Google's been up to some small evils (in opposition to their motto), so it's good to see them doing a big good (raising public awareness about how truly evil AOL, both as a company and as a piece of software is).
"I don't kid myself that... copyright owners are waging some kind of immoral war against me."
Maybe not you in particular, but the copyright extensions that have gone through since copyright's inception in the US in 1790 seem like a plot against the customers of content creators. Read the below if you don't believe me.
Honestly, most of my collection is CC licensed - Loca records, for example, produces some very good stuff - or CDs from my collection. The remainder is almost always stuff I've downloaded when I couldn't afford to buy.
Meanwhile, I would never bother with iTunes, much like I would never buy music on a minidisc or a movie on UMD; my device doesn't play that format, and I have no way of repairing the damage done by the packager. That is, placing a standard media in an nonstandard container. And I don't care what you say about AAC; if I absolutely have to use a specific player to play the file, the file is non-standard.
"...And 100% of the P2P users I knew routinely bragged about the size of their collection and how much they got for "free"."
Straw man. Ignored.
"Borrowing a DVD is something completely different than P2P. What is the difference? Scale."
Really? Even when it's routine enough to amass a huge collection of free movies, TV shows and music?
"So is stealing a painting from an artist's workshop, but then you'd have to look someone in the face to do it wouldn't you? (Queue pseudo-intellectual discussion on how copying a digital work isn't theft ala the definition of a physical vs. digital object, blah, blah, blah....it is still morally equivalent to theft)"
I won't bother with this. You've dismissed an argument out of hand without registering its peculiar validity. Meanwhile, equating anything to 'morally equivalent' just shows you're operating from a very, very non-objective point of view (morals are subjective, knucklehead). This tells me that you're going to be beating the same dead horse well after logic has failed you. How very political of you.
If you want to go with 'ethically' equivalent, I'm going to have to disagree; in one case the property is removed; in the other it's not. It's closer to taking a high-resolution photograph of said painting: The artist still has his original, and it's still as valuable. Much like a DVD is just as valuable after someone's copied / watched (functionally equivalent, from the DVD's point of view) it.
Why on earth would I want a pony? I can't afford to take care of a large animal. Not to mention they're not allowed in section 8 housing.
I don't know why everyone has this assumption that file sharers are rich college kids living off their daddy's paychecks. Everyone I know who downloads illegally live month to month.
After all, a computer is a one-time expense, and $15/mo for broadband is cheaper than the cost of one DVD.
Ahh, the love of the rule of law. How ironic is is to have built a country designed to have the population control the law when some of the people are actually blind enough to follow the law to the letter - never even hoping for change.
A computer good enough to play movies costs $150. $75 if you get it used.
A 'high speed' connection (i.e., fast enough to non-painfully run bittorrent) runs about $15/mo (DSL).
The friend I reference as 'low income' makes $16k/yr and rents an apartment. He doesn't bother paying for cable, 'cos the two shows he actually watches on TV are available as torrents about an hour before they finish first-airing.
So yeah. The fact that you live around a hoarde of rich-bitches is not a denial of my point.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 1
En masse, it sounds like a good way to bankrupt the insurance industry.
Broken how? I just did a search for "William Shatner" that came up right.
Re:Don't Understand?
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"I wish they'd respect the rights of the people making the content they facilitate the downloading of"
It's not like they (the Pirate Bay) actively go out and find torrents, nor it it like they don't have torrents pointing to legal content.
It's quite literally not their job to police their users' activities; they are not required to do so by their local law.
Meanwhile, there's a separation between filesharers and customers; do you know what it is?
Income.
Example: Low income human: I do not have expendable income, but I want to see this thing. So, I use a P2P client and download it. High income human: I have expendable income, and while I know I could download it for free, the Real Thing (tm) lasts longer, doesn't occupy HD space, and has lots of extra content. Totally worth the cut into my extra cash.
It's a bit straw man of an argument, I know. Still, it comes from a conversation I was having with a couple of friends last weekend, with the lower-income'd friend borrowing and ripping the higher-income'd friend's DVDs.
You call it stealing. I call it instantaneous price repair.
I dunno. The term 'planet' is somewhat arbitrary; even if we have a definition of what a 'planet' is, the definition has to be kind of arbitrary. It's an anachronism, really. A throwback to old-world astronomy.
So? Just frigging leave it, and make sure students know that 'planets' are called such because of the era in which they were discovered.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a quick look at the contents of my sig before you assume my fanboyism.
It was a joke in good humor. If you're taking yourself too seriously, I would ask you to stop. Now.
Probably, but the 'Write Automated Troll' button would be in 32pt Arial Black
Relax. The article is just spin for the 'ooh, shiny' crowd.
Yes, I'm looking at you, mac fanboys.
Quite true.
Well, with a couple of major exceptions.
The GUI server WM are not applications; they're APIs.
"It looks like you're trying to write a slashdot post..."
Thing is, I'm fairly sure that if you CARE which AV soft you've got on, you're likely capable of reinstalling your OS.
Good.
Google's been up to some small evils (in opposition to their motto), so it's good to see them doing a big good (raising public awareness about how truly evil AOL, both as a company and as a piece of software is).
"I don't kid myself that ... copyright owners are waging some kind of immoral war against me."
0 9 g ht_Act_of_1976_ Term_Extension_Acto pyright_Act
Maybe not you in particular, but the copyright extensions that have gone through since copyright's inception in the US in 1790 seem like a plot against the customers of content creators. Read the below if you don't believe me.
REF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_179
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_190
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_C
Honestly, most of my collection is CC licensed - Loca records, for example, produces some very good stuff - or CDs from my collection. The remainder is almost always stuff I've downloaded when I couldn't afford to buy.
Meanwhile, I would never bother with iTunes, much like I would never buy music on a minidisc or a movie on UMD; my device doesn't play that format, and I have no way of repairing the damage done by the packager. That is, placing a standard media in an nonstandard container. And I don't care what you say about AAC; if I absolutely have to use a specific player to play the file, the file is non-standard.
"...And 100% of the P2P users I knew routinely bragged about the size of their collection and how much they got for "free"."
Straw man. Ignored.
"Borrowing a DVD is something completely different than P2P. What is the difference? Scale."
Really? Even when it's routine enough to amass a huge collection of free movies, TV shows and music?
"So is stealing a painting from an artist's workshop, but then you'd have to look someone in the face to do it wouldn't you? (Queue pseudo-intellectual discussion on how copying a digital work isn't theft ala the definition of a physical vs. digital object, blah, blah, blah....it is still morally equivalent to theft)"
I won't bother with this. You've dismissed an argument out of hand without registering its peculiar validity. Meanwhile, equating anything to 'morally equivalent' just shows you're operating from a very, very non-objective point of view (morals are subjective, knucklehead). This tells me that you're going to be beating the same dead horse well after logic has failed you. How very political of you.
If you want to go with 'ethically' equivalent, I'm going to have to disagree; in one case the property is removed; in the other it's not. It's closer to taking a high-resolution photograph of said painting: The artist still has his original, and it's still as valuable. Much like a DVD is just as valuable after someone's copied / watched (functionally equivalent, from the DVD's point of view) it.
Why on earth would I want a pony? I can't afford to take care of a large animal. Not to mention they're not allowed in section 8 housing.
I don't know why everyone has this assumption that file sharers are rich college kids living off their daddy's paychecks. Everyone I know who downloads illegally live month to month.
After all, a computer is a one-time expense, and $15/mo for broadband is cheaper than the cost of one DVD.
Ahh, the love of the rule of law. How ironic is is to have built a country designed to have the population control the law when some of the people are actually blind enough to follow the law to the letter - never even hoping for change.
A computer good enough to play movies costs $150. $75 if you get it used.
A 'high speed' connection (i.e., fast enough to non-painfully run bittorrent) runs about $15/mo (DSL).
The friend I reference as 'low income' makes $16k/yr and rents an apartment. He doesn't bother paying for cable, 'cos the two shows he actually watches on TV are available as torrents about an hour before they finish first-airing.
So yeah. The fact that you live around a hoarde of rich-bitches is not a denial of my point.
En masse, it sounds like a good way to bankrupt the insurance industry.
Oh, if only...
Yeah. Looked at the source. Not even an XMLHTTPRequest. No counters, no hovers, just statically drawn text.
Honestly, could it possibly have been easier to do it that way than in, say, Dreamweaver?
Aww, that means my sig has no useful content.
*pout*
True, but like you, it spread a lot of ideas about 'How can this be done better'.
Unfortunately, they took the cool title already. I guess 'P2P' is still available.
I dunno, but I'm suggesting this film to everyone I know over the age of 30; maybe it'll quell some of the stupid I've been seeing.
I prefer to think of us (I'm an X'er, actually) as the "Freedom of Information" Generations.
'Course, you appear to be a coot of some nature. Shame you posted as AC; I'd be able to 'Foe' you.
Wait a tick... when did Slashdot become Myspace?
Broken how? I just did a search for "William Shatner" that came up right.
"I wish they'd respect the rights of the people making the content they facilitate the downloading of"
It's not like they (the Pirate Bay) actively go out and find torrents, nor it it like they don't have torrents pointing to legal content.
It's quite literally not their job to police their users' activities; they are not required to do so by their local law.
Meanwhile, there's a separation between filesharers and customers; do you know what it is?
Income.
Example:
Low income human: I do not have expendable income, but I want to see this thing. So, I use a P2P client and download it.
High income human: I have expendable income, and while I know I could download it for free, the Real Thing (tm) lasts longer, doesn't occupy HD space, and has lots of extra content. Totally worth the cut into my extra cash.
It's a bit straw man of an argument, I know. Still, it comes from a conversation I was having with a couple of friends last weekend, with the lower-income'd friend borrowing and ripping the higher-income'd friend's DVDs.
You call it stealing. I call it instantaneous price repair.
"It's so biast towards file-sharing why should we take any more notice of it than what the RIAA has to say?"
Hm. Potentially because when viewing both points of view, we get an approximation of the reality concerning Filesharing?
Not the issue. The issue is the low maximum power (around 19 watts).
Feh. UF is just lame. And I've worked tech support. It's just not terribly funny.
Something Positive, on ther other hand...
I dunno. The term 'planet' is somewhat arbitrary; even if we have a definition of what a 'planet' is, the definition has to be kind of arbitrary. It's an anachronism, really. A throwback to old-world astronomy.
So? Just frigging leave it, and make sure students know that 'planets' are called such because of the era in which they were discovered.