Our society encourages the thought process "I gotta have it and I gotta have it now." For sensible* people, a pirate taking an extra month to crack the protection isn't important. However for everyone else, that month means they'll go buy a legit copy** because they want the game that second.
* although apparently immoral ** and, y'know, actually compensate the people who created a product they clearly enjoy.
I can only assume that the title of the article refers to the actual "ARRR I GONNA STEEL YER GAMES!" piracy
Agreed. I also don't know why everyone keeps saying happy people don't have equal rights. I'm a fairly happy person and I have as many rights as a cranky old shit.
Yeah, although I'm really confused why everyone insists that happy people don't have equal rights. I'm a fairly happy person and I've got just as many rights as any old cranky shit.
What happens is the case goes into discovery and the RIAA then asks the person who, if anyone, had access to their internet between certain dates.
I believe a NewYorkCountryLawyer client lied and said that no-one had access, however the RIAA finally discovered that someone did in fact have access. They then went on to ask the judge dismiss the claims because of the defendant lying in discovery.
I don't know what the judge ruled or if a ruling has even been made yet.
1) It already happens. Good luck on trying to block them. 2) I don't watch movies where it affects my enjoyment of the movie. Just as I don't visit websites where the ads affect my enjoyment.
That's simple. Uninstall/don't install the flash plugin if your computer can't handle it. Or don't use a flash-capable browser for your general viewing.
In that case it's like not surfing the Guardian or BBC homepage (if you're British), or CNN/NBC (if you're American, not sure which one is the most popular news site), or Slashdot (if you're a geek). Spiegel Online is a very popular news website for German speakers. Well, except for the ads;)
If they're "important" enough and enough people don't like viewing their ads, the demand will create an alternative for these people.
I love how calling Bush a monkey because of his physical appearance is okay. But if you do it to Obama because of his physical appearance you get called a racist.
Alright, you've convinced me. I'll now start blocking ads, and who cares if the websites I once loved don't exist as more and more of its visitors do it.
Correct. There's no way they were smarter and bigger then us and still managed to be defeated by us. So either they faced a danger we didn't, or they weren't as smart as us.
Slashdot Mirror
Its also surprisingly spyware. I don't know anyone at slashdot would use it.
Our society encourages the thought process "I gotta have it and I gotta have it now." For sensible* people, a pirate taking an extra month to crack the protection isn't important. However for everyone else, that month means they'll go buy a legit copy** because they want the game that second.
* although apparently immoral
** and, y'know, actually compensate the people who created a product they clearly enjoy.
I can only assume that the title of the article refers to the actual "ARRR I GONNA STEEL YER GAMES!" piracy
Agreed. I also don't know why everyone keeps saying happy people don't have equal rights. I'm a fairly happy person and I have as many rights as a cranky old shit.
Yeah, although I'm really confused why everyone insists that happy people don't have equal rights. I'm a fairly happy person and I've got just as many rights as any old cranky shit.
Every webcomic article that's been deleted.
Now why would environmentalists, as a whole, want to stop oil drilling if it isn't to help the environment? Maybe they're all secretly aliens!
I can see google researching text-to-speech technology so they can then remotely turn on mobile phones and listen in on everyone.
If they manage to work out the current difficulties, they'll even say its so they can remind people to do stuff.
How did you include them in your post then?
Why not just block the ads and also not subscribe? Very few people in this thread seem to care about supporting the websites they enjoy.
Which of those PDFs refutes this claim by the RIAA?
I'd be glad to hear the RIAA was lying again.
Do the content providers give a damn? Hell no, they just want the revenue.
Don't visit websites that display such ads. Although I do feel sorry for your friends and relatives who seem to be complete idiots.
What happens is the case goes into discovery and the RIAA then asks the person who, if anyone, had access to their internet between certain dates.
I believe a NewYorkCountryLawyer client lied and said that no-one had access, however the RIAA finally discovered that someone did in fact have access. They then went on to ask the judge dismiss the claims because of the defendant lying in discovery.
I don't know what the judge ruled or if a ruling has even been made yet.
All of those incur a cost (not loading any images) and as such are comparable with fast forwarding a television show.
So you are OK with adds placed in your movies.
1) It already happens. Good luck on trying to block them.
2) I don't watch movies where it affects my enjoyment of the movie. Just as I don't visit websites where the ads affect my enjoyment.
That's simple. Uninstall/don't install the flash plugin if your computer can't handle it. Or don't use a flash-capable browser for your general viewing.
If its so efficient and terrible to your way of life then only visit websites that aren't supported by ads.
In that case it's like not surfing the Guardian or BBC homepage (if you're British), or CNN/NBC (if you're American, not sure which one is the most popular news site), or Slashdot (if you're a geek). Spiegel Online is a very popular news website for German speakers. Well, except for the ads ;)
If they're "important" enough and enough people don't like viewing their ads, the demand will create an alternative for these people.
Remember, unlike tv, the websites you love don't get money just for showing you the ads
Many do actually.
(or do you just click, load the tab and then close it, just to get that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that x website is now $0.0000000001 richer?)
If an ad is shown there's a chance (no matter how small) I'll click on the link. If I use ad-blocker, that chance is reduced to zero.
I love how calling Bush a monkey because of his physical appearance is okay. But if you do it to Obama because of his physical appearance you get called a racist.
And how is it a bad thing to be no different from a happy and loving gay couple?
It isn't a bad thing to any rational human being.
If I don't want to view a website's ads, I don't view the website. It is truly that simple. So I'll only be "disturbed" for a few seconds.
Alright, you've convinced me. I'll now start blocking ads, and who cares if the websites I once loved don't exist as more and more of its visitors do it.
No way would a monkey be voted into office... oh wait. Nevermind.
Correct. There's no way they were smarter and bigger then us and still managed to be defeated by us. So either they faced a danger we didn't, or they weren't as smart as us.
Considering how old I'd be by the time she came of legal age, I'd touch her if she were into it.