Wouldn't they be violating the copyright laws and not me?
Well, gee, since the laws obviously state that distribution of copyrighted materials is against the law, then NO.
Your point has been made before, and the flaws too. Basically you could be duped into downloading a copyrighted work, and thrown into jail. You could say, "but it was labeled Linux Distro 2.4".
Also, you'd be allowing commerical bootlegging organizations to do what they're doing LEGALLY.
Well, Australia is certainly in the news enough about their own problems with their own version of the RIAA (ARIA?), not to mention their cable modem monopoly. I'm sure they're no Malaysia. But I was just saying, maybe in the boonies of NZ, I'd be less likely to be online and give a rat's ass anymore about this "important" stuff.
More RIAA numbers nonsense. Since when did my 1 song that someone downloaded from me magically turn into 1000 copies I let someone download?
Just maybe, maybe, you can trace my one mp3 going from one person then to 2, 4, 8, etc to 1000. But I did not do the distributing past my computer. 999 others did. They are to share in the blame for those 999 copies. Not me.
I still contend that it is cheaper to walk into Best Buy, and walk out with your blue cart completely loaded with stolen CD's, than to get caught with 3 files on your computer on Kazaa.
My first comment would be if you wanted something archived, you'd keep it out of light anyway. So maybe some instructions are all that's needed.
For some reason your glass idea reminded me of my new Princo DVD-R's. Instead of the 'silver' on top that we all know and love of most cd-r's, (that can sometimes flake off, scratch off, etc) these DVD-r's have "plastic" on top!! It's very nice to have! They will last forever in my lego, suction-cup mindstorm DVDR jukebox machine.
DVD-r is cheaper at about $40 per 215GB. (1 spindle). And will get cheaper as the months go by. (faster than drives' declining values).
It may depend on how often you actually access the archives, though. If you're accessing archives all day long, you'd want it online. But if you only check out the archives occasionally (possible break-in?, etc) then a WhereIsIt software, or even an Excel spreadsheet tying -date-camera#-dvdr# lookup would work easy.
Apparently a friend of his worked at the ad agency who were in charge of coming up with the marketing for it. He lent it to mr. hulk, who then released it on the net. So no physical property was stolen.. just borrowed. However, I agree that the "damage done" in this case would be much harder to argue (it wasn't a completely finished film yet, and people watching it were complaining that "it sucked". Now, I'm sure the movie sucked on it's own merits (I have not watch it myself) but supposedly the strings were still in the movie that moved the hulk around, etc.
Sorry, you're wrong. Logically some of the words you say make sense, but we're hardly talking about logic with the RIAA and laws...:)
Post a link where the law says it's illegal to download. You won't. Everything that's listed deals with distribution of copyrighted material. And when you request a file. You GET a file. And they are the ones GIVING it to you. They are the ones distributing it to you. One copy is on their hard drive, the other is in memory, then in the bandwidth, then on your computer, and only then do you have it.
Just like if you were to buy drugs. You are not going to get busted for distributing drugs, you'll get busted for intent to purchase. Much less of a fine. I hate analogies, sorry.
Check out the current lawsuits. People with over 1,000 songs (on average). Do they have to prove that each file was distributed? No. They only need to show that all of the files were available for distribution. Downloading is not an issue here, ---yet.
Good point, good point. The RIAA would have a hard time getting the government to back them on a sue-everyone criminal approach.
The few that have gone on, always mention that MPAA/BSA/RIAA being involved though. Luckily they seem to actually be a little more serious... although the guy who released "The Hulk" a month early got 30 some months in prison and a hefty fine. All for non-commercial gains.
Neither can a file sharer. Come on, quit being a troll and admit your numbers don't add up. They're suing people that shared up to 1000 songs (ave.) And you're insinuating it's ok to fine 150,000 dollars each because each one was downloaded 1,000 times. That's a million files shared from one person. Not possible. That's about 3.5 TB.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gee, since the laws obviously state that distribution of copyrighted materials is against the law, then NO.
Your point has been made before, and the flaws too. Basically you could be duped into downloading a copyrighted work, and thrown into jail. You could say, "but it was labeled Linux Distro 2.4".
Also, you'd be allowing commerical bootlegging organizations to do what they're doing LEGALLY.
Well, Australia is certainly in the news enough about their own problems with their own version of the RIAA (ARIA?), not to mention their cable modem monopoly. I'm sure they're no Malaysia. But I was just saying, maybe in the boonies of NZ, I'd be less likely to be online and give a rat's ass anymore about this "important" stuff.
New Zealand looks like it rocks. If you get tired of downloading mp3's, fighting the law, etc, you can just give it all up and go skiing forever.
LOL. That's funny. How do you explain the push for $500 levies on hard drives? Yea, keep burning mp3's, you won't be able afford the media or HD's.
Read the reviews at amazon, shop at buy.com!
I made 3 friends shit their pants. Thanks!
Who the hell would have signed up for that raffle!!!!!!???
Just maybe, maybe, you can trace my one mp3 going from one person then to 2, 4, 8, etc to 1000. But I did not do the distributing past my computer. 999 others did. They are to share in the blame for those 999 copies. Not me.
I still contend that it is cheaper to walk into Best Buy, and walk out with your blue cart completely loaded with stolen CD's, than to get caught with 3 files on your computer on Kazaa.
It makes you wonder if others that are getting sued, will claim they should be able to settle for $2000, also. If not... then cry foul?
Just curious where the line is drawn.
Sounds a lot like eMusic.com to me.
For some reason your glass idea reminded me of my new Princo DVD-R's. Instead of the 'silver' on top that we all know and love of most cd-r's, (that can sometimes flake off, scratch off, etc) these DVD-r's have "plastic" on top!! It's very nice to have! They will last forever in my lego, suction-cup mindstorm DVDR jukebox machine.
It may depend on how often you actually access the archives, though. If you're accessing archives all day long, you'd want it online. But if you only check out the archives occasionally (possible break-in?, etc) then a WhereIsIt software, or even an Excel spreadsheet tying -date-camera#-dvdr# lookup would work easy.
The lawsuit is actually against the mother. I know it's too tough to read these articles yourself, but there you go.
No, you'd be sued and go bankrupt. Just ask mp3.com
Ironically, you said a mountainful in your typo!!! Awesome Freudian slip. You should definately porn more often.
Apparently a friend of his worked at the ad agency who were in charge of coming up with the marketing for it. He lent it to mr. hulk, who then released it on the net. So no physical property was stolen.. just borrowed. However, I agree that the "damage done" in this case would be much harder to argue (it wasn't a completely finished film yet, and people watching it were complaining that "it sucked". Now, I'm sure the movie sucked on it's own merits (I have not watch it myself) but supposedly the strings were still in the movie that moved the hulk around, etc.
What's wrong with satelite TV?
And everyone uses an anonymous proxy server everytime they surf onto /. ????
OBVIOUSLY I meant that teachers should treat the government, Santa Claus and my parents like shit also to make up for their own inadequacies!
What's sad is if someone does do one of the things you or i mentioned, our posts could be investigated as an "obvious lead."
Post a link where the law says it's illegal to download. You won't. Everything that's listed deals with distribution of copyrighted material. And when you request a file. You GET a file. And they are the ones GIVING it to you. They are the ones distributing it to you. One copy is on their hard drive, the other is in memory, then in the bandwidth, then on your computer, and only then do you have it.
Just like if you were to buy drugs. You are not going to get busted for distributing drugs, you'll get busted for intent to purchase. Much less of a fine. I hate analogies, sorry.
Check out the current lawsuits. People with over 1,000 songs (on average). Do they have to prove that each file was distributed? No. They only need to show that all of the files were available for distribution. Downloading is not an issue here, ---yet.
The few that have gone on, always mention that MPAA/BSA/RIAA being involved though. Luckily they seem to actually be a little more serious... although the guy who released "The Hulk" a month early got 30 some months in prison and a hefty fine. All for non-commercial gains.
Neither can a file sharer. Come on, quit being a troll and admit your numbers don't add up. They're suing people that shared up to 1000 songs (ave.) And you're insinuating it's ok to fine 150,000 dollars each because each one was downloaded 1,000 times. That's a million files shared from one person. Not possible. That's about 3.5 TB.
Yea right. Are they fined $150,000 for each letter they spray painted on a wall?