But that has always existed. It's called being an accessory, and you can be held liable vicariously through whom you were an accessory to for anything they have done. Read the section in the link a couple paragraphs down on Common Law.
For example, if I help plan a murder with my buddy, then he does it, I'm an accessory to murder, and can be held guilty of murder even though it may have been committed somewhere I never went. If I was there, then I'd be an accomplice to murder.
Now, if a company says, "Hey, please have fun infringing copyright with our software," then they are guilty. As they should be. The Grokster ruling is nothing new, and the EFF is only making a big deal about how it sets a dangerous precedent in order to save face.
If it's not good enough to enjoy... why bother obtaining and watching it?
Digital packrats. I myself have an outrageous amount of material that I will never watch (captures from VHS recordings of old TV broadcasts that I've traded over IRC because there exists no way of buying the show since it was never made available, or because it is no longer in print) primarily because it's there (and because I believe someone should archive our culture, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion). I had a roommate in college who had many, many terabytes of movies that I'm sure he never watched. He just grabbed them on the off chance that he might want to watch it.
Another reason is that files are gold in the scene. If you have an obscure file that someone wants, you can get whatever you want from them in trade. It can be quite profitable (in a non-monetary sense).
For example, I happened to acquire some old broadcasts of Family Double Dare (a show on Nickelodeon when I was a kid). A year later, I came across someone willing to trade all 26 episodes of Space Cases (a show I had sought for years online to no avail which literally does not exist in any buyable format) for the two episodes of Family Double Dare I had.
Two files I had downloaded just because I had nothing better to do one day made possible the acquisition of one of three series I have longed to acquire for my entire adult life.
Of course, if these shows were on DVD, I most likely would have never swapped them, but that's another discussion for another day.
On second reading, I agree. I misread it as permanent protection for Mickey Mouse (you using it in a broad manner to refer to the body of Mickey animations) and The Little Mermaid (a movie) instead of the two characters.
For example, if Disney would surrender almost all of their old television cartoons and theatrical movies into the public domain (where they should have lapsed years ago), the US could reciprocate and give a *permanent* protection for a few of their most prized revenue source characters: Mickey Mouse and Disney's Ariel (the Little Mermaid).
That is a horrible idea. No one deserves a permanent copyright, no matter what the public receives in return.
I wonder if we'll be able to skin this version of Windows.
I should hope so. Windows [XP [Home|Pro]|Media Center Edition] are skinnable. It sounds to me like you didn't know that, since you apparently stuck with the default theme despite not liking it.
Does the department test every possible variation on the data? Because if not, how do you know there isn't a bug in the algo? Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to rip the prosecution to shreads on this, now that they actually have judges contemplating allowing this defense (as evidenced by the fact that the defense wasn't thrown out). IANAL (yet).
The question of whether closed software is inherently more secure is not the issue. The issue is whether or not, all things being equal, a certain software package that is unmodifiable by civilians (since it's military grade, they won't just accept your patches) gains nothing by being open source, but loses any security through obscurity (which exists until the software is cracked, and it can't be cracked by enemies if the only people who have access to the software are those in my government (traitors aside).
Even aside from that, the question is simply, all other things being equal, is a certain software package more secure when it the code is read-only to the public? The answer is no. Did Windows magically become more secure when the partial source code was leaked on the net? No. But I bet you a lot of malware authors downloaded the code to look for exploit opportunities.
how can you call yourself a music fan if you're not willing to support the artist that you're listening to?
It's very simple, assuming you actually do mean to ask the logic behind it. You are merely confusing "liking music" with "wanting a specific artist to continue to make music".
For example, let's say I like music. Does that preclude me from stealing a CD? That must mean that I want it pretty badly. I'd say that's a pretty hardcore fan there, that cannot wait to get money to buy the music.
Note: I'm not advocating theft of music; I just was intrigued by your logical assumption and wanted to think about it aloud on/.
That's not exactly a quality analogy -- I've never come across a radio station aside from talk radio that has a schedule of upcoming audio that one can look up. There's no TV Guide for radio where you say, "Hmm. I wonder what's playing at 12:58:02 pm on KIXS." So you can't really do the same thing with radio.
Searching for a TV show on iTunes to download is as time consuming as searching for the show with TiVo, for example. And 1 minute of my time to look it up on TVGuide.com is worth less to me than 2 dollars is.
That was my point -- we aren't "pirating" and we aren't "stealing" in the same way that someone who burns a CD isn't committing arson! The terms should not be co-opted.
Re:The Real Question on /.'ers Minds...
on
Video iPod Oct 12?
·
· Score: 1
For anyone else who don't usually pay attention to this sort of thing (like me), it seems As Seen On TV is an unknown user on/. who appears to be an Apple insider. This is why As Seen On TV has about a scrumtrulescent 5 bajillion/. friends.
Who trades videos over P2P or buys video DVDs from Borders, Wal-Mart or Amazon?
College students. In fact, I would posit that at UT, nearly 1/2 of the on-campus residents share on a regular basis on DC++ (UT is a school of 50,000 students, with over 5,000 living on campus). If it is the same on other college campuses around the US, then that's a pretty large population.
Also, a large portion of students (especially underclassmen) here have iPods. Most of these students received them as graduation presents. Thus, an iPod Video has the possibility to be huge on college campuses.
That being said, I chose the iPod Photo over the cheaper standard iPod in the hopes that iPodLinux would eventually get video working on it. It now appears they have.
Before I repartition the HDD on my new iPod Photo, I've been hoping to run across someone who uses the video features of iPodLinux. How is it? What formats can it play? Any required resolution? I remember when it was soundless and you needed the video formatted a certain size to play. But now, sound and video can play in tandem. So, are there still resolution restrictions? I already have Azureus download the newest The Daily Show every night while I'm asleep. Should I add a cron job to reencode it to a certain format and copy it to my iPod while I'm asleep, too?
It's killing me to know why the honey is the most dangerous thing in the pack, and what it's really in the pack for, if not for food. Attracting animals to kill? Can you commit suicide with honey? What?
Slashdot Mirror
My research has not yielded any viable open source alternative (unless Google releases GoogleFS)
Since when has Google released any open source software?
Stop complaining; there's a difference between "BitTorrent User Guilty of Piracy" and "Man Found Guilty for Using BitTorrent".
Actually, I think queueing the aforementioned three types of posters would be nice, as the influx of those comments would come much more staggered.
You fail at imitating a Southerner/cowboy (I'm not sure which one, since you failed so bad).
But that has always existed. It's called being an accessory, and you can be held liable vicariously through whom you were an accessory to for anything they have done. Read the section in the link a couple paragraphs down on Common Law.
For example, if I help plan a murder with my buddy, then he does it, I'm an accessory to murder, and can be held guilty of murder even though it may have been committed somewhere I never went. If I was there, then I'd be an accomplice to murder.
Now, if a company says, "Hey, please have fun infringing copyright with our software," then they are guilty. As they should be. The Grokster ruling is nothing new, and the EFF is only making a big deal about how it sets a dangerous precedent in order to save face.
If it's not good enough to enjoy... why bother obtaining and watching it?
Digital packrats. I myself have an outrageous amount of material that I will never watch (captures from VHS recordings of old TV broadcasts that I've traded over IRC because there exists no way of buying the show since it was never made available, or because it is no longer in print) primarily because it's there (and because I believe someone should archive our culture, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion). I had a roommate in college who had many, many terabytes of movies that I'm sure he never watched. He just grabbed them on the off chance that he might want to watch it.
Another reason is that files are gold in the scene. If you have an obscure file that someone wants, you can get whatever you want from them in trade. It can be quite profitable (in a non-monetary sense).
For example, I happened to acquire some old broadcasts of Family Double Dare (a show on Nickelodeon when I was a kid). A year later, I came across someone willing to trade all 26 episodes of Space Cases (a show I had sought for years online to no avail which literally does not exist in any buyable format) for the two episodes of Family Double Dare I had.
Two files I had downloaded just because I had nothing better to do one day made possible the acquisition of one of three series I have longed to acquire for my entire adult life.
Of course, if these shows were on DVD, I most likely would have never swapped them, but that's another discussion for another day.
On second reading, I agree. I misread it as permanent protection for Mickey Mouse (you using it in a broad manner to refer to the body of Mickey animations) and The Little Mermaid (a movie) instead of the two characters.
For example, if Disney would surrender almost all of their old television cartoons and theatrical movies into the public domain (where they should have lapsed years ago), the US could reciprocate and give a *permanent* protection for a few of their most prized revenue source characters: Mickey Mouse and Disney's Ariel (the Little Mermaid).
That is a horrible idea. No one deserves a permanent copyright, no matter what the public receives in return.
I'd check out the data, but I don't have a login/pass.
Did somebody say "fapping"? Because that's something that becomes more difficult when the internet isn't working.
calls the RIAA
You, sir, are a traitor. Hand in your geek card!
I've found that, for anything other than WMV files, VLC does it for me. And usually for WMV files as well.
I wonder if we'll be able to skin this version of Windows.
I should hope so. Windows [XP [Home|Pro]|Media Center Edition] are skinnable. It sounds to me like you didn't know that, since you apparently stuck with the default theme despite not liking it.
Does the department test every possible variation on the data? Because if not, how do you know there isn't a bug in the algo? Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to rip the prosecution to shreads on this, now that they actually have judges contemplating allowing this defense (as evidenced by the fact that the defense wasn't thrown out). IANAL (yet).
The question of whether closed software is inherently more secure is not the issue. The issue is whether or not, all things being equal, a certain software package that is unmodifiable by civilians (since it's military grade, they won't just accept your patches) gains nothing by being open source, but loses any security through obscurity (which exists until the software is cracked, and it can't be cracked by enemies if the only people who have access to the software are those in my government (traitors aside).
Even aside from that, the question is simply, all other things being equal, is a certain software package more secure when it the code is read-only to the public? The answer is no. Did Windows magically become more secure when the partial source code was leaked on the net? No. But I bet you a lot of malware authors downloaded the code to look for exploit opportunities.
You forgot, "Brad and Jen will break up!"
how can you call yourself a music fan if you're not willing to support the artist that you're listening to?
/.
It's very simple, assuming you actually do mean to ask the logic behind it. You are merely confusing "liking music" with "wanting a specific artist to continue to make music".
For example, let's say I like music. Does that preclude me from stealing a CD? That must mean that I want it pretty badly. I'd say that's a pretty hardcore fan there, that cannot wait to get money to buy the music.
Note: I'm not advocating theft of music; I just was intrigued by your logical assumption and wanted to think about it aloud on
That's not exactly a quality analogy -- I've never come across a radio station aside from talk radio that has a schedule of upcoming audio that one can look up. There's no TV Guide for radio where you say, "Hmm. I wonder what's playing at 12:58:02 pm on KIXS." So you can't really do the same thing with radio.
Searching for a TV show on iTunes to download is as time consuming as searching for the show with TiVo, for example. And 1 minute of my time to look it up on TVGuide.com is worth less to me than 2 dollars is.
That was my point -- we aren't "pirating" and we aren't "stealing" in the same way that someone who burns a CD isn't committing arson! The terms should not be co-opted.
For anyone else who don't usually pay attention to this sort of thing (like me), it seems As Seen On TV is an unknown user on /. who appears to be an Apple insider. This is why As Seen On TV has about a scrumtrulescent 5 bajillion /. friends.
Who trades videos over P2P or buys video DVDs from Borders, Wal-Mart or Amazon?
College students. In fact, I would posit that at UT, nearly 1/2 of the on-campus residents share on a regular basis on DC++ (UT is a school of 50,000 students, with over 5,000 living on campus). If it is the same on other college campuses around the US, then that's a pretty large population.
Also, a large portion of students (especially underclassmen) here have iPods. Most of these students received them as graduation presents. Thus, an iPod Video has the possibility to be huge on college campuses.
That being said, I chose the iPod Photo over the cheaper standard iPod in the hopes that iPodLinux would eventually get video working on it. It now appears they have.
Before I repartition the HDD on my new iPod Photo, I've been hoping to run across someone who uses the video features of iPodLinux. How is it? What formats can it play? Any required resolution? I remember when it was soundless and you needed the video formatted a certain size to play. But now, sound and video can play in tandem. So, are there still resolution restrictions? I already have Azureus download the newest The Daily Show every night while I'm asleep. Should I add a cron job to reencode it to a certain format and copy it to my iPod while I'm asleep, too?
It's killing me to know why the honey is the most dangerous thing in the pack, and what it's really in the pack for, if not for food. Attracting animals to kill? Can you commit suicide with honey? What?
into the sewer where it's eaten by technologically advanced rodents
Where he teaches REAL ULTIMATE POWER to four baby turtles zomg!
Ha. Just kidding -- it's 4:24a and I should be studying for a Real Analysis test, not being wrong about things.
I should have said, "violation of a license agreement."