A simplistic juvenile answer. Here are a few rebuttals.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's not stealing. "Stealing music" is a phrase invented by groups like the RIAA to try an justify their actions to the general public. Only the truly gullible and terminally stupid (i.e. you) really believe them. If you want proof that copyright infringement is not stealing, then simply look at the papers the RIAA filed. "Theft" is not the offence these mothers have been accused of. QED, copyright infringement is not theft.
Your post assumes that these mothers are guilty of the 'crime' they have been accused of. They way the RIAA spin in, it's beholden on the accused to prove their innocence. This act is directly counter to the principles that many legal systems were founded upon; notably - that one is innocent until proven guilty.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. All the mothers can hope to do in this case is prove that they didn't use P2P applications or have music on their machines they didn't have a legal right to. This doesn't prove they weren't sharing music at the time the RIAA alledge.
The RIAA should be made to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
These files they alledge were shared were on the computer belonging to the accused.
That the files contained tracks for which the copyright is owned by an RIAA-affiliated organisation who has specifically given the RIAA enforcement powers.
That the files had been placed in a shared directory through a deliberate interactive action, not placed their automatically by an application / trojan, etc.
Late 1600s? My American history may not be THAT good, but I'm pretty sure that the US did not become independent from the UK until 1776. I wonder what "senators" the quote is talking about then. Britain doesn't have senators, it has Members of Parliament, or Members of the House of Lords.
But of course, this quote does come from the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms...
The ability to do everything from the command-line will begin to become adopted from Win2k3 R2 (yes, I know it's an logical impossibility) and will - apparently - be there with Longhorn server.
People are posting and saying that they have fiancees, and do exercise? Where is the pasty-faced poster of days gone by. You know the one; his right arm gets significantly more exercise than his left...
One big monitor, three smaller ones, projection screens...
It all depends on personal preferences, what sort of coding you're doing and a whole number of other factors that no number of/.ers are going to be able to predict.
For me, I prefer two large monitors. Most of my coding (XHTML and ASP - don't laugh) is done using Homesite. I have another monitor there for running Mozilla and Photoshop.
I don't like working directly with projection screens as I don't touch type properly and like to have a relatively small distance between my keyboard and screen.
But then... I'm not you! If you have got a pile of cash to spend on it, become friendly with your local computer store and take some things home for try-outs.
Except that Windows XP Pro already can join a domain , and manage it if you install the freely available Windows Server 2003 admin pack. It's already compatible with NetWare and SNMP. You can already Remote Desktop into it (if you tick the right boxes) and it has a slimmed down (one site only) version of IIS on it too. EFS is also supported.
The small business edition is more interesting. Shadown copy might prove useful, and anything that replaces the god-awful workgroup-style networking and resource sharing has to be a god-send.
Yes, simply because the RI Ass. A's members (i.e. a whole bunch of record companies) have assigned the RI Ass. A permission to protect and enforce their copyrights.
Not true. You only break the law if you distribute it.
The ability to distribute is not illegal. The lawsuit filed against Mrs. Santangelo alledges that she "uploaded" the songs. Uploading is an act of transfering something off a computer you control to another machine. By placing these files in a shared folder (willingly or not) she did not upload anything. When these files were grabbed by other P2P users (indeed - were they grabbed?) she did not upload them - she downloaded them.
If there was an offence of 'inducement to infringe copyright' the RI Ass. A might have a case. At present, the case is based around supposition.
Not to mention that sharing legal content via P2P would make the RI Ass. A's job even more difficult. Fancy having to browse through 1000 tracks of legal content to find one that might be infringing...
They'd do the same thing that you do every time the battery in your car dies. Get someone to come round and jump-start you.
'Legacy' keys (the term will come around, never fear) might have the advantage that you can open the car when the battery's stoned... but you still can't start the bugger.
Except that the RIAA are not suing people who 'steal' music. They're suing people that offer music for download - those that have 1000s of tracks in their shared directories.
I have thousands of tracks on my computer too, but the majority of them (around 400 CDs worth) are ripped from my own CDs. Ones that I have spent my money on.
This is precisely why the RIAA are not able to alledge these people have 'stolen' music. They might very well have bought the CDs or legally downloaded the tracks.
Now consider this: most software that you buy (i.e. non Open-Source) comes with a shrink-wrap or click-wrap licence. Before installation, one has to agree to a (usually restrictive) EULA. You are therefore under no misconceptions as to what you can and cannot do with that software (not reading the EULA is entirely your problem). You have, essentially, entered into a contract with the software company. This gives them rights to sue you for breach of contract should you break the T&Cs you agreed to.
If I buy a CD, did I agree to anything? I don't remember ever having been asked to sign a contract or agree to conditions before purchase, or before playing that CD? Sure, there's a copyright notice there somewhere, but that doesn't mean I've agreed to it. And considering contractual obligations have to be entered into freely, the RIAA cannot assume that by purchasing the CD (especially when purchased online where I couldn't read the copyright notice even if I was aware of its existence) I have agreed to anything at all.
So it all comes down to copyright legislation. There is no special terms under which the RIAA can distribute its music (on CD anyway - dunno about download services). Copyright is there to protect the orginates and provides a means to exact redress from those that break that copyright. Does a person who rips tracks to computer hard drive break the copyright? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure that the RIAA have not been able to ever sue someone for format shifting. Now, if the location on the hard drive the music's in happens to be shared, that doesn't affect the music it all. It just allows someone else to grab a copy. It's the person downloading that breaks the copyright, not the person sharing it.
The most the RIAA should be able to alledge is that the sharer was inducing copyright infringement. But that's not an offence, either criminal or civil. If it was, Apple, Creative, iRiver, etc. would be in deep shit.
Although bringing out the GIMP might be mildly amusing, I think Google would be far better to call it, with clarity and honesty, the Google Advertising Integration Network. GAIN for short.
Nice tie in with another company famed for its "Do No^h^hLots of Evil Policy"
Then how come NZ, like the rest of the English-speaking world, is stuck with English (Yank) as the only option for the GUI. Color, Neighborhood, Favorites, etc etc
It just occurred to me: why is quitting Microsoft and moving over to Linux and trying to find replacements for all the old programs and games you used to use make you a better person?
Are you going to give up cars and exclusively use public transport? Are you going to stop usng electricity and move back to heat and light from whale oil? Why add extra complication and hassle to your life than you need (and re-learning how to do common tasks in Linux is a hassle when you're used to the way Windows works).
Going open source is not going to cure cancer, bring about world peace and prevent N Sync from releasing a best-of album. It just means you've saved yourself a few bucks and reduced Microsoft's profits by 0.0000001%.
I never said it was the US's fault. In fact, all I was responding to was the comment about how one NFL team had a bigger fanbase than all of CFL and AFL combined.
You obviously have little idea how much of a following AFL has. Even when the big rugby matches are on, the Sydney press is all AFL. Melbourne has a huge AFL following, and the sport has a significant number of fans in both New Zealand and the UK.
Remembering that the population of Australia and New Zealand combined is only about 30 million, I'd say ten million fans would be a fair number to target.
There's got to be something good about a game where the standard tackle's a right hook, rather than Yank Football, where the players are so heavily padded they wouldn't notice if they got hit by a Mack truck.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's not stealing. "Stealing music" is a phrase invented by groups like the RIAA to try an justify their actions to the general public. Only the truly gullible and terminally stupid (i.e. you) really believe them. If you want proof that copyright infringement is not stealing, then simply look at the papers the RIAA filed. "Theft" is not the offence these mothers have been accused of. QED, copyright infringement is not theft.
Your post assumes that these mothers are guilty of the 'crime' they have been accused of. They way the RIAA spin in, it's beholden on the accused to prove their innocence. This act is directly counter to the principles that many legal systems were founded upon; notably - that one is innocent until proven guilty.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. All the mothers can hope to do in this case is prove that they didn't use P2P applications or have music on their machines they didn't have a legal right to. This doesn't prove they weren't sharing music at the time the RIAA alledge.
The RIAA should be made to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
Late 1600s? My American history may not be THAT good, but I'm pretty sure that the US did not become independent from the UK until 1776. I wonder what "senators" the quote is talking about then. Britain doesn't have senators, it has Members of Parliament, or Members of the House of Lords.
But of course, this quote does come from the American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms...
The ability to do everything from the command-line will begin to become adopted from Win2k3 R2 (yes, I know it's an logical impossibility) and will - apparently - be there with Longhorn server.
People are posting and saying that they have fiancees, and do exercise? Where is the pasty-faced poster of days gone by. You know the one; his right arm gets significantly more exercise than his left...
It all depends on personal preferences, what sort of coding you're doing and a whole number of other factors that no number of /.ers are going to be able to predict.
For me, I prefer two large monitors. Most of my coding (XHTML and ASP - don't laugh) is done using Homesite. I have another monitor there for running Mozilla and Photoshop.
I don't like working directly with projection screens as I don't touch type properly and like to have a relatively small distance between my keyboard and screen.
But then ... I'm not you! If you have got a pile of cash to spend on it, become friendly with your local computer store and take some things home for try-outs.
AAAAAA+++++!!!!11111 - was realy good and fixd my puter without an+++NO CARRIER+++
The small business edition is more interesting. Shadown copy might prove useful, and anything that replaces the god-awful workgroup-style networking and resource sharing has to be a god-send.
Seems like a real expensive way of novelty balloons...
Yes, simply because the RI Ass. A's members (i.e. a whole bunch of record companies) have assigned the RI Ass. A permission to protect and enforce their copyrights.
The ability to distribute is not illegal. The lawsuit filed against Mrs. Santangelo alledges that she "uploaded" the songs. Uploading is an act of transfering something off a computer you control to another machine. By placing these files in a shared folder (willingly or not) she did not upload anything. When these files were grabbed by other P2P users (indeed - were they grabbed?) she did not upload them - she downloaded them.
If there was an offence of 'inducement to infringe copyright' the RI Ass. A might have a case. At present, the case is based around supposition.
Not to mention that sharing legal content via P2P would make the RI Ass. A's job even more difficult. Fancy having to browse through 1000 tracks of legal content to find one that might be infringing...
'Legacy' keys (the term will come around, never fear) might have the advantage that you can open the car when the battery's stoned ... but you still can't start the bugger.
I have thousands of tracks on my computer too, but the majority of them (around 400 CDs worth) are ripped from my own CDs. Ones that I have spent my money on.
This is precisely why the RIAA are not able to alledge these people have 'stolen' music. They might very well have bought the CDs or legally downloaded the tracks.
Now consider this: most software that you buy (i.e. non Open-Source) comes with a shrink-wrap or click-wrap licence. Before installation, one has to agree to a (usually restrictive) EULA. You are therefore under no misconceptions as to what you can and cannot do with that software (not reading the EULA is entirely your problem). You have, essentially, entered into a contract with the software company. This gives them rights to sue you for breach of contract should you break the T&Cs you agreed to.
If I buy a CD, did I agree to anything? I don't remember ever having been asked to sign a contract or agree to conditions before purchase, or before playing that CD? Sure, there's a copyright notice there somewhere, but that doesn't mean I've agreed to it. And considering contractual obligations have to be entered into freely, the RIAA cannot assume that by purchasing the CD (especially when purchased online where I couldn't read the copyright notice even if I was aware of its existence) I have agreed to anything at all.
So it all comes down to copyright legislation. There is no special terms under which the RIAA can distribute its music (on CD anyway - dunno about download services). Copyright is there to protect the orginates and provides a means to exact redress from those that break that copyright. Does a person who rips tracks to computer hard drive break the copyright? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure that the RIAA have not been able to ever sue someone for format shifting. Now, if the location on the hard drive the music's in happens to be shared, that doesn't affect the music it all. It just allows someone else to grab a copy. It's the person downloading that breaks the copyright, not the person sharing it.
The most the RIAA should be able to alledge is that the sharer was inducing copyright infringement. But that's not an offence, either criminal or civil. If it was, Apple, Creative, iRiver, etc. would be in deep shit.
Anyway ... do long posts equal mod points?
Real men use Windows. Perfect driver support for viewing all types of pr0n
Both. Tasmania is part of the continent of Australasia (which includes New Zealand), and it's a separate state within the Commonwealth of Australia.
So it's NASA's fault there's nothing on the 57 channels available?
Nice tie in with another company famed for its "Do No^h^hLots of Evil Policy"
Way to go, dumbass ;)
Then how come NZ, like the rest of the English-speaking world, is stuck with English (Yank) as the only option for the GUI. Color, Neighborhood, Favorites, etc etc
Are you going to give up cars and exclusively use public transport? Are you going to stop usng electricity and move back to heat and light from whale oil? Why add extra complication and hassle to your life than you need (and re-learning how to do common tasks in Linux is a hassle when you're used to the way Windows works).
Going open source is not going to cure cancer, bring about world peace and prevent N Sync from releasing a best-of album. It just means you've saved yourself a few bucks and reduced Microsoft's profits by 0.0000001%.
I never said it was the US's fault. In fact, all I was responding to was the comment about how one NFL team had a bigger fanbase than all of CFL and AFL combined.
Score: 5 Funny Score Mod: -5 awful pun
From: Joe
To: Michelle
Subject: No stego here
<attachment: cutedoggy.jpg>
Adwords by Gooooooogle
Terrorists are using the Internet to send secret information.
www.paranoia.gov
Can't find your WMDs? Buy some more
www.dod.gov
Suspicious emails? Let us examine them
www.noprivacy.gov
Looking for Cute Doggies?
www.sexwithcutedogs.com
Remembering that the population of Australia and New Zealand combined is only about 30 million, I'd say ten million fans would be a fair number to target.
There's got to be something good about a game where the standard tackle's a right hook, rather than Yank Football, where the players are so heavily padded they wouldn't notice if they got hit by a Mack truck.