actually it's an April fools day joke --- they just forgot to tell us.
It's the way nerds get revenge on us people. We think they are all knowing so we believe anything they tell us -- payback for years of wet willies, wedgies, trash can stuffings, and food trays over the head.
who might have gotten stuck in an avalanche or fallen in a lake or some other crap --- what is this rapid rate? day? month? year? decade? 5000 years (aka who gives a flying fuck)
They actually had this as a law? What a retarded law. It's like putting a tax on television sets because people steal TV's....
But hell, I don't think anyone sells a CD player that cannot play MP3's - so does that make every CD player taxable or does it have to say "Plays MP3's" on the product description? What a bogus law.
Not to demean what you are saying, but I think that our age has a lot to play with it. I sometimes catch reruns of cartoons that I used to watch as a kid (i.e. transformers) and the graphics (while technically the exact same) just doesn't look as good as what I remembered. I think its the same for the games. When we were younger we were more impressed and awe inspired and we have that memory. Now we are older, and harder to impress - so we are basing our current judgements on our memories which tend to trump up good memories into fantasy ones:D
Man I feel old. What are they going to say, the 1990-1995 era was pre-historic age? Come on, can we at least get like 20 years before going golden age? A human generation would be nice...
Or it's a law to help protect the rights of the person who created it. The person who made the work has a lot more vested interest in the project then joe schmoe. Thusly, the person should have a hell of a lot more say, control, and authority then anyone else. But I am glad that you believe that people's works - once made - should be in the control of the "public" (i.e. gov't) instead of the person who made it.
No. We are talking about copyright infringement, which---despite publishers' propaganda---is not even remotely the same thing. Copyright infringement ought to be a purely civil (not criminal) matter.
So other then the CD and case, what is the difference between stealing a movie from the video store and downloading it from online? Why is one considered theft (shoplifting) and the other is not? If you say because you are not getting a cd and a case ---not attempting to start a flame war---but you are an idiot. I am actually tired of people demeaning the value of electronic formats because it is not tangeable. So again - whats the difference between stealing from a store and downloaing from the net that should make one theft and the other not theft?
I do not know if it is grossly disproportionate. First off I highly doubt they will know exactly how many songs you uploaded - their figures will probably be far less.
Second and more importantly the law always stipulates that monetary damages be substantially (grossly) higher then actual costs. If the law said "get caught u/ling a movie and you gotta pay for each instance the standard market price" - you will see more people taking chances...why? Well *IF* the person gets caught - they pay a few hundred - no big deal...and the people doing the investing/sueing paid a lot more for their fees. Now if the penalties are insanely high and potential jail time --- well the threat is a lot more substantial.
Again this is not the first time that the law gives STRONG penalties for relatively minor crimes.
Hollywood is trying to maximize their profits? Good gods, what could they possibly be thinking?
These people put substantial money up (producers) and take a risk. You may not like what Hollywood is producing (you didn't like LOTR?) but apparantly a lot of people do.
You may not like what the music industry is pumping out, but apparantly a lot of people do.
So the real question is: If you do not like it - why are you wasting your time d/ling and storing it? My guess is either you are sadistic and like inflicting pain on yourself *OR* you do like the music - but don't want to pay. While that *IS* morally and legally wrong - I can understand not wanting to pay for something when you can get it for free...but don't go around bashing entire industries, their artists, and the people who work hard hours in an attempt to "justify" your actions...that is just plain wrong - and I would hope everyone on/. would see that.
Heh, If it was two years ago I would have hooked her up with my good buddy (43 now) who is loaded, fun and plays in a mens hockey league (whoops up on anyone half his age)...Loves to travel, go adventuring (white water), etc...
OTOH she could come to Philly to go out with me:) (28)
Hell, even if you use P2P servers - you still have to sift through all the crap, hope you get a decent connection and then HOPE that what you d/l'd was the real movie and not something else. I once tried d/lg the Paris Hilton video. It was titled as such. When it was done, it was some Kevin spacey movie (the one where he has a mid-life crises and almost screws mira sorvena)...I spent THREE days for nothing...and I spent at least a half hour sifting through crap.
Netflix is the way to go. Sides - i have a list so big (200 movies) that getting the movies is like a surprise:D
I agree. Services like netflix are great. You are getting high quality - and you know you are getting it. You are also not wasting a ton of bandwidth (better spent on gaming).
The only time I download shows is for TV shows that I just missed (i.e. my vcr tape gets full and it didn't record the latest episode of smalleville.)..I will d/l the show and watch it. Actually I (most of the time) get it in HD quality so its even better then tv (though smaller and not as good a sound quality)...
I personally think the networks should offer their shows for D/L (they can have you sign up and then target commercials at you...commercials that YOU want to view.) They are all freakin idiots though.
Because the SWAT teams received reports from the MPAA/RIAA that these nerds were highly trained terrorist and counter-terrorist units (think: CounterStrike).
I have ZERO chance of convincing any type of girl that I typically go out with to come along. Calling girl: "Hey you want to see an orchestra concert?"..."Sure that would be fun, what is it?"...."Final Fantas..."++ATH0 "Hello?"
Why can't the person who made you your toilet charge you each time you use it? Because he didn't have you sign a license agreement to do so. Why didn't he? Because you would tell him to go to hell and find osmeone else. Nothing is preventing him from creating such a contract. Next time you go buy a program - if they want to charge you each time you turn it on - tell them no you dont want to buy it. Simple...however, if you want to use the program that bad - fork over the cash and agree to the contract
Counterstrike is an invention. It may not have physical properties, but it was invented by someone. The invention came from an idea (all inventions come from ideas).
I agree that patents are not untouchable, but just because it is broken does not mean it should be gotten rid of. Some things broken must be fixed- but a void would be worse. Maybe not in the minds of people who want everything free - but our society is not built on getting things for free.
It's a matter of opinion, and apparantly the software writers want it to be a patent. Whats wrong with it being a patent?
I personally have never seen (or heard of until you) a software program being considered a form of speech. Just because it utilizes text does not make it speech - I think that is a gross viewpoint and maligning of what a program is.
Except with the first to disclose you run into these problems:
1) I do not know how to patent and cannot afford to get someone to do it for me. I am screwed.
2) I didn't patent my invention, I have been selling it for years, Joe Schmoe company decides to patent my invention - now I have to pay them royalties. aka Prior art.
Now if I invent something, do not patent it and do not make it publicaly known (i.e. i put it in a vault and locked itup) and X years from now someone invents something else just like it and they patent it...I would think that I am screwed - otherwise who is to say I didn't copy the material?
I think most of our problems will be solved when the patent lawyers, processors, and laws are re-educated, updated and fixed. I think that patent/copyright laws are needed. If someone wants to create something and make it freeware/open source/etc - that is their choice. If someone wants to make a buck - that is their choice - not ours (other then saying that we won't pay).
Out of curiousity - how many open source PC games are out there that come even close to competing with games like UT, CS, etc? If open source is so great - why haven't they made headway?
My arguement is not that its "fair" in terms of nice. My arguement is that the person needs to be able to control their creation the way they deem fit - why? Because they invented and it is their choice. If someone does not like their choice - someone can opt not to use it. Also, since software is easily reproduceable, they need laws that help protect those who do not want to make it freeware. They need laws that allows a person to make money if he so pleases. It is not an emotional appeal - it is a logical and a realist appeal. Those who want everything to be open source and free are being ridiculous - considering our society is not like that. Why is a car manufacturer more entitled to making money on his product then someone who makes a game? Arguing because the car is physical is illogical. We can pay the car manufacturer the costs of the material - and nothing else (labor). Or how about when I go to the mechanic to fix my car I only pay him for the parts but not the labor. It is an =-idealist-= notion, but not a realistic one.
But you are right, there is nobody on here who is going to convince me that a programmer should not be able to patent/copyright - lock down - protect and charge whatever he wants for his software. (mind you I am not talking about the idiots who try and patent things that they did not invent, i am talking about legitimate works).
So it seems that you are arguing the current patent process. That means it needs to be changed not abolished.
Software inventions are the same thing as physical inventions and dserve the same accord. I have an idea: I need to do XYZ...well I do not know how to do XYZ...someone comes up with a piece of software that does XYZ....why can't they patent the process? For example: we know that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Now lets say we want to implement that into a program for a product - but we do not know how to. So a company figures out how to do this. Why can't they patent the process? They are not patenting the pythag formula, they are patenting a process that helps utilize the formula.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a subset of nerd...I am a bouncer nerd....geek by day, bouncer by night. And if I am not bouncing, I am partying
Hmmm,
So how can something be overrated, if it was never rated until being rated "overrated"?
actually it's an April fools day joke --- they just forgot to tell us.
It's the way nerds get revenge on us people. We think they are all knowing so we believe anything they tell us -- payback for years of wet willies, wedgies, trash can stuffings, and food trays over the head.
who might have gotten stuck in an avalanche or fallen in a lake or some other crap --- what is this rapid rate? day? month? year? decade? 5000 years (aka who gives a flying fuck)
They actually had this as a law? What a retarded law. It's like putting a tax on television sets because people steal TV's....
But hell, I don't think anyone sells a CD player that cannot play MP3's - so does that make every CD player taxable or does it have to say "Plays MP3's" on the product description? What a bogus law.
And just think how it will be in 10 - 20 years from now. You will be saying thet same statement (including the not listening deal) :D
Now I know how old people feel when they say "I remember back when....."
Not to demean what you are saying, but I think that our age has a lot to play with it. I sometimes catch reruns of cartoons that I used to watch as a kid (i.e. transformers) and the graphics (while technically the exact same) just doesn't look as good as what I remembered. I think its the same for the games. When we were younger we were more impressed and awe inspired and we have that memory. Now we are older, and harder to impress - so we are basing our current judgements on our memories which tend to trump up good memories into fantasy ones :D
Man I feel old. What are they going to say, the 1990-1995 era was pre-historic age? Come on, can we at least get like 20 years before going golden age? A human generation would be nice...
Or it's a law to help protect the
rights of the person who created it. The person who made the work has a lot more vested interest in the project then joe schmoe. Thusly, the person should have a hell of a lot more say, control, and authority then anyone else. But I am glad that you believe that people's works - once made - should be in the control of the "public" (i.e. gov't) instead of the person who made it.
and each line was over 5,000 characters long...
No. We are talking about copyright infringement, which---despite publishers' propaganda---is not even remotely the same thing. Copyright infringement ought to be a purely civil (not criminal) matter.
So other then the CD and case, what is the difference between stealing a movie from the video store and downloading it from online? Why is one considered theft (shoplifting) and the other is not? If you say because you are not getting a cd and a case ---not attempting to start a flame war---but you are an idiot. I am actually tired of people demeaning the value of electronic formats because it is not tangeable. So again - whats the difference between stealing from a store and downloaing from the net that should make one theft and the other not theft?
I do not know if it is grossly disproportionate. First off I highly doubt they will know exactly how many songs you uploaded - their figures will probably be far less.
Second and more importantly the law always stipulates that monetary damages be substantially (grossly) higher then actual costs. If the law said "get caught u/ling a movie and you gotta pay for each instance the standard market price" - you will see more people taking chances...why? Well *IF* the person gets caught - they pay a few hundred - no big deal...and the people doing the investing/sueing paid a lot more for their fees. Now if the penalties are insanely high and potential jail time --- well the threat is a lot more substantial.
Again this is not the first time that the law gives STRONG penalties for relatively minor crimes.
Hollywood is trying to maximize their profits? Good gods, what could they possibly be thinking?
/. would see that.
These people put substantial money up (producers) and take a risk. You may not like what Hollywood is producing (you didn't like LOTR?) but apparantly a lot of people do.
You may not like what the music industry is pumping out, but apparantly a lot of people do.
So the real question is: If you do not like it - why are you wasting your time d/ling and storing it? My guess is either you are sadistic and like inflicting pain on yourself *OR* you do like the music - but don't want to pay. While that *IS* morally and legally wrong - I can understand not wanting to pay for something when you can get it for free...but don't go around bashing entire industries, their artists, and the people who work hard hours in an attempt to "justify" your actions...that is just plain wrong - and I would hope everyone on
Heh, If it was two years ago I would have hooked her up with my good buddy (43 now) who is loaded, fun and plays in a mens hockey league (whoops up on anyone half his age)...Loves to travel, go adventuring (white water), etc...
:) (28)
OTOH she could come to Philly to go out with me
Hell, even if you use P2P servers - you still have to sift through all the crap, hope you get a decent connection and then HOPE that what you d/l'd was the real movie and not something else. I once tried d/lg the Paris Hilton video. It was titled as such. When it was done, it was some Kevin spacey movie (the one where he has a mid-life crises and almost screws mira sorvena)...I spent THREE days for nothing...and I spent at least a half hour sifting through crap.
:D
Netflix is the way to go. Sides - i have a list so big (200 movies) that getting the movies is like a surprise
I agree. Services like netflix are great. You are getting high quality - and you know you are getting it. You are also not wasting a ton of bandwidth (better spent on gaming).
The only time I download shows is for TV shows that I just missed (i.e. my vcr tape gets full and it didn't record the latest episode of smalleville.)..I will d/l the show and watch it. Actually I (most of the time) get it in HD quality so its even better then tv (though smaller and not as good a sound quality)...
I personally think the networks should offer their shows for D/L (they can have you sign up and then target commercials at you...commercials that YOU want to view.) They are all freakin idiots though.
Because the SWAT teams received reports from the MPAA/RIAA that these nerds were highly trained terrorist and counter-terrorist units (think: CounterStrike).
That the guy with the flappy ears in star wars that everyone wanted to kill, even though he was one of the good guys?
Actually, if I found a smoking hot girl who ALSO likes geek things - I would marry her instantly.
I have ZERO chance of convincing any type of girl that I typically go out with to come along. Calling girl: "Hey you want to see an orchestra concert?"..."Sure that would be fun, what is it?"...."Final Fantas..."++ATH0 "Hello?"
Why can't the person who made you your toilet charge you each time you use it? Because he didn't have you sign a license agreement to do so. Why didn't he? Because you would tell him to go to hell and find osmeone else. Nothing is preventing him from creating such a contract. Next time you go buy a program - if they want to charge you each time you turn it on - tell them no you dont want to buy it. Simple...however, if you want to use the program that bad - fork over the cash and agree to the contract
Counterstrike is an invention. It may not have physical properties, but it was invented by someone. The invention came from an idea (all inventions come from ideas).
I agree that patents are not untouchable, but just because it is broken does not mean it should be gotten rid of. Some things broken must be fixed- but a void would be worse. Maybe not in the minds of people who want everything free - but our society is not built on getting things for free.
It's a matter of opinion, and apparantly the software writers want it to be a patent. Whats wrong with it being a patent?
I personally have never seen (or heard of until you) a software program being considered a form of speech. Just because it utilizes text does not make it speech - I think that is a gross viewpoint and maligning of what a program is.
Except with the first to disclose you run into these problems:
1) I do not know how to patent and cannot afford to get someone to do it for me. I am screwed.
2) I didn't patent my invention, I have been selling it for years, Joe Schmoe company decides to patent my invention - now I have to pay them royalties. aka Prior art.
Now if I invent something, do not patent it and do not make it publicaly known (i.e. i put it in a vault and locked itup) and X years from now someone invents something else just like it and they patent it...I would think that I am screwed - otherwise who is to say I didn't copy the material?
I think most of our problems will be solved when the patent lawyers, processors, and laws are re-educated, updated and fixed. I think that patent/copyright laws are needed. If someone wants to create something and make it freeware/open source/etc - that is their choice. If someone wants to make a buck - that is their choice - not ours (other then saying that we won't pay).
Out of curiousity - how many open source PC games are out there that come even close to competing with games like UT, CS, etc? If open source is so great - why haven't they made headway?
My arguement is not that its "fair" in terms of nice. My arguement is that the person needs to be able to control their creation the way they deem fit - why? Because they invented and it is their choice. If someone does not like their choice - someone can opt not to use it. Also, since software is easily reproduceable, they need laws that help protect those who do not want to make it freeware. They need laws that allows a person to make money if he so pleases. It is not an emotional appeal - it is a logical and a realist appeal. Those who want everything to be open source and free are being ridiculous - considering our society is not like that. Why is a car manufacturer more entitled to making money on his product then someone who makes a game? Arguing because the car is physical is illogical. We can pay the car manufacturer the costs of the material - and nothing else (labor). Or how about when I go to the mechanic to fix my car I only pay him for the parts but not the labor. It is an =-idealist-= notion, but not a realistic one.
But you are right, there is nobody on here who is going to convince me that a programmer should not be able to patent/copyright - lock down - protect and charge whatever he wants for his software. (mind you I am not talking about the idiots who try and patent things that they did not invent, i am talking about legitimate works).
So it seems that you are arguing the current patent process. That means it needs to be changed not abolished.
Software inventions are the same thing as physical inventions and dserve the same accord. I have an idea: I need to do XYZ...well I do not know how to do XYZ...someone comes up with a piece of software that does XYZ....why can't they patent the process? For example: we know that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Now lets say we want to implement that into a program for a product - but we do not know how to. So a company figures out how to do this. Why can't they patent the process? They are not patenting the pythag formula, they are patenting a process that helps utilize the formula.