Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that be breaking the DMCA?
No, it would not be. It is common for people on Slashdot to constantly ask a question about breaking the DMCA, and more than 80% of the time, it is not. And even if it were, if there was a subpeona for the information, it would be illegal to break the encryption. You can't hide illegal activities behind the law.
IANAL, but since when does a shareholder have a right to a copy of a copyrighted work that the corporation has purchased? I may own stock in a Company A, but that doesn't mean that it is legal for Company A to make copies of software or other copyrighted content to give out to me.
This sounds really goofy to me. Is there a real lawyer in the house that can give further clarification?
All they can said is that user downloaded the songs, but downloading does not necessarily mean a crime.
IANAL, but I think there is legal precedence that would say it is still illegal, even if you own the CD (think MP3.com). Someone else might be able to speak to this issue. Anyone?
And if you remember the rallying cries of Slashdotters everywhere, "It's just a tool, go after the infringers!", it makes the hypocracy even more evident.
Now that the copyright holders are going after the infringers, the arguments will change again.
Ok, so I didn't realize that this was how they spoke in another country. I love the assumption that because I didn't know the specifics of another dialog, that automatically makes one some ignorant American.
It's also perfectly logical to look at a company as being a single being, so try not to sound so snotty, ok?
... how so many gaming sites use little cartoony type pictures for the authors of the articles? Is it because these people are horribly and hideously scary or what?
Wow, I hadn't thought of that show in many, many years. I read that and immediately the theme music began playing in my head. I couldn't tell you at all what the main character even looked at, but I can sing "Denver, the Last Dinosaur... he's your friend and a whole lot more!" At least, that's how I remember it.
Well, the fact that I've seen this behavior for so long and have commented on it would hint at the fact I am not new here. (duh?)
I'm just wondering how this can happen. Supposedly, you can only moderate after being here a while, so I'm wondering why moderators, who I am sure have seen this kind of post 100 times before on previous cell phone discussions, would moderate the parent post as Insightful? Why not offtopic, since it has nothing to do with the cell phone in question? Why not 'Redundant' because it's been posted a million times before? I guess this is an open question to those who moderated the original post.
Everytime there is any story about some new cell phone, someone has to say something along the lines of "How about you just get me better reception?" or "How about one that can get and keep a connection reliably?". Then, of course, that message must be modded up as "Insightful".
Is there some sort of Slashdot Book of Laws that dictates that these things must happen? Or does everyone just have a short-term memory loss problem?
That's why I've never bought the argument that the reason software (including games) is so expensive is because of piracy. Supposedly, no one can really copy a Gamecube game and play it on a Gamecube (at least yet), but the prices for the games are the same as the XBox, which supposedly has a piracy problem and PS2.
Ah yes, very true. In fact, I see my post is at +1 funny right now, but give it a few hours. It's only a matter of time because it gets to -1 Flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
No, it would not be. It is common for people on Slashdot to constantly ask a question about breaking the DMCA, and more than 80% of the time, it is not. And even if it were, if there was a subpeona for the information, it would be illegal to break the encryption. You can't hide illegal activities behind the law.
IANAL, but since when does a shareholder have a right to a copy of a copyrighted work that the corporation has purchased? I may own stock in a Company A, but that doesn't mean that it is legal for Company A to make copies of software or other copyrighted content to give out to me.
This sounds really goofy to me. Is there a real lawyer in the house that can give further clarification?
Dude, I want some of whatever you are having.
Here, here. This is definately the best version out there.
Before implying someone doesn't know what they are talking about, you may want to reread the post:
How's that Einstein? ;-)
IANAL, but I think there is legal precedence that would say it is still illegal, even if you own the CD (think MP3.com). Someone else might be able to speak to this issue. Anyone?
And if you remember the rallying cries of Slashdotters everywhere, "It's just a tool, go after the infringers!", it makes the hypocracy even more evident.
Now that the copyright holders are going after the infringers, the arguments will change again.
The QRTSM has renamed themselves to IBJSE.
Slow news day, heh?
Are you sure you didn't find the spell check helpful?
Actually, since most people can read around here, I'm gonna guess you are the only one.
Ok, so I didn't realize that this was how they spoke in another country. I love the assumption that because I didn't know the specifics of another dialog, that automatically makes one some ignorant American.
It's also perfectly logical to look at a company as being a single being, so try not to sound so snotty, ok?
I are flabberghasted!
... how so many gaming sites use little cartoony type pictures for the authors of the articles? Is it because these people are horribly and hideously scary or what?
Actually, I was just karma whoring, please continue.
There is a third interpretation though: You're taking the movies a little too seriously.
And it takes a Slashdot poster to misspell the word "two".
Ah yes, because we all know that Windows is, in fact, the only closed software in existence.
I second this recommendation. Secret of Mana rules.
Wow, I hadn't thought of that show in many, many years. I read that and immediately the theme music began playing in my head. I couldn't tell you at all what the main character even looked at, but I can sing "Denver, the Last Dinosaur... he's your friend and a whole lot more!" At least, that's how I remember it.
Please say you will be posting your results when you are finished? :-)
Well, the fact that I've seen this behavior for so long and have commented on it would hint at the fact I am not new here. (duh?)
I'm just wondering how this can happen. Supposedly, you can only moderate after being here a while, so I'm wondering why moderators, who I am sure have seen this kind of post 100 times before on previous cell phone discussions, would moderate the parent post as Insightful? Why not offtopic, since it has nothing to do with the cell phone in question? Why not 'Redundant' because it's been posted a million times before? I guess this is an open question to those who moderated the original post.
Everytime there is any story about some new cell phone, someone has to say something along the lines of "How about you just get me better reception?" or "How about one that can get and keep a connection reliably?". Then, of course, that message must be modded up as "Insightful".
Is there some sort of Slashdot Book of Laws that dictates that these things must happen? Or does everyone just have a short-term memory loss problem?
That's why I've never bought the argument that the reason software (including games) is so expensive is because of piracy. Supposedly, no one can really copy a Gamecube game and play it on a Gamecube (at least yet), but the prices for the games are the same as the XBox, which supposedly has a piracy problem and PS2.
Ah yes, very true. In fact, I see my post is at +1 funny right now, but give it a few hours. It's only a matter of time because it gets to -1 Flamebait.
But who really cares? ;-)