Whether or not he believes it's true is moot, because even if his neighbor turned off his WiFi and cell phone, he'd still be convinced he's in pain, meaning his neighbor's actions didn't help him at all.
Actually, if you RTFA, they've had the 250GB cap since October 2008, which was established after users complained for getting cut off for passing some threshold Comcast made up but refused to disclose. Or rather, they disclosed that there WAS a cap, but wouldn't disclose what it was.
Don't come with that crap like: oh but otherwise I wouldn't have bought it anyway.. You watched it, so you owe them money, even though you might have found it crap...
Sorry, but you don't get to withhold arguments from the rebuttal.
The true "loss" that the industry suffers from piracy is the total they would earn if piracy did not exist at all, minus what they earned in reality; this magical "you watched it you owe them" concept doesn't apply to actual losses. The simple fact of the matter is that not every download would have translated into a sale without piracy. Be it a poor college student who cannot afford to purchase the same quantity of movies they download, or someone who's already purchased a copy, and is downloading a copy for convenience, or even a person who, should piracy not be an option, would buy a USED copy (meaning no money from that purchase goes to the movie industry), not every one would buy a brand new copy.
But don't confuse this with a defense of piracy; I believe quite strongly that people should be compensated for their work. I just believe a little more strongly that the entertainment industry's conduct towards it's customer base has been morally reprehensible, ie using scare tactics against innocent people because they're convinced that their half-assed unlicensed investigations are accurate. Not to mention to absurdity of decrying piracy as "killing the industry" while reaping record profits, all the while begging the government for "fixes" that erode the public's rights and cost innocent people money. This isn't even mentioning the outright fraud committed within the industry itself (do a search for "Hollywood accounting" if you want to know why most of the top grossing movies in history have either "barely made a profit", or in some cases made a "loss").
I will spell it out clearly, just for those of you who haven't caught on yet: this isn't about them recouping their supposed losses. This is about them raping our rights and making more money, any way they can.
Similar if an Everquest 2 guardian or WoW warrior was wanting to tank a raid encounter with his high DPS 3h weapon as opposed to a decent sword/shield combination.
Out of curiosity, what races have the necessary appendages to wield such a three handed weapon?
The DMCA reads "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
One might try to argue that the "work" being accessed is the OS already loaded; I'd think that that argument would fall flat on account of the existing OS being overwritten by the process, not modified or copied.
One may also argue that the "work" being accessed is the hardware itself. That argument itself is utter crap, on account of the hardware not being protected by copyright to begin with, failing the "protected under this title" portion.
Except that, to my understanding, the DMCA applies to copyrighted material and copyright protection systems. I doubt that TI actually copyrighted the signing key, and even if they did they'd have a hard time proving that this a violation, considering that they (the hobbyists) didn't have an original to copy to begin with. In other words, can the result of a calculation be considered copyright-able?
The "copyright protection system" angle doesn't work, either, on account of this system quite clearly NOT being created to protect copyrighted material.
The automated form for people to license quotes from AP articles doesn't validate that the input is actually from an AP article, and considering the sheer volume of data to verify against, doing so would probably be far to computationally expense to attempt.
You're not supposed to put anything other than a quote from an AP article in that form, so it was designed on the assumption that they DO own the copyright on whatever the user is requesting a license for. The only reason to put anything else in is for a stupid stunt to get some hits for your crappy blog.
You're absolutely right. They should validate the submitted text against every single AP article ever copyrighted.
I mean, there's only, what, twelve of them, right? That database shouldn't take long to search through every single time someone clicks "submit"...
Seriously, people. AP hasn't tried to claim copyright over the submitted Jefferson quote. They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not he believes it's true is moot, because even if his neighbor turned off his WiFi and cell phone, he'd still be convinced he's in pain, meaning his neighbor's actions didn't help him at all.
You got that backwards, actually - Outlook isn't tied to Exchange, Exchange is tied to Outlook.
Actually, if you RTFA, they've had the 250GB cap since October 2008, which was established after users complained for getting cut off for passing some threshold Comcast made up but refused to disclose. Or rather, they disclosed that there WAS a cap, but wouldn't disclose what it was.
The fact that it's psychological rather than physical doesn't make it any less of a problem.
But it DOES make it a problem that was neither caused by, nor can be relieved by, his neighbor's actions. Which makes it his own damn problem.
Pirating is just so 19th century.
Perhaps. But the hats are AWESOME.
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
That's PHYSICAL servers. A single game "server" is made of multiple PHYSICAL servers.
I never claimed that we DID have a "right" to watch their content, but the industry's interest extends to more than just who watches their films.
Oh, and have fun with the whole "nothing will enter the public domain in your lifetime" thing.
Don't come with that crap like: oh but otherwise I wouldn't have bought it anyway.. You watched it, so you owe them money, even though you might have found it crap...
Sorry, but you don't get to withhold arguments from the rebuttal.
The true "loss" that the industry suffers from piracy is the total they would earn if piracy did not exist at all, minus what they earned in reality; this magical "you watched it you owe them" concept doesn't apply to actual losses. The simple fact of the matter is that not every download would have translated into a sale without piracy. Be it a poor college student who cannot afford to purchase the same quantity of movies they download, or someone who's already purchased a copy, and is downloading a copy for convenience, or even a person who, should piracy not be an option, would buy a USED copy (meaning no money from that purchase goes to the movie industry), not every one would buy a brand new copy.
But don't confuse this with a defense of piracy; I believe quite strongly that people should be compensated for their work. I just believe a little more strongly that the entertainment industry's conduct towards it's customer base has been morally reprehensible, ie using scare tactics against innocent people because they're convinced that their half-assed unlicensed investigations are accurate. Not to mention to absurdity of decrying piracy as "killing the industry" while reaping record profits, all the while begging the government for "fixes" that erode the public's rights and cost innocent people money. This isn't even mentioning the outright fraud committed within the industry itself (do a search for "Hollywood accounting" if you want to know why most of the top grossing movies in history have either "barely made a profit", or in some cases made a "loss").
I will spell it out clearly, just for those of you who haven't caught on yet: this isn't about them recouping their supposed losses. This is about them raping our rights and making more money, any way they can.
Similar if an Everquest 2 guardian or WoW warrior was wanting to tank a raid encounter with his high DPS 3h weapon as opposed to a decent sword/shield combination.
Out of curiosity, what races have the necessary appendages to wield such a three handed weapon?
Damn stalkers...
Meanwhile, Nethack works just fine...
Amazing how you never have to worry about turn-based games playing too fast, isn't it?
Precisely my point; I recalled that there WAS precedent, I just couldn't recall the case that established it.
The DMCA reads "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
One might try to argue that the "work" being accessed is the OS already loaded; I'd think that that argument would fall flat on account of the existing OS being overwritten by the process, not modified or copied.
One may also argue that the "work" being accessed is the hardware itself. That argument itself is utter crap, on account of the hardware not being protected by copyright to begin with, failing the "protected under this title" portion.
Except that, to my understanding, the DMCA applies to copyrighted material and copyright protection systems. I doubt that TI actually copyrighted the signing key, and even if they did they'd have a hard time proving that this a violation, considering that they (the hobbyists) didn't have an original to copy to begin with. In other words, can the result of a calculation be considered copyright-able?
The "copyright protection system" angle doesn't work, either, on account of this system quite clearly NOT being created to protect copyrighted material.
Nice to see Straw Man is still alive and well. I was a bit worried that modern education might kill him off, but it appears he's doing just fine.
Damnit, E, how did you get onto the Internet?
AC or not, mod parent funny...
Remind me again, how much property damage were involved in those?
A shill is a shill is a shill.
And he totally isn't being paid to refer you!
Because, I mean, he only gets paid when he's SUBTLE.
The automated form for people to license quotes from AP articles doesn't validate that the input is actually from an AP article, and considering the sheer volume of data to verify against, doing so would probably be far to computationally expense to attempt.
You're not supposed to put anything other than a quote from an AP article in that form, so it was designed on the assumption that they DO own the copyright on whatever the user is requesting a license for. The only reason to put anything else in is for a stupid stunt to get some hits for your crappy blog.
You're absolutely right. They should validate the submitted text against every single AP article ever copyrighted.
I mean, there's only, what, twelve of them, right? That database shouldn't take long to search through every single time someone clicks "submit"...
Seriously, people. AP hasn't tried to claim copyright over the submitted Jefferson quote. They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Fail Troll takes humor seriously...