I don't think it can be done or that we would want it.
The brittle nature of software is exactly where its power comes from.
One little logical variable stops or starts entire systems (like launching a rocket or stopping a car). People joke about this when they say "If the world were built like software, one woodpecker would destroy civilization".
Exactly(!) - think of the power that woodpecker would have! Natural/bio systems that are flexible, adaptable and forgiving remove that power. The rocket is ready to go but the system is sure the user couldn't have wanted to launch it on a Monday so (with its capacity for flexibility) it ignores the offending logical variable as it changes from false to true. In the example of using anti-lock brakes - it may decide to skip putting on the brakes because they're a little hot already (at the same time forgiving the user for trying to shorten the life of the brake pads). Something more classic might be the system providing some numerical answer to a division by zero just to avoid an application crash. Have fun with those results.
Well...
if you spent the same amount of time in overtime at work or
if you spent the same amount of time doing home improvements or
if you spent the same amount of time with your kids or
if you spent the same amount of time working out or
if you spent the same amount of time in night courses you would be better off (BIG time).
Buy a computer with the wireless features built in. Buy a Windows laptop (so you won't be tempted to open it up) or any Apple computer (you won't open the laptops but you'll open the desktops just to gawk) and give yourself you life back. Either way don't touch a thing inside - if it doesn't work take it back.
IT people that actually become more educated playing with (ahem, maintaining) a network at home or a plain old enthusiast should continue to spend their time breaking and fixing stuff at home.
Everyone else should realize that they paid enough already and that they shouldn't have to do anything more just to be able to use their own machine.
Generic problems like putting on make-up and shaving can be ticketed by an officer as soon as they feel it is unsafe (unsafe driving is not legal). They could (and have always been able to) ticket for video screens as soon as they feel the usage is unsafe. Now the numbers and in and some of our advances in technology are forcing our eyes from the road too often so they are sending a message (i.e. a strong one by making enforcement easy). California needs to do this because it is actually getting popular to have more and more high-tech distractions. Companies (dealers and electronic stores) just shrug their shoulders - "he wanted a TV in the dash". Now the responsibility is where it should always have been - the driver.
So where *IS* the database of companies that have used SPAM in an attempt to sell products?
HMMMmmmm I don't know - I'm just a regular person. I'm not worried about the blame game.
The point is...Once a site says "We're SPAM free." start going after any emails from anywhere that talk about the product.
Is the SPAM from them (which we'd all like to know as it would be the nail in their coffin in terms of being deceitful)? Or Is someone illegally using their trademarked material (which they would want to know about)?
Infractions don't let anyone get away with anything - good companies know they need to look good in the press - quit letting them play the "I'm a great company but I use SPAM" song. They'll shape up quickly and post a "SPAM free since December 30th, 2003" type message on their site. Them make them stick to it.
Wouldn't it be nice if companies that use SPAM as a form of advertising had to indictate that on their website (i.e. target audience has an easy way to check). Then people could vote with their $$$s and people could refuse to deal with these companies. If people seem to be getting SPAM for these companies then it would need to be investigated - either the company is lying (big fine) or someone is commiting fraud (trying to use the company's name without the company's permission).
After enough voting with their $$$s the correct situation would finally be obtained.
??? I would think I had a problem with my logic if what I was trying to do was defend my position - on the basis of needing to ensure people can do something illegal (your idea) - or if my position meant people had to do something illegal to be safe (the "right" thing). Either of those two would be a problem (of which I implied neither but you did) so I see the problem more in your area.
What I said was people may want this and they shouldn't necessarily be "spooked" about it as the "spooked" people that try to keep everything private at all costs tend to stand out from the crowd anyway.
Ah - I meant "you" as in the general "you" - not you as in you in particular. I should have been clearer - "Some people will want a system in their car that calls the paramedics and fire department when their airbag is deployed and they're knocked out." The topic indicated that they should worry about some sort of harm due to the use of the OnStar system and information collection. There are always trade-offs but if people are worried about safety in this case they can have their cake and eat it too. In the USA people can buy whichever car they think is safe (including large ones), they can use OnStar in case they get into unforeseen trouble and they can drive defensively. People have the choice and that is great.
As for what is written into law in many countries it may be true that they outlaw information gathering. It may also be necessary as these countries were previously (before some uprising) using gathered information against people in some negative way so the practice has been stopped to create trust in the new government. Eventually they will want a system to gather information - say like a system that monitors people's credit worthiness. If they don't no one will be able to buy a car or a house except people with the cash. (Quick, raise your hand if you have enough cash to buy a house outright - see.) The people in the country will realize that if they don't allow the monitoring they'll live in the stone ages forever.
Internet voting is a very bad idea. People have died (are dying) for this right. To have it taken away by a successful technocrat is unacceptable. Real paper ballots that need to be counted and can be stored (and found in some deceitful persons trunk) are much better than the arguments that will emerge after every single election when even a hint of hacking (cracking) has appeared.
You want a system in your car that calls the paramedics and fire department when your airbag is deployed and you're knocked out. But hey - that may monitor your location (start getting paranoid). Let's not do anything that might gather some information! I suppose the practice in some poor areas of giving a free cell phone to a nearly ready to pop pregnant woman should be stopped - the government may find out how many children we're really having. Does anything of a legal nature you're doing really need that much privacy?
It's funny, for all of the people doing illegal things trying so hard to keep things private - they're actually easier to identify that way.
Who is suspected? The guy with $10,000 in a (traceable) checking account or the guy with $10,000 in cash in the trunk of his car? The guy that has credit card receipts, FasTrak bill, cell phone calls from where he said he was and so on or the guy that avoided anything and everything that would provide any details as to his location.
It isn't just the police that get interested when nothing can be dug up on someone.
These people probably aren't the best date material either: "I like to be able to step out with no way for you to contact me with our untraceable cash." "I know you want a cell phone for when we go through a bad part of town but with one satellite and two helicopters they triangulate our position." "Yes, my middle initials are AKA." or the famous "never ask me about my business".
The subject is "An interesting question at this point" - not - "Please attack anyone asking this question".
An interesting answer to the question is a comparison between the memory erasure situation and the insanity defense. Let's say some insane person fits both your A and B (they did kill someone and it was caught on live TV with all of America watching). In both situations we have proof that the persons body committed the act of murder and we know that using the insanity defense you can avoid being found guilty of murder. Insane people don't necessarily have intent and can't make choices correctly about what is right and wrong with their actions. In the memory erasure situation the only times you had intent were erased and you also don't know why any choices were made. A jury may let you off based on that. - on the other hand - An uninteresting personal attack wasn't what was being looked for. I wasn't trying to "one up" anything - you must be a very competitive person. This is a bad situation for you to be in as the test for being guilty of murder (your A and B which you based you entire argument on) doesn't work for obvious known counter examples (like the insanity defense).
Let this be a lesson to you, just because sometimes people don't answer back doesn't mean you are somehow correct - it may mean you're so wrong they don't see a chance of salvation so they just move on. I'm already beginning to wonder the same thing.
I didn't mean to have anyone get hung up on the text "new person". My point is that if you go to bed January 1st without any intent of harming anyone and then wake up May 1st and are told you've committed murder are you guilty or innocent of murder?
What do you do with someone that planned for 3 months to commit murder and then erases the last 4 months of their memory? This new person (post erasure) is innocent.
Disney: BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
Me: Thousands and Thousands
--> Copy DVD from Buddy Instead of Paying $20
At the end of the transaction Disney: BILLIONS AND BILLIONS but not $20 you owe them Me: Thousands and Thousands and you still have the $20 you owe them When a hundreds of thousands of people do this release after release your talking about a real dent in the Disney stock price which hurts regular people.
OR you could use your argument like this
IRS/US Government: MANY BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
Me: Thousands and Thousands
--> I skip paying taxes
At the end of the transaction IRS/US Government: MANY BILLIONS AND BILLIONs Me: Thousands and Thousands
I bet less people agree with this method of argument stated this way. Please/. with your wits about you from now on.
Yes, I'm funny (sometimes).
The analogy is NOT wrong - in the illegal case the person that pirated the DVD still has his/her $19.95 and the movie while some other entity (or entities - I simplified things by calling it a "DVD Company") has nothing (analogies generally involve simplifications to get points across). Legally the DVD Company should have the money. It is pretty clear - the money is why they made the DVD in the first place - obviously they're going to want it.
Nope.
Your ex-wife owns the DVD. If you're truly divorced then she is in a separate household.
He can bring it with him to watch but she can't make a copy and hand it to you (duh - that's illegal) under fair use laws (which only allow her to make a full backup copy for her own use). Guess what? No one would care if she made a copy and gave it to you - its like jay walking. I can't imagine a police agency worrying about this at all. It is when people take a seemingly harmless example like this (where someone says it is okay - notice I didn't) and tries to apply the parts about making copies and handing them out to other situations that worries everyone. "My son visits everyone on the street and may want to watch the movie - DVD blanks cost a lot so I'll make it accessible on the Internet for all of my neighbors." Oops.
Source code escrow has been around for a long time. Why do companies in India want to use it now? Come on, companies have been trying to use source code control systems (SCCS) for a while to parse out sub-projects to groups in India to work on ("offshore" is sometimes a name for this practice). This is done specifically to ensure that companies outside the USA do not have access to the full source code base for a particular product. This is their (people in India) way of fighting back. Once a small company (someone's brother) enters into one of these agreements then all source associated with the "failed" project is now in escrow and must be handed over (as a full usable product) under the legal system in India and the legal system of the USA (watch, they'll demand and get source code to major systems in the future - not just the portions developed in India). You can argue all you want but however they get it (legally or illegally) it will be theirs under Indian law and there is no reason they can't sell their wares (legally) in the USA. I learned this in a ClearCase course where a large US organization was planning on having a non-US company do a lot of work for them. It seemed odd to me then but clear to me now that this is a very dangerous way to work. Show this email to your CTO the next time someone from the executive thinks saving a few bucks in India is a good idea! (I'm being serious.)
Huh?!?!
You said that after you download a movie a sale is not prevented (that people can still buy that DVD in the store).
Then I said you prevented a sale to yourself (i.e. it doesn't appear that you're going to mail a check somewhere after you've obtained it for free). The download is done, you have the movie and you're not going to pay for the movie so a sale has been prevented (i.e. the store should have made two sales - to you and a second DVD to the person that actually purchased the DVD you were looking at).
About the assumption on whether you would buy the DVD if it weren't available for free on the Internet. This new assumption you're bringing in to play doesn't fit our little scenario and I don't think I've been using the assumption. This is the case where you're arguing you may not be willing to purchase the DVD if you couldn't pirate it - fine - don't buy it, that is your right. That means that you can't have the movie (can't download it and won't buy it) so there is no problem.
That assumption clarifies everything (you either buy it or you don't, just like a cup of coffee or a doughnut) but there doesn't seem to be a technical way to stop people from downloading so it isn't a very good case to worry about.
Sure I can compare it:
Assume my bank account has the cost of a DVD in it ($19.95) and so does yours (and we live in a state with no sales tax). Then two paths are taken - one legal (you buy a DVD and I'm just surfing the net) and one illegal (no physical transfers so nothing is really lost but someone named Ted transfers my bank account into his empty account and you download a DVD for free and further assume that it would have been the first sale of that DVD on earth). Beginning account balances
My account $19.95
DVD company's account $0.0
Your account:$19.95
Ted's account:$0.0 Ending account balances (legal)
My account $19.95
DVD company's account $19.95
Your account:$0.0
Ted's account:$0.0 Ending account balances (with thefts)
My account $0.0
DVD company's account $0.0
Your account:$19.95
Ted's account:$19.95
(Sorry if your name is Ted as this would get confusing.)
So on the legal route me and the DVD company have our money vs. the illegal route - you and Ted have our money and to us our money is "gone". Neither me nor the DVD company knows where our money is. We may find out later. I could be contacted by the bank about Ted and told that he's in jail and all of my money is spent. The DVD company may be contacted by the police and given a list of people that illegally downloaded the DVD from some site they were monitoring. The money is just as "gone" for both of us.
You added the monthly call rates to imply something about the total subscribers? Then you used those bad numbers to imply something about what happens to OnStar subscribers as a subset of the population? I guess we should think of your initial calculations as suspect since the total number of subscribers is actually in the millions. Many people probably just view OnStar as a safety feature and use the basic $16.95 service as a "just in case" so don't actually call the service on a regular basis. The $34.95 premium service makes dinner reservations and gives directions - these people probably call a lot.
The prevention of the sale is to you. You've seen the movie and they do not have their money. The "physical property" argument doesn't work. If someone transfers the contents of my bank account to their account no physical transfer took place. That is theft but not copyright infringement. I see copyright infringement as something that can be compared to theft as people spend time and effort to create something and then others take it for free. It is not exactly the same and needs different enforcement but it is similar.
I agree, you did not say it was justified. I think people are reacting to the idea that came into their own heads (including mine) that the statement "You can figure it out." after indicating the cost of a DVD is high for yourself implies that pirating DVDs (the original topic) is (at least partially) justified. If you didn't mean to justify DVD pirating but wanted instead to express both of your ideas then you probably should have said
"Price - the cost of a DVD is several hours pay where I am. Downloading movies from the Internet doesn't constitute the loss of a sale."
I still think people would think you're trying to end up seeing the movie without paying for it and that you'd end up with about the same response.
"If I borrow a Video Cassette Tape or DVD disc to watch, its legal for me to make a copy for personal use." In the USA this is sometimes true and sometimes not. It is true for most educational TV rebroadcasts from PBS - it is not currently true for The Matrix DVDs. (fair use != freely copy) if fair use meant freely copy we all would have heard about it a long time ago. Judgment must be used but recent popular blockbusters not yet available on TV can probably not be copied in their entirety under fair use rules (note that about the only person that can make a full copy is the owner of the item for their own use as a backup under fair use).
In terms of copying your buddy's DVD I'm not sure that I or anyone else cares about that. It is when the definition of your buddy turns in to whoever has access to your website/PC or whoever appears on a street corner with five extra bucks that people are worried about. (i.e. The Judge may not believe the buddy story if he/she was able to get a copy.)
Slashdot Mirror
The brittle nature of software is exactly where its power comes from.
One little logical variable stops or starts entire systems (like launching a rocket or stopping a car). People joke about this when they say "If the world were built like software, one woodpecker would destroy civilization".
Exactly(!) - think of the power that woodpecker would have! Natural/bio systems that are flexible, adaptable and forgiving remove that power. The rocket is ready to go but the system is sure the user couldn't have wanted to launch it on a Monday so (with its capacity for flexibility) it ignores the offending logical variable as it changes from false to true. In the example of using anti-lock brakes - it may decide to skip putting on the brakes because they're a little hot already (at the same time forgiving the user for trying to shorten the life of the brake pads). Something more classic might be the system providing some numerical answer to a division by zero just to avoid an application crash. Have fun with those results.
you should have bought the extended warrenty.
So if it wasn't important enough to sue over, don't (quit making lawyers rich).
Well...
if you spent the same amount of time in overtime at work or
if you spent the same amount of time doing home improvements or
if you spent the same amount of time with your kids or
if you spent the same amount of time working out or
if you spent the same amount of time in night courses
you would be better off (BIG time).
Buy a computer with the wireless features built in.
Buy a Windows laptop (so you won't be tempted to open it up)
or any Apple computer (you won't open the laptops but you'll open the desktops just to gawk)
and give yourself you life back.
Either way don't touch a thing inside - if it doesn't work take it back.
IT people that actually become more educated playing with (ahem, maintaining)
a network at home or a plain old enthusiast should continue to
spend their time breaking and fixing stuff at home.
Everyone else should realize that they paid enough already and that they shouldn't have to do
anything more just to be able to use their own machine.
Generic problems like putting on make-up and shaving can be ticketed by an officer as soon as they feel it is unsafe (unsafe driving is not legal).
They could (and have always been able to) ticket for video screens as soon as they feel the usage is unsafe.
Now the numbers and in and some of our advances in technology are forcing our eyes from the road too often so they are sending a message (i.e. a strong one by making enforcement easy).
California needs to do this because it is actually getting popular to have more and more high-tech distractions.
Companies (dealers and electronic stores) just shrug their shoulders - "he wanted a TV in the dash".
Now the responsibility is where it should always have been - the driver.
HHHHmmmmm.....
So where *IS* the database of companies that have used SPAM in an attempt to sell products?
HMMMmmmm I don't know - I'm just a regular person.
I'm not worried about the blame game.
The point is...Once a site says "We're SPAM free." start going after any emails from anywhere that talk about the product.
Is the SPAM from them (which we'd all like to know as it would be the nail in their coffin in terms of being deceitful)?
Or
Is someone illegally using their trademarked material (which they would want to know about)?
Infractions don't let anyone get away with anything - good companies know they need to look good in the press - quit letting them play the "I'm a great company but I use SPAM" song. They'll shape up quickly and post a "SPAM free since December 30th, 2003" type message on their site. Them make them stick to it.
is just another SPAMmers new mailing list.
This is all driven by money.
Wouldn't it be nice if companies that use SPAM as a form of advertising had to indictate that on their website (i.e. target audience has an easy way to check).
Then people could vote with their $$$s and people could refuse to deal with these companies.
If people seem to be getting SPAM for these companies then it would need to be investigated - either the company is lying (big fine) or someone is commiting fraud (trying to use the company's name without the company's permission).
After enough voting with their $$$s the correct situation would finally be obtained.
???
I would think I had a problem with my logic if what I was trying to do was defend my position
- on the basis of needing to ensure people can do something illegal (your idea)
- or if my position meant people had to do something illegal to be safe (the "right" thing).
Either of those two would be a problem (of which I implied neither but you did) so I see the problem more in your area.
What I said was people may want this and they shouldn't necessarily be "spooked" about it as the "spooked" people that try to keep everything private at all costs tend to stand out from the crowd anyway.
Ah - I meant "you" as in the general "you" - not you as in you in particular.
I should have been clearer - "Some people will want a system in their car that calls the paramedics and fire department when their airbag is deployed and they're knocked out." The topic indicated that they should worry about some sort of harm due to the use of the OnStar system and information collection.
There are always trade-offs but if people are worried about safety in this case they can have their cake and eat it too. In the USA people can buy whichever car they think is safe (including large ones), they can use OnStar in case they get into unforeseen trouble and they can drive defensively. People have the choice and that is great.
As for what is written into law in many countries it may be true that they outlaw information gathering. It may also be necessary as these countries were previously (before some uprising) using gathered information against people in some negative way so the practice has been stopped to create trust in the new government. Eventually they will want a system to gather information - say like a system that monitors people's credit worthiness.
If they don't no one will be able to buy a car or a house except people with the cash. (Quick, raise your hand if you have enough cash to buy a house outright - see.) The people in the country will realize that if they don't allow the monitoring they'll live in the stone ages forever.
Internet voting is a very bad idea.
People have died (are dying) for this right.
To have it taken away by a successful technocrat is unacceptable.
Real paper ballots that need to be counted and can be stored
(and found in some deceitful persons trunk)
are much better than the arguments that will emerge after every single election
when even a hint of hacking (cracking) has appeared.
You want a system in your car that calls the paramedics and fire department when your airbag is deployed and you're knocked out. But hey - that may monitor your location (start getting paranoid).
Let's not do anything that might gather some information!
I suppose the practice in some poor areas of giving a free cell phone to a nearly ready to pop pregnant woman should be stopped - the government may find out how many children we're really having.
Does anything of a legal nature you're doing really need that much privacy?
It's funny, for all of the people doing illegal things trying so hard to keep things private - they're actually easier to identify that way.
Who is suspected?
The guy with $10,000 in a (traceable) checking account or the guy with $10,000 in cash in the trunk of his car?
The guy that has credit card receipts, FasTrak bill, cell phone calls from where he said he was and so on or the guy that avoided anything and everything that would provide any details as to his location.
It isn't just the police that get interested when nothing can be dug up on someone.
These people probably aren't the best date material either:
"I like to be able to step out with no way for you to contact me with our untraceable cash."
"I know you want a cell phone for when we go through a bad part of town but with one satellite and two helicopters they triangulate our position."
"Yes, my middle initials are AKA."
or the famous "never ask me about my business".
The subject is
"An interesting question at this point"
- not -
"Please attack anyone asking this question".
An interesting answer to the question is a comparison between the memory erasure situation and the insanity defense. Let's say some insane person fits both your A and B (they did kill someone and it was caught on live TV with all of America watching). In both situations we have proof that the persons body committed the act of murder and we know that using the insanity defense you can avoid being found guilty of murder. Insane people don't necessarily have intent and can't make choices correctly about what is right and wrong with their actions. In the memory erasure situation the only times you had intent were erased and you also don't know why any choices were made. A jury may let you off based on that.
- on the other hand -
An uninteresting personal attack wasn't what was being looked for. I wasn't trying to "one up" anything - you must be a very competitive person. This is a bad situation for you to be in as the test for being guilty of murder (your A and B which you based you entire argument on) doesn't work for obvious known counter examples (like the insanity defense).
Let this be a lesson to you, just because sometimes people don't answer back doesn't mean you are somehow correct - it may mean you're so wrong they don't see a chance of salvation so they just move on. I'm already beginning to wonder the same thing.
I didn't mean to have anyone get hung up on the text "new person". My point is that if you go to bed January 1st without any intent of harming anyone and then wake up May 1st and are told you've committed murder are you guilty or innocent of murder?
What do you do with someone that planned for 3 months to commit murder and then erases the last 4 months of their memory?
This new person (post erasure) is innocent.
You first
Complete and utter fallacy!
/. with your wits about you from now on.
Disney: BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
Me: Thousands and Thousands
--> Copy DVD from Buddy Instead of Paying $20
At the end of the transaction
Disney: BILLIONS AND BILLIONS but not $20 you owe them
Me: Thousands and Thousands and you still have the $20 you owe them
When a hundreds of thousands of people do this release after release your talking about a real dent in the Disney stock price which hurts regular people.
OR you could use your argument like this
IRS/US Government: MANY BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
Me: Thousands and Thousands
--> I skip paying taxes
At the end of the transaction
IRS/US Government: MANY BILLIONS AND BILLIONs
Me: Thousands and Thousands
I bet less people agree with this method of argument stated this way.
Please
Takes one to know one :)
Yes, I'm funny (sometimes).
The analogy is NOT wrong - in the illegal case the person that pirated the DVD still has his/her $19.95 and the movie while some other entity (or entities - I simplified things by calling it a "DVD Company") has nothing (analogies generally involve simplifications to get points across). Legally the DVD Company should have the money. It is pretty clear - the money is why they made the DVD in the first place - obviously they're going to want it.
Nope.
Your ex-wife owns the DVD. If you're truly divorced then she is in a separate household.
He can bring it with him to watch but she can't make a copy and hand it to you (duh - that's illegal) under fair use laws (which only allow her to make a full backup copy for her own use).
Guess what? No one would care if she made a copy and gave it to you - its like jay walking. I can't imagine a police agency worrying about this at all.
It is when people take a seemingly harmless example like this (where someone says it is okay - notice I didn't) and tries to apply the parts about making copies and handing them out to other situations that worries everyone. "My son visits everyone on the street and may want to watch the movie - DVD blanks cost a lot so I'll make it accessible on the Internet for all of my neighbors." Oops.
Source code escrow has been around for a long time.
Why do companies in India want to use it now?
Come on, companies have been trying to use source code control systems (SCCS) for a while to parse out sub-projects to groups in India to work on ("offshore" is sometimes a name for this practice).
This is done specifically to ensure that companies outside the USA do not have access to the full source code base for a particular product.
This is their (people in India) way of fighting back. Once a small company (someone's brother) enters into one of these agreements then all source associated with the "failed" project is now in escrow and must be handed over (as a full usable product) under the legal system in India and the legal system of the USA (watch, they'll demand and get source code to major systems in the future - not just the portions developed in India).
You can argue all you want but however they get it (legally or illegally) it will be theirs under Indian law and there is no reason they can't sell their wares (legally) in the USA.
I learned this in a ClearCase course where a large US organization was planning on having a non-US company do a lot of work for them. It seemed odd to me then but clear to me now that this is a very dangerous way to work.
Show this email to your CTO the next time someone from the executive thinks saving a few bucks in India is a good idea! (I'm being serious.)
Huh?!?!
You said that after you download a movie a sale is not prevented (that people can still buy that DVD in the store).
Then I said you prevented a sale to yourself (i.e. it doesn't appear that you're going to mail a check somewhere after you've obtained it for free).
The download is done, you have the movie and you're not going to pay for the movie so a sale has been prevented (i.e. the store should have made two sales - to you and a second DVD to the person that actually purchased the DVD you were looking at).
About the assumption on whether you would buy the DVD if it weren't available for free on the Internet.
This new assumption you're bringing in to play doesn't fit our little scenario and I don't think I've been using the assumption.
This is the case where you're arguing you may not be willing to purchase the DVD if you couldn't pirate it - fine - don't buy it, that is your right.
That means that you can't have the movie (can't download it and won't buy it) so there is no problem.
That assumption clarifies everything (you either buy it or you don't, just like a cup of coffee or a doughnut) but there doesn't seem to be a technical way to stop people from downloading so it isn't a very good case to worry about.
Sure I can compare it:
Assume my bank account has the cost of a DVD in it ($19.95) and so does yours (and we live in a state with no sales tax). Then two paths are taken - one legal (you buy a DVD and I'm just surfing the net) and one illegal (no physical transfers so nothing is really lost but someone named Ted transfers my bank account into his empty account and you download a DVD for free and further assume that it would have been the first sale of that DVD on earth).
Beginning account balances
My account $19.95
DVD company's account $0.0
Your account:$19.95
Ted's account:$0.0
Ending account balances (legal)
My account $19.95
DVD company's account $19.95
Your account:$0.0
Ted's account:$0.0
Ending account balances (with thefts)
My account $0.0
DVD company's account $0.0
Your account:$19.95
Ted's account:$19.95
(Sorry if your name is Ted as this would get confusing.)
So on the legal route me and the DVD company have our money vs. the illegal route - you and Ted have our money and to us our money is "gone". Neither me nor the DVD company knows where our money is. We may find out later. I could be contacted by the bank about Ted and told that he's in jail and all of my money is spent. The DVD company may be contacted by the police and given a list of people that illegally downloaded the DVD from some site they were monitoring. The money is just as "gone" for both of us.
You added the monthly call rates to imply something about the total subscribers?
Then you used those bad numbers to imply something about what happens to OnStar subscribers as a subset of the population?
I guess we should think of your initial calculations as suspect since the total number of subscribers is actually in the millions.
Many people probably just view OnStar as a safety feature and use the basic $16.95 service as a "just in case" so don't actually call the service on a regular basis.
The $34.95 premium service makes dinner reservations and gives directions - these people probably call a lot.
The prevention of the sale is to you.
You've seen the movie and they do not have their money.
The "physical property" argument doesn't work. If someone transfers the contents of my bank account to their account no physical transfer took place. That is theft but not copyright infringement. I see copyright infringement as something that can be compared to theft as people spend time and effort to create something and then others take it for free. It is not exactly the same and needs different enforcement but it is similar.
I agree, you did not say it was justified.
I think people are reacting to the idea that came into their own heads (including mine) that the statement "You can figure it out." after indicating the cost of a DVD is high for yourself implies that pirating DVDs (the original topic) is (at least partially) justified. If you didn't mean to justify DVD pirating but wanted instead to express both of your ideas then you probably should have said
"Price - the cost of a DVD is several hours pay where I am. Downloading movies from the Internet doesn't constitute the loss of a sale."
I still think people would think you're trying to end up seeing the movie without paying for it and that you'd end up with about the same response.
"If I borrow a Video Cassette Tape or DVD disc to watch, its legal for me to make a copy for personal use."
In the USA this is sometimes true and sometimes not.
It is true for most educational TV rebroadcasts from PBS - it is not currently true for The Matrix DVDs.
(fair use != freely copy) if fair use meant freely copy we all would have heard about it a long time ago.
Judgment must be used but recent popular blockbusters not yet available on TV can probably not be copied in their entirety under fair use rules (note that about the only person that can make a full copy is the owner of the item for their own use as a backup under fair use).
In terms of copying your buddy's DVD I'm not sure that I or anyone else cares about that.
It is when the definition of your buddy turns in to whoever has access to your website/PC or whoever appears on a street corner with five extra bucks that people are worried about. (i.e. The Judge may not believe the buddy story if he/she was able to get a copy.)