"...in a large economy such as that of the united states, counterfeiting has proven to be so difficult as to be a non-problem."
It's so difficult precisely because of the combined efforts of law enforcement agencies and private organizations to fight/deter it (i.e. anti-counterfeiting measures in consumer printers...)
Do you think that cute little girl who is cashier has ever heard about SCO? Do you think if she had she would give a fuck? No. Get off your fat asses, you nerds, and get a fucking life. Go take a shower and do something with your lives.
What FTP server were they running? Was it a Microsoft FTP server? Because the guy who runs Linux down at my school says that only M$ (he seems insistent on using the dollar sign, for some reason) servers get hacked. He told me to use "open source" servers because they are secure, and stable, "unlike their Windows counterparts." Was he lying?
You cannot allow others to copy your books. For example, you cannot use your own copy machine to make copies of a book and then give those copies to your friends. That would violate copyright law.
The argument, which I accept and support, goes something like this: knowingly providing said data for download is equivalent to distribution. I should have been more clear, and made certain I meant the purposeful digital distribution of said works. People aren't breaking into your house, and burning your legal backups to CD. You're providing the "backups" for download, to anyone and everyone. This is illegal.
If you had respected the constitution, civil disobedience would not be necessary.
The Constitution explicitly defines copyright law and its motivations. It is you, the pirate, who is not respecting the Constitution.
You also seem to misunderstand the concept of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't bitch about being imprisoned. You people bitch about being legally reprimanded for breaking the law. The intent and purpose of civil disobedience is to suffer the consequences to show others, indeed, to show society, that a particular statute or form of legal precedence is wrong. You're not supposed to complain. Stop attempting to parallel yourself with true martyrs, step down from your pedestals, and grow the fuck up. Ad hominem attack, and I stand behind it in every way.
I support the concerns and actions of the Higher Education Committee. This was a message explicity directed towards "Slashdot Users." My definition of "allows" means logging on to a P2P network (or providing on an FTP or HTTP server, etc.) and allowing others to copy data for which you do not own the copyright.
You are saying, in essence, that it is impossible for the majority of society to act immorally. You seem to be arguing that because the majority does something, morality is then redefined. Your concept of morality is severely flawed. The majority of Germans supported the genocide of the Jewish people too. Were they morally "right?"
Moreover, your understanding of the law and its motivation is also flawed. Many laws are created for the exact reasons you cite as being "oppresive." The First Amendment, for example, is meant to protect the majority from imposing their beliefs onto the minority. It benefits the minority. Is the First Amendment oppressive, then?
Please, sir.. stop trying to justify the MP3s you just downloaded, and admit to us, to yourself, that what you did was morally and legally "in the wrong."
What, exactly, do you find "wrong" about my point of view? The part about copying data or allowing the copying of data by others for which you do not hold the copyright to being illegal (which is "right," in the factual sense) or the part about the DMCA, DRM, et al. being a response to the blatant disrespect of the laws which make said acts illegal (which is also "right," in the factual sense)?
Allowing others to make digital copies of music, pictures, movies, books, or any other form of data for which you do not hold the copyright to is illegal.
If you had respected this from the beginning, the DMCA, et al. would have never even been conceived.
I'm not pushing DRM in the slightest. The people who place ads will not place ads if they see that people are just going to redistribute the information. And with such "wonders" as Mozilla, circumventing those ads - that revenue will dissolve. DRM is coming - I don't necessarily support it. But it will be here, regardless.
DRM is going to be wide-spread because more and more firms will see it as a benefit. It isn't just the RIAA and Microsoft. It's spreading - and the idea will be very welcome. DRM is coming.
If the newspapers are only available online, it will be extremely easy to distribute the information without any sort of paid subscription. Case in point, the numerous posters who mirror / inform on how to circumvent the New York Times' registration. This is why DRM is going to be wide-spread: people want to do things online that they currently do in the real world. This requires real world limitations. DRM provides this.
Slashdot Mirror
i just got banned from #debian i will kill those assholes
"...in a large economy such as that of the united states, counterfeiting has proven to be so difficult as to be a non-problem."
It's so difficult precisely because of the combined efforts of law enforcement agencies and private organizations to fight/deter it (i.e. anti-counterfeiting measures in consumer printers...)
Please bite this troll. Thanks!
Do you think that cute little girl who is cashier has ever heard about SCO? Do you think if she had she would give a fuck? No. Get off your fat asses, you nerds, and get a fucking life. Go take a shower and do something with your lives.
What FTP server were they running? Was it a Microsoft FTP server? Because the guy who runs Linux down at my school says that only M$ (he seems insistent on using the dollar sign, for some reason) servers get hacked. He told me to use "open source" servers because they are secure, and stable, "unlike their Windows counterparts." Was he lying?
You cannot allow others to copy your books. For example, you cannot use your own copy machine to make copies of a book and then give those copies to your friends. That would violate copyright law.
The argument, which I accept and support, goes something like this: knowingly providing said data for download is equivalent to distribution. I should have been more clear, and made certain I meant the purposeful digital distribution of said works. People aren't breaking into your house, and burning your legal backups to CD. You're providing the "backups" for download, to anyone and everyone. This is illegal.
Making copyrights last forever is illegal.
Copyrights do not last forever.
If you had respected the constitution, civil disobedience would not be necessary.
The Constitution explicitly defines copyright law and its motivations. It is you, the pirate, who is not respecting the Constitution.
You also seem to misunderstand the concept of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't bitch about being imprisoned. You people bitch about being legally reprimanded for breaking the law. The intent and purpose of civil disobedience is to suffer the consequences to show others, indeed, to show society, that a particular statute or form of legal precedence is wrong. You're not supposed to complain. Stop attempting to parallel yourself with true martyrs, step down from your pedestals, and grow the fuck up. Ad hominem attack, and I stand behind it in every way.
I support the concerns and actions of the Higher Education Committee. This was a message explicity directed towards "Slashdot Users." My definition of "allows" means logging on to a P2P network (or providing on an FTP or HTTP server, etc.) and allowing others to copy data for which you do not own the copyright.
You are saying, in essence, that it is impossible for the majority of society to act immorally. You seem to be arguing that because the majority does something, morality is then redefined. Your concept of morality is severely flawed. The majority of Germans supported the genocide of the Jewish people too. Were they morally "right?"
Moreover, your understanding of the law and its motivation is also flawed. Many laws are created for the exact reasons you cite as being "oppresive." The First Amendment, for example, is meant to protect the majority from imposing their beliefs onto the minority. It benefits the minority. Is the First Amendment oppressive, then?
Please, sir.. stop trying to justify the MP3s you just downloaded, and admit to us, to yourself, that what you did was morally and legally "in the
wrong."
What, exactly, do you find "wrong" about my point of view? The part about copying data or allowing the copying of data by others for which you do not hold the copyright to being illegal (which is "right," in the factual sense) or the part about the DMCA, DRM, et al. being a response to the blatant disrespect of the laws which make said acts illegal (which is also "right," in the factual sense)?
I ask you, what law does not rest upon some concept of morality?
Allowing others to make digital copies of music, pictures, movies, books, or any other form of data for which you do not hold the copyright to is illegal.
If you had respected this from the beginning, the DMCA, et al. would have never even been conceived.
Food for thought.
i don't know what you heard about me
but linsux users aint got shit on me
i run windows xp and aol on my parents dell
cause i'm a t r o double l
I'm not pushing DRM in the slightest. The people who place ads will not place ads if they see that people are just going to redistribute the information. And with such "wonders" as Mozilla, circumventing those ads - that revenue will dissolve. DRM is coming - I don't necessarily support it. But it will be here, regardless.
DRM is going to be wide-spread because more and more firms will see it as a benefit. It isn't just the RIAA and Microsoft. It's spreading - and the idea will be very welcome. DRM is coming.
If the newspapers are only available online, it will be extremely easy to distribute the information without any sort of paid subscription. Case in point, the numerous posters who mirror / inform on how to circumvent the New York Times' registration. This is why DRM is going to be wide-spread: people want to do things online that they currently do in the real world. This requires real world limitations. DRM provides this.