Before Vista, with XP, for reasons I don't understand I NEVER saw more than about 300kB/s or 2400kbps download speed on my high speed cable internet... despite a speed measured at 1187kB/s or 9500kbps at speakeasy.net
I upgraded to Vista, same hardware, same connection, same speakeasy.net speed, only the OS changed. Now I usually get download speeds >1000kB/s. Perhaps there was some setting in XP that was wrong, who knows, but the speed improvement I've seen with Vista has been wonderful.
So I think the useless ISP in the story is intentionally blocking Vista users because they are scared they won't be able to provide the bandwidth that their customers will expect to have with Vista.
she may very well have had to wait until it was very necessary for the artificial heart... but since it was in Canada, not the USA, at least it didn't cost her family their home and life savings.
Microsoft did not say they would not be bound by a license when redistributing works under that license.
They said they would not enter any agreements, or use any products etc which would require them to be bound by GPLv3.
They've done what every music pirater should be doing... They've accepted that if they can't accept the conditionso of a license, they won't use the licensed content.
It doesnt matter how well you can paint, you will never replicate the work of a great artist convincingly, it will never be worth what the original is, and the act of copying another artist will always leave you with the empty feeling that you are not a worthy artist, that you are incapable of creating original works yourself.
The same applies to music. There's a million covers out there that SUCK ASS compared to the originals. But if you publish a cover song, no matter how badly you've sucked at reproducing the original, you still must have an agreement with the owner of the copyright to redistribute it.
When you sell or give away your copyrighted content, you've transferred the license to that person. You no longer have the item available for your own personal use. (You have have distributed it, or you could say that you have distributed it again, but you did not re-distributed it).
That doesn't apply to the P2P issue. When you 'lend' it to someone by P2P, you still have the file on your computer. You have not legitimatly distributed your license to someone else. Instead you have chosen to re-distribute it... to allow it to be copied and taken by others while in your posession.
Copying it and allowing others to take the copies for their own use is 're-distribution'. Transferring your license to someone else without making more copies of it is 'distribution'.
It's really amazing... the things that are obvious that people chose not to see when it incriminates themselves.
Uh no. you're just in denial. You've deflected my logic by saying that it's under some other law... who cares, you've still broken the law, you've still freely chosen an action that will subject you to some form of punishment.
You are willfully enabling the copying of the protected file. You know that when you make a file accessible to others through P2P software that you are allowing others to copy it. You can't escape this fact.
You seem to think you've set a 'booby-trap' that only bites the guy that triggers the trap, but you know you've set a trap that can cause harm so you are still guilty like it or not.
Like someone else said, it's like having a newspaper and telling people to come on over, you'll allow them to use your photocopier to spit out a copy of the newspaper for their use, avoiding paying the paperboy. In the case of the music file maybe the photocopier is your P2P software and your modem that sends the protected data out for non personal use.
There is not much difference between this and broadcasting the music over a radio station and skipping the fees charged by the music industry. Either way the owner of the music is not getting paid for the use of their product. It doesn't require that someone listen to the station for it to be illegal. The station must pay based on how many times they play a song, not on how many people are listening at that moment.
It's no different than showing a Pay Per View show at a bar but only paying the personal fee instead of the bar fee... regardless of whether or not anyone shows up to watch it. You've broken the copyright and distributed the show illegally.
For what it's worth, a username is affected by moderation and karma. Anonymous Cowards are not penalized for the crap that flows from their keyboards.
Anyways, thanks for your hilarious post. You're weird confusion regarding 'faith' and a clear obvious black and white legal issue was very entertaining. So even though I am a devout agnostic, I'll drop down to your level for a moment and bring a few words from the realm of faith into this arguement... Thou Shalt Not Steal!
Things are stolen because they have some value which the theif is unwilling or unable to pay to the owner. By your arguement when an item is stolen, since the theif did not pay, it must have no value. Sure. Go steal a car and use that joke on the judge. I bet you'll be out of your cell in time for lunch!
Piracy is illegal competition, you've taken a product made by someone else and consumed it without their permission, reducing the market for that product. are you freaking blind?
If you want to compete legally them learn an instrument, learn out to sing, record your own damn original music and distribute it anyway you want to... maybe putting your time to some productive pursuit would teach you the true value of the product.
It's not that geeks are digital and humans in general are analog... it's the criminals that are analog, always looking for an excuse to justify their actions, to make their crimes not appear to be crimes, to blur the line between them and what society finds to be acceptable. Every prison is full of innocent people, just ask them! They all have a story that excuses them somehow.
Why must I keep repeating this?
It is theft.
You have deprived the record company of the money they would have received had you obtained their music legally.
You don't think that music is just for entertainment do you? Surely the crap that is promoted today with it's brutal production quality (everything as loud as possible at all times) shows you that the point is not the music. The function of the original item is to make money for the owner. Breaking the copyright breaks the original item depriving the owner of it's value.
Any other interpretation is purely denile and shirking of responsibilities.
Actually it's not ok to record from the radio, at least not in Canada... which is weird since there's nothing wrong with taping a TV show for your own personal use... but that's irrelevant.
My Sirius satellite radio records all the music i listen to automatically, that I can re-listen too whenever I want... but I pay the monthly fee.
And like i've posted elsewhere, the radio stations pay a fee to the record companies for every song they play. The record companies get no fee when you steal the music over P2P networks.
Actually no, that won't happen... and you don't have to go way back to the savings and loan scam for an example. Go back a week or two to the sub prime mortgage scam. Or check back every 5 years for whatever banking scam your government lets your banks screw you with that has suddenly blown up. None of them apply here.
If the music industry collapses... the economy will keep going with just a little bump.
When your pathetic american banking scams collapse every 5 years or so, your government has to jump in and bail them out or risk a quick destruction of your economy... as opposed to the slow destruction you're currently going through thanks to Bush's many years of budget deficits and thanks to Bush being suckered into letting Osama bleed your economy to dust with military expenditures to destroy you the way he destroyed the USSR. But that's another story.
And yes, I can also design searches that intentionaly fail to find results.
Show me a search on google that shows all of my 673 unique posts without repeats. I dare you. You won't find them. Ever notice the 'x replies below your current threshold' posts when you're not logged in? huh? Google can't see the posts where I've been modded that far down. Try searching for my username and Score:0... you get two hits, and neither is a case where my score was 0 but I've never pulled my punches for karma, I've had plenty of 0 scores from the modding masses.
And, since I am not a paying subscriber to Slashdot, my old posts are not accessible to me from my profile. I can currently only see 24 of my 673 comments.
Heck try slashdot's own search tool on story comments, it doesn't even find your comment!
But you're just an anonymous asswipe coward, too scared to risk your username or too lazy to sign up. You simply don't matter.
Another anonymous error that wreaks of personal denile.
You own the table, this is different than paying to be licensed to use the table.
Copying the music, program, ebook, etc has in fact disturbed the function of the original... the function of the original was to make money for the owner by licensing it's use for a fee. You've prevented the owner from making money from your use of the product and from anyone to whom you've allowed the property to be distributed.
Perhaps you were confused and thought that all that content existed simply for your own selfish entertainment?
Then by your arguement threatening to kill a person should not be illegal unless you actually kill the person, or at least try to.
This is where your logic breaks down, leaving the parent's intact.
Maybe libraries should be prosecuted... at least the ones that don't have "don't copy copyrighted material! You could be arrested!" stamped on their photocopiers.
You don't need a computer or any knowledge of how to use a computer to walk into a store and buy a music CD. In fact, buying a music CD is just as easy as buying any other common product in a store.
A young child who can walk into a store and buy a candy bar could just as easily buy a music CD on display at the cash register... likely at a much younger age than they could boot a computer, start the right software, do a search for music files, download it, possibly move it or burn it to a separate music player on a different media type, and listen to it.
Perhaps you should have said 'more convenient' or that "it let's me avoid my responsibilities and obligations as a law abiding member of society in semi-anonymity in the comfort of my own home"
They knew their software was making the music available for others to download. Most P2P softwares encourage you to make your files available. Some have quotas related to how much you've 'given back'.
Knowing HOW the software does what it does, and whether or not it is doing other potentially nasty things is a different story. We were talking about the most basic and obvious functions of the P2P software afterall.
You do pay for your library card, whether it's directly or through local municipal taxes or student fees etc, but i doubt any of it is passed on to the publishers beyond buying the books. The copyright holders have fought for years about the photo copying. While I was in university every photocopier had a sign reminding you not to break copyrights, a few years later here in Canada a judge declared library photocopiers to be 'fair use'.
Actually... it IS your fault your life is empty... it's your life, do something with it!
You did steal it because you did not pay the owner for the use of their music. You're simply fooling yourself if you can't see this.
Now if you live in Canada, and you did pay the recordable media levee... I do have some sympathy, in a roundabout way you did pay the fee.
In the case of the radio, the station pays the fee on your behalf. Much of a radio station's advertising revenues go into paying the music fees and the more they play a song, the more they have to pay to that record company. They don't just walk down to WalMart and buy a CD and play it. And this doesn't give you the right to redistribute your crappy radio recordings, with all the tasty static and DJ voices at the start and finish.
If it is really 'yours' rather than something you've paid a license fee to use with the understanding that you don't have the rights to re-distribute... than go crazy, hand it out as you see fit.
You've got bigger problems if that's the kind of music that draws you in:)
Obviously you can't completely avoid it... but if you keep it out of your home, and off of your music players you make the content worthless. Pirating only shows the industry that their product has value worth defending.
Who's the self righteous freak? MR ANONYMOUS COWARD... scared to show any name?
Isn't the evidence obvious? Must I spell it out?
Ignore the industry and you remove the value of their product, it becomes worthless. Pirating the content only proves the content has value. It's worth so much to you that you'll steal to get it.
The answer to your Green Day question has been around for decades, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge, I guess not.
It's no different than singing 'happy birthday' as a public performance (be it live or by internet). You need permission and that may include a fee.
Anyone in Canada who has held an event where copyright music is played by a DJ is very familiar with it. In my case it was the $60 'SOCAN' fee required by the DJ to play music at my wedding reception. The fee supposedly goes to the artists.
A few years ago I posted time and time again about how wrong it was for the USA to invade Iraq, how there was no evidence of WMD's, how Saddam actually kept Al Queada out of Iraq, how Iraq was already fully contained, how Bush lied about Iraq trying to import yellow cake uranium... a plan that had been foiled 8 years before and how when this was exposed, it eventually led to the USA outing one of their own spy's identities.
I got modded down down down... yelled at as if I had stood in the whitehouse and dared to call freedom fries by their proper name, french fries.
But the ignorant consensus was shown to be wrong. Many years too late, but they know they were wrong nonetheless, and they will be shown to be wrong again this time.
By the way dumbass... copyright infringement IS theft because you are not paying the owner of the content you've taken. You've stolen that cash from them. It's amazing how many people eagerly deny this reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Before Vista, with XP, for reasons I don't understand I NEVER saw more than about 300kB/s or 2400kbps download speed on my high speed cable internet ... despite a speed measured at 1187kB/s or 9500kbps at speakeasy.net
I upgraded to Vista, same hardware, same connection, same speakeasy.net speed, only the OS changed. Now I usually get download speeds >1000kB/s. Perhaps there was some setting in XP that was wrong, who knows, but the speed improvement I've seen with Vista has been wonderful.
So I think the useless ISP in the story is intentionally blocking Vista users because they are scared they won't be able to provide the bandwidth that their customers will expect to have with Vista.
she may very well have had to wait until it was very necessary for the artificial heart ... but since it was in Canada, not the USA, at least it didn't cost her family their home and life savings.
Negative.
... They've accepted that if they can't accept the conditionso of a license, they won't use the licensed content.
Microsoft did not say they would not be bound by a license when redistributing works under that license.
They said they would not enter any agreements, or use any products etc which would require them to be bound by GPLv3.
They've done what every music pirater should be doing
Interesting question, considering the USA went to Bagdad for things that we all knew didn't even exist.
It doesnt matter how well you can paint, you will never replicate the work of a great artist convincingly, it will never be worth what the original is, and the act of copying another artist will always leave you with the empty feeling that you are not a worthy artist, that you are incapable of creating original works yourself.
The same applies to music. There's a million covers out there that SUCK ASS compared to the originals. But if you publish a cover song, no matter how badly you've sucked at reproducing the original, you still must have an agreement with the owner of the copyright to redistribute it.
When you sell or give away your copyrighted content, you've transferred the license to that person. You no longer have the item available for your own personal use. (You have have distributed it, or you could say that you have distributed it again, but you did not re-distributed it).
... to allow it to be copied and taken by others while in your posession.
... the things that are obvious that people chose not to see when it incriminates themselves.
That doesn't apply to the P2P issue. When you 'lend' it to someone by P2P, you still have the file on your computer. You have not legitimatly distributed your license to someone else. Instead you have chosen to re-distribute it
Copying it and allowing others to take the copies for their own use is 're-distribution'. Transferring your license to someone else without making more copies of it is 'distribution'.
It's really amazing
Uh no. you're just in denial. You've deflected my logic by saying that it's under some other law ... who cares, you've still broken the law, you've still freely chosen an action that will subject you to some form of punishment.
... regardless of whether or not anyone shows up to watch it. You've broken the copyright and distributed the show illegally.
You are willfully enabling the copying of the protected file. You know that when you make a file accessible to others through P2P software that you are allowing others to copy it. You can't escape this fact.
You seem to think you've set a 'booby-trap' that only bites the guy that triggers the trap, but you know you've set a trap that can cause harm so you are still guilty like it or not.
Like someone else said, it's like having a newspaper and telling people to come on over, you'll allow them to use your photocopier to spit out a copy of the newspaper for their use, avoiding paying the paperboy. In the case of the music file maybe the photocopier is your P2P software and your modem that sends the protected data out for non personal use.
There is not much difference between this and broadcasting the music over a radio station and skipping the fees charged by the music industry. Either way the owner of the music is not getting paid for the use of their product. It doesn't require that someone listen to the station for it to be illegal. The station must pay based on how many times they play a song, not on how many people are listening at that moment.
It's no different than showing a Pay Per View show at a bar but only paying the personal fee instead of the bar fee
how many more examples do you need?
For what it's worth, a username is affected by moderation and karma. Anonymous Cowards are not penalized for the crap that flows from their keyboards.
... Thou Shalt Not Steal!
... maybe putting your time to some productive pursuit would teach you the true value of the product.
Anyways, thanks for your hilarious post. You're weird confusion regarding 'faith' and a clear obvious black and white legal issue was very entertaining. So even though I am a devout agnostic, I'll drop down to your level for a moment and bring a few words from the realm of faith into this arguement
Things are stolen because they have some value which the theif is unwilling or unable to pay to the owner. By your arguement when an item is stolen, since the theif did not pay, it must have no value. Sure. Go steal a car and use that joke on the judge. I bet you'll be out of your cell in time for lunch!
Piracy is illegal competition, you've taken a product made by someone else and consumed it without their permission, reducing the market for that product. are you freaking blind?
If you want to compete legally them learn an instrument, learn out to sing, record your own damn original music and distribute it anyway you want to
It's not that geeks are digital and humans in general are analog ... it's the criminals that are analog, always looking for an excuse to justify their actions, to make their crimes not appear to be crimes, to blur the line between them and what society finds to be acceptable. Every prison is full of innocent people, just ask them! They all have a story that excuses them somehow.
Why must I keep repeating this?
It is theft.
You have deprived the record company of the money they would have received had you obtained their music legally.
You don't think that music is just for entertainment do you? Surely the crap that is promoted today with it's brutal production quality (everything as loud as possible at all times) shows you that the point is not the music. The function of the original item is to make money for the owner. Breaking the copyright breaks the original item depriving the owner of it's value.
Any other interpretation is purely denile and shirking of responsibilities.
Actually it's not ok to record from the radio, at least not in Canada ... which is weird since there's nothing wrong with taping a TV show for your own personal use ... but that's irrelevant.
... but I pay the monthly fee.
My Sirius satellite radio records all the music i listen to automatically, that I can re-listen too whenever I want
And like i've posted elsewhere, the radio stations pay a fee to the record companies for every song they play. The record companies get no fee when you steal the music over P2P networks.
Actually no, that won't happen ... and you don't have to go way back to the savings and loan scam for an example. Go back a week or two to the sub prime mortgage scam. Or check back every 5 years for whatever banking scam your government lets your banks screw you with that has suddenly blown up. None of them apply here.
... the economy will keep going with just a little bump.
... as opposed to the slow destruction you're currently going through thanks to Bush's many years of budget deficits and thanks to Bush being suckered into letting Osama bleed your economy to dust with military expenditures to destroy you the way he destroyed the USSR. But that's another story.
If the music industry collapses
When your pathetic american banking scams collapse every 5 years or so, your government has to jump in and bail them out or risk a quick destruction of your economy
Yes I did
... you get two hits, and neither is a case where my score was 0 but I've never pulled my punches for karma, I've had plenty of 0 scores from the modding masses.
And
Yes I did
And yes, I can also design searches that intentionaly fail to find results.
Show me a search on google that shows all of my 673 unique posts without repeats. I dare you. You won't find them. Ever notice the 'x replies below your current threshold' posts when you're not logged in? huh? Google can't see the posts where I've been modded that far down. Try searching for my username and Score:0
And, since I am not a paying subscriber to Slashdot, my old posts are not accessible to me from my profile. I can currently only see 24 of my 673 comments.
Heck try slashdot's own search tool on story comments, it doesn't even find your comment!
But you're just an anonymous asswipe coward, too scared to risk your username or too lazy to sign up. You simply don't matter.
Another anonymous error that wreaks of personal denile.
... the function of the original was to make money for the owner by licensing it's use for a fee. You've prevented the owner from making money from your use of the product and from anyone to whom you've allowed the property to be distributed.
You own the table, this is different than paying to be licensed to use the table.
Copying the music, program, ebook, etc has in fact disturbed the function of the original
Perhaps you were confused and thought that all that content existed simply for your own selfish entertainment?
Then by your arguement threatening to kill a person should not be illegal unless you actually kill the person, or at least try to.
... at least the ones that don't have "don't copy copyrighted material! You could be arrested!" stamped on their photocopiers.
This is where your logic breaks down, leaving the parent's intact.
Maybe libraries should be prosecuted
I think that to really show the defendants the error of their ways, they should be given the punishment of having to wear assless chaps to a gay bar.
I bet they never 'leave their back door open' again!
Define what you mean by 'easier'.
... likely at a much younger age than they could boot a computer, start the right software, do a search for music files, download it, possibly move it or burn it to a separate music player on a different media type, and listen to it.
You don't need a computer or any knowledge of how to use a computer to walk into a store and buy a music CD. In fact, buying a music CD is just as easy as buying any other common product in a store.
A young child who can walk into a store and buy a candy bar could just as easily buy a music CD on display at the cash register
Perhaps you should have said 'more convenient' or that "it let's me avoid my responsibilities and obligations as a law abiding member of society in semi-anonymity in the comfort of my own home"
Let me clarify.
They knew their software was making the music available for others to download. Most P2P softwares encourage you to make your files available. Some have quotas related to how much you've 'given back'.
Knowing HOW the software does what it does, and whether or not it is doing other potentially nasty things is a different story. We were talking about the most basic and obvious functions of the P2P software afterall.
I don't have a good answer to this.
You do pay for your library card, whether it's directly or through local municipal taxes or student fees etc, but i doubt any of it is passed on to the publishers beyond buying the books. The copyright holders have fought for years about the photo copying. While I was in university every photocopier had a sign reminding you not to break copyrights, a few years later here in Canada a judge declared library photocopiers to be 'fair use'.
I think it could still swing either way.
Actually ... it IS your fault your life is empty ... it's your life, do something with it!
... I do have some sympathy, in a roundabout way you did pay the fee.
You did steal it because you did not pay the owner for the use of their music. You're simply fooling yourself if you can't see this.
Now if you live in Canada, and you did pay the recordable media levee
In the case of the radio, the station pays the fee on your behalf. Much of a radio station's advertising revenues go into paying the music fees and the more they play a song, the more they have to pay to that record company. They don't just walk down to WalMart and buy a CD and play it. And this doesn't give you the right to redistribute your crappy radio recordings, with all the tasty static and DJ voices at the start and finish.
If it is really 'yours' rather than something you've paid a license fee to use with the understanding that you don't have the rights to re-distribute ... than go crazy, hand it out as you see fit.
You've got bigger problems if that's the kind of music that draws you in :)
... but if you keep it out of your home, and off of your music players you make the content worthless. Pirating only shows the industry that their product has value worth defending.
Obviously you can't completely avoid it
Who's the self righteous freak? MR ANONYMOUS COWARD ... scared to show any name?
Isn't the evidence obvious? Must I spell it out?
Ignore the industry and you remove the value of their product, it becomes worthless. Pirating the content only proves the content has value. It's worth so much to you that you'll steal to get it.
The answer to your Green Day question has been around for decades, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge, I guess not.
It's no different than singing 'happy birthday' as a public performance (be it live or by internet). You need permission and that may include a fee.
Anyone in Canada who has held an event where copyright music is played by a DJ is very familiar with it. In my case it was the $60 'SOCAN' fee required by the DJ to play music at my wedding reception. The fee supposedly goes to the artists.
Naw. They just couldn't bring themselves to admit they were guilty ... and didn't want to waste their money on a lawyer knowing that they were guilty.
They hoped they'd win the lottery on this one and get away with it.
Yes, the consensus thing here is interesting.
... a plan that had been foiled 8 years before and how when this was exposed, it eventually led to the USA outing one of their own spy's identities.
... yelled at as if I had stood in the whitehouse and dared to call freedom fries by their proper name, french fries.
... copyright infringement IS theft because you are not paying the owner of the content you've taken. You've stolen that cash from them. It's amazing how many people eagerly deny this reality.
A few years ago I posted time and time again about how wrong it was for the USA to invade Iraq, how there was no evidence of WMD's, how Saddam actually kept Al Queada out of Iraq, how Iraq was already fully contained, how Bush lied about Iraq trying to import yellow cake uranium
I got modded down down down
But the ignorant consensus was shown to be wrong. Many years too late, but they know they were wrong nonetheless, and they will be shown to be wrong again this time.
By the way dumbass