Polish law might lack legal or prosecutorial precedent of actually going after infringers, but the laws certainly do exist both as part of recent overhaul of polish IP law and because it is simply increasingly required of poland to be part of europe.
I didn't agree to speed limits, either. However, I am bound by them. I have a mechanism for objecting to them - involvement or petition to government.
To pad wealthy pockets and protect stagnant business models?
Like the GPL? Actually, IP is what ALLOWS a small writer or producer to create or invent something and actually get paid for it rather than having some large company just steal it and publish it. There are thousands and thousands of successful people out there who have become exceedingly rich from humble origins by being clever or original and then selling their inventions or creations as they could only do BECAUSE of IP laws.
(IP->Innovation link) Hardly provable and easily questioned.
Easily questioned, but quite provable. While academics argue about the fringes, look at ANY area of human innovative enterprise, and you will see that it has flourished where there are strong IP laws (or no need for them, as copying would be prohibitive). An easy case to look at is east asia: you can basically draw an line trivially between places that have had strong IP laws (Singapore, Japan) and those that have not (Taiwan, Hong Kong) and you can see where actual innovation happens. The difference is very stark.
"When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to..."
Again, you just fell for the fallacy that copyright covers receiving or listening to music rather than distribution.
And you seem to believe that the act of copying is the same of listening, or that the act of "receiving" is passive, wheas on the internet in involves the intent to copy (to distribute to oneself). Also, you just happened to conveniently ignore the main idea of INTENT.
You haven't travelled much, have you? The laws where I live are very different where I live. No DMCA, no ridiculous 120-year terms, etc.
Yes, there are differences at the margins, but those are more akin to geneticists arguing about details of microbiology while you're arguing creationism. most items being pirated on p2p networks are under a few years old and well and explicitly protected by virtually all countries IP laws.
A license is a writ or contract giving permission to do something that is normally illegal or forbidden. I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book. Your use of the term is simply a common way to pretend that my property belongs to someone else.
"I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book."
Yes, just try buying a book at Borders and seeing how far you get if you try to duplicate it and sell it. You can burn the book if you want. You can give it to a friend. But you legally do and must accept limitations on what you can do with the content of your book. Your attempt to hide behind a legalistic notion of "license" rather than the everyday usage does not change this.
I guess you fall for most of the fallacies on my list.:) You may believe as you like, of course.
Bullshit. YOu have proven nothing and I have respondeed completely, except for, I admit, the IP->Innovation link, which requires too much typing and effort for me to duplicate for you at this time.
Hi. I defend the "traditional" view of copyright. I am not an "RIAA shill", but an intelligent person with a logical mind. Therefore, I will respond to you point by point.
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
This is what is known as "amphiboly" (look it up via google for a full definition.) Here you attempt to link the cuddly and innocent terms "copying", "sharing", "human culture and advamcent" with acts that break the social contract known as copyright. Copyright exists for a reason: the reasons should be well known to you by now and history and economics have shown UNQUESTIONABLY that the notion of copyright (and other IP mechanisms) (and the necessary enforcement that comes with it) are actually very useful for "human culture and advancement." While I'm sure you are just oozing with junior high logic as to why that is not so, the reality of the situation is that if you look accross ANY combination of industry, country segment, etc where there are strong IP regulations, in the overwhelming number of cases, having strong IP laws DO what they are designed to do: encourage production (and therefore, advance human culture.)
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
The problem with this argument is INTENT. When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to, they are generally VERY CLEARLY taking an action that any damn fool knows is illegal. Because the law views intent as important, this is why what is being done is bad. Plus, there is the fact that under many P2P programs, once you download something you automatically generally propagate it as well (consider how eDonkey works, for example).
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law
Here you just like making cartoon attack against the USA. The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this (except for taiwan), IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same. Sure, there have been some odd lower court rulings in Canada, France, etc, but generally these are eventually struck down and the basics upheld for the simple reason that all civilized countries are producers of IP and recognize that their economies (and therefore the welfare of the people) depend on IP laws being enforced.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
This is a general claim that we could also make of pirates who try to spin torturous explanations of "fair use" into how they can fairly share with millions of people anonymously. "Morality?" I dont know about morality, but I do know that strong IP rules make good economies which make higher standard of living for all - the link is blatantly obvious to anybody who has taken time to study this.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
This is a nice attempt at a smear, but with no basis in reality. Many things are licensed, not sold, and we as a society have come to understand that there are necessary limits, for the good of all, to how intellectual goods can be distributed.
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
You want a justification? Here's one - because the artist allowed me to... you see, the "poor indie artists" you paint the RIAA's emotion on - much of them, not all mind you, the people who you say are hurt from free downloading allow their works to be shared for free... that is their choice, but to paint all free downloading as bad when there are exceptions is nothing short of propogating orwellian brainwashing.
Here, the AC went off on an irrelevancy. Of course it's fine -- wonderful even -- when an independent artist allows his/her work to be downloaded for free via the internet. While P2P is in my opinion a lousy way for an artist to do this (a web page is better - bandwidth is cheap enough these days), however the artist chooses to do so is his business. in practice, this amounts to a miniscule percentage of P2p traffic, and is really sidestepping my question - i basically was discussing rasons that people give to justify their piracy (of which there is a hell of a lot, by any standard), and his response was basically "well, they let me", which is kind of a non-sequitur. Then he goes into some nonsense about orwellian whatever.
(I WROTE)...how would you feel if you just bought a lexus only to find that all of your friends had just stolen one?
(HE WROTE) Bad logic, copying and theft are different..
Here, I wrote regarding the PERCEIVED VALUE of something. He responded with a bullshit irrelevancy about how copyright infringement and theft are different. of course they are in some ways, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived value point that I was making. Basically, as above, the AC tries to bring in an irrelvant argument to distract from the real situation, to which he has no legitimate response.
I call bullshit on this one, maybe not as much mainstream will be produced, but then again - how much does mainstream actually make up of all the content in the world?
This is a longer answer than I can make here. The high-school quality response of the AC starts with some arbitrary definition of "mainstream". there's too many levels of analysis that would have to be made to respond to this, and I don't have the time. however, the link is well known in economics, and hundreds of research papers a year testify to this.
This my friend is a problem with insecurity, since no matter what, piracy can happen/will happen, Murphy's law in action... techniclogically it si impossible to prevent this with digital media at this point.
Ah, the old "it will happen, therefore it's justified" approach. I wonder if our AC friend takes this approach to murder and other crimes, too? Do you still think this AC was anything but a troll (maybe he's just realy, really dumb)?
Look, do I think that artists should be compensated? Yes, when they deserve it,
There's a mechanism for this. It's called "the market." Don't like it? Don't buy it. The point is especially poignant since most of what is pirated is absolutely inessential ENTERTAINMENT material.
do I think piracy is bad? Depends on the cirumstances... but your painting it all in a distorted view... not all free downloading is illegal, or bad...
I would suggest that piracy is by definition bad, but I welcome you to give an example of "good" piracy. I don't doubt that there might be some, but they are certainly rather exceptional.
As for my distorted view, given that NOT ONE of your rebuttal points stands up to even basic scrutiny, I suggest that it might be you with a distorted view.
As for "not all free downloading being illegal".. well, who ever said it was? If you as a content producer want to make your material freely downloadable, then more power to you. No honest person, however, would suggest other wise than the VAST, VAST, VAST, VAST bulk of material being swapped through p2p networks today is being done so illegally.
Your view of the rule is simplistic and you are trying to shield yourself with willful ignorance. Poland's laws are no different than the rest of the civilized world: "Fair use" of copyright material is not a "hard" concept that says "you can share with x but not y", but rather a general principle whose guiding idea is the notion that sharing a limited number of copyright works under specific cicumstances is ok. The concept is not like a rule with fixed definitions. So, therefore, if you use the logic that "fair use says that i can lend this CD to my brother or my friend, therefore I can call everybody on the internet my friend and share it with them" is wrong. As the issue has been ruled upon everywhere, sharing one CD is generally considered fair use. Sharing large quantities of material and attempting to apply some legalistic defense that really goes against the spirit of fair use is not.
In short, most reasonable people and judges would agree that sharing a small number of materials with truly immediate people under normal circumstances is considered fair use. Using a "friends and family" clause to use eDonkey is not. It is as illegal in poland as anywhere else. Sorry, man! You guys want to be treated as a modern EU (or even civilized in general) country. This is the law.
Bullshit. Poland's copyright law of 4 February 1994 basically harmonized poland's IP laws with those of the rest of the world. Of course "uploading / downloading copyright material" to yourself is legal, but it is as illegal to "share" copyright materials with others in poland as anywhere else. Whatever rumours your friends told you or you read on some message board are bullshit.
Main Entry: piracy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas 3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
Excellent example of bullshit! Your response can basically be summed up as:
Irrelevancy / misdirection / technicality: "piracy" vs "copyright infringement."
Scarecrow: the notion that a band must forward 10m to sign with a label is a gross distortion of reality.
Irrelevancy / misdirection: so, if iTunes allows a band to sign up for less, how exactly does this justify piracy?
Ad hominem, though I will admit, I will play a bit of tit-for-tat here and call you either a moron or just basically dishonest, given the non-argument you just "made".
P2P is only increasing the popularity of their wares. Much in the manner that pirated MS Windows in China only increases the popularity of Windows in China until comes such a time that Microsoft can demand payment (and crackdowns from the Governement).
Bullshit.
Is MS felt that was the case, then it could give windows away in order to seed future customers.
However, ignoring even that, your argument is still bullshit. Note the "until comes such a time that Microsoft can demand payment" nonsense. Here's news for you, jack: the vast bulk of people who pirate things on P2P networks can infact afford to pay for the things they are pirating, but simply choose not to, because it's cheaper.
Losers: Small, independent musicians. While the web and its promise of cheap distribution should have in the real world allowed them to sell their creative output directly to the public and overtime rely less and less on middlemen, in practice the rise pirate networks has both led to a rise of a social, occasionally even militant, culture that basically gives a number of weak justifications as to why it is ok to download somebody's creative work and not pay for it. Thus, the small musician is unable to even sell his warez online.
Winners: the RIAA, to whom the small musician must aspire to run to, as this continues to be the only outlet via which the musician can earn a living. It's a real shame, given the possibilities of the web.
Losers: the mass bulk of honest people: who are forced to deal with what economists call "dead weight loss" associated with piracy. This includes:
having to put up with DRM (both good and bad)
having to feel that their money is stupidly spent. how would you feel if you just bought a lexus only to find that all of your friends had just stolen one?
being unable to have a wide variety of content sold to them in digital form since any new method more or less has to be weighed against the very real possibility that if it is not done in some rather secure way, extreme piracy will result.
possibly having less content produced and/or higher prices as a result of piracy.
Winners: a select group of self-righteous technologically aware idiots who spin bullshit pseudophilosophical justifications for their piracy of music, software, movie, and other content. Thes people benefit at the expense of those who actually pay for the content, and in aggregate cause less content to be produced and at higher prices. Ironically, these dishonest people often are seen to blame the "poor quality" of the music as the reason as to why they have to steal it. They have convenient boogiemen in "bmw driving middlemen RIAA executives" and other easy-to-hate types that they point to in order to draw attention from the root cause of the problem, which is their greed (and intelletual dishonesty). Of course, these people are "winners" in the sense that they get lots of free music, movies, and software and are the successful leeches.. however, in every other sense of the word, they are complete losers.
Santa Clause? that movie blew. Surprisingly, there was a sequel.
In other news, isn't it funny how slashdot basically thrives (mediocre product, horrible quality control, but has a critical mass of users basically out of habit and history and "lock in" (in the sense that if you start your own blog/os it may be better, but incompatible?)) for the same things that the dominating reasoning here constantly bashes microsoft for? The lousy editing ("Clause") is only today's example.
Bullshiat. Standards define INTERFACES, not the behavior or design of software.
Since everyone who's using a webbrowser is using a kernel too, why don't we just put the browser right in the kernel?
Bullshiat Argument. To the user the kernel is irrelevant. If you can make a better user experience with this (increased ability to tackle real-world problems), then go for it. The problem in practice is that while you could do this in the short term, this would prevent you from doing this in the long term because of code complexity and security issues.
A root is the top level directory in a filesystem
Windows PCs have a virtual root calld my computer. I'm sorry you are so ignorant about this. C:\ is logically "mounted" to my computer. Your ignorance doesn't make this less true.
Your "limited number of roots assigned" (A-Z) is FALSE even if it were the case that "c:\" is a root, which it is not.
So, to summarize: you are ignorant and wrong, and most likely an idiot. Thank you.
An application program exists to do real world tasks, not to fulfill some hypothetical void in some idiot's world of philosophical desktop nomenclatura for pencildicks. If a web browser integrated with a waffle iron turns out to be a useful thing in the real world, then it "should be." If the most elegantly written software that is provably correct but doesn't actually do anything useful should not. The computer exists to serve man, not the other way around.
About your multiple roots idea: stop it already. i can just as easily type "my computer" (which i can rename to whatever the hell i want), or "my network places" or whatever the hell other arbitrary root i happen to want into there. just because you are ignorant of this does not make the facts any less true.
And furthermore, just because you have an outdated cartoon version of windows doesn't make it true, either, nor does just because you have an idiot's view of "what software should be" CERTAINLY doesn't make it true.
why are you typing "C:\" into a web browser's address bar? It's not a valid internet URL.
This is what I call a "slashdot moment." Where else can you get such self-assured idiocy? Man I love this place and throwbacks like you who still find the mouse to be a bit suspect and untrustworthy.
At the risk of being flamed mightily, what's wrong with IE?
I have IE, Firefox, and Opera on my systems, and IE is consistently the fastest and least crash prone. I understand that IE has had security vulnerabilities, but, well, so have all the others just as soon as they gained some popularity. Sure, each have some nice features that IE don't, like built-in popup blockers and a password remembering feature that actually works, but all those things I have better any way free IE add-ons.
I just don't see any real technical / usbility reason to switch. Plus, if i type "C:\" in the address bar of IE, it looks normal and usable, not like firefox, which puts me in the wayback machine to 1994 UI land, so I can actually interoperate between my local PC and web browsing easily.
I don't know about France, but in many other countries, including the UK, the answer is a definite NO (in the general case).
Pardon me for presuming, but, well, it probably wouldnt hurt you to go read about some governmental systems outside of the USA. There's a lot of good I think from studying the UK system in particular, since (while it certainly has its downsides), presents some interesting contrasts with the USA with regards to devolved and decentralized power, "working without a constitition", the role of national vs local governments, having a truly professional AND POLITICALY NEUTRAL public servant corps, and the difference between government and parliament.
Oh stop it already. Your argument is bullshiat, and you have to be living under a rock not to know it at this point.
Yes, new technology, if better and ECONOMICALLY VIABLE will surplant ineffecient ones just like rail supplanted the steamboat. Let's be very clear on this: RAIL supplanted the steamboat because it benefitted BOTH SIDES: SUPPLIERS (rail) could make money doing it, and USERS would benefit from it.
There is NO such mutual relationship in the bold new world of instant piracy. Rather, all you get is that the user demand, but that the supply is unwilling to play because there is insufficient incentive for them to do so. You'd have to be an absolute moron not to realize at this point. This is not progress or technological/economic advancement: it's an unbalanced situation that is unsustainable.
If and only if the content providers find an economically viable way to distribute their content, or some completely new content providers come and seize the opportunity because the traditional content providers are too incompetent or slow will you see actual progress. As we see, they are trying this with things like iTunes and TV-shows-downloadable-on-demand. But to say that such models have now been proven to be viable is speculative at best.
PIRACY no more outdates an IP business model than a CROWBAR outdates jewelry stores.
Sadly the networks cannot condone properl taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.
Your version of the "needs of the end users" is an endless black hole. The end user always wants faster, better, cheaper.. hell free and lots of it! Yes, sadly the networks can not afford to produce quality programming and give it away for free, without advertising or some other revenue source.
Your cynicism is misplaced - it should not be directed at the pockets of the networks, but rather at your own inability to recognize that the problem is that the end-users who choose to pirate are an unbalancing force in the ecosystem, and if and when that ecosystem comes crashing down (as many here so often claim they wish it will, at least as music is concerned), then they better be the last in line bitching about how suddenly there are fewer shows on TV (or music CDs in the stores) or that copyrightholders increasingly resort to stricter and stricted methods to try to bring some balance back.
1999 called and wants its programming language back.
Sure, some fanboy is going to mod me as a troll or what have you, but the fact is that perl is well past its sell by date. And, not without reason. While it, like anything, can be useful under the right circumstances, the fact is that Perl syntax is laborious and inconsistent, to say the least. Hard as this may seem to believe, the world has moved on to the conclusion that programming languages should be EASY to read and run FAST, not HARD to read and run slow. Or, at the very least, EASY to read and run SLOW is good enough in some circumstances to.
I have absolutely no doubt that perl is comfortable to the few of you who still use it daily. The rest of us simply recognize that it's an awkward language by gauging the amazingly short time period between having to look up THE SAME BASIC THINGS over and over again. Basically, perl is like Emacs or the CLI: it's a cult.
Chop() belongs on the scrap heap of history with malloc(), as far as simple end-user-focused programs go.
Slashdot Mirror
Polish law might lack legal or prosecutorial precedent of actually going after infringers, but the laws certainly do exist both as part of recent overhaul of polish IP law and because it is simply increasingly required of poland to be part of europe.
http://www.american.edu/initeb/rw9257a/property.ht m
I didn't agree to speed limits, either. However, I am bound by them. I have a mechanism for objecting to them - involvement or petition to government.
To pad wealthy pockets and protect stagnant business models?
Like the GPL? Actually, IP is what ALLOWS a small writer or producer to create or invent something and actually get paid for it rather than having some large company just steal it and publish it. There are thousands and thousands of successful people out there who have become exceedingly rich from humble origins by being clever or original and then selling their inventions or creations as they could only do BECAUSE of IP laws.
(IP->Innovation link) Hardly provable and easily questioned.
Easily questioned, but quite provable. While academics argue about the fringes, look at ANY area of human innovative enterprise, and you will see that it has flourished where there are strong IP laws (or no need for them, as copying would be prohibitive). An easy case to look at is east asia: you can basically draw an line trivially between places that have had strong IP laws (Singapore, Japan) and those that have not (Taiwan, Hong Kong) and you can see where actual innovation happens. The difference is very stark.
"When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to..."
Again, you just fell for the fallacy that copyright covers receiving or listening to music rather than distribution.
And you seem to believe that the act of copying is the same of listening, or that the act of "receiving" is passive, wheas on the internet in involves the intent to copy (to distribute to oneself). Also, you just happened to conveniently ignore the main idea of INTENT.
You haven't travelled much, have you? The laws where I live are very different where I live. No DMCA, no ridiculous 120-year terms, etc.
Yes, there are differences at the margins, but those are more akin to geneticists arguing about details of microbiology while you're arguing creationism. most items being pirated on p2p networks are under a few years old and well and explicitly protected by virtually all countries IP laws.
A license is a writ or contract giving permission to do something that is normally illegal or forbidden. I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book. Your use of the term is simply a common way to pretend that my property belongs to someone else.
"I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book."
Yes, just try buying a book at Borders and seeing how far you get if you try to duplicate it and sell it. You can burn the book if you want. You can give it to a friend. But you legally do and must accept limitations on what you can do with the content of your book. Your attempt to hide behind a legalistic notion of "license" rather than the everyday usage does not change this.
I guess you fall for most of the fallacies on my list. :) You may believe as you like, of course.
Bullshit. YOu have proven nothing and I have respondeed completely, except for, I admit, the IP->Innovation link, which requires too much typing and effort for me to duplicate for you at this time.
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
This is what is known as "amphiboly" (look it up via google for a full definition.) Here you attempt to link the cuddly and innocent terms "copying", "sharing", "human culture and advamcent" with acts that break the social contract known as copyright. Copyright exists for a reason: the reasons should be well known to you by now and history and economics have shown UNQUESTIONABLY that the notion of copyright (and other IP mechanisms) (and the necessary enforcement that comes with it) are actually very useful for "human culture and advancement." While I'm sure you are just oozing with junior high logic as to why that is not so, the reality of the situation is that if you look accross ANY combination of industry, country segment, etc where there are strong IP regulations, in the overwhelming number of cases, having strong IP laws DO what they are designed to do: encourage production (and therefore, advance human culture.)
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
The problem with this argument is INTENT. When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to, they are generally VERY CLEARLY taking an action that any damn fool knows is illegal. Because the law views intent as important, this is why what is being done is bad. Plus, there is the fact that under many P2P programs, once you download something you automatically generally propagate it as well (consider how eDonkey works, for example).
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law
Here you just like making cartoon attack against the USA. The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this (except for taiwan), IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same. Sure, there have been some odd lower court rulings in Canada, France, etc, but generally these are eventually struck down and the basics upheld for the simple reason that all civilized countries are producers of IP and recognize that their economies (and therefore the welfare of the people) depend on IP laws being enforced.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
This is a general claim that we could also make of pirates who try to spin torturous explanations of "fair use" into how they can fairly share with millions of people anonymously. "Morality?" I dont know about morality, but I do know that strong IP rules make good economies which make higher standard of living for all - the link is blatantly obvious to anybody who has taken time to study this.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
This is a nice attempt at a smear, but with no basis in reality. Many things are licensed, not sold, and we as a society have come to understand that there are necessary limits, for the good of all, to how intellectual goods can be distributed.
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
Oh stop already. This is cartoon nonsense.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Zzzzz..
You want a justification? Here's one - because the artist allowed me to... you see, the "poor indie artists" you paint the RIAA's emotion on - much of them, not all mind you, the people who you say are hurt from free downloading allow their works to be shared for free... that is their choice, but to paint all free downloading as bad when there are exceptions is nothing short of propogating orwellian brainwashing.
Here, the AC went off on an irrelevancy. Of course it's fine -- wonderful even -- when an independent artist allows his/her work to be downloaded for free via the internet. While P2P is in my opinion a lousy way for an artist to do this (a web page is better - bandwidth is cheap enough these days), however the artist chooses to do so is his business. in practice, this amounts to a miniscule percentage of P2p traffic, and is really sidestepping my question - i basically was discussing rasons that people give to justify their piracy (of which there is a hell of a lot, by any standard), and his response was basically "well, they let me", which is kind of a non-sequitur. Then he goes into some nonsense about orwellian whatever.
(I WROTE) ...how would you feel if you just bought a lexus only to find that all of your friends had just stolen one?
(HE WROTE) Bad logic, copying and theft are different..
Here, I wrote regarding the PERCEIVED VALUE of something. He responded with a bullshit irrelevancy about how copyright infringement and theft are different. of course they are in some ways, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived value point that I was making. Basically, as above, the AC tries to bring in an irrelvant argument to distract from the real situation, to which he has no legitimate response.
I call bullshit on this one, maybe not as much mainstream will be produced, but then again - how much does mainstream actually make up of all the content in the world?
This is a longer answer than I can make here. The high-school quality response of the AC starts with some arbitrary definition of "mainstream". there's too many levels of analysis that would have to be made to respond to this, and I don't have the time. however, the link is well known in economics, and hundreds of research papers a year testify to this.
This my friend is a problem with insecurity, since no matter what, piracy can happen/will happen, Murphy's law in action... techniclogically it si impossible to prevent this with digital media at this point.
Ah, the old "it will happen, therefore it's justified" approach. I wonder if our AC friend takes this approach to murder and other crimes, too? Do you still think this AC was anything but a troll (maybe he's just realy, really dumb)?
Look, do I think that artists should be compensated? Yes, when they deserve it,
There's a mechanism for this. It's called "the market." Don't like it? Don't buy it. The point is especially poignant since most of what is pirated is absolutely inessential ENTERTAINMENT material.
do I think piracy is bad? Depends on the cirumstances... but your painting it all in a distorted view... not all free downloading is illegal, or bad...
I would suggest that piracy is by definition bad, but I welcome you to give an example of "good" piracy. I don't doubt that there might be some, but they are certainly rather exceptional.
As for my distorted view, given that NOT ONE of your rebuttal points stands up to even basic scrutiny, I suggest that it might be you with a distorted view.
As for "not all free downloading being illegal".. well, who ever said it was? If you as a content producer want to make your material freely downloadable, then more power to you. No honest person, however, would suggest other wise than the VAST, VAST, VAST, VAST bulk of material being swapped through p2p networks today is being done so illegally.
In short, most reasonable people and judges would agree that sharing a small number of materials with truly immediate people under normal circumstances is considered fair use. Using a "friends and family" clause to use eDonkey is not. It is as illegal in poland as anywhere else. Sorry, man! You guys want to be treated as a modern EU (or even civilized in general) country. This is the law.
Bullshit. Poland's copyright law of 4 February 1994 basically harmonized poland's IP laws with those of the rest of the world. Of course "uploading / downloading copyright material" to yourself is legal, but it is as illegal to "share" copyright materials with others in poland as anywhere else. Whatever rumours your friends told you or you read on some message board are bullshit.
Nice Troll, AC!
Slashdot pencildickness reaches a new low.
www.websters.com
Main Entry: piracy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
Bullshit.
Is MS felt that was the case, then it could give windows away in order to seed future customers.
However, ignoring even that, your argument is still bullshit. Note the "until comes such a time that Microsoft can demand payment" nonsense. Here's news for you, jack: the vast bulk of people who pirate things on P2P networks can infact afford to pay for the things they are pirating, but simply choose not to, because it's cheaper.
Winners: the RIAA, to whom the small musician must aspire to run to, as this continues to be the only outlet via which the musician can earn a living. It's a real shame, given the possibilities of the web.
Losers: the mass bulk of honest people: who are forced to deal with what economists call "dead weight loss" associated with piracy. This includes:
Winners: a select group of self-righteous technologically aware idiots who spin bullshit pseudophilosophical justifications for their piracy of music, software, movie, and other content. Thes people benefit at the expense of those who actually pay for the content, and in aggregate cause less content to be produced and at higher prices. Ironically, these dishonest people often are seen to blame the "poor quality" of the music as the reason as to why they have to steal it. They have convenient boogiemen in "bmw driving middlemen RIAA executives" and other easy-to-hate types that they point to in order to draw attention from the root cause of the problem, which is their greed (and intelletual dishonesty). Of course, these people are "winners" in the sense that they get lots of free music, movies, and software and are the successful leeches.. however, in every other sense of the word, they are complete losers.
In other news, isn't it funny how slashdot basically thrives (mediocre product, horrible quality control, but has a critical mass of users basically out of habit and history and "lock in" (in the sense that if you start your own blog/os it may be better, but incompatible?)) for the same things that the dominating reasoning here constantly bashes microsoft for? The lousy editing ("Clause") is only today's example.
Bullshiat. Standards define INTERFACES, not the behavior or design of software.
Since everyone who's using a webbrowser is using a kernel too, why don't we just put the browser right in the kernel?
Bullshiat Argument. To the user the kernel is irrelevant. If you can make a better user experience with this (increased ability to tackle real-world problems), then go for it. The problem in practice is that while you could do this in the short term, this would prevent you from doing this in the long term because of code complexity and security issues.
A root is the top level directory in a filesystem
Windows PCs have a virtual root calld my computer. I'm sorry you are so ignorant about this. C:\ is logically "mounted" to my computer. Your ignorance doesn't make this less true.
Your "limited number of roots assigned" (A-Z) is FALSE even if it were the case that "c:\" is a root, which it is not.
So, to summarize: you are ignorant and wrong, and most likely an idiot. Thank you.
An application program exists to do real world tasks, not to fulfill some hypothetical void in some idiot's world of philosophical desktop nomenclatura for pencildicks. If a web browser integrated with a waffle iron turns out to be a useful thing in the real world, then it "should be." If the most elegantly written software that is provably correct but doesn't actually do anything useful should not. The computer exists to serve man, not the other way around.
About your multiple roots idea: stop it already. i can just as easily type "my computer" (which i can rename to whatever the hell i want), or "my network places" or whatever the hell other arbitrary root i happen to want into there. just because you are ignorant of this does not make the facts any less true.
And furthermore, just because you have an outdated cartoon version of windows doesn't make it true, either, nor does just because you have an idiot's view of "what software should be" CERTAINLY doesn't make it true.
This is what I call a "slashdot moment." Where else can you get such self-assured idiocy? Man I love this place and throwbacks like you who still find the mouse to be a bit suspect and untrustworthy.
I have IE, Firefox, and Opera on my systems, and IE is consistently the fastest and least crash prone. I understand that IE has had security vulnerabilities, but, well, so have all the others just as soon as they gained some popularity. Sure, each have some nice features that IE don't, like built-in popup blockers and a password remembering feature that actually works, but all those things I have better any way free IE add-ons.
I just don't see any real technical / usbility reason to switch. Plus, if i type "C:\" in the address bar of IE, it looks normal and usable, not like firefox, which puts me in the wayback machine to 1994 UI land, so I can actually interoperate between my local PC and web browsing easily.
Bottom line: you clearly confuse a university with a trade school.
I don't know about France, but in many other countries, including the UK, the answer is a definite NO (in the general case).
Pardon me for presuming, but, well, it probably wouldnt hurt you to go read about some governmental systems outside of the USA. There's a lot of good I think from studying the UK system in particular, since (while it certainly has its downsides), presents some interesting contrasts with the USA with regards to devolved and decentralized power, "working without a constitition", the role of national vs local governments, having a truly professional AND POLITICALY NEUTRAL public servant corps, and the difference between government and parliament.
I wish I had moderation points for you today. Well said!
I'm sure you're fully in support of search engines fully cooperating with despotic governments in order to filter free speech then, too?
Yes, new technology, if better and ECONOMICALLY VIABLE will surplant ineffecient ones just like rail supplanted the steamboat. Let's be very clear on this: RAIL supplanted the steamboat because it benefitted BOTH SIDES: SUPPLIERS (rail) could make money doing it, and USERS would benefit from it.
There is NO such mutual relationship in the bold new world of instant piracy. Rather, all you get is that the user demand, but that the supply is unwilling to play because there is insufficient incentive for them to do so. You'd have to be an absolute moron not to realize at this point. This is not progress or technological/economic advancement: it's an unbalanced situation that is unsustainable.
If and only if the content providers find an economically viable way to distribute their content, or some completely new content providers come and seize the opportunity because the traditional content providers are too incompetent or slow will you see actual progress. As we see, they are trying this with things like iTunes and TV-shows-downloadable-on-demand. But to say that such models have now been proven to be viable is speculative at best.
PIRACY no more outdates an IP business model than a CROWBAR outdates jewelry stores.
Your version of the "needs of the end users" is an endless black hole. The end user always wants faster, better, cheaper.. hell free and lots of it! Yes, sadly the networks can not afford to produce quality programming and give it away for free, without advertising or some other revenue source.
Your cynicism is misplaced - it should not be directed at the pockets of the networks, but rather at your own inability to recognize that the problem is that the end-users who choose to pirate are an unbalancing force in the ecosystem, and if and when that ecosystem comes crashing down (as many here so often claim they wish it will, at least as music is concerned), then they better be the last in line bitching about how suddenly there are fewer shows on TV (or music CDs in the stores) or that copyrightholders increasingly resort to stricter and stricted methods to try to bring some balance back.
Sure, some fanboy is going to mod me as a troll or what have you, but the fact is that perl is well past its sell by date. And, not without reason. While it, like anything, can be useful under the right circumstances, the fact is that Perl syntax is laborious and inconsistent, to say the least. Hard as this may seem to believe, the world has moved on to the conclusion that programming languages should be EASY to read and run FAST, not HARD to read and run slow. Or, at the very least, EASY to read and run SLOW is good enough in some circumstances to.
I have absolutely no doubt that perl is comfortable to the few of you who still use it daily. The rest of us simply recognize that it's an awkward language by gauging the amazingly short time period between having to look up THE SAME BASIC THINGS over and over again. Basically, perl is like Emacs or the CLI: it's a cult.
Chop() belongs on the scrap heap of history with malloc(), as far as simple end-user-focused programs go.