Napster's and buymusic's DRM restrictions are the exact same. They both use Microsoft's WMA DRM, and the companies do not decide the restrictions in WMA, Microsoft does.
I'm personally of the opinion that the P2P networks are simply a slimjim for copyrighted works.
First of all, a slimjim has a VERY narrow use. A slimjim is used for unlocking car doors, and that's it. P2P networks on the other hand do have substantial non-infringing use, even if that is not what they are used for. Freenet for instance can be used by people in free-speech restricted countries to express what they have to say. The kazza people have made a p2p network to make VoIP calls. Second, the point is moot anyway. File trading networks can never be shut down. It would be virtually impossible to shut down Gnutella or Edonkey, and something like a WASTE network or a private Direct Connect hub is invisible unless you are invited. Lastly, do you really want to live in a world where a person can be prosecuted for writing a certain type of software? I know I don't.
From:reference.com theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny.
Your definition of theft is a bit off. You have the right to believe that copyright infringement is the most heinous of crimes if you wish, but theft it just ain't. To constitute theft, someone has to be deprived of property. With Copyright infringement, that clearly does not take place. That's really all there is to it. Coyright infringement is not theft by definition, so get ov
and if you'd actully paid attention to the parent I was replying to you would of noticed that I was refering to Musicrevolution.com and not AllofMP3.com as you beleived.
No, you really can't. I went and looked and they seem to charge 90 cents a song, which in case you where unaware, isn't 10 but an entierly different and all together larger number. Practicing a bit of guerilla marketing are we?
err....they never did. In the 3d era, Matrox's best card(for gaming)was the rage fury MAXX, and it was too little, too late. Matrox has been all about the buiesness side of things, they have pretty much ignored gaming since the advent of 3d acceleration, which has cost them quite a bit. Oh, and no one refers to cards by their "bit" number.
It's not moral. it's not immoral either. Copyright infringement is what legal folk call a mal prohibita law, meaning that the government prohibits it, but it is not inherently wrong. Laws like theft are what I believe are called mal in se, meaning that every right thinking human being belives the act to be wrong(murder,mayhem,rape,robbery,arson). All societies on earth have had laws against all the things I mentioned. but civilizations differ greatly when it comes to mal prohibita laws. in some cultures I would imagine, it would be illegal to not give away your music for free.
The first amendment bans Congress from ESTABLISHING a state religion. It says nothing about seperation of church and state.
How come everytime someone makes this argument they only quote the first part of the sentence? Here is the whole thing: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Taken as a whole, it has been interpeted to mean that the state endorsing one religon over another infinges upon the free exersise of religon for all.
What I don't like are judges who make law. The judiciary is unlelected, and serves for life
I don't like judges serving for life either, or being unelected for that matter(I do not look forward to a bush Supreme court appointee. Talk about being unelected....). But thems the rules we play by(the constitution and all that). When a judge makes a ruling on the fairness of a law, he has to interpret what that laws is supposed to do, and how it juxtaposes aganist the constitution and the bill of rights. This is what judges are supposed to do. It allows the laws of our country to progress and stay relevant to the time while staying within the bounds of the constituition. If that is what you call "judges making law", fine, but the point is that you seem to only have a problem with it when the judge makes a law that you disagree with.
I find it fascinating that you would leave out Judge Roy Moore(the 10 commandments idiot). Or is our legal system only fucked up when they dissagree with your conservative views?
Government intervention in industry should be limited to safety and creating an environment conductive to competitive business
Of course, when it comes to human beings, the gloves are off! Goverment intervention everywhere!! Gays? well, the goverment clearly has to intervine there. I mean, they're the same sex!!! We can't have people doing things that that. That's horrible. We should probably 'intervine' by throwing them in guantanamo bay without access to council or due process. That's the kinda intervention they need. Same with them muslims. and war protesters. and democrats. and file-traders. and definitly anyone that dosen't agree with our Glorious Leader. But getting back to Industry, I once again agree 100% . Industry dosen't need 'Goverment intervention'. They just need an environment conductive to competitive business. After all, I know that my life's goal is to insure that giant multi-conglerates have just such an enviroment. That's what life's all about.
Something that hasen't been talked about much here is the impact this will have on future intellectual property litagation. There is a rather funny article here on the subject, dealing with a dictionary company suing people for using the english language,(and of course microsoft liscening it to support IP rights) but the point is very serious. If SCO can do this kinda stuff with no legal backing what so ever and still cause major havoc, imagine what would happen if a company actully did have a legal leg to stand on. Ip laws are legal time bombs, and they need to be looked at carefuly.
I would like to state for the record that NO ONE who lives here says "frisco". In fact, while we are known for our nice and downright peaceful ways, we will open a huge can of wupass on anyone who dares mention the word inside the greater bay area. Thank you for your time.
umm..your time periods are complety wack. by the time of 3dmark 2000 geforce 2's and voodoo 5's where the order of the day. and comparing a voodoo 3 vs. a tnt 1 isn't fair. they came out at 2 seprate times and where 2 diferent generations. besides, frame rates aren't everything. 32 bit color is better looking. THAT is why it was required in the benchmark. if you want the fastest framerates run in 640X480. you had the option of running in 16 bit color anyway.
The 3dfx 3dmark2000 issue was completely diffrent. At the time time most games did have support for 32 bit color(and could be impelemented with little to no performace hit on nvidia cards no less), and the fact that 3dfx lacked it was a major disatvantage in 3dfx cards and they deserved to be docked for it.
This current situation isn't about the geforce4 at all. Nvidia dosen't care that it performs badly in it, as it is supposedly a directx 9 benchmark, and the geforce 4 is not a directx 9 part. What nivida is upset about is that their brand new part, the FX(a DX9 part) only perfoms to parity against the 9700 pro which is 6 month old card. So the real question is,does nvidia have a point? IMO, not really. while I agreem that 3dmark 2003 has some strange rendering techniques, and that they are probably biased towards the 9700, it wouldn't of happened if nvidia haden't dropped it's 3dmark subscrition, which they did becuase no matter what, they couldn't make the FX beat the 9700 by any particularly great margin. The only way to save face was to drop the subscription and cry foul. Does that make 3dmark2003 any more legit? Nope. But it does explain why nvidia is so pissed off. Their new part just isn't up to snuff.
"If you trade freedom for security, you'll get neither." - Benjamin Franklin
That's the most botched version of that oft quoted quote I've seen yet. Your version makes it sound like either a dictate or a prediction, when in fact it is neither. The quote is, " Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". I realize this post is off topic, but I don't care. That quote is very relevant to our current political situation, and to see people mangling it, or throwing it around at the slightest opportunity in some failed attempt to show how bright they are really pisses me off.
Did you just call U.S News and world report a LIBERAL media outlet? If you sis, you've clearly never read it. It's about as liberal magazine as "Alan Keys is making sense" is a liberal telivison slow.
I'm not saying that they can't send out massive ammounts of spam, in fact they proabably will, based on the logic you just described. While this may influence a small portion of people, it will piss off a hell of alot more. basicly, I was saying not that they won't, but they shouldn't, if they know whats good for their buisness in the long run.
In general I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as a symptom of the way the internet has changed business, and business not keeping up. Perhaps worse was a bad choice of words, but piracy will certainly get more prolific, as filesharing and the internet in general gains more users. I don't think this is a bad thing. I hope that it forces the entertainment moguls and the software publishers to think in a new way, and make these things more accessible to all.
When are they going to realize that this kinda thing dosen't stop piracy? Millions, if not billions of pirated files get downloaded every month. Are they going to send all these millions of people threatening emails? Are they gonna get the peoples isp's to disconnect them? All I see this doing is pissing people off. Piracy has always been around, and it's only gonna get worse. They need to find ways to work with the way the world is now, instead of trying to keep their archaic business models. Doing that only loses them money.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster's and buymusic's DRM restrictions are the exact same. They both use Microsoft's WMA DRM, and the companies do not decide the restrictions in WMA, Microsoft does.
First of all, a slimjim has a VERY narrow use. A slimjim is used for unlocking car doors, and that's it. P2P networks on the other hand do have substantial non-infringing use, even if that is not what they are used for. Freenet for instance can be used by people in free-speech restricted countries to express what they have to say. The kazza people have made a p2p network to make VoIP calls. Second, the point is moot anyway. File trading networks can never be shut down. It would be virtually impossible to shut down Gnutella or Edonkey, and something like a WASTE network or a private Direct Connect hub is invisible unless you are invited. Lastly, do you really want to live in a world where a person can be prosecuted for writing a certain type of software? I know I don't.
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny.
Your definition of theft is a bit off. You have the right to believe that copyright infringement is the most heinous of crimes if you wish, but theft it just ain't. To constitute theft, someone has to be deprived of property. With Copyright infringement, that clearly does not take place. That's really all there is to it. Coyright infringement is not theft by definition, so get ov
and if you'd actully paid attention to the parent I was replying to you would of noticed that I was refering to Musicrevolution.com and not AllofMP3.com as you beleived.
No, you really can't. I went and looked and they seem to charge 90 cents a song, which in case you where unaware, isn't 10 but an entierly different and all together larger number. Practicing a bit of guerilla marketing are we?
Yes, thank you that is correct, I meant the g400 MAX.
err....they never did. In the 3d era, Matrox's best card(for gaming)was the rage fury MAXX, and it was too little, too late. Matrox has been all about the buiesness side of things, they have pretty much ignored gaming since the advent of 3d acceleration, which has cost them quite a bit. Oh, and no one refers to cards by their "bit" number.
out of curiosity, what does the postive law theory state?
It's not moral. it's not immoral either. Copyright infringement is what legal folk call a mal prohibita law, meaning that the government prohibits it, but it is not inherently wrong. Laws like theft are what I believe are called mal in se, meaning that every right thinking human being belives the act to be wrong(murder,mayhem,rape,robbery,arson). All societies on earth have had laws against all the things I mentioned. but civilizations differ greatly when it comes to mal prohibita laws. in some cultures I would imagine, it would be illegal to not give away your music for free.
What I don't like are judges who make law. The judiciary is unlelected, and serves for life
I don't like judges serving for life either, or being unelected for that matter(I do not look forward to a bush Supreme court appointee. Talk about being unelected....). But thems the rules we play by(the constitution and all that). When a judge makes a ruling on the fairness of a law, he has to interpret what that laws is supposed to do, and how it juxtaposes aganist the constitution and the bill of rights. This is what judges are supposed to do. It allows the laws of our country to progress and stay relevant to the time while staying within the bounds of the constituition. If that is what you call "judges making law", fine, but the point is that you seem to only have a problem with it when the judge makes a law that you disagree with.
I find it fascinating that you would leave out Judge Roy Moore(the 10 commandments idiot). Or is our legal system only fucked up when they dissagree with your conservative views?
Of course, when it comes to human beings, the gloves are off! Goverment intervention everywhere!! Gays? well, the goverment clearly has to intervine there. I mean, they're the same sex!!! We can't have people doing things that that. That's horrible. We should probably 'intervine' by throwing them in guantanamo bay without access to council or due process. That's the kinda intervention they need. Same with them muslims. and war protesters. and democrats. and file-traders. and definitly anyone that dosen't agree with our Glorious Leader. But getting back to Industry, I once again agree 100% . Industry dosen't need 'Goverment intervention'. They just need an environment conductive to competitive business. After all, I know that my life's goal is to insure that giant multi-conglerates have just such an enviroment. That's what life's all about.
No. He wass the sponsor behind the DMCA.He did support napster(kinda), but he has obvoiulsy reconsidered that postion.
Something that hasen't been talked about much here is the impact this will have on future intellectual property litagation. There is a rather funny article here on the subject, dealing with a dictionary company suing people for using the english language,(and of course microsoft liscening it to support IP rights) but the point is very serious. If SCO can do this kinda stuff with no legal backing what so ever and still cause major havoc, imagine what would happen if a company actully did have a legal leg to stand on. Ip laws are legal time bombs, and they need to be looked at carefuly.
actully, Nuetella contains very little chocalate, it is mostly nutmeg.
I would like to state for the record that NO ONE who lives here says "frisco". In fact, while we are known for our nice and downright peaceful ways, we will open a huge can of wupass on anyone who dares mention the word inside the greater bay area. Thank you for your time.
Not to be anal, but a gold record is 500,000.
umm..your time periods are complety wack. by the time of 3dmark 2000 geforce 2's and voodoo 5's where the order of the day. and comparing a voodoo 3 vs. a tnt 1 isn't fair. they came out at 2 seprate times and where 2 diferent generations. besides, frame rates aren't everything. 32 bit color is better looking. THAT is why it was required in the benchmark. if you want the fastest framerates run in 640X480. you had the option of running in 16 bit color anyway.
The 3dfx 3dmark2000 issue was completely diffrent. At the time time most games did have support for 32 bit color(and could be impelemented with little to no performace hit on nvidia cards no less), and the fact that 3dfx lacked it was a major disatvantage in 3dfx cards and they deserved to be docked for it. This current situation isn't about the geforce4 at all. Nvidia dosen't care that it performs badly in it, as it is supposedly a directx 9 benchmark, and the geforce 4 is not a directx 9 part. What nivida is upset about is that their brand new part, the FX(a DX9 part) only perfoms to parity against the 9700 pro which is 6 month old card. So the real question is,does nvidia have a point? IMO, not really. while I agreem that 3dmark 2003 has some strange rendering techniques, and that they are probably biased towards the 9700, it wouldn't of happened if nvidia haden't dropped it's 3dmark subscrition, which they did becuase no matter what, they couldn't make the FX beat the 9700 by any particularly great margin. The only way to save face was to drop the subscription and cry foul. Does that make 3dmark2003 any more legit? Nope. But it does explain why nvidia is so pissed off. Their new part just isn't up to snuff.
That's the most botched version of that oft quoted quote I've seen yet. Your version makes it sound like either a dictate or a prediction, when in fact it is neither. The quote is, " Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". I realize this post is off topic, but I don't care. That quote is very relevant to our current political situation, and to see people mangling it, or throwing it around at the slightest opportunity in some failed attempt to show how bright they are really pisses me off.
Did you just call U.S News and world report a LIBERAL media outlet? If you sis, you've clearly never read it. It's about as liberal magazine as "Alan Keys is making sense" is a liberal telivison slow.
I'm not saying that they can't send out massive ammounts of spam, in fact they proabably will, based on the logic you just described. While this may influence a small portion of people, it will piss off a hell of alot more. basicly, I was saying not that they won't, but they shouldn't, if they know whats good for their buisness in the long run.
In general I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as a symptom of the way the internet has changed business, and business not keeping up. Perhaps worse was a bad choice of words, but piracy will certainly get more prolific, as filesharing and the internet in general gains more users. I don't think this is a bad thing. I hope that it forces the entertainment moguls and the software publishers to think in a new way, and make these things more accessible to all.
When are they going to realize that this kinda thing dosen't stop piracy? Millions, if not billions of pirated files get downloaded every month. Are they going to send all these millions of people threatening emails? Are they gonna get the peoples isp's to disconnect them? All I see this doing is pissing people off. Piracy has always been around, and it's only gonna get worse. They need to find ways to work with the way the world is now, instead of trying to keep their archaic business models. Doing that only loses them money.
the last word is make. a criminal on the make is a phrase that makes sense, and it rhymes with stake.