Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want our sympathy for doing something illegal, getting caught by someone and losing your residence. You then publicly admit you did it, and hope that you won't lose the lawsuit that is sure to follow! I don't really understand the purpose of your post other than to admit to being a pirate.
I certainly have no sympathy for you, I have no animosity towards the people that caught you but if they did anything illegal you should certainly hold them accountable.
"Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like."
Not so much as a straw man as you took that out of context. Being American and therefore batshit-crazy makes you selfish. It's mostly true too.
How do I describe the guy in the office next to mine who happens to be of African decent?
I would refer to him as "the man in the office next to me." Sounds perfectly descriptive to me.
To answer your question, yes "now" it is relevant to slashdot users. Several years down the road, not so much. The fact that it was not stopped is what makes it relevant, to at least anti censorship activists most of whom are in fact nerds and this is news for them. It does matter because even if the allegations are not entirely true it will spark the peoples investigation (lynching) of El Presidente.
Actually parody only covers the words that you change. If you use the original music you must pay for that privilege. Weird Al has gotten permission from the artists to use their music and when he didn't he ceased and desisted from performing that song. This is a considerably more dicey challenge than simple pirating.
The two Europeans have more than made my point, but just to add insult to injury. I grew up on welfare, my parent was unable to keep a job mostly because of the polio she had as a child. My step father was a piece of work may he rest in peace. He did manage to provide for us between bouts of unemployment but after the age of 16 I largely had to fend for myself. There was no safety net that I could fall into if I hadn't managed to turn some electronics classes in high school into a career I would still be homeless or worse. I don't think that any of this violates the principles in any of our precious documents or even in the writings of our founders. I think that the contract with society can evolve and has to a degree with the complexity of society changing as much as it has since then. I understand your.sig perfectly and still stand by my previous statement. Work within the law to make changes and until we abolish that rule of law I still expect you to abide by the ones given.
>>Personally electronic books when done right (when the software gets there) will allow copying and pasting
And how is this supposed to be a good thing? More ways to violate copyright, or perhaps you mean it will be easier to plagiarize?
But until they actually do abolish copyright and or change the law, you are expected to follow the rule of law whether it is convenient for you or not. Don't like that, go somewhere else, as you are so quick to point out. So no one has been given the right to violate her copyrights and you are out of line!
Can anyone explain why there are so many people today that feel that; simply because it is very easy to copy digital things, that it is their right to copy them?
Also that there is some mandate to pass information around freely? Who and/or what gives them or anyone the right (right?) to pass the information around. Why does information want to be free?
Frankly I want to be paid to pass on important or valuable info it's value being defined by how much I can get for it. Much information is of so little value that it should be or can be passed around freely. However that does not apply to all creative work, and the quality of the work has little to do with it's being free or not. Why can many people today not accept that you still have to pay for works of fiction or music or film/video based on fiction or fact. there are some people that create and set it out for all to take and use and we are grateful to them for the service, but some of us still want to be paid and deserve to be paid.
So distribution is cheap, that means the artist could maybe manage to hold on to a little more of the profit, and yeah eliminating the middle man will go along toward that, it doesn't mean it should be free.
Yes but the legitimate uses of bittorrent are similar to the legitimate uses of heroine.
And endlessly pointing them out is useless. The damage done by the illegal use do not necessarily outweigh the legal uses.
"You people", a group of people that display a marked paranoia towards monopolistic entities. Apple has plenty of competition so can not actually be described as a monopoly and none of the choices they have made concerning the iTunes store can be said to be anti-competitive. I do wish that said group of people would also realize that brand differentiation is not anti-competitive it is a natural response to competition. Vendor lock in is also not illegal it is a business tactic designed to help defeat the competition (that is the desired end of a "competition") and is as fair as can be.
Slashdot Mirror
No theft implies he acquired it illegally nothing more.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want our sympathy for doing something illegal, getting caught by someone and losing your residence. You then publicly admit you did it, and hope that you won't lose the lawsuit that is sure to follow! I don't really understand the purpose of your post other than to admit to being a pirate.
I certainly have no sympathy for you, I have no animosity towards the people that caught you but if they did anything illegal you should certainly hold them accountable.
Actually when it discharges it consumes oxygen to remain charged. You are not reading the article or summary correctly. Par I guess.
Why bother, just shoot 'em now rather than later. (the puppies and the trouble makers. same thing really)!
"Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like."
Not so much as a straw man as you took that out of context. Being American and therefore batshit-crazy makes you selfish. It's mostly true too.
"Wikipedia is a hell of a lot less trustworthy as an information source than the Irish Times."
Citation Needed
What?
"yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence."
What the F*** does that sentence mean?
How do I describe the guy in the office next to mine who happens to be of African decent? I would refer to him as "the man in the office next to me." Sounds perfectly descriptive to me.
Not on /. Never has been never will be. Just ask the anti-riaa crowd.
Moron!
To answer your question, yes "now" it is relevant to slashdot users. Several years down the road, not so much.
The fact that it was not stopped is what makes it relevant, to at least anti censorship activists most of whom are in fact nerds and this is news for them. It does matter because even if the allegations are not entirely true it will spark the peoples investigation (lynching) of El Presidente.
I know that replying to a sig is a faux pas however I have to say I like it and agree with it whole heartedly.
Actually parody only covers the words that you change. If you use the original music you must pay for that privilege. Weird Al has gotten permission from the artists to use their music and when he didn't he ceased and desisted from performing that song. This is a considerably more dicey challenge than simple pirating.
The two Europeans have more than made my point, but just to add insult to injury. I grew up on welfare, my parent was unable to keep a job mostly because of the polio she had as a child. My step father was a piece of work may he rest in peace. He did manage to provide for us between bouts of unemployment but after the age of 16 I largely had to fend for myself. There was no safety net that I could fall into if I hadn't managed to turn some electronics classes in high school into a career I would still be homeless or worse. I don't think that any of this violates the principles in any of our precious documents or even in the writings of our founders. I think that the contract with society can evolve and has to a degree with the complexity of society changing as much as it has since then. I understand your .sig perfectly and still stand by my previous statement. Work within the law to make changes and until we abolish that rule of law I still expect you to abide by the ones given.
>>Personally electronic books when done right (when the software gets there) will allow copying and pasting
And how is this supposed to be a good thing? More ways to violate copyright, or perhaps you mean it will be easier to plagiarize?
But until they actually do abolish copyright and or change the law, you are expected to follow the rule of law whether it is convenient for you or not. Don't like that, go somewhere else, as you are so quick to point out. So no one has been given the right to violate her copyrights and you are out of line!
Citation needed!
STFU!
Can anyone explain why there are so many people today that feel that; simply because it is very easy to copy digital things, that it is their right to copy them?
Also that there is some mandate to pass information around freely? Who and/or what gives them or anyone the right (right?) to pass the information around. Why does information want to be free?
Frankly I want to be paid to pass on important or valuable info it's value being defined by how much I can get for it. Much information is of so little value that it should be or can be passed around freely. However that does not apply to all creative work, and the quality of the work has little to do with it's being free or not.
Why can many people today not accept that you still have to pay for works of fiction or music or film/video based on fiction or fact.
there are some people that create and set it out for all to take and use and we are grateful to them for the service, but some of us still want to be paid and deserve to be paid.
So distribution is cheap, that means the artist could maybe manage to hold on to a little more of the profit, and yeah eliminating the middle man will go along toward that, it doesn't mean it should be free.
Sure go ahead and I'll place you in the "Asshats and other plagues" category and ignore you vigorously too!
Feel free to spread them around but make sure she gets the coin she is due. If you want to read her books, buy them or go to the library.
I still can't fathom people who think copying these works is OK and can somehow justify it.
Yes but the legitimate uses of bittorrent are similar to the legitimate uses of heroine.
And endlessly pointing them out is useless.
The damage done by the illegal use do not necessarily outweigh the legal uses.
"You people", a group of people that display a marked paranoia towards monopolistic entities. Apple has plenty of competition so can not actually be described as a monopoly and none of the choices they have made concerning the iTunes store can be said to be anti-competitive. I do wish that said group of people would also realize that brand differentiation is not anti-competitive it is a natural response to competition. Vendor lock in is also not illegal it is a business tactic designed to help defeat the competition (that is the desired end of a "competition") and is as fair as can be.
No for the billionth time you needn't point that out.
No IBM is the worst offender. Apple is a piker.
Because it's their opinion and you have a right, nay a mandate, to hear it damn it! Oh, whether you want to or not, but that's a minor consideration.