>> Now you're going to explain how taking a copy of something that someone sends to you without even asking is "theft", right?
Ok, I will. INAL but I think its fair to assume that if your the recipient of something that you know is copyright and knowing this you use it, then you're a thief.
It's the same as someone sending me a large diamond in the post without me asking. You would have a very difficult time convincing a judge that you were unknowingly the recipient of someone else's property. You would either be guilty of theft or guilty of being in possession of stolen property (UK law, but fairly universal principles.)
>> can only presume you don't know much about the movie industry. Can you really tell?
>>>... and many, many people are paid far more than they're worth. Prove it, or is just opinion?
>> do do what they do myself: that's why I know these things and you don't. So obviously your either going to give yourself a huge pay deduction or you are not one of these people who make much out of what they do. Maybe you are just plain jealous of other peoples success?
>> And I'll be just so sad when Hollywood has to stop making $200,000,000 crap.
So you admit that this will happen. Unfortunately there is no magic crystal ball here. People cannot tell before hand if a 200million film will be a flop or not. End result, you will get no more 200Mil films. No Star Wars, Terminator, Matrix etc.
If you value your entertainment then appreciate that it needs to be paid for.
Then you are a thief. You know it's not a free gift but because it suits your thieving personality you choose to treat it as such.
No one is forcing you to watch this stuff. Vote with your wallet and don't by into their product. But by thieving it you admit they have a product you want, but are not prepared to pay for it. No different than going into a store and taking candy.
>> it's expensive because people are paid a lot A few stars are paid a lot - the rest of the 'Team' are not. Get over it. If you envy someone for being paid a lot, start a campaign to have their wages reduced, or do what they do yourself. If it is easy then you'll have no problem.
>> but they can afford to spend $200,000,000 on a crappy movie because they know that their monopoly position will allow them to get that money back
Are you seriously telling me you go a see a movie without sniffing about to see if other people enjoyed it? I can forgive that once or maybe twice, but are you always going to see films because the advert is good? Sounds a bit like repeatedly banging yourself on the head, forgetting the fact the last time you did, it really really hurt.
>>...It's time that situation was brought to an end. Well you have the power. Use the Internet to distribute your own movies.
You completely miss the point of the post I made. Whether you like the situation or not these guys have a right to expect people to pay when their product is used. The Internet and current broadcast technology deprives them of that right. Without it, they will go out of business.
I repeat the challenge I made in my first post - find an alternative that protects the makers rights to get paid for their product. Come on, the floor is yours. Or are you just someone who thinks they have a right to do what ever they want with other peoples work? (Thief?)
Ok, I know it's not the done thing here to look at the whole picture but I think a little bit of realism is necessary.
Making TV/Movies is an extremely expensive thing to do. Why do they do it? Well, because we like what they produce and are prepared to pay to see it.
So in the new digital world, where the distribution mechanisms have changed, anyone with a broadband connection and a reasonable PC can set themselves up as broadcaster to the world, the people who spend the money on making these movies are rightly worried that their millions spent on producing the movies will recoup next to nothing. I'll state the obvious that the production quality of these products will reduce to the point where people cannot be arsed to record the programs because its just not worth it. We all lose out then.
People quote the fair use rights they were given in the Sony VCR law suit that established the principle that the VCR was legal and fair. Well people, times have moved on. When this case was originally settled it was not considering a recording scheme where copies of copies would be EXACTLY the same as the original. We all know what happens when we make copies of Video tapes.
OK, so here's the challenge to SlashDot readers. You propose a scheme that gives Fair Use rights to broadcast programming without enabling a user to broadcast their ill gotten gains to everyone on the internet who chooses to receive it.
These guys don't give a shit about users unless those users make them money - period. As for their research, without the details of how the research was carried out its irrelevant to the issue.
Just suppose that it was judged that this was a 'good thing to do', then what gives them the right to exclusively offer this service? If I have to have this shit, then I think I would prefer google to provide it.
If they get away with this I suspect the law suits from the other search engines will come flying.
Best thing to do would be for all sysadmins to block this at source.
At last, someone who understands what a typical user needs. (And I thought only BillG did.)
I bet I get my ass whipped for saying this here, but I really think the problem with getting people away from Windows (to Linux) is the amount of knowledge required to actually use a machine. There is just no way I can expect my granny to do this kind of shit, so is she excluded from using computers? Does she have to know about PPP, Telnet, firewalls and vi?
I have very little experience of Linux myself. I have it installed under VMWARE (Suse), running KDE. I do consider myself to literate but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to change screen resolutions. How is granny supposed to do it?
We need to lower the knowledge required to use a PC without outside help.
I prefer to judge people by the quality of their debate rather than their spelling? I met plenty of fools who can spell and plenty of intelligent people who can't spell to save their lives. Ever heard of dyslexia? Would you go up to someone in a wheel chair and deride him or her for being unable to walk?
In the UK I think the average voter turnout for the general elections is hovering around the 35% mark and falling.
This is a huge problem for a democracy IMHO. Considering we've fought 2 world wars for the right to determine who governs us, it's pathetic that a majority of people cannot be bothered to get off their arses and vote.
However, I have a confession. I'm one of the majority and ashamed of it. I always intend to vote, but when the time comes I always seem to have something important to do instead. If we had an easy electronic voting system then I for one would always cast my vote.
OTOH Do we really want to encourage EVERYONE to cast a vote? If there was no effort involved (like actually having to travel to vote) then would we be encouraging people with no real political views to vote 'just because they can' Maybe then the result of the election would be decided by the lazy jobless who had nothing better to do than vote?
Slashdot Mirror
>> Now you're going to explain how taking a copy of something that someone sends to you without even asking is "theft", right?
Ok, I will. INAL but I think its fair to assume that if your the recipient of something that you know is copyright and knowing this you use it, then you're a thief.
It's the same as someone sending me a large diamond in the post without me asking. You would have a very difficult time convincing a judge that you were unknowingly the recipient of someone else's property. You would either be guilty of theft or guilty of being in possession of stolen property (UK law, but fairly universal principles.)
>> can only presume you don't know much about the movie industry.
Can you really tell?
>>>... and many, many people are paid far more than they're worth.
Prove it, or is just opinion?
>> do do what they do myself: that's why I know these things and you don't.
So obviously your either going to give yourself a huge pay deduction or you are not one of these people who make much out of what they do. Maybe you are just plain jealous of other peoples success?
>> And I'll be just so sad when Hollywood has to stop making $200,000,000 crap.
So you admit that this will happen. Unfortunately there is no magic crystal ball here. People cannot tell before hand if a 200million film will be a flop or not. End result, you will get no more 200Mil films. No Star Wars, Terminator, Matrix etc.
If you value your entertainment then appreciate that it needs to be paid for.
>> I would consider that a free gift
Then you are a thief. You know it's not a free gift but because it suits your thieving personality you choose to treat it as such.
No one is forcing you to watch this stuff. Vote with your wallet and don't by into their product. But by thieving it you admit they have a product you want, but are not prepared to pay for it. No different than going into a store and taking candy.
Truth hurts.
>> it's expensive because people are paid a lot
...It's time that situation was brought to an end.
A few stars are paid a lot - the rest of the 'Team' are not. Get over it. If you envy someone for being paid a lot, start a campaign to have their wages reduced, or do what they do yourself. If it is easy then you'll have no problem.
>> but they can afford to spend $200,000,000 on a crappy movie because they know that their monopoly position will allow them to get that money back
Are you seriously telling me you go a see a movie without sniffing about to see if other people enjoyed it? I can forgive that once or maybe twice, but are you always going to see films because the advert is good? Sounds a bit like repeatedly banging yourself on the head, forgetting the fact the last time you did, it really really hurt.
>>
Well you have the power. Use the Internet to distribute your own movies.
You completely miss the point of the post I made. Whether you like the situation or not these guys have a right to expect people to pay when their product is used. The Internet and current broadcast technology deprives them of that right. Without it, they will go out of business.
I repeat the challenge I made in my first post - find an alternative that protects the makers rights to get paid for their product. Come on, the floor is yours. Or are you just someone who thinks they have a right to do what ever they want with other peoples work? (Thief?)
Ok, I know it's not the done thing here to look at the whole picture but I think a little bit of realism is necessary.
Making TV/Movies is an extremely expensive thing to do. Why do they do it? Well, because we like what they produce and are prepared to pay to see it.
So in the new digital world, where the distribution mechanisms have changed, anyone with a broadband connection and a reasonable PC can set themselves up as broadcaster to the world, the people who spend the money on making these movies are rightly worried that their millions spent on producing the movies will recoup next to nothing. I'll state the obvious that the production quality of these products will reduce to the point where people cannot be arsed to record the programs because its just not worth it. We all lose out then.
People quote the fair use rights they were given in the Sony VCR law suit that established the principle that the VCR was legal and fair. Well people, times have moved on. When this case was originally settled it was not considering a recording scheme where copies of copies would be EXACTLY the same as the original. We all know what happens when we make copies of Video tapes.
OK, so here's the challenge to SlashDot readers. You propose a scheme that gives Fair Use rights to broadcast programming without enabling a user to broadcast their ill gotten gains to everyone on the internet who chooses to receive it.
These guys don't give a shit about users unless those users make them money - period. As for their research, without the details of how the research was carried out its irrelevant to the issue. Just suppose that it was judged that this was a 'good thing to do', then what gives them the right to exclusively offer this service? If I have to have this shit, then I think I would prefer google to provide it. If they get away with this I suspect the law suits from the other search engines will come flying. Best thing to do would be for all sysadmins to block this at source.
At last, someone who understands what a typical user needs. (And I thought only BillG did.)
I bet I get my ass whipped for saying this here, but I really think the problem with getting people away from Windows (to Linux) is the amount of knowledge required to actually use a machine. There is just no way I can expect my granny to do this kind of shit, so is she excluded from using computers? Does she have to know about PPP, Telnet, firewalls and vi?
I have very little experience of Linux myself. I have it installed under VMWARE (Suse), running KDE. I do consider myself to literate but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to change screen resolutions. How is granny supposed to do it?
We need to lower the knowledge required to use a PC without outside help.
I prefer to judge people by the quality of their debate rather than their spelling? I met plenty of fools who can spell and plenty of intelligent people who can't spell to save their lives. Ever heard of dyslexia? Would you go up to someone in a wheel chair and deride him or her for being unable to walk?
You're a wanker.
What arse wiping dick head moded this as offtopic?
I like that idea. But I cannot imagine someone with a -ve being allowed to serve - the press would lynch them! It would be kinda fun!
In the UK I think the average voter turnout for the general elections is hovering around the 35% mark and falling.
This is a huge problem for a democracy IMHO. Considering we've fought 2 world wars for the right to determine who governs us, it's pathetic that a majority of people cannot be bothered to get off their arses and vote.
However, I have a confession. I'm one of the majority and ashamed of it. I always intend to vote, but when the time comes I always seem to have something important to do instead. If we had an easy electronic voting system then I for one would always cast my vote.
OTOH Do we really want to encourage EVERYONE to cast a vote? If there was no effort involved (like actually having to travel to vote) then would we be encouraging people with no real political views to vote 'just because they can' Maybe then the result of the election would be decided by the lazy jobless who had nothing better to do than vote?