"What if the new version won't run until it phones home?"
That depends on how badly it irritates you.
Option A) If it's me...
1) Never EVER buy software from a retailer that won't let you return it for a refund or store credit. Amazon has a very liberal return policy on most things. 2) Uninstall it and return it as defective. 3) Go back and reread the product description, legal notices, system requirements, etc. If the fact that it won't work until it talks to an internet server is not disclosed, file a complaint with the FTC for unfair trade practices and false advertising. 4) Check my computer to make sure it didn't install DRM/rootkit/spyware/adware. If it did, add a computer trespass complaint to the FTC filing (or spyware violation, if an antispyware law ever passes). 5) Write to the company, read them the riot act, then explain how and why they just lost a sale and possibly a repeat customer.
But that's just me. Programs trying to connect to the internet without a good reason is a pet peeve of mine. When they do it without permission, it really pisses me off. When it won't work at all without making an unecessary connection, I label it as defective and remove it.
Option B) For everyone else...
1) Never EVER buy software from a retailer that won't let you return it for a refund or store credit. Amazon has a very liberal return policy on most things. 2) Decide whether you want the program more than you want control over your own property (the computer). 2a) If you can't do without the program, bend over and accept the fact that you just paid someone to violate your property rights. 2b) If you decide your property rights matter more, return the program as defective. The nasty letter and FTC complaint are optional.
"We should continue exploration not only for the monetary return on investment (ROI), but rather BECAUSE IT'S THERE!"
Ideally, yes. But we've been trying to do it that way for 50 years and it hasn't worked.
It's been 36 years since we first went to the moon. Clearly the technology exists to get us there and back. So why are there no colonies four decades later? Because the government is in charge of space travel. There is no one up there to send soft money, votes or bribes back down. No one lives there, so there are no pork barrel projects to fund. Unless it has something to do with tax money, campaign money or votes, the Congress isn't interested in it.
Humans have always migrated along trade routes toward new or better economic markets, not because the King or Emporer wanted to see what was on the other side of the mountain range. If there's something there to be bought or sold, they'll go. The Western hemisphere was rediscovered by Europeans only because Spain wanted to find a cheaper/quicker way to get cargo to/from India.
NASA needs to be abolished and its engineers hired out to companies that have an actual reason to send people up there. The most dangerous place you can be is in between a corporation and something that can make them a profit. Colonies, refineries, shipyards and factories will start springing up all over the solar system, once companies realize there's profit up there.
"I cannot possibly be the only one without all this next generation hi-def crap."
Nope. My former hand-me-down TV finally died in late '04, so I replaced it. I took one look at the cost of HDTV and said "fuck that". I picked out an enormous (by my standards) 32" Sanyo with a ton of options for just under $300.
It has RCA jacks, a coax cable jack, S-Video, stereo outputs, game console input and several other jacks that I have yet to identify. All I know or care about is that my DVD player works now without a converter box, the picture is nice and big and I have an audio equalizer to tune the sound. It even does a good job of faking surround sound somehow, with only two speakers on the front.
The only thing I use my TV for is DVDs and watching Sci-fi on Friday Night. I refuse to pay more than $300 - $400 for a TV. I don't care if it makes coffee and fetches the newspaper. As long as DVDs keep working on it, I'm keeping mine. I might replace the DVD player, once the format war is over with, but definitely not a new TV.
Money does not equal points. Points mean you're moving ahead in the game. Money is all but meaningless in GTA. You can be floating in it and it won't get you past the first mission.
And whatever they meant by "points", they do NOT accrue when you kill a hooker. You don't get money, points, high-fives, concert tickets or ANYTHING special for killing hookers. If you get anything at all, it'll be sirens and cops with their guns drawn. If you're on a mission at the time, the cops will probably ruin your chances of beating it. That's hardly an encouragement.
They might drop money and weapons if you kill them, but so does every other pedestrian in the game. There is no special reason or reward for killing hookers in GTA.
These SWOP people picked a minor and irrelevant part of the game - the fact that hookers can be killed, like every other character in the game - and decided to declare that it is the only part of the game. Anyone reading their press release who hasn't played the games themselves would think the whole game was about Jack the Ripper, with the main goal of the character being to go around raping and killing whores.
And then we arrive back at my original point. Either these people didn't run the game and decided to make public accusations without knowing what they were talking about or they know full well that they are lying and generating a little press for themselves. One is negligence, the other is defamation. They are liable in either case, so don't be surprised if the next chapter of this story is their receipt of a letter from Take Two's lawyers.
"Okay actually Gamespot says there is one allusion to rape in the storyline, so fair is fair. Anyone that remembers this allusion and would care to say whether it glorified the rape?"
This is what Gamespot says: "Though the player cannot actively rape prostitutes in the game, a possible rape is alluded to once during the storyline of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."
The writer either is lying or is deliberately twisting the facts. There are two allusions to rape in GTA:SA, both of which have to do with MEN being raped in prison. It has nothing to do with prostitutes.
I have GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas and have played and replayed all three very frequently. The entire statement by this SWOP organization is one lie after another.
This line in particular is 100% false: "Since the video game Grand Theft Auto accrues points to players for the depiction of the rape and murder of prostitutes..."
Either they haven't run the game and don't realize that this statement is untrue, or they have run the game and know full well that their statement is untrue and they are intentionally libeling Take Two. Either way, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they hear from Take Two's lawyers.
1) There is no rape, of anyone, except for mention of what goes on in prison.
2) You do not get points for killing prostitutes. You don't get "points" for anything. You can kill any character in the game, including yourself. Prostitutes are not specific targets of anything and basically are just another type of pedestrian.
3) You do not get points for raping prostitutes. You can't rape prostitutes in the first place, or anyone else for that matter.
Believe me, I've seen assholes do things like this. Usually it's some idiot shooting him own teammates deliberately, which is why many games let you disable "friendly fire" these days.
It was absolute stupidity to leave the sex stuff in the game, but they followed it up with something even more stupid. The second release version of GTA:SA is completely incompatible with the first.
Save files will not work between versions, so if you went to a message board and asked someone to play a mission you can't get past, it wouldn't work. The people who take the time to help people in this way all run the first release. Anyone needing help at this point are people who have recently bought the game, meaning they have the second release.
Someone has hacked around this now. You have exchange script files from the two versions, play the game and save it, then run another script to fully convert it to the other version.
But wait! There's more!
The second release cannot be modded. At all.
The new executable looks for a checksum value in the script files. If they've been modded, the game crashes out. The majority of people who buy it on PC already have it on PS2. They bought the PC version ONLY because they wanted to install or create mods. And they go and remove all mods, because someone discovered Rockstar's stupidity of leaving a sex mission in the game.
This may have changed by now, but Rockstar continued to advertise it as having support for mods, so that you can change the game as you wished. False advertising anyone? That's a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, right?
For the last two years, 180Solutions has been issuing press releases claiming that they are going to clean up their affiliates. Then an affiliate is caught installing trojans and sneaking onto computers without consent. Then 180Solutions issues a press release.....
And round and round we go.
If they spent 1/10 as much time actually controlling their affiliates as they do writing up press releases, maybe something might have been done.
I am also a writer. In my case, I write an email newsletter containing one ad, which is posted on the web site the same time it is mailed. Since I make no money if no one sees the one ad, I should be against the idea of someone copy/pasting the whole thing onto a message board, right?
No. As long as a link is posted to show where it came from, that's free advertising. Anyone on the message board who liked what I wrote is probably going to follow the link to read more of the same. I have 19,000 subscribed readers and God only knows how many read it on the site every week (I don't track it).
On the other hand, if I distributed the newsletter in such a way that it could not be copied, only worked on the same PC that was used when the person subscribed and installed rootkits and malware to enforce all this, I can't imagine I'd have even 1/10th as many regular readers. Nevermind that I'd lose the free advertising - I'd also piss off anyone willing to read it the first time.
And to repeat what someone else said in the comments, DRM typically protects the publisher, not the creator. Take a look at all the music bands railing against DRM on CD and posting instructions to break it.
So stop withholding the product
on
Free P2P In France?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"...free downloading of unauthorized copies of TV shows and movies before they are released on DVD will cost them $5 billion in revenue this year."
Poor babies. If they don't want me downloading movies before they are released to DVD (officially), then they need to release the damn things sooner.
I buy a lot of DVDs. I have a small shelf, four levels, full of DVDs, with a box filled with more DVDs right next to it. I despise movie theaters. I'm not going to one, except in very rare cases. But I will see the movie, regardless.
I can't wait for that company Morgan Freeman has founded to start operating. Downloads of movies released at the same time they are released to the theaters.
The MPAA and RIAA needs to accept the fact that they cannot ignore the internet or the consumer. They don't want to work with the internet, because they fear piracy. So either they won't release anything on the internet or they wrap it in obnoxious DRM and at low quality. And in doing that, they are directly responsible for most of the file trading. If the INDUCE Act ever becomes law, they will be its biggest offenders.
I feel you. I had the power go about just about a year ago. When it came back on, my hard drive was so damaged I had to replace it. Luckily, I use a disk imaging program with the backups saved to another drive, so I didn't lose a whole lot.
Just spend the hundred bucks for a UPS. Save yourself the headache.
Exactly. Without a doubt, the idea that Apple is holding back the music industry is the DUMBEST theory I've ever heard.
Why aren't the asshats selling it elsewhere online if they're not satisfied with Apple and iTunes? Why are they surprised online sales are slumping, when they refuse to sell it anywhere else?
When the only alternative to iTunes is to buy a spyware-infested CD, the uninstaller for which allows any web site anywhere to install even more malicious software, I'm surprised these idiots haven't bankrupted themselves. Why aren't the shareholders at their front door with torches and pitchforks?
I have to admit, my site went away for a few minutes last night. And I panicked and put in an emergency ticket. And so did a few hundred other people apparently.
I don't imagine anyone at my web host slept much last night.
There was no mention of it in the article, so it probably wasn't used in Ralsky's case, but....
In the US, law enforcement working for any level of government can seize whatever they want under the RICO Act. They simply have to say "this object was related to selling drugs" and its their's. Doesn't have to be true. Doesn't require a trial. Doesn't even need evidence to support the statement. It is just gone. And good luck getting it back if it isn't related to drugs. http://www.fear.org
I believe it is unconstitutional, but it happens on a very regular basis. One day I hope someone is able to bring it to the US Supreme Court and have all forfeiture laws abolished. But while it exists, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person if they did permanently seize Ralsky's equipment. Even bad laws can be useful occasionally.
This will be so far down the comments list that I'm sure no one will ever read it. Anyway...
I use the adblock FF extension w/Filterset.G specifically to block pop-ups and sliders. No other reason. And it took me a long time to do even that.
I don't agree with blocking web site ads, with exception of pop-ups and sliders. With most banners ads, even viewing them provides a tiny profit for the site. I don't mind the ads and if the site gets 1/10 of a cent for my one view, good. But with more and more sites finding ways to sneak pop-ups around Firefox's pop-up filter or using slider ads (which are just as bad), I have simply had ENOUGH.
Because of the pop-ups and sliders, I installed Adblock with filterset.g and now most ads are filtered out. Too bad an advertiser will never see this post, because this ought to be a good lesson for those people. They made the ads so annoying that someone who doesn't agree with blocking them started blocking them.
Sorry to dismantle your quaint little rant by injecting reality, but...
China is not paying for our debt, nor is the rest of the world. The US/PRC trade imbalance is $162 billion in China's favor. The US/World trade imbalance is $693 billion. [Source] The monthly US/World trade imbalance is $57.9 billion as of July, 2005. [Source]
If anything, the world cutting off trade with the US would only result in half a trillion dollars pouring into our own economy, at the direct expense of everyone else. The only thing that would really hurt is if OPEC stopped selling us oil. And they would bankrupt themselves if they did.
I'm with ya brother. I did the same thing once. I fell asleep halfway through Stargate Atlantis and missed part 2 of a Battlestar Galactica cliffhanger. I've resisted getting a TiVo, so I didn't have a copy of it. Having no other way to find out what happened, I rifled through a friend's FTP server, found that episode and downloaded it.
I can't wait for the day when current movies start coming out online or on DVD at the same time they come out in theaters. I can't frickin STAND going to a theater anymore. Unless it's something I can't wait a few months to see, I'll just rent it after it goes to video.
I tried three times before I got to watch I,Robot. The first time, some moron brought a very young child that kept making noise. I walked out and demanded a refund when the manager wouldn't throw them out. The second time, the goddamn film broke about 20 minutes into it.
It's all about convenience as far as I'm concerned, not freeloading. The studios miss out getting my money because they don't release their movies to video quickly enough. Movie Gallery gets it all when I rent the movie, then buy it used from them if it's something I'll want to watch again.
To the extent Candy Chan has incurred legal fees in this action, such fees are primarily the results of tactics designed to impede the ability of Plaintiffs to prosecute this action in an efficient manner. In addition, the Court finds that the reason Plaintiffs have repeatedly filed motions is because Candy Chan has not agreed to fairly simple mechanisms which would accomplish the same objectives that the filing of motions has accomplished. Therefore, Candy Chan's request for attorney fees is denied.
Sorry for my lack of legal education, but is the judge's sole reason for denying the "motion to have the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees" the fact that she defended herself aggressively and stalled the plaintiff where possible? Isn't that what you're SUPPOSED to do when some idiot files a bullshit lawsuit?
I wonder about the competance of this particular judge. I spent several hours reading about a case where he was the judge. Some guy in Texas created a fansite devoted to a shopping mall down the road from him. For some unknown reason, the mall's owner sued him and Zatkoff got the case.
Nearly every ruling this judge made in that case flew in the face of common sense, totally ignoring facts to rule in favor of the plaintiff. He even made up reasons to rule the way he did, ignoring arguments from both sides. He even did some investigating of his own (which I would think is illegal), didn't enter it into evidence in any manner, and then used that as a reason to rule for the plaintiff. Nearly all of his rulings were overturned on appeal for being improper. The case finally ended when the mall's owner realized he wasn't going to win and he withdrew the lawsuit.
It is theft. They used his services for their own purposes (bandwidth and CPU) without paying for it and without permission. Theft is theft; the cost doesn't matter.
And one of the things I can decide to do is place a line of text in one of *my* files that causes the site visiter to download one of *his* files. Still my files on my server, and his files on his server.
Thank you for making my point for me. And if/when he decides that he doesn't want people who are visiting your site to download from his, he can edit his.htaccess so that referrals from your site goes to a slaughterhouse site instead. His server, his files, his property, his rules.
First of all, learn the difference between hyperlinking and hotlinking. Hyperlinking means you link to another site from your own, which is what you were talking about. Hotlinking means you load something on your site that is located on someone else's site. The other site has to deal with the bandwidth use of both sites. That's THEFT.
Second, your analogy is about as relevent to the story as the price of bat shit in Trinidad.
Finally, Fuddruckers doesn't come out as a victim in any imaginable way and they don't have a legal case good enough to survive the first court hearing.
The flash file was his. It was located on his server. What he chooses to do with the files on his own server is his own business.
Slashdot Mirror
"What if the new version won't run until it phones home?"
That depends on how badly it irritates you.
Option A) If it's me...
1) Never EVER buy software from a retailer that won't let you return it for a refund or store credit. Amazon has a very liberal return policy on most things.
2) Uninstall it and return it as defective.
3) Go back and reread the product description, legal notices, system requirements, etc. If the fact that it won't work until it talks to an internet server is not disclosed, file a complaint with the FTC for unfair trade practices and false advertising.
4) Check my computer to make sure it didn't install DRM/rootkit/spyware/adware. If it did, add a computer trespass complaint to the FTC filing (or spyware violation, if an antispyware law ever passes).
5) Write to the company, read them the riot act, then explain how and why they just lost a sale and possibly a repeat customer.
But that's just me. Programs trying to connect to the internet without a good reason is a pet peeve of mine. When they do it without permission, it really pisses me off. When it won't work at all without making an unecessary connection, I label it as defective and remove it.
Option B) For everyone else...
1) Never EVER buy software from a retailer that won't let you return it for a refund or store credit. Amazon has a very liberal return policy on most things.
2) Decide whether you want the program more than you want control over your own property (the computer).
2a) If you can't do without the program, bend over and accept the fact that you just paid someone to violate your property rights.
2b) If you decide your property rights matter more, return the program as defective. The nasty letter and FTC complaint are optional.
The technology does exist. The tools and spacecraft do not, but only because no one has bothered to build them.
"We should continue exploration not only for the monetary return on investment (ROI), but rather BECAUSE IT'S THERE!"
Ideally, yes. But we've been trying to do it that way for 50 years and it hasn't worked.
It's been 36 years since we first went to the moon. Clearly the technology exists to get us there and back. So why are there no colonies four decades later? Because the government is in charge of space travel. There is no one up there to send soft money, votes or bribes back down. No one lives there, so there are no pork barrel projects to fund. Unless it has something to do with tax money, campaign money or votes, the Congress isn't interested in it.
Humans have always migrated along trade routes toward new or better economic markets, not because the King or Emporer wanted to see what was on the other side of the mountain range. If there's something there to be bought or sold, they'll go. The Western hemisphere was rediscovered by Europeans only because Spain wanted to find a cheaper/quicker way to get cargo to/from India.
NASA needs to be abolished and its engineers hired out to companies that have an actual reason to send people up there. The most dangerous place you can be is in between a corporation and something that can make them a profit. Colonies, refineries, shipyards and factories will start springing up all over the solar system, once companies realize there's profit up there.
"I cannot possibly be the only one without all this next generation hi-def crap."
Nope. My former hand-me-down TV finally died in late '04, so I replaced it. I took one look at the cost of HDTV and said "fuck that". I picked out an enormous (by my standards) 32" Sanyo with a ton of options for just under $300.
It has RCA jacks, a coax cable jack, S-Video, stereo outputs, game console input and several other jacks that I have yet to identify. All I know or care about is that my DVD player works now without a converter box, the picture is nice and big and I have an audio equalizer to tune the sound. It even does a good job of faking surround sound somehow, with only two speakers on the front.
The only thing I use my TV for is DVDs and watching Sci-fi on Friday Night. I refuse to pay more than $300 - $400 for a TV. I don't care if it makes coffee and fetches the newspaper. As long as DVDs keep working on it, I'm keeping mine. I might replace the DVD player, once the format war is over with, but definitely not a new TV.
Money does not equal points. Points mean you're moving ahead in the game. Money is all but meaningless in GTA. You can be floating in it and it won't get you past the first mission.
And whatever they meant by "points", they do NOT accrue when you kill a hooker. You don't get money, points, high-fives, concert tickets or ANYTHING special for killing hookers. If you get anything at all, it'll be sirens and cops with their guns drawn. If you're on a mission at the time, the cops will probably ruin your chances of beating it. That's hardly an encouragement.
They might drop money and weapons if you kill them, but so does every other pedestrian in the game. There is no special reason or reward for killing hookers in GTA.
These SWOP people picked a minor and irrelevant part of the game - the fact that hookers can be killed, like every other character in the game - and decided to declare that it is the only part of the game. Anyone reading their press release who hasn't played the games themselves would think the whole game was about Jack the Ripper, with the main goal of the character being to go around raping and killing whores.
And then we arrive back at my original point. Either these people didn't run the game and decided to make public accusations without knowing what they were talking about or they know full well that they are lying and generating a little press for themselves. One is negligence, the other is defamation. They are liable in either case, so don't be surprised if the next chapter of this story is their receipt of a letter from Take Two's lawyers.
"Okay actually Gamespot says there is one allusion to rape in the storyline, so fair is fair. Anyone that remembers this allusion and would care to say whether it glorified the rape?"
This is what Gamespot says: "Though the player cannot actively rape prostitutes in the game, a possible rape is alluded to once during the storyline of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."
The writer either is lying or is deliberately twisting the facts. There are two allusions to rape in GTA:SA, both of which have to do with MEN being raped in prison. It has nothing to do with prostitutes.
I have GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas and have played and replayed all three very frequently. The entire statement by this SWOP organization is one lie after another.
This line in particular is 100% false:
"Since the video game Grand Theft Auto accrues points to players for the depiction of the rape and murder of prostitutes..."
Either they haven't run the game and don't realize that this statement is untrue, or they have run the game and know full well that their statement is untrue and they are intentionally libeling Take Two. Either way, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they hear from Take Two's lawyers.
1) There is no rape, of anyone, except for mention of what goes on in prison.
2) You do not get points for killing prostitutes. You don't get "points" for anything. You can kill any character in the game, including yourself. Prostitutes are not specific targets of anything and basically are just another type of pedestrian.
3) You do not get points for raping prostitutes. You can't rape prostitutes in the first place, or anyone else for that matter.
Believe me, I've seen assholes do things like this. Usually it's some idiot shooting him own teammates deliberately, which is why many games let you disable "friendly fire" these days.
That's Winbar. http://winbar.nl
It was absolute stupidity to leave the sex stuff in the game, but they followed it up with something even more stupid. The second release version of GTA:SA is completely incompatible with the first.
Save files will not work between versions, so if you went to a message board and asked someone to play a mission you can't get past, it wouldn't work. The people who take the time to help people in this way all run the first release. Anyone needing help at this point are people who have recently bought the game, meaning they have the second release.
Someone has hacked around this now. You have exchange script files from the two versions, play the game and save it, then run another script to fully convert it to the other version.
But wait! There's more!
The second release cannot be modded. At all.
The new executable looks for a checksum value in the script files. If they've been modded, the game crashes out. The majority of people who buy it on PC already have it on PS2. They bought the PC version ONLY because they wanted to install or create mods. And they go and remove all mods, because someone discovered Rockstar's stupidity of leaving a sex mission in the game.
This may have changed by now, but Rockstar continued to advertise it as having support for mods, so that you can change the game as you wished. False advertising anyone? That's a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, right?
For the last two years, 180Solutions has been issuing press releases claiming that they are going to clean up their affiliates. Then an affiliate is caught installing trojans and sneaking onto computers without consent. Then 180Solutions issues a press release .....
And round and round we go.
If they spent 1/10 as much time actually controlling their affiliates as they do writing up press releases, maybe something might have been done.
I am also a writer. In my case, I write an email newsletter containing one ad, which is posted on the web site the same time it is mailed. Since I make no money if no one sees the one ad, I should be against the idea of someone copy/pasting the whole thing onto a message board, right?
No. As long as a link is posted to show where it came from, that's free advertising. Anyone on the message board who liked what I wrote is probably going to follow the link to read more of the same. I have 19,000 subscribed readers and God only knows how many read it on the site every week (I don't track it).
On the other hand, if I distributed the newsletter in such a way that it could not be copied, only worked on the same PC that was used when the person subscribed and installed rootkits and malware to enforce all this, I can't imagine I'd have even 1/10th as many regular readers. Nevermind that I'd lose the free advertising - I'd also piss off anyone willing to read it the first time.
And to repeat what someone else said in the comments, DRM typically protects the publisher, not the creator. Take a look at all the music bands railing against DRM on CD and posting instructions to break it.
Poor babies. If they don't want me downloading movies before they are released to DVD (officially), then they need to release the damn things sooner.
I buy a lot of DVDs. I have a small shelf, four levels, full of DVDs, with a box filled with more DVDs right next to it. I despise movie theaters. I'm not going to one, except in very rare cases. But I will see the movie, regardless.
I can't wait for that company Morgan Freeman has founded to start operating. Downloads of movies released at the same time they are released to the theaters.
The MPAA and RIAA needs to accept the fact that they cannot ignore the internet or the consumer. They don't want to work with the internet, because they fear piracy. So either they won't release anything on the internet or they wrap it in obnoxious DRM and at low quality. And in doing that, they are directly responsible for most of the file trading. If the INDUCE Act ever becomes law, they will be its biggest offenders.
The song writers "might be but probably are not the copyright holders" is probably even more accurate, as least if they have an RIAA-member label.
Remember Prince? Somehow or another, his label ended up "owning" his name, so he switched briefly to an unpronouncable symbol as his name in protest.
I feel you. I had the power go about just about a year ago. When it came back on, my hard drive was so damaged I had to replace it. Luckily, I use a disk imaging program with the backups saved to another drive, so I didn't lose a whole lot.
Just spend the hundred bucks for a UPS. Save yourself the headache.
Exactly. Without a doubt, the idea that Apple is holding back the music industry is the DUMBEST theory I've ever heard.
Why aren't the asshats selling it elsewhere online if they're not satisfied with Apple and iTunes? Why are they surprised online sales are slumping, when they refuse to sell it anywhere else?
When the only alternative to iTunes is to buy a spyware-infested CD, the uninstaller for which allows any web site anywhere to install even more malicious software, I'm surprised these idiots haven't bankrupted themselves. Why aren't the shareholders at their front door with torches and pitchforks?
LOL...
I have to admit, my site went away for a few minutes last night. And I panicked and put in an emergency ticket. And so did a few hundred other people apparently.
I don't imagine anyone at my web host slept much last night.
There was no mention of it in the article, so it probably wasn't used in Ralsky's case, but....
In the US, law enforcement working for any level of government can seize whatever they want under the RICO Act. They simply have to say "this object was related to selling drugs" and its their's. Doesn't have to be true. Doesn't require a trial. Doesn't even need evidence to support the statement. It is just gone. And good luck getting it back if it isn't related to drugs. http://www.fear.org
I believe it is unconstitutional, but it happens on a very regular basis. One day I hope someone is able to bring it to the US Supreme Court and have all forfeiture laws abolished. But while it exists, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person if they did permanently seize Ralsky's equipment. Even bad laws can be useful occasionally.
Good Fucking Riddance.
Here's hoping he stays shut down permanently.
This will be so far down the comments list that I'm sure no one will ever read it. Anyway...
I use the adblock FF extension w/Filterset.G specifically to block pop-ups and sliders. No other reason. And it took me a long time to do even that.
I don't agree with blocking web site ads, with exception of pop-ups and sliders. With most banners ads, even viewing them provides a tiny profit for the site. I don't mind the ads and if the site gets 1/10 of a cent for my one view, good. But with more and more sites finding ways to sneak pop-ups around Firefox's pop-up filter or using slider ads (which are just as bad), I have simply had ENOUGH.
Because of the pop-ups and sliders, I installed Adblock with filterset.g and now most ads are filtered out. Too bad an advertiser will never see this post, because this ought to be a good lesson for those people. They made the ads so annoying that someone who doesn't agree with blocking them started blocking them.
Sorry to dismantle your quaint little rant by injecting reality, but...
China is not paying for our debt, nor is the rest of the world. The US/PRC trade imbalance is $162 billion in China's favor. The US/World trade imbalance is $693 billion. [Source] The monthly US/World trade imbalance is $57.9 billion as of July, 2005. [Source]
If anything, the world cutting off trade with the US would only result in half a trillion dollars pouring into our own economy, at the direct expense of everyone else. The only thing that would really hurt is if OPEC stopped selling us oil. And they would bankrupt themselves if they did.
I'm with ya brother. I did the same thing once. I fell asleep halfway through Stargate Atlantis and missed part 2 of a Battlestar Galactica cliffhanger. I've resisted getting a TiVo, so I didn't have a copy of it. Having no other way to find out what happened, I rifled through a friend's FTP server, found that episode and downloaded it.
I can't wait for the day when current movies start coming out online or on DVD at the same time they come out in theaters. I can't frickin STAND going to a theater anymore. Unless it's something I can't wait a few months to see, I'll just rent it after it goes to video.
I tried three times before I got to watch I,Robot. The first time, some moron brought a very young child that kept making noise. I walked out and demanded a refund when the manager wouldn't throw them out. The second time, the goddamn film broke about 20 minutes into it.
It's all about convenience as far as I'm concerned, not freeloading. The studios miss out getting my money because they don't release their movies to video quickly enough. Movie Gallery gets it all when I rent the movie, then buy it used from them if it's something I'll want to watch again.
Did you happen read the judge's order [.pdf]?
Sorry for my lack of legal education, but is the judge's sole reason for denying the "motion to have the plaintiff pay the defendant's legal fees" the fact that she defended herself aggressively and stalled the plaintiff where possible? Isn't that what you're SUPPOSED to do when some idiot files a bullshit lawsuit?
I wonder about the competance of this particular judge. I spent several hours reading about a case where he was the judge. Some guy in Texas created a fansite devoted to a shopping mall down the road from him. For some unknown reason, the mall's owner sued him and Zatkoff got the case.
Nearly every ruling this judge made in that case flew in the face of common sense, totally ignoring facts to rule in favor of the plaintiff. He even made up reasons to rule the way he did, ignoring arguments from both sides. He even did some investigating of his own (which I would think is illegal), didn't enter it into evidence in any manner, and then used that as a reason to rule for the plaintiff. Nearly all of his rulings were overturned on appeal for being improper. The case finally ended when the mall's owner realized he wasn't going to win and he withdrew the lawsuit.
It is theft. They used his services for their own purposes (bandwidth and CPU) without paying for it and without permission. Theft is theft; the cost doesn't matter.
Thank you for making my point for me. And if/when he decides that he doesn't want people who are visiting your site to download from his, he can edit his .htaccess so that referrals from your site goes to a slaughterhouse site instead. His server, his files, his property, his rules.
First of all, learn the difference between hyperlinking and hotlinking. Hyperlinking means you link to another site from your own, which is what you were talking about. Hotlinking means you load something on your site that is located on someone else's site. The other site has to deal with the bandwidth use of both sites. That's THEFT.
Second, your analogy is about as relevent to the story as the price of bat shit in Trinidad.
Finally, Fuddruckers doesn't come out as a victim in any imaginable way and they don't have a legal case good enough to survive the first court hearing.
The flash file was his. It was located on his server. What he chooses to do with the files on his own server is his own business.
U of BC in Vancouver allows this. Every year my best friend has to spend hundreds on text books written by the very professor teaching the class.