I have always wondered why can't everyone being sued by MPAA/RIAA just install a bunch of trajons on their machine and then claim that someone was using their computer to dowload music or wanted to frame them.
It is because they are not actually going after the people who downloaded the files. They are going after the people who "uploaded" the files. As far as I've read, the RIAA has yet to sue anyone for downloading (if they have it is not the norm). Rather, they are going after those who distribute their copyrighted work ('case they don't have the "right" to "copy" it for others).
And then they only go after those who a) have a HUGE amount of content they are distributing, and b) have been doing it for a very long time. It is much easier to prove their (the RIAA's) case that way.
I pay for cable, which technically pays for all the shows that are broadcast during the month when I have access.
Actually, you are paying for the medium over which the shows are distributed (cable in this case). You are not, in reality, paying for the shows. It is a minor, but important difference.
The BBC is not doing it for free. UK TV viewers have to already pay a monthy fee for the content per each TV they own. This is on contrast to the US where we pay for the medium over which it is delivered (cable, sat., etc.) but the content (in general) is free.
You should make sure you know what you are doing when you call someone else ignorant.
Re:so could you use thestalks of corn and other ag
on
Ethanol From Waste Straw
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not true! Far from all cars built after 1995 are flexible fuel cars. There are only a small handful of cars from each manufacturer on the road right now, and using flexfuel in you car if it isn't rated for it can severely damage your engine. Check out these sites before you fill up. If you want to check if your car is compatable, e85fuel.com has an easy VIN guide.
The song you downloaded was not protected with any DRM. That's why it worked. But buy a song (which has DRM) and you'll see that MPlayer isn't so magical anymore.
I think this is what he is talking about:
Qwest Choice DSL
It looks to me to be DSL on top of your phone line (additional charge for the phone line). Since this plan also requires you to choose an ISP, he is recommending Qwest.net which is another $7 + $3 on top of all the other charges.
Knowing what I pay for DSL now, that seems to be a very good deal.
Note -- It appears that this site hasn't been updated much in the last three years as it still talks about pre-Mac OS X software in the areas that I looked. So this won't help anyone who has a recent computer.
You said:
Now consider the same world, with *your* "STEALING IS STEALING end of story" claim: Should the first person/company that creates a new molecular structure have a monopolistic control over said structure? Should you be able to produce (from scratch, not by "physically stealing") a replacement Brake Pad for your car without paying Ford for the privelidge? What about creating your very own "claritin-like" substance for your allergies? Should you have to pay Mosanto?
I am afraid that there is a error in your logic here. What you describe above is not the same as the "stealing" that this article is talking about. You describe, for example, downloading Office from P2P as creating your own "Office-like" program from scratch. I am afraid that is not what you are doing. OpenOffice (et al.) would be creating your own "Office-like" program from scratch. This is all perfectly legal, even encouraged.
If we take your analogy to the present, where it is easier to see the ramifications, then companies shouldn't charge for manufactured goods -- they're only copies aren't they? They should only be able to charge for the original, and my taking of a manufactured good shouldn't be seen as stealing. See how foreign, silly even, that sounds? (And no, downloading [i.e. copying] a program is not manufacturing it even though there is another copy. It is transporting.)
You said that stealing involves the deprivation of someone's property, removing their ability to benefit from it. You are depriving a software publisher of property -- money -- when commercial software is used without paying. It doesn't matter if you couldn't afford it or were only going to use it once for a little bit ("But officer, I can't afford a Lexus and besides, I only drove it across town!").
Now I am a big fan of P2P and even use BearShare. But when I've download commercial software I stole it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you are paying for the medium over which the shows are distributed (cable in this case). You are not, in reality, paying for the shows. It is a minor, but important difference.
The BBC is not doing it for free. UK TV viewers have to already pay a monthy fee for the content per each TV they own. This is on contrast to the US where we pay for the medium over which it is delivered (cable, sat., etc.) but the content (in general) is free.
On the other hand, not knowing the name of one the most popular operating systems in the world, when he is a geek himself, is ignorance.
You should make sure you know what you are doing when you call someone else ignorant.
http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/e85.asp
http://www.e85fuel.com/
Boy, if you think thats the worst function of all time then you've never seen some of the ones I've written. They'd give you nightmares!
The song you downloaded was not protected with any DRM. That's why it worked. But buy a song (which has DRM) and you'll see that MPlayer isn't so magical anymore.
I think this is what he is talking about: Qwest Choice DSL It looks to me to be DSL on top of your phone line (additional charge for the phone line). Since this plan also requires you to choose an ISP, he is recommending Qwest.net which is another $7 + $3 on top of all the other charges. Knowing what I pay for DSL now, that seems to be a very good deal.
My questions is, why hasn't this been bigger news? Did it come out and I just missed it?
That, my friend, is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Thanks for the laugh.
That makes a lot more sense. What is the ratio of processor-hours per hours?
Note -- It appears that this site hasn't been updated much in the last three years as it still talks about pre-Mac OS X software in the areas that I looked. So this won't help anyone who has a recent computer.
If we take your analogy to the present, where it is easier to see the ramifications, then companies shouldn't charge for manufactured goods -- they're only copies aren't they? They should only be able to charge for the original, and my taking of a manufactured good shouldn't be seen as stealing. See how foreign, silly even, that sounds? (And no, downloading [i.e. copying] a program is not manufacturing it even though there is another copy. It is transporting.)
You said that stealing involves the deprivation of someone's property, removing their ability to benefit from it. You are depriving a software publisher of property -- money -- when commercial software is used without paying. It doesn't matter if you couldn't afford it or were only going to use it once for a little bit ("But officer, I can't afford a Lexus and besides, I only drove it across town!").
Now I am a big fan of P2P and even use BearShare. But when I've download commercial software I stole it.
Free lives, unlimited ammo, fightin' aliens, and even your choice or red or green head bands. It doesn't get more real!
No permissions?
Well, it is on IIS - I Infrequently Serve.