Well, if they like sodomy, chances are they won't mind being sodomized. This "do unto them what they do unto you" method only works for things that are antisocial and extremely irritating (spam, posting personal info in public, etc.) The theory is once they realize how annoying it is, they'll stop doing it. Now, if someone is anally raping others, I would be all for that person being anally raped. Once they get their asshole forcefully torn open against their will, they will stop doing the same thing to others. Kinda neat how that works out. I think it's all about inner karma.
It's not hypocrisy. They're doing it to make the guy realize that hey's being an annoying prick. If you're so simple minded that you can't get past "sending a spammer spam to make spam stop" you shouldn't be reading stuff in the first place. Just watch reality TV. This is like posting John Ashcroft's personal info on the internet to make him think twice about TIA/big brother stuff. It's not hypocrisy when you're doing X solely to the guys who do X to make them realize X is wrong. It's not hypocrisy, it's not ironic, and it's not coincidental. It's a valid way of making certain people realize they're acting like asses.
Yeh I realize DNA is a molecule. But if this computer were running of off, say, some chemical other than DNA, would it be as interesting? DNA implies life, whereas other chemicals (aside from caffeine) do not. But a DNA computer is no more alive than the silicon-based PC I'm using right now. I know DNA molecules have interesting properties, and I'm not saying this is about clever marketing. But I think the fact that the molecule being used here is DNA makes this much more interesting than it would be if the molecule were anything else. JMHO, though. An alcohol-based PC is a novelty, but a DNA-based PC is amazing....
I do not know of a single person who is so cheap that they flat out refuse to buy the music they like because they can download it all for free. My friends and I have been downloading music for years, and we have always bought the music we like (which nowadays isn't all that much in this world of Justin Timberlake albums, but that's another topic). I'm sure it is safe to say that all of us have bought an album because of music we first heard from downloading through napster/kazaa/etc.
However, due to the actions of the recording industry's trade group, many people including myself have decided to never buy another album again, because by doing so we are contributing to the RIAA's legal fund and helping to sustain a 100 year old oppressive monopoly that is way past its time. Morally, giving a penny to the RIAA is worse than not buying an album I like (again, a very rare thing nowadays). Many people feel this way, especially since the RIAA has started to sue the end-consumer directly (I guarantee you that anyone sued by the RIAA, along with their friends and family, will never be buying another RIAA product again, as well). So, directly because of the RIAA's actions, your clients will get less money, which means less money in your pocket, which means less money to feed your family and pay for your childrens' education with. I see the RIAA's actions as being analogous to walking into your bank and "stealing" your childrens' college fund. Do you see the RIAA's theft the same way? How does it make you feel? Have you thought about suing the RIAA to recover any money you lose this year?
Don't forget we are in a global recession. Every industry, especially those selling stuff other than food, life-saving medical services, and necessities such as electricity and porn, are all suffering declined sales. When we can barely afford to pay our rent, that $18.99 CD is out of the question. Maybe if the recording industry weren't so into price fixing, and CDs cost $4 like they should, they wouldn't be experiencing lost sales due to the economy. Either way, very few lost sales are due to people who downloaded the songs but are too cheap to buy the album. I don't know a single person like that. I do know plenty who have decided recently to never buy another album again due to the RIAA's actions, however.
Re:Interesting, but you miss a couple of nuances.
on
Pirate Anime FAQ Updated
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Also, you mention that "I knew killing someone is murder, which is illegal" -- this has no bearing at all on the legal case.
I know, I was trying to show the difference between ignorance of law (which the post I was replying to mentioned) and lack of mens rea.
While it is probable that you won't be guilty of murder, you may be convicted of manslaughter.
It's very unlikely. Surprising someone by yelling "boo!" is not in and of itself an inherently dangerous activity sufficient in and of itself to support a manslaughter charge. Now, if I knew the guy I was surprising was really old and had heart problems, and it was the middle of the night and I looked really sketchy (wearing a hood or mask or something)... then manslaughter may be possible. But just surprising someone with "boo!" (without the intent to harm them) is most certainly not sufficiently dangerous to arise to the malice necessary in order to imply the intent to support a murder charge.
(yes, this off-topic, but still abstractly relevant to the original post.)
You're better off putting it in the trunk of the car (in something not clear... a brown paper bag would be fine, albeit more suspicious than, say, a bag of chips). The cops can only inspect the trunk if they have a warrant to do so or in the course of an arrest (or with your permission which you WILL NOT give them if you have something illegal in your trunk!!!). Also, it is out of plain view when it is in the trunk. Note: the back of a SUV "trunk."
Also, if someone gives you a package, tells you not to open it, and tells you to drive it across the border and deliver it to some address, you can't claim that you didn't know there wasn't something illegal in it, because you can't purposely ignore the situation. Just a FYI.
Yes but some laws require a mental element, i.e. intent ("mens rea" in legal fancy-latin). That's different from ignorance of the law. If I jump out at you from behind a tree and yell "boo!" to scare you and cause you to have a heart attack and die, it is not murder because I did not have the intent to kill you (even though my act caused you to die and I knew killing someone is murder, which is illegal). If you buy it thinking it is real, it is still contraband and you can't bring it into the country (it will be confiscated by Customs if they find it) but you won't be charged with a crime. Now, bringing in 100,000 units of pirated stuff might get you in some trouble b/c it could imply an intent to sell/distribute the stuff (it's clearly not for your personal use).
Yes, this applies to drugs, too. For example, if someone sticks a bag of pot in your pocket and you had no idea they did it, you're technically not guilty of a crime, even though the stuff is in your possession. But, you'll have a hard time convincing the cops that someone stuck it in there (don't they have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Sure... but these are drugs, and as we all know the Constitution doesn't apply to drug crimes).
Anyway, bottom line is you're not gonna get in criminal trouble for bringing a pirated anime doll or whatever into the US from abroad. It can be confiscated, though (ya won't get it back, no matter how innocent/ignorant you were).
If I didn't ask to hear it, you have no constitutional right to tell it to me. You are more than free to go stand in a public forum (e.g. a city park) or BUY advertising time on TV (also a public forum) to get your message out. You have no right, whether the message concerns politics, porn, penis enlargement pills, charity, the cure for cancer, or saving the universe, to have me hear your message.
Regulating unsolicited email is not regulating speech. That's the fallacy people tend to get caught up in. You have the right to speak, you don't have the right to advertise your speech directly to me.
Thou shall not... mess around with DNA and stem cells, lest God's wrath be upon thee for delving into His creations. I forget the cite for that quote, but I'm sure many conservative politicians (including our president) could tell you. I think it's in the Book of Revelations.
Do you believe in the purple 6 legged reptile-giraffe living in my asshole that created the universe (which I will never show you; you must have faith that it is there)? Huh, no? You don't? I'd call your lack of faith substantially illogical, but then *I* would be the moron.
Many states allow this. The primary purpose is so people in the military who have been called to duty can marry their significant other left back at home ("Gee, I might get killed over here and never see you again... I want to get married now just in case I never get the chance to see you again....") So a serviceman over in Iraq can marry his girlfriend who is still here in the states. Proxies are allowed, too.
Well sure, I do realize this, but it is still "piracy" in the eyes of those whose stuff is being used for free (there's just nothing they can do about it).
If you don't follow their contract (which you were not a party to) then copyright law takes over and labels you an infringing, theiving pirate. Driving that car with the "stolen" on-board computer software is no different than walking into a car dealership and stealing a brand new car....
(the "contract" takes advantage of copyright law overbreadth... the issue isn't contract law per se. One other issue is that software can be sold as a "license" rather than what it really is, a product that you own.)
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but just in case you're not... don't be a fool. Just because something can be used for bad purposes or by bad people doesn't mean the thing itself is bad. Guns, for example. Guns can save lives (i.e. a cop using a gun to take out a terrorist before he kills hostages, or using it to defend your house from a burgler who has entered in the middle of the night). Yeah, guns can also be used by bad people (like the terrorist taking the hostages or the burgler). Does that make guns bad? No. Things cannot be good or bad. It's what people do with them that is either good or bad. Only really stupid people believe inanimate objects have morals.
And do you really think if China had to either live in the dark ages or pirate expensive shit, they wouldn't opt for the latter? Like it's either card catalogues or open source because china just can't afford to pay for legitimate, expensive software. They don't have a DMCA either, so they don't have to worry about being tossed in jail for breaking some copy protection crap.
Microsoft will remotely de-activate windows XP in case of a "national emergency" eh? heh, I don't think so.
As far as I know, all states have the business judgment rule, but that doctrine only applies to decisions made in the course of ordinary business. Giving away corporate assets is not an ordinary business practice for a for-profit corporation. Yes corporations give away junk that they would otherwise throw out (b/c storing it costs more than the value of the stuff itself, so getting rid of it is a good business decision - intellectual property rights don't take up inventory space) and "donate" money to a nice cause (in the most public way possible so everyone knows they did it - excellent advertising, it shows how much they care). But intellectual property rights don't depreciate in value, at least not in the minds of corporate executives. IP can be re-released, re-packaged, turned into 100 sequels, or sold to someone else (even if at a discounted price).
Even if they wouldn't get sued by shareholders, they are most certainly risking it. The value of the IP they give away could have been sold and the proceeds paid off as a dividend to shareholders.
What's the solution? Simple... we need a statute that exempts corporate execs from liability for releasing old, no longer supported, outdated code into the public domain. In fact, it would be good public policy to give them a tax writeoff for doing so.
That's because the sentence you give is not the same. "If he were into wardriving, then...." That is correct. If I were president I would nuke Saudi Arabia. I wish I were tall enough to reach that red button up there. Those use the subjunctive.
I think the point is to get people who think they are clever to email him and act like they delivered the stuff and are now asking for payment (as he says to do). "Hope you got the unit okay, I'd now like my payment..."... now he has your email address and will spam the fuck out of you. If that's not it, then I'd have to vote for some sort of steganographic message (note there are different versions of this email w/ different numbers/specs).
Well, he gave very detailed, factual answers that stood by themselves. This is true - we didn't need to go look at the question for the answer to make sense. BUT, it's still nice to see the question he is answering, and there's no reason not to put it there.
The problem is that the companies have perrpetual copyright on these games, and while it is not profitable to do anything with those games, it is also unprofitable to give away corporate assets (i.e. release the games into the public domain). To do so would breach duties owed to the corporations' shareholders and bring about derivative suits. For example, releasing "Joust" into the public domain would cause the stock of whichever company who owns the rights to "Joust" to drop by 1/1000000th of a point. Likewise releasing "Joust" for the PS2 wouldn't be profitable b/c it doesn't have gangbangers, rap music, car theft, or even the slightest bit of full motion video. Thus, the end result is the game gets shelved and rots away.
Slashdot Mirror
Environmentalists won't allow the oceans to become the next frontier. Sorry to be cynical, but that's just the way it is.
Well, if they like sodomy, chances are they won't mind being sodomized. This "do unto them what they do unto you" method only works for things that are antisocial and extremely irritating (spam, posting personal info in public, etc.) The theory is once they realize how annoying it is, they'll stop doing it. Now, if someone is anally raping others, I would be all for that person being anally raped. Once they get their asshole forcefully torn open against their will, they will stop doing the same thing to others. Kinda neat how that works out. I think it's all about inner karma.
It's not hypocrisy. They're doing it to make the guy realize that hey's being an annoying prick. If you're so simple minded that you can't get past "sending a spammer spam to make spam stop" you shouldn't be reading stuff in the first place. Just watch reality TV. This is like posting John Ashcroft's personal info on the internet to make him think twice about TIA/big brother stuff. It's not hypocrisy when you're doing X solely to the guys who do X to make them realize X is wrong. It's not hypocrisy, it's not ironic, and it's not coincidental. It's a valid way of making certain people realize they're acting like asses.
Real people with real pain are funny. Get over it.
Well, as common carriers they are not liable for such things, but they have other responsibilities as common carriers in exchange for that immunity.
Yeh I realize DNA is a molecule. But if this computer were running of off, say, some chemical other than DNA, would it be as interesting? DNA implies life, whereas other chemicals (aside from caffeine) do not. But a DNA computer is no more alive than the silicon-based PC I'm using right now. I know DNA molecules have interesting properties, and I'm not saying this is about clever marketing. But I think the fact that the molecule being used here is DNA makes this much more interesting than it would be if the molecule were anything else. JMHO, though. An alcohol-based PC is a novelty, but a DNA-based PC is amazing....
I do not know of a single person who is so cheap that they flat out refuse to buy the music they like because they can download it all for free. My friends and I have been downloading music for years, and we have always bought the music we like (which nowadays isn't all that much in this world of Justin Timberlake albums, but that's another topic). I'm sure it is safe to say that all of us have bought an album because of music we first heard from downloading through napster/kazaa/etc.
However, due to the actions of the recording industry's trade group, many people including myself have decided to never buy another album again, because by doing so we are contributing to the RIAA's legal fund and helping to sustain a 100 year old oppressive monopoly that is way past its time. Morally, giving a penny to the RIAA is worse than not buying an album I like (again, a very rare thing nowadays). Many people feel this way, especially since the RIAA has started to sue the end-consumer directly (I guarantee you that anyone sued by the RIAA, along with their friends and family, will never be buying another RIAA product again, as well). So, directly because of the RIAA's actions, your clients will get less money, which means less money in your pocket, which means less money to feed your family and pay for your childrens' education with. I see the RIAA's actions as being analogous to walking into your bank and "stealing" your childrens' college fund. Do you see the RIAA's theft the same way? How does it make you feel? Have you thought about suing the RIAA to recover any money you lose this year?
Don't forget we are in a global recession. Every industry, especially those selling stuff other than food, life-saving medical services, and necessities such as electricity and porn, are all suffering declined sales. When we can barely afford to pay our rent, that $18.99 CD is out of the question. Maybe if the recording industry weren't so into price fixing, and CDs cost $4 like they should, they wouldn't be experiencing lost sales due to the economy. Either way, very few lost sales are due to people who downloaded the songs but are too cheap to buy the album. I don't know a single person like that. I do know plenty who have decided recently to never buy another album again due to the RIAA's actions, however.
Isn't anthropic thinking wonderful? :)
Also, you mention that "I knew killing someone is murder, which is illegal" -- this has no bearing at all on the legal case.
I know, I was trying to show the difference between ignorance of law (which the post I was replying to mentioned) and lack of mens rea.
While it is probable that you won't be guilty of murder, you may be convicted of manslaughter.
It's very unlikely. Surprising someone by yelling "boo!" is not in and of itself an inherently dangerous activity sufficient in and of itself to support a manslaughter charge. Now, if I knew the guy I was surprising was really old and had heart problems, and it was the middle of the night and I looked really sketchy (wearing a hood or mask or something)... then manslaughter may be possible. But just surprising someone with "boo!" (without the intent to harm them) is most certainly not sufficiently dangerous to arise to the malice necessary in order to imply the intent to support a murder charge.
(yes, this off-topic, but still abstractly relevant to the original post.)
You're better off putting it in the trunk of the car (in something not clear... a brown paper bag would be fine, albeit more suspicious than, say, a bag of chips). The cops can only inspect the trunk if they have a warrant to do so or in the course of an arrest (or with your permission which you WILL NOT give them if you have something illegal in your trunk!!!). Also, it is out of plain view when it is in the trunk. Note: the back of a SUV "trunk."
Also, if someone gives you a package, tells you not to open it, and tells you to drive it across the border and deliver it to some address, you can't claim that you didn't know there wasn't something illegal in it, because you can't purposely ignore the situation. Just a FYI.
Yes but some laws require a mental element, i.e. intent ("mens rea" in legal fancy-latin). That's different from ignorance of the law. If I jump out at you from behind a tree and yell "boo!" to scare you and cause you to have a heart attack and die, it is not murder because I did not have the intent to kill you (even though my act caused you to die and I knew killing someone is murder, which is illegal). If you buy it thinking it is real, it is still contraband and you can't bring it into the country (it will be confiscated by Customs if they find it) but you won't be charged with a crime. Now, bringing in 100,000 units of pirated stuff might get you in some trouble b/c it could imply an intent to sell/distribute the stuff (it's clearly not for your personal use).
Yes, this applies to drugs, too. For example, if someone sticks a bag of pot in your pocket and you had no idea they did it, you're technically not guilty of a crime, even though the stuff is in your possession. But, you'll have a hard time convincing the cops that someone stuck it in there (don't they have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Sure... but these are drugs, and as we all know the Constitution doesn't apply to drug crimes).
Anyway, bottom line is you're not gonna get in criminal trouble for bringing a pirated anime doll or whatever into the US from abroad. It can be confiscated, though (ya won't get it back, no matter how innocent/ignorant you were).
If I didn't ask to hear it, you have no constitutional right to tell it to me. You are more than free to go stand in a public forum (e.g. a city park) or BUY advertising time on TV (also a public forum) to get your message out. You have no right, whether the message concerns politics, porn, penis enlargement pills, charity, the cure for cancer, or saving the universe, to have me hear your message.
Regulating unsolicited email is not regulating speech. That's the fallacy people tend to get caught up in. You have the right to speak, you don't have the right to advertise your speech directly to me.
Thou shall not ... mess around with DNA and stem cells, lest God's wrath be upon thee for delving into His creations. I forget the cite for that quote, but I'm sure many conservative politicians (including our president) could tell you. I think it's in the Book of Revelations.
Do you believe in the purple 6 legged reptile-giraffe living in my asshole that created the universe (which I will never show you; you must have faith that it is there)? Huh, no? You don't? I'd call your lack of faith substantially illogical, but then *I* would be the moron.
Yes, this is true. There are many real, legal benefits to marriage, which is why gay marriage is more than just a trivial issue.
Many states allow this. The primary purpose is so people in the military who have been called to duty can marry their significant other left back at home ("Gee, I might get killed over here and never see you again... I want to get married now just in case I never get the chance to see you again....") So a serviceman over in Iraq can marry his girlfriend who is still here in the states. Proxies are allowed, too.
Well sure, I do realize this, but it is still "piracy" in the eyes of those whose stuff is being used for free (there's just nothing they can do about it).
If you don't follow their contract (which you were not a party to) then copyright law takes over and labels you an infringing, theiving pirate. Driving that car with the "stolen" on-board computer software is no different than walking into a car dealership and stealing a brand new car....
(the "contract" takes advantage of copyright law overbreadth... the issue isn't contract law per se. One other issue is that software can be sold as a "license" rather than what it really is, a product that you own.)
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but just in case you're not... don't be a fool. Just because something can be used for bad purposes or by bad people doesn't mean the thing itself is bad. Guns, for example. Guns can save lives (i.e. a cop using a gun to take out a terrorist before he kills hostages, or using it to defend your house from a burgler who has entered in the middle of the night). Yeah, guns can also be used by bad people (like the terrorist taking the hostages or the burgler). Does that make guns bad? No. Things cannot be good or bad. It's what people do with them that is either good or bad. Only really stupid people believe inanimate objects have morals.
And do you really think if China had to either live in the dark ages or pirate expensive shit, they wouldn't opt for the latter? Like it's either card catalogues or open source because china just can't afford to pay for legitimate, expensive software. They don't have a DMCA either, so they don't have to worry about being tossed in jail for breaking some copy protection crap.
Microsoft will remotely de-activate windows XP in case of a "national emergency" eh? heh, I don't think so.
As far as I know, all states have the business judgment rule, but that doctrine only applies to decisions made in the course of ordinary business. Giving away corporate assets is not an ordinary business practice for a for-profit corporation. Yes corporations give away junk that they would otherwise throw out (b/c storing it costs more than the value of the stuff itself, so getting rid of it is a good business decision - intellectual property rights don't take up inventory space) and "donate" money to a nice cause (in the most public way possible so everyone knows they did it - excellent advertising, it shows how much they care). But intellectual property rights don't depreciate in value, at least not in the minds of corporate executives. IP can be re-released, re-packaged, turned into 100 sequels, or sold to someone else (even if at a discounted price).
Even if they wouldn't get sued by shareholders, they are most certainly risking it. The value of the IP they give away could have been sold and the proceeds paid off as a dividend to shareholders.
What's the solution? Simple... we need a statute that exempts corporate execs from liability for releasing old, no longer supported, outdated code into the public domain. In fact, it would be good public policy to give them a tax writeoff for doing so.
That's because the sentence you give is not the same. "If he were into wardriving, then...." That is correct. If I were president I would nuke Saudi Arabia. I wish I were tall enough to reach that red button up there. Those use the subjunctive.
I think the point is to get people who think they are clever to email him and act like they delivered the stuff and are now asking for payment (as he says to do). "Hope you got the unit okay, I'd now like my payment..." ... now he has your email address and will spam the fuck out of you. If that's not it, then I'd have to vote for some sort of steganographic message (note there are different versions of this email w/ different numbers/specs).
Well, he gave very detailed, factual answers that stood by themselves. This is true - we didn't need to go look at the question for the answer to make sense. BUT, it's still nice to see the question he is answering, and there's no reason not to put it there.
The problem is that the companies have perrpetual copyright on these games, and while it is not profitable to do anything with those games, it is also unprofitable to give away corporate assets (i.e. release the games into the public domain). To do so would breach duties owed to the corporations' shareholders and bring about derivative suits. For example, releasing "Joust" into the public domain would cause the stock of whichever company who owns the rights to "Joust" to drop by 1/1000000th of a point. Likewise releasing "Joust" for the PS2 wouldn't be profitable b/c it doesn't have gangbangers, rap music, car theft, or even the slightest bit of full motion video. Thus, the end result is the game gets shelved and rots away.