Had you preferred if I said ethics is irrelevant as long as something is technically legal? That is what most of the people arguing against me seem to believe.
I guess ethics is really dead, after all if you won't be put in jail or sued for doing something why shouldn't you do it. Who cares if someone gets hurt or dies, after all you'll get off scott free which is all that matters.
You know, a statement like that, coming from a person that admits that they break the law for their own entertainment, is really frightening. I wonder how often you break the law and for what reasons.
You could apply that logic to stealing anything. "When I can pay for it, I will. But for now, I'll just take it free of charge." Not really. Unlike you I don't see everything as black or white, neither do most rational people in the world.
Also a slippery slope argument does not work when I apply my argument to a very specific case, specifically me and only certain types of content. Also you still don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringment. Theft steals actual money from someone while copyright infringement only lowers their future income. My argument by definition can't be applied to actual goods because then me paying latter is not equivalent to me paying now (as they cannot sell the same product to someone else).
And now I will kneecap you prior to X since you explained to me about how copying something is not theft, when I asked you not to. If you can't cope with reality, that copyright infringement is not theft in most senses of the word, then that's your own limitation not mine.
Well good for you. I simply find no point in spending effort and time to be within the technical letter of the law.
After all the only real difference between me copying a tv show from the air and ripping out all the ads versus to me downloading it is that the former takes more time to set up. After all who cares if the producer gets no money or ad views if you're technically within the letter of the law. Who cares about the ethics of it or the impact on the producer.
No it just makes it silly to argue that I should pay for all that worthless and redundant hardware simply so that I am officially in the legal right. After all who cares about the absurdity of something or the ethics of it when all you need is to be within the letter of the law.
It's recognizing that my greed for entertainment doesn't trump the rights of others. It's actually consideration, something you apparently don't fully understand, given your stance on collecting the copyrighted works of others on your own terms. *shrug* Rights are a social construct and illegality does not make something unethical. Likewise life isn't black or white. I see nothing really unethical about what I do.
How is it any different from me using say a tivo on airwave traffic and skipping all the ads?
"Well, maybe I'll buy it but I wouldn't have otherwise if I didn't steal it first" No I justify it as "there is no way for me to buy it now, if I was able to I would buy it. since I can't I will download it now and buy it once I can."
Oh, yes, and please inform me of how making a copy of something is not theft. Since the original version still exists it is copyright violation not theft. Legally and ethically there is a big difference. Theft for example doesn't have fair use.
If you got your hands on a copy of my company's source code, you bet your ass you'd be in jail. Ah yes, the lovely "invalid example" argument. I'd love you to find me a jury that would put me in jail for having the source code for a company after they publicly and officially distributed millions of copies of it to the public (in say newspapers).
And you'd be there for theft. Yeah, you whine on about making copies and what not, but the fact is you are fucking thief. Well I'm not legally.
You are a criminal. So are you probably. Lots of fun laws on the books like:
I'd give you the American History X treatment if I meet your pasty ass on the street. Interesting. You threatened me which is illegal so you are guilty of a crime. So how do you feel mr criminal?
Yeah, I'm an internet tough guy but you are a filthy fucking criminal. You are no better than the drug addict who breaks into cars. You are just feeding a different habit for other reasons. So is that how you justify illegal vigilante justice?
Greed? I do pay for them once I'm allowed to so I don't see why I'm greedy. Actually if you ever skip or ignore ads you are being a lot more greedy than me.
But as I said, I'm not an asshole. No, you're apparently just a self-righteous idiot.
Right, that means you aren't willing to pay for the entertainment. Does this somehow justify piracy? I don't see how, but then again, I'm not an asshole. Interesting. So the only form of entertainment available in the world are tv shows which are never released in another medium. god, I feel bad for whatever world YOU live in. Unlike your world in this world there is lots of nice convenient entertainment I can pay for. For example I can buy DVDs or I can pay to download legal versions of tv shows. The fact that they don't offer any of these options, be it because the show just aired or because the executives are morons, is not my problems.
Essentially if you don't allow me any way to pay you for something that I want (ie: other than watching ads on a tv) then it's not my problem that if I can't pay you right now. I'll pay you once you finally get something in place but I'm not costing you anything anyway by my current actions so you shouldn't care.
I watch an absurdly small amount of tv shows, maybe 1 hour a week on average of new tv-only shows. Consider for a second how much all that crap would cost me, the time to set it up and so on.
I never said that. I'm perfectly willing to pay for entertainment. I'm not however willing to pay for things which I have no need for to view that entertainment with simply because someone said I need them. It's quite wasteful to buy redundant things and I already have too much junk.
All the things you list are no excuse for you to steal their content. Yet it's NOT about money really, it's about convenience. I'll gladly pay for easy to get, not exorbitantly overpriced, easy to play, good quality tv shows. Sadly downloads are often better quality and easier to use than dvds even.
1. I have no working TV. 2. TVs with resolutions comparable to my computer are expensive. 3. I don't have a sound system for a TV. 4. I don't have cable. 5. I don't want to dick around with HDMI and whatever other crap I'd need to get a HD signal to said TV. 6. I'm at work quite often and at odd times. Tivo costs money.
I said essentially relicense it. If you add GPL code to BSD code the end result needs to satisfy BOTH licenses. Since the GPL is more restrictive the end result is essentially relicensed under the GPL.
God forbid people make a simple mistake which they fix as soon as they are aware of it. Oh wait if you used common sense then you couldn't get into a hissy fit.
Also it may be the case that header files cannot be copyrighted in which case removing the BSD license was perfectly legal from those files.
Just to clarify I mean that IBM can sell such hardware to other corporations but not to home users. Interestingly enough IBM's consumer division is dead and it's a big supported of GPL software.
The GPL3 allows you to DRM your hardware and do as much software as you want if your product is not sold to consumers. In other words it lets, say, IBM sell tivod hardware without violating the GPL3. I'm sorry but to me that is NOT freedom above everything else.
If you don't want you code to be able to be essentially relicensed then don't use the BSD.
YOU chose what license you to use. don't blame others for abiding by the license YOU chose. If you give people 100% freedom that INCLUDES being able to relicense it, I'm not even sure if copyright law allows 100% freedom Of course the BSD only gives you 99% freedom and that 1% requires that the original copyright statement be left in place.
Oh shut up you nitwit. I'm starting to get tired of all of you illiterate BSD zealots.
The code was under TWO licenses. GPL and BSD. Someone removed the BSD one because the codes said you can choose either one. Due to likely clarity and to prevent future legal problems (ie: to prevent people from assuming GPL code is under the BSD) they removed the BSD license text.
So pretty much ever license seems to have spoiled brats as the "main supporters."
GPL has a hypocritical zealot who doesn't care for anything except his own skewed view (not even ideal), unless of course his main sponsor disagrees in which case his ideals aren't that important.
For BSD it seems to be likewise hypocritical but also inferiority complex inflicted individuals who can't deal with the fact that GPL is more popular.
Not in the Silicon Valley. Yes if you're willing to live about 700 miles north of there, but not in the Silicon Valley. I live in silicon valley. Tons of rooms for under $500/month and tons of larger places where each roommate would pay under $500. Hell I rented such a room for the whole summer.
In California in the Summer? Maybe if you like heat stroke or never sleeping. Well apparently you never lived in the bay area. See unlike places north of it the bay area has a rather nice climate which keeps it bearable during the whole year. You're at work most of the time anyways so it doesn't matter and fans are more than adequate the rest of the time. Likewise nights are either cold or freezing the whole year round, I nearly froze to death when the heating wasn't turned on properly during half the winter (college so they didn't care to fix it).
And this one. But your rent is more likely to be closer to $3k/month for a studio alone, and utilities will run you closer to $400. Call it $4k to live decently- $48,000/year. Many of the one bedroom apartment in the bay area are under $1500 including nice ones.
I live in the bay area. My living expenses right now come out to maybe $22k per year and I'm far from frugal (no need to be excessively so, mostly I'm trying to save up for some in case I need it in the future so I'm living well below my means). That includes a decent one bedroom apartment and eating out much of the time.
If you're in the Silicon Valley and making less than $36,000 a year, you're going to be living on the STREETS for a few years. Christ, you people really don't know how to live frugally. Let's see now: -Rent: $600 a month. Either you have a roommate, rent a room or are somehow very lucky. For $1k you can probably manage to get a studio. -Utilities: $50 a month -Food: $300 a month (it's called cooking). -Car: It's called a bike or bus.
comes out to $1k/months for living expenses. $12k a year to survive with a roof over your head. $20k and you live somewhat decently.
I find it MORE interesting that both CentOS and Ubuntu are not purely community based entities. CentOS is pretty much RHEL which is of course a commercial linux distribution. Ubuntu is heavily backed/sponsored by a private corporation.
Not everybody is independently wealthy enough to endure startup economics or working for free for the 5 years or so to cover the experience gap. Be glad you had mommy and daddy paying your bills. Yeah god forbid you have to live frugally for a few years.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess ethics is really dead, after all if you won't be put in jail or sued for doing something why shouldn't you do it. Who cares if someone gets hurt or dies, after all you'll get off scott free which is all that matters. You know, a statement like that, coming from a person that admits that they break the law for their own entertainment, is really frightening. I wonder how often you break the law and for what reasons.
Also a slippery slope argument does not work when I apply my argument to a very specific case, specifically me and only certain types of content. Also you still don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringment. Theft steals actual money from someone while copyright infringement only lowers their future income. My argument by definition can't be applied to actual goods because then me paying latter is not equivalent to me paying now (as they cannot sell the same product to someone else). And now I will kneecap you prior to X since you explained to me about how copying something is not theft, when I asked you not to. If you can't cope with reality, that copyright infringement is not theft in most senses of the word, then that's your own limitation not mine.
Well good for you. I simply find no point in spending effort and time to be within the technical letter of the law.
After all the only real difference between me copying a tv show from the air and ripping out all the ads versus to me downloading it is that the former takes more time to set up. After all who cares if the producer gets no money or ad views if you're technically within the letter of the law. Who cares about the ethics of it or the impact on the producer.
No it just makes it silly to argue that I should pay for all that worthless and redundant hardware simply so that I am officially in the legal right. After all who cares about the absurdity of something or the ethics of it when all you need is to be within the letter of the law.
How is it any different from me using say a tivo on airwave traffic and skipping all the ads?
Essentially if you don't allow me any way to pay you for something that I want (ie: other than watching ads on a tv) then it's not my problem that if I can't pay you right now. I'll pay you once you finally get something in place but I'm not costing you anything anyway by my current actions so you shouldn't care.
I watch an absurdly small amount of tv shows, maybe 1 hour a week on average of new tv-only shows. Consider for a second how much all that crap would cost me, the time to set it up and so on.
I never said that. I'm perfectly willing to pay for entertainment. I'm not however willing to pay for things which I have no need for to view that entertainment with simply because someone said I need them. It's quite wasteful to buy redundant things and I already have too much junk.
If I later buy the DVDs (which are actually worse than downloads in terms of quality and convenience) am I still stealing?
>>1. Get one cheap, or a tuner card.
Which would cost me space, time and so on.
>>2. Most TV shows are usually lower res than computer screens, so no loss.
I can get rather nice HD downloads.
>>3. TVs have had these wonderful things called built-in speakers for a very long time.
And are crap usually compared to the speakers my computer has.
>>4. You don't need cable to watch TV, there's these things called rabbit ears that have worked for years.
Worked being a relative term.
>>6. VCRs are dead cheap, or you can install MythTV for your tuner card.
Yet more time and annoyance wasted to get it working.
1. I have no working TV.
2. TVs with resolutions comparable to my computer are expensive.
3. I don't have a sound system for a TV.
4. I don't have cable.
5. I don't want to dick around with HDMI and whatever other crap I'd need to get a HD signal to said TV.
6. I'm at work quite often and at odd times. Tivo costs money.
I said essentially relicense it. If you add GPL code to BSD code the end result needs to satisfy BOTH licenses. Since the GPL is more restrictive the end result is essentially relicensed under the GPL.
God forbid people make a simple mistake which they fix as soon as they are aware of it. Oh wait if you used common sense then you couldn't get into a hissy fit.
Also it may be the case that header files cannot be copyrighted in which case removing the BSD license was perfectly legal from those files.
Just to clarify I mean that IBM can sell such hardware to other corporations but not to home users. Interestingly enough IBM's consumer division is dead and it's a big supported of GPL software.
The GPL3 allows you to DRM your hardware and do as much software as you want if your product is not sold to consumers. In other words it lets, say, IBM sell tivod hardware without violating the GPL3. I'm sorry but to me that is NOT freedom above everything else.
If you don't want you code to be able to be essentially relicensed then don't use the BSD.
YOU chose what license you to use. don't blame others for abiding by the license YOU chose. If you give people 100% freedom that INCLUDES being able to relicense it, I'm not even sure if copyright law allows 100% freedom Of course the BSD only gives you 99% freedom and that 1% requires that the original copyright statement be left in place.
Oh shut up you nitwit. I'm starting to get tired of all of you illiterate BSD zealots.
The code was under TWO licenses. GPL and BSD. Someone removed the BSD one because the codes said you can choose either one. Due to likely clarity and to prevent future legal problems (ie: to prevent people from assuming GPL code is under the BSD) they removed the BSD license text.
So pretty much ever license seems to have spoiled brats as the "main supporters."
GPL has a hypocritical zealot who doesn't care for anything except his own skewed view (not even ideal), unless of course his main sponsor disagrees in which case his ideals aren't that important.
For BSD it seems to be likewise hypocritical but also inferiority complex inflicted individuals who can't deal with the fact that GPL is more popular.
I live in the bay area. My living expenses right now come out to maybe $22k per year and I'm far from frugal (no need to be excessively so, mostly I'm trying to save up for some in case I need it in the future so I'm living well below my means). That includes a decent one bedroom apartment and eating out much of the time.
-Rent: $600 a month. Either you have a roommate, rent a room or are somehow very lucky. For $1k you can probably manage to get a studio.
-Utilities: $50 a month
-Food: $300 a month (it's called cooking).
-Car: It's called a bike or bus.
comes out to $1k/months for living expenses. $12k a year to survive with a roof over your head. $20k and you live somewhat decently.
I find it MORE interesting that both CentOS and Ubuntu are not purely community based entities. CentOS is pretty much RHEL which is of course a commercial linux distribution. Ubuntu is heavily backed/sponsored by a private corporation.