The simple solution would be a curtain behind the corrals. Thus people who want to watch porn can go right ahead with some privacy. (It also keeps shoulder-surfers down).
Right. And will the librarians be the ones to wipe up the mess after the punter has left the curtained cubicle? All in the name of freedom-of-speech you understand.
You're saying: If a memory leak causes memory to fill up, and the OS to kill the app, and the restarted app no longer has that leaked memory, but will continue to create new leaked memory instances, then that isn't a memory leak.
Are you actually a programmer? Did you actually ever study any computer science? Are you actually creating apps? Does this explain the (lack of) quality in the Android app store.
Try an iPhone. You might like the fact that most of the thinking is done for you already.
The iOS App Store isn't saving on the thinking. It's saving on the time spent filtering out all the crap. Selecting the quality app that's right for you is work. Back in my corporate days, when a new corporate application was needed, somebody would have to research a list of perhaps 6 candidate applications,then spend a week or a month of work evaluating those applications to find the right one for the business. OK, choosing a phone app for personal use isn't as much work as that. But it is work. And it's better when someone else has already filtered out the stuff with obvious bugs or sub-standard UIs.
Need and desired are not the same. No one needs to make a living writing music, inventing, etc. It is only a desire to be self sustained by such activities, not a demand.
No one needs to make a living as a dentist, but it's fortunate that some people choose make their money that way. Otherwise the rest of us wouldn't be able to get our teeth fixed. No one has to run a bar. But it's fortunate some people choose to make their money that way as many people enjoy going to a bar from time to time.
Likewise it's a good job that some poepl choose to make their money from film making. Because lots of us like to watch feature films.
The amateur argument doesn't work, because in most cases there is huge gap in expertise between professionals and amateurs. People wouldn't go to film-making school unless there was a career to go into. Nor would they get the experience from evenings and weekends to develop to the best professional standards. Amateurs mostly produce the kind of shorts you see on YouTube. Some will progress to making a 15 minute zombie movie. But amateurs are never going to produce a Shindlers List or a Star Wars. Not only do they not have the stills, they don't have the budgets. It's not just people's time that costs money in movie making. Equipment, sets, costumes, locations, offices, transport etc. It all costs money.
The stuff that people want to copy relies on lots of people investing lots of money, time and talent in making it. If everyone took the same attitude as the illicit copiers, then there would be litle worth copying.
Now if you can find another way of financing the professionals. Like for example a tax. Then OK. But the idea that amateurs will fill the void left by professionals is just not realistic.
All those things you mentioned-- shoplifting, burglary, littering, etc-- involve physical items, cause harm, are difficult to hide, and take effort. They are not the same as copying.
I didn't imply they were the same. Analogies only apply to the point that is made with them. And that was the one about whether things that cannot be prevented shouldn't be against the law.
Copying occurs every time anyone speaks to more than 1 person. Every instant that light shines on an object produces many images of that object. Radio and TV stations can broadcast information to a wide audience because that's the way the universe works. Trying to control copying is like trying to make water flow uphill.
Right, so it's not like any of the things I mentioned, but it is like this rather fanciful list. Does that get us anywhere? No.
You might argue that copying causes harm to the authors, but you can't prove it. You can't prove that someone who made a copy would have paid for a copy if they could not make one for free.
Proof is only in the realm of mathematics and a court of law. Certainly some people have copied something, which if they'd been unable to get a copy they would have bought. If we're honest we've all seen this, or done that ourselves. And some instances are all that's required to demonstrate there is a loss.
In fact, we know that many people would not pay.
Sure, but no matter how many of them there are, it doesn't cancel out the ones that would pay if they couldn't get the copy for free.
That definition of harm is too broad. Under that interpretation, every time someone walks instead of drives, that harms the oil companies, auto manufacturers, road construction contractors, and anyone else connected to transportation. If you shop at WalMart, you harm KMart. If you eat at McDonalds, you harm Kentucky Fried Chicken. If you cook your own food, you harm both restaurants. If you skip a meal, you harm the restaurants and the grocery stores.
No. If you pirate something, you are only able to do so because of the work that went into the original by the creators. That doesn't apply to anything you've listed. My ability to walk has not been enabled by the oil companies. I'm not taking advantage of KMarts work when I shop at Walmart, etc.
The movie equivalent to the things you've listed is choosing a different movie, possibly one that you can see at home on broadcast TV for free, rather than catching the latest at the Theater or watching a DVD. Or doing something else to do rather than watching the movie. It isn't pirating the movie that otherwise you'd have to pay for.
Most wars are prevented. There's a whole profession who's most fundamental task is preventing wars - they're called diplomats. It's the few incidents and situations that escalate all the way to war that we remember. But there are far more that diplomacy prevents.
So, no, that isn't an argument for not trying to prevent unauthorised copying.
I absolutely agree that copyright shouldn't extend beyond the life of the author. But that justification doesn't have any weight on the pirating of the works of living people, which comprises the vast majority of what's pirated.
It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.
You call it sharing. The media industries call it sealing. Neither is the correct word to use for the action, both are intended as no more than a way of implying good or bad actions from an adopted word.
If widespread pirating is indeed good for content creators, then they are free to give their stuff away. It's not for you to unilaterally declare what's good for them, just because you want free stuff.
I'm reminded of last summers "riots" in England. Lots of youths trying to come up with justifications for looting, when the only real reason was they wanted free stuff.
Ideas do not share this property, in so much that entropy can only effect the artifacts that are used to contain such ideas: books, CDs, human memory, etc.
Calling them "ideas" is weasel wording. Ideas can be a flash of inspiration, an idea can come in a moment. But works such as movies, music and books, that are the things that are generally pirated take a lot of hard work, time and skill to produce. That's why they're generally called works, not ideas.
Creators need to earn a living. To put a roof over their head. To feed their families. I'm damn sure you don't do whatever work solely for "reputation" and not money. (If in fact you're old enough to have responsibilities.) And you shouldn't expect the people who create the art and entertainment you enjoy to do so either.
If I have a copy of Word and I give a copy to my friend, how does that diminish the value of my copy? It doesn't. It may diminish the value to the author of Word, if he's trying to sell it, but not to me.
Obviously. The author of Word is the copyright owner, and he's the one who is a victim of the unauthorised copying.
Who's the "owner" of software? The license owner? The author?
Those aren't the question. The question is "Who owns the copyright?" What is being taken is being taken from him, and the value of what he has is diminished when people do unauthorised copies.
The difference here is that the water company is claiming ownership of something that FALLS OUT OF THE SKY.
No. The water company is charging for the service of delivering water through pipes to your property. This can be trivially seen in places where the water is not metered, but rather a fixed fee is paid. They could be compared with the pre-internet shareware & PD libraries, who would charge for sending shareware and PD on a disk in the mail. But they didn't have any rights to the files they put on those disks.
The US Feds (FBI,NSA) can watch the world's traffic in real-time thanks to trade laws they have that require friendly non-US countries to install Lawful Intercept gear in their ISPs. The data is then squirreled away in their colossal data farms.
Would you care to estimate what the world's internet traffic amounts to, per day.
Nobody but you cares about your particular project. I'm just setting the record straight that the current version of OSX includes a full disk encryption feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Hands up all those people who didn't already realise that's what it meant.
You can always palm them off with Mr Happy in the children's area.
The simple solution would be a curtain behind the corrals. Thus people who want to watch porn can go right ahead with some privacy. (It also keeps shoulder-surfers down).
Right. And will the librarians be the ones to wipe up the mess after the punter has left the curtained cubicle? All in the name of freedom-of-speech you understand.
You're saying:
If a memory leak causes memory to fill up, and the OS to kill the app, and the restarted app no longer has that leaked memory, but will continue to create new leaked memory instances, then that isn't a memory leak.
Are you actually a programmer? Did you actually ever study any computer science? Are you actually creating apps? Does this explain the (lack of) quality in the Android app store.
Do you blame Microsoft or Amazon when you buy what turns out to be a crappy EA game for your Windows computer via Amazon.com?
Not being worse than Windows is a pretty low bar.
Try an iPhone. You might like the fact that most of the thinking is done for you already.
The iOS App Store isn't saving on the thinking. It's saving on the time spent filtering out all the crap. Selecting the quality app that's right for you is work. Back in my corporate days, when a new corporate application was needed, somebody would have to research a list of perhaps 6 candidate applications,then spend a week or a month of work evaluating those applications to find the right one for the business. OK, choosing a phone app for personal use isn't as much work as that. But it is work. And it's better when someone else has already filtered out the stuff with obvious bugs or sub-standard UIs.
Apple has a Volume Purchasing Program.
I think you missed the part where he mentions that he *gives* stuff (that he created) for free.
I didn't miss it at all. But his choice to give stuff away doesn't give him the right to take from others.
Need and desired are not the same. No one needs to make a living writing music, inventing, etc. It is only a desire to be self sustained by such activities, not a demand.
No one needs to make a living as a dentist, but it's fortunate that some people choose make their money that way. Otherwise the rest of us wouldn't be able to get our teeth fixed. No one has to run a bar. But it's fortunate some people choose to make their money that way as many people enjoy going to a bar from time to time.
Likewise it's a good job that some poepl choose to make their money from film making. Because lots of us like to watch feature films.
The amateur argument doesn't work, because in most cases there is huge gap in expertise between professionals and amateurs. People wouldn't go to film-making school unless there was a career to go into. Nor would they get the experience from evenings and weekends to develop to the best professional standards. Amateurs mostly produce the kind of shorts you see on YouTube. Some will progress to making a 15 minute zombie movie. But amateurs are never going to produce a Shindlers List or a Star Wars. Not only do they not have the stills, they don't have the budgets. It's not just people's time that costs money in movie making. Equipment, sets, costumes, locations, offices, transport etc. It all costs money.
The stuff that people want to copy relies on lots of people investing lots of money, time and talent in making it. If everyone took the same attitude as the illicit copiers, then there would be litle worth copying.
Now if you can find another way of financing the professionals. Like for example a tax. Then OK. But the idea that amateurs will fill the void left by professionals is just not realistic.
All those things you mentioned-- shoplifting, burglary, littering, etc-- involve physical items, cause harm, are difficult to hide, and take effort. They are not the same as copying.
I didn't imply they were the same. Analogies only apply to the point that is made with them. And that was the one about whether things that cannot be prevented shouldn't be against the law.
Copying occurs every time anyone speaks to more than 1 person. Every instant that light shines on an object produces many images of that object. Radio and TV stations can broadcast information to a wide audience because that's the way the universe works. Trying to control copying is like trying to make water flow uphill.
Right, so it's not like any of the things I mentioned, but it is like this rather fanciful list. Does that get us anywhere? No.
You might argue that copying causes harm to the authors, but you can't prove it. You can't prove that someone who made a copy would have paid for a copy if they could not make one for free.
Proof is only in the realm of mathematics and a court of law. Certainly some people have copied something, which if they'd been unable to get a copy they would have bought. If we're honest we've all seen this, or done that ourselves. And some instances are all that's required to demonstrate there is a loss.
In fact, we know that many people would not pay.
Sure, but no matter how many of them there are, it doesn't cancel out the ones that would pay if they couldn't get the copy for free.
That definition of harm is too broad. Under that interpretation, every time someone walks instead of drives, that harms the oil companies, auto manufacturers, road construction contractors, and anyone else connected to transportation. If you shop at WalMart, you harm KMart. If you eat at McDonalds, you harm Kentucky Fried Chicken. If you cook your own food, you harm both restaurants. If you skip a meal, you harm the restaurants and the grocery stores.
No. If you pirate something, you are only able to do so because of the work that went into the original by the creators. That doesn't apply to anything you've listed. My ability to walk has not been enabled by the oil companies. I'm not taking advantage of KMarts work when I shop at Walmart, etc.
The movie equivalent to the things you've listed is choosing a different movie, possibly one that you can see at home on broadcast TV for free, rather than catching the latest at the Theater or watching a DVD. Or doing something else to do rather than watching the movie. It isn't pirating the movie that otherwise you'd have to pay for.
Most wars are prevented. There's a whole profession who's most fundamental task is preventing wars - they're called diplomats. It's the few incidents and situations that escalate all the way to war that we remember. But there are far more that diplomacy prevents.
So, no, that isn't an argument for not trying to prevent unauthorised copying.
Steel is really soft. They make wool out of it.
To which the answer is of course: no you can't without permission from the estate. Outdoors is public domain. Indoors is not morally acceptable.
I absolutely agree that copyright shouldn't extend beyond the life of the author. But that justification doesn't have any weight on the pirating of the works of living people, which comprises the vast majority of what's pirated.
It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.
You call it sharing. The media industries call it sealing. Neither is the correct word to use for the action, both are intended as no more than a way of implying good or bad actions from an adopted word.
If widespread pirating is indeed good for content creators, then they are free to give their stuff away. It's not for you to unilaterally declare what's good for them, just because you want free stuff.
I'm reminded of last summers "riots" in England. Lots of youths trying to come up with justifications for looting, when the only real reason was they wanted free stuff.
How do you propose to enforce the existing model? To forcibly stop people from copying? You can't. No one can stop it.
You can't stop shoplifting, burglary, or littering the street either. So by your argument it's a "law of nature" that they should be allowed.
Ideas do not share this property, in so much that entropy can only effect the artifacts that are used to contain such ideas: books, CDs, human memory, etc.
Calling them "ideas" is weasel wording. Ideas can be a flash of inspiration, an idea can come in a moment. But works such as movies, music and books, that are the things that are generally pirated take a lot of hard work, time and skill to produce. That's why they're generally called works, not ideas.
Creators need to earn a living. To put a roof over their head. To feed their families. I'm damn sure you don't do whatever work solely for "reputation" and not money. (If in fact you're old enough to have responsibilities.) And you shouldn't expect the people who create the art and entertainment you enjoy to do so either.
If I have a copy of Word and I give a copy to my friend, how does that diminish the value of my copy? It doesn't. It may diminish the value to the author of Word, if he's trying to sell it, but not to me.
Obviously. The author of Word is the copyright owner, and he's the one who is a victim of the unauthorised copying.
Who's the "owner" of software? The license owner? The author?
Those aren't the question. The question is "Who owns the copyright?" What is being taken is being taken from him, and the value of what he has is diminished when people do unauthorised copies.
The difference here is that the water company is claiming ownership of something that FALLS OUT OF THE SKY.
No. The water company is charging for the service of delivering water through pipes to your property. This can be trivially seen in places where the water is not metered, but rather a fixed fee is paid. They could be compared with the pre-internet shareware & PD libraries, who would charge for sending shareware and PD on a disk in the mail. But they didn't have any rights to the files they put on those disks.
There are more libertarians here than there are at a Tea Party rally.
There are more pirates than here than at a Pirates of the Caribean convention
There are more basement dwellers here than at a woodlouse sanctuary.
It's absolutely about the free moonshine.
Way to demonstrate his point.
The US Feds (FBI,NSA) can watch the world's traffic in real-time thanks to trade laws they have that require friendly non-US countries to install Lawful Intercept gear in their ISPs. The data is then squirreled away in their colossal data farms.
Would you care to estimate what the world's internet traffic amounts to, per day.
Yes, the iPhone can connect to car systems via Bluetooth.
Nobody but you cares about your particular project. I'm just setting the record straight that the current version of OSX includes a full disk encryption feature.
You made some post about your Google salary.