I remember a while back, The News of The World, sister newspaper to The Sun and a newspaper so low-brow it's a moustache, published names and photos of paedophiles to 'name and shame'.
Of course this had the result you'd expect. It was widely condemned as a bloody stupid idea. One poor guy who resembled one of the paedophiles listed in the newspaper received a visit from a mob. Of course he was completely innocent and had to be rescued from his house by the police.
This is further supported by correlation between downloaders and higher levels of music purchasing in much the same way that radio plays music for free to the listener to entice them to buy records.
Yeah but with radio, you hear the song and then it's gone (unless you record it) but with P2P you have the song in it's entirety. Why bother buying the album if you already have it? The idea of some kind of radio-like scheme though sounds interesting.
The fact that downloaders buy more music doesn't really prove anything. Someone who likes music seems more likely to download music than someone not interested in music. This music lover would surely have been more likely to buy music in the first place. Their buying isn't necessarilly encouraged by downloading in fact downloading may actually be decreasing their purchases.
You're right that a file downloaded doesn't automatically mean a lost sale. I've seen some people with an almighty amount of crap in their music collection that they never touch, they just keep it anyway and would never have bought it. I don't honestly know whether P2P encourages or discourages sales.
From personal experience though, I like to keep my collection legal and have often downloaded a track and then bought the album. This try-before-you-buy aspect of file sharing is useful. The same thing for games as well. It's handy to be able to download a game, install it and make sure it plays well on my slightly older machine before I go and buy it.
This legal case does seem like a silly approach though. What next? RIAA executives barging in to nursery schools and tipping 5 year old kids out of their chairs?
Steve: So what are you in prison for? Gandhi: To free my people from colonial rule. How about you? Steve: I don't want to pay for Mariah Carey CDs so I demand the right to download them for free.
Funny enough I was just thinking about this. Somehow I'm happy to accept cinema adverts yet not DVD adverts.
I suppose it might have something to do with the fact that a DVD seems more tangible. It's more like I actually bought something where with the cinema, it's more like going to an event. Either that or I'm just confused.
Truth. Screwing a dog would be unpleasant for all concerned but at least you know that you're the only human likely to have been boning the animal, depending on where you live of course.
I don't think I tried that. I had a quick google around it looks like you can indeed fast-forward through them.
It's still a diabolical liberty they're taking though. I can live with telly adverts and flashing banners on web sites but to be forced to watch this trailer over and over again each time seems a bit of a pain.
Those are good examples where such measures can work. Within Windows itself, you can include warnings about checking for authenticity.
DVDs and CDs are not the same though. It's a trivial task to rip the film and then simply remove the copyright warnings.
Although DVDs often have hologram on the box, your average person in the street doesn't pay it much attention. If the product is in an official looking box, they'll buy it.
I remember old pirate stuff (from 20 years ago) that was clearly dodgy. It wasn't hard to see that the product was not legit. These days though, it's much more sophisticated - particularly when you travel overseas.
Far as I know, an escort service is perfectly legal in the UK and at least parts of the US. It's only illegal if the escorts break the law, i.e. offer sex for money. This is the same reason massage parlours aren't illegal.
No reason why the Yellow Pages should be sued if they accept these adverts in good faith.
Reminds me, to help ensure that no-one is confused with regards finding the official Olympic web sites, people could try the same approach I'm using on my sites. just add this text.
This web site is not THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF THE 2012 LONDON OLYMPICS
A good Christian recognises and follows the rules laid down in the old testament.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Even if you're a bad Christian who believes that the old laws of God can be swept aside, then here is an example from Jesus himself.
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
Real Christians are very confused people because they cannot possibly follow all the rules that the Bible lays down. They would be in utter chaos. The commonly perceived message of Christianity is that of love but this is because too many people have simply not sit down with the Bible, read it from cover to cover and written down all the things their god requires them to do.
As someone else who responded to your comment pointed out, Jesus does not like gays.
Just wait for the London Olympics and you'll see it happen for real. You think Guantanamo is bad? Wait until you see the prison we're going to have in Liverpool for anyone caught wearing counterfeit merchandise or using words like London, Olympic', 2012 or medal without a licence.
Bloody right. I bought Shrek 2 and returned it because each time I watched it, I had to sit through a 20 second copyright warning (fair enough) but then a 4 minute advert for Madagascar. This bullshit completely spoiled the experience of watching Shrek so I just returned it to the store.
I accept the unskippable copyright messages (even when they have to show it in 8 different languages) but to subject a paying cusotmer to such a long advert is taking the piss. At least they could do what most companies do and just add the advert as a 'special feature'.
Could be tricky because it may not be immediately obvious that something is counterfeit. Some people may actually believe that the Burberry cap and 'The Fast & The Furious' DVD they bought from a market stall for a fiver are actually legitimate goods.
Well, yes if the Yellow Pages allowed adverts like "Pirated movies burnt to DVD for only 2 dollars!". No though if the publishers of the Yellow Pages are unaware of the exact nature of the products being sold by companies listed in their book.
Yes Islam and Christianity get a rap for the actions of a few crazies but people who think that all real Christians/Muslims are happy shiny people are just ignoring the truth.
Ironically, the most extreme Christians are argueably the ones who are being truest to their holy book. If you're a good Chrisitian, you should be following these rules.
Kill witches "You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad (Islam isn't the only religion that executes it's children) "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Again, Islam is the only religion that kills girls who are curious) "But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not follow these rules is picking and chosing the rules they want to follow.
Face facts. These religions are barbaric for one good reason - they are relics from the past. If I invented a religion now, in 1000 years time, no doubt some of my rules would appear barbaric. Even simple things like advocating the eating of animals may be seen as being morally repugnant in 1000 years time.
Don't judge these religions on the actions of their adherents. Judge them by reading the holy books that they claim their god provided them.
NO, this is not how deterrence works. Deterrence works when the punishment is big enough for you to consider not committing that crime, and not big enough for you to consider that "if I will do this, I may very well to THAT too, makes no difference".
Yes, I understand how deterrence works but thank you for the definition. Earlier you said that the possibility of prison time for white collar criminals makes them more likely to commit acts of violence. You made this point when you wrote this text.
The possibility of passing many years in jail just makes white-collar criminals more willing to "step up" and resort to common violence to cover up their white-collar crimes.
Based on this reasoning, prison time must be less desirable to criminals than a fine? If it was not, then why risk compounding the crime by adding additional charges?
If prison is less desirable then a fine (with the potential for bankruptcy), then isn't prison the greater deterrent that you mention in your last post?
I'm not saying that every white-collar criminal should go to prison, that would be ludicrous. I'm saying that prison is a valid punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
Yeah fines do have their place but they're not perfect. I know of one person who simply owns nothing - the house and the posessions are owned by his girlfriend. Declaring bankruptcy was not much of a problem there.
If white-collar criminals become more likely to commit violence to avoid prison, wouldn't that suggest that prison is something they fear? If this is true and some become more likely to restort to violence, it follows that some will be less likely to commit crimes in the first place.
I'm not speaking with a great deal of experience here but I'd hope that someone who steal 80,000 dollars through fraud and someone who walks in to a shop and steals the same amount would receive similar punishment (assuming the shop robbery didn't involve violence).
True. Even without the prison time, he's got a criminal record and a reputation for dishonesty and being unable to work with confidential information. By rights, his IT career should be dead and buried.
He inconvenienced a lot of people, stole data while effectively framing a colleague for the crime and passed on data knowing full well what it was going to be used for. He's old enough as well to know when he's breaking the law.
I'd say he did deserve a few years. I'd expect though for him to get out after maybe a year or so.
The thought of spending time in a nasty prison has got to be a pretty good deterrent against white-collar crime.
I suppose though this opens the argument about whether the judicial system should be punishing crimes or tryin to persuade people to stay honest.
Even if it is illegal in the US, the difficult thing though would be proving it unless the recruiter were stupid enough to say something like "We don't really want any of your people here."
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a while back, The News of The World, sister newspaper to The Sun and a newspaper so low-brow it's a moustache, published names and photos of paedophiles to 'name and shame'.
Of course this had the result you'd expect. It was widely condemned as a bloody stupid idea. One poor guy who resembled one of the paedophiles listed in the newspaper received a visit from a mob. Of course he was completely innocent and had to be rescued from his house by the police.
Mob justice
Yeah but with radio, you hear the song and then it's gone (unless you record it) but with P2P you have the song in it's entirety. Why bother buying the album if you already have it? The idea of some kind of radio-like scheme though sounds interesting.
The fact that downloaders buy more music doesn't really prove anything. Someone who likes music seems more likely to download music than someone not interested in music. This music lover would surely have been more likely to buy music in the first place. Their buying isn't necessarilly encouraged by downloading in fact downloading may actually be decreasing their purchases.
You're right that a file downloaded doesn't automatically mean a lost sale. I've seen some people with an almighty amount of crap in their music collection that they never touch, they just keep it anyway and would never have bought it. I don't honestly know whether P2P encourages or discourages sales.
From personal experience though, I like to keep my collection legal and have often downloaded a track and then bought the album. This try-before-you-buy aspect of file sharing is useful. The same thing for games as well. It's handy to be able to download a game, install it and make sure it plays well on my slightly older machine before I go and buy it.
This legal case does seem like a silly approach though. What next? RIAA executives barging in to nursery schools and tipping 5 year old kids out of their chairs?
Heh heh, imagine the scene.
Steve: So what are you in prison for?
Gandhi: To free my people from colonial rule. How about you?
Steve: I don't want to pay for Mariah Carey CDs so I demand the right to download them for free.
Funny enough I was just thinking about this. Somehow I'm happy to accept cinema adverts yet not DVD adverts.
I suppose it might have something to do with the fact that a DVD seems more tangible. It's more like I actually bought something where with the cinema, it's more like going to an event. Either that or I'm just confused.
Truth. Screwing a dog would be unpleasant for all concerned but at least you know that you're the only human likely to have been boning the animal, depending on where you live of course.
Yeah, this is a real shame. I like quite a few Universal titles but I've nothing but contempt for them for giving it's customers such a shitty deal.
I know one thing though. If I should happen to come across a ripped copy of a Universal title, I won't exactly feel guilty about watching it.
I don't think I tried that. I had a quick google around it looks like you can indeed fast-forward through them.
It's still a diabolical liberty they're taking though. I can live with telly adverts and flashing banners on web sites but to be forced to watch this trailer over and over again each time seems a bit of a pain.
Those are good examples where such measures can work. Within Windows itself, you can include warnings about checking for authenticity.
DVDs and CDs are not the same though. It's a trivial task to rip the film and then simply remove the copyright warnings.
Although DVDs often have hologram on the box, your average person in the street doesn't pay it much attention. If the product is in an official looking box, they'll buy it.
I remember old pirate stuff (from 20 years ago) that was clearly dodgy. It wasn't hard to see that the product was not legit. These days though, it's much more sophisticated - particularly when you travel overseas.
Maybe you have a different release. In the version I returned to the store, the trailer is definitely not skippable.
Funny enough, I have another Universal title that has a similarly annoying unskippable advert.
Far as I know, an escort service is perfectly legal in the UK and at least parts of the US. It's only illegal if the escorts break the law, i.e. offer sex for money. This is the same reason massage parlours aren't illegal.
No reason why the Yellow Pages should be sued if they accept these adverts in good faith.
Yeah, I was looking for something more interesting than bold but couldn't find it.
I'll have to take this code back to my site to see how it looks. Cheers for that.
LOL.
Reminds me, to help ensure that no-one is confused with regards finding the official Olympic web sites, people could try the same approach I'm using on my sites. just add this text.
This web site is not
THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF THE 2012 LONDON OLYMPICS
Even if you're a bad Christian who believes that the old laws of God can be swept aside, then here is an example from Jesus himself.
Real Christians are very confused people because they cannot possibly follow all the rules that the Bible lays down. They would be in utter chaos. The commonly perceived message of Christianity is that of love but this is because too many people have simply not sit down with the Bible, read it from cover to cover and written down all the things their god requires them to do.
As someone else who responded to your comment pointed out, Jesus does not like gays.
Just wait for the London Olympics and you'll see it happen for real. You think Guantanamo is bad? Wait until you see the prison we're going to have in Liverpool for anyone caught wearing counterfeit merchandise or using words like London, Olympic', 2012 or medal without a licence.
Bloody right. I bought Shrek 2 and returned it because each time I watched it, I had to sit through a 20 second copyright warning (fair enough) but then a 4 minute advert for Madagascar. This bullshit completely spoiled the experience of watching Shrek so I just returned it to the store.
I accept the unskippable copyright messages (even when they have to show it in 8 different languages) but to subject a paying cusotmer to such a long advert is taking the piss. At least they could do what most companies do and just add the advert as a 'special feature'.
Well done Universal Studios.
Could be tricky because it may not be immediately obvious that something is counterfeit. Some people may actually believe that the Burberry cap and 'The Fast & The Furious' DVD they bought from a market stall for a fiver are actually legitimate goods.
Well, yes if the Yellow Pages allowed adverts like "Pirated movies burnt to DVD for only 2 dollars!". No though if the publishers of the Yellow Pages are unaware of the exact nature of the products being sold by companies listed in their book.
Yes Islam and Christianity get a rap for the actions of a few crazies but people who think that all real Christians/Muslims are happy shiny people are just ignoring the truth.
Ironically, the most extreme Christians are argueably the ones who are being truest to their holy book. If you're a good Chrisitian, you should be following these rules.
Kill witches
"You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad (Islam isn't the only religion that executes it's children)
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Again, Islam is the only religion that kills girls who are curious)
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not follow these rules is picking and chosing the rules they want to follow.
Face facts. These religions are barbaric for one good reason - they are relics from the past. If I invented a religion now, in 1000 years time, no doubt some of my rules would appear barbaric. Even simple things like advocating the eating of animals may be seen as being morally repugnant in 1000 years time.
Don't judge these religions on the actions of their adherents. Judge them by reading the holy books that they claim their god provided them.
Yes, I understand how deterrence works but thank you for the definition. Earlier you said that the possibility of prison time for white collar criminals makes them more likely to commit acts of violence. You made this point when you wrote this text.
Based on this reasoning, prison time must be less desirable to criminals than a fine? If it was not, then why risk compounding the crime by adding additional charges?
If prison is less desirable then a fine (with the potential for bankruptcy), then isn't prison the greater deterrent that you mention in your last post?
I'm not saying that every white-collar criminal should go to prison, that would be ludicrous. I'm saying that prison is a valid punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
Yeah fines do have their place but they're not perfect. I know of one person who simply owns nothing - the house and the posessions are owned by his girlfriend. Declaring bankruptcy was not much of a problem there.
If white-collar criminals become more likely to commit violence to avoid prison, wouldn't that suggest that prison is something they fear? If this is true and some become more likely to restort to violence, it follows that some will be less likely to commit crimes in the first place.
I'm not speaking with a great deal of experience here but I'd hope that someone who steal 80,000 dollars through fraud and someone who walks in to a shop and steals the same amount would receive similar punishment (assuming the shop robbery didn't involve violence).
True. Even without the prison time, he's got a criminal record and a reputation for dishonesty and being unable to work with confidential information. By rights, his IT career should be dead and buried.
He inconvenienced a lot of people, stole data while effectively framing a colleague for the crime and passed on data knowing full well what it was going to be used for. He's old enough as well to know when he's breaking the law.
I'd say he did deserve a few years. I'd expect though for him to get out after maybe a year or so.
The thought of spending time in a nasty prison has got to be a pretty good deterrent against white-collar crime.
I suppose though this opens the argument about whether the judicial system should be punishing crimes or tryin to persuade people to stay honest.
Heh heh, so is The Church of Scientology.
In 2000 years, people will still be wondering why Disney's Mickey Mouse still hasn't entered in to the public domain.
Even if it is illegal in the US, the difficult thing though would be proving it unless the recruiter were stupid enough to say something like "We don't really want any of your people here."