You misunderstood my point. My post above is explaining (my theory) on WHY people think its okay to infringe on copyright. It isn't because of civil disobedience or protesting the law. Its because people think its okay to infringe on copyright. The question I'm answering though, is WHY do people think its okay to infringe on copyright?
One theory is that society as a whole has always thought it okay, but it hasn't become as widespread as today because it was more difficult.
Another theory is that society has become much more demanding and that we are no longer willing to wait.
My theory is that by extending the copyright limit our views on 90 year old content and 1 year old content became the same, a goal the RIAA (and others) had in the first place. However the opposite to what the RIAA wanted happened, and that people now think its okay to treat 1 year old content as they did 90 year old content.
Without any hard facts or statistics, its impossible to say which theory (if any of the above ones) is correct.
If someone designed a computer/OS that allowed you to just throw a game CD/DVD in, no installing or drivers and just turn on the computer and play it, I would be all over that like a bad rash.
If only there was a computer like that, if only.....
Still looking for a the off button on your life when life instead should be lived to the max? If you can't deal with the joys of life, go back to your mother's basement. Life isn't designed for pale, spineless people.
He should have argued putting something willingly into his own body isn't something that should be outlawed. Instead he said 'we're here, get use to it' so I pointed out what's wrong with that argument.
2. The stuff copied was recent release Top 40 type material that has no connection our common culture or public commons.
By having copyright extensions so long the RIAA (and others) sought for society to equate 1 year old music as deserving of the same rights as 90 year old music. They succeeded. Only instead of giving people the rights they had with 1 year old music for 90 year old music, some of us now feel they deserve the rights they had with 90 year old music on 1 year old music.
Perhaps if they stopped abusing society by having such long copyright terms, we would be willing to respect their rights on their 1 year old music once more.
*sigh* You're missing the point. They shouldn't sell bandwidth based on how many people are using it but based on how much it is used. Its backwards to charge it on any other way.
We are the people who fix your computers. We are the people who keep your infrastructure moving and alive. We are the people who make sure your insignificant lives are not interrupted because some piece of technology you depend on (that you've never bothered to learn anything about, even though it runs your life) breaks and we save the day.
Guess what? We don't LIKE women! It fucks up our work. We fuck children because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't fucked 'real' children or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't fuck children.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a child fucking problem. The Problem? 80% or more child fuckers are fucking LOW-GRADE children that promotes medical and emotional issues.
She doesn't want the information private, she wants to retain her rights as the copyright holder on the copyrighted content. Unless you believe publishing copyrighted content forces you to forgo all of your rights, it is quite fine for her to have this goal. What isn't fine is how she is going about it.
He's saying the sources do not prove global climate change is happening on Mars. While the numbers here on Earth may be quite clear on the subject, we've investigated Mars significantly less so, as such the numbers may not be complete.
I haven't used a single extension in months, possibly a year. It definitely isn't must haves, they're "like to haves." So while it might scare some away, for others that actually read the article they'll probably decide "why would I want that? I can simply look out my window" and "oh wow! My current browser doesn't have that and I never imagined I'd ever want something like that. I'll definitely get that one."
So yes, for those that only read the heading, it might be scary. For those that actually RTFA it's a good advertisement.
I just had a dig at someone for using ad blocker and not supporting the websites they visit while I myself use a pop-up blocker. So I've disabled my pop-up blocker in favour of only visiting websites that don't have unwanted pop-ups. However as a university student I often google for information without paying attention to the website I found the information at, so I'd be prone to visiting the same 10 websites that have pop-ups. Is there an extension to block a particular domain with a custom message (so I can tell the difference between pages that don't exist and pages I've blocked)?
While ever they're only one of the few companies doing it, Google will want to keep the price of doing it as high as possible as it will be a perk. However once it becomes a standard feature of employment, then you'll see Google and other companies banding together and most likely eventually opening it to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstood my point. My post above is explaining (my theory) on WHY people think its okay to infringe on copyright. It isn't because of civil disobedience or protesting the law. Its because people think its okay to infringe on copyright. The question I'm answering though, is WHY do people think its okay to infringe on copyright?
One theory is that society as a whole has always thought it okay, but it hasn't become as widespread as today because it was more difficult.
Another theory is that society has become much more demanding and that we are no longer willing to wait.
My theory is that by extending the copyright limit our views on 90 year old content and 1 year old content became the same, a goal the RIAA (and others) had in the first place. However the opposite to what the RIAA wanted happened, and that people now think its okay to treat 1 year old content as they did 90 year old content.
Without any hard facts or statistics, its impossible to say which theory (if any of the above ones) is correct.
You may have to view the website at to -1 to understand who I'm responding to ;)
If someone designed a computer/OS that allowed you to just throw a game CD/DVD in, no installing or drivers and just turn on the computer and play it, I would be all over that like a bad rash.
If only there was a computer like that, if only.....
Still looking for a the off button on your life when life instead should be lived to the max? If you can't deal with the joys of life, go back to your mother's basement. Life isn't designed for pale, spineless people.
He should have argued putting something willingly into his own body isn't something that should be outlawed. Instead he said 'we're here, get use to it' so I pointed out what's wrong with that argument.
By having copyright extensions so long the RIAA (and others) sought for society to equate 1 year old music as deserving of the same rights as 90 year old music. They succeeded. Only instead of giving people the rights they had with 1 year old music for 90 year old music, some of us now feel they deserve the rights they had with 90 year old music on 1 year old music.
Perhaps if they stopped abusing society by having such long copyright terms, we would be willing to respect their rights on their 1 year old music once more.
I agree, isn't it lucky these people didn't steal anything Gary?
*sigh* You're missing the point. They shouldn't sell bandwidth based on how many people are using it but based on how much it is used. Its backwards to charge it on any other way.
ISPs shouldn't sell me more bandwidth then they can afford me to use.
We are the people who fix your computers. We are the people who keep your infrastructure moving and alive. We are the people who make sure your insignificant lives are not interrupted because some piece of technology you depend on (that you've never bothered to learn anything about, even though it runs your life) breaks and we save the day.
Guess what? We don't LIKE women! It fucks up our work. We fuck children because it is relaxing and mentally stimulating. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way either hasn't fucked 'real' children or they have a physical/emotional problem with it. Great! Don't fuck children.
Just don't tell me I have to quit because YOU have a problem with it.
America DOES have a child fucking problem. The Problem? 80% or more child fuckers are fucking LOW-GRADE children that promotes medical and emotional issues.
2060s dude, he's a time traveler. Although you don't want to know the cataclysm that forces future programmers to write in FORTRAN *shudder*
Except have people kill you and destroy all written records of your idea.
Here's a question: Will the air be compressed if it isn't for this car? If not, then it isn't adding pollution.
Wouldn't constantly pushing the car to its top speed be bad for it and/or take much longer then accelerating to 70mph in a normal car?
Are you saying that to protect your copyright you should engage in DRM? After all, what is a password or cryptographic certificate if not DRM?
She doesn't want the information private, she wants to retain her rights as the copyright holder on the copyrighted content. Unless you believe publishing copyrighted content forces you to forgo all of your rights, it is quite fine for her to have this goal. What isn't fine is how she is going about it.
He's saying the sources do not prove global climate change is happening on Mars. While the numbers here on Earth may be quite clear on the subject, we've investigated Mars significantly less so, as such the numbers may not be complete.
Screwing over the customers. At first blush this looks to be helping the customers. Definitely a departure.
Asking the same questions you've asked before and doing nothing to get answers isn't scientific, its indoctrination.
Unless the Google founders are Unamerican then they believe censorship is bad.
I haven't used a single extension in months, possibly a year. It definitely isn't must haves, they're "like to haves." So while it might scare some away, for others that actually read the article they'll probably decide "why would I want that? I can simply look out my window" and "oh wow! My current browser doesn't have that and I never imagined I'd ever want something like that. I'll definitely get that one."
So yes, for those that only read the heading, it might be scary. For those that actually RTFA it's a good advertisement.
I just had a dig at someone for using ad blocker and not supporting the websites they visit while I myself use a pop-up blocker. So I've disabled my pop-up blocker in favour of only visiting websites that don't have unwanted pop-ups. However as a university student I often google for information without paying attention to the website I found the information at, so I'd be prone to visiting the same 10 websites that have pop-ups. Is there an extension to block a particular domain with a custom message (so I can tell the difference between pages that don't exist and pages I've blocked)?
If you like ad free content, go to websites that don't have ads. Then again, I can hardly talk as I have a pop-up blocker.
While ever they're only one of the few companies doing it, Google will want to keep the price of doing it as high as possible as it will be a perk. However once it becomes a standard feature of employment, then you'll see Google and other companies banding together and most likely eventually opening it to the public.
Given the Google owner's hold over 50% of the shares, can anyone do anything beyond simply asking them?