Typically regimes or religious people that go corrupt or "evil" will still believe they have "God" on their side. Indeed, their belief of being "under God" can allow them to justify such acts.
Consider WW2, generally seen as a just war - do you think that the Germans and Japanese weren't praying to God too?
Currently mininova - knowing full well the reason why people use their site - simply go by the strict laws.. if a copyright holder / representative tells them they're hosting particular copyrighted content, they'll take it down.
Well I'm curious what the law is in wherever-it-is-that-Mininova is filtered?
In the US, responding to takedown notices is all that's required, and there is no obligation ("good faith" or otherwise) to do more. My understanding is that the problem with TPB was that they didn't respond to takedown notices (can anyone confirm?)
Furthermore, installing filtering software may run the risk of them being more liable, as they surely give up any claim of being a "common carrier".
I would be extremely worried if Mininova were found guilty for not actively filtering, even when they responded to takedown notices. Consider, how would one hypothetically run a legal bittorrent search engine (because there are at least a few legal bittorrents out there)? Would a bittorrent search engine be illegal simply because they fail to remove the link to copyrighted information even without a takedown notice? How does that make them any different to Google (not to mention ISPs and other hosts that make host actual copyrighted material, and not merely links to them)?
So one intentional act of vandalism means that Wikipedia as a whole is unreliable? The irony here is great - Wikipedia is criticised for a single such case, yet we accept opinion as fact from people posting anonymously on a forum here.
That's what gets to me here, the fact that it was intentionally done by a vandal. It's no different to someone feeding misinformation to the media, or getting a job at Britannica and slipping in a single error. In any other case, it would be a clear case that the vandal was being an arse. But here, it's used to jump on the anti-Wikipedia band wagon.
How many sources are there that are more reliable than Wikipedia? And how many to the extent that Wikipedia is reasonably seen as considerably untrustworthy in comparison? How many of these sources are free? (Note, I use "source" in the broad sense of including tertiary sources, because Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, nor does it claim to be.)
Btw, I do hope you never ever trust the media. They have errors too, both on their own, and in that they cite the entirely unreliable Wikipedia.
Which also means, you shouldn't trust this story either! Hah - how can you prove it's true? We can't trust the media. By your same reasoning, "phony media article" is a tautology too.
millions of blogs that cite it
And how many reliable sources did your comment cite? Please provide references from Britannica, otherwise I obviously can't believe a word you say.