The typical Slashdot AC. Posting insults, and only showing his own lack
of intellect. I'll try and explain this in laymans terms so that your
mind can grasp the concepts.
This system is not creating energy, it is simply utilizing energy stored
in the magnets. Let me give you an example. Put a paper clip on a
table. Move a magnet over it. You're going to think the next part is
magic, but trust me it isn't. The paper clip, get this... jumps through
the air, and attaches to the magnet. WOWIE ZOWIE! The magnet, through
the magics of magnetic force fields, has supplied energy to the
paperclip. This energy was stored in the magnet through processes in
the core of the earth, a star, or hot regions of deep space long, long
ago.
Now go run and tell your mom and dad about this new magic trick, and
next time think before you post insults.
Can you provide a similar explanation for how the energy is coming from the magnets?
The easiest way to convince yourself that a magnet can transfer energy is to hold a magnet over a paper clip, and watch the paper clip jump up to the magnet. By the definition of energy, work, and force, the magnet has supplied a source of energy, to counteract gravity and pull the paper clip towards it.
Perhaps you should go back to school, furthermore, don't call someone a
fool when you haven't got sufficiently firm footing on your own points.
In fact, it's a bad idea to call anyone a fool in an intellectual
discussion, it makes you appear immature.
Did you RTFA?
The energy in his system comes from the attractive-repulsive combination
of magnets used in his system, with precision alignments, people have
speculated about this for years, this brillant man has finally done it.
Note: You don't get "free" energy, you still have to apply energy to get
any out, but providing that energy allows you to tap the magnets as a
storage device for a little extra push, saving you some energy in the
long term
There is "energy in magnets", the same way there is energy in a ball
dropped from a height. If I take a rare earth magnet, hold it above a
table, and then move a paper clip underneath it, voila, the paper clip
raises off the ground, and attaches to the magnet. A force has been
applied to move an object over a distance, and by basic physics, as system
A (the magnet) has done work on system B (the paper clip on the table),
then energy flows from system A to system B. The magnet provides enough
energy so that sufficient work can be done to counteract the force of
gravity and move the paper clip to the magnet.
If you can't see the energy in that system, then you my friend need to
read up on physics. The inventor claims to have reached the theoretical
balance of magnets required to eliminate the lock-up system commonly
achieved when making systems using magnets as a kinetic battery. This
situation has been postulated by many, but never achieved until this
time. It violates no laws of thermodynamics.
I've seen this one before, and what the guy is doing does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, what he is doing is tapping into magnets and a sort of kinetic battery. Just as running a nuclear plant puts out more electricity than is required to run it, so does this device. They use an alternative form of fuel which is readily available. In this case, they use the force from the magnets to generate additional power, increasing the power of the generator beyond the normal amount provided from the wall socket.
Over time the magnets degrade, and the device will cease functioning until new magnets are used. Thermodynamics are preserved. The energy isn't coming from no where, and this is not a perpetual motion device, just a new idea to efficiently transform the energy in magnets into something usable.
The problem with your analogy is that most things are not a "natural right". You claim you have some sort of natural right to property, but property is not something that is even a concept for most animals and some people. We just decide "I am entitled to this thing, therefor it is mine", under a finders keepers rule (Someone finds the ore, mines it and sells it, someone finds some land, farms it, and sells the profits, someone claims a forest, and sells the by products, etc).
Likewise, intelletual property is simply the finding of an idea. We assign the same rights to it, because we recognize that hard work went into their formation, just like hardwork went into the formation of an iron poker which a blacksmith made, and a miner mined the raw materials for.
We allow these people the right to give such things away, and indeed some do, but we also protect their right to sell it for compensation. Why is affording the same right to ideas which required the same amount of hard work, so alien and bizarre?
Folk music was developed based on previous work, and even today some of the most popular songs use parts of others (compare "What I got" by Sublime to "Lady Madonna" by the Beetles for a good example), or are entire remakes. People continue to exercise their right to give things away. I personally do, I've authored several manuals which I provided free of charge, and many programs which others are now using in their work, free of charge.
Today however, we recognize that intellectual effort is valuable, and produces very real results too. We no longer cling to the notions of our barbaric ancestors that the only things worth value are those won with blood and sweat. We now also see that scholars, researchers, and great thinkers contribute to society in ways that should be rewarded, and protected so as to encourage the occupation.
I would like to apologize for the emotion in my previous post, I get sick and tired of a lot of the typical slashdot fair of posts, and can get hot headed when someone opens with "I disagree with you, therefor you are a troll", or similar statements.
Ok, I'll grant you that, the permission isn't in the use, but the distribution, although keep in mind, some documents do bear limited use agreements that do hold up. This of course is a bit off-topic in the case of a movie, but for instance, I work with some data for which I had to sign an NDA to use, i.e. we can use it in our work, and draw conclusions from it, and even share these derivitives, but not the original data.
So I guess the point is this: you can pay for the privlage of attending a public performance, but you have no right of copy as right of use, or fair use of the viewed materials is not in the theaters power to grant.
I'll admit this is foggy ground (and thank you for being one of the few people in this discussion willing to talk about things civily). A lot of modern law is, more and more our society is moving towards intangible goods. Which would you rather buy? A new piece of furniture, or new software/music/movies? More and more we're "owning" forms of information, and the laws haven't fully caught up with the shift in consumerism. This makes it tough.
Here is a question though: What would you argue is being sold in terms of a ticket on an already nearly crowded bus, on which your additional presence will have no measurable impact on operating costs? I think this is the best analogy for this sort of crime, but "right of use", I'll admit, is poorly defined in both cases.
No I was (incorrectly obviously) assuming that you were intelligent enough to know that by copyright I meant "the traditional definition of copyright with respect to copying privlages and rights" vs. the new unorthodox defintion, called copyleft by Stalman and others who lead the free information movement.
Nope, you don't need a license to use, and in any case, if I "stole a
license to use" that would mean that I was in possession of a license now,
wouldn't it? Are you really stating that if I commit copyright
infringement I gain a license of some sort? Do you even know what a
license is?
If you obtained the movie in the first place, you either had some sort of
limited license for use (such as a ticket), whether implied or stated.
I'm not stating that if you commit copyright infringement that you gain a
license, rather that by distributing it illegally you are exercising a
non-existant license for distribution. In effect you are stealing, just
as riding a bus without a proper ticket is stealing. It may be an
intangible resource you are stealing, but it still constitutes theft of a
valuable commodimty.
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even know what fair use is.
"Fair use" is defined in terms of exemptions to copyright. You don't need
any special law or permission to view a movie or listen to a song.
Copyright law is not intended to allow copyright holders to restrict use,
merely copying.
Thanks for demonstrating you lack the ability to read. Fair use is
explicitly defined in copyright law, which is actually what I said.
Copyright law also explicitly defines the limitations on fair use, and the
extent of its application.
You do need special permission to listen to a song, which is why radio
stations must pay roylaties based on a projected listening audience, and
why theaters must pay to play a movie which they have in their possession.
Likewise, it is illegal for you to tape a song off the radio, people do
it, but it is still illegal.
If you would actually take the time to read the law, you'd see it talks
explicitly about restricting terms of use. You cannot, for example, play
a video which you own in a public location without purchasing additional
rights to it. Likewise, you cannot play a CD you own for the public with
purchasing additional rights.
I can go to the library and legally copy pages from a book under fair
use, even though I don't own the book. Same goes for film. "Fair use" says
nothing about it because nowhere is it assumed that you need some kind of
special right over a particular copy to invoke fair use.
Actually, no you can't. Most libraries overlook this fact, and so do the
authorities, but it is still illegal. You can copy, under fair use,
anything you personally own (not something you are borrowing) for archival
purposes. You cannot do this with borrowed materials.
Copyright holders may of course relax these restrictions, many reference
books, for example, allow for the limited copying of parts of the whole
work for academic purposes. They all however, expressly forbid such
copying for the purpose of recreating the entire work for redistribution.
There's no correlation between swearing and how smart somebody is, I
know plenty of smart people who swear and plenty of dumb people who don't.
It's a shame you've stooped to ad hominem attacks though.
Don't get on my case for "ad hominem attacks", when I was simply calling
you down for calling me a "kneejerking fuckwit". Swearing and cursing
have no place in a debate, or other forms of intellectual dialogue.
They don't add to your case, instead they paint you as a simpleton, or
immature individual who has to resort to personal attacks because you feel
your own arguments can't stand by themselves.
Direct quote please. Please show me the bit where he states that fair
use gives you the right to view material that you haven't paid for. Go
ahead.
You can read the story post as well as I can. The poster "sam0ht"
expresses his rage at a man being arrested for video taping the film, and
then expressed his anger that copied films would soon become rare. Ergo,
he thinks that the copying of these materials, presumably for someone's
use later (which they do not have a right to), should be allowed.
It's not an unlicensed public performance. I am perfectly allowed to show anything in a private setting to my family, and/or guests. CMPDA Rules on Performances
Copyleft is not the opposite, but it is different. My statement was merely that I choose to be more liberal about the rights I assign my works, not that I choose the opposite.
Metal detectors weren't mentioned, and there will always be theaters who allow you to bring in what you want. Some theaters in my area prohibit backpacks because they want to you to not bring in outside food. The one I go to could care less if my wife and I walk in with sodas. They also only charge us $5.25 for prime time tickets with stadium seating.
It would be exactly the same. A bus pays no more money for operation, if it has 0 passengers or 100 passengers (leaving out a slight increase in load, insigificant when compared to the sheer weight of a bus). But it still charges to ride. A movie corporation pays no more money if the movie is viewed by 1 or 1,000,000 people. But it still charges to view. It's a right of use that is being stolen.
No, it clearly isn't. Theft requires you to take something, not to copy it. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that copyright infringement is theft beyond asserting it repeatedly until people are too bored to disagree?
Yes, and if you actually would read posts before responding to them, you'd see that. Video taping a movie and distributing it to others is theft. You are stealing a license to use. Just like a bus sells the right to ride on it for a price, so do movie makers sell a right to distribute, and a right to view, which you are stealing. Theft is not always of a tangible asset, as more and more our society is moving towards the intangible.
No you didn't. Copyright allows you to control copying. It does not allow you to control use. Otherwise it would be called useright, wouldn't it?
Perhaps you should read copyright law before you claim you understand it, and have knowledge of it. Copyright law explicitly defines right of use, the right of fair use, and the limitations which may be imposed on right of use. I may sell you the ability to view, or use, under terms of my choosing, my copyright works, within the limitations of fair use.
No where under fair use does it say you may video tape a movie for which you have limited one time viewing rights. You did not buy a copy of the copyright work, you purchased a limited, one time viewing license for it.
He never claimed that, and he never claimed copyright infringement wasn't wrong, in fact he said the opposite, you stupid kneejerking fuckwit.
When you curse and swear, I have to tell you, it really makes me impressed by your intellectual capacity. My little brother swears too you know.
Furthermore he did state that he felt it was his fair use right to view material which he did not pay for, i.e. he thinks the world owes him the right to things he did not earn or pay for.
Now, one last time for all the slow kiddies out there:
1. Theft is wrong.
2. Copyright infringement is wrong.
3. Theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different crimes.
Those three statements are not mutually incompatible.
No they aren't mutually incompatible, but it also doesn't mean that you can't commit theft and copyright infringement at the same time.
It is theft in the same way that riding a bus without paying for a ticket is theft. No it isn't the same as shoplifting, but it is still theft. Is the punishement here a bit severe? Yes, but thats why we have a system of judicial review and appeals.
When technology reaches the state you have suggested, then laws will probably need to be adjusted one way or the other to account for it. We aren't at that point now, and that isn't what is under discussion, what is being discussed is a device which has no other purpose in it's setting but to illegally record movies. The guy had set up his camcorder, and begun recording.
To respond to your third point, they don't have to be household members, the law states:
"Copies of a film sold or rented to the public are for home use only and intended solely for the enjoyment of a person, his/her family and guests in a home setting. "
They were guests in a home setting, and thus it was legal.
I agree that copyrights were meant to be applied for a limited time. But we're talking about something whose copyright has been in effect for less than a year.
Before you accuse others of trolling, come down off your own high horse, think about your arguements logically, and make sure you're on firm ground.
1. copying isn't stealing. it isn't rape, murder, barratry, assault, or slander, either. please stop murdering the english language. (or is that stealing the english language?) George Orwell is crying somewhere, while Gingrich is laughing.
The violations of the law you posted are very far out from what copying is, using excessive exaggeration does not prove your point. Copying is stealing, just in the same way that riding a bus or train without a ticket is stealing, you're illegally taking something you didn't pay for, even if all it is, is time, space, or rights. The english language is an ever evolving thing, when one can "steal a base" in a sport, just as easily as "stealing money" from a bank, it becomes obvious we have a wonderfully evolving language.
2. making a bad copy of a movie does not warrant a felony conviction, jail time, loss of the right to vote, loss of the ability to make a living, or the loss of the right to serve on a jury. this is insane. it was a civil infraction, punishable by fine, until the MPAA and RIAA made it a federal crime more severe than the act of murder.(rape? angary? does semantics matter when money is on the line?)
Once again exaggeration doesn't make your case. Murder and rape are not less severe than copying, you can get very long prison sentances, and even death for them. Shut up and research your facts before blathering like an idiot.
You will also note I didn't say I thought the punishment was proper, that is for a court to decide though, not the MPAA, as the trial hasn't gone through yet, we have no idea what the punishment will be, and thus those that have been suggested by the poster are just assinine speculation. If it is that bad, appeals will rectify the situation.
3. as many have said, why isn't Ken Lay in jail if the Law is the LAW? Some schmuck is going to be raped for years and have his life extinguished because the MPAA bought a law? who the hell in Hollywood has gone to jail for raping a creator out of millions of dollars in royalties?
Kenneth Lay has NOTHING to do with this story, stay on topic! Kenneth Lay should rot for what he did, no one will argue differently here. The person who commited this crime still did something wrong, and should be punished, once again, how much depends on what the judge rules, and how appeals go, this hasn't even been broached yet, so stop speculating wildly. And FYI, tons of Hollywood king pins have been sued, and they have lost, for the infringment of other people's copyrights, and for unfair contracts. It happens all the time, research before you post!
4. i keep hearing that he was in private establishment. but Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) had his life ruined and his bank account drained for masturbating in a PUBLIC PLACE: the porno theater.
if the theater is a public place, this means we are not permitted to record video in public? Judge Scalia CAN confiscate voice recorders? if it is a private establishment where Constitutional rights are suspended, why was Reubens arrested and humiliated for being in public?
You need to grow up a bit and learn about the world. Classified Government facilities are public places with restricted access. Public doesn't mean you can "do whatever the hell you want", nor does it mean "anyone is allowed in".
Merriam-Webster offers the following as a definition of the world public: "of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs"
Next time you complain about the english language, make sure you know a bit about it yourself.
5. if the Law is the LAW, would it be right for a locality to execute you for a speeding ticket? After all, you are expected to know the consequences for your illegal actions. Discuss.
Once again, learn how to debate, excessive exaggeration DOES NOT make your point. It only makes you look like a moron.
Executing someone for speeding would be a VIOLATION of the law, as it would fa
The best was when I was in college. We'd go to the video store, rent a film for under a buck, then get together in a small group (about 10-15 people), go to one of the lecture halls and project the film using the room equipment. The end result was the same as going to a theater, more or less, for abotu $0.05 a piece. We'd usually chip in to buy food for everyone and then make a nice evening out of it.
Yes your post is a nice troll, but I'm biting anyway, in the future, don't be a coward, and actually use your login though, makes things more interesting.
Copyleft != opposite of copyright.
I never said it was the opposite, you did. Copyleft, however, is very different from Copyright, because it allows for copies to be made of a covered work, and for said copies to be distributed in a responsible manner. Traditional "Copyright" works (and less I know a Copyleft is a form of a Copyright) don't allow for this.
Copyright violation != stealing. Taping something which you can see:= fair use. Distributing recordings of copyrighted works without copyright owners consent == copyright violation.
Violating terms of a copyright is theft, it's a theft of money which I otherwise would have had for the thing I sold you. I sold you limited rights to use something, you broke the law and have robbed my company of it's livelihood.
Taping something which anyone can see is fair use, taping something you have purchased the unlimited right to view, for your own archives is fair use. Taping something for which you have limited rights to use, to distribute to others who have no right to use it, is NOT fair use.
It's people like you who think the world owes them a living who give the rest of us geeks a bad name. Some of us choose for our works to be freely distributed with no cost. That is our choice. I am one of such people. I get payed, not for the content I produce, but from what I derive from the content. I'm funded entirely by grant money which allows me to release all the things I produce openly. Those who supply me with the grants are paying for my expertise.
However, someone in the movie industry is being payed for one thing, and one thing only, their product, not their abilities within a limited context. They produce entertainment, and they sell the right to use such entertainment.
A bus has the same cost when running, no matter how many people ride it, but that doesn't mean you should ride for free. You pay for the right to use the bus.
Likewise, a movie has the same cost when produced, no matter how many people view it, but that doesn't mean you should view it for free. You pay for the right to view the movie.
This is where Slashdot really ticks me off sometimes. Yes a lot of us (myself included) choose to copyleft our works, instead of copyrighting them. However, this doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to do so. Taking a camcorder into a movie theater is wrong, plain and simple. People laid down a serious investment into making the movie, and if you think it is too much, then wait for it to come out on video, don't steal it through the use of a camcorder in the theater.
Further more, hey Michael, what's with the comment, huh? The lesson isn't to "stay out of movie theaters", it is, quite simply, DON'T STEAL! If you come into a bank and try and rob it, and get busted, the lesson is not "stay out of banks", but "don't rob banks". Do you truly think people should just give everything to you Michael? Then perhaps you should just donate your time to your job, huh? I have friends who work for special effects companies in the movie industry, and yes it is an industry. It's about producing something that people want to buy. If you don't buy it, and see it illegally, you're stealing.
Grow up guys, and learn to respect the rights of others. The responsible thing to do is either pay for the movie, or don't see it. If a movie comes out that I think I might want to see, but don't want to pay $8 for it, I wait for it to come out on video, and then pick it up from the local video store on their two for $0.99 tuesday deal. At under $0.50 for a show, split amongst five people, I don't think there is a pricing problem here at all. This isn't even like the software industry where they charge $300 per copy. I pay less than $0.10 to view a movie, and I'll gladly do that any day.
I wish that the readers and submitters here would learn to respect other people's hard work, and that the editors, and Michael in particular, would keep their editing professional and not post idiotic comments that have no bearing on the substance of the article, and no basis in reality.
They have had these for a LONG time in my home town. They don't work, the speeders end up either running the red light, or gunning it and making through the yellow. The end result? Speeders pass, and everyone else is punished.
Things like this are a Good Idea(tm) in theory, but when put into practice fall quite short of the mark.
Additionally, their triggers are often set to unreasonable levels, such as 5 miles over the speed limit, which can easily happen due to sensor differences and upward drift of speed in between glances.
Oh wow! Such hoops! You mean I have to unzip the file? Oh woe is me, for unzipping is such a difficult process.
Stop whining, it only makes you look incompetent. Yes, for your information, 1MB of savings per user, over several million hits really does save a lot of bandwidth you insensitive clod.
Graft acting abilities onto Kirsten Dunst? There are two rather large reasons why she was hired for the part, and neither were her acting abilities. Instead they were the show cases of the rain soaked shirt scene of the first movie, and are already firmly grafted into place.
Slashdot Mirror
The typical Slashdot AC. Posting insults, and only showing his own lack of intellect. I'll try and explain this in laymans terms so that your mind can grasp the concepts.
This system is not creating energy, it is simply utilizing energy stored in the magnets. Let me give you an example. Put a paper clip on a table. Move a magnet over it. You're going to think the next part is magic, but trust me it isn't. The paper clip, get this... jumps through the air, and attaches to the magnet. WOWIE ZOWIE! The magnet, through the magics of magnetic force fields, has supplied energy to the paperclip. This energy was stored in the magnet through processes in the core of the earth, a star, or hot regions of deep space long, long ago.
Now go run and tell your mom and dad about this new magic trick, and next time think before you post insults.
Can you provide a similar explanation for how the energy is coming from the magnets?
The easiest way to convince yourself that a magnet can transfer energy is to hold a magnet over a paper clip, and watch the paper clip jump up to the magnet. By the definition of energy, work, and force, the magnet has supplied a source of energy, to counteract gravity and pull the paper clip towards it.
Perhaps you should go back to school, furthermore, don't call someone a fool when you haven't got sufficiently firm footing on your own points. In fact, it's a bad idea to call anyone a fool in an intellectual discussion, it makes you appear immature.
Did you RTFA?
The energy in his system comes from the attractive-repulsive combination of magnets used in his system, with precision alignments, people have speculated about this for years, this brillant man has finally done it. Note: You don't get "free" energy, you still have to apply energy to get any out, but providing that energy allows you to tap the magnets as a storage device for a little extra push, saving you some energy in the long term
Did you RTFA?
There is "energy in magnets", the same way there is energy in a ball dropped from a height. If I take a rare earth magnet, hold it above a table, and then move a paper clip underneath it, voila, the paper clip raises off the ground, and attaches to the magnet. A force has been applied to move an object over a distance, and by basic physics, as system A (the magnet) has done work on system B (the paper clip on the table), then energy flows from system A to system B. The magnet provides enough energy so that sufficient work can be done to counteract the force of gravity and move the paper clip to the magnet.
If you can't see the energy in that system, then you my friend need to read up on physics. The inventor claims to have reached the theoretical balance of magnets required to eliminate the lock-up system commonly achieved when making systems using magnets as a kinetic battery. This situation has been postulated by many, but never achieved until this time. It violates no laws of thermodynamics.
I've seen this one before, and what the guy is doing does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, what he is doing is tapping into magnets and a sort of kinetic battery. Just as running a nuclear plant puts out more electricity than is required to run it, so does this device. They use an alternative form of fuel which is readily available. In this case, they use the force from the magnets to generate additional power, increasing the power of the generator beyond the normal amount provided from the wall socket.
Over time the magnets degrade, and the device will cease functioning until new magnets are used. Thermodynamics are preserved. The energy isn't coming from no where, and this is not a perpetual motion device, just a new idea to efficiently transform the energy in magnets into something usable.
The problem with your analogy is that most things are not a "natural right". You claim you have some sort of natural right to property, but property is not something that is even a concept for most animals and some people. We just decide "I am entitled to this thing, therefor it is mine", under a finders keepers rule (Someone finds the ore, mines it and sells it, someone finds some land, farms it, and sells the profits, someone claims a forest, and sells the by products, etc).
Likewise, intelletual property is simply the finding of an idea. We assign the same rights to it, because we recognize that hard work went into their formation, just like hardwork went into the formation of an iron poker which a blacksmith made, and a miner mined the raw materials for.
We allow these people the right to give such things away, and indeed some do, but we also protect their right to sell it for compensation. Why is affording the same right to ideas which required the same amount of hard work, so alien and bizarre?
Folk music was developed based on previous work, and even today some of the most popular songs use parts of others (compare "What I got" by Sublime to "Lady Madonna" by the Beetles for a good example), or are entire remakes. People continue to exercise their right to give things away. I personally do, I've authored several manuals which I provided free of charge, and many programs which others are now using in their work, free of charge.
Today however, we recognize that intellectual effort is valuable, and produces very real results too. We no longer cling to the notions of our barbaric ancestors that the only things worth value are those won with blood and sweat. We now also see that scholars, researchers, and great thinkers contribute to society in ways that should be rewarded, and protected so as to encourage the occupation.
I would like to apologize for the emotion in my previous post, I get sick and tired of a lot of the typical slashdot fair of posts, and can get hot headed when someone opens with "I disagree with you, therefor you are a troll", or similar statements.
Ok, I'll grant you that, the permission isn't in the use, but the distribution, although keep in mind, some documents do bear limited use agreements that do hold up. This of course is a bit off-topic in the case of a movie, but for instance, I work with some data for which I had to sign an NDA to use, i.e. we can use it in our work, and draw conclusions from it, and even share these derivitives, but not the original data.
So I guess the point is this: you can pay for the privlage of attending a public performance, but you have no right of copy as right of use, or fair use of the viewed materials is not in the theaters power to grant.
I'll admit this is foggy ground (and thank you for being one of the few people in this discussion willing to talk about things civily). A lot of modern law is, more and more our society is moving towards intangible goods. Which would you rather buy? A new piece of furniture, or new software/music/movies? More and more we're "owning" forms of information, and the laws haven't fully caught up with the shift in consumerism. This makes it tough.
Here is a question though: What would you argue is being sold in terms of a ticket on an already nearly crowded bus, on which your additional presence will have no measurable impact on operating costs? I think this is the best analogy for this sort of crime, but "right of use", I'll admit, is poorly defined in both cases.
No I was (incorrectly obviously) assuming that you were intelligent enough to know that by copyright I meant "the traditional definition of copyright with respect to copying privlages and rights" vs. the new unorthodox defintion, called copyleft by Stalman and others who lead the free information movement.
Nope, you don't need a license to use, and in any case, if I "stole a license to use" that would mean that I was in possession of a license now, wouldn't it? Are you really stating that if I commit copyright infringement I gain a license of some sort? Do you even know what a license is?
If you obtained the movie in the first place, you either had some sort of limited license for use (such as a ticket), whether implied or stated. I'm not stating that if you commit copyright infringement that you gain a license, rather that by distributing it illegally you are exercising a non-existant license for distribution. In effect you are stealing, just as riding a bus without a proper ticket is stealing. It may be an intangible resource you are stealing, but it still constitutes theft of a valuable commodimty.
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even know what fair use is. "Fair use" is defined in terms of exemptions to copyright. You don't need any special law or permission to view a movie or listen to a song. Copyright law is not intended to allow copyright holders to restrict use, merely copying.
Thanks for demonstrating you lack the ability to read. Fair use is explicitly defined in copyright law, which is actually what I said. Copyright law also explicitly defines the limitations on fair use, and the extent of its application.
You do need special permission to listen to a song, which is why radio stations must pay roylaties based on a projected listening audience, and why theaters must pay to play a movie which they have in their possession. Likewise, it is illegal for you to tape a song off the radio, people do it, but it is still illegal.
If you would actually take the time to read the law, you'd see it talks explicitly about restricting terms of use. You cannot, for example, play a video which you own in a public location without purchasing additional rights to it. Likewise, you cannot play a CD you own for the public with purchasing additional rights.
I can go to the library and legally copy pages from a book under fair use, even though I don't own the book. Same goes for film. "Fair use" says nothing about it because nowhere is it assumed that you need some kind of special right over a particular copy to invoke fair use.
Actually, no you can't. Most libraries overlook this fact, and so do the authorities, but it is still illegal. You can copy, under fair use, anything you personally own (not something you are borrowing) for archival purposes. You cannot do this with borrowed materials.
Copyright holders may of course relax these restrictions, many reference books, for example, allow for the limited copying of parts of the whole work for academic purposes. They all however, expressly forbid such copying for the purpose of recreating the entire work for redistribution.
There's no correlation between swearing and how smart somebody is, I know plenty of smart people who swear and plenty of dumb people who don't. It's a shame you've stooped to ad hominem attacks though.
Don't get on my case for "ad hominem attacks", when I was simply calling you down for calling me a "kneejerking fuckwit". Swearing and cursing have no place in a debate, or other forms of intellectual dialogue. They don't add to your case, instead they paint you as a simpleton, or immature individual who has to resort to personal attacks because you feel your own arguments can't stand by themselves.
Direct quote please. Please show me the bit where he states that fair use gives you the right to view material that you haven't paid for. Go ahead.
You can read the story post as well as I can. The poster "sam0ht" expresses his rage at a man being arrested for video taping the film, and then expressed his anger that copied films would soon become rare. Ergo, he thinks that the copying of these materials, presumably for someone's use later (which they do not have a right to), should be allowed.
I wasn't comparing IP theft to bank robbery, I was comparing Michael's ludicrous statement that:
Go to place A, means committing a crime in place A.
I NEVER said Copyleft isn't a form of copyright. Read my other posts in this thread, as I have no patience to repost it for an AC.
We were all guests in a private facility, we didn't allow just anyone to come in, thus we weren't breaking the law.
It's not an unlicensed public performance. I am perfectly allowed to show anything in a private setting to my family, and/or guests. CMPDA Rules on Performances
Copyleft is not the opposite, but it is different. My statement was merely that I choose to be more liberal about the rights I assign my works, not that I choose the opposite.
Metal detectors weren't mentioned, and there will always be theaters who allow you to bring in what you want. Some theaters in my area prohibit backpacks because they want to you to not bring in outside food. The one I go to could care less if my wife and I walk in with sodas. They also only charge us $5.25 for prime time tickets with stadium seating.
It would be exactly the same. A bus pays no more money for operation, if it has 0 passengers or 100 passengers (leaving out a slight increase in load, insigificant when compared to the sheer weight of a bus). But it still charges to ride. A movie corporation pays no more money if the movie is viewed by 1 or 1,000,000 people. But it still charges to view. It's a right of use that is being stolen.
The quote comes from the Canadian Motion Picture Distributers Association, I'm sure similar ones exist for the MPAA.
No, it clearly isn't. Theft requires you to take something, not to copy it. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that copyright infringement is theft beyond asserting it repeatedly until people are too bored to disagree?
Yes, and if you actually would read posts before responding to them, you'd see that. Video taping a movie and distributing it to others is theft. You are stealing a license to use. Just like a bus sells the right to ride on it for a price, so do movie makers sell a right to distribute, and a right to view, which you are stealing. Theft is not always of a tangible asset, as more and more our society is moving towards the intangible.
No you didn't. Copyright allows you to control copying. It does not allow you to control use. Otherwise it would be called useright, wouldn't it?
Perhaps you should read copyright law before you claim you understand it, and have knowledge of it. Copyright law explicitly defines right of use, the right of fair use, and the limitations which may be imposed on right of use. I may sell you the ability to view, or use, under terms of my choosing, my copyright works, within the limitations of fair use.
No where under fair use does it say you may video tape a movie for which you have limited one time viewing rights. You did not buy a copy of the copyright work, you purchased a limited, one time viewing license for it.
He never claimed that, and he never claimed copyright infringement wasn't wrong, in fact he said the opposite, you stupid kneejerking fuckwit.
When you curse and swear, I have to tell you, it really makes me impressed by your intellectual capacity. My little brother swears too you know.
Furthermore he did state that he felt it was his fair use right to view material which he did not pay for, i.e. he thinks the world owes him the right to things he did not earn or pay for.
Now, one last time for all the slow kiddies out there: 1. Theft is wrong. 2. Copyright infringement is wrong. 3. Theft and copyright infringement are fundamentally different crimes. Those three statements are not mutually incompatible.
No they aren't mutually incompatible, but it also doesn't mean that you can't commit theft and copyright infringement at the same time.
It is theft in the same way that riding a bus without paying for a ticket is theft. No it isn't the same as shoplifting, but it is still theft. Is the punishement here a bit severe? Yes, but thats why we have a system of judicial review and appeals.
When technology reaches the state you have suggested, then laws will probably need to be adjusted one way or the other to account for it. We aren't at that point now, and that isn't what is under discussion, what is being discussed is a device which has no other purpose in it's setting but to illegally record movies. The guy had set up his camcorder, and begun recording.
To respond to your third point, they don't have to be household members, the law states:
"Copies of a film sold or rented to the public are for home use only and intended solely for the enjoyment of a person, his/her family and guests in a home setting. "
They were guests in a home setting, and thus it was legal.
I agree that copyrights were meant to be applied for a limited time. But we're talking about something whose copyright has been in effect for less than a year.
Before you accuse others of trolling, come down off your own high horse, think about your arguements logically, and make sure you're on firm ground.
1. copying isn't stealing. it isn't rape, murder, barratry, assault, or slander, either. please stop murdering the english language. (or is that stealing the english language?) George Orwell is crying somewhere, while Gingrich is laughing.
The violations of the law you posted are very far out from what copying is, using excessive exaggeration does not prove your point. Copying is stealing, just in the same way that riding a bus or train without a ticket is stealing, you're illegally taking something you didn't pay for, even if all it is, is time, space, or rights. The english language is an ever evolving thing, when one can "steal a base" in a sport, just as easily as "stealing money" from a bank, it becomes obvious we have a wonderfully evolving language.
2. making a bad copy of a movie does not warrant a felony conviction, jail time, loss of the right to vote, loss of the ability to make a living, or the loss of the right to serve on a jury. this is insane. it was a civil infraction, punishable by fine, until the MPAA and RIAA made it a federal crime more severe than the act of murder.(rape? angary? does semantics matter when money is on the line?)
Once again exaggeration doesn't make your case. Murder and rape are not less severe than copying, you can get very long prison sentances, and even death for them. Shut up and research your facts before blathering like an idiot.
You will also note I didn't say I thought the punishment was proper, that is for a court to decide though, not the MPAA, as the trial hasn't gone through yet, we have no idea what the punishment will be, and thus those that have been suggested by the poster are just assinine speculation. If it is that bad, appeals will rectify the situation.
3. as many have said, why isn't Ken Lay in jail if the Law is the LAW? Some schmuck is going to be raped for years and have his life extinguished because the MPAA bought a law? who the hell in Hollywood has gone to jail for raping a creator out of millions of dollars in royalties?
Kenneth Lay has NOTHING to do with this story, stay on topic! Kenneth Lay should rot for what he did, no one will argue differently here. The person who commited this crime still did something wrong, and should be punished, once again, how much depends on what the judge rules, and how appeals go, this hasn't even been broached yet, so stop speculating wildly. And FYI, tons of Hollywood king pins have been sued, and they have lost, for the infringment of other people's copyrights, and for unfair contracts. It happens all the time, research before you post!
4. i keep hearing that he was in private establishment. but Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) had his life ruined and his bank account drained for masturbating in a PUBLIC PLACE: the porno theater. if the theater is a public place, this means we are not permitted to record video in public? Judge Scalia CAN confiscate voice recorders? if it is a private establishment where Constitutional rights are suspended, why was Reubens arrested and humiliated for being in public?
You need to grow up a bit and learn about the world. Classified Government facilities are public places with restricted access. Public doesn't mean you can "do whatever the hell you want", nor does it mean "anyone is allowed in".
Merriam-Webster offers the following as a definition of the world public: "of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs"
Next time you complain about the english language, make sure you know a bit about it yourself.
5. if the Law is the LAW, would it be right for a locality to execute you for a speeding ticket? After all, you are expected to know the consequences for your illegal actions. Discuss.
Once again, learn how to debate, excessive exaggeration DOES NOT make your point. It only makes you look like a moron.
Executing someone for speeding would be a VIOLATION of the law, as it would fa
The best was when I was in college. We'd go to the video store, rent a film for under a buck, then get together in a small group (about 10-15 people), go to one of the lecture halls and project the film using the room equipment. The end result was the same as going to a theater, more or less, for abotu $0.05 a piece. We'd usually chip in to buy food for everyone and then make a nice evening out of it.
;)
Man I miss those days
Nice troll.
:= fair use. Distributing recordings of copyrighted works without copyright owners consent == copyright violation.
Yes your post is a nice troll, but I'm biting anyway, in the future, don't be a coward, and actually use your login though, makes things more interesting.
Copyleft != opposite of copyright.
I never said it was the opposite, you did. Copyleft, however, is very different from Copyright, because it allows for copies to be made of a covered work, and for said copies to be distributed in a responsible manner. Traditional "Copyright" works (and less I know a Copyleft is a form of a Copyright) don't allow for this.
Copyright violation != stealing. Taping something which you can see
Violating terms of a copyright is theft, it's a theft of money which I otherwise would have had for the thing I sold you. I sold you limited rights to use something, you broke the law and have robbed my company of it's livelihood.
Taping something which anyone can see is fair use, taping something you have purchased the unlimited right to view, for your own archives is fair use. Taping something for which you have limited rights to use, to distribute to others who have no right to use it, is NOT fair use.
It's people like you who think the world owes them a living who give the rest of us geeks a bad name. Some of us choose for our works to be freely distributed with no cost. That is our choice. I am one of such people. I get payed, not for the content I produce, but from what I derive from the content. I'm funded entirely by grant money which allows me to release all the things I produce openly. Those who supply me with the grants are paying for my expertise.
However, someone in the movie industry is being payed for one thing, and one thing only, their product, not their abilities within a limited context. They produce entertainment, and they sell the right to use such entertainment.
A bus has the same cost when running, no matter how many people ride it, but that doesn't mean you should ride for free. You pay for the right to use the bus.
Likewise, a movie has the same cost when produced, no matter how many people view it, but that doesn't mean you should view it for free. You pay for the right to view the movie.
This is where Slashdot really ticks me off sometimes. Yes a lot of us (myself included) choose to copyleft our works, instead of copyrighting them. However, this doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to do so. Taking a camcorder into a movie theater is wrong, plain and simple. People laid down a serious investment into making the movie, and if you think it is too much, then wait for it to come out on video, don't steal it through the use of a camcorder in the theater.
Further more, hey Michael, what's with the comment, huh? The lesson isn't to "stay out of movie theaters", it is, quite simply, DON'T STEAL! If you come into a bank and try and rob it, and get busted, the lesson is not "stay out of banks", but "don't rob banks". Do you truly think people should just give everything to you Michael? Then perhaps you should just donate your time to your job, huh? I have friends who work for special effects companies in the movie industry, and yes it is an industry. It's about producing something that people want to buy. If you don't buy it, and see it illegally, you're stealing.
Grow up guys, and learn to respect the rights of others. The responsible thing to do is either pay for the movie, or don't see it. If a movie comes out that I think I might want to see, but don't want to pay $8 for it, I wait for it to come out on video, and then pick it up from the local video store on their two for $0.99 tuesday deal. At under $0.50 for a show, split amongst five people, I don't think there is a pricing problem here at all. This isn't even like the software industry where they charge $300 per copy. I pay less than $0.10 to view a movie, and I'll gladly do that any day.
I wish that the readers and submitters here would learn to respect other people's hard work, and that the editors, and Michael in particular, would keep their editing professional and not post idiotic comments that have no bearing on the substance of the article, and no basis in reality.
They have had these for a LONG time in my home town. They don't work, the speeders end up either running the red light, or gunning it and making through the yellow. The end result? Speeders pass, and everyone else is punished.
Things like this are a Good Idea(tm) in theory, but when put into practice fall quite short of the mark.
Additionally, their triggers are often set to unreasonable levels, such as 5 miles over the speed limit, which can easily happen due to sensor differences and upward drift of speed in between glances.
Oh wow! Such hoops! You mean I have to unzip the file? Oh woe is me, for unzipping is such a difficult process.
Stop whining, it only makes you look incompetent. Yes, for your information, 1MB of savings per user, over several million hits really does save a lot of bandwidth you insensitive clod.
Graft acting abilities onto Kirsten Dunst? There are two rather large reasons why she was hired for the part, and neither were her acting abilities. Instead they were the show cases of the rain soaked shirt scene of the first movie, and are already firmly grafted into place.