But it's racketeering to accept payments to "look the other way"
Err... you do realise out of court settlements happen ALL the time, right?
With the cost of education these days, the last things students need is somebody else demanding a handout from students and institutions.
Its (the majority of) students who have made this problem. Although I do feel sorry for the very few ones who don't break the law. Which is why I'd like to see it be voluntary.
students have some kind of loophole? If you pay for a license to do X, Y and Z with the song, you get to do X, Y and Z. They're offering students to be able to do X, Y, Z and V. Not exactly a loophole and well within their rights as the copyright holder.
Its not legalised racketeering as girlintraining said then.
This is bad, its illegal, but it isn't racketeering. Its simply pursuing lawsuits (and out-of-court settlements which is pretty standard in all lawsuits) when you've been prohibited from doing so.
If Linux is so easy to work, I'd love to know how someone who managed to install Windows XP perfectly fine, manages to cause a problem which makes the internet 5 times slower.
And if it is so easy to mess up without even knowing you've done it, perhaps Linux isn't ready for the big time yet. Although I'm sure I'll be modded a troll again for even daring to suggest that.
I've tried more then an ordinary end-user would. On Windows XP I don't have to try at all.
I do want to use Linux. But my time is also valuable, so I'm not going to fart-arse around too much to try to get the damn thing to work when I've got an alternative that Just Works.
By the way, this wasn't the only problem I had. It was the only problem I was unable to surmount.
This piece of specious, homophobic nonsense didn't come from some religious fuckwit, by any chance?
How is it homophobic?
Everyone seems to take offense to this quote, but I don't understand why. She is saying that Gay Marriage means that we recognise Heterosexual Relationships aren't automatically better then the love felt between two gay people. Because gay couples are on an equal footing to heterosexual couples, which they currently aren't (they don't get all the benefits heterosexual married couples get).
The excuse I use for using Windows is that Linux doesn't work on my computer. I've tried several distros and trying to use the internet is unusable on any of them. My computer is only a couple of years old, I shouldn't be having this problem.
Until Linux solves these problems, it will never be commonly used.
this sounds like a variation on the anthropic principle. "isn't it amazing that almost all the living things around us happen to be like/decended-from the ones which happened to be driven to reproduce and as a result had the most kids... this must surely be proof that a god designed the universe"
Some humans have risen above the need to perpetuate themselves. But they still do it. Some donate sperm in return for money. They're not doing it as a need to perpetuate their DNA into the next generation. They're doing it for some extra cash so they can have some creature comforts. That has nothing to do with perpetuating itself. Whales beach themselves, and while they might not do it on purpose, apes in captivity have been known to eat feces for the explicit purpose of choking themselves so they die. Humans kill ourselves in a multitude of ways. Some have the exact same DNA as someone else, and yet life circumstances lead to killing ourselves. So we can't even say that DNA does have a built-in mechanism that will cause itself to be reproduced at any cost. Because if it did then all humans, the most numerous of large mammals on this planet, would have children and life circumstances wouldn't be able to stop us.
And yet, more and more people are putting off having children until they're older, with some deciding never to have children. Their DNA obviously failed to have that survival instinct, and yet how could such a mutation be cropping up so often in a species that should have been overwhelmed by DNA that continually seeks to perpetuate itself?
I'm saying that just as this "evolution" involved comparing the intermediate phases with the final form (a Mona Lisa painting), perhaps humans are "evolving" and each time we do we're compared with the final form (only god knows what that is).
Here's a question, people always assume that DNA will change into a form that makes it better able to reproduce. Why does it do that? You could say that its a "survival instinct" or that those that don't reproduce better are overwhelmed and annihilated by those that do, but why does that happen? Why must living things always be driven by the need to reproduce? We're on a ball of rock, heat, gas and liquid that revolves around a ball of fusion energy. Why must life propel itself into existing?
Perhaps it doesn't.
Here's another question. If you could do one of the two following things, what would you do? A) Create the perfect human being and hard-code all the knowledge that you have and make it a perfectly moral person who has the perfect personality and the perfect interests that benefits society. B) Raise a baby with love and care and teach it everything you know, letting it form its own opinions on what it thinks and how it feels. Let it make its own mistakes, and gain a new personality.
If everyone says they would do (a) I think life would be boring, I also think the end product would be a world with no free will (with some arguing we don't even have that now. But I think what we've got is closer to free will then what the offspring of (a) would have).
So perhaps there is a god, and it's chosen (b), but on a much larger scale. Rather then caring for a single person, it's caring for the entire race and is having us evolve into a particular form. Just as the person did in the article.
Y'know I was agreeing with you up until this point
These cases are of a special type, where the evidence against the person is really evidence against an IP address, and where the actual infringement is often hypothetical
They are in the majority of cases actually infringing on the copyright, its just impossible to prove it.
So, while there is randomness involved, it also follows a specific guide(the master image), within its limitations.
Sounds quite a bit like real evolution then. I wonder what our final form will actually be. Will we become gods who then go out and populate other planets?
Aaah, so basically he's saying (unless I misunderstand you, in which case please correct me seeings how NYCL said you're right;)) that the only way the lawsuits can happen is to break the law.
While I certainly agree that its bad to break the law, there should be a better way to catch people infringing their copyright or it should be legal.
Its bad and IMO dangerous to have an unenforceable law.
They found reason to investigate her involvement, not sue her and make her prove her innocence.
If she refuses to co-operate (as she surely would given she's got more important things to do with her time), what is the RIAA suppose to do? Drop the case? So if no copyright infringer co-operates, that means they all get away scott free?
This is like police giving speeding tickets because someone is 19 year old and has a driver's license, so they probably speed.
Only if you assume they got her name out of a phone book. I'm pretty sure that ISN'T the RIAA's strategy (no matter how much we hate them I think we can all agree they're not doing that).
And even if we presume you're right, then the courts have a choice to make. They can: a) extend the time given to everyone (in which case we'll be here again in a few years time saying that organ transplant patients need more time, etc, etc, etc). b) Make a default judgement until the defendant shows up to explain why they couldn't make the time.
Currently we do case b. If this person has a good defence for not showing up (as the article doesn't provide one) then the default judgement will be thrown away in 2 seconds.
Ummm.. that's my point. Murder, just like piracy, can be pursued in the courts as both a civil case and a criminal case so I'd be going to Ray Beckerman with a civil suit (I believe such cases are called wrongful death suits).
In copyright law parlance, a copyright pirate is someone who reproduces a large number of exact copies for resale and commercial gain.
Thankyou very much! I'm glad to see a valid "this isn't piracy!!!" argument:D I'll happily stop using the term.
2. These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
Mind going into a bit more detail?
I mean technically they might not be following the law, but it seems like they are in spirit (I don't know if a judge can follow the spirit of a law over its letter, but IMO they should).
From my layman understanding, the RIAA should be suing these people for every file that is downloaded from them. Not for every file they make available to download from them. But the technology doesn't exist that will allow the RIAA to do this, so if they see an active file in a "share this file" folder, they sue and are probably within their rights to sue under the letter of the law (even though they can't prove it).
Is that completely wrong? Because I'd love to be able to download (and subsequently upload) music and movies for personal use legally.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's racketeering to accept payments to "look the other way"
Err... you do realise out of court settlements happen ALL the time, right?
With the cost of education these days, the last things students need is somebody else demanding a handout from students and institutions.
Its (the majority of) students who have made this problem. Although I do feel sorry for the very few ones who don't break the law. Which is why I'd like to see it be voluntary.
students have some kind of loophole?
If you pay for a license to do X, Y and Z with the song, you get to do X, Y and Z. They're offering students to be able to do X, Y, Z and V. Not exactly a loophole and well within their rights as the copyright holder.
Manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist? You mean people DON'T illegally download their songs?
Its not legalised racketeering as girlintraining said then.
This is bad, its illegal, but it isn't racketeering. Its simply pursuing lawsuits (and out-of-court settlements which is pretty standard in all lawsuits) when you've been prohibited from doing so.
Right. Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
If Linux is so easy to work, I'd love to know how someone who managed to install Windows XP perfectly fine, manages to cause a problem which makes the internet 5 times slower.
And if it is so easy to mess up without even knowing you've done it, perhaps Linux isn't ready for the big time yet. Although I'm sure I'll be modded a troll again for even daring to suggest that.
No, it means my internet is 5 times slower when used under Linux. Nice try though.
I've tried more then an ordinary end-user would. On Windows XP I don't have to try at all.
I do want to use Linux. But my time is also valuable, so I'm not going to fart-arse around too much to try to get the damn thing to work when I've got an alternative that Just Works.
By the way, this wasn't the only problem I had. It was the only problem I was unable to surmount.
This piece of specious, homophobic nonsense didn't come from some religious fuckwit, by any chance?
How is it homophobic?
Everyone seems to take offense to this quote, but I don't understand why. She is saying that Gay Marriage means that we recognise Heterosexual Relationships aren't automatically better then the love felt between two gay people. Because gay couples are on an equal footing to heterosexual couples, which they currently aren't (they don't get all the benefits heterosexual married couples get).
Guess Mac isn't as secure as everyone thought.
The excuse I use for using Windows is that Linux doesn't work on my computer. I've tried several distros and trying to use the internet is unusable on any of them. My computer is only a couple of years old, I shouldn't be having this problem.
Until Linux solves these problems, it will never be commonly used.
Its almost like they were trying to do the right thing and realised they did the wrong thing.
this sounds like a variation on the anthropic principle. "isn't it amazing that almost all the living things around us happen to be like/decended-from the ones which happened to be driven to reproduce and as a result had the most kids... this must surely be proof that a god designed the universe"
Some humans have risen above the need to perpetuate themselves. But they still do it. Some donate sperm in return for money. They're not doing it as a need to perpetuate their DNA into the next generation. They're doing it for some extra cash so they can have some creature comforts. That has nothing to do with perpetuating itself. Whales beach themselves, and while they might not do it on purpose, apes in captivity have been known to eat feces for the explicit purpose of choking themselves so they die. Humans kill ourselves in a multitude of ways. Some have the exact same DNA as someone else, and yet life circumstances lead to killing ourselves. So we can't even say that DNA does have a built-in mechanism that will cause itself to be reproduced at any cost. Because if it did then all humans, the most numerous of large mammals on this planet, would have children and life circumstances wouldn't be able to stop us.
And yet, more and more people are putting off having children until they're older, with some deciding never to have children. Their DNA obviously failed to have that survival instinct, and yet how could such a mutation be cropping up so often in a species that should have been overwhelmed by DNA that continually seeks to perpetuate itself?
I'm saying that just as this "evolution" involved comparing the intermediate phases with the final form (a Mona Lisa painting), perhaps humans are "evolving" and each time we do we're compared with the final form (only god knows what that is).
Here's a question, people always assume that DNA will change into a form that makes it better able to reproduce. Why does it do that? You could say that its a "survival instinct" or that those that don't reproduce better are overwhelmed and annihilated by those that do, but why does that happen? Why must living things always be driven by the need to reproduce? We're on a ball of rock, heat, gas and liquid that revolves around a ball of fusion energy. Why must life propel itself into existing?
Perhaps it doesn't.
Here's another question. If you could do one of the two following things, what would you do?
A) Create the perfect human being and hard-code all the knowledge that you have and make it a perfectly moral person who has the perfect personality and the perfect interests that benefits society.
B) Raise a baby with love and care and teach it everything you know, letting it form its own opinions on what it thinks and how it feels. Let it make its own mistakes, and gain a new personality.
If everyone says they would do (a) I think life would be boring, I also think the end product would be a world with no free will (with some arguing we don't even have that now. But I think what we've got is closer to free will then what the offspring of (a) would have).
So perhaps there is a god, and it's chosen (b), but on a much larger scale. Rather then caring for a single person, it's caring for the entire race and is having us evolve into a particular form. Just as the person did in the article.
Y'know I was agreeing with you up until this point
These cases are of a special type, where the evidence against the person is really evidence against an IP address, and where the actual infringement is often hypothetical
They are in the majority of cases actually infringing on the copyright, its just impossible to prove it.
Citation needed.
So, while there is randomness involved, it also follows a specific guide(the master image), within its limitations.
Sounds quite a bit like real evolution then. I wonder what our final form will actually be. Will we become gods who then go out and populate other planets?
And get it stolen again? Sounds like pretty weak security to me.
Everyone doing that then makes the news. House robberies go up to a ridiculous degree and everyone loses their money.
Aaah, so basically he's saying (unless I misunderstand you, in which case please correct me seeings how NYCL said you're right ;)) that the only way the lawsuits can happen is to break the law.
While I certainly agree that its bad to break the law, there should be a better way to catch people infringing their copyright or it should be legal.
Its bad and IMO dangerous to have an unenforceable law.
They found reason to investigate her involvement, not sue her and make her prove her innocence.
If she refuses to co-operate (as she surely would given she's got more important things to do with her time), what is the RIAA suppose to do? Drop the case? So if no copyright infringer co-operates, that means they all get away scott free?
That doesn't sound right.
This is like police giving speeding tickets because someone is 19 year old and has a driver's license, so they probably speed.
Only if you assume they got her name out of a phone book. I'm pretty sure that ISN'T the RIAA's strategy (no matter how much we hate them I think we can all agree they're not doing that).
she was hospitalized for organ transplants
Citation needed.
And even if we presume you're right, then the courts have a choice to make. They can:
a) extend the time given to everyone (in which case we'll be here again in a few years time saying that organ transplant patients need more time, etc, etc, etc).
b) Make a default judgement until the defendant shows up to explain why they couldn't make the time.
Currently we do case b. If this person has a good defence for not showing up (as the article doesn't provide one) then the default judgement will be thrown away in 2 seconds.
Misspelling makes you a fucking moron? And here people say that Albert Einstein was a genius ;)
Ummm.. that's my point. Murder, just like piracy, can be pursued in the courts as both a civil case and a criminal case so I'd be going to Ray Beckerman with a civil suit (I believe such cases are called wrongful death suits).
In copyright law parlance, a copyright pirate is someone who reproduces a large number of exact copies for resale and commercial gain.
Thankyou very much! I'm glad to see a valid "this isn't piracy!!!" argument :D I'll happily stop using the term.
2. These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
Mind going into a bit more detail?
I mean technically they might not be following the law, but it seems like they are in spirit (I don't know if a judge can follow the spirit of a law over its letter, but IMO they should).
From my layman understanding, the RIAA should be suing these people for every file that is downloaded from them. Not for every file they make available to download from them. But the technology doesn't exist that will allow the RIAA to do this, so if they see an active file in a "share this file" folder, they sue and are probably within their rights to sue under the letter of the law (even though they can't prove it).
Is that completely wrong? Because I'd love to be able to download (and subsequently upload) music and movies for personal use legally.