Of course, the other thought is that is how they are keeping a track of how many people/computers are running it. If each download only represents 1 computer, it's easy to keep track.
I'm not sure how, but I'm convinced that is infringing on my basic human rights.
millions if not billions would far more prefer a mega then a hollywood
And exactly how much original material has Kim Dotcom and megaupload provided compared with Hollywood?
Oh, that's right. None. Instead he's earned tens or hundreds of millions by facilitating freeloaders.
If anyone wants to make a movie outside of the Hollywood system, do you know what? They're perfectly free to do so, and give it away for nothing if they like. I personally hardly ever watch Hollywood movies, as they're generally either sentimental unfunny crap, or blockbustery braindead crap, but what I don't do is download them for free and then condemn them for being crap.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Except that Gambon aren't going to put Kim Dotcom in prison they're just denying him the right to exploit their TLD.
It would be the same if Kim Dotcom were to go to a bank asking for a loan. They are quite entitled to refuse him the loan based on what they know about his dealings in the past without requiring evidence of specific criminal convictions (although he has those for fraud and insider dealing already, separate from megaupload).
If you had a legal right to a domain name, you might be right. But you don't.
In any democratic country, you have the right of free enterprize.
It seems that in Gabon, one doesn't. Well, it's their choice, and their problem.
There is no right to absolute free "enterprize" anywhere in the world that has laws. Making money does not trump obeying the law, despite what many libertarian entrepreneurs believe.
That's not how the legal system works. If Mr. Fox commited a crime, he should have been punished for that. And part of that punishment might be a ban to visit the henhouse in the future. But if Mr. Fox wasn't ever convicted of a crime, why do you want to punish him for something he might do in the future?
If you keep chickens, you don't invite Mr Fox in, whether you've actually seen him with blood and feathers around his mouth or not. He's a fucking fox.
Kim Dotcom seems happy to boast of the $200m he has earned from megaupload, whether that is criminal or not, it is certainly dubious ethically in many people's eyes.
Wow, it's nice to see Gabon is in a great economic position, has eliminated all poverty, improved education, public healthcare, great mass transit systems, and can afford the luxury to turn down an offer to host what's sure to become one of the most popular websites on Earth, which will generate millions in ad revenue.
Similarly, maybe they could set themselves up as the world's leading supplier of cocaine and make lots of money off that. Or how about child porn, there must be money to be made there? Snuff movies? Or maybe illegal arms sales or torture equipment to repressive dictatorships?
Money is not the be all and end all of things.
You, and apparently most of slashdot, don't seem to find it wrong that Kim Dotcom can make hundreds of millions for himself by piggybacking off the back of copyrighted material, but some of us do.
Property rights depend on having a legal system with enforceable penalties, as other wise I can just come and steal anything of yours if I have more friends with guns than you do.
Whatever you want to call it, the system that society creates to have this legal system is a government. Government would only be unnecessary in an deal anarchist world where everyone co-operated and shared everything equally without coercion
Most uses of property are exclusive due to scarcity; two people cannot consume the same scarce good. Exclusivity does not apply, however, when there
is no natural scarcity; it is not a fundamental aspect of property.
Bullshit, you could divide up all the inhabitable land equally amongst all the people in the world and there would me more than enough for everyone. And anyway how does anyone "own" land in the first place? It is only because society agrees that it can be bought and held by one person. That is part of civilisation. In hunter gatherer societies the idea of owning a piece of land would be as meaningless as owning a piece of the sky.
All property rights are imaginary, including IP, as they are human fictions.
Obama is a moderate right winger (by world and historical standards) and so he's not exactly a pacifist. Fair enough, that's up to you in America, but how anyone can think that a more extreme right winger like, well, anyone in the Republican party would be less bellicose is beyond comprehension.
If he's a teenager, that money's got to last 50+ years. By that time, with inflation, that $250K will buy a loaf of bread.
That's why your investment portfolio would include a reasonable element of long term growth in addition to the income it generated.
Do you think that everybody who was rich fifty years ago has seen their wealth dwindle at the rate of inflation so that it's now worth the price of a loaf of bread?
Maybe I'm an entitled idiot but in New York or Los Angeles it's not that easy living on $185k a year. It sounds nuts but with killer mortgage.
Yes, because if you started with $5m in capital you'd obviously go out and get a huge mortgage rather than use 10% or so of your capital to buy a house.
And if you think you need to spend more than $0.5m on somewhere to live, you really are an entitled idiot.
Five million bucks won't keep you for life unless your very prudent.
Only if your definition of "very prudent" is "don't go out and splurge it all on a Ferrari and a yacht" or something.
As someone below says $5m at 5% a year is $250,000 a year, and if you can't reinvest some of that and live off the rest of the income while also increasing your capital you really don't deserve any sympathy.
Despite what some people think, you don't need to be earning tens of millions a year to be happy.
Right, so by your logic, all internet connections run at exactly the same speed, since light travels at a constant speed in the same medium.. When someone says that a 1Gb/s connection is "a thousand times faster" than a 1Mb/s connection, they're simply wrong.
Makes you wonder what the point of so-called broadband is, doesn't it? We might as well have stuck with our 14.4 kbps modems.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the other thought is that is how they are keeping a track of how many people/computers are running it. If each download only represents 1 computer, it's easy to keep track.
I'm not sure how, but I'm convinced that is infringing on my basic human rights.
Yeah, my thought was "License agreement? Whatever, this thing is free".
It's free as in beer, but so is a pirated copy of Windows.
Why are they so high for something that looks like the original Doom?
millions if not billions would far more prefer a mega then a hollywood
And exactly how much original material has Kim Dotcom and megaupload provided compared with Hollywood?
Oh, that's right. None. Instead he's earned tens or hundreds of millions by facilitating freeloaders.
If anyone wants to make a movie outside of the Hollywood system, do you know what? They're perfectly free to do so, and give it away for nothing if they like. I personally hardly ever watch Hollywood movies, as they're generally either sentimental unfunny crap, or blockbustery braindead crap, but what I don't do is download them for free and then condemn them for being crap.
Just don't consume crap, it's not difficult.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Except that Gambon aren't going to put Kim Dotcom in prison they're just denying him the right to exploit their TLD.
It would be the same if Kim Dotcom were to go to a bank asking for a loan. They are quite entitled to refuse him the loan based on what they know about his dealings in the past without requiring evidence of specific criminal convictions (although he has those for fraud and insider dealing already, separate from megaupload).
In any democratic country, you have the right of free enterprize.
It seems that in Gabon, one doesn't. Well, it's their choice, and their problem.
There is no right to absolute free "enterprize" anywhere in the world that has laws. Making money does not trump obeying the law, despite what many libertarian entrepreneurs believe.
That's not how the legal system works. If Mr. Fox commited a crime, he should have been punished for that. And part of that punishment might be a ban to visit the henhouse in the future. But if Mr. Fox wasn't ever convicted of a crime, why do you want to punish him for something he might do in the future?
If you keep chickens, you don't invite Mr Fox in, whether you've actually seen him with blood and feathers around his mouth or not. He's a fucking fox.
Kim Dotcom seems happy to boast of the $200m he has earned from megaupload, whether that is criminal or not, it is certainly dubious ethically in many people's eyes.
Has he been convicted of something?
Was Osama bin Laden?
Wow, it's nice to see Gabon is in a great economic position, has eliminated all poverty, improved education, public healthcare, great mass transit systems, and can afford the luxury to turn down an offer to host what's sure to become one of the most popular websites on Earth, which will generate millions in ad revenue.
Similarly, maybe they could set themselves up as the world's leading supplier of cocaine and make lots of money off that. Or how about child porn, there must be money to be made there? Snuff movies? Or maybe illegal arms sales or torture equipment to repressive dictatorships?
Money is not the be all and end all of things.
You, and apparently most of slashdot, don't seem to find it wrong that Kim Dotcom can make hundreds of millions for himself by piggybacking off the back of copyrighted material, but some of us do.
Grow up.
Well that stunning argument has me convinced.
That is the conclusion to the argument, not the argument itself, wizz-brain.
I see from wikipedia that they have large petroleum reserves.
They probably didn't want to suffer the same fate as Iraq if they argued with the US.
That argument begs the question of whether a foetus is alive and a human being or not.
People who believe in a woman's right to choose would not agree that a collection of cells just after conception magically becomes a human being.
Property rights depend on having a legal system with enforceable penalties, as other wise I can just come and steal anything of yours if I have more friends with guns than you do.
Whatever you want to call it, the system that society creates to have this legal system is a government. Government would only be unnecessary in an deal anarchist world where everyone co-operated and shared everything equally without coercion
Most uses of property are exclusive due to scarcity; two people cannot consume the same scarce good. Exclusivity does not apply, however, when there is no natural scarcity; it is not a fundamental aspect of property.
Bullshit, you could divide up all the inhabitable land equally amongst all the people in the world and there would me more than enough for everyone. And anyway how does anyone "own" land in the first place? It is only because society agrees that it can be bought and held by one person. That is part of civilisation. In hunter gatherer societies the idea of owning a piece of land would be as meaningless as owning a piece of the sky.
All property rights are imaginary, including IP, as they are human fictions.
Obama is a moderate right winger (by world and historical standards) and so he's not exactly a pacifist. Fair enough, that's up to you in America, but how anyone can think that a more extreme right winger like, well, anyone in the Republican party would be less bellicose is beyond comprehension.
If he's a teenager, that money's got to last 50+ years. By that time, with inflation, that $250K will buy a loaf of bread.
That's why your investment portfolio would include a reasonable element of long term growth in addition to the income it generated.
Do you think that everybody who was rich fifty years ago has seen their wealth dwindle at the rate of inflation so that it's now worth the price of a loaf of bread?
Maybe I'm an entitled idiot but in New York or Los Angeles it's not that easy living on $185k a year. It sounds nuts but with killer mortgage .
Yes, because if you started with $5m in capital you'd obviously go out and get a huge mortgage rather than use 10% or so of your capital to buy a house.
And if you think you need to spend more than $0.5m on somewhere to live, you really are an entitled idiot.
Five million bucks won't keep you for life unless your very prudent.
Only if your definition of "very prudent" is "don't go out and splurge it all on a Ferrari and a yacht" or something.
As someone below says $5m at 5% a year is $250,000 a year, and if you can't reinvest some of that and live off the rest of the income while also increasing your capital you really don't deserve any sympathy.
Despite what some people think, you don't need to be earning tens of millions a year to be happy.
Right, so by your logic, all internet connections run at exactly the same speed, since light travels at a constant speed in the same medium.. When someone says that a 1Gb/s connection is "a thousand times faster" than a 1Mb/s connection, they're simply wrong.
Makes you wonder what the point of so-called broadband is, doesn't it? We might as well have stuck with our 14.4 kbps modems.
Is there a way to post £ without it getting slash-mangled?
Use GBP instead, I've got fed up typing £ (pound sign on a UK keyboard) and seeing it coming out looking Scandinavian.
There is a university in Wales.
Start fining them each $1K
In a world where you can be fined $1.5m for uploading 10 gay porn videos, I think a slightly steeper fine would be in order.
an RIAA-signed artist
You mean, one that more than three of their friends have heard of?
We made some decisions that cost more, but allow us to deliver a superior experience.
Hi, let's give a big shout out to the Apple marketing team shall we?
The last two times I had KFC, after each I remember thinking "man, this stuff is gross, why do I eat it?".
It's because when you're that drunk and hungry, anything hot and quickly available seems like a good idea. How else do McDonald's stay in business?