Or better yet how about time of day service like electricity. If I download in off peak hours my rates per gig would be lower than when downloading during peak hours. If you don't download at all you just pay the base amount for keeping service.
If you don't see how the majority of engineering students, much less the majority of the population, can be of above average intelligence, then I certainly hope that you are not an engineer. If you are an engineer I would suggest that you brush up on your math, and realize that just because nice Gaussian distributions make for good textbook math problems doesn't mean that real life populations fit into a Gaussian distribution. In fact, while the distribution of IQ for people with above-median intelligence is normal, it's not necessarily the case for people with below median intelligence. This is likely due to a variety of illnesses and defects that cause a disproportionately high decrease in function. In other words, more than half the population *is* above the average intelligence level, because many people with below-median intelligence are still above average intelligence.
Umm no - the average IQ is 100 by definition with 50% of the population falling below 100. So to say the majority of people have above average IQ is completely false. And if you were looking at the above median distribution of IQ score, it would probably look like the right half of a Gaussian distribution.
I'd say most engineering student (who graduate anyway) would have above average IQs by necessity.
Why, because it's an accurate portrayal of your position?
No because it's sheer nonsense. You didn't understand what I wrote, jumped to illogical conclusions and it would take too much of my time to explain how you are wrong.
You claimed that your use of "stealing" in this thread was morality neutral.
Are you trying to say that there is some person out there who is backing up or format shifting their dvd's to prevent a starving child from dying and that's why the use is morally neutral? Because in order for you to bring up this type of argument about the morality of stealing, it actually has to apply to the conversation at hand.
You obviously have a hard time understanding what people write so I'll make it simple. I MADE NO STATEMENT AS TO MY POSITION ON THE MORALITY OF STEALING IN THIS MANNER, NOR WHETHER I THOUGHT THAT COPYING A MOVIE WAS WRONG. I SIMPLY STATED THAT CURRENTLY IT IS ILLEGAL.
Is that clear enough for you? If not then you must be denser than even I thought. If so, stop bothering me.
I'll only respond to one of the pieces of crap that you wrote..
Because obviously "stealing" to you doesn't have any moral connotations one way or another. I can see this from your point of view, after all you don't even have enough morality not to take a job like this
I'm not sure what 'job' you are talking about but stealing is not necessarily immoral. If I stole food to prevent a starving child from dying, stealing is still illegal but the act itself is not immoral as there is a greater good.
When you get out of your mothers basement you will realize the world is not black and white.
I agree with your first two points - well researched btw, however:
copyright violation by copying digital formats is utterly unlike theft.
Firstly, excerpt of articles and use in a teaching curriculum are all legal under copyright and fair use. You obviously know how to look up legal rulings so I wont bother with a citation. However organizations such as FACT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Against_Copyright_Theft may have issues with your assertion that copyright violation is not theft.
Format shifting has been found legal for music (in RIAA v. Diamond, IIRC). What makes you think it wouldn't also be found legal for movies?
Simply because format shifting for music was declared legal under the Audio Home Recording Act which does not apply to movies and has nothing to do with fair use.
So if the manufacturer wrote a DRM module that allowed everyone to play Blu-Ray movies on Linux, but only released the binaries to protect their IP, would you be happy then?
Really??? I had no idea that you could play Blue-ray on BSD and Solaris. Do you have a link?
Did I say it played on ALL other OSs? No. It doesn't play on OS-9 or QNX either. Jesus, what a fuck.
I just said it plays on other OSes, as in SOME. If it plays perfectly fine on some OSes theres no reason that it can't on Linux except no one has written the software to do it yet. The correct approach is to write a proper player, not try and break the encryption.
It's fun, because your comments are all out there for people read and yet you contradict yourself blatantly with this last post. You are making moral judgments, and it drips from your posts. You may think that you're only stating facts, but it is obviously not so. If you claim your opinion on the "whole copying matter" is pro, then you must hate yourself; if it's anti, then at least you're consistent!
There's no contradiction whatsoever. Copying a movie is clearly not legal. Therefore it is theft, and therefore stealing. I made no such statements regarding if copying was ethical or not which equates to being moral. Nor have I ever stated my position on whether I thought that the law was fair or not in this matter. Only the legality as it currently stands.
It is you who are equating 'theft' and 'morality'. I made no such claim. I am not trolling, nor did I make a contradiction in my argument.
No, I never made any statement as to the morality of copying a movie. I only stated it was currently illegal in the US, and your explanations as to why it should be to me will not change that.
Actually it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about.
Fair use policy does not allow copies of entire movies or songs. It does not apply to backups. The Home Audio Recording Act lets you make personal copies of music you buy for personal use (not distribution). This Act does not extend to movies, nor is there a movie equivalent of that act.
DVRs are legal under the fair use act for timeshifted watching of broadcast media. This is one of the correct stated protections of the fair use act and has stood up in court.
Is it really legal to make copies of the installation media for software though?
I won't dare make a blanket statement for fear of getting another 600 flamebait emails clogging up my system. However in the software that I install and use on a daily basis, in the vast majority it has been a digital download (and therefore free to copy), or CD that had not copy protection and it was explicit that you could copy them. Our IS department regularly puts images of the CDs on the network drive for local install.
However, in each of those cases, the software had a separate install key that only allows a limited number of installs or simultaneous running copies, or the software install points to a network license server that regulates who can run it. Because of this runtime protection, the number of copies of the original install disks you make is completely irrelevant (and therefore allowed).
Often however the company will send out software updates quarterly, so making copies of the original CDs is almost pointless anyway.
It appears from the above that your position is that backup copies are not "moral". You have gone on in a number of posts to say that one shouldn't have this right.
No, my position isn't that it is not moral, and I have never stated that you shouldn't have the right to copy. I never made any claim as to the moral issues of copying movies. I never even stated what my opinion is on the whole coping matter.
Again, the only thing I have ever stated here is that a backup copy of a movie, or copying it to your hardrive is not legal in the US. I never said it was wrong, or stated it was not moral, or that the law was correct, or there weren't many reasons why someone needs a legitimate backup. Again I only stated that it is currently illegal since many posters seem to think that it is.
Why do you keep insisting that there is no legitimate reason to copy a movie?
I never made such a claim. It's unbelievable how many slashdotters cannot read.
ALL I said was making a copy of a movie for backup purposes was illegal and not covered under fair use law. I'm sure you can make up thousands of reasons why you want a backup, but none of them make the backup a legal copy.
It's totally legal to rip a CD so that you can listen to your music on a computer, mp3 player, car, etc. Why is it different if it's a movie?
Because copying audio was made legal through the 'Home Audio Recording Act' (not fair use!). There is no such act for movies and the audio act does not extend to cover movies.
'Mission accomplised' meant the Iraq war. It is still going on and is unwinable, not to mention the reasons for the war were completely fabricated and therefore the war itself was illegal.
The same principle makes it legal to make backup copies of copyrighted material (whether software, music, videos, etc), as long as I own the original medium.
No not quite. Yes it is perfectly legal to make personal copies of music for your own use, but not because of fair use, but because there was a separate act passed called the 'Audio Home Recording Act'. This act does not extend to video. Fair use laws does not cover backups.
Your other comments assume fair use laws allow you to make backups - it does not.
If you believe time or format shifting should not be legal then I simply disagree with your position.
Recording of broadcast data for timeshifting purposes is declared legal under 'fair use' definition.
If you believe that all laws should be followed, whether they are reasonable or not, then you are an idiot.
That's not my position or what I said. Many people here seem to think that copying a movie for backup purposes is legal. It is not. I'm just trying to stop this ridiculous misinformation, not to be moral and say you shouldn't do it. Make all the copies you want, I could give two shits. But don't make copies and claim it is legal when it clearly is not.
'OUGHT' to be legal and 'IS' legal are two entirely different things. Currently, making copies of entire movies in teh US is illegal whether you like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Or better yet how about time of day service like electricity. If I download in off peak hours my rates per gig would be lower than when downloading during peak hours. If you don't download at all you just pay the base amount for keeping service.
Umm no - the average IQ is 100 by definition with 50% of the population falling below 100. So to say the majority of people have above average IQ is completely false. And if you were looking at the above median distribution of IQ score, it would probably look like the right half of a Gaussian distribution.
I'd say most engineering student (who graduate anyway) would have above average IQs by necessity.
No because it's sheer nonsense. You didn't understand what I wrote, jumped to illogical conclusions and it would take too much of my time to explain how you are wrong.
You obviously have a hard time understanding what people write so I'll make it simple. I MADE NO STATEMENT AS TO MY POSITION ON THE MORALITY OF STEALING IN THIS MANNER, NOR WHETHER I THOUGHT THAT COPYING A MOVIE WAS WRONG. I SIMPLY STATED THAT CURRENTLY IT IS ILLEGAL.
Is that clear enough for you? If not then you must be denser than even I thought. If so, stop bothering me.
I'll only respond to one of the pieces of crap that you wrote..
I'm not sure what 'job' you are talking about but stealing is not necessarily immoral. If I stole food to prevent a starving child from dying, stealing is still illegal but the act itself is not immoral as there is a greater good.
When you get out of your mothers basement you will realize the world is not black and white.
I agree with your first two points - well researched btw, however:
Firstly, excerpt of articles and use in a teaching curriculum are all legal under copyright and fair use. You obviously know how to look up legal rulings so I wont bother with a citation. However organizations such as FACT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_Against_Copyright_Theft may have issues with your assertion that copyright violation is not theft.
Simply because format shifting for music was declared legal under the Audio Home Recording Act which does not apply to movies and has nothing to do with fair use.
So if the manufacturer wrote a DRM module that allowed everyone to play Blu-Ray movies on Linux, but only released the binaries to protect their IP, would you be happy then?
Did I say it played on ALL other OSs? No. It doesn't play on OS-9 or QNX either. Jesus, what a fuck.
I just said it plays on other OSes, as in SOME. If it plays perfectly fine on some OSes theres no reason that it can't on Linux except no one has written the software to do it yet. The correct approach is to write a proper player, not try and break the encryption.
I said no such thing. I'm sorry that English seems to be your second or maybe third language.
There's no contradiction whatsoever. Copying a movie is clearly not legal. Therefore it is theft, and therefore stealing. I made no such statements regarding if copying was ethical or not which equates to being moral. Nor have I ever stated my position on whether I thought that the law was fair or not in this matter. Only the legality as it currently stands.
It is you who are equating 'theft' and 'morality'. I made no such claim. I am not trolling, nor did I make a contradiction in my argument.
It's not my opinion that it is illegal - it simply is illegal, regardless of your arguments to me.
And if your friend bought a bunch of DVDs that don't work, why not simply return them? Or for $30 get a brand new DVD player?
No, I never made any statement as to the morality of copying a movie. I only stated it was currently illegal in the US, and your explanations as to why it should be to me will not change that.
Actually it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about.
Fair use policy does not allow copies of entire movies or songs. It does not apply to backups. The Home Audio Recording Act lets you make personal copies of music you buy for personal use (not distribution). This Act does not extend to movies, nor is there a movie equivalent of that act.
DVRs are legal under the fair use act for timeshifted watching of broadcast media. This is one of the correct stated protections of the fair use act and has stood up in court.
I won't dare make a blanket statement for fear of getting another 600 flamebait emails clogging up my system. However in the software that I install and use on a daily basis, in the vast majority it has been a digital download (and therefore free to copy), or CD that had not copy protection and it was explicit that you could copy them. Our IS department regularly puts images of the CDs on the network drive for local install.
However, in each of those cases, the software had a separate install key that only allows a limited number of installs or simultaneous running copies, or the software install points to a network license server that regulates who can run it. Because of this runtime protection, the number of copies of the original install disks you make is completely irrelevant (and therefore allowed).
Often however the company will send out software updates quarterly, so making copies of the original CDs is almost pointless anyway.
No, my position isn't that it is not moral, and I have never stated that you shouldn't have the right to copy. I never made any claim as to the moral issues of copying movies. I never even stated what my opinion is on the whole coping matter.
Again, the only thing I have ever stated here is that a backup copy of a movie, or copying it to your hardrive is not legal in the US. I never said it was wrong, or stated it was not moral, or that the law was correct, or there weren't many reasons why someone needs a legitimate backup. Again I only stated that it is currently illegal since many posters seem to think that it is.
I never made such a claim. It's unbelievable how many slashdotters cannot read.
ALL I said was making a copy of a movie for backup purposes was illegal and not covered under fair use law. I'm sure you can make up thousands of reasons why you want a backup, but none of them make the backup a legal copy.
Because copying audio was made legal through the 'Home Audio Recording Act' (not fair use!). There is no such act for movies and the audio act does not extend to cover movies.
'Mission accomplised' meant the Iraq war. It is still going on and is unwinable, not to mention the reasons for the war were completely fabricated and therefore the war itself was illegal.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It made no sense, and didn't even seem to be on topic.
I'm using the legal definition of 'fair use'. You can use whatever version you feel is correct to justify your actions.
Movie: A sequence of photographs projected onto a screen with sufficient rapidity as to create the illusion of motion and continuity
I'm not talking about analog tape not being able to store data. Of course it can.
No not quite. Yes it is perfectly legal to make personal copies of music for your own use, but not because of fair use, but because there was a separate act passed called the 'Audio Home Recording Act'. This act does not extend to video. Fair use laws does not cover backups.
Your other comments assume fair use laws allow you to make backups - it does not.
Recording of broadcast data for timeshifting purposes is declared legal under 'fair use' definition.
That's not my position or what I said. Many people here seem to think that copying a movie for backup purposes is legal. It is not. I'm just trying to stop this ridiculous misinformation, not to be moral and say you shouldn't do it. Make all the copies you want, I could give two shits. But don't make copies and claim it is legal when it clearly is not.
'OUGHT' to be legal and 'IS' legal are two entirely different things. Currently, making copies of entire movies in teh US is illegal whether you like it or not.