But I have several friends who watch many hours of TV a day and have the latest plot advancements of several sitcom, drama, and unscripted (nee "reality") shows committed to memory. The last half of 2003 I began hearing comments from even them, my friends the TV junkies, that they are getting tired of so much advertising. It seems the straw that broke the camel's back was the corner adverts that come on when a program comes back on after a commercial break. They keep watching of course because they are addicted, but they are at least complaining out loud now.
With this I would have to agree. Fortunately I live in the UK where we have a mere 3 minutes of adverts for 12-15 minutes of programming on the commercial channels, but I have watched DivXs of Frasier and Friends recorded off American TV and shrinking the show into a little window to fit adverts on the screen during the actual program is just taking the piss.
I am totally unable to comprehend why so much advertising would be necessary, and if that sort of thing happened over here I would be certain to make a mental note never to buy anything from a company that invaded a TV program to show advertising.
What does it matter? They are only asking everybody to donate a small amount - either you will or you won't. Who cares what their ultimate target is - it doesn't affect the amount you actually give them, just the number of donations they accept before they stop asking.
To sum it up, people download because it is so convenient to them that they've justified it in their minds to shed any guilt.
I do not need to "shed any guilt", because the type of downloading I do myself (i.e. downloading films I never would have bought anyway, and then deleting them without distributing) is not "wrong" under utilitarian ethics, no matter how many people dogmatically state that it is.
It's ridiculous, and it will never stop being wrong, no matter how much Slashdot tries to push it as some inane, anti-corporate revolution.
That is your opinion. It is not "wrong" under utilitarian ethics, it may be "wrong" under right-wing authoritarian ethics but that is not a set of principles I live by.
It's not a revolution. It's not a culture movement.
I am not aware of anybody claiming that it is.
It's just people with high-speed connections downloading things they would normally have to pay for. It's just become widespread enough that you guys are justifying it to absolve yourselves of guilt.
What you're saying is that you want a system that allows you to watch a file for free and then lets you pay if you want to. Where do you set your bar? It seems to me you're ending up watching a whole load of films for free.
There is one. It's called television. It works very well as a preview system, allowing people to watch films for free and then pay if they want to for a much better quality version with optional extras.
Offering free preview downloads would be a simple extension of the television broadcasting concept, with the added bonus that viewers could choose what they wanted to watch (and hence be exposed to more films that they might possibly want to buy). It's a winner all round.
Aah yes, the inevitable "kbps" versus "KBps" versus "KB/s" confusion. Nevertheless, a factor of 8 is only a matter of time, at least for broadband in certain areas (like inner cities). Perhaps 18 months is a little optimistic, but ~16 megabits broadband can't be too far off.
...because we don't want to pay money to see a movie that may or may not be crap. I only ever buy DVDs once I have already seen the movie and decide it's worth buying, and most downloads I delete after viewing without redistribution.
Offering free previews (perhaps in reduced quality, but watchable) and an easy option to follow up with a DVD purchase may be the way to go.
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK "similarity of age" is a valid defence against underage sex. Two teenagers having sex, while they are in fact breaking the law, would not be placed on the sex offenders register in this country. In fact it is a totally different crime - "statutory rape" - which is far less serious than paedophilia.
A stereotype is just a formulaic set of characteristics that may or may not apply to a person or group. Its negative connotation stems from the fact that people who conform to stereotypes lack originality, whereas those who over-apply them to others are showing prejudice or narrow-mindedness.
This article is just suggesting that in the case of virus-writes, the common stereotype does not always apply.
The best thing you could do for a kid would be to have them homeschooled, RFID or not. At least this way they could learn something interesting rather than how to play brain-dead social status games and abide by the mandates of fashion magazines.
Of course the internet should be commercialised. After all, it would be "un-American" not to have profit-making corporations run everything, wouldn't it?
Microsoft should take every opportunity to advertise the fact that the annoying dialog box is a direct result of software patent legislation.
What better way to make the public aware of this patent crap than by popping up irritating dialog boxes mentioning it every time they look at a web site.
RIAA has the right of ownership to the songs. A person distributes through a P2P, which according to copyright law requires ownership or title to do so. Therefor, the person aquired possession of the ownership and distribution rights without permission of the rightful owners (RIAA.)
No, the person assumed the right of ownership, they did not acquire it. This is a critical difference. If they had acquired right of ownership then the songs would become their own copyright and they could distribute them as they wished.
Does anyone genuinely believe that there were somehow through some twist of fate absolutely no music file sharers back when Ritchie and Thompson wrote UNIX in PDP-3 assembler?
Yes, I would guess that there probably weren't. Given that the CD was not invented until 1984 and lossy compression formats like MP3 around 1992, I find it highly unlikely that the exchange of digital music files was even possible back when UNIX was invented.
You will lose time, certainly, but not necessarily that much money. This case would be so baseless that even the cheapest lawyer (or you yourself) would be able to get the case thrown out very quickly indeed.
Actually, the last I heard was that the Sept 11 terrorists used unencrypted email from internet cafes. I do not believe that there is a terrorist incident in human history that would have been prevented by banning legitimate privacy technologies such as encryption.
I can use a hammer and chisel to crack open people's skulls - should we ban carpentry tools as well? Don't believe the government's propaganda, banning legitimate technologies "to prevent terrorism" is nonsense, it is just an attempt to gain more power for the various government departments and the corporations that bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcontribute to them.
Remember: "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security".
Are you a lawyer? No? Then kindly shut the fuck up about legal jargon. The word "theft" (as well as the word "steal") has a specific legal meaning, but it also has a commonly understood meaning. "Theft" means "taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission." That's all. There's no clause requiring deprivation.
I agree entirely.
However, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain:
1) What you mean by "taking" in the context of downloading music, given that the copy can be made passively without changing the original in any way.
2) What you mean by "belonging" in the context of music.
Slashdot Mirror
K
K
I am totally unable to comprehend why so much advertising would be necessary, and if that sort of thing happened over here I would be certain to make a mental note never to buy anything from a company that invaded a TV program to show advertising.
K
What does it matter? They are only asking everybody to donate a small amount - either you will or you won't. Who cares what their ultimate target is - it doesn't affect the amount you actually give them, just the number of donations they accept before they stop asking.
K
Regards,
K
Offering free preview downloads would be a simple extension of the television broadcasting concept, with the added bonus that viewers could choose what they wanted to watch (and hence be exposed to more films that they might possibly want to buy). It's a winner all round.
K
K
Offering free previews (perhaps in reduced quality, but watchable) and an easy option to follow up with a DVD purchase may be the way to go.
K
2 Mbps is not all that much nowadays. I am sure it won't be that long before commercial broadband offers this sort of download rate.
K
K
This article is just suggesting that in the case of virus-writes, the common stereotype does not always apply.
- K
K
Of course the internet should be commercialised. After all, it would be "un-American" not to have profit-making corporations run everything, wouldn't it?
K
What better way to make the public aware of this patent crap than by popping up irritating dialog boxes mentioning it every time they look at a web site.
K
Isn't amateur logic just hilarious?
K
"nycfashiongirl" will be instructed to pay a fine of USD 10000 for having a bloody crap screen name.
Honestly, can you get any more cliched and unoriginal than having BOTH "fashion" AND "girl" in your nickname? Unless you are a bloke, of course.
K
K
K
APD is about social avoidance and shyness, it has nothing whatsoever to do with procrastination or productivity. Check out the ICD description here
K
K
This could be said about practically every "anti-terrorist" mechanism so far implemented.
K
Actually, the last I heard was that the Sept 11 terrorists used unencrypted email from internet cafes. I do not believe that there is a terrorist incident in human history that would have been prevented by banning legitimate privacy technologies such as encryption.
I can use a hammer and chisel to crack open people's skulls - should we ban carpentry tools as well? Don't believe the government's propaganda, banning legitimate technologies "to prevent terrorism" is nonsense, it is just an attempt to gain more power for the various government departments and the corporations that bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcontribute to them.
Remember: "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security".
K
Sorry, but I cannot be the only one that finds the use of clueless bikini-clad teenagers to sell an important issue rather a turn-off.
K
1) What you mean by "taking" in the context of downloading music, given that the copy can be made passively without changing the original in any way.
2) What you mean by "belonging" in the context of music.