My point (hopefully it was clear) is that there are many individuals who claim that piracy doesn't influence sales, and that pirates don't buy less.
Clearly there must be some (admittedly small) amount of individuals who do pirate instead of buying, but as you suggest, other things may cancel their influence.
Actually, I wouldn't care to share it, because you may not agree with what I consider to be credible.
Also, why is it my responsibility to look up information for you?
I really hate this preoccupation some of you people have with insisting on sources, then chopping them up. Find your own sources, then defend them if you like, but it's certainly not my responsibility to convince you what is credible and what isn't.
"But since you seem to discount both broad studies and individual experience equally"
And since you seem to make up points for me where they don't exist, what do you base your logic on?
I base my iopinion on CREDIBLE studies by individuals and organizations that are known to be unbiased.
"If you know what you're doing, your experience is not "irrelevant anecdotal evidence", it's "expert testimony"
NO, it is STILL anecdotal evidence, just from someone with experience. It is however, irrelevant, as the sample size is too small. Do you understand now, or should I send you a link to a basic stats website?
How is a study done by IBM that touts the virtues of Linux any more credible than a study done by MS showing MS products are better?
IBM is basing it's future (in large part) on Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if they said Linux can resurrect the dead, just to improve marketshare. And if you honestly believe they're above such things, well...
"The city survived 300 years before this happened. I would venture to say that any city that has a 300 year time span between true disasters (even if there was always the "threat" of disaster) did quite well."
Exept the city has had disasters before. SO apart from being ignorant to fact, your argument seems pretty sound.
"I forgot. This is slashdot. We're all supposed to advocate the destruction of civilization because humans should live as solitary animals that care nothing about their own kind. Yeah. That's a much more credible sentiment."
So, when I call you on being rude, you respond with sarcasm, but fail to admit you were a jerk.
So, no you did NOT forget this was slashdot, as you did exactly what all the other slashbots do.
"I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable)."
Isn't that really the issue here, that a blogger may not be considered a "journalist"? In that case, what protection do they have?
"I think we're agreeing though - if some group of people voluntarily want to rebuild in that location, then let 'em at it - but don't require those who think it's unwise to participate"
Exactly. It strikes me as silly to continually allow people to make poor choices by subsidizing the cleanup after said choices.
1. Rebuild the port because we need it. I agree it's important, but there is NO reason to rebuild the residences, or help anyone pay to do so. A port is not a city, they can exist without each other.
2. You're making things up. Not all of Louisiana was destroyed, so claiming things like "Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore" is ridiculous.
3. I agree here. You get help in this area ONE TIME. If you still choose to risk it, it's on you.
4. Another of the roles of gevernment is preventing people from taking unnecessary risks. See all the helmet, seatbelt, sanitation laws etc. I consider that to be a more important consideration than rebuilding a city in a place where it will inevitably be destroyed again.
"If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that."
And you expect people to find you credible when you converse like this?
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I agree.
My point (hopefully it was clear) is that there are many individuals who claim that piracy doesn't influence sales, and that pirates don't buy less.
Clearly there must be some (admittedly small) amount of individuals who do pirate instead of buying, but as you suggest, other things may cancel their influence.
Actually, I wouldn't care to share it, because you may not agree with what I consider to be credible.
Also, why is it my responsibility to look up information for you?
I really hate this preoccupation some of you people have with insisting on sources, then chopping them up. Find your own sources, then defend them if you like, but it's certainly not my responsibility to convince you what is credible and what isn't.
"But since you seem to discount both broad studies and individual experience equally"
And since you seem to make up points for me where they don't exist, what do you base your logic on?
I base my iopinion on CREDIBLE studies by individuals and organizations that are known to be unbiased.
"If you know what you're doing, your experience is not "irrelevant anecdotal evidence", it's "expert testimony"
NO, it is STILL anecdotal evidence, just from someone with experience. It is however, irrelevant, as the sample size is too small. Do you understand now, or should I send you a link to a basic stats website?
Ok, while I agree with you, I think it's a little silly to think that piracy doesn't influence sales somewhat.
While the overall change may be miniscule, there are certainly people who pirate instead of buying.
"Whoopy doo."
That's how I felt when I read your anecdotal evidence.
My anecdotal evidence suggests that Linux kills babies. Care to compare worthless made up data?
In other words, your totally irrelevant anecdotal evidence supports the idea that Linux is better, so it must be better.
Great, because my totally irrelevant anecdotal evidence shows that people who believe marketing studies are drooling imbeciles.
How is a study done by IBM that touts the virtues of Linux any more credible than a study done by MS showing MS products are better?
IBM is basing it's future (in large part) on Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if they said Linux can resurrect the dead, just to improve marketshare. And if you honestly believe they're above such things, well...
And what exactly does this article have to do with Microsoft, and why are you bringing them into it?
And some of US find pathetic, bitter people who hate others for their success very tiring. (that would be you in case you were confused)
"Clearly, you are one of those who see selfish, destructive, anti-social greed as something to admire."
And clearly you are someone who shuns success because of an inability to accept your own feelings of inferiority.
I don't. The last thing we need is something like this keeping even more people alive even longer.
At least until we find a way to releive the stress it would put on the ecosystem.
"The city survived 300 years before this happened. I would venture to say that any city that has a 300 year time span between true disasters (even if there was always the "threat" of disaster) did quite well."
Exept the city has had disasters before. SO apart from being ignorant to fact, your argument seems pretty sound.
"I forgot. This is slashdot. We're all supposed to advocate the destruction of civilization because humans should live as solitary animals that care nothing about their own kind. Yeah. That's a much more credible sentiment."
So, when I call you on being rude, you respond with sarcasm, but fail to admit you were a jerk.
So, no you did NOT forget this was slashdot, as you did exactly what all the other slashbots do.
So why didn't you get modded off topic, and more importantly, why are you such a crybaby about it?
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
You can't say things that aren't true in order to harm someone. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Go back to social studies class.
"I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable)."
Isn't that really the issue here, that a blogger may not be considered a "journalist"? In that case, what protection do they have?
"There are tons of people out there saying microsoft blows, and I havn't heard of them getting sued"
That's because truth is an absolute defense.
How sad that he's modded funny, when the reality is he's correct.
I despise the litigousness of my country, especially now that so many people consider the court to be a get rich quick opportunity.
Truth is an absolute defense, so if what you said is true, you're fine.
"And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?"
Um, I'm tempted to make a comment about how silly this is, but I think you will realize it yourself given time.
So you WANT the ability to anonymously lie about people? Even when such lies have very real consequences?
Because I have heard that you like raping three year old boys. And then you eat them.
It's not freedom of speech that's the issue here.
It's freedom from the consequences of your speech that is being debated.
"I think we're agreeing though - if some group of people voluntarily want to rebuild in that location, then let 'em at it - but don't require those who think it's unwise to participate"
Exactly. It strikes me as silly to continually allow people to make poor choices by subsidizing the cleanup after said choices.
It's americans like you that are hated around the world
Because there's nowhere to inhabit between canada and the gulf of Mexico.
Hmm, now that I think about it, there really isn't any place worth inhabiting...
Fine, in order
1. Rebuild the port because we need it. I agree it's important, but there is NO reason to rebuild the residences, or help anyone pay to do so. A port is not a city, they can exist without each other.
2. You're making things up. Not all of Louisiana was destroyed, so claiming things like "Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore" is ridiculous.
3. I agree here. You get help in this area ONE TIME. If you still choose to risk it, it's on you.
4. Another of the roles of gevernment is preventing people from taking unnecessary risks. See all the helmet, seatbelt, sanitation laws etc. I consider that to be a more important consideration than rebuilding a city in a place where it will inevitably be destroyed again.
"If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that."
And you expect people to find you credible when you converse like this?
But currently, the premium isn't proportional to the risk, otherwise no additional funding would be required.