" When someone is ready to try an alternative to Windows, its much easier to pick up the CDs rather than wait hours for a public download to finish...and lose the enthusiasm for a change in OS."
Well, there are online stores that will burn stuff like this and send it to you through the mail for a couple of quid. It seems that would be the answer for people on dial-up, interested in giving Linux a try (also cheaper.)
When I first saw Red Hat on store shelves, however, in PC World (UK) I was quite surprised. I thought, oh... it's a serious thing then. It gave it credibility in my mind, at the time, to see it boxed and sold in a (ahem)'proper' shop.
The thing is, people have been sharing music with their friends for decades, ever since the introduction of the compact cassette.
The internet simply brings people together. Millions upon millions of people, who continue their friendly music trading on a greatly ramped-up scale.
All the "illegal copyright infringement" arguments seem to neglect this simple fact: that people are behaving as they normally did (sharing music they liked) but on a larger scale, which is why I have such a problem with argument citing the letter of the law, legal this, illegal that, or even worse citing the supposed lack of morality of p2p copyright infringement.
Copyright law is, with it's continued extensions, nolonger a fair bargain between the public at large and the copyright owners (more specifically the copyright cartels who pay for the law to be crafted in their favour.)
As you (Anonymous Brave Guy) say, though, the juicial process (at least in so far as their is no jury involved) will probably not give a fig about what anyone's opinion is, and keep enforcing the law, just or unjust.
(This may or may not have been relevant to your post, but I needed to get it off my chest.)
Dogs eating mother
Dead dogs
Mother eating dead dog
Dead dogs
Dead mother
Dog...dead
Mother killed by dog
Dying dog eating dead dog
Mother giving birth to dead dog
Death
" However, it [using a filesharing sysytem that only shares 10 - 20 seconds of audio - BS] clearly goes against the point of copyright, and it's clearly just exploiting a loophole..."
And the whole extension of copyright x number of times isn't exploiting a loophole that copyright should only be protection for "limited times?"
That said, there's no way to know how a court will regard such exploitation of the fair use rule.
The corporate lapdogs... sorry politicians, would likely just re-write fair use provisions to eliminate the loophole, anyway.
They don't understand the concept of thumbnails. The pictures are reduced in dimension but not file size, and do not link to the full-size image.
Maybe it's a side effect of the bends, or something.
"It looks like they are only suing because Spam Arrest tried to Trademark Spam. in that case I think they are in their rights because otherwise the UCE company could try to stop them selling their meat-like substance as Spam."
If people had read the article on their website regarding use of their tradmark name SPAM, they would also realise how reasonable the company has been [or had to be:).]
"We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE, although we do object to the use of our product image in association with that term. Also, if the term is to be used, it should be used in all lower-case letters to distinguish it from our trademark SPAM, which should be used with all uppercase letters.
This slang term does not affect the strength of our trademark SPAM. In a Federal District Court case involving the famous trademark STAR WARS owned by LucasFilms, the Court ruled that the slang term used to refer to the Strategic Defense Initiative did not weaken the trademark and the Court refused to stop its use as a slang term. Other examples of famous trademarks having a different slang meaning include MICKEY MOUSE, to describe something as unsophisticated; TEFLON, used to describe President Reagan; and CADILLAC, used to denote something as being high quality."
Hate to burst your bubble, but morality has something to do with everything we do.
I don't buy your justification of the action you detail, at all. You cite the action of the agents as "greedy" a distinctly moral term, and then also say that morality has no bearing on the matter.
At least your post was moderated "interesting" rather than "insightful!"
"...no one at RIAA bitched when people were trading tapes..."
You mustn't have seen all the skull & crossbone symbols, on LP sleeves from the late 70's onwards, with the skull made out of a compact cassette, and bearing the legend, "Home taping is killing the music industry," then.
The RIAA, or equivalent have bitched and whined, wailed and gnashed teeth at every single technological development that has had anything to do with their business.
" Computers are already too unstable and crash-prone. I hate to think how it'll be when my laptop is busy drinking alcohol while I'm trying to work..."
Yeah but look at all the great writers like Hemmingway that were constantly pissed. Your e-mails, blogs and IMs could now become so much more... expressive.
" This is ridiculous. If the RIAA wasn't so concerned plummeting sales (hello, it's the economy stupid!) they'd realize that letting things run their course would be far wiser."
I was hearing on BBC Radio 5 Live, last night, someone who knows the music biz very well, saying album slaes this year in the UK, are up 8% (though the singles market is down the toilet.)
The line that unauthorised downloading is wrecking the music industry, is a crock, put out by the music cartels. They said home taping was killing the music industry, during the 80's. Apparently it's still around to bitch and whine (and there are many more examples from history of their histrionic wailings of doom, too numerous to mention, though just as absurd and baseless.)
" Another problem is consumers' growing appetite for grabbing music online. Downloading, legal or otherwise, has already hit CD sales hard: Since 1999, annual retail music sales have slid 15%, to $8.9 billion in 2002." [emphasis mine]
Has anyone provided a credible causal connection between the use of Kazaa et al. and declining CD sales? Many more factors have been cited, such as DVDs and games competeing for disposable income, a 20%(?) reduction in new material and new artist releases, and the inevitability of people buying less once they've replaced their analogue collections, etc. etc.
And yet still we see supposedly credible journalists and news sources regurgitating what is essentially the RIAA party-line.
"It makes your argument look so weak, you will capitalize on any barely thing that's not even germane to the issue that you're avoiding attacking directly.
It's about the man. It's about him holding people to standards and punishing them for failure, when he can't even meet them.
He comes to the battlefield with less weight now.
Plus I think that the gloating is in proportion to the ridiculous nature of the attack.
If you're going to be so holier-than-thou, with people, then you have to be.
His position was extreme, with little patience for 'transgressors', little compassion for failure. That's about a flaw in his own personal code - his own standards, not the particular argument in question.
It's a meta-issue, if you like.
It's only 'lame' if you think it's about the specific argument; it's about the man's code of conduct/honour/integrity, (etc.) - the issue of 'piracy' and his policy on it, is contained within that.
The senator's web designer didn't register *free* software
More correctly, the senator's web designer didn't register *copyrighted* software. Free or paid for, is the copyright owner's choice. The cost is not the issue.
It damages his *incredibly fanatical* stance against copyright infringement, because he was all "holier-than-thou" and now it's been pointed his fly was open the whole time.
Set your own house in order, before chastising other people, would seem to be the relevant... thingy.
"The government is there to hand out taxpayer money to corporations.
It's so obvious."
Parent is modded as funny, but it's actually fact.
The Public Private Partnership, championed by the New Labour government, was all about (in it's propaganda blurb) the private sector getting the profits, because it was taking the risks.
In practice, however, they take the profits, and the taxpayer bails out the compaies concerned when things go wrong - the private sector gains and the public sector takes all the risk.
The government does hand out taxpayer's money to corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought encryption was classified as a fruit...
Oh no, wait, that was tomatoes...
Well, there are online stores that will burn stuff like this and send it to you through the mail for a couple of quid. It seems that would be the answer for people on dial-up, interested in giving Linux a try (also cheaper.)
When I first saw Red Hat on store shelves, however, in PC World (UK) I was quite surprised. I thought, oh... it's a serious thing then. It gave it credibility in my mind, at the time, to see it boxed and sold in a (ahem)'proper' shop.
Did I buy a copy?
Did I fu..
The internet simply brings people together. Millions upon millions of people, who continue their friendly music trading on a greatly ramped-up scale.
All the "illegal copyright infringement" arguments seem to neglect this simple fact: that people are behaving as they normally did (sharing music they liked) but on a larger scale, which is why I have such a problem with argument citing the letter of the law, legal this, illegal that, or even worse citing the supposed lack of morality of p2p copyright infringement.
Copyright law is, with it's continued extensions, nolonger a fair bargain between the public at large and the copyright owners (more specifically the copyright cartels who pay for the law to be crafted in their favour.)
As you (Anonymous Brave Guy) say, though, the juicial process (at least in so far as their is no jury involved) will probably not give a fig about what anyone's opinion is, and keep enforcing the law, just or unjust.
(This may or may not have been relevant to your post, but I needed to get it off my chest.)
Dead dogs
Mother eating dead dog
Dead dogs
Dead mother
Dog...dead
Mother killed by dog
Dying dog eating dead dog
Mother giving birth to dead dog
Death
I think the term is relative.
Bad choice for a trademarked name?
Here in the UK, "telly" is the generic term for television.
And the whole extension of copyright x number of times isn't exploiting a loophole that copyright should only be protection for "limited times?"
That said, there's no way to know how a court will regard such exploitation of the fair use rule.
The corporate lapdogs... sorry politicians, would likely just re-write fair use provisions to eliminate the loophole, anyway.
They don't understand the concept of thumbnails.
The pictures are reduced in dimension but not file size, and do not link to the full-size image.
Maybe it's a side effect of the bends, or something.
Makes sense.
I can replace ads with pictures of the countryside or kittens, so why not ads with different ads if I so choose, it's my desktop.
If people had read the article on their website regarding use of their tradmark name SPAM, they would also realise how reasonable the company has been [or had to be :) .]
It's worth listening to the more entertaining audio report, rather than just reading the (slightly drier) text.
Seriously... dirty work to be done... CIA.
I guess he needs to ask someone in the CIA, then.
Hate to burst your bubble, but morality has something to do with everything we do.
I don't buy your justification of the action you detail, at all. You cite the action of the agents as "greedy" a distinctly moral term, and then also say that morality has no bearing on the matter.
At least your post was moderated "interesting" rather than "insightful!"
You mustn't have seen all the skull & crossbone symbols, on LP sleeves from the late 70's onwards, with the skull made out of a compact cassette, and bearing the legend, "Home taping is killing the music industry," then.
The RIAA, or equivalent have bitched and whined, wailed and gnashed teeth at every single technological development that has had anything to do with their business.
More to the point, will your mates include your laptop in the next round?
Free as in methanol, anyone?
Yeah but look at all the great writers like Hemmingway that were constantly pissed. Your e-mails, blogs and IMs could now become so much more... expressive.
Who, the newspaper reporters or the jury members that don't return a verdict the government likes?
I was hearing on BBC Radio 5 Live, last night, someone who knows the music biz very well, saying album slaes this year in the UK, are up 8% (though the singles market is down the toilet.)
The line that unauthorised downloading is wrecking the music industry, is a crock, put out by the music cartels. They said home taping was killing the music industry, during the 80's. Apparently it's still around to bitch and whine (and there are many more examples from history of their histrionic wailings of doom, too numerous to mention, though just as absurd and baseless.)
London Canada
to name but one of many non-England Londons.
Has anyone provided a credible causal connection between the use of Kazaa et al. and declining CD sales? Many more factors have been cited, such as DVDs and games competeing for disposable income, a 20%(?) reduction in new material and new artist releases, and the inevitability of people buying less once they've replaced their analogue collections, etc. etc.
And yet still we see supposedly credible journalists and news sources regurgitating what is essentially the RIAA party-line.
It's about the man. It's about him holding people to standards and punishing them for failure, when he can't even meet them.
He comes to the battlefield with less weight now.
Plus I think that the gloating is in proportion to the ridiculous nature of the attack.
If you're going to be so holier-than-thou, with people, then you have to be.
His position was extreme, with little patience for 'transgressors', little compassion for failure. That's about a flaw in his own personal code - his own standards, not the particular argument in question.
It's a meta-issue, if you like.
It's only 'lame' if you think it's about the specific argument; it's about the man's code of conduct/honour/integrity, (etc.) - the issue of 'piracy' and his policy on it, is contained within that.
(PS. thanks for making me think hard.)
More correctly, the senator's web designer didn't register *copyrighted* software. Free or paid for, is the copyright owner's choice. The cost is not the issue.
It damages his *incredibly fanatical* stance against copyright infringement, because he was all "holier-than-thou" and now it's been pointed his fly was open the whole time.
Set your own house in order, before chastising other people, would seem to be the relevant... thingy.
What if... *shudder*.... she was a moderating voice amongst the companies?
It's so obvious."
Parent is modded as funny, but it's actually fact.
The Public Private Partnership, championed by the New Labour government, was all about (in it's propaganda blurb) the private sector getting the profits, because it was taking the risks.
In practice, however, they take the profits, and the taxpayer bails out the compaies concerned when things go wrong - the private sector gains and the public sector takes all the risk.
The government does hand out taxpayer's money to corporations.
It's not obvious, though, it's bleedin' blatant.