But charging money for it? That's stepping over the line... that's exactly the type of thing that's going to get such laws brought in.
I see your point, and I mostly agree with you in respect to scanning a book and selling it... I see this as wrong, somehow, where I don't with the other examples. I think probably because the author didn't give the book to the library because he could no longer profit from it. The presence of the book in the library is almost like a good faith 'gift' from authors, a bit like a shareware version.
But in the case of pictures on a website... Yes! Anyone COULD go and download and print these pictures. So why exactly is it wrong for someone else (note: the web site owner is not offering this service, nor are they charging to view the pictures) to offer a service when someone else is willing to pay?
They're making money from selling something YOU made... without asking YOU, without having done any of the effort to create the piece themselves.
I'd argue that slightly... the person who burns MP3's to CD, or prints and frames pictures, is doing quite similar work to what Redhat does with Linux. They ARE providing added value, even if that value is not having to stream/download the MP3s. They are filling the void of physical distribution, which the author apparently isn't interested in.
If your brother was making hundreds of copies of the tape or vcd and mailing those copies to anyone who happened to send him a postcard, that would be a closer model to what is happening on the internet today
Even so, how is this wrong? That was his point.
It only holds up so long as we're talking about broadcast stuff though. If you rip off a for sale dvd and try to sell multiple copies of that for money, then you are doing something illegal... I can sympathise with the poor guys who spent months making a movie, only to have some cock in China rip and sell it for $5 with no royalty, that's got to be wrong - the copyright holder can still make money off their investment at this point.
But if you record something that was broadcast, and sell one copy or a trillion copies, what's the problem? The copyright owner was apparently happy to have it beamed all over the place via satellites and whatnot. They can't exactly complain if you find a way to make money with something they felt they no longer could.
One more time though: This would only apply to broadcast data, not, e.g subscriber satellite TV.
Well, it depends on how many of each there are and whether you are in the street or on the sidewalk.
Bring me your hordes of pedestrians, put them on the pavement, and I will get a good long run up and demonstrate for you. Haven't you ever played GTA3?:)
Hell, my mom thought that when you shut the car off, the pseudo-tape that connects portable CD players into the cassette deck would automagically turn off the CD player, too.
Umm, turning off the car WOULD stop the CD player, unless it was running on batteries (most CD players would be powered with the cigarette lighter). Of course, it wouldn't do it via the tape device.
Maybe you meant when she turned the car stereo off?
My mother was worried that her TV and VCR would stop working due to Y2K.
I tried to explain that it was incredibly unlikely someone added in a way to stop the TV's functionality, should it ever discover it had been transported back to the 1900s.
Slashdot Mirror
But charging money for it? That's stepping over the line... that's exactly the type of thing that's going to get such laws brought in. I see your point, and I mostly agree with you in respect to scanning a book and selling it... I see this as wrong, somehow, where I don't with the other examples. I think probably because the author didn't give the book to the library because he could no longer profit from it. The presence of the book in the library is almost like a good faith 'gift' from authors, a bit like a shareware version. But in the case of pictures on a website... Yes! Anyone COULD go and download and print these pictures. So why exactly is it wrong for someone else (note: the web site owner is not offering this service, nor are they charging to view the pictures) to offer a service when someone else is willing to pay? They're making money from selling something YOU made... without asking YOU, without having done any of the effort to create the piece themselves. I'd argue that slightly... the person who burns MP3's to CD, or prints and frames pictures, is doing quite similar work to what Redhat does with Linux. They ARE providing added value, even if that value is not having to stream/download the MP3s. They are filling the void of physical distribution, which the author apparently isn't interested in.
If your brother was making hundreds of copies of the tape or vcd and mailing those copies to anyone who happened to send him a postcard, that would be a closer model to what is happening on the internet today
Even so, how is this wrong? That was his point.
It only holds up so long as we're talking about broadcast stuff though. If you rip off a for sale dvd and try to sell multiple copies of that for money, then you are doing something illegal... I can sympathise with the poor guys who spent months making a movie, only to have some cock in China rip and sell it for $5 with no royalty, that's got to be wrong - the copyright holder can still make money off their investment at this point.
But if you record something that was broadcast, and sell one copy or a trillion copies, what's the problem? The copyright owner was apparently happy to have it beamed all over the place via satellites and whatnot. They can't exactly complain if you find a way to make money with something they felt they no longer could.
One more time though: This would only apply to broadcast data, not, e.g subscriber satellite TV.
Who has more power, cars or pedestrians?
:)
Cars. Well, people IN cars.
Well, it depends on how many of each there are and whether you are in the street or on the sidewalk.
Bring me your hordes of pedestrians, put them on the pavement, and I will get a good long run up and demonstrate for you. Haven't you ever played GTA3?
And what about when the OS's 'crash-recovery' kicks in and keeps booting the system up to an already-halted state?
"Just a few more minutes, sir, I need to boot life support into safe mode... yes, I KNOW you can't breathe, but Tech Support have me on hold..."
Hell, my mom thought that when you shut the car off, the pseudo-tape that connects portable CD players into the cassette deck would automagically turn off the CD player, too.
Umm, turning off the car WOULD stop the CD player, unless it was running on batteries (most CD players would be powered with the cigarette lighter). Of course, it wouldn't do it via the tape device.
Maybe you meant when she turned the car stereo off?
My mother was worried that her TV and VCR would stop working due to Y2K.
I tried to explain that it was incredibly unlikely someone added in a way to stop the TV's functionality, should it ever discover it had been transported back to the 1900s.
Geeze, do I really have to go look up the link that explains Xian is merely a shortened version of Christian?
No, I didn't think so.