"As soon as you broadcast its image through any publically accessible medium, your right vanishes because you no longer control the physical access."
Oy vey. I don't know how you came up with these delusional ideas, but right certainly does not vanish.
By your argument, it would be perfectly legal to copy any piece of software because the company that sold it released it on CD/DVD.
You have the right to view it, but not to redistribute it or modify it, which is the crux of the issue; regardless of what your personal feelings are on the issue. The law is quite clear.
"since you now claim that we are to reject thoughts and images that appear before our eyes based on someones demands for money..."
I claimed no such thing. Nice attempt to twist what I said, though. There is a big difference between "thoughts and images that appear before our eyes" and ACTIVELY seeking to view said thoughts and images.
"...you perheaps did notice that very few of them, yourself included (pot, meet kettle), are brandishing their personal information."
Hey genius. My personal information is CLEARLY displayed, if you had ANY clue as to what my username meant. It takes less than 5 seconds to get my full name, address and telephone number.
"You explictely stated that it is not people's "right". A right is something above a legal system de jeur and thus is something one considers a crucial element of his/her outlook on the world."
So because I don't feel that we have the right to view anything we want anytime we want, that makes me a corporatist?
So be it.
Still waiting for that name and address, though, Captain Courageous.
You DON'T GET IT. You don't have some unwritten RIGHT to see something that the copyright holder didn't intend you to see.
You want to see it? Get on a plane, go to Japan, buy them.
You can't afford to go there or buy them? Oh dear me. Heaven forbid.
Do I cry my eyes out because I can't afford a BMW, but, man, I really really deserve one!
(Also, I'm not American, so strike out on that one, tiger.)
"Outside them, the _ONLY_ way to have access to Anime is thru satellite TV..."
There you go. You have a legal way to access Anime. You just negated any argument you had. You can't afford it? TOO FUCKING BAD.
"Hellooooo, the internet is not only about the U.S.!"
Hellooooo, this isn't really about the internet, captain genius.
"At least you should do a little research and stop bashing something you have no F'ing idea what it's about. Tell me. How much money do the japanese companies lose, if a person sees their anime in a country that they wouldn't sell to, anyway?"
It's not about the money, brainiac. It's about the OWNER of the content having the right to distribute what THEY OWN in whatever manner they choose.
I'm really sorry it's hard for you to get your fix of cartoon women getting raped by alien tentacles, but you're not in the right.
While it was difficult to read your unformatted paragraph, I understand your point.
I'm Canadian, too; albeit currently living in the US.
What's different here is that these people aren't just copying a piece of work... they're editing it to add something (re-production) and redistributing it. That's a lot different that straight copying.
Hell, if that were the case, and they were just sending copies of the cartoon in plain Japanese, it would be different.
But these people are clearly doing something that they know on paper is wrong.
"Actually, since I believe that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" I do indeed believe that anyone has that right. But you clearly are a corporatist and believe that you can demand that people do not try to use electronic signals which you consider your right to beam through their hosues and even bodies. In other words your greed is more important than other people's freedom. A term "sanctimonious greedy asshole" springs to mind."
Hilarious. Oh how you've hit the hammer right on the head. You have discovered my deep dark secret. I secretly LOVE the corporations.
Moron. You know nothing about me. I never once said I agree with them. I just stated that the laws are quite concrete when it comes to what they're doing.
But if you sincerely believe that all information needs to be free (I assume that you've watched Hackers one time too many), please feel free to post your full name and address so the corporations can contact you and you can exercise your "civic duty to fight [them]".
Are you saying that the copyright owner has the right to forbid who can see their creation?
No, but the owner has the right to limit the distribution of said material.
Perhaps you've heard the following phrase whenever you watch a professional sporting event in America: "Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution or retransmission... blah blah blah"
These people are reproducing and redistributing something without the express consent of the copyright holder.
Right, and that would be different from getting a honking big antenna and watching the stuff from Japan directly how exactly?
Do you think you have a right to see something that's distributed in Japan-only?
You don't.
What they are doing is acting as a network of relays for a TV signal and they even add value by putting subtitles on with no commercial expectations.
While you may be right, that doesn't dismiss any sort of copyright violations that occur while 'relaying' (you call it relaying, I call it redistribution).
Yes you fail to see implications of these attempts by contents "producers" to create "right to read" society indeed.
Please see above comment about not having any rights to see something that isn't intended for a US audience.
Sanctimonious jerk, are you?
Perhaps, but that still doesn't make me wrong.
Illegal does not necessarily mean right. These actions could be interpreted as "fair use", especially if the translations are not available otherwise. The copyright owners want too much control.
It's not fair use if the original copyright owner has no intention of distributing an item in the US.
Just because the furries absolutely need to see the latest episode of "Japanese Anal Monkies meet the Fox Costume 5" or whatever it's called, does NOT give them ANY right to see it.
Seriously, though: I understand what they're doing and why they're doing it, but regardless of their intentions, it's still not legal in the least. And no court in this nation would support what they were doing if the copyright holders decided to persue litigation.
Seriously, I wonder what the results would be if this study were stretched out to include adults as well as teenagers?
I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the results would be almost identical.
The problem isn't with the kids; it's the system that allows these kids to develop ideas like these that's the problem.
No child left behind, indeed. Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?
"Recently, Pike stumbled onto a call where a young male customer was flirting with a female service agent at a cell phone company. After some giggles and banter, the woman relented and gave her personal phone number to the customer. Pike quickly alerted the cell phone company to the phone date."
Dammit... that was my first date this millenium, too. No wonder she told me off when I called!
LJ got rid of the "faster servers for paid users" almost a year ago.
LJ added some pretty heavy duty hardware in the last year. I've been using them since Dec. 2000, and the service has never been better, even though I've been a paid user most of that time.
There are way too many references to pop culture things that kids probably don't know about (or care about)....
The oldest kid on here is 11 or 12... and they're making Mike Tyson rape / ear biting jokes? Those happened quite a long time ago.
Not to mention the one kid knew everything about Blanka's bio... very unlikely, especially when he said Blanka was his brother's favourite character of all time.
Then there's the Adventure crack about ducks. Clearly ripped from Homestar Runner.
If that were the case (although I don't think that's how it works, technically - I don't believe it operates along the lines of 'broadcast' over ethernet) it would be next to impossible for the BPL ops to track down the interference, and very easy for hams to cripple the system.
The next few years will be interesting to say the least.
I hope there are some presentations at Dayton this year about it, actually.
Also, I should have said "...near a power line", instead of giving a specific distance... I realized after the fact that giving a specific value may have been too specific.
When I said 100 yds, I meant high tension lines, not regular lines running into homes.
"...amateurs have done experimentation that shows that as little as 5 watts of power from a nearby radio transmitter can seriously degrade the performance of BPL. In some cases, the interference logged off a BPL user, requiring a reconnection to the network."
So you can see, it would take very little effort for hams to pretty much kill BPL by driving up to some power lines, broadcasting crap on that frequency at 5W (most handheld tranceivers can hit 5W no problem) for a couple of hours (how's prime time sound (when most users are online)?) and then driving away, long before anyone can figure out where he is?
I tell you, I don't even use the portion of the spectrum that BPL causes interference on, but the total disregard by the FCC of their own rules makes me want to turn vigilante myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Oy vey. I don't know how you came up with these delusional ideas, but right certainly does not vanish.
By your argument, it would be perfectly legal to copy any piece of software because the company that sold it released it on CD/DVD.
You have the right to view it, but not to redistribute it or modify it, which is the crux of the issue; regardless of what your personal feelings are on the issue. The law is quite clear.
I claimed no such thing. Nice attempt to twist what I said, though. There is a big difference between "thoughts and images that appear before our eyes" and ACTIVELY seeking to view said thoughts and images. "...you perheaps did notice that very few of them, yourself included (pot, meet kettle), are brandishing their personal information."
Hey genius. My personal information is CLEARLY displayed, if you had ANY clue as to what my username meant. It takes less than 5 seconds to get my full name, address and telephone number.
Try harder.
Congrats.
So be it.
Still waiting for that name and address, though, Captain Courageous.
And big surprise our pal won't publish his name and address.
I guess behind all the big talk about how he feels the need to take on the man he's really scared about what they could do to him.
All talk, no action.
You DON'T GET IT. You don't have some unwritten RIGHT to see something that the copyright holder didn't intend you to see.
You want to see it? Get on a plane, go to Japan, buy them.
You can't afford to go there or buy them? Oh dear me. Heaven forbid.
Do I cry my eyes out because I can't afford a BMW, but, man, I really really deserve one!
(Also, I'm not American, so strike out on that one, tiger.)
"Outside them, the _ONLY_ way to have access to Anime is thru satellite TV..."
There you go. You have a legal way to access Anime. You just negated any argument you had. You can't afford it? TOO FUCKING BAD.
"Hellooooo, the internet is not only about the U.S.!"
Hellooooo, this isn't really about the internet, captain genius.
"At least you should do a little research and stop bashing something you have no F'ing idea what it's about. Tell me. How much money do the japanese companies lose, if a person sees their anime in a country that they wouldn't sell to, anyway?"
It's not about the money, brainiac. It's about the OWNER of the content having the right to distribute what THEY OWN in whatever manner they choose.
I'm really sorry it's hard for you to get your fix of cartoon women getting raped by alien tentacles, but you're not in the right.
I'm Canadian, too; albeit currently living in the US.
What's different here is that these people aren't just copying a piece of work... they're editing it to add something (re-production) and redistributing it. That's a lot different that straight copying.
Hell, if that were the case, and they were just sending copies of the cartoon in plain Japanese, it would be different.
But these people are clearly doing something that they know on paper is wrong.
Hilarious. Oh how you've hit the hammer right on the head. You have discovered my deep dark secret. I secretly LOVE the corporations.
Moron. You know nothing about me. I never once said I agree with them. I just stated that the laws are quite concrete when it comes to what they're doing.
But if you sincerely believe that all information needs to be free (I assume that you've watched Hackers one time too many), please feel free to post your full name and address so the corporations can contact you and you can exercise your "civic duty to fight [them]".
You sure do live up to your username!
No, but the owner has the right to limit the distribution of said material.
Perhaps you've heard the following phrase whenever you watch a professional sporting event in America:
"Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution or retransmission... blah blah blah"
These people are reproducing and redistributing something without the express consent of the copyright holder.
It doesn't get ANY clearer than that.
Do you think you have a right to see something that's distributed in Japan-only?
You don't.
What they are doing is acting as a network of relays for a TV signal and they even add value by putting subtitles on with no commercial expectations.
While you may be right, that doesn't dismiss any sort of copyright violations that occur while 'relaying' (you call it relaying, I call it redistribution).
Yes you fail to see implications of these attempts by contents "producers" to create "right to read" society indeed.
Please see above comment about not having any rights to see something that isn't intended for a US audience.
Sanctimonious jerk, are you? Perhaps, but that still doesn't make me wrong.
It's not fair use if the original copyright owner has no intention of distributing an item in the US.
Just because the furries absolutely need to see the latest episode of "Japanese Anal Monkies meet the Fox Costume 5" or whatever it's called, does NOT give them ANY right to see it.
Seriously, though: I understand what they're doing and why they're doing it, but regardless of their intentions, it's still not legal in the least. And no court in this nation would support what they were doing if the copyright holders decided to persue litigation.
Get your head out of your ass, troll.
I fail to see what the issue is here. These people know what they're doing is illegal.
End of story.
I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the results would be almost identical.
The problem isn't with the kids; it's the system that allows these kids to develop ideas like these that's the problem.
No child left behind, indeed. Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?
Dammit... that was my first date this millenium, too. No wonder she told me off when I called!
ie. I'd use an SMC, name it the default for a netgear, then change to a DLink, etc.
Then I'd watch the access logs and see what fish I could catch trying to take a nibble.
Seeing that I was living in a pretty dense, busy area in downtown Toronto, I watched more than a couple people try to access my AP.
LJ added some pretty heavy duty hardware in the last year. I've been using them since Dec. 2000, and the service has never been better, even though I've been a paid user most of that time.
Dun dun dun... another one bites the dust!
eWeek confirms sale of LJ to 6A
Read the article, and look at the benchmark numbers.
Just because the Dell has the same X-scale 624 proc, doesn't mean it's just as fast by default.
I mean, if you can't afford a Powermac, how in the heck could you afford the software?
The oldest kid on here is 11 or 12... and they're making Mike Tyson rape / ear biting jokes? Those happened quite a long time ago.
Not to mention the one kid knew everything about Blanka's bio... very unlikely, especially when he said Blanka was his brother's favourite character of all time.
Then there's the Adventure crack about ducks. Clearly ripped from Homestar Runner.
I call Shenanigans.
The next few years will be interesting to say the least.
I hope there are some presentations at Dayton this year about it, actually.
Also, I should have said "...near a power line", instead of giving a specific distance... I realized after the fact that giving a specific value may have been too specific.
When I said 100 yds, I meant high tension lines, not regular lines running into homes.
From the page:
"...amateurs have done experimentation that shows that as little as 5 watts of power from a nearby radio transmitter can seriously degrade the performance of BPL. In some cases, the interference logged off a BPL user, requiring a reconnection to the network."
So you can see, it would take very little effort for hams to pretty much kill BPL by driving up to some power lines, broadcasting crap on that frequency at 5W (most handheld tranceivers can hit 5W no problem) for a couple of hours (how's prime time sound (when most users are online)?) and then driving away, long before anyone can figure out where he is?
I tell you, I don't even use the portion of the spectrum that BPL causes interference on, but the total disregard by the FCC of their own rules makes me want to turn vigilante myself.