Turns out he...provides some type of "legal insurance"...I can't attest to how popular it is,
This is EXACTLY how the legal system is fraudulently skewed in favor of the corporations. Every business of any real size has lawsuit liability insurance. The companies don't pay their legal issues--the insurance companies do. The insurance companies replace their profit margin with auto and homeowner's insurance. In essence, you and I pay for the legal defense of a company which is abusing the legal system. It is no wonder that individuals have no money left for their own legal defense neither can they afford to pay for the same lawsuit liability insurance.
Maybe the HR department should revisit its reliance on bestowed titles like MCSE to predict the value of the employee. I know dozens and dozens of people who are adept at troubleshooting admin issues, who would love to work for a promising salary in IT, but who have no way to get past the single-track mind of HR: "Where are your papers? What letters do you have after your name?"
In many cases the people with letters after their name are LESS competent. The letters are a buffer, a shelter from the reality that comes after the name.
mp3 sharing is typically allowed as well, until the stock market scheme runs its cycle and the industry run government needs to shore up its coffers. Back in '98 the national debt was going to be paid off by '05. Now the Federal Gov't is again looking at a multi-trillion dollar outstanding loan to the Federal Reserve.
It was nothing more or less than copyright infringement
You can't say that! Why not? Because I said it first!
The whole concept of copyright is a blatant disregard for reality. It is a nuance which creates a game of sport for corporations to engage in. This is not a game which should be turned against individual citizens.
There is no theft. The product was legally sold. Blatantly ignoring reality does not give a company or the RIAA the excuse to mount a lawsuit. The existence of laws which blatantly ignore reality is only a glaring reflection of the mentality of the ruling caste. There is no secret that the product is easily copied and easily distributed. If the vendor is unhappy with the terms of sale they should raise the price. This arguing over the concept of ownership after the point of sale is behavior fit for a child. The argument that people can be legally bound by a document which nobody reads is nothing less than criminal.
Perfect example. There is no secret behind a broadcast. Once a broadcast is made it is over and done with. There is no way to control who receives that broadcast. Laws which regulate the redistribution of a broadcast are remnants of a childish naivete about the way the world works.
So, if you combine these two things, then there definitely is some money lost to people who download it as opposed to buying it
If you have a product that you know is easy to copy will you 1) raise the price to ensure the product is profitable or 2) waste your time and money whining to your government to track your product for you?
It's obvious that this whole issue of licensing and ownership is a blatant disregard of reality. All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Accept reality and stop this nonsense about trying to change the concept of ownership after the sale.
They are all committing illegal activities, and they know it.
The only illegal activity going on is changing the terms of sale after a sale. All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Accept it.
stealing music isn't legal
The music was paid for. There is no theft.
Same with this DirecTV thing. Their were cheating them out of programming by getting a smart card that was illegal and getting them products for free
The relevant point is the broadcast of information. There is no secret to the laws of physics. You can control only the transmission of a broadcast. You cannot control the reception of a broadcast. The information has been given away--now live with it. Any further argument is childish.
To be metaphorical for a moment: Could you sue the aliens because they were listening? More than likely the aliens will vaporize you. The important point is that you would only sue the aliens if you could first enslave them to make them subservient. What does that say about the legal system in today's United States?
Why is it that people think stealing technology is fine?
Nobody is stealing anything.
I still can't go to the store and grab some Twinkies off the shelf and it be ok
Everyone knows that a Twinkie is consumable. If you share part of your Twinkie with someone else then you have less Twinkie. Everyone knows that information is not consumable. If you share information with someone you both keep a recollection of that information. There is no secret here. This is no surprise for the vendors of information based products. The vendor is well aware that the customer is fully capable of copying and sharing the product. If they think the sale is unfair they can raise the price. All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Live with it.
That's just silly. A person who has a 1000 downloaded albums clearly loves music and would have VERY PROBABLY bought at least a few of them if that was the only way to get them
Not only "a person", but probably multiple people. Why is it that the RIAA only targets the "a person" who has limited financial resources for legal backing? Why don't they go after the yuppie daughter of a rich CEO who, typically, has ten times as many mp3s as any of her threadbare peers?
The answer to my question is 1) obvious and 2) a glaring demonstration of how lopsided, subjective, and fraudulent the current legal system is.
I get so tired of the groupthink whining here at/. about the evil RIAA
Oh you're asking for it.
Then don't buy from them. It's simply not that hard
Quit being stupid. Put down the nitrous or whatever it is that keeps you loopy.
FACT: They have a product. FACT: People want to buy the product.
Can we dispense with all the bull and just get to the sale? Sales are final. Ownership is transferred. These legal battles over terms of ownership after the point of sale are nothing short of children making promises with their fingers crossed. I can't believe that the courts tolerate this juvenile behavior! That they do is nothing less than a complete exposure of the average mentality of the ruling caste.
No, it's not. The vendor cannot have it both ways. They cannot say "all sales are final" AND claim to retain ownership after the sale. It's contradictory.
Go find new independent artists, and support them directly.
That's a very ideal picture. Now... back to reality...
All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Courts should not tolerate fingers crossed behind backs, toes crossed, hairs crossed, or tongues rolled in a loop. That the courts even pretend to agree with this blatant childishness is no less than a glaring exposition of the mentality of the ruling caste in the US.
No, you're demonstrably wrong here. The past few hundred years speak well of the importance of copyright.
I have yet to be convinced of the importance of copyright. If big industry or big government wants it then the original author has no positive choice. They can either accept the terms of the buyout or they can be harangued to death.
Art for art's sake is nice until you have to eat and pay the rent.
I agree. I also feel that the artist should accept the terms of sale at the time of sale. There's no secret that the medium is easily replicated. They may raise the selling price if they must. This constant complaining about terms of sale after the fact is childish. It's not made any better by attempting to hide the terms of sale in a document which nobody reads. The implications of being legally bound by a popularly unknown and unread document are frightening!
Let me re-state what I've said before: If you do not agree with what RIAA is doing, stop supporting it
I'd love to. Where is the check-box for the RIAA on my income tax form?
Do not buy their CDs
Poppycock! They have a product for sale. We would like to buy the product. Once a sale is made then it is done. This nonsense about arguing about the terms of ownership and sale AFTER THE FACT is nothing more than children with their fingers crossed. The vendors should be hung from the clothesline and beaten with a wooden breadboard until they grow up.
f spyware, viruses, etc get on a machine, it is effective "0wn3d"
This is a concept that receives too little deserved attention by security advocates.
What is it about spyware, adware, malware, or "cuteware" that makes it so unquestionably secure? Does no one think that these programs don't do anything unacceptable of their own volition, but rather they are poorly coded and are remotely exploitable?
Well, everyone also knows that FINE PRINT IS LEGALLY BINDING, EVEN IF YOU DON'T READ IT
That needs to be fixed immediately. By no stretch of the imagination is it true and good that anyone should be bound by terms of a document which nobody reads. Is it understood the implications that follow from making an unknown and unread document legally binding? That the courts pander to these documents is nothing short of blatant greed and falsehood. In a word: FRAUD.
I am well aware that unknown and unread documents are legally binding in all sorts of situations. This is nothing less than a sign of the times. It is a symptom of the greater repugnance of our current social order.
Insurance by itself means nothing, the terms MUST be dictated
The only inherent term of insurance is just that: a term. A scope of time. Not unlike a term limit for elected officials. I've noticed that the sales associates always get the term correct at point of sale,"Would you like to purchase a ONE YEAR extended coverage for just..." Other than a time limit the concept of insurance is nothing less than complete and total coverage. Any arguments based upon an unknown document is fraud wrapped in a child's argument. When men become men then their word is final. Only children play at these games of having their fingers crossed behind their back on a day whose spelling ends in "y".
Companies are getting rich by stealing the future inventions of people with these generic fucking patents
Take netstat, for example. Microsoft could patent a method of monitoring network connections from the command prompt. If that patent makes use of netstat they will pounce on anyone who is caught using GPL netstat in a bash script IDS. Primarily because they share a somewhat common code base and the output looks the same.
Once Microsoft buys the case then it will be a media black spot for those terrible bash script programmers on Linux who are infringing on poor Microsoft's intellectual property.
Whose brilliant idea was it to give corporations the same legal rights as an individual?
Probably whoever it was that could afford to sponsor such a radical and nouveau idea. Check the listings of people from that era who had the political muscle and the financial backing to create such a thing.
at the authors of worms / viruii and other malicious malware type stuff
You forget the spyware and adware. When people begin considering permissions on memory locations will we find out the difference between what we thought they were taking and what they are really taking?
"I'm sorry ma'am, it was in the EULA." "But, but, I didn't know that they were taking THAT information."
Hmmm... just about any worm can escalate priviledges and run as administrator. I wonder if Microsoft has patented buffer overflows as well
That's an impressive observation. It is not only the proper use of patents to apply to the obvious such as sudo, but how might this patented be interpreted if Microsoft needs leverage in another area?
not really, do you really think that Microsoft is going to waste time and money going after people with all of these patents?
If SCO had legitimate claims then Linux would be dead. The only reason that SCO didn't kill Linux, and possibly GNU, was that they didn't have their patents in order.
There is no doubt that this pattern of behavior by Microsoft is establishing an aggressive legal arsenal. This competitive patenting is not in the least bit about advancing society or technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Turns out he...provides some type of "legal insurance"...I can't attest to how popular it is,
This is EXACTLY how the legal system is fraudulently skewed in favor of the corporations. Every business of any real size has lawsuit liability insurance. The companies don't pay their legal issues--the insurance companies do. The insurance companies replace their profit margin with auto and homeowner's insurance. In essence, you and I pay for the legal defense of a company which is abusing the legal system. It is no wonder that individuals have no money left for their own legal defense neither can they afford to pay for the same lawsuit liability insurance.
It's not like good IT staff is easy to come by
Maybe the HR department should revisit its reliance on bestowed titles like MCSE to predict the value of the employee. I know dozens and dozens of people who are adept at troubleshooting admin issues, who would love to work for a promising salary in IT, but who have no way to get past the single-track mind of HR: "Where are your papers? What letters do you have after your name?"
In many cases the people with letters after their name are LESS competent. The letters are a buffer, a shelter from the reality that comes after the name.
It's typically allowed
:)
mp3 sharing is typically allowed as well, until the stock market scheme runs its cycle and the industry run government needs to shore up its coffers. Back in '98 the national debt was going to be paid off by '05. Now the Federal Gov't is again looking at a multi-trillion dollar outstanding loan to the Federal Reserve.
Guess who works to pay that back.
It was nothing more or less than copyright infringement
You can't say that!
Why not?
Because I said it first!
The whole concept of copyright is a blatant disregard for reality. It is a nuance which creates a game of sport for corporations to engage in. This is not a game which should be turned against individual citizens.
If there's no consent
Who do you get consent from?
artist, the copyright holders, the labels, etc
Oh, I see. It gets muddy real quick.
it's stealing, plain and simple
There is no theft. The product was legally sold. Blatantly ignoring reality does not give a company or the RIAA the excuse to mount a lawsuit. The existence of laws which blatantly ignore reality is only a glaring reflection of the mentality of the ruling caste. There is no secret that the product is easily copied and easily distributed. If the vendor is unhappy with the terms of sale they should raise the price. This arguing over the concept of ownership after the point of sale is behavior fit for a child. The argument that people can be legally bound by a document which nobody reads is nothing less than criminal.
Hell, some people still listen to AM radio
Perfect example. There is no secret behind a broadcast. Once a broadcast is made it is over and done with. There is no way to control who receives that broadcast. Laws which regulate the redistribution of a broadcast are remnants of a childish naivete about the way the world works.
So, if you combine these two things, then there definitely is some money lost to people who download it as opposed to buying it
If you have a product that you know is easy to copy will you 1) raise the price to ensure the product is profitable or 2) waste your time and money whining to your government to track your product for you?
It's obvious that this whole issue of licensing and ownership is a blatant disregard of reality. All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Accept reality and stop this nonsense about trying to change the concept of ownership after the sale.
People who broke the law are forced to pay fines
This is a democracy. The final authority rests with the individual. I did not agree to that law nor do I consider that law right and just.
Sadly most judges will dismiss juries if there's any talk of the right to jury nullification of a bad law.
They are all committing illegal activities, and they know it.
The only illegal activity going on is changing the terms of sale after a sale. All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Accept it.
stealing music isn't legal
The music was paid for. There is no theft.
Same with this DirecTV thing. Their were cheating them out of programming by getting a smart card that was illegal and getting them products for free
The relevant point is the broadcast of information. There is no secret to the laws of physics. You can control only the transmission of a broadcast. You cannot control the reception of a broadcast. The information has been given away--now live with it. Any further argument is childish.
To be metaphorical for a moment: Could you sue the aliens because they were listening? More than likely the aliens will vaporize you. The important point is that you would only sue the aliens if you could first enslave them to make them subservient. What does that say about the legal system in today's United States?
Why is it that people think stealing technology is fine?
Nobody is stealing anything.
I still can't go to the store and grab some Twinkies off the shelf and it be ok
Everyone knows that a Twinkie is consumable. If you share part of your Twinkie with someone else then you have less Twinkie. Everyone knows that information is not consumable. If you share information with someone you both keep a recollection of that information. There is no secret here. This is no surprise for the vendors of information based products. The vendor is well aware that the customer is fully capable of copying and sharing the product. If they think the sale is unfair they can raise the price. All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Live with it.
That's just silly. A person who has a 1000 downloaded albums clearly loves music and would have VERY PROBABLY bought at least a few of them if that was the only way to get them
Not only "a person", but probably multiple people. Why is it that the RIAA only targets the "a person" who has limited financial resources for legal backing? Why don't they go after the yuppie daughter of a rich CEO who, typically, has ten times as many mp3s as any of her threadbare peers?
The answer to my question is 1) obvious and 2) a glaring demonstration of how lopsided, subjective, and fraudulent the current legal system is.
I would use a friend's Win95 computer to sample a track mono, 8-bit at 11kHz, then upload that to my Amiga at 2400bps over the phone
Ugh. You must've been stuck with an Amiga which didn't have a CDROM or audio in ports. I can only imagine how painful this was...
I get so tired of the groupthink whining here at /. about the evil RIAA
Oh you're asking for it.
Then don't buy from them. It's simply not that hard
Quit being stupid. Put down the nitrous or whatever it is that keeps you loopy.
FACT: They have a product.
FACT: People want to buy the product.
Can we dispense with all the bull and just get to the sale? Sales are final. Ownership is transferred. These legal battles over terms of ownership after the point of sale are nothing short of children making promises with their fingers crossed. I can't believe that the courts tolerate this juvenile behavior! That they do is nothing less than a complete exposure of the average mentality of the ruling caste.
This is the correct approach.
No, it's not. The vendor cannot have it both ways. They cannot say "all sales are final" AND claim to retain ownership after the sale. It's contradictory.
Go find new independent artists, and support them directly.
That's a very ideal picture. Now... back to reality...
All sales are final. Ownership has been transferred. Courts should not tolerate fingers crossed behind backs, toes crossed, hairs crossed, or tongues rolled in a loop. That the courts even pretend to agree with this blatant childishness is no less than a glaring exposition of the mentality of the ruling caste in the US.
No, you're demonstrably wrong here. The past few hundred years speak well of the importance of copyright.
I have yet to be convinced of the importance of copyright. If big industry or big government wants it then the original author has no positive choice. They can either accept the terms of the buyout or they can be harangued to death.
Art for art's sake is nice until you have to eat and pay the rent.
I agree. I also feel that the artist should accept the terms of sale at the time of sale. There's no secret that the medium is easily replicated. They may raise the selling price if they must. This constant complaining about terms of sale after the fact is childish. It's not made any better by attempting to hide the terms of sale in a document which nobody reads. The implications of being legally bound by a popularly unknown and unread document are frightening!
Let me re-state what I've said before: If you do not agree with what RIAA is doing, stop supporting it
I'd love to. Where is the check-box for the RIAA on my income tax form?
Do not buy their CDs
Poppycock! They have a product for sale. We would like to buy the product. Once a sale is made then it is done. This nonsense about arguing about the terms of ownership and sale AFTER THE FACT is nothing more than children with their fingers crossed. The vendors should be hung from the clothesline and beaten with a wooden breadboard until they grow up.
Make a sale. Be done with it. Accept the outcome.
f spyware, viruses, etc get on a machine, it is effective "0wn3d"
This is a concept that receives too little deserved attention by security advocates.
What is it about spyware, adware, malware, or "cuteware" that makes it so unquestionably secure? Does no one think that these programs don't do anything unacceptable of their own volition, but rather they are poorly coded and are remotely exploitable?
Well, everyone also knows that FINE PRINT IS LEGALLY BINDING, EVEN IF YOU DON'T READ IT
That needs to be fixed immediately. By no stretch of the imagination is it true and good that anyone should be bound by terms of a document which nobody reads. Is it understood the implications that follow from making an unknown and unread document legally binding? That the courts pander to these documents is nothing short of blatant greed and falsehood. In a word: FRAUD.
I am well aware that unknown and unread documents are legally binding in all sorts of situations. This is nothing less than a sign of the times. It is a symptom of the greater repugnance of our current social order.
Insurance by itself means nothing, the terms MUST be dictated
The only inherent term of insurance is just that: a term. A scope of time. Not unlike a term limit for elected officials. I've noticed that the sales associates always get the term correct at point of sale,"Would you like to purchase a ONE YEAR extended coverage for just..." Other than a time limit the concept of insurance is nothing less than complete and total coverage. Any arguments based upon an unknown document is fraud wrapped in a child's argument. When men become men then their word is final. Only children play at these games of having their fingers crossed behind their back on a day whose spelling ends in "y".
pretending to serve foreign gods, even in a game, is pretty horrific
Relax, have a smoke.
Companies are getting rich by stealing the future inventions of people with these generic fucking patents
Take netstat, for example. Microsoft could patent a method of monitoring network connections from the command prompt. If that patent makes use of netstat they will pounce on anyone who is caught using GPL netstat in a bash script IDS. Primarily because they share a somewhat common code base and the output looks the same.
Once Microsoft buys the case then it will be a media black spot for those terrible bash script programmers on Linux who are infringing on poor Microsoft's intellectual property.
Whose brilliant idea was it to give corporations the same legal rights as an individual?
Probably whoever it was that could afford to sponsor such a radical and nouveau idea. Check the listings of people from that era who had the political muscle and the financial backing to create such a thing.
at the authors of worms / viruii and other malicious malware type stuff
You forget the spyware and adware. When people begin considering permissions on memory locations will we find out the difference between what we thought they were taking and what they are really taking?
"I'm sorry ma'am, it was in the EULA."
"But, but, I didn't know that they were taking THAT information."
Hmmm... just about any worm can escalate priviledges and run as administrator. I wonder if Microsoft has patented buffer overflows as well
That's an impressive observation. It is not only the proper use of patents to apply to the obvious such as sudo, but how might this patented be interpreted if Microsoft needs leverage in another area?
A unix filesystem would certainly qualify as a "data store".
Well said.
not really, do you really think that Microsoft is going to waste time and money going after people with all of these patents?
If SCO had legitimate claims then Linux would be dead. The only reason that SCO didn't kill Linux, and possibly GNU, was that they didn't have their patents in order.
There is no doubt that this pattern of behavior by Microsoft is establishing an aggressive legal arsenal. This competitive patenting is not in the least bit about advancing society or technology.
Indeed! Command line arguments aren't magically sent to sudo. They're stored in very specific variables and are still associated with priveleges.
It's when they get to court with somebody about it that the problem actually exists.
He with the biggest legal budget wins, eh?