Because as you've been told repeatedly, copying a digital file doesn't deprive the owner of it. I will end this discussion now, as it's clear that you're either impressively thick-headed, or a fairly skilled troll.
Fairuse is limited to viewing though. I invite a friend over to listen to my new CD they can't replay the CD whenever and never buy the CD.
Doesn't matter. If I let my friend listen to the CD, he's getting value from it. The law allows this, thereby rejecting your theory that obtaining value without paying is theft.
Sure you're not depriving people of a physical object but that's not the strictest definition of theft. For example, stocks are not physical yet you can steal that too right?
The difference is not whether the object is physical, but whether it's rivalrous. If I "steal" your stock, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" a digital file you're offering for sale, you do.
The owner wants to sell/license/rent/whatever the property for X dollars, you pay X dollars or do without.
Yes, that's the law. But it doesn't mean that the author suffers a loss of X if I illegally copy it.
If you're going to use it [song, movie, application, media of sorts] then it's obviously of value to you.
True.
If you didn't create it then you're not entitled to it [unless the author gives permission].
False. Unless you're going to claim that playing a CD for a friend is "theft". And there's the whole matter of fair use.
For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you.
That doesn't follow; all you can claim is that it's worth more to me than 0. It may be that I valued it at 7 cents, and due to transaction costs it could never be offered for sale at that price. In that case, there is no "potential value" being "stolen".
Intellectual property just isn't the same as physical property, and simplistic analogies almost always fail.
You hear so much about "command and control" when the TV talks about war. Thats what the WTC and Pentagon were and are.
So bin Laden's objective was to cripple our command and control so that he could then engage the United States in warfare? No. He wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, period. By no stretch of the imagination was the WTC a military target, and even the Pentagon was chosen not for its military but its symbolic value.
The supposed reason we invaded Afghanistan was because Bin Laden was there. Bull Shit. The Taliban, horrible people that they were/are, offered to give him to us.
Something of immense dollar value is replaced by something of no dollar value. The value to society is still provided (the service of the software) and the money can and will move to another place, but the outlook for an economy might not be so rosy
Short term, maybe. Long term, it's absolutely a good thing. Each consumer who would otherwise have paid $100 for the software instead uses it on her next preferred alternative, which she otherwise wouldn't have been able to obtain, so clearly she's better off. The argument might then be that software publishers and their employees suffer, but this is at most a temporary effect. Demand for (paid) software will decrease, but demand for other goods will increase (because of the extra $100 that consumers have to spend), so production and jobs are just being reallocated, not lost.
Similarly, the discovery of a cheap, clean, abundant, and renewable energy source would be great for the world's economy, despite the problems it might cause for oil companies and others.
On the one hand claiming 'we don't want to build ourselves as Apples can't be build, and then going to another store to add memory, just isn't fair when comparing prices.
There's a bit of a difference between assembling a computer from a motherboard, power supply, HD, etc, compared to buying RAM from Crucial and installing it in a G5.
The problem with the Mac is also that the graphics subsystem is already dated.
Yeah, you're right on this one. I can't believe they're putting the GeforceFX 5200 in the midrange dual G5.
Why does it always take a G(x+1) in order to finally get people to honestly assess the G(x) ?
Mac sites were bitching about Motorola's lack of progress with the G4 years before the G5 showed up. And the arrival of the G4 didn't cause everyone to say that the G3 was crap, because it wasn't. It's only been a few months since Apple stopped using the G3 in any of their products, but I expect them to drop the G4 as soon as humanly possible.
If you're claiming that Macs can't be upgraded in general, that's wrong. However, I'd be very surprised to ever see G5 upgrades for G4 Macs. The architecture is so different (much faster bus, true DDR support, Hypertransport, etc) that it just doesn't make sense.
I'm sure Libertarians would frown on spending federal money for technology research when it should *obviously* be funded (and controlled) by private companies
The Internet came out of DoD research. Libertarians support the military as one of the primary purposes of government. And the Internet exploded in popularity only when private companies realized there was mone to be made.
Plus, one of the main points of that party is protection of property.
Yes.
That would include such measures as the DMCA.
No. Even leaving aside the distinction between physical and intellectual property, protection of property means "you can't take my property". It doesn't mean "you can't make any device that could conceivably be used to take my property, regardless of its legitimate uses".
Disclaimer: I don't support the Libertarian Party. I agree with some of their principles, but many of their positions are completely unworkable. I support smaller (but not nonexistant) government and individual freedom, which means I generally hold my nose and vote Republican.
I think the relevant question is "Who held the majority in congress at that time?"
IIRC, Republicans had the House and Democrats had the Senate. The DMCA was yet another instance of lawmakers putting aside their political differences and coming together to reward special interests and screw the general public.
If a piece of code wasn't licensed in any way you wouldn't be able to use it unless you wrote it.
Not true. You have the right to run software without a license from the copyright holder. ("Copying" the software to RAM is pretty clearly an "essential step").
A contract with a minor is voidable by the minor party of the contract. However, the GPL is enforcable against a minor.
Rather, copyright law is enforceable against a minor. The GPL is a *defense* against copyright infringement, which the minor could attempt to invoke or not.
Possibly nitpicking, but this seems to be the key misunderstanding. If I release GPL software and you redistribute it without source, I can sue you not for "violating the GPL" but for good old fashioned copyright violation.
Firstly, advertising has proved time and again to be a sustainable business model throughout all media sectors. Why shouldn't this work too for PC/Internet Access?
Because a computer is not (just) a media delivery device. Using a computer is active, unlike watching TV, which is why web popups are much more annoying than TV commercials.
It's a great way for low income families to get online, or gain experience of using PC's - thus increasing their employability.
Maybe; on the other hand consumers like that are not exactly the ideal demographic for advertising.
Stop looking for the faults in everything!
We'd be better off if people spent more time considering the huge faults in circa-1997 business models like this one.
There will be no draft. It would immediately end public support for the war (which is why some Democrats are disingenuously advocating it), and everyone from Rumsfeld on down who's been asked has said they neither need nor want one. If we do end up needing more troops there's a very simple way to get them: pay higher salaries.
Alternately, they could use their DRM tech to create a downloadable preview that would only play once or twice and couldn't be burned to disc.
No they can't; programs like WireTap easily "defeat" their current DRM. I really don't want them crippling the OS to try to prevent tools like that from working.
The problem the thieves have is that they don't understand what they are stealing. It isn't the music they're stealing, it's the right of the owner of the music to dictate what gets done with it. Copyrights are real property, just like your car.
If Alice illegally copies Bob's copyrighted music, Bob still has the copyright. So what has Alice stolen exactly?
Every human in the world could fit comfortably into Texas. Perhaps we will hit a limit eventually, in which case it would be nice if some of us could move offworld.
So do I occasionally, but the other way. It's very easy to see what you want to.
I don't see a lot of intellectuals on that side of the aisle
Newt Gingrich. Antonin Scalia. William F Buckley. Thomas Sowell. Milton Friedman. You don't have to agree with them, but they're not idiots. Sorry to break it to you, but intelligent people really can disagree, and your conviction that anyone with an opinion different from yours is a moron is not going to persaude many of them.
the Florida Supreme Court happilly ignored both Bush and Gore and did what they felt would satisfy them that the law was being upheld
The Florida SC invented election laws out of thin air that directly contradicted what was on the books. You can make a decent argument that SCOTUS shouldn't have interfered since it was a state matter, but don't hold the Florida judges up as paragons of integrity.
Sometime soon, sooner if Bush loses, maybe 6 months later if he doesn't, the Christan/neocons are going to have to break with the normal Republicans. Sadly, I think the real Republicans are going to get the shit end of that deal.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
Re:I disagree with the article
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
If you want to force password changes on a periodic basis, you must not let users choose!
Next question: why exactly do you want to force password changes?
Slashdot Mirror
Why are they not the same?
Because as you've been told repeatedly, copying a digital file doesn't deprive the owner of it. I will end this discussion now, as it's clear that you're either impressively thick-headed, or a fairly skilled troll.
Fairuse is limited to viewing though. I invite a friend over to listen to my new CD they can't replay the CD whenever and never buy the CD.
Doesn't matter. If I let my friend listen to the CD, he's getting value from it. The law allows this, thereby rejecting your theory that obtaining value without paying is theft.
Sure you're not depriving people of a physical object but that's not the strictest definition of theft. For example, stocks are not physical yet you can steal that too right?
The difference is not whether the object is physical, but whether it's rivalrous. If I "steal" your stock, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" a digital file you're offering for sale, you do.
The owner wants to sell/license/rent/whatever the property for X dollars, you pay X dollars or do without.
Yes, that's the law. But it doesn't mean that the author suffers a loss of X if I illegally copy it.
If you're going to use it [song, movie, application, media of sorts] then it's obviously of value to you.
True.
If you didn't create it then you're not entitled to it [unless the author gives permission].
False. Unless you're going to claim that playing a CD for a friend is "theft". And there's the whole matter of fair use.
For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you.
That doesn't follow; all you can claim is that it's worth more to me than 0. It may be that I valued it at 7 cents, and due to transaction costs it could never be offered for sale at that price. In that case, there is no "potential value" being "stolen".
Intellectual property just isn't the same as physical property, and simplistic analogies almost always fail.
Well said. This also applies to stuff like the Patriot Act and the recent OnStar issues.
So bin Laden's objective was to cripple our command and control so that he could then engage the United States in warfare? No. He wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, period. By no stretch of the imagination was the WTC a military target, and even the Pentagon was chosen not for its military but its symbolic value.
The supposed reason we invaded Afghanistan was because Bin Laden was there. Bull Shit. The Taliban, horrible people that they were/are, offered to give him to us.
Source please.
Short term, maybe. Long term, it's absolutely a good thing. Each consumer who would otherwise have paid $100 for the software instead uses it on her next preferred alternative, which she otherwise wouldn't have been able to obtain, so clearly she's better off. The argument might then be that software publishers and their employees suffer, but this is at most a temporary effect. Demand for (paid) software will decrease, but demand for other goods will increase (because of the extra $100 that consumers have to spend), so production and jobs are just being reallocated, not lost.
Similarly, the discovery of a cheap, clean, abundant, and renewable energy source would be great for the world's economy, despite the problems it might cause for oil companies and others.
There's a bit of a difference between assembling a computer from a motherboard, power supply, HD, etc, compared to buying RAM from Crucial and installing it in a G5.
The problem with the Mac is also that the graphics subsystem is already dated.
Yeah, you're right on this one. I can't believe they're putting the GeforceFX 5200 in the midrange dual G5.
Mac sites were bitching about Motorola's lack of progress with the G4 years before the G5 showed up. And the arrival of the G4 didn't cause everyone to say that the G3 was crap, because it wasn't. It's only been a few months since Apple stopped using the G3 in any of their products, but I expect them to drop the G4 as soon as humanly possible.
Take the 1.6 GHz G5, downgrade to a combo drive, and you're at $1600. That's at least "remotely" close.
AFAIK sizeof(void *) is still 4, so probably not.
If you're claiming that Macs can't be upgraded in general, that's wrong. However, I'd be very surprised to ever see G5 upgrades for G4 Macs. The architecture is so different (much faster bus, true DDR support, Hypertransport, etc) that it just doesn't make sense.
The Internet came out of DoD research. Libertarians support the military as one of the primary purposes of government. And the Internet exploded in popularity only when private companies realized there was mone to be made.
Plus, one of the main points of that party is protection of property.
Yes.
That would include such measures as the DMCA.
No. Even leaving aside the distinction between physical and intellectual property, protection of property means "you can't take my property". It doesn't mean "you can't make any device that could conceivably be used to take my property, regardless of its legitimate uses".
Disclaimer: I don't support the Libertarian Party. I agree with some of their principles, but many of their positions are completely unworkable. I support smaller (but not nonexistant) government and individual freedom, which means I generally hold my nose and vote Republican.
IIRC, Republicans had the House and Democrats had the Senate. The DMCA was yet another instance of lawmakers putting aside their political differences and coming together to reward special interests and screw the general public.
Not true. You have the right to run software without a license from the copyright holder. ("Copying" the software to RAM is pretty clearly an "essential step").
Rather, copyright law is enforceable against a minor. The GPL is a *defense* against copyright infringement, which the minor could attempt to invoke or not.
Possibly nitpicking, but this seems to be the key misunderstanding. If I release GPL software and you redistribute it without source, I can sue you not for "violating the GPL" but for good old fashioned copyright violation.
Because a computer is not (just) a media delivery device. Using a computer is active, unlike watching TV, which is why web popups are much more annoying than TV commercials.
It's a great way for low income families to get online, or gain experience of using PC's - thus increasing their employability.
Maybe; on the other hand consumers like that are not exactly the ideal demographic for advertising.
Stop looking for the faults in everything!
We'd be better off if people spent more time considering the huge faults in circa-1997 business models like this one.
There will be no draft. It would immediately end public support for the war (which is why some Democrats are disingenuously advocating it), and everyone from Rumsfeld on down who's been asked has said they neither need nor want one. If we do end up needing more troops there's a very simple way to get them: pay higher salaries.
No they can't; programs like WireTap easily "defeat" their current DRM. I really don't want them crippling the OS to try to prevent tools like that from working.
If Alice illegally copies Bob's copyrighted music, Bob still has the copyright. So what has Alice stolen exactly?
Quite possibly.
And the environment won't fall apart.
Well, we're still here...
And there's plenty of room for everyone.
Every human in the world could fit comfortably into Texas. Perhaps we will hit a limit eventually, in which case it would be nice if some of us could move offworld.
So do I occasionally, but the other way. It's very easy to see what you want to.
I don't see a lot of intellectuals on that side of the aisle
Newt Gingrich. Antonin Scalia. William F Buckley. Thomas Sowell. Milton Friedman. You don't have to agree with them, but they're not idiots. Sorry to break it to you, but intelligent people really can disagree, and your conviction that anyone with an opinion different from yours is a moron is not going to persaude many of them.
Yes, and heavier than air flight is impossible, and there is a worldwide market for five computers.
Er, ok. And I'm sure you'd have the same reaction if Gore had had better lawyers and was the one proposing this now.
The Florida SC invented election laws out of thin air that directly contradicted what was on the books. You can make a decent argument that SCOTUS shouldn't have interfered since it was a state matter, but don't hold the Florida judges up as paragons of integrity.
Sometime soon, sooner if Bush loses, maybe 6 months later if he doesn't, the Christan/neocons are going to have to break with the normal Republicans. Sadly, I think the real Republicans are going to get the shit end of that deal.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
Next question: why exactly do you want to force password changes?