If they connect and download, does it count because they downloaded or not count because they own or oversee the IP and thus are only receiving their own property?
If an undercover cop buys cocaine from you, does it count because you sold or not count because narcotics officers in the course of their duties are allowed to handle illegal drugs, and thus are only receiving something they were allowed to get?
It has been decided that laws can not be tried ex post facto, due to the high potential for abuse and persecution of certain parties that they provide.
That's ancient history now. The special federal "Terry Schiavo's Parents Act" has demonstrated a new congressional power to target individual named citizens.
Except I'm not quite sure if ex post facto actually applies to tort law,
If that were true, then it would've been impossible for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act to retroactively lengthen the copyright terms of already-published works.
It's also true that the person who set up the server is the one who made the whole process possible at all, however, he/she isn't the one who does it.
The legal system generally has little trouble holding multiple people liable for a single offense. Depending on the lawyer's exact mood, he could paint you as a conspirator, an abettor, an accessory before the fact, or even an additional defendant for the exact same act.
It's not as if they've never convicted two men for murdering a single victim.
Imagine if one man installs a bomb in a car, and another remotely detonates it. Who is responsible for any harm resulting? Both of them. Each did an action that could only be interpreted as intentionally leading to illegal danger, but which would've been ineffective without the other. No matter, common sense will win the day.
each user is generally only responsible for uploading small parts of the complete whole.
"It was only a small portion of the file" is not a complete defense against copyright infringement. It might work as an arguement for Fair Use, depending on what the purpose for transmitting the small portion is.
If it was to allow the recipient to get a small sample of a song to decide if she'd like to go buy the CD, that's fine. But if the intent is for the downloader to combine it with thousands of other small pieces obtained from other places, and then assemble a complete whole file, then that usage is quite illegal.
Further, just because I'm an employee of Sony, or work for them, doesn't mean I have the "right" to aquire/copy/download/steal every piece of music and film in the Sony catalog.
If you were instructed by the Sony chain-of-command to investigate unauthorized file copying, then distributing or recieving copies is part of your job. Depending on how you want to look at it, they either gave you permission, or YOU aren't recieving the copy- Sony is, and you are just a tool of the corporation.
But, that question isn't material anyhow- the recipient's right to a copy doesn't confer on others the right to send him copies.
Arnold Schwarzenegger once said that he hated the sex scene in Terminator because it was totally at odds
That's a really silly thing to say, because that sex (and the pregnancy it produced) was the whole focus of the movie's plot. You know that hero in T2 and T3? "John Connor"? That's where he came from...
In fact, T3 would've been a better film if it had worked in a little time-travel sex as well...
I suggest that to be a more open and honest person, you should approach any blue-clad gentlemen you happen to notice and inform them of the above factoid.
You just keep on missing the point, don't you?
You just keep on ignoring the point, don't you? It has been repeatedly explained that obeying copyright laws encourages the production of RIAA-style music, and that you, as someone who enjoys copying the RIAA's music, are working to destroy something you enjoy. That's either evil or insane, depending on the exact circumstances.
Do you really think a contract signed under duress like that is worth anything?
Well, you earlier said it was wrong to break a promise. Have you now changed your mind?
Do you really think a contract signed under duress like that is worth anything?
Do you really not comprehend the impossibility of a situation without duress?
"Murder" by definition is killing of any creature that one does not have the right to kill.
The dictionary definition of murder is "an unlawful killing". If you say that "wrongful" is equivalent to "unlawful", you are asserting an imprudent belief in the infallability of governmental lawmakers.
Or, even if you don't believe that all laws are automatically moral, you're still making a circular argument: "Immoral things are wrong. Murder means 'wrongful killing'. Therefore murder is immoral".
That's an infinite loop- you first defined morality in terms of murder, and then murder in terms of morality. Such reasoning can tell us nothing about how to distinguish a murder from an acceptable killing. The best you can do is fall back on an innate feeling of squeemishness at the thought of harming a fetus.
If you're calling copyright infringement "evil", you've obviously lost all perspective.
Wrong. I am, however, expecting you to recognize distinctions of quality instead of quantity.
Congratulations, you've read Kant.
Wrong again. I simply speak English well, and understand the meanings of four-letter words.
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
Fallacy of the "bait and switch" (or, as they say, non sequitur). The subject was not the possibility of eliminating copyright law, but actually whether or not is it proper for you to disregard copyright laws that do exist.
I like how you deny reading the old comment I made
I dislike how you can't differentiate between the words "find" and "read", and how you choose to imagine people are writing whatever you wish them to say.
Yes, it is. For example, the USA's landing on D-Day was quite difficult for them... why, it was nearly as bad as any ordinary day during the battle for Stalingrad. The Soviet army was quite experienced at enduring that level of pain. Plus, the Japanese could not possibly fortify their numerous coastlines to the same extent the much smaller British Channel had been.
It's the reason that Germany never invaded UK,
No. The reasons for that are (a) the total failure to achieve air superiority in the Battle of Britain and (b) the complete devastation of Germany's Atlantic navy pursuant to the sinking of the Bismark.
Add the fact that the USSR had no navy and especially no Pacific fleet.
Neither Japan nor the USSR had a navy. But, the USSR did have oil wells, iron mines, steel refineries, and a culture obessively focused on factory-work. They'd have gotten a navy soon enough... it's not as if there was a time limit. Japan wasn't going to slip away.
I did get over 5 mod points, so I'm pretty sure I'm in the green.
Mod points have a notoriously low correlation to factual correctness. They are primarily useful to measure if a post is on-topic and non-spam.
I still think you're being overly pedantic because you don't want to lose an argument
Seeing as you have attempted no rebuttal, I see that I have won. I would not have been half as eager for the dispute had you not made such an insipid recourse to an opposing dictionary entry.
you started on/.
No, check the first post in the thread. You started it.
but it's really not worth my time (and I hope it's not worth yours) to continue.
No, it's not particularly worth it... as I charge $18/hour for verbal SAT instruction, but perceive little hope of renumeration from you.
At which point the Mistel has failed in its primary bombing mission, tactically an Allied win.
Of course I only mentioned that as a joke. Airborne engagements against other bombers is really not what a bomber should be evaluated on. (Unless it is fast enough to be considered for an interceptor role, but that never really worked out, as with the YP-40). Neither is raw size a beneficial characteristic.
Obviously not as I've no clue what you're on about.
That indicates you didn't thoroughly read my previous messages in this thread, which explains why you don't understand what I wrote later. Jumping in at the middle is a good way to avoid critical context. Here's a perinent quote to help understand other written material:
"Begin at the beginning," the King said, gravely, "and go on until you come to the end: then stop." -- Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
The following fixed by deleting extraneous newlines and inserting quotation marks: your statement that "There is no way to argue otherwise" is bollocks, show me the evidence.
Are you really asking me to spell it out for you, as I would to a six-year old? Very well:
There is no way to argue that Germany was closer to building an atomic bomb than they were to building a delivery mechanism appropriate to an atomic bomb. As has already been pointed out in other comments, this rough sketch called for plutonium, which absolutely would not have worked in this layout. Therefore, their ability to engineer atomic bombs was horribly bad. Also, their access to fissionable materials was nonexistent.
On the other hand, they had already constructed aircraft capable of transporting more than an atomic bomb's worth of weight, and they absolutely were the best on Earth at precise, long range rocketry. Therefore, their ability to construct bomb delivery systems was not completely useless.
In light of that, it was more likely that Nazi Germany could create a rocket or plane capable of transporting an atomic bomb than they would be able to construct the bomb itself. If you think you can contest any part of that reasoning, give it a try.
Okay. First, are you reading my previous comments trying to find ad hominem material for your argument here?
I have no ability to find your old comments. This particular comment is linked by the journal entry under your name.
Second, I stand by that statement, and I've got a few years of OSX-based consulting to lend credence to my opinion about macs, for what it's worth.
Here is an exhaustive analysis which may enlighten you as to how little regard Apple gives to consistency of the QuickTime GUI, especially on non-Mac systems. They never made QuickTime consistent on Macs... they never made it consistent on Windows... therefore why would it bother them at all that they can't make it consistent on Linux, the OS whose users are maximally tolerant of mismatched application themes?
I'll give you two more example sentences, just to drive the point deeper:
Sentence E: "Typically, you can't buy marijuana in downtown LA"
Sentence F: "Typical people in downtown LA aren't selling marijuana"
Even if F is true, E is false. It claims this illegal action almost never happens, when in reality it's probably going on someplace in the city. Hope that makes it more clear, as this example forms a more direct analogy to the acti of bootlegging anime.
Step three-point-five, count how many explcitly say in their policy that they do not track Naruto torrents.
Boy, it's been so many years since I've taught an English class... it'll be hard for me to get back into the explanatory mood. But I'll have to teach you to understand what you wrote. One of your biggest comprehension problems is focusing on the word "typical", when it was actually "only" that was tripping you up.
For reference, here is the incorrect line again:
Sentence A: "Typically, anime is only distributed via torrent when there is no american company planning to sell it"
Let's presume for the sake of discussion that the most popular anime torrent sites remove licensed series (although that fact in itself is questionable). Even if I believe you on that point, sentence A is still wrong
Compare it against sentence B: "Typical anime torrent websites forbid licensed series"
Do you think sentences A and B are equivalent? They certainly aren't!... although I can understand how a poor English speaker could make that mistake. (A) claims that it is unusual for licensed anime to be distributed by torrents. That is a far stronger claim than what (B) says, which is that only unusual sites provide torrents of licensed anime. Because (A) is making such a stronger claim, it was easier to prove wrong. Sentence (A) denies the existence and easy accessibilty of licensed anime torrents, which is blatantly false.
As further explanation, here are two more sentences which share the same relationship as (A) and (B):
Sentence C: "Typically, only children go into the school library"
Sentence D: "The typical people going into the school library are children"
Given that there is always an adult librarian on duty, sentence C is false, because it denies that the presence of even one adult is normal. Sentence D is correct, because it makes no such claim, instead only pointing out that most library patrons are children- not all!
So, sentences A & C are wrong, because they claim it is unusual to find anything which does not fit the description. Sentences B & D are true, as they merely assert that most things match the description, and not that it is unusual to find any that don't.
I hope you can now understand why your mis-written claim was inarguably factually wrong, and avoid such errors henceforth. (I will not further dispute the relative dominance of animesuki versus boxtorrents, except to note that the question is far from settled)
AC: Now I have a Brittney Spears song on my harddrive that will end up on my playlist. I listen to it long enough and all of the sudden I find that I'm a fan, and like her music enough to go to a concert coming up, whereas before I wouldn't have.
That scenario is unlikely, but even if it did actually happen, it still doesn't benefit the RIAA. They're not the ones who collect concert proceeds. They'd rather you spend $20 on a CD than $60 on a ticket.
That's a circular arguement. "Murder" by definition is a killing that has been forbidden by the authorities. Murder is only (and always) wrong if you believe the authorities are always right.
Likewise, a sentences like "You shall not commit murder" are empty of content, because "murder" itself is something you shouldn't do.
If, on the other hand, you meant to say "Killing of the unborn is morally wrong", then that's something different. Although it happens to be a completely wrong opinion.
Well perhaps one probably should ask a lawyer about that.
Do you need to check with your lawyer if marijuana is illegal too?
There are some things whose illegality is easy to measure. Copyright infringement is one of them. Prior to the signing of the Berne Conventions, it was legal to copy a foreign show until it got licensed in your country. But that hasn't applied in the USA since 1987. By 2002, even oddball places like Taiwan had accepted Berne.
Today, the largest country where it's legal to copy shows until they get licensed is Iran.
Trackers like AnimeSuki and Scarywater care, and they're the way most people watch for anime.
No, that is false. It's completely false, because a "tracker" is not a human-viewable display. No person can watch a tracker looking for new files.
Even if we correct your statement to be "tracker-associated websites", it's still wrong, as you presume knowledge about habits of other people that you don't actually possess. It is the factuality of your assertion that Animesuki et al are the most used that is being disputed. They are not the most popular, or else they would be higher up in Google results.
Those sites act as initial release points for fansubs. Once the series is licensed, they may take it down, but it stays up on all the slightly-more shady sites, such as those full of The Sopranos and "24" episodes.
Want to conduct another test? Go try to download a series which already has a major USA release, like GITS:SAC. Easy, huh? Because licensed anime is typical.
PS. The following line is remarkably ignorant of Apple's policy regarding GUI consistency:
Apple cannot make a consistant and reasonable player app in Linux. If they choose toolkits and run with it, they get nailed. If they make their own toolkits, they get nailed.
Obviously, I am aware of that definition. That's part of why I'm right, and you are wrong. It's quite funny to see you quoting a definition which only helps underscore your incorrect word usage (or myopic understanding of underlying facts, whichever the case may be)
There are numerous online dictionaries to help you with those SAT words you don't know.
Funny, but back when I took the SAT test, I got exactly zero questions wrong.
Some of the biggest and most popular tracker sites for anime follow this policy.
As I have already demonstrated (and as the article submission also points out), the anime bittorrents which are most popular and thus easiest to find on Google to in fact host titles already licensed in the USA.
Lets check the disputed sentence again:
Typically, anime is only distributed via torrent when there is no american company planning to sell it.
If that were true, it would not be typical and normal to find anime torrents when an American sale is planned. But that's not true, it is entirely typical, or they wouldn't be the #1 first hit on Google. Even if torrents of licensed anime were a minority event, it would still be typical. But indeed, from the testing I just did, it appears that licensed anime are entirely typical.
To summarize: Do you know that Naruto is one of the very most common anime torrents? And do you know that Naruto has already been licensed for a USA release?
Whether as a thin or thick client, that's up to companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Sun.
Thin clients aren't PCs. They're terminals.
Fairly few mainstream business users actually need PCs. They just need terminals, which have been PCs in the past, but may transition to something like an XBox3 in the future.
The minority of business users who actually need a computer will either get a server account (which is not a "PC", since it's shared), or a "workstation", which will be just like what we today call a PC, except costing 5-10 times as much.
The marketplace that we today enjoy gives us cheap commodity PCs basically equivalent to workstations. But once game consoles take away much of the demand for PCs, us technical users will be less able to piggyback on mass consumer demand.
Slashdot Mirror
If they connect and download, does it count because they downloaded or not count because they own or oversee the IP and thus are only receiving their own property?
If an undercover cop buys cocaine from you, does it count because you sold or not count because narcotics officers in the course of their duties are allowed to handle illegal drugs, and thus are only receiving something they were allowed to get?
It has been decided that laws can not be tried ex post facto, due to the high potential for abuse and persecution of certain parties that they provide.
That's ancient history now. The special federal "Terry Schiavo's Parents Act" has demonstrated a new congressional power to target individual named citizens.
Except I'm not quite sure if ex post facto actually applies to tort law,
If that were true, then it would've been impossible for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act to retroactively lengthen the copyright terms of already-published works.
It's also true that the person who set up the server is the one who made the whole process possible at all, however, he/she isn't the one who does it.
The legal system generally has little trouble holding multiple people liable for a single offense. Depending on the lawyer's exact mood, he could paint you as a conspirator, an abettor, an accessory before the fact, or even an additional defendant for the exact same act.
It's not as if they've never convicted two men for murdering a single victim.
Imagine if one man installs a bomb in a car, and another remotely detonates it. Who is responsible for any harm resulting? Both of them. Each did an action that could only be interpreted as intentionally leading to illegal danger, but which would've been ineffective without the other. No matter, common sense will win the day.
each user is generally only responsible for uploading small parts of the complete whole.
"It was only a small portion of the file" is not a complete defense against copyright infringement. It might work as an arguement for Fair Use, depending on what the purpose for transmitting the small portion is.
If it was to allow the recipient to get a small sample of a song to decide if she'd like to go buy the CD, that's fine. But if the intent is for the downloader to combine it with thousands of other small pieces obtained from other places, and then assemble a complete whole file, then that usage is quite illegal.
Further, just because I'm an employee of Sony, or work for them, doesn't mean I have the "right" to aquire/copy/download/steal every piece of music and film in the Sony catalog.
If you were instructed by the Sony chain-of-command to investigate unauthorized file copying, then distributing or recieving copies is part of your job. Depending on how you want to look at it, they either gave you permission, or YOU aren't recieving the copy- Sony is, and you are just a tool of the corporation.
But, that question isn't material anyhow- the recipient's right to a copy doesn't confer on others the right to send him copies.
Arnold Schwarzenegger once said that he hated the sex scene in Terminator because it was totally at odds
That's a really silly thing to say, because that sex (and the pregnancy it produced) was the whole focus of the movie's plot. You know that hero in T2 and T3? "John Connor"? That's where he came from...
In fact, T3 would've been a better film if it had worked in a little time-travel sex as well...
I mean, "attempted murder", what's with that? Do they give out a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
I never agreed to obey any laws.
I suggest that to be a more open and honest person, you should approach any blue-clad gentlemen you happen to notice and inform them of the above factoid.
You just keep on missing the point, don't you?
You just keep on ignoring the point, don't you? It has been repeatedly explained that obeying copyright laws encourages the production of RIAA-style music, and that you, as someone who enjoys copying the RIAA's music, are working to destroy something you enjoy. That's either evil or insane, depending on the exact circumstances.
Do you really think a contract signed under duress like that is worth anything?
Well, you earlier said it was wrong to break a promise. Have you now changed your mind?
Do you really think a contract signed under duress like that is worth anything?
Do you really not comprehend the impossibility of a situation without duress?
"Murder" by definition is killing of any creature that one does not have the right to kill.
The dictionary definition of murder is "an unlawful killing". If you say that "wrongful" is equivalent to "unlawful", you are asserting an imprudent belief in the infallability of governmental lawmakers.
Or, even if you don't believe that all laws are automatically moral, you're still making a circular argument: "Immoral things are wrong. Murder means 'wrongful killing'. Therefore murder is immoral".
That's an infinite loop- you first defined morality in terms of murder, and then murder in terms of morality. Such reasoning can tell us nothing about how to distinguish a murder from an acceptable killing. The best you can do is fall back on an innate feeling of squeemishness at the thought of harming a fetus.
If you're calling copyright infringement "evil", you've obviously lost all perspective.
Wrong. I am, however, expecting you to recognize distinctions of quality instead of quantity.
Congratulations, you've read Kant.
Wrong again. I simply speak English well, and understand the meanings of four-letter words.
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
Fallacy of the "bait and switch" (or, as they say, non sequitur). The subject was not the possibility of eliminating copyright law, but actually whether or not is it proper for you to disregard copyright laws that do exist.
I like how you deny reading the old comment I made
I dislike how you can't differentiate between the words "find" and "read", and how you choose to imagine people are writing whatever you wish them to say.
Him and what Navy?
Japan had no Navy either, so we can call it even.
It's hell to invade a fortified coastline.
Yes, it is. For example, the USA's landing on D-Day was quite difficult for them... why, it was nearly as bad as any ordinary day during the battle for Stalingrad. The Soviet army was quite experienced at enduring that level of pain. Plus, the Japanese could not possibly fortify their numerous coastlines to the same extent the much smaller British Channel had been.
It's the reason that Germany never invaded UK,
No. The reasons for that are (a) the total failure to achieve air superiority in the Battle of Britain and (b) the complete devastation of Germany's Atlantic navy pursuant to the sinking of the Bismark.
Add the fact that the USSR had no navy and especially no Pacific fleet.
Neither Japan nor the USSR had a navy. But, the USSR did have oil wells, iron mines, steel refineries, and a culture obessively focused on factory-work. They'd have gotten a navy soon enough... it's not as if there was a time limit. Japan wasn't going to slip away.
I did get over 5 mod points, so I'm pretty sure I'm in the green.
/.
Mod points have a notoriously low correlation to factual correctness. They are primarily useful to measure if a post is on-topic and non-spam.
I still think you're being overly pedantic because you don't want to lose an argument
Seeing as you have attempted no rebuttal, I see that I have won. I would not have been half as eager for the dispute had you not made such an insipid recourse to an opposing dictionary entry.
you started on
No, check the first post in the thread. You started it.
but it's really not worth my time (and I hope it's not worth yours) to continue.
No, it's not particularly worth it... as I charge $18/hour for verbal SAT instruction, but perceive little hope of renumeration from you.
Of course I only mentioned that as a joke. Airborne engagements against other bombers is really not what a bomber should be evaluated on. (Unless it is fast enough to be considered for an interceptor role, but that never really worked out, as with the YP-40). Neither is raw size a beneficial characteristic.
Obviously not as I've no clue what you're on about.
That indicates you didn't thoroughly read my previous messages in this thread, which explains why you don't understand what I wrote later. Jumping in at the middle is a good way to avoid critical context. Here's a perinent quote to help understand other written material:
-- Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
The following fixed by deleting extraneous newlines and inserting quotation marks:
your statement that "There is no way to argue otherwise" is bollocks, show me the evidence.
Are you really asking me to spell it out for you, as I would to a six-year old? Very well:
There is no way to argue that Germany was closer to building an atomic bomb than they were to building a delivery mechanism appropriate to an atomic bomb. As has already been pointed out in other comments, this rough sketch called for plutonium, which absolutely would not have worked in this layout. Therefore, their ability to engineer atomic bombs was horribly bad. Also, their access to fissionable materials was nonexistent.
On the other hand, they had already constructed aircraft capable of transporting more than an atomic bomb's worth of weight, and they absolutely were the best on Earth at precise, long range rocketry. Therefore, their ability to construct bomb delivery systems was not completely useless.
In light of that, it was more likely that Nazi Germany could create a rocket or plane capable of transporting an atomic bomb than they would be able to construct the bomb itself. If you think you can contest any part of that reasoning, give it a try.
Okay. First, are you reading my previous comments trying to find ad hominem material for your argument here?
I have no ability to find your old comments. This particular comment is linked by the journal entry under your name.
Second, I stand by that statement, and I've got a few years of OSX-based consulting to lend credence to my opinion about macs, for what it's worth.
Here is an exhaustive analysis which may enlighten you as to how little regard Apple gives to consistency of the QuickTime GUI, especially on non-Mac systems. They never made QuickTime consistent on Macs... they never made it consistent on Windows... therefore why would it bother them at all that they can't make it consistent on Linux, the OS whose users are maximally tolerant of mismatched application themes?
- Sentence E: "Typically, you can't buy marijuana in downtown LA"
- Sentence F: "Typical people in downtown LA aren't selling marijuana"
Even if F is true, E is false. It claims this illegal action almost never happens, when in reality it's probably going on someplace in the city. Hope that makes it more clear, as this example forms a more direct analogy to the acti of bootlegging anime.Boy, it's been so many years since I've taught an English class... it'll be hard for me to get back into the explanatory mood. But I'll have to teach you to understand what you wrote. One of your biggest comprehension problems is focusing on the word "typical", when it was actually "only" that was tripping you up.
For reference, here is the incorrect line again:
Let's presume for the sake of discussion that the most popular anime torrent sites remove licensed series (although that fact in itself is questionable). Even if I believe you on that point, sentence A is still wrong
Compare it against sentence B: "Typical anime torrent websites forbid licensed series"
Do you think sentences A and B are equivalent? They certainly aren't!... although I can understand how a poor English speaker could make that mistake. (A) claims that it is unusual for licensed anime to be distributed by torrents. That is a far stronger claim than what (B) says, which is that only unusual sites provide torrents of licensed anime. Because (A) is making such a stronger claim, it was easier to prove wrong. Sentence (A) denies the existence and easy accessibilty of licensed anime torrents, which is blatantly false.
As further explanation, here are two more sentences which share the same relationship as (A) and (B):
Given that there is always an adult librarian on duty, sentence C is false, because it denies that the presence of even one adult is normal. Sentence D is correct, because it makes no such claim, instead only pointing out that most library patrons are children- not all!
So, sentences A & C are wrong, because they claim it is unusual to find anything which does not fit the description. Sentences B & D are true, as they merely assert that most things match the description, and not that it is unusual to find any that don't.
I hope you can now understand why your mis-written claim was inarguably factually wrong, and avoid such errors henceforth. (I will not further dispute the relative dominance of animesuki versus boxtorrents, except to note that the question is far from settled)
AC: Now I have a Brittney Spears song on my harddrive that will end up on my playlist. I listen to it long enough and all of the sudden I find that I'm a fan, and like her music enough to go to a concert coming up, whereas before I wouldn't have.
That scenario is unlikely, but even if it did actually happen, it still doesn't benefit the RIAA. They're not the ones who collect concert proceeds. They'd rather you spend $20 on a CD than $60 on a ticket.
Murder of the unborn is morally wrong.
That's a circular arguement. "Murder" by definition is a killing that has been forbidden by the authorities. Murder is only (and always) wrong if you believe the authorities are always right.
Likewise, a sentences like "You shall not commit murder" are empty of content, because "murder" itself is something you shouldn't do.
If, on the other hand, you meant to say "Killing of the unborn is morally wrong", then that's something different. Although it happens to be a completely wrong opinion.
Well perhaps one probably should ask a lawyer about that.
Do you need to check with your lawyer if marijuana is illegal too?
There are some things whose illegality is easy to measure. Copyright infringement is one of them. Prior to the signing of the Berne Conventions, it was legal to copy a foreign show until it got licensed in your country. But that hasn't applied in the USA since 1987. By 2002, even oddball places like Taiwan had accepted Berne.
Today, the largest country where it's legal to copy shows until they get licensed is Iran.
Thanks to the Family Entertainment and Copyright act ALL fansubs would be legally considered "prior to" releases
No, they were already illegal without that act.
No, that is false. It's completely false, because a "tracker" is not a human-viewable display. No person can watch a tracker looking for new files.
Even if we correct your statement to be "tracker-associated websites", it's still wrong, as you presume knowledge about habits of other people that you don't actually possess. It is the factuality of your assertion that Animesuki et al are the most used that is being disputed. They are not the most popular, or else they would be higher up in Google results.
Those sites act as initial release points for fansubs. Once the series is licensed, they may take it down, but it stays up on all the slightly-more shady sites, such as those full of The Sopranos and "24" episodes.
Want to conduct another test? Go try to download a series which already has a major USA release, like GITS:SAC. Easy, huh? Because licensed anime is typical.
PS. The following line is remarkably ignorant of Apple's policy regarding GUI consistency:
Obviously, I am aware of that definition. That's part of why I'm right, and you are wrong. It's quite funny to see you quoting a definition which only helps underscore your incorrect word usage (or myopic understanding of underlying facts, whichever the case may be)
There are numerous online dictionaries to help you with those SAT words you don't know.
Funny, but back when I took the SAT test, I got exactly zero questions wrong.
Some of the biggest and most popular tracker sites for anime follow this policy.
As I have already demonstrated (and as the article submission also points out), the anime bittorrents which are most popular and thus easiest to find on Google to in fact host titles already licensed in the USA.
Lets check the disputed sentence again:
If that were true, it would not be typical and normal to find anime torrents when an American sale is planned. But that's not true, it is entirely typical, or they wouldn't be the #1 first hit on Google. Even if torrents of licensed anime were a minority event, it would still be typical. But indeed, from the testing I just did, it appears that licensed anime are entirely typical.
To summarize:
Do you know that Naruto is one of the very most common anime torrents?
And do you know that Naruto has already been licensed for a USA release?
For a console where the owner doesn't choose the hardware
I changed the video card and hard drive in a Mac, give me my Electrical Engineering degree now!!
(FYI, Macs are PCs. Wintels are also PCs. As is the Commodore 64)
Whether as a thin or thick client, that's up to companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Sun.
Thin clients aren't PCs. They're terminals.
Fairly few mainstream business users actually need PCs. They just need terminals, which have been PCs in the past, but may transition to something like an XBox3 in the future.
The minority of business users who actually need a computer will either get a server account (which is not a "PC", since it's shared), or a "workstation", which will be just like what we today call a PC, except costing 5-10 times as much.
The marketplace that we today enjoy gives us cheap commodity PCs basically equivalent to workstations. But once game consoles take away much of the demand for PCs, us technical users will be less able to piggyback on mass consumer demand.