Yes and by already finished, you mean that the design time of the engineers was paid for by the manufacturer, the first prototype engineering and testing and safety testing was paid for by um ditto. So yeah no larceny there at all, go right ahead.
Sorry but in any retail transaction, you don't get to cut out the middle man. That's the nature of the beast. But yeah, go on there's absolutely no impact to your copying those movies, as was pointed out.
Oh and you have enriched yourself to the tune of a bit of someone else sweat and not given the rightful owner his due so I guess you are right, there is no impact there either.
Assuming you paid for the parts, the energy the machine takes, and the engineering time of the guys that designed the car and all its parts and systems then I guess it wouldn't be thievery of any kind.
If $30.00 is not viable then you don't have to buy it. If you don't buy it you don't get to have it anyway. A movie's cost is irrelevant to whether you are breaking the law or not. And there is no difference between people who don't want to pay a ridiculous sum for a 90 minute movie that probably sucks and people who download it anyway if they both download and watch it without paying for it. They are both simply thieves.
I think the Andersen Vs Atlantic case is too narrow a scope for what I want here. Since they are terrorizing the general broadband using population with their apparently "random" acts of litigation and privacy invasion, I want most of the public to be in the class. However I'm aware that too broad a scope will get the case dismissed. So I'd like to find a fairly broad base and file that rather that shoot for the sky, I'd like it to be a bit narrower focus than "Everyone".
How difficult would it be to get together a class action suit against the RIAA for harassment of the general public (or preferably some more targeted group) Since there seems to be a mass of evidence accumulating indicating that they are not being too careful with the targets of their litigation.
Since zero and 100 are arbitrary measurements handed out by the good Mr. Celsius, for observed phenomena, I challenge this as a fact. I've seen water fail to boil at 101 Celsius and at other times it did boil at 97 Celsius. Hardly the fact you think it is!
Texans are already seen as an unsophisticated bunch of hooligans with guns and pick'm'up trucks. Let them cement that with this vote. How hick can you get? Well let's see, we can change science by popular vote and execute any one with a valid challenge. That ought to about finish the state as a force for civilization!
Instead of being named after a generic term for science fiction it's now a diminutive term for a sexually transmitted disease. syphilis channel anyone!
Try the defaults, they work remarkably well for 99% of communications. Anything publishable will get typeset and edited anyway. Eventually you have to worry about all the gunk. LaTeX just delays the inevitable.
Drop the draconian, complicated, unnecessarily obscure and often merely arbitrary academic bullshit formatting necessities and write the damn things with open office. Save the world a few million hours of real time so the students/researchers can actually be productive rather than merely busy.
Re:The original content has to come from somewhere
on
So Amazing, So Illegal
·
· Score: 1
I somewhat agree, but hey if building your work on the backs of true artists is your thing, then who are we to say, get a real job?
I don't really think it's particularly creative anymore, it's just sad. Like a five year old's magazine collage hanging from the fridge. But I'm sure he sweated over each detail and he wants us to believe that it shows originality.
I don't think the original artists should sue him, just ignore him would be more fitting.
This crap reminds me of a 12 year old that sued his parents because they wouldn't let him eat as much of his Halloween candy as he wanted. He lost. Get over it folks, Apple has made rules, they are for their own good and have little to do with what you want or think you may be entitled to. Just because someone made it, that doesn't automatically give you the right to sell what ever you want to go with it. If you want to make money, follow the rules, if you want to have fun, give it away to the people that jailbreak their phone, or even sell it but don't scream when Apple tries to defend their own ecosystem that they spent a lot of money developing and advertising.
How is it anti-competitive? You are free to compete, build your own phone and rule the world. They are not the only smart phone in existence now. If you don't like the iPhone, don't use one use another. Android competes very nicely against the iPhone, as does RIM. Get over it people, Apple is not the "Monopoly" everyone thinks they are. You are free to compete with Apple, just not on their hardware. Not rocket science to figure this out people.
and conversely no proof that creativity has been harmed. It is impossible to prove a negative. I propose that it has at least fostered very creative semantic arguments designed to justify breaking copyright law and making oneself feel good about it.
So repeating the same semantic crap is supposed to make it different.
At some level, all of those things are theft.
Rape is theft of consent, murder is theft of lifespan, fraud, usually results in loss of money at the most loss of confidence. All involve a loss. Tell me how any other illegal thing can not be considered a loss of some sort.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and by already finished, you mean that the design time of the engineers was paid for by the manufacturer, the first prototype engineering and testing and safety testing was paid for by um ditto. So yeah no larceny there at all, go right ahead.
Sorry but in any retail transaction, you don't get to cut out the middle man. That's the nature of the beast. But yeah, go on there's absolutely no impact to your copying those movies, as was pointed out.
Oh and you have enriched yourself to the tune of a bit of someone else sweat and not given the rightful owner his due so I guess you are right, there is no impact there either.
Assuming you paid for the parts, the energy the machine takes, and the engineering time of the guys that designed the car and all its parts and systems then I guess it wouldn't be thievery of any kind.
It is, but pretty much any computing device enables that. this just ups the convenience factor.
So you only steal it if it is really good! Nice!
If $30.00 is not viable then you don't have to buy it. If you don't buy it you don't get to have it anyway. A movie's cost is irrelevant to whether you are breaking the law or not. And there is no difference between people who don't want to pay a ridiculous sum for a 90 minute movie that probably sucks and people who download it anyway if they both download and watch it without paying for it. They are both simply thieves.
I think the Andersen Vs Atlantic case is too narrow a scope for what I want here. Since they are terrorizing the general broadband using population with their apparently "random" acts of litigation and privacy invasion, I want most of the public to be in the class. However I'm aware that too broad a scope will get the case dismissed. So I'd like to find a fairly broad base and file that rather that shoot for the sky, I'd like it to be a bit narrower focus than "Everyone".
How difficult would it be to get together a class action suit against the RIAA for harassment of the general public (or preferably some more targeted group) Since there seems to be a mass of evidence accumulating indicating that they are not being too careful with the targets of their litigation.
Since zero and 100 are arbitrary measurements handed out by the good Mr. Celsius, for observed phenomena, I challenge this as a fact. I've seen water fail to boil at 101 Celsius and at other times it did boil at 97 Celsius. Hardly the fact you think it is!
We all know the physical universe just magically appeared from thin air six thousand years ago.
There fixed that for ya!
Texans are already seen as an unsophisticated bunch of hooligans with guns and pick'm'up trucks. Let them cement that with this vote. How hick can you get? Well let's see, we can change science by popular vote and execute any one with a valid challenge. That ought to about finish the state as a force for civilization!
You can't make this shit up!
Dell's Adamo comes AFTER MacBook Air. There fixed that for ya!
Instead of being named after a generic term for science fiction it's now a diminutive term for a sexually transmitted disease. syphilis channel anyone!
Try the defaults, they work remarkably well for 99% of communications. Anything publishable will get typeset and edited anyway. Eventually you have to worry about all the gunk. LaTeX just delays the inevitable.
ooh and when followed by "for effect" it commences the bombardment from artillery!
It's also the last thing you hear when standing in front of a firing squad!
Drop the draconian, complicated, unnecessarily obscure and often merely arbitrary academic bullshit formatting necessities and write the damn things with open office. Save the world a few million hours of real time so the students/researchers can actually be productive rather than merely busy.
I somewhat agree, but hey if building your work on the backs of true artists is your thing, then who are we to say, get a real job?
I don't really think it's particularly creative anymore, it's just sad. Like a five year old's magazine collage hanging from the fridge. But I'm sure he sweated over each detail and he wants us to believe that it shows originality.
I don't think the original artists should sue him, just ignore him would be more fitting.
This crap reminds me of a 12 year old that sued his parents because they wouldn't let him eat as much of his Halloween candy as he wanted. He lost. Get over it folks, Apple has made rules, they are for their own good and have little to do with what you want or think you may be entitled to. Just because someone made it, that doesn't automatically give you the right to sell what ever you want to go with it. If you want to make money, follow the rules, if you want to have fun, give it away to the people that jailbreak their phone, or even sell it but don't scream when Apple tries to defend their own ecosystem that they spent a lot of money developing and advertising.
How is it anti-competitive? You are free to compete, build your own phone and rule the world. They are not the only smart phone in existence now. If you don't like the iPhone, don't use one use another. Android competes very nicely against the iPhone, as does RIM. Get over it people, Apple is not the "Monopoly" everyone thinks they are. You are free to compete with Apple, just not on their hardware. Not rocket science to figure this out people.
and conversely no proof that creativity has been harmed. It is impossible to prove a negative. I propose that it has at least fostered very creative semantic arguments designed to justify breaking copyright law and making oneself feel good about it.
So repeating the same semantic crap is supposed to make it different. At some level, all of those things are theft. Rape is theft of consent, murder is theft of lifespan, fraud, usually results in loss of money at the most loss of confidence. All involve a loss. Tell me how any other illegal thing can not be considered a loss of some sort.
I fail to see the downside of blurring the buildings.