Not terribly surprising from L&O tho. Dick Wolf has always said that he "rips the stories from the headlines" and I've even heard lines on L&O that were word-for-word quotes from 60 Minutes before.
Kinda bizarre to see a story on 60 Minutes then 3-6mo later catch the same story as fiction on L&O.
It's a totally commpon practice to tax residents of other states, when they are working in your state. Just imagine what professional athletes go through. Or at least their accountants do. A pro athlete has to pay state taxes in EVERY state that he plays games in, that has a state tax.
The basic thrust of this act, and what NY has done, is said that IF you are telecommuting to work, solely for personal reasons, rather than because it's convenient for your company, then you owe taxes in NY. Basically while you may not have physical presence in NY, you do have telepresence.
I don't have a major beef with this. From what I recall reading elsewhere about this, he doesn't even really have strong ties where he's living. He just liked that there wasn't a state tax there at all.
The problem with taking the patents at will like this is it can have a strogly corrosive effect on drug research.
Drug companies spend billions researching drugs. If they feel that a particular avenue of research will not yeild returns comensurate with the financial risks taken disocovering it, then they will cease lines of research that are prone to governmental takings. And focus more on "lifestyle" drugs that aren't so highly at risk.
So in the short term some lives may be saved. In the long term there may be les sincentive to research new treatments, for new drugs. And HIV is FAR from the last disease that mankind will be faced with.
I say let them make their profits. Especially on a disease that is readily avoidable.
So what about in X years, when everything you read is on ePaper or whatever the hell it's called. And now you can no longer read during takeoff and landings on a plane. Since all electronics must be shut off during takeoff/landing times, according to the FAA.
I always wondered who actually bought the audio/music CD-R's. Someone must, if they continue to carry them in stores.
Now I know. It's you. Probably only you, for that matter.
Personally, I buy regular data grade CD-R's by the 100 disc spindle. Of course if you checked, every single CD I have a copy of in the car, I have the original tucked away in a box at home so it won't get scratched or stolen.
Using someone elses engine, is guaranteed to be a whole hell of a lot faster than upgrading your own engine to the latest tech.
My point is still valid. Building an "original" game on someone elses engine, is likely to be significantly less work than building a sequel to your blockbuster, on a completely rewritten engine.
Generally a sequel is more complex than some new games. Look at the past: Deus Ex, Klingon Honor Guard, Rune, etc, were all based on the Unreal Engine. Unreal II on the other hand, was built on a new, improved engine.
So all the "original" games that were built on U-1 were mostly story, and graphics, etc, hanging off an existing engine. U-2 on the other hand, was all of that, plus an all new, more complex, bigger, more expansive engine.
The *only* think made much easier in many sequels, is that the basic setting doesn't have to be created. The raw outline of where the game happens, is set. The scripting and everything beyond it is still all new tho.
When you listen to the radio, you get to hear a song once in awhile. Not on demand. And it's not a file that you're keeping. Sure you could record off the radio to tape, but the quality would be truly dreadful. So radio, by and large, can function as a marketing channel for labels. If you hear something you like on the radio, the betting is that you'll run out to buy a copy to keep.
With file sharing, you are downloading a copy of the file that you keep. You can listen to the song whenever you want. As often as you want. And in the eyes of the labels, you are far less likely to purchase the album. Why pay for something you've already got a copy of, for free?
I've got a WindowsXP box that I've been running for 9 months on, roughly. It's my primary home machine. I even lurk IRC with it. 4 different IM clients. All behind an out of the box Linsys non-wifi router.
I have yet to get around to installing *any* antivirus, or spyware software. I keep meaning to, but I don't have the time to set up the network based solution that will be the final implementation.
So about 2 weeks ago, I ran housecall.trendmicro.com. It's a browser based AV/Spyware scanner. So at the very end of it, the report was, that I had 8 tracking cookies. And no executables at all.
So my plan for dealing w/ spyware? Pay attention to what I'm doing online, and just don't get any. At least it seems to be working, so far.
At least nominally. When you buy a system with Windows bundled in, the hardware vendor is the point of contact for OS support. MS won't help you at all, without a credit card up front.
that doesn't watch pro sports, at least once in a blue moon.
Prefaced onto the beginning of EVERY sports telecast, is a note that the broadcast is owned by the league, and the network. And that rebroadcast, etc, is strictly prohibited w/o permission from the before mentioned entities.
They did. He passed just like everyone else.
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 1
For a month or so, I was living in the local CompUSA flophouse. We had 8 people living in a 2 BR apartment. It made rent affordable for sure. Of the 5 CompUSA employees living there, I was the *only* one that didn't use anything harder than alcohol. The other 4 used just about anything that was available. Including my perscription Vicadin when I had my wisdom teeth pulled.
It's not quite that bad. Depending on the size
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Up to a 15" screen, it'll give you a good wallop. But as long as you don't have some condition that predisposes you to death by electrocution (pacemaker, etc). A 17" will at the very least get you to stand up straight, and pay attention. Above that, you're toast, most likely.
When I worked at CompUSA we were an apple shop for everything, including monitors. Anything less than 15" Riff would discharge into himself, rather than going to the hassle of getting out the Static Discharge tool to drain it. The one time he did a 17" screen, apparently he stood in the corner, eyes totally blank, licking his hand for almost 5min. Totally tuned out from everything. After that he did start using the discharge more often. But not all the time.
What's the big deal with cleaning, anyhow?
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 1
A CRT is a big static dust magnet. So you have to hose it down regularly or it will build up an absud coat of crud.
LCD's don't function the same way, and I haven't experienced nearly the dust collection issues with mine.
The feds shut down a site that was integral to a network that was illegally sharing copyrighted materials.
I don't trade in this stuff, so I'm not diminished in any way. I haven't lost anything at all.
It might even be a small positive for me. If users on my probably oversubscribed DSL providers network are deprived of the ability to swap some torrents, then possibly there will be a little less lag, etc, when I'm doing stuff online. I can hope at any rate.
Just seems like a case of the government doing it's job, to me.
So all that's broken here, is the ability to complile code, that was written for Windows, into *nix binaries. That's all.
Is there really that much Windows code, getting ported to *nix? Seems like virtually all FOSS development flows the other way.
Large commercial companies that develop for Windows first, will have the resources to fix the code to compile the other direction.
And is WINE/WINELIB really a good solution? By taking something written for a particular platform, and just recompiling it straight over to a new platform aren't you going to end up with horribly unoptimized code no matter what? Rewriting the code to use non Windows specific calls will buy you a LOT of speed, and whatnot, I would think.
You suggest that there are alternate systems that will be much more effective than the current copyright system.
Why don't we test it.
You say that releasing everything under a GPL like license is the best way to promote the arts. I say that system wouldn't work.
You say that the current system is broken, totally and needs to be ripped out, and thrown away.
The system we have works. Maybe it's not ideal, but it is a system that has a decent track record for allowing artists to thrive under it.
Fortuantely the system you envision as the ideal could operate in parallel to the current copyright system.
Artists that want to work under the current system, and have the protections for their works that it provides, can continue to do just that. They can work through existing channels, and continue to have legal enforcement of the copyrights to their works.
Other artists can freely choose to operate under your system. They can freely distribute their works, and accept donations for doing so. And people that feel the way you do, are welcome to flock to those artists.
Since you have such a strong feeling about the fact that the system we have is broken, I heartily endorse your immediate adoption of the newer system. Make like RMS, and Tridge. Refuse to use anything that is not totally open. Dump all your commercial CD's etc. Only watch PBS on TV, you can even freeload off my tax support of PBS since I don't watch my "share" for what I'm forced to contribute by the government. Really live by what you are preaching.
As more artists come to realize that your way is better, they can abandon the "older" way, and more and more works will be released into the public domain from day of release. Eventually as everyone comes to realize that your system is far superior, the old laws will be come irrelevant. The vast sums of material being released freely will make the small amounts of copyrighted material irrelevant.
So you go live that life. Only watch/read/consume that which is free. But DO NOT for one second force me to. What I've just proposed would work. And you would have all the free media that your fellow spirits can create. While I choose to consume copyrighted materials still. Perhaps with time, I'll see that your "side" has the better selection and I'll join you. Don't count on it. My money says that "commercial arts" will continue to thrive on my side of the fence for a LONG time.
By trashing the current system you, without a provable model for a replacement, you are depriving people of the arts they have grown used to. That is not your right. You want to limit you choices, do it on your own. Don't force me to join you, just because of your ideology.
It makes it a crime to distribute unreleased works, that are destined for commercial release.
And your suggestion that people will pool their resources to produce works on the scale of a Star Wars, is pretty absurd. There's FAR too many variables that are unknown to the masses at the beginning of a project like that, for people to be expected to invest.
Further, by and large people will take the attitude that they can just wait and get it for free anyhow. And that their contribution won't measurably speed up the the process. So why bother.
I don't see the system as disintegrating at all. Think that it could be made to work, effectively. Without some of the draconian retrictions that are proposed by the *AA's hopefully.
We live in a market based economy. It's fairly well established that the market works, by and large to promote the betterment of society. The public is supplied with a wide variety of arts thanks to the ability of artists to make a good living, if they provide things that the masses like. The odds of them getting to a mass market are MUCH smaller if the mechanisms for marketing are stripped away and discarded.
I don't think that artists would be denied payment under a no IP law world. I just think they wouldn't make enough to actually qualify as more than a hobby for virtually all of them. And I'm not willing to discard all the choice I have now, thanks to a relatively reasonable copyright system.
I don't think it's perfect. I'm positive that they are issued for FAR too long, at least. But I think it's FAR preferable to the alternatives.
For those artists that chose to, they absolutely have the right to release their works under something akin to the GPL at any time. Let me know when one of them manages to produce something on the scale of a Star Wars, or a John Grisham, or even something like a Sin City.
So we should tear down the exisiting system for music, movies, and books, completely, without anything to replace it.
There are significant differences between open source code development, and mass media "art".
Working on open source code can get you a paying job somewhere. Providing support for the applications, or by doing other programming work, since you have a demonstrated talent for coding. It can also be done fairly efficiently as a hobby, as well. Since different pieces of the code can be worked on by various people, in a distributed manner, quite easily. And there isn't really much in the way of capital costs to produce code, either. A PC is pretty damn cheap, all things considered.
That is emphatically not the case with music, and writing, and film.
In Music, you *might* be able to get a job as a musician performing live. But that won't begin to cover the production costs of recording a studio quality album. I have friends that are in major label bands. And they don't make anything at all from their releases. They don't cover the advance at all. But they do make enough to survive on, by touring. If the labels disappeared, then they wouldn't be able to tour either, however. Because they would not have any marketing behind their album. And in all likelyhood, would be a local bar band instead. Not a band that can tour the US/World, and play for a wide group of fans.
With writing, again, some jobs may be available for staff writers doing internal documentation, etc. But by and large there aren't going to be many writing jobs at all. Once you kill off all IP law, and copyrights, then suddenly whole swathes of the economy are bankrupt. Newspapers, magazines, book publishers, all gone in the blink of an eye. When everything they produce is released free by others, immediately, then the advertising revenue will vanish as well. The market just dissolves, and disappears.
And the TV, and movies will suffer as well. When there's no chance of recouping the investment on a multimillion dollar movie, they will cease to exist. You may not like big budget movies. But obviously many people do, or they wouldn't pay to see them. Once they are available for free, and there's no chance to earn box office revenue, then they will disappear. No future Star Wars epics, HHGTTG is gone. All of it is no longer economically viable at all.
So again, I ask. How do you propose to replace the current system, so that there is still a means for artists to produce on the scale they do now? By trashing all IP and copyrights, you're depriving everyone of vast sums of art which we appreciate.
Just because you can arrange to get art for free, doesn't mean you have the right to take all you want for free.
It's a luxury good, anyhow. And so arguing that mega-corps bankrupt citizens through their control of copyrights, is absurd. If you don't want to pay for arts, then you have the option to not consume. And the only person harmed by your failure to pay, and consume, is yourself. Don't deprive me of the vast wealth of choices, just because you're too cheap to pay for what you like.
You say that the time for limited rights of publication has ended. WHy is that that? What changed to suddenly remove the need to support the creator of a work?
The incentive was not just for the publisher. The publisher typically paid the artist for the rights to the work. And then used the term of the copyright period to recoup his costs, with some profit hopefully. Both the costs of printing, etc, and the price paid to the artist.
Artists still need to make money, if they are to continue producing art. At least if they want to be able to produce art on a reasonable scale. If they can only practice art as an unpaid hobby, then the amount of art being produced will be greatly reduced.
So while the Internet may give you the capability to copy IP indescriminately, it does not by definition give you the "right" to do so. There are LOTS of things that you're capable of doing, that have an adverse effect on society, and are thus frowned upon.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you'll get corrected plenty. Mostly be people that don't know whether or not you were wrong or not.
:)
I suppose that includes me, since I'm correcting one point at least, while not even caring which porsche is which.
Law & Order:SVU did a similar show.
Not terribly surprising from L&O tho. Dick Wolf has always said that he "rips the stories from the headlines" and I've even heard lines on L&O that were word-for-word quotes from 60 Minutes before.
Kinda bizarre to see a story on 60 Minutes then 3-6mo later catch the same story as fiction on L&O.
It's a totally commpon practice to tax residents of other states, when they are working in your state. Just imagine what professional athletes go through. Or at least their accountants do. A pro athlete has to pay state taxes in EVERY state that he plays games in, that has a state tax.
The basic thrust of this act, and what NY has done, is said that IF you are telecommuting to work, solely for personal reasons, rather than because it's convenient for your company, then you owe taxes in NY. Basically while you may not have physical presence in NY, you do have telepresence.
I don't have a major beef with this. From what I recall reading elsewhere about this, he doesn't even really have strong ties where he's living. He just liked that there wasn't a state tax there at all.
to the good old days of posting Katz instead?
Now that would be sadistic, for sure.
The problem with taking the patents at will like this is it can have a strogly corrosive effect on drug research.
Drug companies spend billions researching drugs. If they feel that a particular avenue of research will not yeild returns comensurate with the financial risks taken disocovering it, then they will cease lines of research that are prone to governmental takings. And focus more on "lifestyle" drugs that aren't so highly at risk.
So in the short term some lives may be saved. In the long term there may be les sincentive to research new treatments, for new drugs. And HIV is FAR from the last disease that mankind will be faced with.
I say let them make their profits. Especially on a disease that is readily avoidable.
So what about in X years, when everything you read is on ePaper or whatever the hell it's called. And now you can no longer read during takeoff and landings on a plane. Since all electronics must be shut off during takeoff/landing times, according to the FAA.
*sigh*
that colleges are moving to DRM textbooks that "expire" after a year then. This problem will take care of itself within a semester or two for sure.
I always wondered who actually bought the audio/music CD-R's. Someone must, if they continue to carry them in stores.
Now I know. It's you. Probably only you, for that matter.
Personally, I buy regular data grade CD-R's by the 100 disc spindle. Of course if you checked, every single CD I have a copy of in the car, I have the original tucked away in a box at home so it won't get scratched or stolen.
Using someone elses engine, is guaranteed to be a whole hell of a lot faster than upgrading your own engine to the latest tech.
My point is still valid. Building an "original" game on someone elses engine, is likely to be significantly less work than building a sequel to your blockbuster, on a completely rewritten engine.
How on earth are they easier?
Generally a sequel is more complex than some new games. Look at the past: Deus Ex, Klingon Honor Guard, Rune, etc, were all based on the Unreal Engine. Unreal II on the other hand, was built on a new, improved engine.
So all the "original" games that were built on U-1 were mostly story, and graphics, etc, hanging off an existing engine. U-2 on the other hand, was all of that, plus an all new, more complex, bigger, more expansive engine.
The *only* think made much easier in many sequels, is that the basic setting doesn't have to be created. The raw outline of where the game happens, is set. The scripting and everything beyond it is still all new tho.
When you listen to the radio, you get to hear a song once in awhile. Not on demand. And it's not a file that you're keeping. Sure you could record off the radio to tape, but the quality would be truly dreadful. So radio, by and large, can function as a marketing channel for labels. If you hear something you like on the radio, the betting is that you'll run out to buy a copy to keep.
With file sharing, you are downloading a copy of the file that you keep. You can listen to the song whenever you want. As often as you want. And in the eyes of the labels, you are far less likely to purchase the album. Why pay for something you've already got a copy of, for free?
Seems FAR less expensive to maintain.
I've got a WindowsXP box that I've been running for 9 months on, roughly. It's my primary home machine. I even lurk IRC with it. 4 different IM clients. All behind an out of the box Linsys non-wifi router.
I have yet to get around to installing *any* antivirus, or spyware software. I keep meaning to, but I don't have the time to set up the network based solution that will be the final implementation.
So about 2 weeks ago, I ran housecall.trendmicro.com. It's a browser based AV/Spyware scanner. So at the very end of it, the report was, that I had 8 tracking cookies. And no executables at all.
So my plan for dealing w/ spyware? Pay attention to what I'm doing online, and just don't get any. At least it seems to be working, so far.
At least nominally. When you buy a system with Windows bundled in, the hardware vendor is the point of contact for OS support. MS won't help you at all, without a credit card up front.
that doesn't watch pro sports, at least once in a blue moon.
Prefaced onto the beginning of EVERY sports telecast, is a note that the broadcast is owned by the league, and the network. And that rebroadcast, etc, is strictly prohibited w/o permission from the before mentioned entities.
For a month or so, I was living in the local CompUSA flophouse. We had 8 people living in a 2 BR apartment. It made rent affordable for sure. Of the 5 CompUSA employees living there, I was the *only* one that didn't use anything harder than alcohol. The other 4 used just about anything that was available. Including my perscription Vicadin when I had my wisdom teeth pulled.
Up to a 15" screen, it'll give you a good wallop. But as long as you don't have some condition that predisposes you to death by electrocution (pacemaker, etc). A 17" will at the very least get you to stand up straight, and pay attention. Above that, you're toast, most likely.
When I worked at CompUSA we were an apple shop for everything, including monitors. Anything less than 15" Riff would discharge into himself, rather than going to the hassle of getting out the Static Discharge tool to drain it. The one time he did a 17" screen, apparently he stood in the corner, eyes totally blank, licking his hand for almost 5min. Totally tuned out from everything. After that he did start using the discharge more often. But not all the time.
A CRT is a big static dust magnet. So you have to hose it down regularly or it will build up an absud coat of crud.
LCD's don't function the same way, and I haven't experienced nearly the dust collection issues with mine.
I say good riddance to CRT's.
The feds shut down a site that was integral to a network that was illegally sharing copyrighted materials.
I don't trade in this stuff, so I'm not diminished in any way. I haven't lost anything at all.
It might even be a small positive for me. If users on my probably oversubscribed DSL providers network are deprived of the ability to swap some torrents, then possibly there will be a little less lag, etc, when I'm doing stuff online. I can hope at any rate.
Just seems like a case of the government doing it's job, to me.
That if a baloon, or a styrofoam box happens to get in the way of a jet engine, the mechanics wont' have a clue unless the pilot tells them.
You've got a piece of metal, designed to pull air in at 600miles an hour, heat it up, and eject it back out. Latex is not even worth worrying about.
So all that's broken here, is the ability to complile code, that was written for Windows, into *nix binaries. That's all.
Is there really that much Windows code, getting ported to *nix? Seems like virtually all FOSS development flows the other way.
Large commercial companies that develop for Windows first, will have the resources to fix the code to compile the other direction.
And is WINE/WINELIB really a good solution? By taking something written for a particular platform, and just recompiling it straight over to a new platform aren't you going to end up with horribly unoptimized code no matter what? Rewriting the code to use non Windows specific calls will buy you a LOT of speed, and whatnot, I would think.
You suggest that there are alternate systems that will be much more effective than the current copyright system.
Why don't we test it.
You say that releasing everything under a GPL like license is the best way to promote the arts. I say that system wouldn't work.
You say that the current system is broken, totally and needs to be ripped out, and thrown away.
The system we have works. Maybe it's not ideal, but it is a system that has a decent track record for allowing artists to thrive under it.
Fortuantely the system you envision as the ideal could operate in parallel to the current copyright system.
Artists that want to work under the current system, and have the protections for their works that it provides, can continue to do just that. They can work through existing channels, and continue to have legal enforcement of the copyrights to their works.
Other artists can freely choose to operate under your system. They can freely distribute their works, and accept donations for doing so. And people that feel the way you do, are welcome to flock to those artists.
Since you have such a strong feeling about the fact that the system we have is broken, I heartily endorse your immediate adoption of the newer system. Make like RMS, and Tridge. Refuse to use anything that is not totally open. Dump all your commercial CD's etc. Only watch PBS on TV, you can even freeload off my tax support of PBS since I don't watch my "share" for what I'm forced to contribute by the government. Really live by what you are preaching.
As more artists come to realize that your way is better, they can abandon the "older" way, and more and more works will be released into the public domain from day of release. Eventually as everyone comes to realize that your system is far superior, the old laws will be come irrelevant. The vast sums of material being released freely will make the small amounts of copyrighted material irrelevant.
So you go live that life. Only watch/read/consume that which is free. But DO NOT for one second force me to. What I've just proposed would work. And you would have all the free media that your fellow spirits can create. While I choose to consume copyrighted materials still. Perhaps with time, I'll see that your "side" has the better selection and I'll join you. Don't count on it. My money says that "commercial arts" will continue to thrive on my side of the fence for a LONG time.
By trashing the current system you, without a provable model for a replacement, you are depriving people of the arts they have grown used to. That is not your right. You want to limit you choices, do it on your own. Don't force me to join you, just because of your ideology.
Read the thing.
It makes it a crime to distribute unreleased works, that are destined for commercial release.
And your suggestion that people will pool their resources to produce works on the scale of a Star Wars, is pretty absurd. There's FAR too many variables that are unknown to the masses at the beginning of a project like that, for people to be expected to invest.
Further, by and large people will take the attitude that they can just wait and get it for free anyhow. And that their contribution won't measurably speed up the the process. So why bother.
I don't see the system as disintegrating at all. Think that it could be made to work, effectively. Without some of the draconian retrictions that are proposed by the *AA's hopefully.
We live in a market based economy. It's fairly well established that the market works, by and large to promote the betterment of society. The public is supplied with a wide variety of arts thanks to the ability of artists to make a good living, if they provide things that the masses like. The odds of them getting to a mass market are MUCH smaller if the mechanisms for marketing are stripped away and discarded.
I don't think that artists would be denied payment under a no IP law world. I just think they wouldn't make enough to actually qualify as more than a hobby for virtually all of them. And I'm not willing to discard all the choice I have now, thanks to a relatively reasonable copyright system.
I don't think it's perfect. I'm positive that they are issued for FAR too long, at least. But I think it's FAR preferable to the alternatives.
For those artists that chose to, they absolutely have the right to release their works under something akin to the GPL at any time. Let me know when one of them manages to produce something on the scale of a Star Wars, or a John Grisham, or even something like a Sin City.
I don't expect in my lifetime to see it tho.
So we should tear down the exisiting system for music, movies, and books, completely, without anything to replace it.
There are significant differences between open source code development, and mass media "art".
Working on open source code can get you a paying job somewhere. Providing support for the applications, or by doing other programming work, since you have a demonstrated talent for coding. It can also be done fairly efficiently as a hobby, as well. Since different pieces of the code can be worked on by various people, in a distributed manner, quite easily. And there isn't really much in the way of capital costs to produce code, either. A PC is pretty damn cheap, all things considered.
That is emphatically not the case with music, and writing, and film.
In Music, you *might* be able to get a job as a musician performing live. But that won't begin to cover the production costs of recording a studio quality album. I have friends that are in major label bands. And they don't make anything at all from their releases. They don't cover the advance at all. But they do make enough to survive on, by touring. If the labels disappeared, then they wouldn't be able to tour either, however. Because they would not have any marketing behind their album. And in all likelyhood, would be a local bar band instead. Not a band that can tour the US/World, and play for a wide group of fans.
With writing, again, some jobs may be available for staff writers doing internal documentation, etc. But by and large there aren't going to be many writing jobs at all. Once you kill off all IP law, and copyrights, then suddenly whole swathes of the economy are bankrupt. Newspapers, magazines, book publishers, all gone in the blink of an eye. When everything they produce is released free by others, immediately, then the advertising revenue will vanish as well. The market just dissolves, and disappears.
And the TV, and movies will suffer as well. When there's no chance of recouping the investment on a multimillion dollar movie, they will cease to exist. You may not like big budget movies. But obviously many people do, or they wouldn't pay to see them. Once they are available for free, and there's no chance to earn box office revenue, then they will disappear. No future Star Wars epics, HHGTTG is gone. All of it is no longer economically viable at all.
So again, I ask. How do you propose to replace the current system, so that there is still a means for artists to produce on the scale they do now? By trashing all IP and copyrights, you're depriving everyone of vast sums of art which we appreciate.
Just because you can arrange to get art for free, doesn't mean you have the right to take all you want for free.
It's a luxury good, anyhow. And so arguing that mega-corps bankrupt citizens through their control of copyrights, is absurd. If you don't want to pay for arts, then you have the option to not consume. And the only person harmed by your failure to pay, and consume, is yourself. Don't deprive me of the vast wealth of choices, just because you're too cheap to pay for what you like.
The new law makes it a crime to distribute the files. Not to own them.
And if his buddy isn't putting them online in such a way that they are avaialble for download, then he's not covered at all by the new law either.
And it specifically covers pre-release materials. Things that have not yet entered the regular flow of commerce, etc. Not ancient moldy 60's stuff.
Maybe you should read what the law is about, before jumping off like that?
You say that the time for limited rights of publication has ended. WHy is that that? What changed to suddenly remove the need to support the creator of a work?
The incentive was not just for the publisher. The publisher typically paid the artist for the rights to the work. And then used the term of the copyright period to recoup his costs, with some profit hopefully. Both the costs of printing, etc, and the price paid to the artist.
Artists still need to make money, if they are to continue producing art. At least if they want to be able to produce art on a reasonable scale. If they can only practice art as an unpaid hobby, then the amount of art being produced will be greatly reduced.
So while the Internet may give you the capability to copy IP indescriminately, it does not by definition give you the "right" to do so. There are LOTS of things that you're capable of doing, that have an adverse effect on society, and are thus frowned upon.