How is private copying any more similar to plagiarism than, say, elephant hunting?
There's absolutely nothing dishonest about ignoring copyright. No one was ever hassled for copying cassette tapes, why should the internet be different?
The reason Stanford, and everyone else, should block these attempts is that private copying has always been below the notice of copyright law, and it should stay that way.
It was good of him to admit he didn't understand. However, at that point he should have recused himself, and probably retired completely, or at least taken a leave of absence for remedial education.
They don't have safe haven protections because they are involved in shaping the content. That doesn't necessarily mean the content is actually illegal, just that the case can go forth.
The fair housing groups are going after landlords not people looking for roommates. Craigslist was sued because it allowed ads from landlords specifying gender and religion.
Especially with regard to monopolies, or near monopolies. Ebay has no serious competition, because it controls the marketplace. Thus, it is not subject to the normal rules of capitalism and should be subject to regulation.
Radio has only survived by broadcasting into cars, where people want a simple, free, no management music stream that doesn't impact their ability to drive. TV can't do that.
Of the people I know close to my age (twentysomethings), none of them subscribe to cable/satellite television. A good percentage of them don't even *own* televisions. Of the people I know close to my parents age (late fourties to fifties) all of them do.
Now, one could argue that economics might play a factor, but it's a small one at most. There's a fair mix of income levels between the two groups. The elder group always finds money to pay for cable/satellite, but the younger group tends not to start subscribing when they reach a higher income level. The younger group is also much more sensitive to advertisement, and more likely to take measures to remove it.
With bittorrent sharing of advertising stripped tv shows easily accessible, I don't see and advertising supported method surviving very long. Complete collapse of the large scale studio system is almost inevitable if they don't get their act together and compete with, or at least match the features available for free on the net.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I rarely run into poor phone etiquette that extreme. When I do, it's fairly simple to just take them aside and explain polite phone behaviour to them.
I've never gotten a "Where are yoooooou" message, unless I'm not somewhere I'm supposed to be, and in that case I've usually called them to let them know what's happening.
I'd always thought the "Canadians are more polite" thing was a myth.
I make it clear that I answer and return calls at my own convenience. I almost never answer my cell phone if I'm physically with other people, because they get first priority. If they want a call back, they can leave a message. If it's important, they can send me a text message telling so. Otherwise, I assume it can just wait until the next time I see them.
Technology, like everything else, can only control you if you choose to allow it to.
We're no longer forced to socialize only with those in close proximity to me. I don't like my neighbours. I don't particularity want to socialize with them. They're fine people and I occasionally chat with them, but we have nothing in common aside from location, and they aren't terribly interesting.
We can reach anyone anywhere who wants to be contacted with our cellphones.
When you don't want to be contacted, turn it off. When someone you don't want contacting you calls, hit the ignore button, or ban them on your phone. It isn't that hard.
They're being purposely disingenuous. If they were honest about their reasons for wanting to occupy Iraq (securing oil), we could have an informed discussion on the merits of their position.
That's not what they're doing. They're using buzzwords intended to invoke an emotional response in support of their position.
Slashdot Mirror
Responding risks having your personal identification sent to the RIAA, who will then challenge you to a trial by wealth.
Whether guilty or not, the RIAA will challenge the student to trial-by-wealth.
Stanford should be *ignoring* the DMCA notices, pointing out that they're just an ISP.
How is private copying any more similar to plagiarism than, say, elephant hunting?
There's absolutely nothing dishonest about ignoring copyright. No one was ever hassled for copying cassette tapes, why should the internet be different?
The reason Stanford, and everyone else, should block these attempts is that private copying has always been below the notice of copyright law, and it should stay that way.
They would simply tell the RIAA to get bent.
Everyone violates copyright on internet. That's what it's for.
People shouldn't have to deal with furries and paedophiles at work.
We still have problem tenants, they're just under a different landlord. Shifting a problem does not solve it. NIMBYism is never a good social policy.
It was good of him to admit he didn't understand. However, at that point he should have recused himself, and probably retired completely, or at least taken a leave of absence for remedial education.
They don't have safe haven protections because they are involved in shaping the content. That doesn't necessarily mean the content is actually illegal, just that the case can go forth.
They're renting it.
Removing someone from their home should be an extremely difficult task, regardless of the reason.
The fair housing groups are going after landlords not people looking for roommates. Craigslist was sued because it allowed ads from landlords specifying gender and religion.
Why? As a straight man, I'd be more comfortable in general living with a lesbian than a straight woman I didn't want to get involved with.
You don't have to live with a tenant.
Especially with regard to monopolies, or near monopolies. Ebay has no serious competition, because it controls the marketplace. Thus, it is not subject to the normal rules of capitalism and should be subject to regulation.
Radio has only survived by broadcasting into cars, where people want a simple, free, no management music stream that doesn't impact their ability to drive. TV can't do that.
Of the people I know close to my age (twentysomethings), none of them subscribe to cable/satellite television. A good percentage of them don't even *own* televisions. Of the people I know close to my parents age (late fourties to fifties) all of them do.
Now, one could argue that economics might play a factor, but it's a small one at most. There's a fair mix of income levels between the two groups. The elder group always finds money to pay for cable/satellite, but the younger group tends not to start subscribing when they reach a higher income level. The younger group is also much more sensitive to advertisement, and more likely to take measures to remove it.
With bittorrent sharing of advertising stripped tv shows easily accessible, I don't see and advertising supported method surviving very long. Complete collapse of the large scale studio system is almost inevitable if they don't get their act together and compete with, or at least match the features available for free on the net.
If you have to bitch and moan just because your cable is out. Do something else.
I think of this as scotch tape.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I rarely run into poor phone etiquette that extreme. When I do, it's fairly simple to just take them aside and explain polite phone behaviour to them.
I've never gotten a "Where are yoooooou" message, unless I'm not somewhere I'm supposed to be, and in that case I've usually called them to let them know what's happening.
I'd always thought the "Canadians are more polite" thing was a myth.
I make it clear that I answer and return calls at my own convenience. I almost never answer my cell phone if I'm physically with other people, because they get first priority. If they want a call back, they can leave a message. If it's important, they can send me a text message telling so. Otherwise, I assume it can just wait until the next time I see them.
Technology, like everything else, can only control you if you choose to allow it to.
The Amish can get away with it now, but I imagine there will come a time were depriving children of technology will be considered abuse.
We're no longer forced to socialize only with those in close proximity to me. I don't like my neighbours. I don't particularity want to socialize with them. They're fine people and I occasionally chat with them, but we have nothing in common aside from location, and they aren't terribly interesting.
We can reach anyone anywhere who wants to be contacted with our cellphones.
When you don't want to be contacted, turn it off. When someone you don't want contacting you calls, hit the ignore button, or ban them on your phone. It isn't that hard.
They're being purposely disingenuous. If they were honest about their reasons for wanting to occupy Iraq (securing oil), we could have an informed discussion on the merits of their position.
That's not what they're doing. They're using buzzwords intended to invoke an emotional response in support of their position.