The ISP wants to sell to pirates. But MPAA definitions, 100% of people are pirates, if the ISPs didn't sell to them, they'd have no customers. Same as GM. GM and ISPs both want to sell to criminals.
There was as much or more art prior to copyright. Copyright exists in the US solely to encourage art. If it does not do so, then it is in violation of law. Fan fiction and such are innovations that are crushed by copyright. Before copyright, the writers, like Shakespeare, made nothing from their writing. They made all their money from direction and production. The modern economy is different, but why are all the conservatives (those usually for copyright), so in hate with the free market? Free the market, and let the market settle into a modern post-copyright era, then apply laws where needed, rather than using government-sanctioned monopolies enforced with government goons and guns to interfere in the market?
Why do pro-copyright people hate capitalism so much?
The real reason that A/C is so popular is so that a single asshole can lie, provoke, and disappear, to make the same or similar argument elsewhere.
I'm arguing a
"strawman" becuase I'm directly addressing the words of the A/C before. Verbatim. And addressing those in a direct and concise manner. That's a strawman to a lying AC who will claim that was some other AC or something, when confronted with their bald-faced lie. "No" harm means none. The law defines piracy, according to *AA desires, and that includes local copy for personal use, and sneakernet.
The problem is with your statement that piracy causes no harm.
So, I buy a movie on DVD, copy it to my hard drive in violation of the license, thus piracy, what harm befalls the distributor? If I take that copy and put it on a USB and walk it over to a friend's house, and give the USB drive to them with the "illegal" movie on it, what harm befalls the distributor?
It seems illogical that piracy would cause an increase in revenue; I think that's highly unlikely.
The facts show that piracy correlates with profit. You may like to ignore reality, but denial doesn't change reality. You are the one asserting that advertising and exposure decreases revenue. Go on, back up your insane claim.
By MPAA logic, Ford should refuse to sell to anyone with a speeding ticket, and GM will repo your car if you get a DUI. For some reason the silly MPAA suggestions sound even more insane when applied to other industries.
Unlike what seems like a large portion of Slashdot, I don't think there's an ethical defense for piracy.
It causes no harm, and anything that causes no harm should not be illegal. If you don't like that, please point out the error in it.
And now you are an idiot telling other idiots what to do. If you knew what irony was, I'd make reference to it. You just think irony is what people do to their shirties to get rid of wrinkles.
But speed reading reduces enjoyment and comprehension, so removes the pleasure from pleasure reading, and the comprehension from technical reading. So there ends up being no advantages.
Sprint is a US company that relatively recently had controlling interest bought by a holding company. Most holding companies aren't very hands-on, and I have no idea what's happened with the diretors, but it's unlikey that the board was wiped and replaced in a couple years, so it's still a US company (headquartered and run). T-mobile was formed in 2001 after DT bought VoiceStream, and they quickly made major changes. But I haven't followed Sprint in a while, but based on the comments I read here, they don't seem to be any different since 2012.
The physics works differently at 0.9 than 1.1. For small planes, it may be easier to sustain 1.5, rather than 0.9. But the passenger jets aren't fighters, and would likely see increases for all increases in speed.
If they were being hounded and had something that worked, they could have shared raw data and invited auditors in for documentation. Instead it was all lies and secrets. Nobody fled because they were always two weeks from the breakthrough. Sometimes no amount of money can buy a breakthrough, no matter how much money you have, and how much you want it.
There are hundreds of theories that work. A well-tuned mass spectrometer could identify virus proteins or things like that. Wouldn't be hard to make something that fakes or comes close to usable.
The Starbucks order could be classified. What's worse is that you could write the order, send it with the page to the shop. They throw away the paper after the order. Then it's deemed an operational risk, and classified. The page is then guilty of mishandling classified information. And the person who finds it, if they were cleared, could be in trouble. A non-cleared person who finds improperly handled classified data is mostly ok, but someone cleared who stumbles across it should somehow know that mislabeled data is classified and treat it as such.
The real issue is that classification is broken, and nobody wants to fix it.
She had the power to de-classify things and approve redacted classified documents as non-classified. If she properly redacted a document, but incorrectly left the incorrect classification in the file header, it would be 100% legal for someone to clear the classification on her orders and send it as an unclassified document.
Even with the most damning "facts", there are possible legal explanations. It's just bias from both sides that prevents millions of americans from seeing the truth (both sides only like to see their own truth).
Who can authorize an email server? The laws don't get into those details, and some news articles indicate that Hillary could authorize her own server, so it's legal.
What's funny is it's a bunch of Republicans complaining that Hillary followed the poor rules written by Republicans.
So it was in a vault in a secure air-gapped system and just emailed to her? The specific examples of "breaches" have always turned out to not be. Though, they can't give examples, because of security, but she didn't break the law, according to the guy who could just pardon her if she did. If she loses the election, she'll be pardoned. If she wins, she can just pardon herself. So all of the investigation is a political witch hunt, unrelated to "justice" or other concepts incomprehensible to the Hillary haters.
It wasn't the contents of the classified data that causes issues, but the fact they exist. There's a difference. Classifying something that's not sensitive, like the Prime Minister's favorite toothpaste, just so nobody knows you collect and store that data is a violation of classification. Even if sharing it hurts our position with Germany because they are upset over the level of recording we have.
Receiving classified information form an unclassified source would not change whether she was using an official server or a cobbled one. There's no evidence (or even serious accusation) that the operational security would have been better had she used the official server. People talk about "theories" but in practice, the official servers are no more secure (and likely less secure) than the cobbled together personal server.
So he inherited the equivelent of $3.4B (if put in a blind trust that didn't beat market), and is worth $2.9B. So rather than losing $50M, he's "lost" $500M.
And he won't release his finances, and lies to auditors. The one that claimed he was worth no more than $100M was sued by Trump, and Trump lost. Trump was unhappy with the accusation, but was unwilling (or unable) to prove it to be an incorrect accusation, since the truth is a defense to defamation, Trump lost (effectively leaving a court ruling that Trump agreed he was worth $100M).
As far as the bankruptcies, taking risks is exactly that, risk. Companies fail all the time, blaming someone who probably had very little actual contact with a company for its failure is silly. He has many more than 4 companies that succeeded, so his success rate is also way higher than yours.
Nope. It's not. He's lost much more than most people make in a lifetime. That's not success. That's complete and utter failure. Bankruptcy isn't "failing" it's walking away from your failures and refusing to keep your word to pay back creditors. He's bad at business and low in character. Outside the US, bankruptcy is treated as a criminal fraud conviction for future loans and employment. In the US, it's common because stealing from banks is considered sporting. Such fraud isn't considered acceptable elsewhere, another reason Trump is considered so poorly outside the US.
They can't write off the loss because they "lost" nothing. You can write off the "loss" of a DVD because something is gone that was there before. One of the reason that piracy is so infuriating to them is that it doesn't exist. If I copy a movie on a portable drive, and give it to a friend, it's impossible for anyone to find out. So they can claim a loss, but not prove it or account for it. As such, they can't write it off, unless proven. So, they can write off a $10 movie, if they spend $10,000 suing someone over it, but they can't write off a $10 movie by counting the number of downloaders on Pirate Bay.
Some things can never be proven. It's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. It's just the correlation is strong enough that most people believe.. It would be unethical to perform a scientifically valid study. The same types of confounds exist for piracy. Forcing someone to pirate or not to then measure spending habits wouldn't work. For smoking it's unethical to force someone to smoke. For piracy, it'd not be piracy to legally serve something to them to watch their buying habits after, so measuring it would break it.
So the best we can do is measure and track the correlations. It was good enough to "prove" that smoking causes cancer, so why isn't it good enough to prove that piracy causes profit?
That's a very gray area you're treading. There is no proof that piracy affects the studios' income one way or the other. Clearly, it does, but it is impossible to prove whether it is a net positive or a net negative.
The correlation is quite strong. The greater the piracy, the greater the income. As overall piracy has increased, so has income and profits for MPAA members. Also, as piracy for RIAA members dropped, so did their income and profits. Ringtones are effectively dead, and CD/physical media is in freefall. Online sales are increasing. Music piracy is falling as well while the total music industry falls.
T-Mobile had international-supported GSM before anyone else. AT&T added it soon after, when they were losing business from the multi-nationals, but only on locked phones that weren't international. With T-Mobile, there was about 5-10 years where they were the only one that you could buy an unlocked GSM phone that worked on international frequencies. Tokyo to NYC to Paris with the same phone. Just swap SIMs if you like for local rates/numbers, or keep your SIM and pay insane international roaming rates for the convenience. AT&T eventually caught up, but not without having been behind for years. I haven't followed with recent moves who's international compatible.
Perhaps because they are the only non-US carrier in the US, being a Deutsche Telekom company. Giving out the data without a warrant is illegal in most states as well. Though the customer protection laws aren't strictly enforced when the enquiring party is law enforcement.
People, just get over it...pretty soon, NOTHING will be able to be said.
Simply not true. Things drop off the list as other things area added. And "colored" was on the list long before CP Time was said by a white person for a laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
The ISP wants to sell to pirates. But MPAA definitions, 100% of people are pirates, if the ISPs didn't sell to them, they'd have no customers. Same as GM. GM and ISPs both want to sell to criminals.
Prior to copyright, there were as many or more books, plays, music, etc.
Copyright is used to kill fan fiction and other things that are creative works.
There was as much or more art prior to copyright. Copyright exists in the US solely to encourage art. If it does not do so, then it is in violation of law. Fan fiction and such are innovations that are crushed by copyright. Before copyright, the writers, like Shakespeare, made nothing from their writing. They made all their money from direction and production. The modern economy is different, but why are all the conservatives (those usually for copyright), so in hate with the free market? Free the market, and let the market settle into a modern post-copyright era, then apply laws where needed, rather than using government-sanctioned monopolies enforced with government goons and guns to interfere in the market?
Why do pro-copyright people hate capitalism so much?
piracy causes no harm.
what harm befalls the distributor?
You're arguing with straw men.
The real reason that A/C is so popular is so that a single asshole can lie, provoke, and disappear, to make the same or similar argument elsewhere.
I'm arguing a "strawman" becuase I'm directly addressing the words of the A/C before. Verbatim. And addressing those in a direct and concise manner. That's a strawman to a lying AC who will claim that was some other AC or something, when confronted with their bald-faced lie. "No" harm means none. The law defines piracy, according to *AA desires, and that includes local copy for personal use, and sneakernet.
The problem is with your statement that piracy causes no harm.
So, I buy a movie on DVD, copy it to my hard drive in violation of the license, thus piracy, what harm befalls the distributor? If I take that copy and put it on a USB and walk it over to a friend's house, and give the USB drive to them with the "illegal" movie on it, what harm befalls the distributor?
It seems illogical that piracy would cause an increase in revenue; I think that's highly unlikely.
The facts show that piracy correlates with profit. You may like to ignore reality, but denial doesn't change reality. You are the one asserting that advertising and exposure decreases revenue. Go on, back up your insane claim.
Unlike what seems like a large portion of Slashdot, I don't think there's an ethical defense for piracy.
It causes no harm, and anything that causes no harm should not be illegal. If you don't like that, please point out the error in it.
And now you are an idiot telling other idiots what to do. If you knew what irony was, I'd make reference to it. You just think irony is what people do to their shirties to get rid of wrinkles.
But speed reading reduces enjoyment and comprehension, so removes the pleasure from pleasure reading, and the comprehension from technical reading. So there ends up being no advantages.
Sprint is a US company that relatively recently had controlling interest bought by a holding company. Most holding companies aren't very hands-on, and I have no idea what's happened with the diretors, but it's unlikey that the board was wiped and replaced in a couple years, so it's still a US company (headquartered and run). T-mobile was formed in 2001 after DT bought VoiceStream, and they quickly made major changes. But I haven't followed Sprint in a while, but based on the comments I read here, they don't seem to be any different since 2012.
The physics works differently at 0.9 than 1.1. For small planes, it may be easier to sustain 1.5, rather than 0.9. But the passenger jets aren't fighters, and would likely see increases for all increases in speed.
If they were being hounded and had something that worked, they could have shared raw data and invited auditors in for documentation. Instead it was all lies and secrets. Nobody fled because they were always two weeks from the breakthrough. Sometimes no amount of money can buy a breakthrough, no matter how much money you have, and how much you want it.
There are hundreds of theories that work. A well-tuned mass spectrometer could identify virus proteins or things like that. Wouldn't be hard to make something that fakes or comes close to usable.
The Starbucks order could be classified. What's worse is that you could write the order, send it with the page to the shop. They throw away the paper after the order. Then it's deemed an operational risk, and classified. The page is then guilty of mishandling classified information. And the person who finds it, if they were cleared, could be in trouble. A non-cleared person who finds improperly handled classified data is mostly ok, but someone cleared who stumbles across it should somehow know that mislabeled data is classified and treat it as such.
The real issue is that classification is broken, and nobody wants to fix it.
She had the power to de-classify things and approve redacted classified documents as non-classified. If she properly redacted a document, but incorrectly left the incorrect classification in the file header, it would be 100% legal for someone to clear the classification on her orders and send it as an unclassified document.
Even with the most damning "facts", there are possible legal explanations. It's just bias from both sides that prevents millions of americans from seeing the truth (both sides only like to see their own truth).
Who can authorize an email server? The laws don't get into those details, and some news articles indicate that Hillary could authorize her own server, so it's legal.
What's funny is it's a bunch of Republicans complaining that Hillary followed the poor rules written by Republicans.
So it was in a vault in a secure air-gapped system and just emailed to her? The specific examples of "breaches" have always turned out to not be. Though, they can't give examples, because of security, but she didn't break the law, according to the guy who could just pardon her if she did. If she loses the election, she'll be pardoned. If she wins, she can just pardon herself. So all of the investigation is a political witch hunt, unrelated to "justice" or other concepts incomprehensible to the Hillary haters.
It wasn't the contents of the classified data that causes issues, but the fact they exist. There's a difference. Classifying something that's not sensitive, like the Prime Minister's favorite toothpaste, just so nobody knows you collect and store that data is a violation of classification. Even if sharing it hurts our position with Germany because they are upset over the level of recording we have.
Receiving classified information form an unclassified source would not change whether she was using an official server or a cobbled one. There's no evidence (or even serious accusation) that the operational security would have been better had she used the official server. People talk about "theories" but in practice, the official servers are no more secure (and likely less secure) than the cobbled together personal server.
And he won't release his finances, and lies to auditors. The one that claimed he was worth no more than $100M was sued by Trump, and Trump lost. Trump was unhappy with the accusation, but was unwilling (or unable) to prove it to be an incorrect accusation, since the truth is a defense to defamation, Trump lost (effectively leaving a court ruling that Trump agreed he was worth $100M).
As far as the bankruptcies, taking risks is exactly that, risk. Companies fail all the time, blaming someone who probably had very little actual contact with a company for its failure is silly. He has many more than 4 companies that succeeded, so his success rate is also way higher than yours.
Nope. It's not. He's lost much more than most people make in a lifetime. That's not success. That's complete and utter failure. Bankruptcy isn't "failing" it's walking away from your failures and refusing to keep your word to pay back creditors. He's bad at business and low in character. Outside the US, bankruptcy is treated as a criminal fraud conviction for future loans and employment. In the US, it's common because stealing from banks is considered sporting. Such fraud isn't considered acceptable elsewhere, another reason Trump is considered so poorly outside the US.
They can't write off the loss because they "lost" nothing. You can write off the "loss" of a DVD because something is gone that was there before. One of the reason that piracy is so infuriating to them is that it doesn't exist. If I copy a movie on a portable drive, and give it to a friend, it's impossible for anyone to find out. So they can claim a loss, but not prove it or account for it. As such, they can't write it off, unless proven. So, they can write off a $10 movie, if they spend $10,000 suing someone over it, but they can't write off a $10 movie by counting the number of downloaders on Pirate Bay.
Some things can never be proven. It's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. It's just the correlation is strong enough that most people believe.. It would be unethical to perform a scientifically valid study. The same types of confounds exist for piracy. Forcing someone to pirate or not to then measure spending habits wouldn't work. For smoking it's unethical to force someone to smoke. For piracy, it'd not be piracy to legally serve something to them to watch their buying habits after, so measuring it would break it.
So the best we can do is measure and track the correlations. It was good enough to "prove" that smoking causes cancer, so why isn't it good enough to prove that piracy causes profit?
Not arguing, just theorizing.
That's a very gray area you're treading. There is no proof that piracy affects the studios' income one way or the other. Clearly, it does, but it is impossible to prove whether it is a net positive or a net negative.
The correlation is quite strong. The greater the piracy, the greater the income. As overall piracy has increased, so has income and profits for MPAA members. Also, as piracy for RIAA members dropped, so did their income and profits. Ringtones are effectively dead, and CD/physical media is in freefall. Online sales are increasing. Music piracy is falling as well while the total music industry falls.
T-Mobile had international-supported GSM before anyone else. AT&T added it soon after, when they were losing business from the multi-nationals, but only on locked phones that weren't international. With T-Mobile, there was about 5-10 years where they were the only one that you could buy an unlocked GSM phone that worked on international frequencies. Tokyo to NYC to Paris with the same phone. Just swap SIMs if you like for local rates/numbers, or keep your SIM and pay insane international roaming rates for the convenience. AT&T eventually caught up, but not without having been behind for years. I haven't followed with recent moves who's international compatible.
Perhaps because they are the only non-US carrier in the US, being a Deutsche Telekom company. Giving out the data without a warrant is illegal in most states as well. Though the customer protection laws aren't strictly enforced when the enquiring party is law enforcement.
People, just get over it...pretty soon, NOTHING will be able to be said.
Simply not true. Things drop off the list as other things area added. And "colored" was on the list long before CP Time was said by a white person for a laugh.