It's swings and roundabouts, though, isn't it? I mean in the US you have elected judges... I mean wow how good an idea is that[/sarcasm] but here in the Uk, the government is doing away with the right to a jury trial, and the double-jeopardy rule!!!!... but we don't have elected judges.
There's always a mix of good and bad.
I was just listening to a radio programme yesterday on the BBC World Service, that was saying that Americans do "consume" news, but rarely tv or radio or printed news; more and more americans are getting their news from the internet, but of course not the mass media sources.
The only worrying thing it was saying was that the trend seems to be that they get their news only from sources that are supportive of their own agendas, rather than to those that give all sides of the story, so they'll often not hear news that isn't supportive of their wordview.
The example given was some Americans that knew that Tony Blair's Government was split about Iraq, which they considered "good news," but they didn't know that Turkey had allowed the US to look at possible launchpads in Turkey for an Iraq Attack(TM), which they would consider "bad news" and was consequently not served to them by their news sources.
"I don't know about you guys but I just get a sleazy feeling from Lindows..."
Oh, absolutely! These guys smell dodgy. Upstarts with a lack of maturity, balance or integrity. I personally, would stay well clear of anything to do with them.
Lets not forget the fact that their output of new artists is down also, and any other factors they like to keep quiet about if it doesn't support their War Against Piracy®.
For those interested, The BBC World Service [link in sig] is starting an interesting sounding series today [18th Jan] called "The Global Music Machine," about the way the Record Feudal Lords screw any artist that has the misfortune to have dealings with them.
In the trail, they cited the way they take original artists and force them to put out "radio-friendly" albums, and the extremely dodgy contracts they make them sign.
In addition, they turn people against them; blacken their already dodgy reputation, and effectively weaken their case, and any sympathy people might have for them.
I know that in the short term, if they get their "immunity against prosecution for copyright owner's hacking" bill, it'll be a bad thing, but in the long term, it'll do so much additional damage to them and cause so much more dislike of them, that I'd quite like to see it incorporated into law.
At least until it gets overturned and the **IA have to pull their necks in, and start to think (like about new business models.)
"If you're stupid enough to use your real address then you deserve to get spam.
That's utter crap. It's right up there with "if you don't install an alarm, you deserve to be burgled and the burgler will be innocent" and "if you wear such a short skirt, you deserve to be raped""
Well, how about,"If you baste yourself in gravy and walk into a cage full of ravenous wolves, you deserve to get eaten."?
Companies like Real will spam. That's the "Real" world, there buddy. It's like giving your front door key to a burglar and expecting them not to avail themselves of the oppurtunity, because you feel "that would be wrong!"
"Because a EULA goes multiple pages does not that mean you are not obligated to obey it because you couldn't read the whole thing..."
Where are you getting your information from, or is it only an opinion?
I've heard from reputable sources like the Office of Fair Trading, that the legality of EULAs is highly in doubt, and they probably could not be enforced, particularly in Britain, possibly in Europe, precisely because people don't read them, and they're too legalistic and complicated for the "average" user, who, like I said, generally won't read them.
So, you may very well, be entirely incorrect in your assertion that it's everyone's responsibility to read through the EULA.
They're not down revenue. How were they going to get money I don't have? I owe them nothing. Without me, or with me, their profits, business model and revenue remain the same.
The only difference in the situation, would be me having a copy, and not having a copy.
Morality is not the black and white thing you seem to think it is. If it were, then all those teenagers taping their favourite songs off the radio, are pirates, and should be sued for copyright infringement, for depriving those nice record companies money.
Those kids who sneak into the cinema via the backdoor, to see a film that's 18 certificated, when they're only 16, are also thieves! Can you hear yourself?
Here's a porn one: You, say, find the whole "golden-showers" thing disgusting. You'd never pee on your girlfriend, or drink her pee etc.
Yet every time you go down on her, you're injesting her piss.
The world is not black and white, it is kaliedoscopic and has fuzzy edges. Grow up.
What? They said "Piracy is Theft" and you bought it?
They collect on blank media, even if it's not used for bootlegging... that is theft.
Nobody is entitled to a product? Who cares about "entitlement": no-body who bootlegs software or music is using "we're entitled" as a defence. Why would they? It's stupid.
Overcharging? I dunno... all I know is photoshop is way out of my budget, and yet I could get a copy for free, hurting no-one.
Would I be comfortable with that? Sure. Can't afford it... but hey there it is for free, and no-one is down any revenue.
Your last question is bogus, for reasons you know well. I don't know why you weren't modded as a troll.
The **AA has yet to show any independently, indisputable figures, that show that bootlegging has cost them anything much.
Hell, I can bootleg music from the radio, as people've been doing for decades. Why don't you burn all the people who've done that at your stake, too, while you're at it.
"Nobody has observed these decoys actually downloading anything, so it baffles me how they can assume that the files being advertised are the actual files being sent..."
That's a good point: couldn't a p2p user who's accused of sharing movies just say, if they ever get a letter from their ISP, that they are actually just sharing corrupted files that they were sent thanks to Mediaforce, since they support MediaForce's efforts against piracy?
"you can't steal without takeing something away from someone"
Actually, it's even less simple than that.
In English Law at least, in order to be convicted of theft, it has to be demonstrated that a person intended to permanently deprive a person of his lawfully owned goods.
It would seem that a credible, "I was only borrowing it," defence is reasonable grounds for no action being taken [criminally at least.]
This "philosophy" breaks down, of course, if the software machine that is created upon compilation, is something which itself uses speech; such as a computer game which teaches, or uses as a theme, say.... liberty and justice.
Then, the program, is like a dvd, with it's own firm-ware [if you like,]: a software piece of hardware, or player; the software being the means for the free speech to be voiced [why should free speech have to be limited to text and video, rather than software generated characters?]
Could you also not argue that Kazaa, and P2P in general makes it possible to exchange things that are protected by laws on free speech, and that free speech is not free if one has no access to the speech?
US complains that EU is breaking Free Trade agreements by not allowing certain US GMOs into the EU, effectively claiming that it's illegal according to Free Trade agreements, for the EU to have different standards to the US.
I wonder: can the Kazaa program not be considered a tradeable commodity, and therefore claim that if the US does not allow it's importation and use into the US, the US is breaking Free Trade adreements?
Not that the US would ever do that of course. {cough}Steel imports{cough}
It would be nice, I reckon, if there was some sort of "three strikes and you're out!" system in place for dealing with large corporations like MS.
Well, specifically MS.
They seem to continue abusing their position, and getting nothing but slap after slap on the wrist. When's it going to be, "OK, we've had quite enough of your crap, Billy Boy, fifteen years breaking rocks in the state pen." ?
Or they take him to room 101, where he has to spend the next fifteen years writing GPL software.
"We know your deepest fear, Billy Boy [evil grin.]"
Bill, "Oh... the horror!"
Slashdot Mirror
"I have to say that your response is so ironically funny, that even though ironically isn't a word"
Er... "ironically" is a word.
But I could tape around 300 songs a day from the radio. Heck, we all could.
Guess that means everyone who deos that is also a "serious pirate."
... and think of the great benefits to the thief who nicks your wallet!
ID cards are a truly wonderful thing.
"Speaking from a publicity standpoint, South Africa seems to have little credibility in the world these days."
:o/
Unlike... say... The United States of America!
It's swings and roundabouts, though, isn't it? I mean in the US you have elected judges... I mean wow how good an idea is that[/sarcasm] but here in the Uk, the government is doing away with the right to a jury trial, and the double-jeopardy rule!!!! ... but we don't have elected judges.
There's always a mix of good and bad.
I totally agree. Left at [Score:1] would be about right [it's just not flamebait!]
I was just listening to a radio programme yesterday on the BBC World Service, that was saying that Americans do "consume" news, but rarely tv or radio or printed news; more and more americans are getting their news from the internet, but of course not the mass media sources.
The only worrying thing it was saying was that the trend seems to be that they get their news only from sources that are supportive of their own agendas, rather than to those that give all sides of the story, so they'll often not hear news that isn't supportive of their wordview.
The example given was some Americans that knew that Tony Blair's Government was split about Iraq, which they considered "good news," but they didn't know that Turkey had allowed the US to look at possible launchpads in Turkey for an Iraq Attack(TM), which they would consider "bad news" and was consequently not served to them by their news sources.
The dangers of people who make and uphold the law, passing judgements on things of which they have little real understanding.
-1 Flamebait? That's what you get for sharing your genuine feelings about something then, is it? Ok.
"I don't know about you guys but I just get a sleazy feeling from Lindows..."
Oh, absolutely! These guys smell dodgy. Upstarts with a lack of maturity, balance or integrity. I personally, would stay well clear of anything to do with them.
"what else is there?
A lot.
But how the hell are you supposed to find out?"
You could try listening to BBC 6Music [link in sig] to start with.
Lets not forget the fact that their output of new artists is down also, and any other factors they like to keep quiet about if it doesn't support their War Against Piracy®.
For those interested, The BBC World Service [link in sig] is starting an interesting sounding series today [18th Jan] called "The Global Music Machine," about the way the Record Feudal Lords screw any artist that has the misfortune to have dealings with them.
In the trail, they cited the way they take original artists and force them to put out "radio-friendly" albums, and the extremely dodgy contracts they make them sign.
Should make interesting listening.
In addition, they turn people against them; blacken their already dodgy reputation, and effectively weaken their case, and any sympathy people might have for them.
I know that in the short term, if they get their "immunity against prosecution for copyright owner's hacking" bill, it'll be a bad thing, but in the long term, it'll do so much additional damage to them and cause so much more dislike of them, that I'd quite like to see it incorporated into law.
At least until it gets overturned and the **IA have to pull their necks in, and start to think (like about new business models.)
"If you're stupid enough to use your real address then you deserve to get spam.
That's utter crap. It's right up there with "if you don't install an alarm, you deserve to be burgled and the burgler will be innocent" and "if you wear such a short skirt, you deserve to be raped""
Well, how about,"If you baste yourself in gravy and walk into a cage full of ravenous wolves, you deserve to get eaten."?
Companies like Real will spam. That's the "Real" world, there buddy. It's like giving your front door key to a burglar and expecting them not to avail themselves of the oppurtunity, because you feel "that would be wrong!"
Crikey.
"Because a EULA goes multiple pages does not that mean you are not obligated to obey it because you couldn't read the whole thing..."
Where are you getting your information from, or is it only an opinion?
I've heard from reputable sources like the Office of Fair Trading, that the legality of EULAs is highly in doubt, and they probably could not be enforced, particularly in Britain, possibly in Europe, precisely because people don't read them, and they're too legalistic and complicated for the "average" user, who, like I said, generally won't read them.
So, you may very well, be entirely incorrect in your assertion that it's everyone's responsibility to read through the EULA.
Oh please!
They're not down revenue. How were they going to get money I don't have? I owe them nothing. Without me, or with me, their profits, business model and revenue remain the same.
The only difference in the situation, would be me having a copy, and not having a copy.
Morality is not the black and white thing you seem to think it is. If it were, then all those teenagers taping their favourite songs off the radio, are pirates, and should be sued for copyright infringement, for depriving those nice record companies money.
Those kids who sneak into the cinema via the backdoor, to see a film that's 18 certificated, when they're only 16, are also thieves! Can you hear yourself?
Here's a porn one: You, say, find the whole "golden-showers" thing disgusting. You'd never pee on your girlfriend, or drink her pee etc.
Yet every time you go down on her, you're injesting her piss.
The world is not black and white, it is kaliedoscopic and has fuzzy edges. Grow up.
What? They said "Piracy is Theft" and you bought it?
They collect on blank media, even if it's not used for bootlegging... that is theft.
Nobody is entitled to a product? Who cares about "entitlement": no-body who bootlegs software or music is using "we're entitled" as a defence. Why would they? It's stupid.
Overcharging? I dunno... all I know is photoshop is way out of my budget, and yet I could get a copy for free, hurting no-one.
Would I be comfortable with that? Sure. Can't afford it... but hey there it is for free, and no-one is down any revenue.
Your last question is bogus, for reasons you know well. I don't know why you weren't modded as a troll.
The **AA has yet to show any independently, indisputable figures, that show that bootlegging has cost them anything much.
Hell, I can bootleg music from the radio, as people've been doing for decades. Why don't you burn all the people who've done that at your stake, too, while you're at it.
Fundementalist.
"As paranoid as it sounds..."
Are you kidding? Those sort of machinations are de rigeur in the political arena.
"Nobody has observed these decoys actually downloading anything, so it baffles me how they can assume that the files being advertised are the actual files being sent..."
That's a good point: couldn't a p2p user who's accused of sharing movies just say, if they ever get a letter from their ISP, that they are actually just sharing corrupted files that they were sent thanks to Mediaforce, since they support MediaForce's efforts against piracy?
Warner Bos: Hello, we've noticed that one of your users has been sharing copyrighted material. Their IP address is "xxx.xx.xxx.xx"
ISP: Oh. That doesn't seem right.
WB: We demand that you to kick them off your service.
ISP: Hmmm. What operating system are you running?
WB: Windows Xp... er...
ISP: Ah, you'll need to reformat you hard drive and re-install your Operating System
WB: No...er...
ISP: Thank you for calling. -click-
"you can't steal without takeing something away from someone"
Actually, it's even less simple than that.
In English Law at least, in order to be convicted of theft, it has to be demonstrated that a person intended to permanently deprive a person of his lawfully owned goods.
It would seem that a credible, "I was only borrowing it," defence is reasonable grounds for no action being taken [criminally at least.]
This "philosophy" breaks down, of course, if the software machine that is created upon compilation, is something which itself uses speech; such as a computer game which teaches, or uses as a theme, say.... liberty and justice.
Then, the program, is like a dvd, with it's own firm-ware [if you like,]: a software piece of hardware, or player; the software being the means for the free speech to be voiced [why should free speech have to be limited to text and video, rather than software generated characters?]
Could you also not argue that Kazaa, and P2P in general makes it possible to exchange things that are protected by laws on free speech, and that free speech is not free if one has no access to the speech?
Maybe the RIAA et al. are doing what they're doing because it's all they know.
There's plenty of history that shows them doing the same thing, [BIG STICK.... BIG STICK] over and over again.
They just don't know any better.
US court rules Kazaa subject to US laws.
US complains that EU is breaking Free Trade agreements by not allowing certain US GMOs into the EU, effectively claiming that it's illegal according to Free Trade agreements, for the EU to have different standards to the US.
I wonder: can the Kazaa program not be considered a tradeable commodity, and therefore claim that if the US does not allow it's importation and use into the US, the US is breaking Free Trade adreements?
Not that the US would ever do that of course. {cough}Steel imports{cough}
It would be nice, I reckon, if there was some sort of "three strikes and you're out!" system in place for dealing with large corporations like MS.
Well, specifically MS.
They seem to continue abusing their position, and getting nothing but slap after slap on the wrist. When's it going to be, "OK, we've had quite enough of your crap, Billy Boy, fifteen years breaking rocks in the state pen." ?
Or they take him to room 101, where he has to spend the next fifteen years writing GPL software.
"We know your deepest fear, Billy Boy [evil grin.]"
Bill, "Oh... the horror!"