It should also be mentioned that due to cosmic radiation it's better to use larger circuits instead of those smaller and smaller processes that are used for modern CPUs as that reduces the likelyhood of data corruption through radiation.
Intellectual property is a summary term for trademarks, copyrights and patents because it'd be annoying to spell all that out every time and the lws on them are pretty similar.
Some of those file downloading places (File Front, I think) use torrents, too, as does the TAS Videos website. Bittorrent has become a normal download system and a substitute for FTP and HTTP downloads, although it's not as widely used yet. Some MMOs even use torrents for distributing patches AFAIK.
I think the difference is that this is an "official" Bittorrent service (i.e. by the guy who invented it although that may not count for much considering the openness of the system) and that it sells stuff that gets distributed over BT instead of merely offering free downloads.
This isn't a case of colloquialisms because the GGP's post made the analogy of pirating media with stealing a Ferrari. Which is, as I originally stated, absolutely incorrect.
Why is it absolutely incorrect? Whether that Ferrari costs thousands of dollars or mere cents, if you send it to China for disassembly and replication you'll still do severe damage to the company by forming competition that has no cost for inventing things because they just steal other people's ideas. Capitalism is designed to select for those who create the most benefit for society but someone who's just stealing ideas and thereby destroying the business of the inventor sets society back instead of helping it and since capitalism by itself has no safeguards against such parasites intellectual property law has been designed.
While I'd agree the original poster probably didn't have this in mind I still think it's splitting hairs to complain about the lost original. His idea was that not being able to get something legally isn't justification for getting it illegally, whether that Ferrari is stolen or counterfeit doesn't make a difference for that anyway.
People don't use "theft" in place of the term "piracy" or "copyright infringement" unless they don't understand the difference or intentionally wish to misrepresent piracy as theft to the uninformed reader.
I disagree. You're not using the term piracy to demand capital punishment for copyright infringers, he's not using the term theft to misrepresent copyright infringement as theft of the copy (although theft of ideas is another issue). He's using it to illustrate that you shouldn't take something just because you can't get it the legal way or at least shouldn't feel like you're justified in doing so. Because most copyright infringers infringe to save money and time without losing out on whatever they're infringing upon.
Of course the concept of copyright infringement is strange for most people since they rarely have ideas that are of any value, never mind having them stolen. They know that theft has financial implications and probably experienced it but few lost money to idea theft and as such they think it's a nasty thing to do but nothing that has severe financial implications for the victim. For a corporation however copyright infringement is much, MUCH worse than physical theft since a stolen item can be replaced but warez can't be unreleased and will keep hurting their market so equating copyright infringement with theft actually makes it less severe for the corporation.
People know exactly what copyright infringement is but that's a long word so they pick shorter ones to type. Everyone knows what is being talked about and whether we call it theft, piracy or copyright infringement is merely semantics. Also you say piracy is correct because it's being used colloquially but isn't the fact that so many people call it theft strong evidence that theft is also a colloquial term for it? In fact I'd expect "stealing ideas" to have been in use much longer than "piracy". Noone thinks you ruin in and steal actual copies when you call it stealing. People only argue about semantics there to prevent analogies from being used. By stealing an idea you take away the benefits of authorship from the author, THAT's what you steal.
And we need to argue semantics over something like this... why? Especially when you keep calling it "piracy" which last I checked meant attacking a civil vessel over international waters?
They consider the US and Israel basically one entity since they are strongly allied.
Selling oil to Russia is like selling fridges to penguins. Russia is the second largest exporter of oil in the world. However, Russia is a major supplier of military equipment for these countries.
It's also applied to the price tag already so you pay what's actually written on the thing instead of having to calculate how much you would pay and foreigners can often get a refund for that (not sure how that works).
Or look at some European countries, we have no identifying numbers that are used by multiple organizations. Sure, I have a number for medical insurance, for studentship, etc but noone who isn't involved directly with those will ask for that number. We have ID cards for identifying ourselves.
So instead of trying to recoup those costs indirectly by charging money for a service that anyone and his brother can do for practically nothing and thus is infinitely competitive, the people who are creating the information in the first place need to figure out how to directly charge for the act of creation, cataloging and quality assurance.
They have found a way that works, why don't YOU find a new way for them if you want to abolish theirs?
the text of AP news stories is copyrightable but not the facts that they contain.
That's however MUCH different from the way many people would like information to be free. They don't want to be able to create their own derivatives from a real event, they want to simply peruse other people's inventions verbatim since otherwise they wouldn't have any trouble with copyright law.
Imagine I'm holding a rock. The physical reality of the fact that I'm holding (i.e., owning) it prevents anyone else from holding (i.e., owning) it at the same time. Moreover, I can use that piece of property without having to give it to anyone else first (for example, I can tie it to the end of a stick and go kill an antelope with it). Moreover, I can only use it if I haven't given it to someone else.
Yes but society as a whole would benefit if anyone could take that rock the moment you put it down and you could take it back the moment he puts it down. Most tools are owned by many households despite being in actual use only for a short period of time. Society would greatly benefit if we would just have a number of tools that belong to society (a sufficiently large number, of course) that everyone can use if he needs them and overall we'd get by with less tools. Same for food, some people starve while others have more than they need. Why not make food property of society and give it to those who need it? Oh, wait, that's communism and people don't seem to like it.
For the same purpose it can be argued that a copyrighted work is no longer useful if it gets distributed freely among others because it no longer has a resale value. To a corporation there is no value in the notes Britney sings other than their resale value. Additionally, 99% or more of the copyrighted works wouldn't have an actual benefit to society even if freely available. The value to the creator as e.g. a story is pretty much nil since he knows the entirety of it the moment he wrote it. The author already has that information and no need to write it down and show it to others except for gains coming from that sharing (recognition, profit, etc) that he'd lose if copyright was no longer there.
Both physical and intellectual property exists because people have a way of thinking of both physical objects and ideas as theirs. Society's laws are formed around the ideas society holds about how the world should work. People think that others shouldn't be allowed to steal their ideas and implement it as a law, people later realize that means they can't steal other people's ideas either and complain.
Well, yes, you can claim expenses. However there's a process involved, you can't just go there and say "I paid 200$ for that, deduct them", you have to follow the proper procedures to get that recognized. I don't think most eBayers do that.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is "because it works".
It should also be mentioned that due to cosmic radiation it's better to use larger circuits instead of those smaller and smaller processes that are used for modern CPUs as that reduces the likelyhood of data corruption through radiation.
A quick glance shows that some titles are marked (HD), I'd assume that means they are in HD.
Realistically, how else do you propose to sell stuff over a P2P network?
I think it's quite funny that you're using a program called "Fair Use" and then go on talking about a free tracker that is definitely NOT Fair Use.
Intellectual property is a summary term for trademarks, copyrights and patents because it'd be annoying to spell all that out every time and the lws on them are pretty similar.
Some of those file downloading places (File Front, I think) use torrents, too, as does the TAS Videos website. Bittorrent has become a normal download system and a substitute for FTP and HTTP downloads, although it's not as widely used yet. Some MMOs even use torrents for distributing patches AFAIK.
I think the difference is that this is an "official" Bittorrent service (i.e. by the guy who invented it although that may not count for much considering the openness of the system) and that it sells stuff that gets distributed over BT instead of merely offering free downloads.
Actually it wasn't an analogy, I was just trying to preempt the inevitable "but three rights make a left" comment.
Nobody expects the Soviet Reversal!
Planet? Why strike the planet when you only need to strike one country? Blast the major cities of the US, the rest isn't much of an issue.
Their pilots throw a wild new year's party and get so drunk they want to contribute to the fireworks?
For example, the only way to effectively destroy deeply buried facilities such as those in N Korea and Iran would be to use a tactical nuke.
Or sending infantry to clean the thing out.
This isn't a case of colloquialisms because the GGP's post made the analogy of pirating media with stealing a Ferrari. Which is, as I originally stated, absolutely incorrect.
Why is it absolutely incorrect? Whether that Ferrari costs thousands of dollars or mere cents, if you send it to China for disassembly and replication you'll still do severe damage to the company by forming competition that has no cost for inventing things because they just steal other people's ideas. Capitalism is designed to select for those who create the most benefit for society but someone who's just stealing ideas and thereby destroying the business of the inventor sets society back instead of helping it and since capitalism by itself has no safeguards against such parasites intellectual property law has been designed.
While I'd agree the original poster probably didn't have this in mind I still think it's splitting hairs to complain about the lost original. His idea was that not being able to get something legally isn't justification for getting it illegally, whether that Ferrari is stolen or counterfeit doesn't make a difference for that anyway.
People don't use "theft" in place of the term "piracy" or "copyright infringement" unless they don't understand the difference or intentionally wish to misrepresent piracy as theft to the uninformed reader.
I disagree. You're not using the term piracy to demand capital punishment for copyright infringers, he's not using the term theft to misrepresent copyright infringement as theft of the copy (although theft of ideas is another issue). He's using it to illustrate that you shouldn't take something just because you can't get it the legal way or at least shouldn't feel like you're justified in doing so. Because most copyright infringers infringe to save money and time without losing out on whatever they're infringing upon.
Of course the concept of copyright infringement is strange for most people since they rarely have ideas that are of any value, never mind having them stolen. They know that theft has financial implications and probably experienced it but few lost money to idea theft and as such they think it's a nasty thing to do but nothing that has severe financial implications for the victim. For a corporation however copyright infringement is much, MUCH worse than physical theft since a stolen item can be replaced but warez can't be unreleased and will keep hurting their market so equating copyright infringement with theft actually makes it less severe for the corporation.
People know exactly what copyright infringement is but that's a long word so they pick shorter ones to type. Everyone knows what is being talked about and whether we call it theft, piracy or copyright infringement is merely semantics. Also you say piracy is correct because it's being used colloquially but isn't the fact that so many people call it theft strong evidence that theft is also a colloquial term for it? In fact I'd expect "stealing ideas" to have been in use much longer than "piracy". Noone thinks you ruin in and steal actual copies when you call it stealing. People only argue about semantics there to prevent analogies from being used. By stealing an idea you take away the benefits of authorship from the author, THAT's what you steal.
For every anime [..] NTSCed
Um, Japan uses NTSC so that wouldn't be a conversion.
And we need to argue semantics over something like this... why? Especially when you keep calling it "piracy" which last I checked meant attacking a civil vessel over international waters?
They consider the US and Israel basically one entity since they are strongly allied.
Selling oil to Russia is like selling fridges to penguins. Russia is the second largest exporter of oil in the world. However, Russia is a major supplier of military equipment for these countries.
It's also applied to the price tag already so you pay what's actually written on the thing instead of having to calculate how much you would pay and foreigners can often get a refund for that (not sure how that works).
Or look at some European countries, we have no identifying numbers that are used by multiple organizations. Sure, I have a number for medical insurance, for studentship, etc but noone who isn't involved directly with those will ask for that number. We have ID cards for identifying ourselves.
So instead of trying to recoup those costs indirectly by charging money for a service that anyone and his brother can do for practically nothing and thus is infinitely competitive, the people who are creating the information in the first place need to figure out how to directly charge for the act of creation, cataloging and quality assurance.
They have found a way that works, why don't YOU find a new way for them if you want to abolish theirs?
the text of AP news stories is copyrightable but not the facts that they contain.
That's however MUCH different from the way many people would like information to be free. They don't want to be able to create their own derivatives from a real event, they want to simply peruse other people's inventions verbatim since otherwise they wouldn't have any trouble with copyright law.
Imagine I'm holding a rock. The physical reality of the fact that I'm holding (i.e., owning) it prevents anyone else from holding (i.e., owning) it at the same time. Moreover, I can use that piece of property without having to give it to anyone else first (for example, I can tie it to the end of a stick and go kill an antelope with it). Moreover, I can only use it if I haven't given it to someone else.
Yes but society as a whole would benefit if anyone could take that rock the moment you put it down and you could take it back the moment he puts it down. Most tools are owned by many households despite being in actual use only for a short period of time. Society would greatly benefit if we would just have a number of tools that belong to society (a sufficiently large number, of course) that everyone can use if he needs them and overall we'd get by with less tools. Same for food, some people starve while others have more than they need. Why not make food property of society and give it to those who need it? Oh, wait, that's communism and people don't seem to like it.
For the same purpose it can be argued that a copyrighted work is no longer useful if it gets distributed freely among others because it no longer has a resale value. To a corporation there is no value in the notes Britney sings other than their resale value. Additionally, 99% or more of the copyrighted works wouldn't have an actual benefit to society even if freely available. The value to the creator as e.g. a story is pretty much nil since he knows the entirety of it the moment he wrote it. The author already has that information and no need to write it down and show it to others except for gains coming from that sharing (recognition, profit, etc) that he'd lose if copyright was no longer there.
Both physical and intellectual property exists because people have a way of thinking of both physical objects and ideas as theirs. Society's laws are formed around the ideas society holds about how the world should work. People think that others shouldn't be allowed to steal their ideas and implement it as a law, people later realize that means they can't steal other people's ideas either and complain.
"Mata" means mother in Sanskritic languages, including Marathi, which has another word for it: Aaee.
I always thought that meant "Quick! More scalding hot oil!"...
Licenses only migrate downstream, not upstream. Anything derived from GPL code is GPL but what the GPL code was derived from is not GPL.
Well, yes, you can claim expenses. However there's a process involved, you can't just go there and say "I paid 200$ for that, deduct them", you have to follow the proper procedures to get that recognized. I don't think most eBayers do that.
The highest sales tax in Europe is 25% AFAIK, most countries are below that (here we have 19%).
There is no difference, if you want to claim expenses you have to track them properly. That usually means keeping the receipts and some lawyer voodoo.
The psychologist concluded from this that the boy "had an emotional bias against women" and needed counseling.
I don't know the specific age but isn't it normal for children to have a bias against the other sex at a certain age?