They've got a patent that allows them to have read-once sectors on a game disc. If each disc was encrypted with a special key the device has to grab from the read-once sector and store in its internal storage you couldn't put the disc into any PS3 that hasn't already seen that game in its "virgin" state.
If a bunch of dirty hippies can make it this easy for free, why can't a corporation with the resources of MS do it for their proprietary OS?
Because the step between the latest Debian stable and testing builds is much smaller than the step between the latest Windows XP and Vista builds? Especially since Vista breaks a lot of legacy support and therefore requires a lot of third party programs to get an appropriate update to archieve the same functionality as Debian?
If a law is broken that isn't a reason to change it either, else we wouldn't need the Police.
Politicians are elected by the voters. Campaign financing helps but it can't replace the voter. If they receive enough complaints from their representees they have to change their tune. Especially since each representee that is complaining usually represents quite a few representees that are too lazy to tell the politician directly. Demonstrations are a way of telling the politicians that you want a law abolished.
In the end all power comes from the people. Without support from the people no government can exist, not even despotism. Let's think of the US: If 30 million people vocally protested against such a law, would it still remain?
Those who argue "Serves them right, they knew it was a crime" don't realize just how bizarre this whole situation is. You have police come to your house, take your computer away, and you'll get fined with thousands of Euros for something which is utterly trivial. If this is taken to an extreme, it's even worse than the "war on drugs": You don't even have to leave your house to be labeled a criminal.
However they won't take this action unless you share music which you only do by either adding a directory filled with copyrighted MP3s (or other file format) or downloading such MP3s (apply this to any copyrighted material anyone big might care about if you please). Staying away from those files will prevent you from being a target.
I think the recent changes to copyright law indeed make copyright infringement a criminal offense. In TFA (untranslated) the state attorney states that it's a criminal offense (at least when referring to those who shared over 500 files which are the 130 mentioned, they also talk about 3500 other identified users that shared less).
The reference to kiddy porn was in the sentence "The police expects to find all the usual stuff you find on filesharing networks in the logs, including child pornography".
Also the IFPI Don claims that it's difficult to build up a legal music downloading service as long as this many illegal services exist. I'm sure he might want to explain that to Steve Jobs since that guy doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
Yes, but likewise you don't hear about Germany applying pressures to the USA for copyright extensions.
Well, indirectly. You may be aware of the tax loophole that allowed Uwe Boll to be profitable. Hollywood has been exploiting that for decades so indirectly the German citizenry funded the MPAA which is applying the pressure for copyright extensions in the US. That hole has been plugged so we're no longer paying for foreign freedom-hating organizations.
War aber vorhersehbar. Sonst hätten se ja nicht diesen Urheberrecht Zusatz gebaut. Macht die natürlich nicht weniger 'nen Haufen Arschlöcher die hier dauernd die Gesetze für so'nen Scheiß verschärfen. Das alte Urheberrecht war vollkommen ausreichend, alles danach is reine Korruption.
The "IP" rights holders are as a class completely guilty and have been for years of violating just a ton of laws yet not a one of them has ever lost a private personal penny or been threatened with jail time.
You realize that the standard to become an "IP rights holder" is really, REALLY low? Drew anything in art class? Wrote a story? Recorded yourself making an ass of yourself on a webcam? Congratulations, you're the proud owner of a new IP. Anyone can own a copyright. Anything you think up and write down (or otherwise make permanent) is yours.
No, if a law is unjust you should change it. If enough people try to do so it will happen. But if most people think it is just you won't and shouldn't succeed (what with this being a democracy and all). Breaking a law signifies that YOU don't like it (or that you don't care about the result of breaking it). That does NOT mean that most people disagree with it.
People who use the law to defend industries for which there is no longer any need are enemies of the people.;)
No, they just follow the rules the people have defined. If the people don't agree with the laws they made they should change them.
Copyright is supposed to be about the interests of the consumer. Well, it's quite clear that the interests of the consumer are served better by the free exchange of music than by having to financially support an industry.
I don't think people consider all short and long term implications of every action they take. In this case the thinking is "I get something for free". I don't think these people would agree with abolishing copyright law if they realized what that meant.
People will still make and distribute music if they aren't being paid (for all sorts of reasons). If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't crap on the listeners who have no need to support an outmoded business model. No one has any moral right to make money from music, just as no one has any moral right to make other people pay every time they tell a story you told them.
If you want to contribute free music people can share, feel free to do so. Noone's stopping you and noone's stopping those who share that music. Just don't "liberate" music from people that DON'T want to contribute to this.
Technology has gotten to the point that artists could publish their own music, I don't see why more people don't do that and keep the profits from selling it downloaded online.
Probably because record labels love to make contracts that say they own the songs and the band is not allowed to distribute them without paying money to the label.
I don't know about you but I've met quite a few people who would otherwise have bought many CDs and DVDs but decided they'd rather download everything instead. Hell, these days my father will demand an explanation when I buy something legally that I could download instead. WTF?
Sure, not everyone would have bought stuff instead and probably nobody would have bought EVERYTHING they downloaded but there are people who download things they used to buy.
Anyhow, Nazis/Godwin aside, the term "steal" implies that it was removed from someone's posession (i.e. they no longer have it any more). But "Infringing upon Stuff they Shouldn't" (ISS) sounds too much like a space station.
Hey, I'm okay with that. Had they written every vowel in the Bible we wouldn't have the whole Jehova/Jahwe confusion and would have missed out on the stoning scene in Life of Brian.
Slashdot Mirror
Pfft. I don't see that stopping the PC game market so why do you think the judges allowing this practice would suddently get a clue?
Of course it is but the software sector manages to push that lie for years now and the courts have even sided with them occassionaly.
They've got a patent that allows them to have read-once sectors on a game disc. If each disc was encrypted with a special key the device has to grab from the read-once sector and store in its internal storage you couldn't put the disc into any PS3 that hasn't already seen that game in its "virgin" state.
Since that's often licensed middleware it's fair to factor in the cost per game.
In Japan they managed to place legal restrictions on the secondary market. Don't think that's an unprecedented idea.
#1. The universal reason.
If a bunch of dirty hippies can make it this easy for free, why can't a corporation with the resources of MS do it for their proprietary OS?
Because the step between the latest Debian stable and testing builds is much smaller than the step between the latest Windows XP and Vista builds? Especially since Vista breaks a lot of legacy support and therefore requires a lot of third party programs to get an appropriate update to archieve the same functionality as Debian?
If a law is broken that isn't a reason to change it either, else we wouldn't need the Police.
Politicians are elected by the voters. Campaign financing helps but it can't replace the voter. If they receive enough complaints from their representees they have to change their tune. Especially since each representee that is complaining usually represents quite a few representees that are too lazy to tell the politician directly. Demonstrations are a way of telling the politicians that you want a law abolished.
In the end all power comes from the people. Without support from the people no government can exist, not even despotism. Let's think of the US: If 30 million people vocally protested against such a law, would it still remain?
Last I checked communism is an economic system while democracy is a political system.
Those who argue "Serves them right, they knew it was a crime" don't realize just how bizarre this whole situation is. You have police come to your house, take your computer away, and you'll get fined with thousands of Euros for something which is utterly trivial. If this is taken to an extreme, it's even worse than the "war on drugs": You don't even have to leave your house to be labeled a criminal.
However they won't take this action unless you share music which you only do by either adding a directory filled with copyrighted MP3s (or other file format) or downloading such MP3s (apply this to any copyrighted material anyone big might care about if you please). Staying away from those files will prevent you from being a target.
How do they prove you were sharing the whole file?
Simple. That's what the search warrant is for.
I think the recent changes to copyright law indeed make copyright infringement a criminal offense. In TFA (untranslated) the state attorney states that it's a criminal offense (at least when referring to those who shared over 500 files which are the 130 mentioned, they also talk about 3500 other identified users that shared less).
The reference to kiddy porn was in the sentence "The police expects to find all the usual stuff you find on filesharing networks in the logs, including child pornography".
Also the IFPI Don claims that it's difficult to build up a legal music downloading service as long as this many illegal services exist. I'm sure he might want to explain that to Steve Jobs since that guy doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
Yes, but likewise you don't hear about Germany applying pressures to the USA for copyright extensions.
Well, indirectly. You may be aware of the tax loophole that allowed Uwe Boll to be profitable. Hollywood has been exploiting that for decades so indirectly the German citizenry funded the MPAA which is applying the pressure for copyright extensions in the US. That hole has been plugged so we're no longer paying for foreign freedom-hating organizations.
War aber vorhersehbar. Sonst hätten se ja nicht diesen Urheberrecht Zusatz gebaut. Macht die natürlich nicht weniger 'nen Haufen Arschlöcher die hier dauernd die Gesetze für so'nen Scheiß verschärfen. Das alte Urheberrecht war vollkommen ausreichend, alles danach is reine Korruption.
The "IP" rights holders are as a class completely guilty and have been for years of violating just a ton of laws yet not a one of them has ever lost a private personal penny or been threatened with jail time.
You realize that the standard to become an "IP rights holder" is really, REALLY low? Drew anything in art class? Wrote a story? Recorded yourself making an ass of yourself on a webcam? Congratulations, you're the proud owner of a new IP. Anyone can own a copyright. Anything you think up and write down (or otherwise make permanent) is yours.
If a law is unjust, then we should break it.
No, if a law is unjust you should change it. If enough people try to do so it will happen. But if most people think it is just you won't and shouldn't succeed (what with this being a democracy and all). Breaking a law signifies that YOU don't like it (or that you don't care about the result of breaking it). That does NOT mean that most people disagree with it.
People who use the law to defend industries for which there is no longer any need are enemies of the people. ;)
No, they just follow the rules the people have defined. If the people don't agree with the laws they made they should change them.
Copyright is supposed to be about the interests of the consumer. Well, it's quite clear that the interests of the consumer are served better by the free exchange of music than by having to financially support an industry.
I don't think people consider all short and long term implications of every action they take. In this case the thinking is "I get something for free". I don't think these people would agree with abolishing copyright law if they realized what that meant.
People will still make and distribute music if they aren't being paid (for all sorts of reasons). If you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't crap on the listeners who have no need to support an outmoded business model. No one has any moral right to make money from music, just as no one has any moral right to make other people pay every time they tell a story you told them.
If you want to contribute free music people can share, feel free to do so. Noone's stopping you and noone's stopping those who share that music. Just don't "liberate" music from people that DON'T want to contribute to this.
2 wrongs dont make a right, but what makes 'our' stealing wrong?
The law? The set of rules the people agreed upon as the universal standard of right and wrong?
Technology has gotten to the point that artists could publish their own music, I don't see why more people don't do that and keep the profits from selling it downloaded online.
Probably because record labels love to make contracts that say they own the songs and the band is not allowed to distribute them without paying money to the label.
I don't know about you but I've met quite a few people who would otherwise have bought many CDs and DVDs but decided they'd rather download everything instead. Hell, these days my father will demand an explanation when I buy something legally that I could download instead. WTF?
Sure, not everyone would have bought stuff instead and probably nobody would have bought EVERYTHING they downloaded but there are people who download things they used to buy.
Ack, forgot the closing quotation marks again.
http://ip-to-country.webhosting.info/
First result on Google.
Anyhow, Nazis/Godwin aside, the term "steal" implies that it was removed from someone's posession (i.e. they no longer have it any more). But "Infringing upon Stuff they Shouldn't" (ISS) sounds too much like a space station.
He said "sharing".
Hey, I'm okay with that. Had they written every vowel in the Bible we wouldn't have the whole Jehova/Jahwe confusion and would have missed out on the stoning scene in Life of Brian.