And that "photocopying" you refer to is exactly what's he's talking about.
He's saying he can download music from iTunes, get around the copy protection, make copies, and then use those copies himself. He never says he has the right to distribute those copies.
He says this PlayFair program is alright, because it allows copying of music for personal usage. It does also allow for non-personal usage: no one is contesting that. But the personal usage would be easily describable as a "significant non-infringing use", and so the program is not infringing itself.
The point of the article is obviously to raise awareness that the email may not be private as people may assume it is. The article just gives some information on why you should perhaps "n[o]t trust it".
But everyone is so obsessed with MORE MORE MORE that in a few years when they have 100GB solid state devices people, just like you, will be saying: "those aren't 'real': they aren't big enough!" Because you'll just HAVE to have the latest programs and highest quality videos et cetera on your computer and 100GB won't be enough for your consumption.
You know, they do all this to supposedly prevent terrorism, yet, the US has thousands of miles of unguarded and unwatched borders. I can go to any odd border lake or river in Canada with a canoe and paddle right over with a backpack full of anthrax and no one would know. These measures are useless. If someone with half a brain wants to get in to the US and kill a lot of people, guess what? They'll do it. They don't need to take a plane there.
There's lots of people without these social ties. Ever see a bum lying on the street when it's cold out? Do you know that he's sleeping? He could be dead or dying right then and there, and no one ever checks. Beause who gives a shit, right? Maybe you don't live in a big city, but, do you ever hear gunshots when you're going to bed? What do you do when that happens? Probably nothing: most people don't though, so don't worry.
Modern people are apathetic and are hardly as kind as you would hope them to be. People die all the time because they don't have the money: even with the socialist ideas in action. Without those, no doubt, more would die.
Self/self-group(the group is the self) masturbation for sure. Everyone just ambivalently "holds" everyone else in the group up: everything is always "postive" and weak. It's like the LiveJournal hordes, and if someone posts something that upsets their soft, narrow world-view they delete it immeadiately instead of trying to learn something. This emerging internet society, instead of being the kaleidoscopic meeting of hundreds of cultures as foretold, is just a banal droning of entertainment and pointless discussion.
No, I'm not a moron. I won't just, because killing one's self is much harder than suggesting it. But perhaps you could prove me wrong: at least that would make the world a bit better. And, no, I would not stick as such and be as such, though.
Yeah, sure, give everyone American values, but if people don't ask for it, they don't want it. And if you give people what they don't want, they're not going to say thanks. So don't expect it. You want a present and a cake for "doing all the heavy lifting"? Too bad. If you want to do all the world "policing", satisfaction of a job well done is all you get. Deal with it. No one gives a shit.
You're like a father who has kids and then feeds these kids and takes care of them, and then expects the kids to say thanks because "you work so hard" for them. Kids are right to being telling their parents to "fuck off", the parents are the ones who wanted them, the kids didn't want to be born, no one wants to be born into this shit, meaningless world. And it's the exact same thing with your American values. No one wants your "freedom" and your "democracy" because they see what it means: wage labour and watching sitcoms which have to include canned laughter to tell people when to laugh because they're so unfunny, and football which has to include overexcited announcers and flashing lights and music because it's so boring.
Cool. The model has raised a mass that cares only about consumption: totally immoral, so that they can just spend more and more money. Then, they expect people to not share music because "stealing is bad"? That's ridiculous. They raised consumption-happy people, now they have to deal with the implosion.
There's no chance any real social critique will come from the major videogames anyway. Same for Hollywood movies(except maybe some that "slips past"). You can only read books, and go on the internet to get media that doesn't reinforce consumer society. And I don't mean those soft campus "revolution" rags some student groups got going either: those are so weak they just resign revolution to a bunch of, albeit, dissatisfied(for good reason), students saying "yeah, Marx was right", and then continuing to pay ridiculous tuition like a good little consumer. Better than "The whatever Post" your town has got though. The major videogame companies are systems that fair well in consumer society, and so their creations would tend to promote it. They won't critique anything. Oh, maybe abortion, racism, or "terrorism" those seem to be the distractions, oh I mean, "social issues" of today that other major media outlets outlets craft.
"I think it's stupid to complain about campers, do you imagine that scene in the french village in Saving Private Ryan with the soldiers shouting "f*cking camper!"? Me neither."
I don't get this. It's like you try to make some point of the fact that in something more important, or grand, or something, than a video game, stuff equivalent to "camping" happens. And because it's not called as "bad" there, then this invalidates, in some way, such a label for camping in these games. It's supposed to give perspective. But your reference is the happenings of a Hollywood movie. You reference it almost as one would an actual event. Wouldn't it make more sense just to refer to World War II snipers? Even the Normandy landings or something? How is a shitty movie any more perspective-giving than a shitty game?
But don't mind me. Just your resident mass-media critic.
You would actually get into a gunfight with police officers? I'm not saying you have a wrong stance, but, would you actually try to battle guys who you know would win? Maybe you could kill the two who had come originally, but after you've killed two cops is when they bring in the swat team and you're gonna die. It's cool to die by your principles, but would you?
I guess maybe there is a very small chance that while your noble struggle goes on, your neighbours may see and just decide they want to help, and perhaps this could snowball and create a proletariat revolution, but I really don't think so. It's definitely better to get arrested, and then create a better strategy for the revolution.
Better example of Marxism applied. I was not referring to human rights issues. I agree. Human rights abuses are a MAJOR problem of both North Korea and Cuba. I am NOT saying that current stalinist states are "good": do not ever think that. I am saying that Marxism is influential.
I won't argue that Stalinism didn't "happened" after trying to apply Marxism in a case. But, that does not mean Stalinism is Marxism, you seem to be pushing that. My point is only, Marxism is not "disproven" as claimed. That makes no sense. Marxism is still influential today and not just in those two examples made earlier, not at all. To deny that is preposterous. Those examples made earlier were clearly a [barely] implicit attempt to marginalise Marxism.
As for your second point. Ok, so you don't call them socialist. That's fine, I care not about the signs, you can call signify them however you want, but my point that Marxism has influenced them greatly is still true.
Like, is this just a really light troll? Like somehow those are "bad" guys, and being the only ones you mentioned, therefore Marxism is bad too!!?
Since I'm not sure, I'll continue. YHBT me if you have to.
Okay, how can you say North Korea, is a "Marxist government", what is that supposed to mean? Like, this is an honest question, please elaborate. My understanding is that it is extremely Stalinist in character. The gap from Stalinist to Marxist is not negligible; at least or more as qualitatively as all of the world's current socialist governments. That would explain why essentially all "Marxists" were removed from the government of Stalin. A better example of today's world would certainly be Cuba.
I wouldn't say the Baath party was "inspired" - influenced no doubt. But essentially all governments nowadays are influenced by Marxism: some more than others. France's current government would be more "inspired" by Marxism than the the Baath party. Much of Europe's governments are greatly influenced by Marxism, and, of course, continental theory is still shaking from Marx's contributions.
What do you mean "invalid and disproven simplistic theory (Marxism)". If you're referring to just Marx' (and Engels, I would assume), how can you say they're invalid? Marx's impact in enormous: it still greatly influences today. And Marxists since Marx himself have contributed indeniably to theory over the years.
You cannot easily write of a portion of theory as being "invalid" and "disproven", and to say so for Marxism is truly ridiculous.
I couldn't afford to pay an expert myself, but what if I still wanted to file a patent? Would it just apply to corporations? Still, only a singular person applies for a patent, don't they? And the coporations merely get those rights from those people(usually their employees?)?
I'm sure the USPTO could spring for a couple (more?) computer experts, what would it be, like, $200,000 a year?
Whatever arbitrary thing people deem as a "greater need". Be it some sort of Socratic "truth", some sort of "Geist", maybe freedom of the proletariat like Marx would have it(that sure seemed to rouse the peoples).
Slashdot Mirror
And that "photocopying" you refer to is exactly what's he's talking about.
He's saying he can download music from iTunes, get around the copy protection, make copies, and then use those copies himself. He never says he has the right to distribute those copies.
He says this PlayFair program is alright, because it allows copying of music for personal usage. It does also allow for non-personal usage: no one is contesting that. But the personal usage would be easily describable as a "significant non-infringing use", and so the program is not infringing itself.
Who said there was a problem?
The point of the article is obviously to raise awareness that the email may not be private as people may assume it is. The article just gives some information on why you should perhaps "n[o]t trust it".
These are a great much funny than true Penny Arcade comics. Those are far too weak to be well on Earth.
But everyone is so obsessed with MORE MORE MORE that in a few years when they have 100GB solid state devices people, just like you, will be saying: "those aren't 'real': they aren't big enough!" Because you'll just HAVE to have the latest programs and highest quality videos et cetera on your computer and 100GB won't be enough for your consumption.
It creates an imbalance in the universal karma-scape. Obviously.
My point was that, the government screws over the people too. So there is a reversibility to the cheating. It's not a domination.
Something to do with the focus, I believe.
You know, they do all this to supposedly prevent terrorism, yet, the US has thousands of miles of unguarded and unwatched borders. I can go to any odd border lake or river in Canada with a canoe and paddle right over with a backpack full of anthrax and no one would know. These measures are useless. If someone with half a brain wants to get in to the US and kill a lot of people, guess what? They'll do it. They don't need to take a plane there.
There's lots of people without these social ties. Ever see a bum lying on the street when it's cold out? Do you know that he's sleeping? He could be dead or dying right then and there, and no one ever checks. Beause who gives a shit, right? Maybe you don't live in a big city, but, do you ever hear gunshots when you're going to bed? What do you do when that happens? Probably nothing: most people don't though, so don't worry.
Modern people are apathetic and are hardly as kind as you would hope them to be. People die all the time because they don't have the money: even with the socialist ideas in action. Without those, no doubt, more would die.
Self/self-group(the group is the self) masturbation for sure. Everyone just ambivalently "holds" everyone else in the group up: everything is always "postive" and weak. It's like the LiveJournal hordes, and if someone posts something that upsets their soft, narrow world-view they delete it immeadiately instead of trying to learn something. This emerging internet society, instead of being the kaleidoscopic meeting of hundreds of cultures as foretold, is just a banal droning of entertainment and pointless discussion.
No, I'm not a moron. I won't just, because killing one's self is much harder than suggesting it. But perhaps you could prove me wrong: at least that would make the world a bit better. And, no, I would not stick as such and be as such, though.
Yeah, sure, give everyone American values, but if people don't ask for it, they don't want it. And if you give people what they don't want, they're not going to say thanks. So don't expect it. You want a present and a cake for "doing all the heavy lifting"? Too bad. If you want to do all the world "policing", satisfaction of a job well done is all you get. Deal with it. No one gives a shit.
You're like a father who has kids and then feeds these kids and takes care of them, and then expects the kids to say thanks because "you work so hard" for them. Kids are right to being telling their parents to "fuck off", the parents are the ones who wanted them, the kids didn't want to be born, no one wants to be born into this shit, meaningless world. And it's the exact same thing with your American values. No one wants your "freedom" and your "democracy" because they see what it means: wage labour and watching sitcoms which have to include canned laughter to tell people when to laugh because they're so unfunny, and football which has to include overexcited announcers and flashing lights and music because it's so boring.
Further response, now that I think about it more.
"Same idea just the propaganda from your sources of information have warped your brain."
What warping? What progaghanda, and what sources? How does this comment make any sense? Read what I wrote very carefully, perhaps?
Oh, I know it's not stealing. That's just in my quote: that's what they say.
Cool. The model has raised a mass that cares only about consumption: totally immoral, so that they can just spend more and more money. Then, they expect people to not share music because "stealing is bad"? That's ridiculous. They raised consumption-happy people, now they have to deal with the implosion.
You have to burn a cross, or piss on it, something like that. Ask your local Masonic leader, or wizard, or whatever they have, beats me.
There's no chance any real social critique will come from the major videogames anyway. Same for Hollywood movies(except maybe some that "slips past"). You can only read books, and go on the internet to get media that doesn't reinforce consumer society. And I don't mean those soft campus "revolution" rags some student groups got going either: those are so weak they just resign revolution to a bunch of, albeit, dissatisfied(for good reason), students saying "yeah, Marx was right", and then continuing to pay ridiculous tuition like a good little consumer. Better than "The whatever Post" your town has got though. The major videogame companies are systems that fair well in consumer society, and so their creations would tend to promote it. They won't critique anything. Oh, maybe abortion, racism, or "terrorism" those seem to be the distractions, oh I mean, "social issues" of today that other major media outlets outlets craft.
"I think it's stupid to complain about campers, do you imagine that scene in the french village in Saving Private Ryan with the soldiers shouting "f*cking camper!"? Me neither."
I don't get this. It's like you try to make some point of the fact that in something more important, or grand, or something, than a video game, stuff equivalent to "camping" happens. And because it's not called as "bad" there, then this invalidates, in some way, such a label for camping in these games. It's supposed to give perspective. But your reference is the happenings of a Hollywood movie. You reference it almost as one would an actual event. Wouldn't it make more sense just to refer to World War II snipers? Even the Normandy landings or something? How is a shitty movie any more perspective-giving than a shitty game?
But don't mind me. Just your resident mass-media critic.
You would actually get into a gunfight with police officers? I'm not saying you have a wrong stance, but, would you actually try to battle guys who you know would win? Maybe you could kill the two who had come originally, but after you've killed two cops is when they bring in the swat team and you're gonna die. It's cool to die by your principles, but would you?
I guess maybe there is a very small chance that while your noble struggle goes on, your neighbours may see and just decide they want to help, and perhaps this could snowball and create a proletariat revolution, but I really don't think so. It's definitely better to get arrested, and then create a better strategy for the revolution.
Better example of Marxism applied. I was not referring to human rights issues. I agree. Human rights abuses are a MAJOR problem of both North Korea and Cuba. I am NOT saying that current stalinist states are "good": do not ever think that. I am saying that Marxism is influential.
I won't argue that Stalinism didn't "happened" after trying to apply Marxism in a case. But, that does not mean Stalinism is Marxism, you seem to be pushing that. My point is only, Marxism is not "disproven" as claimed. That makes no sense. Marxism is still influential today and not just in those two examples made earlier, not at all. To deny that is preposterous. Those examples made earlier were clearly a [barely] implicit attempt to marginalise Marxism.
As for your second point. Ok, so you don't call them socialist. That's fine, I care not about the signs, you can call signify them however you want, but my point that Marxism has influenced them greatly is still true.
"...at least or more as qualitatively as all of the world's current socialist governments."
should be something like:
"...at least or more as qualitatively as large as the gap from all of the world's current socialist governments."
Like, is this just a really light troll? Like somehow those are "bad" guys, and being the only ones you mentioned, therefore Marxism is bad too!!?
Since I'm not sure, I'll continue. YHBT me if you have to.
Okay, how can you say North Korea, is a "Marxist government", what is that supposed to mean? Like, this is an honest question, please elaborate. My understanding is that it is extremely Stalinist in character. The gap from Stalinist to Marxist is not negligible; at least or more as qualitatively as all of the world's current socialist governments. That would explain why essentially all "Marxists" were removed from the government of Stalin. A better example of today's world would certainly be Cuba.
I wouldn't say the Baath party was "inspired" - influenced no doubt. But essentially all governments nowadays are influenced by Marxism: some more than others. France's current government would be more "inspired" by Marxism than the the Baath party. Much of Europe's governments are greatly influenced by Marxism, and, of course, continental theory is still shaking from Marx's contributions.
What do you mean "invalid and disproven simplistic theory (Marxism)". If you're referring to just Marx' (and Engels, I would assume), how can you say they're invalid? Marx's impact in enormous: it still greatly influences today. And Marxists since Marx himself have contributed indeniably to theory over the years.
You cannot easily write of a portion of theory as being "invalid" and "disproven", and to say so for Marxism is truly ridiculous.
I couldn't afford to pay an expert myself, but what if I still wanted to file a patent? Would it just apply to corporations? Still, only a singular person applies for a patent, don't they? And the coporations merely get those rights from those people(usually their employees?)?
I'm sure the USPTO could spring for a couple (more?) computer experts, what would it be, like, $200,000 a year?
Whatever arbitrary thing people deem as a "greater need". Be it some sort of Socratic "truth", some sort of "Geist", maybe freedom of the proletariat like Marx would have it(that sure seemed to rouse the peoples).