When you buy a CD, you're not just paying for the production of that one CD. You're paying for the production of that CD and the 9 others that flopped and didn't recoup their expenses at all.
When the artist is already a success it certainly looks like the record company is getting a great deal. But if some no-name came up to you and wanted you to invest $10,000 in his new record, what kind of return would you want?
Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?
Do you find it strange that a hard-working janitor can be hired for $6/hour but a computer programmer who sits on his ass downloading music on napster all day charges $75/hour?
Actually, there is no fair use provision for "trying it out" if you want to try it out, go to the library, they have a fair use provision.
Fair use is whatever the courts decide it is. As no one has ever been put in jail for "trying it out", there's no precedent, and my guess is as good as yours as to whether or not that falls under fair use. Additionally, downloading is perfectly legal if I download to Audio CD-R or DAT tape.
And copyright infringement is breaking criminal law, not just civil law.
I suggest you read the law. Copyright infringement is only criminal if you do it "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain", or if you do it "by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000."
And how does this differ from a normal copyright agreement (other than it grants you a right to redistribute, provided you meet certain preconditions).
It doesn't. What exactly does this have to do with what I'm saying?
You said "By definition, every copyright infringement is a contract violation." But this is not true. It is only a contract violation if I agree to the contract. Alternatively stated, "It's not a contractual agreement if I don't have a choice whether or not to agree to it."
Let me give you an example.
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a coloured poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.
I just committed copyright infringement. But I did not commit any contract violation.
Both? What both? Are you saying that cracking DeCSS is illegal?
Cracking DeCSS is perfectly legal. In fact there is no crack involved, since the code is available freely. Cracking CSS to make DeCSS on the other hand is illegal under the DMCA.
You get beat up a lot, don't you?
Downloading copyrighted files is also illegal.
Maybe, maybe not. If you're just trying out the file before buying it, you probably have a fair use defense. In any case, I never said downloading copyrighted files is legal. I said it's not breaking criminal law.
You should really get your facts straight before you advise people on legal matters. In addition you should have the most minimal decency to know what the fuck you are talking about when you open your trap (or in this case type) at all.
Mesh networks are still a dream. High speed mobile internet is here now. At $99/month, it's not quite worth it yet though, especially because you agree not to use it for your home network.
Anyone want to help me set up a WiFi network in Pitman, NJ? Somehow I doubt it.
when you take the media without paying for it, it's theft of services, and no different than an employer that refuses to hand out a paycheck to a programmer after a month of coding because it's just ones and zeros on a hard drive.
Employers enter into contractual agreements to pay. Copyright infringers don't.
It'll be your problem when you find all of your Credit Cards are maxed with charges you didn't make and you have to convince the issuer you didn't make the charges.
Nonsense, I don't have to convince the issuer of anything. I simply call them and tell them "I didn't make the charge".
Trust me this is not fun to clear up and can play hell with your credit report until fixed.
No, I don't trust you. If this happened to you and it hurt your credit report, you didn't handle it properly.
AS IS isn't capitalized. The UCC requires for it to be.
It doesn't define "source code".
It doesn't require a distributor of a derivative work to distribute that derivative work under the terms of the GPL unless that distributor is the same person who created the derivative work.
You only have to include a notice describing the changes you made, not the changes made by others. That effectively makes the requirement meaningless.
A distributor cannot impose license restrictions, but the creator of the derivative work can.
Clause 5 is equivalent to a restriction against removing the "do not remove" sticker on a mattress. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my copy of the software.
Sure, the networks are insecure, but we are not talking about leaking office pr0n into the wild, it's about your credit card, and mine, being exposed all over the place.
Whatever, that's the credit card companies problem, not mine.
compared to... the most expensive version? the average?
The next least expensive, presumably. Obviously it's not something you're supposed to do specifically every time you buy a product. But my point is the amount of good you do by boycotting is likely vastly outshadowed by the amount of good you do by donating even just a few pennies to charity.
What if a company has lower prices because it "exploits" people in 3rd world countries, and you buy their product because it is cheaper? At the same time, if you give to a charity helping these same exploited people, would that make a helluva lotta sense?
Yes.
Why not just avoid the process completely in the first place!
That goes without saying. But buying one fewer pair of sneakers isn't going to stop the process whatsoever. Only a law or a tariff will do that.
They are not against the DMCA "as enacted". They are beginning to ramp up opposition to the DMCA as enforced.
I fail to see where they stated that. Further, I fail to see where the DMCA was "enforced" in a way against how it was "enacted".
Just as there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip, there is much room for creative "interpretation" of a law once passed.
I find the EFF to be leading the way in the misinterpretation of the DMCA.
How it plays out in the courts is a vital thing... and maybe the telcos are beginning to realize they bought into a viper's nest by agreeing to the DMCA.
I fail to see this in the article, and I fail to see how the DMCA hurts the ISPs. If anything, it seems to help them, by limiting their liability for copyright infringment.
Remember, the DMCA "would never be used to silence research"... until Felton.
Just because a law can be used in bad ways doesn't make it a bad law. You wouldn't want to ban butter knives just because they can be used to stab people, would you? Plus, the DMCA didn't silence Felton. In fact, Felton wasn't even silenced. Some lawyer wrote him a letter saying that presenting his research might break a few laws, only one of which was the DMCA.
When it was being formed, they (Verizon & Telcos) fought against the DMCA until it was in a form which they deemed acceptable to their networks, their user interests and their own interests. Then they agreed.
So in other words they are not against the DMCA, in the form that it was enacted into law. They may have been against some of the original drafts of the DMCA, but surely the DMCA was significantly altered since then.
SInce the implimentation of the DMCA, the world, and the internet has changed, and now the CW industries are looking to expand the DMCA. However, Verizon and the telcos do not see the expansion as a legitimate defense of the copyrights, therefore they are fighting against it again, though perhaps this time with more force.
They are, however, against the expansion of the DMCA.
Again, I fail to see how anything in that article implied that they are against the DMCA, as enacted.
You're the "network manager for a large business park" and you don't know how to do this? I suggest you go to your boss right now and tell him to fire you.
Slashdot Mirror
Fame is fame. Are you trying to say that Janis Ian is more famous than Britney Spears?
When you buy a CD, you're not just paying for the production of that one CD. You're paying for the production of that CD and the 9 others that flopped and didn't recoup their expenses at all.
When the artist is already a success it certainly looks like the record company is getting a great deal. But if some no-name came up to you and wanted you to invest $10,000 in his new record, what kind of return would you want?
You might be surprised how well known Janis Ian is.
Let's ask google.
"Janis Ian" - 31,000 results
"Britney Spears - 1,190,000 results
Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?
Do you find it strange that a hard-working janitor can be hired for $6/hour but a computer programmer who sits on his ass downloading music on napster all day charges $75/hour?
OK. So what's your point? What are you trying to say? Why don't you try making a positive statment of your own?
The GPL is contractual agreement just like any other EULA. So?
Actually, there is no fair use provision for "trying it out" if you want to try it out, go to the library, they have a fair use provision.
Fair use is whatever the courts decide it is. As no one has ever been put in jail for "trying it out", there's no precedent, and my guess is as good as yours as to whether or not that falls under fair use. Additionally, downloading is perfectly legal if I download to Audio CD-R or DAT tape.
And copyright infringement is breaking criminal law, not just civil law.
I suggest you read the law. Copyright infringement is only criminal if you do it "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain", or if you do it "by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000."
And how does this differ from a normal copyright agreement (other than it grants you a right to redistribute, provided you meet certain preconditions).
It doesn't. What exactly does this have to do with what I'm saying?
You said "By definition, every copyright infringement is a contract violation." But this is not true. It is only a contract violation if I agree to the contract. Alternatively stated, "It's not a contractual agreement if I don't have a choice whether or not to agree to it."
Let me give you an example.
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a coloured poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.
I just committed copyright infringement. But I did not commit any contract violation.
So the GPL isn't a contractual agreement?
It's a contractual agreement, but you're not required to accept it.
That's a bullshit argument. It's not a contractual agreement if I don't have a choice whether or not to agree to it.
They are both illegal.
Both? What both? Are you saying that cracking DeCSS is illegal?
Cracking DeCSS is perfectly legal. In fact there is no crack involved, since the code is available freely. Cracking CSS to make DeCSS on the other hand is illegal under the DMCA.
You get beat up a lot, don't you?
Downloading copyrighted files is also illegal.
Maybe, maybe not. If you're just trying out the file before buying it, you probably have a fair use defense. In any case, I never said downloading copyrighted files is legal. I said it's not breaking criminal law.
You should really get your facts straight before you advise people on legal matters. In addition you should have the most minimal decency to know what the fuck you are talking about when you open your trap (or in this case type) at all.
You should take your own advice.
Mesh networks are still a dream. High speed mobile internet is here now. At $99/month, it's not quite worth it yet though, especially because you agree not to use it for your home network.
Anyone want to help me set up a WiFi network in Pitman, NJ? Somehow I doubt it.
Cracking DeCSS is breaking criminal law. Downloading copyrighted files isn't.
when you take the media without paying for it, it's theft of services, and no different than an employer that refuses to hand out a paycheck to a programmer after a month of coding because it's just ones and zeros on a hard drive.
Employers enter into contractual agreements to pay. Copyright infringers don't.
Now no one will be confused and I don't have to worry about trademark infringement when I say "downloading from napster".
which indirectly comes from... nuclear power
Nuclear is my vote for meeting the needs of the future, but i suppose your millage may vary.
Use breeder reactors on the moon to create hydrogen. Ship the hydrogen back down to earth.
It'll be your problem when you find all of your Credit Cards are maxed with charges you didn't make and you have to convince the issuer you didn't make the charges.
Nonsense, I don't have to convince the issuer of anything. I simply call them and tell them "I didn't make the charge".
Trust me this is not fun to clear up and can play hell with your credit report until fixed.
No, I don't trust you. If this happened to you and it hurt your credit report, you didn't handle it properly.
Sure, the networks are insecure, but we are not talking about leaking office pr0n into the wild, it's about your credit card, and mine, being exposed all over the place.
Whatever, that's the credit card companies problem, not mine.
compared to ... the most expensive version? the average?
The next least expensive, presumably. Obviously it's not something you're supposed to do specifically every time you buy a product. But my point is the amount of good you do by boycotting is likely vastly outshadowed by the amount of good you do by donating even just a few pennies to charity.
What if a company has lower prices because it "exploits" people in 3rd world countries, and you buy their product because it is cheaper? At the same time, if you give to a charity helping these same exploited people, would that make a helluva lotta sense?
Yes.
Why not just avoid the process completely in the first place!
That goes without saying. But buying one fewer pair of sneakers isn't going to stop the process whatsoever. Only a law or a tariff will do that.
They are not against the DMCA "as enacted". They are beginning to ramp up opposition to the DMCA as enforced.
I fail to see where they stated that. Further, I fail to see where the DMCA was "enforced" in a way against how it was "enacted".
Just as there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip, there is much room for creative "interpretation" of a law once passed.
I find the EFF to be leading the way in the misinterpretation of the DMCA.
How it plays out in the courts is a vital thing... and maybe the telcos are beginning to realize they bought into a viper's nest by agreeing to the DMCA.
I fail to see this in the article, and I fail to see how the DMCA hurts the ISPs. If anything, it seems to help them, by limiting their liability for copyright infringment.
Remember, the DMCA "would never be used to silence research"... until Felton.
Just because a law can be used in bad ways doesn't make it a bad law. You wouldn't want to ban butter knives just because they can be used to stab people, would you? Plus, the DMCA didn't silence Felton. In fact, Felton wasn't even silenced. Some lawyer wrote him a letter saying that presenting his research might break a few laws, only one of which was the DMCA.
When it was being formed, they (Verizon & Telcos) fought against the DMCA until it was in a form which they deemed acceptable to their networks, their user interests and their own interests. Then they agreed.
So in other words they are not against the DMCA, in the form that it was enacted into law. They may have been against some of the original drafts of the DMCA, but surely the DMCA was significantly altered since then.
SInce the implimentation of the DMCA, the world, and the internet has changed, and now the CW industries are looking to expand the DMCA. However, Verizon and the telcos do not see the expansion as a legitimate defense of the copyrights, therefore they are fighting against it again, though perhaps this time with more force.
They are, however, against the expansion of the DMCA.
Again, I fail to see how anything in that article implied that they are against the DMCA, as enacted.
So in other words, she argued for the DMCA, not against it.
You're the "network manager for a large business park" and you don't know how to do this? I suggest you go to your boss right now and tell him to fire you.