I'd prefer to see money go towards software development. Or maybe buying a new law or two. Not that feeding politicians is much better than feeding advertisers.
I believe this is not true. You'd only have to find one person who used "American" differently to disprove your assertion, and particularly in the Spanish-speaking parts of America (the continent) that wouldn't be difficult.
The name of the country is "United States of America", not "United States aka America".
Waste of time, new ones would be employed immediately. Bureaucrats don't usually need to be fought, because their committees and reports can be easily ignored.
I think it's valid because it's what happens, from a technical point of view. If somebody comes into my house and makes a copy of a file using my DVD writer, am I responsible for that copy? Is it any different if the copying is done over a network?
The point about Kazaa is interesting, and I'm curious to know which clause of copyright regulations was applied. Would it be one of the recent draconian US regulations, or something from the era of TV broadcasts etc.?
The studio could hardly claim that you had made an illegal copy, i.e. a distribution, when they actually made the copy themselves, using your machine. This copy would be perfectly legal, as they have a right to make copies of their own material. Hence in this scenario no copyright violation is taking place.
The bitkeeper user is not distributing anything. If I download a copy of a file for personal use, this is not necessarily illegal. If, while I am doing this, a couple of other of others use my computer to make their own copies (the "uploaders" in the context above), I am not responsible for their actions, and I don't assume that they are doing anything illegal without proving them guilty. Their copies may be perfectly legal, just as mine may be.
And if a court doesn't accept these arguments, I don't see that any great harm is done. So I helped a few people to make their infringing copies, it's hardly going to be treated as a large-scale "piracy" operation.
The copyrighted material was alread available in the network in this case, so you are not the one who made it available.
Making copies for personal non-commercial purposes is often legal, depending a lot on which country you are in, and so you have no particular reason to think the uploads are illegal: the uploaders are innocent until proven guilty.
I am not convinced they are particularly vulnerable, since these uploads are requested by other people, not by the owner of the computer doing the uploading. I.e. they are the ones who make the copy, it just happens to be using your equipment.
This is similar to leaving a photocopier running somewhere for other people to use.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd prefer to see money go towards software development. Or maybe buying a new law or two. Not that feeding politicians is much better than feeding advertisers.
I suck too, and meant to link: Why Wikipedia is not so great
Wikipedia itself contains better criticisms of Wikipedia than this guy's pathetic efforts. E.g. Wikipedia Criticisms and Why Wikipedia is so great
It's quite funny, actually, that we use ambiguous words and then expect to be able communicate with people on the other side of the world.
I suppose he could tell from the direction that they were in the living room.
I believe this is not true. You'd only have to find one person who used "American" differently to disprove your assertion, and particularly in the Spanish-speaking parts of America (the continent) that wouldn't be difficult.
The name of the country is "United States of America", not "United States aka America".
Waste of time, new ones would be employed immediately. Bureaucrats don't usually need to be fought, because their committees and reports can be easily ignored.
I think it's valid because it's what happens, from a technical point of view. If somebody comes into my house and makes a copy of a file using my DVD writer, am I responsible for that copy? Is it any different if the copying is done over a network?
The point about Kazaa is interesting, and I'm curious to know which clause of copyright regulations was applied. Would it be one of the recent draconian US regulations, or something from the era of TV broadcasts etc.?
The studio could hardly claim that you had made an illegal copy, i.e. a distribution, when they actually made the copy themselves, using your machine. This copy would be perfectly legal, as they have a right to make copies of their own material. Hence in this scenario no copyright violation is taking place.
In any case, one second would surely be fair use?
The bitkeeper user is not distributing anything. If I download a copy of a file for personal use, this is not necessarily illegal. If, while I am doing this, a couple of other of others use my computer to make their own copies (the "uploaders" in the context above), I am not responsible for their actions, and I don't assume that they are doing anything illegal without proving them guilty. Their copies may be perfectly legal, just as mine may be.
And if a court doesn't accept these arguments, I don't see that any great harm is done. So I helped a few people to make their infringing copies, it's hardly going to be treated as a large-scale "piracy" operation.
The copyrighted material was alread available in the network in this case, so you are not the one who made it available.
Making copies for personal non-commercial purposes is often legal, depending a lot on which country you are in, and so you have no particular reason to think the uploads are illegal: the uploaders are innocent until proven guilty.
What does religion have to do with "truth in advertising", for that matter?
"Faith" and "wishful thinking" are synonyms.
I am not convinced they are particularly vulnerable, since these uploads are requested by other people, not by the owner of the computer doing the uploading. I.e. they are the ones who make the copy, it just happens to be using your equipment.
This is similar to leaving a photocopier running somewhere for other people to use.