It's a sad commentary on Slashdot's idiot population when they come onto a site owned by a company which makes its bread and butter pitching Linux and OSS solutions to get "news", then think it's really really funny that a Microsoft-funded study wound up deciding the direction of an IT project somewhere.
Oh no, I understood perfectly the point you were trying to make, though ham fisted it was.
I don't think you do. I think the point - which was to take your subtle suggestion that the entire left is somehow involved in this sort of behavior and expand into a ridiculous absolute linking the right into extremity in its own stereotypical behavior - is completely lost on you. This does not surprise me in the least, as you were obviously already small-minded enough to make a vague implication that an entire body and a stupid radical are all in this together.
Interesting how you snuck the phrase "every single" into your summation of my post, a phrase I didn't use and one that changes the meaning of my post
Blah blah. Silly conservative trapped in a corner ignoring all parts of the message but the literal terminology used? That's another stereotype I've encountered, only this one seems to be real. Again, the absurdity that was used to drive the point home with a sledgehammer is obviously lost on you.
Ridiculous stereotype? So you're saying the left isn't concerned about censorship? All those MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Media Matters, etc posts about the Patriot Act, Cooperate media, Fox News, etc are a figment of my imagination?
I didn't say that at all - nice try. What I *did* imply, however, is that it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that "the left" - an all encompassing political body - is involved in censorship practices while yelling that they're being censored. One loser who got thrown out of Defcon12 for being a braindead marmacet does not constitute "the left". Reread your original statement. Thus, I quote:
Funny how its the left who continually bitch about being "censored," yet they're quite willing to squelch anyone else's speech who they consider apostate.
One pimply guy with a gmail account?
Yes. Crimethinc. Known idiot. Until you can provide me with proof that "the left" or, at least a large majority of "the left" engages in this, you are wrong.
And this was the point of my reply in the first place. Because I take pot shots at the left I must be on the right. Hmm.. now where did you put your petard.
Again, the absurdity used to drive the point home is lost on you...
I'm still leaning towards Rall... but there's still a Janeane-esque quality to it.
Yes, yes. You're very clever. I don't know hardly anything about either of them, but I know Garafolo is annoying. You're very very clever, congratulations.
Apparently it didn't work on your particular data point.
That's because I'm already way too smart to learn anything more from it.
Your amazing ability to deftly dodge the point of the entire post is truly a sight to behold. Allow me to spell it out for you, and make a suggestion on how you could avoid missing things like this in the future:
You said:Funny how its the left who continually bitch about being "censored," yet they're
I said:Because every single person on "the left" is engaging in this.
The assumption here was that you would understand that you implicated the entire body of "the left" in the actions of a few stupid little brats using a ridiculous stereotype. To drive the point home, I followed up with this sarcastic remark, unfairly implicating you in a ridiculous stereotype:
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
I suggest trying classical music. I hear it can raise your IQ a few points.
Yes, jackass. Because every single person on "the left" is engaging in this. It's not just a group of losers with too much free time and no computing skill, it's the ENTIRE left.
They're not stupid. They just stopped advancing technologically, socially, and politically around the same time fire was discovered.
Compare and contrast that with the Democrats. They're willing to jump on, over, and under any random bandwagon that happens to come along in the technological, social, or political field.
Since the independents and libertarians are usually the ones driving the bandwagons, and they're so scatterbrained and disorganized that the wagon is all over the road and running down everyone else in the field, we can't really look to them for any clarity either.
The moral of this story is that they're all stupid, and people should just try thinking for themselves for a change.
Besides laws don't determine morality and they never will.
That doesn't hold water. Nobody is entitled to have music. Nobody needs it. Nobody can be hurt by not having it. How are you going to construct a convincing moral argument for ripping it off? The "steal bread to feed my children" argument only works when you have no alternatives. You have LOTS of alternatives. Choosing not to use them doesn't let you worm your way to a moral argument as if they didn't exist.
I support bands by going to concerts. I have no desire to support a distribution company that doesn't care about art as much as they care about money.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Massively distributed content is just that - content. It's not art.
An analogy to help understand my point: the Mona Lisa is art. Digitized, near-perfect reproductions may be indistinguishable from the original by all but the most educated in the field, but they are not art. In much the same way, the original performance of music may be art. The digitized reproductions, though almost perfect and indistinguishable from the original by all but the most educated in the field, are not art. They are content. As such, no special artistic protections should be afforded those reproductions. They should be treated as content to be distributed and sold. A cheap product to be whored by executives, nothing more.
Getting back to the topic at hand, however: concerts? I assume, then, that you're aware of the enormous ripoff that the majority of venues (most of them owned by the RIAA's evil brother, ClearChannel Communications) are?
Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I'm paying for music now (hint: $0)
So, enlighten us. Are you an intelligent buyer who's not participating in the music industry's plunder and pillage sales tactics by swearing off their crummy content, or are you a theiving little brat unwilling to pay for what you want?
XP doesn't crash. Bad drivers crash XP. Read up on WHQL, then fix your computer. Don't blame the OS when the user is clearly to blame.
Wow. It's like bashing heads with a Linux zealot all over again. Only one problem, numbnuts: none of the drivers that are installed are signed by anyone but Microsoft, and I've never allowed installation of an "unsafe" driver (i.e. - a driver that took advantage of the fact that Windows was total shit until Microsoft pulled their head out of their ass and made their OS work like it was 1977).
Touche, zealot-boy.
Exactly. "Fair or not". That's what I've been talking about.
It's perfectly fair. Microsoft made a shitty product for years and held anyone who dared suggest they fix it in utter contempt. Now Microsoft has a reputation for making shitty products.
Well, gee. Ain't that a bitch. Funny how you get the reputation of an asshole when you act like one, isn't it?
That's not true. There are still BSODS in WinXP. My Pro box throws them now and then. I've gotten maybe three or four since I installed it in NOvember, so they're not COMMON anymore, but they still exist.
Besides, fair or not, Win95, 98, and ME were all atrocious, and that stigma is permanently etched in the minds of a lot of people. Microsoft really screwed up, and they'll continue paying for it until the last vestiges of the pre-XP era are gone. A lot of professionals remember Windows as the mid-90s system that couldn't match the performance, stability, or security of early 70s systems, but cost a lot of money anyway.
A lot of users remember Windows as the system that ate their term papers, presentations, budget reports, etc. Windows, for its first three incarnations, was an absolute piece of garbage. Even though XP and 2000 finally started behaving like semi-modern systems, people will hold the original transgressions against them anyway.
By hard, you should have said obscure, because most people won't need the extra functionality of PostgreSQL, EVER. It's odd that you would call these same people "clueless n00b"s, when they prefer ease over obscure
Obscure? Yes, I know I just *love* the "ease of use" that goes along with nesting five or six levels of SELECTs because the clueless developers over at MySQL can't figure out VIEWs. I know that *I* would certainly call ACID an "obscure feature" and that explains why it was slapped in as an afterthought long after the clueless developers over at MySQL released their "database engine" (never mind "relational", you could argue that the lack of ACID compliance prevented MySQL from being a *DBMS* for quite a long time).
I would certainly call the tacked-on foriegn key constraints "obscure". Who would ever need something like THAT in a RDBMS? Yes, of course, stupid me. How long did it take to get stored procedures? I guess it's a "feature" that you can enter a date of "0/0/00", right?
Oh.... and let's not forget.... transactions. The fact that you even have to defend MySQL with "it has transactions (sort of) NOW" is absolutely pathetic.
Obscure? No. MySQL is just a piece of crap for clueless sods on cheap hosting. It's on par with Microsoft Access, but without the forms and reports that make Access a good desktop database.
And, that wasn't flamebait. Unless recent versions of MySQL have finally started acting like a real DBMS, everyone of those points I made was absolutely true and you can verify each one yourself.
Ah yes... you ask the question that can only be answered in a way that must be marked as Flamebait...
Because, unlike MySQL, PostgreSQL is a real RDBMS. It didn't kludge things into the main system like the InnoDB/MySQL fiasco. It supports a MUCH, MUCH more powerful, rich subset of SQL. It does, basically, what a RDBMS should do, whereas MySQL only does as much as it needs to get by.
Interestingly, this gave MySQL a niche in the small/medium website market. People who couldn't justify the complexity of earlier builds of Postgres jumped on MySQL because - although it makes the hard things impossible - it makes the most common tasks in a dynamic environment manageable for even the most clueless n00b. As people graduated to a more detailed understanding of things, MySQL offered them the power they needed to grow.
Unfortunately, eventually you will outgrow MySQL and hit the things where MySQL fails miserably at. Then, you need a "real" RDBMS. Alas, most folks using MySQL didn't need to do that, so they're used to the bizarre quirks of MySQL (18 nestings of SELECT anyone?) and struggle with PostgreSQL and other "real" RDBMSs as a result.
You can wish all you want, but it's not so. The "artist" sold their CONTENT (artists make art, content distributors make content) to the RIAA, so it's the RIAA's content now.
I'm not going to shed a tear for some dumb band that didn't bother to think the contract through or do some research and is getting screwed on the record deal now. Quite the contrary: I'd rather people just stopped buying into all this bullshit so the entire house of cards comes down on top of them.
That still doesn't justify ripping it off, however, because you don't need it.
It was NOT your channel to find. You should be lobbying the RIAA to move into the field. It's THEIR content, not yours. You can put whatever YOU OWN on however many p2p networks you want. You can't put other people's content on it just because you happen to be able to copy it. You can't go onto a dealership and start giving away their cars, why do you think you can usurp the rights to other people's music that way? Just because it's easier?
Artists don't make much money, if any at all, on CD sales.
That, and all of the related statements, are totally irrelevant. Again - it is NOT your content. You do NOT own the rights to it. If artists choose to distribute their content on p2p networks, so be it. That's their choice, not yours.
Let's take VHS tapes for example, the supreme court ruled that it was within the law to make backup copies of VHS tapes
Cite the case. If you're talking about Sony v Universal, you're not just out in left field, you're not even in the ballpark anymore. In fact, in that case, it was decided that the copies WOULD be infringing, but that Sony was not responsible for the uses that the VTRs were put to because the VTRs had "substantial noninfringing uses".
...like if i gave my copy of Raiders of the lost ark to a friend to keep.
p2p is not a transfer medium. It is a duplication medium. Giving away a video and redistributing a song are not the same thing. You are absolutely free to give your CD to anyone you want, because you purchased a CD, and you have the right to transfer ownership of it along with the copies of the songs on the CD. You did NOT purchase the rights to the songs themselves, however, so you do NOT have the right to begin distributing those songs.
before the DMCA you could buy a CD, rip the wav files and make them mp3s, then listen to them on the mp3 player of your choice... now it is illegal unless the recording company gives you express permission
What utter bullshit. It's illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms. So, in other words, if you're stupid enough to buy a broken CD, you get screwed. No shit? I wouldn't buy a car with the door welded shut, and I won't buy CDs with the tracks welded shut. Why is that so complicated? Maybe you'd like to make the argument that they're misrepresenting the contents of the CDs by not clearly disclosing the protection schemes? Well, lucky for you there are already laws against that.
What is wrong with letting my friend borrow my music even if it is in mp3 form?
"Borrowing" implies that you are temporarily losing something. An mp3 is a permanent exchange in which both parties keep the original contents. Therefore, giving an mp3 to someone is redistributing content which you have no right to redistribute, not "loaning". Again, this is not a complicated subject.
You are not allowed to make a physical back up of that new gaming CD you just bought.
That is a lie. You are not allowed to break copy protection schemes to do it. You shouldn't be purchasing broken media in the first place. Oh. Madden 2005 is copy protected? Here's a free clue: don't buy any more EA games, and let EA know in no uncertain terms why you will no longer be doing business with them. Simple. Again.
My point was that we have lost some serious rights that have hurt us and people like you seem to think it is alright because these rights were somehow "depriving" these multibillion dollar companies of something when it has been proven not to be true.
This does not justify your illegal activity. Would you support me breaking into a dealership and ripping an engine out of a car because I can't afford the equipment to read ODB II codes? If so, you're an idiot. You cannot justify your own illegal activity on the basis of someone else's immoral activity when there are legitimate routes to take to achieve your ends.
I'll lay this out for you once, and once only. It is very simple:
You do not need the CD.
You do not like the terms, cost, etc. that come with the CD.
You do not buy the CD.
You do not own the content of the CD, so you shouldn't have it.
See? Easy. Simple. It's called capitalism. If people were really pissed off about all this, and they actually were stealing things because they were pissed off, and not just cheap, lazy bastards who don't want to admit that they're just crooks, they would send a clear message to the RIAA and all the artists that support them by hitting them where it hurts: the wallet. How do you do that to a company? Gee. This is a tough one. You don't use their product.
WTF are you talking about? The Chevy Suburban is, and always has been, an excellent off road vehicle. That's what makes it such a great work truck for tooling around on farmland.
have it for free, or make a copy for backups, or let a friend borrow it, or use it on any device we wish in any format we wish.
You do not deserve it for free. CDs make backups of CDs. The copy command of my operating system is duplication, not borrowing. That latter is irrelevant, as you can simply not buy broken tracks.
Gee. That was tough.
Toot! Toot! Clue train coming through!
Hmm.. let's see. I think CDs are overpriced. Solution. I don't buy CDs.
I think DRMed file equates directly to corrupted file. Solution. I don't buy tracks online.
Wow! That was so hard, I can fully understand why it doesn't penetrate people's thick skulls!
"Share" on p2p = steal a valuable product or service. Get sued = good. Not buy broken, shitty, overpriced music and put the bastards out of business by not supporting them = non-childish way of showing disapproval with their business model and tactics. It's called "voting with your wallet". All those laws they "buy" are paid for with dollars people willingly gave up. Therefore, people chose that path, it's there own damn fault, and their own bloody problem. If you can't be bothered to make intelligent, educated purchasing decisions when the information is readily available, you deserve whatever happens as a result.
Those were actually really good cards for their price back in the day. I still have one in my FreeBSD box at home, but all it does now is handle CLI stuff. I might drop it in the Linbox and see how things work.
That card took me all the way up through Black & White without a problem. I finally replaced it with a Radeon 9000 that I'm still using on my desktop box. Oh well.. gotta scrape some cash together and move up to a 9600xt now, I suppose. Maybe with the PCI Express stuff coming out, the "older" cards will drop in price soon.
Fifteen years? No, now I know you're just a troll. In 1989, there was no Linux. BSD 4.4 wouldn't be around for another four years. In that time, UNIX still reined supreme, and Microsoft was just a baby. Win 3.1 wouldn't even be around for another three years. I'm pretty sure DOS 4 would have been your big bad Microsoft competitor back then.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a sad commentary on Slashdot's idiot population when they come onto a site owned by a company which makes its bread and butter pitching Linux and OSS solutions to get "news", then think it's really really funny that a Microsoft-funded study wound up deciding the direction of an IT project somewhere.
Dumbasses.
Oh no, I understood perfectly the point you were trying to make, though ham fisted it was.
I don't think you do. I think the point - which was to take your subtle suggestion that the entire left is somehow involved in this sort of behavior and expand into a ridiculous absolute linking the right into extremity in its own stereotypical behavior - is completely lost on you. This does not surprise me in the least, as you were obviously already small-minded enough to make a vague implication that an entire body and a stupid radical are all in this together.
Interesting how you snuck the phrase "every single" into your summation of my post, a phrase I didn't use and one that changes the meaning of my post
Blah blah. Silly conservative trapped in a corner ignoring all parts of the message but the literal terminology used? That's another stereotype I've encountered, only this one seems to be real. Again, the absurdity that was used to drive the point home with a sledgehammer is obviously lost on you.
Ridiculous stereotype? So you're saying the left isn't concerned about censorship? All those MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Media Matters, etc posts about the Patriot Act, Cooperate media, Fox News, etc are a figment of my imagination?
I didn't say that at all - nice try. What I *did* imply, however, is that it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that "the left" - an all encompassing political body - is involved in censorship practices while yelling that they're being censored. One loser who got thrown out of Defcon12 for being a braindead marmacet does not constitute "the left". Reread your original statement. Thus, I quote:
Funny how its the left who continually bitch about being "censored," yet they're quite willing to squelch anyone else's speech who they consider apostate.
One pimply guy with a gmail account?
Yes. Crimethinc. Known idiot. Until you can provide me with proof that "the left" or, at least a large majority of "the left" engages in this, you are wrong.
And this was the point of my reply in the first place. Because I take pot shots at the left I must be on the right. Hmm.. now where did you put your petard.
Again, the absurdity used to drive the point home is lost on you...
I'm still leaning towards Rall... but there's still a Janeane-esque quality to it.
Yes, yes. You're very clever. I don't know hardly anything about either of them, but I know Garafolo is annoying. You're very very clever, congratulations.
Apparently it didn't work on your particular data point.
That's because I'm already way too smart to learn anything more from it.
Your amazing ability to deftly dodge the point of the entire post is truly a sight to behold. Allow me to spell it out for you, and make a suggestion on how you could avoid missing things like this in the future:
You said: Funny how its the left who continually bitch about being "censored," yet they're
I said: Because every single person on "the left" is engaging in this.
The assumption here was that you would understand that you implicated the entire body of "the left" in the actions of a few stupid little brats using a ridiculous stereotype. To drive the point home, I followed up with this sarcastic remark, unfairly implicating you in a ridiculous stereotype:
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
I suggest trying classical music. I hear it can raise your IQ a few points.
Yes, jackass. Because every single person on "the left" is engaging in this. It's not just a group of losers with too much free time and no computing skill, it's the ENTIRE left.
Go beat your wife and lynch some niggers, righty.
Now now now....
They're not stupid. They just stopped advancing technologically, socially, and politically around the same time fire was discovered.
Compare and contrast that with the Democrats. They're willing to jump on, over, and under any random bandwagon that happens to come along in the technological, social, or political field.
Since the independents and libertarians are usually the ones driving the bandwagons, and they're so scatterbrained and disorganized that the wagon is all over the road and running down everyone else in the field, we can't really look to them for any clarity either.
The moral of this story is that they're all stupid, and people should just try thinking for themselves for a change.
Of course.... most people are stupid..... so....
Besides laws don't determine morality and they never will.
That doesn't hold water. Nobody is entitled to have music. Nobody needs it. Nobody can be hurt by not having it. How are you going to construct a convincing moral argument for ripping it off? The "steal bread to feed my children" argument only works when you have no alternatives. You have LOTS of alternatives. Choosing not to use them doesn't let you worm your way to a moral argument as if they didn't exist.
I support bands by going to concerts. I have no desire to support a distribution company that doesn't care about art as much as they care about money.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Massively distributed content is just that - content. It's not art.
An analogy to help understand my point: the Mona Lisa is art. Digitized, near-perfect reproductions may be indistinguishable from the original by all but the most educated in the field, but they are not art. In much the same way, the original performance of music may be art. The digitized reproductions, though almost perfect and indistinguishable from the original by all but the most educated in the field, are not art. They are content. As such, no special artistic protections should be afforded those reproductions. They should be treated as content to be distributed and sold. A cheap product to be whored by executives, nothing more.
Getting back to the topic at hand, however: concerts? I assume, then, that you're aware of the enormous ripoff that the majority of venues (most of them owned by the RIAA's evil brother, ClearChannel Communications) are?
Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I'm paying for music now (hint: $0)
So, enlighten us. Are you an intelligent buyer who's not participating in the music industry's plunder and pillage sales tactics by swearing off their crummy content, or are you a theiving little brat unwilling to pay for what you want?
Down down down! Parent post is confugins! Down down down!
Up up up! Article text is a rip off! See parent link! Up up up!
If your application depends on transactions, configure InnoDB as the default table type for your server, and no need to worry.
This does not address the fact that InnoDB is a tacked on afterthought.
XP doesn't crash. Bad drivers crash XP. Read up on WHQL, then fix your computer. Don't blame the OS when the user is clearly to blame.
Wow. It's like bashing heads with a Linux zealot all over again. Only one problem, numbnuts: none of the drivers that are installed are signed by anyone but Microsoft, and I've never allowed installation of an "unsafe" driver (i.e. - a driver that took advantage of the fact that Windows was total shit until Microsoft pulled their head out of their ass and made their OS work like it was 1977).
Touche, zealot-boy.
Exactly. "Fair or not". That's what I've been talking about.
It's perfectly fair. Microsoft made a shitty product for years and held anyone who dared suggest they fix it in utter contempt. Now Microsoft has a reputation for making shitty products.
Well, gee. Ain't that a bitch. Funny how you get the reputation of an asshole when you act like one, isn't it?
That's not true. There are still BSODS in WinXP. My Pro box throws them now and then. I've gotten maybe three or four since I installed it in NOvember, so they're not COMMON anymore, but they still exist.
Besides, fair or not, Win95, 98, and ME were all atrocious, and that stigma is permanently etched in the minds of a lot of people. Microsoft really screwed up, and they'll continue paying for it until the last vestiges of the pre-XP era are gone. A lot of professionals remember Windows as the mid-90s system that couldn't match the performance, stability, or security of early 70s systems, but cost a lot of money anyway.
A lot of users remember Windows as the system that ate their term papers, presentations, budget reports, etc. Windows, for its first three incarnations, was an absolute piece of garbage. Even though XP and 2000 finally started behaving like semi-modern systems, people will hold the original transgressions against them anyway.
By hard, you should have said obscure, because most people won't need the extra functionality of PostgreSQL, EVER. It's odd that you would call these same people "clueless n00b"s, when they prefer ease over obscure
Obscure? Yes, I know I just *love* the "ease of use" that goes along with nesting five or six levels of SELECTs because the clueless developers over at MySQL can't figure out VIEWs. I know that *I* would certainly call ACID an "obscure feature" and that explains why it was slapped in as an afterthought long after the clueless developers over at MySQL released their "database engine" (never mind "relational", you could argue that the lack of ACID compliance prevented MySQL from being a *DBMS* for quite a long time).
I would certainly call the tacked-on foriegn key constraints "obscure". Who would ever need something like THAT in a RDBMS? Yes, of course, stupid me. How long did it take to get stored procedures? I guess it's a "feature" that you can enter a date of "0/0/00", right?
Oh.... and let's not forget.... transactions. The fact that you even have to defend MySQL with "it has transactions (sort of) NOW" is absolutely pathetic.
Obscure? No. MySQL is just a piece of crap for clueless sods on cheap hosting. It's on par with Microsoft Access, but without the forms and reports that make Access a good desktop database.
And, that wasn't flamebait. Unless recent versions of MySQL have finally started acting like a real DBMS, everyone of those points I made was absolutely true and you can verify each one yourself.
Ah yes... you ask the question that can only be answered in a way that must be marked as Flamebait...
Because, unlike MySQL, PostgreSQL is a real RDBMS. It didn't kludge things into the main system like the InnoDB/MySQL fiasco. It supports a MUCH, MUCH more powerful, rich subset of SQL. It does, basically, what a RDBMS should do, whereas MySQL only does as much as it needs to get by.
Interestingly, this gave MySQL a niche in the small/medium website market. People who couldn't justify the complexity of earlier builds of Postgres jumped on MySQL because - although it makes the hard things impossible - it makes the most common tasks in a dynamic environment manageable for even the most clueless n00b. As people graduated to a more detailed understanding of things, MySQL offered them the power they needed to grow.
Unfortunately, eventually you will outgrow MySQL and hit the things where MySQL fails miserably at. Then, you need a "real" RDBMS. Alas, most folks using MySQL didn't need to do that, so they're used to the bizarre quirks of MySQL (18 nestings of SELECT anyone?) and struggle with PostgreSQL and other "real" RDBMSs as a result.
That's why.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
You can wish all you want, but it's not so. The "artist" sold their CONTENT (artists make art, content distributors make content) to the RIAA, so it's the RIAA's content now.
I'm not going to shed a tear for some dumb band that didn't bother to think the contract through or do some research and is getting screwed on the record deal now. Quite the contrary: I'd rather people just stopped buying into all this bullshit so the entire house of cards comes down on top of them.
That still doesn't justify ripping it off, however, because you don't need it.
We found a more efficient distribution channel.
It was NOT your channel to find. You should be lobbying the RIAA to move into the field. It's THEIR content, not yours. You can put whatever YOU OWN on however many p2p networks you want. You can't put other people's content on it just because you happen to be able to copy it. You can't go onto a dealership and start giving away their cars, why do you think you can usurp the rights to other people's music that way? Just because it's easier?
Artists don't make much money, if any at all, on CD sales.
That, and all of the related statements, are totally irrelevant. Again - it is NOT your content. You do NOT own the rights to it. If artists choose to distribute their content on p2p networks, so be it. That's their choice, not yours.
Let's take VHS tapes for example, the supreme court ruled that it was within the law to make backup copies of VHS tapes
Cite the case. If you're talking about Sony v Universal, you're not just out in left field, you're not even in the ballpark anymore. In fact, in that case, it was decided that the copies WOULD be infringing, but that Sony was not responsible for the uses that the VTRs were put to because the VTRs had "substantial noninfringing uses".
p2p is not a transfer medium. It is a duplication medium. Giving away a video and redistributing a song are not the same thing. You are absolutely free to give your CD to anyone you want, because you purchased a CD, and you have the right to transfer ownership of it along with the copies of the songs on the CD. You did NOT purchase the rights to the songs themselves, however, so you do NOT have the right to begin distributing those songs.
before the DMCA you could buy a CD, rip the wav files and make them mp3s, then listen to them on the mp3 player of your choice... now it is illegal unless the recording company gives you express permission
What utter bullshit. It's illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms. So, in other words, if you're stupid enough to buy a broken CD, you get screwed. No shit? I wouldn't buy a car with the door welded shut, and I won't buy CDs with the tracks welded shut. Why is that so complicated? Maybe you'd like to make the argument that they're misrepresenting the contents of the CDs by not clearly disclosing the protection schemes? Well, lucky for you there are already laws against that.
What is wrong with letting my friend borrow my music even if it is in mp3 form?
"Borrowing" implies that you are temporarily losing something. An mp3 is a permanent exchange in which both parties keep the original contents. Therefore, giving an mp3 to someone is redistributing content which you have no right to redistribute, not "loaning". Again, this is not a complicated subject.
You are not allowed to make a physical back up of that new gaming CD you just bought.
That is a lie. You are not allowed to break copy protection schemes to do it. You shouldn't be purchasing broken media in the first place. Oh. Madden 2005 is copy protected? Here's a free clue: don't buy any more EA games, and let EA know in no uncertain terms why you will no longer be doing business with them. Simple. Again.
My point was that we have lost some serious rights that have hurt us and people like you seem to think it is alright because these rights were somehow "depriving" these multibillion dollar companies of something when it has been proven not to be true.
This does not justify your illegal activity. Would you support me breaking into a dealership and ripping an engine out of a car because I can't afford the equipment to read ODB II codes? If so, you're an idiot. You cannot justify your own illegal activity on the basis of someone else's immoral activity when there are legitimate routes to take to achieve your ends.
I'll lay this out for you once, and once only. It is very simple:
See? Easy. Simple. It's called capitalism. If people were really pissed off about all this, and they actually were stealing things because they were pissed off, and not just cheap, lazy bastards who don't want to admit that they're just crooks, they would send a clear message to the RIAA and all the artists that support them by hitting them where it hurts: the wallet. How do you do that to a company? Gee. This is a tough one. You don't use their product.
Real complicated shit, isn't it?
All of your arguments are wrong and just plain stupid.
Really? I'm curious... what exactly is it that I'm arguing? And, what exactly have you provided backup for that I should be debunking?
You were not working on systems 15 years ago. I would wager a bet that you were just being BORN fifteen years ago.
Quoth the poster:
Ive got 15 years of experiance showing that O.S. saves money and outperformes MS and proprietary software.
CPM, open source or not, was proprietary.
WTF are you talking about? The Chevy Suburban is, and always has been, an excellent off road vehicle. That's what makes it such a great work truck for tooling around on farmland.
According to the troll, it's actually talking about VMS and CPM-86.
have it for free, or make a copy for backups, or let a friend borrow it, or use it on any device we wish in any format we wish.
You do not deserve it for free. CDs make backups of CDs. The copy command of my operating system is duplication, not borrowing. That latter is irrelevant, as you can simply not buy broken tracks.
Gee. That was tough.
Toot! Toot! Clue train coming through!
Hmm.. let's see. I think CDs are overpriced. Solution. I don't buy CDs.
I think DRMed file equates directly to corrupted file. Solution. I don't buy tracks online.
Wow! That was so hard, I can fully understand why it doesn't penetrate people's thick skulls!
"Share" on p2p = steal a valuable product or service. Get sued = good. Not buy broken, shitty, overpriced music and put the bastards out of business by not supporting them = non-childish way of showing disapproval with their business model and tactics. It's called "voting with your wallet". All those laws they "buy" are paid for with dollars people willingly gave up. Therefore, people chose that path, it's there own damn fault, and their own bloody problem. If you can't be bothered to make intelligent, educated purchasing decisions when the information is readily available, you deserve whatever happens as a result.
Oh my god... you're going to bring VAX systems into an argument over price points and value? You really are a troll...
And, both CPM-86 and VMS were proprietary, dumbass. AFAIK, OpenVMS is proprietary to this very day.
Not just a troll, but a stupid one at that.
Well, considering this is a fairly humorous joke, you still haven't.
TNT2 M64.... man...
Those were actually really good cards for their price back in the day. I still have one in my FreeBSD box at home, but all it does now is handle CLI stuff. I might drop it in the Linbox and see how things work.
That card took me all the way up through Black & White without a problem. I finally replaced it with a Radeon 9000 that I'm still using on my desktop box. Oh well.. gotta scrape some cash together and move up to a 9600xt now, I suppose. Maybe with the PCI Express stuff coming out, the "older" cards will drop in price soon.
Fifteen years? No, now I know you're just a troll. In 1989, there was no Linux. BSD 4.4 wouldn't be around for another four years. In that time, UNIX still reined supreme, and Microsoft was just a baby. Win 3.1 wouldn't even be around for another three years. I'm pretty sure DOS 4 would have been your big bad Microsoft competitor back then.