I finally figured out the problem. You're a moron. You're trying to get me to prove that the RIAA has sued or will sue someone for mere copying. But I've never argued anything of the sort. And in fact, if you've paid attention, you would know that I said the exact opposite in an earlier post, i.e., that the RIAA are only going after sharers. I assumed that you wanted me to prove what I HAVE been asserting, i.e., that mere copying is infringing. Not realizing the extent of your stupidity, I proved exactly that. I've never said that RIAA will go after mere copiers. Thus, why in the world would I ever want to prove it?! Next time you might want to pay attention to what people are saying BEFORE posting a response.
When you install Windows the account automatically created has administrative privileges. Sure you can change them later. But by DEFAULT they are administrators. That is what I mean by DEFAULT.
Default: computing preset option: an option that will automatically be selected by a computer if the user does not choose one
The fact that Microsoft offers an OPTION for restricted accounts obviously is having very little impact on the stopping of malicious software. That is why it should be done by DEFAULT. Do you get it now?
I stated that under the law you are infringing copyright whether you merely download or share.
He asked me to prove it.
I did prove it. I specifically provided the statute which holds that mere copying can be infringing.
He also asked for a case. That is irrelevant.
You and he seem to be under the impression that someone has to be charged with a crime or sued with a case before a statute can be considered valid. That is obviously ridiculous. Because how could anyone be charged or be sued THE VERY FIRST TIME?! His defense would merely to ask, "Who else has been sued."
And besides, if a judge in any court in the US asked me to explain how copying is infringing, I'd cite to the same statute I cited to above. That cite would satisfy any judge in any court. If it is could enough proof for a judge, then I think it's more than good enough proof for a Slashdot forum.
Simply put it is irrelevant that the RIAA chooses to not sue mere copiers of illegal music. What only matters that it CAN.
See, 106 does NOT remove the right to make back up copies. Because 106 is limited by 107, which is the Fair Use part of the statute. And furthermore, the Home Recording Act allows us to make copies of our music. That's why we pay a small additional fee on music blank CDs and cassette tapes.
Windows runs in root. That means that by default all user accounts are created will full administrative access.
OSX and Linux (and nearly every other OS under the sun) creates user accounts with limited rights. That means things cannot happen without your specific permission.
In Suse 9.2, for example, when I need to do something like that requires root access, I'm asked to supply a password.
A similar thing happens in OSX. When you install software you're asked for a password.
Accordingly, by default Windows is less secure as programs can install and system settings can change behind your back and without your permission.
I admit that Windows gets a lot of attacks because it's a big target. However, everyone has to realise that a lot of the attacks occur simply because Windows is insecure by default.
Yeah, when you download from the internet, you COULD be sharing it also. But as I've pointed out, it does not really matter. Merely making a copy of of copyrighted work without permission is infringing.
Thus, even if you merely download the TV shows off a FTP server, and NEVER share it, you still face a harsher punishment than if you simply stole the actual DVD.
I've showed you proof. It doesn't matter if anyone has ever been charged or sued or whatever. The statute says what it says. If you copy a copyrighted work without permission, and if fair use does not come into play, you ARE infringing. Thus, if you copy a song from the internet, which you do not have permission to own, and there are no fair use reasons for you to have it, you are infringing.
By citing the statute I've proven my point. I strongly suggest you stop yapping about topics you clearly know nothing about.
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...
The only relevant section between 107 and 122 would be 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. As of now, no US court has determined that downloading music without paying is a fair use.
To put it another way under section 106 and 501 it's illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work. There is no element requiring that you share it. Merely copying it is sufficient.
That's one of the largest myths about copyright. The copyright industry could easily come after you for every infringing song or movie on your hard drive. It'd rather go after sharers, because in a public relations point of view, they seem more culpable.
Downloading a copy of a song you have no right to have IS infringing a copyright. Whether you keep it or not.
You don't get it. The more severe sentence is true whether you use BitTorrent or simply download them from an FTP server.
The additional penalties have NOTHING to do with the sharing. It's simply because the movie industry has more power and influence with Congress than local retailers. (Which is shocking when you consider that Wal-Mart is a local retailer!)
"Sounds like a net zero change in market share to me."
The point is that fewer people are buying the latest versions of Office. If fewer people are buying the latest version, that means the LATEST version has a smaller marketshare.
I'll make it real simple. Imagine that back in the 90s 80% of Office owners upgraded to each new version. Now only about 40% upgrade. That's obviously a drop in marketshare for the lastest version.
Merely because users are sticking with older versions does not help Microsoft as it is not getting any money from those users. Microsoft is only helped when you buy a new version. Thus, the new version is the only relevant marketshare to consider.
Eminent scientist Dr. Ritchie Blackmore already proved the existence of such a fast star in his seminal treatise "Machine Head." If I remember correctly it was somewhere in the first chapter.
Yeah, I was certainly wrong in my post. I screwed up. Bush doesn't wish that every job was outsourced. He wishes that every job be either outsourced OR insourced. Bush loves bringing in cheap labor to help his rich friends as much as he likes sending jobs out to cheap labor.
I guess you could say Bush is agnostic to the whole insource and outsource debate, as long as the rich get richer and American citizens lose their jobs.
I'm sorry, I don't remember posting my personal experience more than once, but since I've been modded redundant, I must have done it by mistake somehow. I'll try my best not to do it again.
I used to do tech support for friends and family. And I was more than willing to do it for free. But it simply got too annoying. I got in too many situations where they would second guess what I was doing and offered their own asinine and ignornat solutions. It got to the point where I was tired of saying before I left, "Look, if you're so knowledgeable, what am I doing here? I guess I'll just leave."
If someone wants my help, I''m more than willing to give it. But they really have to want it first.
Slashdot Mirror
I finally figured out the problem. You're a moron. You're trying to get me to prove that the RIAA has sued or will sue someone for mere copying. But I've never argued anything of the sort. And in fact, if you've paid attention, you would know that I said the exact opposite in an earlier post, i.e., that the RIAA are only going after sharers. I assumed that you wanted me to prove what I HAVE been asserting, i.e., that mere copying is infringing. Not realizing the extent of your stupidity, I proved exactly that. I've never said that RIAA will go after mere copiers. Thus, why in the world would I ever want to prove it?! Next time you might want to pay attention to what people are saying BEFORE posting a response.
If you've agreed all along, then why in the heck did you ask for proof in the first place?!
Basically, you've been proved wrong and you're too much of an idiot to admit it.
When you install Windows the account automatically created has administrative privileges. Sure you can change them later. But by DEFAULT they are administrators. That is what I mean by DEFAULT.
Default: computing preset option: an option that will automatically be selected by a computer if the user does not choose one
The fact that Microsoft offers an OPTION for restricted accounts obviously is having very little impact on the stopping of malicious software. That is why it should be done by DEFAULT. Do you get it now?
I set up my father inlaw with a user acccount. He went from getting tons of spyware each month to NO spyware each month.
I stated that under the law you are infringing copyright whether you merely download or share.
He asked me to prove it.
I did prove it. I specifically provided the statute which holds that mere copying can be infringing.
He also asked for a case. That is irrelevant.
You and he seem to be under the impression that someone has to be charged with a crime or sued with a case before a statute can be considered valid. That is obviously ridiculous. Because how could anyone be charged or be sued THE VERY FIRST TIME?! His defense would merely to ask, "Who else has been sued."
And besides, if a judge in any court in the US asked me to explain how copying is infringing, I'd cite to the same statute I cited to above. That cite would satisfy any judge in any court. If it is could enough proof for a judge, then I think it's more than good enough proof for a Slashdot forum.
Simply put it is irrelevant that the RIAA chooses to not sue mere copiers of illegal music. What only matters that it CAN.
See, 106 does NOT remove the right to make back up copies. Because 106 is limited by 107, which is the Fair Use part of the statute. And furthermore, the Home Recording Act allows us to make copies of our music. That's why we pay a small additional fee on music blank CDs and cassette tapes.
Windows runs in root. That means that by default all user accounts are created will full administrative access.
OSX and Linux (and nearly every other OS under the sun) creates user accounts with limited rights. That means things cannot happen without your specific permission.
In Suse 9.2, for example, when I need to do something like that requires root access, I'm asked to supply a password.
A similar thing happens in OSX. When you install software you're asked for a password.
Accordingly, by default Windows is less secure as programs can install and system settings can change behind your back and without your permission.
I admit that Windows gets a lot of attacks because it's a big target. However, everyone has to realise that a lot of the attacks occur simply because Windows is insecure by default.
Yeah, when you download from the internet, you COULD be sharing it also. But as I've pointed out, it does not really matter. Merely making a copy of of copyrighted work without permission is infringing.
Thus, even if you merely download the TV shows off a FTP server, and NEVER share it, you still face a harsher punishment than if you simply stole the actual DVD.
I've showed you proof. It doesn't matter if anyone has ever been charged or sued or whatever. The statute says what it says. If you copy a copyrighted work without permission, and if fair use does not come into play, you ARE infringing. Thus, if you copy a song from the internet, which you do not have permission to own, and there are no fair use reasons for you to have it, you are infringing.
By citing the statute I've proven my point. I strongly suggest you stop yapping about topics you clearly know nothing about.
I've been supposed to FIGHT these distractions all these years?! I must have missed that memo. Sorry. I'll get back to work now.
Proof?!
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 5 501. Infringement of copyright
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...
The only relevant section between 107 and 122 would be 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. As of now, no US court has determined that downloading music without paying is a fair use.
To put it another way under section 106 and 501 it's illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work. There is no element requiring that you share it. Merely copying it is sufficient.
Anything else?
That's one of the largest myths about copyright. The copyright industry could easily come after you for every infringing song or movie on your hard drive. It'd rather go after sharers, because in a public relations point of view, they seem more culpable.
Downloading a copy of a song you have no right to have IS infringing a copyright. Whether you keep it or not.
I agree. Wal-Mart is not concerned about the loss of one DVD. I used to work security at K-Mart, so I know retail security is a joke.
You don't get it. The more severe sentence is true whether you use BitTorrent or simply download them from an FTP server.
The additional penalties have NOTHING to do with the sharing. It's simply because the movie industry has more power and influence with Congress than local retailers. (Which is shocking when you consider that Wal-Mart is a local retailer!)
Shadow puppets! Don't forget shadow puppets!
"Sounds like a net zero change in market share to me."
The point is that fewer people are buying the latest versions of Office. If fewer people are buying the latest version, that means the LATEST version has a smaller marketshare.
I'll make it real simple. Imagine that back in the 90s 80% of Office owners upgraded to each new version. Now only about 40% upgrade. That's obviously a drop in marketshare for the lastest version.
Merely because users are sticking with older versions does not help Microsoft as it is not getting any money from those users. Microsoft is only helped when you buy a new version. Thus, the new version is the only relevant marketshare to consider.
Is Ceren Ercen going to look cute in it?
Eminent scientist Dr. Ritchie Blackmore already proved the existence of such a fast star in his seminal treatise "Machine Head." If I remember correctly it was somewhere in the first chapter.
Do you get paid for each FUD or do you get paid in a flat scale?
Yeah, I was certainly wrong in my post. I screwed up. Bush doesn't wish that every job was outsourced. He wishes that every job be either outsourced OR insourced. Bush loves bringing in cheap labor to help his rich friends as much as he likes sending jobs out to cheap labor.
I guess you could say Bush is agnostic to the whole insource and outsource debate, as long as the rich get richer and American citizens lose their jobs.
This really isn't surprising since nearly all of our technlogy is made there.
I really have to wonder. If Bush gets his wish and every job in the US is outsourced. Does he really want China building all of his weapons?!
I'm sorry, I don't remember posting my personal experience more than once, but since I've been modded redundant, I must have done it by mistake somehow. I'll try my best not to do it again.
I used to do tech support for friends and family. And I was more than willing to do it for free. But it simply got too annoying. I got in too many situations where they would second guess what I was doing and offered their own asinine and ignornat solutions. It got to the point where I was tired of saying before I left, "Look, if you're so knowledgeable, what am I doing here? I guess I'll just leave."
If someone wants my help, I''m more than willing to give it. But they really have to want it first.
Yep, here's the link.
Consumers pay for shit all the time. Who had the best selling CD last year? The year before? Who knows, but I do know for a fact that it was shit.