Or interferes with a private transaction between two individuals when one is selling a legal service to the other. Think about it. If I hire someone to rip pages out of the Reader's Digest for me, what right does anyone have, to interfere?
No valid comparison here. In your example, you're paying for someone's labor (as a service). In the actual case, Clean Flicks seems more interested in the business of selling/renting movies (as goods).
And come on. Reader's Digest is much better when burned whole.
Most of the debate here appears to be less about Clean Flicks itself and more about the legal precedent that this case will take. While Clean Flicks is doing something relatively benign to the original material, there are other routes that third parties could take here.
Imagine, for instance, that instead of editing bits out of a movie, someone decided to add their own material to a work and sell the resulting composite for a profit. It's not really any different in that you're altering a piece of creative material to suit your own vision, and then reselling it. If you do this with books, you'll get your ass sued very quickly, and rightfully so. I really don't see how it's any different between books and movies. Furthermore, I don't see any distinction between removing and adding content. You're still profiting from a derivative work without the consent of the original creator.
Wait, so this smart card is supposed to interpret not only a read request, but the intention of the reader as well? Um, yeah. When will the RIAA/research firms get it? You can't possibly secure CD's without breaking existing players. It's just not viable.
OK, you can be the first to try that. Generally, you don't fuck with the government or tread right around the edges of the law, since you're bound to piss someone off. They have more money and more lawyers than you. Play nice. Besides, you're probably not in immediate danger unless you do something really stupid, like running a P2P node with enough content and bandwidth for someone to notice.
Cyberpunks are almost exclusively creatures of science fiction. Typically, cyberpunks live in an oppresive society (more like 1984's Oceania than today's U.S.) and lurk in the shadows. They're usually anarchistic and frequently very mercenary. Movies like Hackers (yes, I know it sucked) offer typical depictions of cyberpunks.
Cypherpunks, on the other hand, are just crypto geeks who value their personal freedom. It's just a play on words. Actually, I rather like it.
It is, however, advised to be professionally examined after having seen that movie, as severe tramua can have some long-lasting effects on both the mind and body.
I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative.
Don't bet on it. If a significant number of Americans were well-informed enough to react to congressional recommendations, we wouldn't have shithead congresspeople in office to make them in the first place.
It's no different than the way that the media always refer to those awaiting trial as alleged criminals. To do otherwise is libel.
Re:Streaming media illegal, says the RIAA
on
RIAA Smacked by DoS
·
· Score: 1
Not that I have any sympathy for the RIAA, but you notice that it does say that certain uses of streaming technologies are illegal. That's true. Hammers, for instance, are legal. However, certain uses of them (such as applying them to heads of strangers at high velocities) are extremely illegal.
Wasn't "Fahrenheit" also the code name about five years back for a Microsoft/SGI vanture to merge Direct3D and OpenGL? IIRC, that ended really well, with SGI claiming that, surprisingly, Microsoft screwed them. Oops.
Um, considering they refer to it as "demented prediction" in the second paragraph of the article, I don't think they're taking it very seriously, either. The fact that someone with a fair amount of political power is able to make such absurd claims without fear of being run out of office is far more disturbing.
Losing customers isn't really a problem when they're not paying in the first place. The hilarious joke known as the New Economy died out a few years ago, and we're back to the point where companies have to make money to stay in business. That's not easy to do when you give away a product for free.
There were times when I'd hop in my car after playing that game and I'd have to consciously remind myself that I was not supposed to hit things. Scary, indeed.
I can't see why anyone would use anything by Roxio anyway. The Windows counterpart of Toast (Easy CD Creator) has contributed even more to my coaster collection than AOL has. I've never met someone who's used it extensively without running into serious problems.
Slashdot Mirror
No valid comparison here. In your example, you're paying for someone's labor (as a service). In the actual case, Clean Flicks seems more interested in the business of selling/renting movies (as goods).
And come on. Reader's Digest is much better when burned whole.
Most of the debate here appears to be less about Clean Flicks itself and more about the legal precedent that this case will take. While Clean Flicks is doing something relatively benign to the original material, there are other routes that third parties could take here.
Imagine, for instance, that instead of editing bits out of a movie, someone decided to add their own material to a work and sell the resulting composite for a profit. It's not really any different in that you're altering a piece of creative material to suit your own vision, and then reselling it. If you do this with books, you'll get your ass sued very quickly, and rightfully so. I really don't see how it's any different between books and movies. Furthermore, I don't see any distinction between removing and adding content. You're still profiting from a derivative work without the consent of the original creator.
That's certainly not the case for Windows. The entire purpose of D3D is to provide a HAL so things like this won't happen.
Wait, so this smart card is supposed to interpret not only a read request, but the intention of the reader as well? Um, yeah. When will the RIAA/research firms get it? You can't possibly secure CD's without breaking existing players. It's just not viable.
OK, you can be the first to try that. Generally, you don't fuck with the government or tread right around the edges of the law, since you're bound to piss someone off. They have more money and more lawyers than you. Play nice. Besides, you're probably not in immediate danger unless you do something really stupid, like running a P2P node with enough content and bandwidth for someone to notice.
I think what we need
is a stronger solution:
Public beheading.
Cyberpunks are almost exclusively creatures of science fiction. Typically, cyberpunks live in an oppresive society (more like 1984's Oceania than today's U.S.) and lurk in the shadows. They're usually anarchistic and frequently very mercenary. Movies like Hackers (yes, I know it sucked) offer typical depictions of cyberpunks.
Cypherpunks, on the other hand, are just crypto geeks who value their personal freedom. It's just a play on words. Actually, I rather like it.
It is, however, advised to be professionally examined after having seen that movie, as severe tramua can have some long-lasting effects on both the mind and body.
I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative.
Don't bet on it. If a significant number of Americans were well-informed enough to react to congressional recommendations, we wouldn't have shithead congresspeople in office to make them in the first place.
It's no different than the way that the media always refer to those awaiting trial as alleged criminals. To do otherwise is libel.
Not that I have any sympathy for the RIAA, but you notice that it does say that certain uses of streaming technologies are illegal. That's true. Hammers, for instance, are legal. However, certain uses of them (such as applying them to heads of strangers at high velocities) are extremely illegal.
Carrying a machine gun is definitely not legal in the United States.
Wasn't "Fahrenheit" also the code name about five years back for a Microsoft/SGI vanture to merge Direct3D and OpenGL? IIRC, that ended really well, with SGI claiming that, surprisingly, Microsoft screwed them. Oops.
Um, considering they refer to it as "demented prediction" in the second paragraph of the article, I don't think they're taking it very seriously, either. The fact that someone with a fair amount of political power is able to make such absurd claims without fear of being run out of office is far more disturbing.
A basic arithmetic law:
x * 0 = 0
No matter what you set x to, you still get zero. You can give free shit to 6 billion people, and you still won't make a cent.
Apple, you'll lose customers with this move.
Losing customers isn't really a problem when they're not paying in the first place. The hilarious joke known as the New Economy died out a few years ago, and we're back to the point where companies have to make money to stay in business. That's not easy to do when you give away a product for free.
It wouldn't be terribly shocking; the Dell Inspiron 8xxx models have had dual fans in the back for years.
So was Easy CD Creator. Roxio is, actually, a spin-off of Adaptec.
There were times when I'd hop in my car after playing that game and I'd have to consciously remind myself that I was not supposed to hit things. Scary, indeed.
I can't see why anyone would use anything by Roxio anyway. The Windows counterpart of Toast (Easy CD Creator) has contributed even more to my coaster collection than AOL has. I've never met someone who's used it extensively without running into serious problems.