It's not about convenience, it's about that it is morally impossible to sign away fair use rights. It's like selling oneself into slavery--it's legal in some parts of the world, but if someone does it, then runs away, he's not acting immorally.
You're mixing government regulations with contracts, and muddying the water. Bottom line is that I'm morally justified to break it, and you believe otherwise.
The sell music reasonable or die dichotomy was meant to apply to the music industry, not to Apple. Reading over what I posted, I see I could have made that less ambiguous.
A car is different. I don't get asked to sign away constitutional rights such as fair use when buying a car. And there is no way Apple would really negotiate, so the contract remains a one-sided Diktat that I would feel morally free to break.
And people talk about how Apple's DRM is "kind and gentle." Of course it is--they've got to get the camel's nose underneath the tent and get people thinking that "DRM isn't all that bad" before they start to turn the screws. And I don't buy that "but it's the record industry" crap, either. They're not going to leave money on the table, and for the future, their choices are to sell music online for a reasonable price or die.
What opportunity did those who signed up have to negotiate those terms? Even though some judges have upheld "clickwrap" agreements, there's not much moral argument against breaking an agreement that's a take-it-or-leave it Diktat.
Exactly--I have flashblock installed, but more and more am having to run Flash crap to see content. Fortunately, downloadable versions of the things locked up behind Flash are usually available with a little googling.
Even if someone is using your "email anti-'theft'" product, if I want to forward the information, rest assured I'll do it, even if it means scripting an app to take screen shots of whatever unholy DRM format you're being paid to whore here.
Of course, it all already called home and now you're in the Department of Justice porn file and subject to winning the obscenity prosecution lottery when the theocracy is more solidified.
Just because you happened to use it to avoid paying for the game doesn't mean that the people who were getting together on their own servers using the software they paid for were all committing copyright infringement. Blizzard used an unconstitutional law to persecute an open source project, and they will never see another dime from me. Unfortunately, there are plenty of sheep unwilling to vote against their war on freedom with their wallets.
No they didn't. Just because the server emulation happened to have the side effect of enabling people to play for free doesn't mean that Blizzard had any moral right to shutdown a project that wasn't infringing its precious intellectual property. By your logic, the VCR and any other device "enabling" copyright infringement should be subject to being sued out of existence.
When it was possible to listwash against the BlueFrog list, the Russian v1@gr@ and r013x spammers pounded the people who had opted out with threats and used their names in spoofed From: headers. I assume we can expect the same for this list. What's Michigan going to do? Extradite the Russian mafia?
. . . but at least he's less likely to be an ass and decide he wants to search your vehicle or take you down to the station for further questioning
In other words, as long as you're appropriately subservient to someone who is ostensibly a public servant and impartial enforcer of the law, he's less somewhat less likely to abuse his authority to harass and intimidate you, but there's no guarantee.
If so, that'd mean they are virtualizing the treacherous computing hardware (TPM) and foiling Apple's copy protection. I assume Cupertino's legal thugs would have a problem with that.
I assume then that the Army high command will be the ones holding the endorsement keys that control the software run on it in your scenario. We'll see if that really happens.
If I had points, I'd mod you up. Yes, Apple can get away with what Microsoft does, and people say it's okay because Apple doesn't have a "monopoly." If selling an operating system that's perfectly capable of running on commodity hardware (which is all Macs have been for some time) but requires a $2,000 hardware dongle isn't monopolistic, I don't know what is.
Having to "unlock" it by entering some backdoor code found in a forum means the feature is removed except for those like you that know to go looking. Joe Consumer is without a 30-second skip.
No, punishing his heirs would be seizing their assets, which I am not advocating, even though it's very likely that fraudulent transfers were done before this all blew up to allow him to potentially keep money after paying out judgments had he lived.. Not allowing them to reap the proceeds of a policy purchased with stolen money is not.
Watch out, you'll be modded down by a horde of TiVo apologists who still don't get that they have already sold TiVo owners down the river several times (remember the 30-second skip?) and won't hesitate to again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about convenience, it's about that it is morally impossible to sign away fair use rights. It's like selling oneself into slavery--it's legal in some parts of the world, but if someone does it, then runs away, he's not acting immorally.
You're mixing government regulations with contracts, and muddying the water. Bottom line is that I'm morally justified to break it, and you believe otherwise.
The sell music reasonable or die dichotomy was meant to apply to the music industry, not to Apple. Reading over what I posted, I see I could have made that less ambiguous.
A car is different. I don't get asked to sign away constitutional rights such as fair use when buying a car. And there is no way Apple would really negotiate, so the contract remains a one-sided Diktat that I would feel morally free to break.
And people talk about how Apple's DRM is "kind and gentle." Of course it is--they've got to get the camel's nose underneath the tent and get people thinking that "DRM isn't all that bad" before they start to turn the screws. And I don't buy that "but it's the record industry" crap, either. They're not going to leave money on the table, and for the future, their choices are to sell music online for a reasonable price or die.
What opportunity did those who signed up have to negotiate those terms? Even though some judges have upheld "clickwrap" agreements, there's not much moral argument against breaking an agreement that's a take-it-or-leave it Diktat.
Wow, no DMCA notice, just plain suppressed. Can't say I'm surprised.
Exactly--I have flashblock installed, but more and more am having to run Flash crap to see content. Fortunately, downloadable versions of the things locked up behind Flash are usually available with a little googling.
Even if someone is using your "email anti-'theft'" product, if I want to forward the information, rest assured I'll do it, even if it means scripting an app to take screen shots of whatever unholy DRM format you're being paid to whore here.
Of course, it all already called home and now you're in the Department of Justice porn file and subject to winning the obscenity prosecution lottery when the theocracy is more solidified.
Obviously, that's true, but that doesn't mean I am ever going to give one thin dime to those who use those laws.
Just because you happened to use it to avoid paying for the game doesn't mean that the people who were getting together on their own servers using the software they paid for were all committing copyright infringement. Blizzard used an unconstitutional law to persecute an open source project, and they will never see another dime from me. Unfortunately, there are plenty of sheep unwilling to vote against their war on freedom with their wallets.
No they didn't. Just because the server emulation happened to have the side effect of enabling people to play for free doesn't mean that Blizzard had any moral right to shutdown a project that wasn't infringing its precious intellectual property. By your logic, the VCR and any other device "enabling" copyright infringement should be subject to being sued out of existence.
Remember bnetd, boycott Blizzard/Vivendi.
by bumba
When it was possible to listwash against the BlueFrog list, the Russian v1@gr@ and r013x spammers pounded the people who had opted out with threats and used their names in spoofed From: headers. I assume we can expect the same for this list. What's Michigan going to do? Extradite the Russian mafia?
. . . but at least he's less likely to be an ass and decide he wants to search your vehicle or take you down to the station for further questioning
In other words, as long as you're appropriately subservient to someone who is ostensibly a public servant and impartial enforcer of the law, he's less somewhat less likely to abuse his authority to harass and intimidate you, but there's no guarantee.
Thank you! I don't know why these "web designers" do crap like that.
Site requires Javascript, which I refuse to turn on.
If so, that'd mean they are virtualizing the treacherous computing hardware (TPM) and foiling Apple's copy protection. I assume Cupertino's legal thugs would have a problem with that.
I assume then that the Army high command will be the ones holding the endorsement keys that control the software run on it in your scenario. We'll see if that really happens.
If I had points, I'd mod you up. Yes, Apple can get away with what Microsoft does, and people say it's okay because Apple doesn't have a "monopoly." If selling an operating system that's perfectly capable of running on commodity hardware (which is all Macs have been for some time) but requires a $2,000 hardware dongle isn't monopolistic, I don't know what is.
Having to "unlock" it by entering some backdoor code found in a forum means the feature is removed except for those like you that know to go looking. Joe Consumer is without a 30-second skip.
No, punishing his heirs would be seizing their assets, which I am not advocating, even though it's very likely that fraudulent transfers were done before this all blew up to allow him to potentially keep money after paying out judgments had he lived.. Not allowing them to reap the proceeds of a policy purchased with stolen money is not.
Watch out, you'll be modded down by a horde of TiVo apologists who still don't get that they have already sold TiVo owners down the river several times (remember the 30-second skip?) and won't hesitate to again.