I don't want to sound all uphill both ways in the snow but personal computers don't require maintenance any more. They just work. The says of editing your boot files to squeak out that last couple K so the memory resident portion of your new program has space to run are long gone.
Short of a major OS update every year or so what maintenance is there?
How much time and effort is involved in having to synch up your device since it's not a computer and can't do everything?
This is the core of the matter. I became interested in getting a Mac when Apple stopped writing OSes and started using UNIX but every time I revisit buying one I always get stuck on the same problem.
I simply can't get past the fact that for the same money I can buy more boxen with better hardware for less money.
I just can't subscribe to this idea that computers are a lifestyle choice that defines me. They're tools. You can get a better tool for less money.
The idea that someone who chooses to abstain from buying a company's product is directly hurting them is ludicrous. What's next government mandated purchases? Oh wait the yanks and canuks are already doing that. Does Europe have a blank CD tariff going to the music industry at all?
11-17 and now expanded by you to 11-26 share music. They always have. Nothing has changed with this group in the last 60 years. Rather than throwing a cassette and copying they throw a thumb drive in copy. The tech has changed but the behavior has not.
These kids will grow up and face all the problems you mention and change their behavior as you mention.
What exactly do you see different with the current group than when people were copying the random 70s band name onto 8 tracks?
They're doomed. I've seen what the 11-17 year old crowd is doing, and I've heard how they think. They share. A lot. They're barely aware that the proverbial powers that be don't like it, and they get grumpy when their favorite Youtube video gets taken down because it used copyrighted background music, but they don't for a minute believe there was any justification in the takedown. They literally don't recognize the rights being claimed. I don't see that attitude going away because it's almost completely passive. They are not taking a principled stand. They're not aggressively standing up and demanding the distribution restrictions on Steamboat Willie be rescinded.
Do they even know who Steamboat Willie is?
11-17 is not a good age to be using as an example. I think you're mistaking ignorance of rights with refusing to acknowledge rights.
Property rights is the last thing on a teens mind. Think back to when you were young and making copies of music in what ever manner was used at that time. We never thought about the right and wrong. IP rights are a complete fabrication. You can teach anyone over the age of say 2 the basics of ownership. Now take away the physical prop and you've increased the complexity of the concepts.
When teens copy they don't think they should be able to do it. They just don't see the crime. It's too abstract. You're talking about people who don't earn and don't own. They never reach the point of considering if it's right or wrong.
They know it's not stealing and they move on.
Now if their attitude keeps up when they are in their 30s you're on to something but you can't go by 11-17s. Everyone I know was like that at 11-17. 11-17s have done this since reel to reel.
That's a complete change of subject. I never said anything about fair use. We are talking about partial copy. Specifically at what point does the random gibberish of a partial copy turn into a "work."
As others have pointed out, people without a basic understanding of the law tend to imagine there are no loopholes where there really are. The law is a mess. Look at the size of the legal system. It takes years for even the simplest case to make it's way. Hell if there were no loopholes then most of my friends would have to find a new line of work. People think it's clear cut but it's really more a ball of wibbly wobbly law-y wawey.
If this loophole doesn't exist then 1. Why do they sue uploaders and not downloaders? 2. Why did they close it with new laws custom written to cover this exact situation. If there is no loophole they would be able to use existing laws.
Wow 1 person doing two jobs and getting paid for each is a loophole? I think you need to look that word up.
Intent only matters if it's written into the law. That's how law works. That's how law is exploited. That's how guilty people go free and innocent people are locked up. Justice is blind and all that.
For you yanks it's title 17 Chapter 1 Sections 107-122. In chaper 1 alone there's more law on what isn't a copy than what is a copy. Based on the fact that more time is spent on partial copies the intent of the law is obviously that this is an important section. The intent is to have some lower bounds on copy. The intent is that not all copies are copies.
But that's just random guessing because you didn't write it. I didn't write it. We'll have to go find the original author and ask them what the intent of the law is because all we have is this useless letter of the law. What do they expect us to do with that?
What's the lower bound on that? At what point are you not infringing? Now what happens if you break the illegal copy into parts smaller than that threshold and post them?
If you didn't make the copy there is nothing wrong with your example.
Possession of illegally made copies is not a crime. Only the creation of said copy is.
Technically at 0.0000000000000001% they have something watchable even if it's only a single part of a single frame.
Again I ask at what point is less than 100% equal to 100%? At what point is that string of gibberish an illegally made copy?
What's the lower bound? If there is a lower bound what happens if the file is posted in x parts each smaller than the lower bound? Maybe encoded such that they don't use any binary characters. Sorry had to throw that in.
Why not? It happens every day. It's been happening since we had laws. Hell the yanks just did it to pass their mandatory purchase medical insurance bail out bill.
First: If copying part of a work isn't a defense then your post is infringement as it is partially a copy of copyright protected material.
Specifically your 6th word is a partial copy of millions of novels.
Second: If this isn't a loophole then why did they create new laws to specifically patch said nonexistent loophole? Why did they not use existing laws?
How exactly is a central server log recording every single file you download private? Additionally you now have a nice financial trail making things eve less private.
Slashdot Mirror
The article states on the first line that the 300K number includes preorders. So in reality it took them months to sell 300K.
The nytimes article clearly states in the first line that the 300K number includes preorders.
So they shipped 300K on the first day. They took months to sell 300K.
No they shipped 300,000 on the first day.
They sold those 300,000 over the course of months. This is clearly stated in the first line of the article.
Maintenance? What maintenance are you doing?
I don't want to sound all uphill both ways in the snow but personal computers don't require maintenance any more. They just work. The says of editing your boot files to squeak out that last couple K so the memory resident portion of your new program has space to run are long gone.
Short of a major OS update every year or so what maintenance is there?
How much time and effort is involved in having to synch up your device since it's not a computer and can't do everything?
This is the core of the matter. I became interested in getting a Mac when Apple stopped writing OSes and started using UNIX but every time I revisit buying one I always get stuck on the same problem.
I simply can't get past the fact that for the same money I can buy more boxen with better hardware for less money.
I just can't subscribe to this idea that computers are a lifestyle choice that defines me. They're tools. You can get a better tool for less money.
Example documenting your claim please.
Then why don't they use theft laws?
Copyright and stealing have been separate legal ideas since at least the Licensing Order of 1643.
To assume they are the same is pure ignorance.
Please explain this hurts a company.
At best it's no effect on the company.
The idea that someone who chooses to abstain from buying a company's product is directly hurting them is ludicrous. What's next government mandated purchases? Oh wait the yanks and canuks are already doing that. Does Europe have a blank CD tariff going to the music industry at all?
Ok Mr Physic. Since you seem to claim to know the future, specifically what people are and aren't going to buy:
What movies am I going to buy over the next week?
"It will never happen to me" fallacy.
You missed my point.
11-17 and now expanded by you to 11-26 share music. They always have. Nothing has changed with this group in the last 60 years. Rather than throwing a cassette and copying they throw a thumb drive in copy. The tech has changed but the behavior has not.
These kids will grow up and face all the problems you mention and change their behavior as you mention.
What exactly do you see different with the current group than when people were copying the random 70s band name onto 8 tracks?
If they don't spend money on the problem it hurts their case that there is a problem. This prevents them from buying laws.
They're doomed. I've seen what the 11-17 year old crowd is doing, and I've heard how they think. They share. A lot. They're barely aware that the proverbial powers that be don't like it, and they get grumpy when their favorite Youtube video gets taken down because it used copyrighted background music, but they don't for a minute believe there was any justification in the takedown. They literally don't recognize the rights being claimed. I don't see that attitude going away because it's almost completely passive. They are not taking a principled stand. They're not aggressively standing up and demanding the distribution restrictions on Steamboat Willie be rescinded.
Do they even know who Steamboat Willie is?
11-17 is not a good age to be using as an example. I think you're mistaking ignorance of rights with refusing to acknowledge rights.
Property rights is the last thing on a teens mind. Think back to when you were young and making copies of music in what ever manner was used at that time. We never thought about the right and wrong. IP rights are a complete fabrication. You can teach anyone over the age of say 2 the basics of ownership. Now take away the physical prop and you've increased the complexity of the concepts.
When teens copy they don't think they should be able to do it. They just don't see the crime. It's too abstract. You're talking about people who don't earn and don't own. They never reach the point of considering if it's right or wrong.
They know it's not stealing and they move on.
Now if their attitude keeps up when they are in their 30s you're on to something but you can't go by 11-17s. Everyone I know was like that at 11-17. 11-17s have done this since reel to reel.
Can you please cite a case or piece of law?
So you think the digit 1 infringes all copyright protected works because it's a partial copy?
So the law doesn't specify what a copy is?
Those are your conclusions not mine. They illustrate your logic and position not mine.
Right -- you claimed his quoting your post was infringement;
This is a complete fabrication. Please quote me where I said that.
The RIAA goes after bearshare and limewire users. The big BT cases have been against trackers. Using laws custom written to target them.
Please cite a case against a BT user.
That's a complete change of subject. I never said anything about fair use. We are talking about partial copy. Specifically at what point does the random gibberish of a partial copy turn into a "work."
As others have pointed out, people without a basic understanding of the law tend to imagine there are no loopholes where there really are. The law is a mess. Look at the size of the legal system. It takes years for even the simplest case to make it's way. Hell if there were no loopholes then most of my friends would have to find a new line of work. People think it's clear cut but it's really more a ball of wibbly wobbly law-y wawey.
If this loophole doesn't exist then 1. Why do they sue uploaders and not downloaders? 2. Why did they close it with new laws custom written to cover this exact situation. If there is no loophole they would be able to use existing laws.
Wow 1 person doing two jobs and getting paid for each is a loophole? I think you need to look that word up.
Intent only matters if it's written into the law. That's how law works. That's how law is exploited. That's how guilty people go free and innocent people are locked up. Justice is blind and all that.
For you yanks it's title 17 Chapter 1 Sections 107-122. In chaper 1 alone there's more law on what isn't a copy than what is a copy. Based on the fact that more time is spent on partial copies the intent of the law is obviously that this is an important section. The intent is to have some lower bounds on copy. The intent is that not all copies are copies.
But that's just random guessing because you didn't write it. I didn't write it. We'll have to go find the original author and ask them what the intent of the law is because all we have is this useless letter of the law. What do they expect us to do with that?
What's the lower bound on that? At what point are you not infringing? Now what happens if you break the illegal copy into parts smaller than that threshold and post them?
If you didn't make the copy there is nothing wrong with your example.
Possession of illegally made copies is not a crime. Only the creation of said copy is.
Technically at 0.0000000000000001% they have something watchable even if it's only a single part of a single frame.
Again I ask at what point is less than 100% equal to 100%? At what point is that string of gibberish an illegally made copy?
What's the lower bound? If there is a lower bound what happens if the file is posted in x parts each smaller than the lower bound? Maybe encoded such that they don't use any binary characters. Sorry had to throw that in.
Why not? It happens every day. It's been happening since we had laws. Hell the yanks just did it to pass their mandatory purchase medical insurance bail out bill.
First: If copying part of a work isn't a defense then your post is infringement as it is partially a copy of copyright protected material.
Specifically your 6th word is a partial copy of millions of novels.
Second: If this isn't a loophole then why did they create new laws to specifically patch said nonexistent loophole? Why did they not use existing laws?
How exactly is a central server log recording every single file you download private? Additionally you now have a nice financial trail making things eve less private.