Translation: allofmp3 is not illegal in Russia for Russian customers. But we know it is illegal just about everywhere else. We pretend we don't know the laws, and we place the burden on you, the customer, to not do anything illegal (like using our site) if you are outside of Russia. So don't try and blame us for doing anything wrong.
Title 17 Chapter 6 Sec. 602 of the U.S. Code covers "Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords". You can find this title here
Subsection (a) tells us:
*
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501."
So it's illegal you may think. But take a close look at sub (a)(2):
*
"This subsection does not apply to importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage;"
If MP3's, OGG's etc are in fact considered phonorecords, U.S. citizens can legally buy these as long if they are for private use and not for distribution. If MP3s, OGG's etc. are not considered phonorecords, no import laws apply. The sections of digital audio recording and sound recording have no mention of importation.
So in layman's terms the bottom line of this discussion is:
*
Downloading from Allofmp3 is legal for U.S. Citizens, as long as the files are for private use and not for distribution.
Yet another poster that cannot understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Or are you doing it deliberately in order to provoke a response? If so, well done, you succeeded.
Let's get it right people, please! Is it so hard to stick to the facts? Please use the correct words, and not the loaded terms that MPAA / RIAA use in their propaganda. Then we can have a rational discussion about it.
Open source software isn't typically about profit. It's often about freedom, and about getting stuff done rather than sitting around waiting for $VENDOR to get off its arse.
OK, that's a bit of a generalisation. Not all open source projects are about freedom... (for example, I'll bet that's not Microsoft's goal).
It's not stealing because when you copy someone else's data, you do not take that data away from them. They still have the data after you have copied it.
<pedantic> It's not "stealing" because when you copy someone else's idea, you do not take that idea away from them. They still have the idea after you have copied it. </pedantic>
So you don't think there is anything wrong with providing anonymous user statistics?
I said that there is nothing wrong in doing it if it provides value for the user, like completing your search terms by using a database of the most frequently requested terms, as I mentioned.
Then you are saying you agree with the DOJ?
No, you made that up yourself. I disagree with the DOJ because Google is a private company and *requiring* them to provide this information gives no value for its users and is an unnecesary burden. However, I think Google has the right to use non-identifiable statistics if they think it adds value to their service.
I was agreeing with your first post by giving a concrete example of sharing search statistics with the general public. You didnt provide any facts apart from an unverifiable story.
There is a huge difference between showing anonymous search statistics in order to aid the end-user and handing over personally identifiable private information to corrupt individuals. Although you could argue that the politicians think they are only doing what is in the public's best interest. I'm glad Google disagrees.
By insisting on Windows in devices, one can at least know there is a single location for automatic patching.
If you insist on any single distribution across your system, you will get a single source for all patches. Nothing magic there. Of course restricting yourself artificially to only one system has both advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes you need to have different systems for different tasks because there is no single Operating System that solves all requirements.
There's nothing wrong with a company making an insecure product. For some unimportant systems, like your TV remote control, it doesn't really matter that much if it is secure or not. Your next door neighbour might have a bit of a laugh but apart from that it doesn't cause any major problems.
The problem is when a company knowingly makes an insecure product, tries to claim it is secure, and advertises it as the most secure system ever. Then when it is proven to be insecure, they try to deny responsibility because the license has a huge disclaimer. Its misleading advertising.
The even worse thing is when people still buy the product for critical systems when it is well known by security experts and CERT that it is not secure.
If 10% of people use Firefox, that's 10% less infections, and 10% less profits for spyware companies. Less profit = less incentive to start a spyware company.
If you can't be sure that the web site you are downloading your security patches from is 100% legitimate, how can you be sure that you aren't compromising your system every time you attempt to apply a security patch?
Cryptographically secure digital signatures solves this problem. If the patch isn't signed by someone / some organisation that you trust, don't install it.
I do not dispise the guy, it's just ridiculous to claim that if you dont give away 60% of your income, you are less generous than Bill Gates. Most people can't afford to give away 60% of their wealth and still pay their bills. Bill gates can.
It's not how much you give away that shows how generous you are, neither the actual amount nor as a percentage. It's how much you decide to keep. Bill Gates has decided to keep enough money to remain the richest man in the world.
It's not so much that I'm annoyed how fucked up your "land of the free" is by now, I wouldn't care about it too much if you not managed to export all of this and get everybody else down the drain with you.
If we mess up our own laws, how is that the USA's fault? We can only blame ourselves for not learning from their mistakes.
The problem is that the revenues from law suits hasn't been as high as expected. Some people have been trying to defend theselves, for example. Other people were unable to pay the millions of dollars damages, and they ended up having to settle for less. Now they do not have enough money left to invest it in producing good music.
The only solution is to sue more people. Maybe they should drop the music industry completely and concentrate 100% on the court cases. It worked for SCO. Oh wait... it didn't did it? Never mind.
What's misleading about saying it is tall? It was only you that assumed that tall and large are the same. Everyone else knows that tall refers to height, not volume.
Oh and you forgot to mention the forced $79 extra subscription fee for 'Internet Security'. A service which is only required for Windows because it is too insecure to look after itself. So now we are looking at a $379 initial payment.
If you were an advertiser, you could be sued for misleading advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
...does it run Windows?
Translation: allofmp3 is not illegal in Russia for Russian customers. But we know it is illegal just about everywhere else. We pretend we don't know the laws, and we place the burden on you, the customer, to not do anything illegal (like using our site) if you are outside of Russia. So don't try and blame us for doing anything wrong.
i ng%20Allofmp3%20legal?
You just made that up. Evidence please?
Try this:
http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm#Is%20us
Title 17 Chapter 6 Sec. 602 of the U.S. Code covers "Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords". You can find this title here
Subsection (a) tells us:
*
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501."
So it's illegal you may think. But take a close look at sub (a)(2):
*
"This subsection does not apply to importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage;"
If MP3's, OGG's etc are in fact considered phonorecords, U.S. citizens can legally buy these as long if they are for private use and not for distribution. If MP3s, OGG's etc. are not considered phonorecords, no import laws apply. The sections of digital audio recording and sound recording have no mention of importation.
So in layman's terms the bottom line of this discussion is:
*
Downloading from Allofmp3 is legal for U.S. Citizens, as long as the files are for private use and not for distribution.
While this fine means almost nothing to them, if every country threatens to do the same, they will start to take notice.
2. Logical arguments about how its wrong to steal
Yet another poster that cannot understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Or are you doing it deliberately in order to provoke a response? If so, well done, you succeeded.
Let's get it right people, please! Is it so hard to stick to the facts? Please use the correct words, and not the loaded terms that MPAA / RIAA use in their propaganda. Then we can have a rational discussion about it.
Open source software isn't typically about profit. It's often about freedom, and about getting stuff done rather than sitting around waiting for $VENDOR to get off its arse.
OK, that's a bit of a generalisation. Not all open source projects are about freedom... (for example, I'll bet that's not Microsoft's goal).
stealing 100 megabytes
It's not stealing because when you copy someone else's data, you do not take that data away from them. They still have the data after you have copied it.
'stealing of a persons idea'
<pedantic>
It's not "stealing" because when you copy someone else's idea, you do not take that idea away from them. They still have the idea after you have copied it.
</pedantic>
This would be an example of a useful patent, if only it were true.
So you don't think there is anything wrong with providing anonymous user statistics?
I said that there is nothing wrong in doing it if it provides value for the user, like completing your search terms by using a database of the most frequently requested terms, as I mentioned.
Then you are saying you agree with the DOJ?
No, you made that up yourself. I disagree with the DOJ because Google is a private company and *requiring* them to provide this information gives no value for its users and is an unnecesary burden. However, I think Google has the right to use non-identifiable statistics if they think it adds value to their service.
I was agreeing with your first post by giving a concrete example of sharing search statistics with the general public. You didnt provide any facts apart from an unverifiable story.
... Google ... were more than willing to demonstrate technology that allows you to see what others had been searching.
Google Suggest does this. It's a good feature.
There is a huge difference between showing anonymous search statistics in order to aid the end-user and handing over personally identifiable private information to corrupt individuals. Although you could argue that the politicians think they are only doing what is in the public's best interest. I'm glad Google disagrees.
Sites that work just fine at 56K:
* Google
* eBay
* Slashdot
* Fandango (movie tickets)
* FedEx
* Digi-Key
* Craigslist
* Yahoo
Only 8 sites? No wonder so many people are switching to broadband.
By insisting on Windows in devices, one can at least know there is a single location for automatic patching.
If you insist on any single distribution across your system, you will get a single source for all patches. Nothing magic there. Of course restricting yourself artificially to only one system has both advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes you need to have different systems for different tasks because there is no single Operating System that solves all requirements.
'Companies making unsecure products..'
There's nothing wrong with a company making an insecure product. For some unimportant systems, like your TV remote control, it doesn't really matter that much if it is secure or not. Your next door neighbour might have a bit of a laugh but apart from that it doesn't cause any major problems.
The problem is when a company knowingly makes an insecure product, tries to claim it is secure, and advertises it as the most secure system ever. Then when it is proven to be insecure, they try to deny responsibility because the license has a huge disclaimer. Its misleading advertising.
The even worse thing is when people still buy the product for critical systems when it is well known by security experts and CERT that it is not secure.
If 10% of people use Firefox, that's 10% less infections, and 10% less profits for spyware companies. Less profit = less incentive to start a spyware company.
They aren't forced to do anything. If they don't like the laws in Europe, they are free to trade elsewhere.
More likely though, they will lobby to change the laws because they don't want to lose one of their biggest markets.
If you can't be sure that the web site you are downloading your security patches from is 100% legitimate, how can you be sure that you aren't compromising your system every time you attempt to apply a security patch?
Cryptographically secure digital signatures solves this problem. If the patch isn't signed by someone / some organisation that you trust, don't install it.
Gentoo, like all GNU/Linux distros, uses Linux kernel.
Actually you can choose Linux or BSD.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/
Maybe they are downloading free music legally?
http://www.magnatunes.com/
http://www.irateradio.com/
Maybe they are transferring their CDs onto their portable players so that they can listen to them more easily?
I do not dispise the guy, it's just ridiculous to claim that if you dont give away 60% of your income, you are less generous than Bill Gates. Most people can't afford to give away 60% of their wealth and still pay their bills. Bill gates can.
It's not how much you give away that shows how generous you are, neither the actual amount nor as a percentage. It's how much you decide to keep. Bill Gates has decided to keep enough money to remain the richest man in the world.
It's not so much that I'm annoyed how fucked up your "land of the free" is by now, I wouldn't care about it too much if you not managed to export all of this and get everybody else down the drain with you.
If we mess up our own laws, how is that the USA's fault? We can only blame ourselves for not learning from their mistakes.
The problem is that the revenues from law suits hasn't been as high as expected. Some people have been trying to defend theselves, for example. Other people were unable to pay the millions of dollars damages, and they ended up having to settle for less. Now they do not have enough money left to invest it in producing good music.
The only solution is to sue more people. Maybe they should drop the music industry completely and concentrate 100% on the court cases. It worked for SCO. Oh wait... it didn't did it? Never mind.
What's misleading about saying it is tall? It was only you that assumed that tall and large are the same. Everyone else knows that tall refers to height, not volume.
c tures
Maybe you should read this page instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_tallest_stru
America has the record in two of the categories for tallest structures:
Sears Tower is the tallest fully habitable structure in the world, as long as you include the antenna on the top.
and:
"The World Trade Center became the world's tallest buildings to be demolished"
Oh and you forgot to mention the forced $79 extra subscription fee for 'Internet Security'. A service which is only required for Windows because it is too insecure to look after itself. So now we are looking at a $379 initial payment.
If you were an advertiser, you could be sued for misleading advertising.
I come here for the high quality spelling and grammar corrections in the comments.