I've used his tools since before he got bought out by Big Corp, and even after he's still producing some of the most useful tools in the Windows computing world. I can't count the number of times I've solved my problems with stuff like FileMon (monitors filesystem access in real time) or Process Explorer (maybe ProcMon? Shows which processes has handles on which files, etc). Props to the guy.
There's nothing wrong that that statement though - proving one vague sufficiently proves the other, but to prove the other it is not necessary to prove the first.
[sales to IT] We need (something that is a huge security risk). [IT to sales] No. [sales to administration] waaaahhh. [admin to IT] Do it. [Competent IT with minimal people skills] No, and here's why [Admin] Ok, it was a dumb idea.
It's not special, it's just another player in that arena. But they're not forcing any developers to use SilverLight by bundling the SDK or something, so it's not anticompetitive.
You OWN the license to play it in private at home.
Forget this bogus "licensing" nonsense you're trying to push.
I did not recieve an unlicensed copy and I did not transfer an unlicensed copy to anyone else.
I don't understand. What do you think a "licensed" copy means? It means that the copy has been licensed to you and you must abide by the license terms.
A public performance is something else entirely.
How is it something else? Playing it in public amounts to the exact same thing - violation of your licensing terms.
Why do people insist on spreading RIAA propaganda.
If I were more paranoid I would think you were a paid shill.
So this is what it comes down to? Any opinion critical of slashdot groupthink is obviously the work of a paid *AA/Sony/Microsoft/Chinese government shill, right?
I think you are the one that doesn't understand how rights work. The constitution starts with the assumption that God has granted humans certain rights. I'm not really a fan of that idea so I'm going to pretend the constitution gave you those basic rights. But those rights were in the end given to you by another party, not something that you have by default.
Imagine in a society without a body to grant rights to people. Do you have the right to life? Nope, I can kill you as I please. Do you have the right to property? Nope, I can take whatever I want from you. You can attempt to defend yourself, but the point is there is no one else to come to your defense should your imaginary "rights" be violated. This is why prior cultures had to rely on God as the ultimate granter of rights, it came down to my-dad-could-beat-your-dad-up.
Rights are only meaningful when they are granted by a party that could protect them.
I'm not familiar with the iTunes system, but if it's like other online music stores then what I've purchased is a license to play that music, under their term. This same license is implied with the purchase of physical media.
Actually, look at it this way. If you broke your disk or it got scratched up, can you take it to the reseller and demand a new copy because what you own is the content, not the media? I think this should demonstrate exactly what you've purchased.
I think we fundamentally disagree what it is you're purchasing. I say you're purchasing the media which is a delivery path for the content, and you say you're purchasing the content itself. I don't think we can agree with each other no matter how much we quibble over the details.
Can't you just ask for an EEG? I don't know why any doctor would refuse to perform one.
When I had chronic stomach cramps, I asked my doctor if there's any procedure they could do to check it out. He said "weeeell, I could do a colonoscopy, but that's gonna suck for you." I didn't take it;)
If you honestly believe in copyright etc. as a tool to promote culture, more power to you. Same thing if you just want free stuff and are honest about it.
It is the hypocrites who use it as an excuse to demand free entertainment I'm attacking here.
Well, they don't have to explicitly state that you can't copy it for personal use, since they've restricted such that you can't. And if you bypass their restrictions you should already know what you're getting into.
As to other restrictions such as on reselling, retransmission, etc, it is on the case, not to mention the FBI warning screens (do those exist on Bluray?). If you want to make the writing bigger you'll have to talk to your government representative.
I'm not sure what rights you are talking about. Before copyright, we had those rights. There was no restriction on copying, shifting in time, format, or anything else.
You're confusing something here. "Historically unrestricted" doesn't mean "granted right". The right to bear arms in the US, for example, is an explicit right that was granted to US citizens. On the other hand, there is no restriction for US citizens throwing themselves into the Sun - but that doesn't mean throwing yourself into the Sun is your right. Once we get to the point where we're technologically capable of throwing ourselves into the Sun, there may well be limitations against it, and "throwing ourselves into the Sun is our right because there was no restriction on doing so" would be just as poor an argument as the above.
I think you have to understand that a person at the start of life (whenever you define that to be, that's another sticky topic altogether) has zero rights. Some rights are instantaneously granted by the State due to the agreement between the State and its people, citizens or otherwise. In a region where no State has influence, one's rights are determined solely by the current social hierarchy, and you could be simply snuffed at birth simply because someone has determined that you haven't been granted the right to live.
There is no right to prevent someone from using them however they want once purchased.
It is their product, which they're offering for sale, so they can do with it as they please. That is their right to their property as granted by the State.
You can remix it in your own home, as long as you show no one. You can pause, shift, transfer, or whatever else you want
Not if they've restricted their property such that you cannot do so. Keep in mind what they are offering for sale is such a restricted product, and you're free to accept the restrictions or not to purchase it.
as long as you don't distribute it.
Actually, distribution may be permissible under fair use in some cases.
However, if copyright does not promote the creation of arts and sciences, it is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell do you do that you have a whole apartment full of people watching your every move?
What is the deal with you and Liberal Western values? Are you suggesting that the whole world should adopt the same values as their own?
Google is a real part of YOUR life. Most Chinese haven't even heard of it.
In any event, google.cn is apparently still available.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml
Apparently not available in Canada. That whole piracy thing really tarnished our image :(
I've used his tools since before he got bought out by Big Corp, and even after he's still producing some of the most useful tools in the Windows computing world. I can't count the number of times I've solved my problems with stuff like FileMon (monitors filesystem access in real time) or Process Explorer (maybe ProcMon? Shows which processes has handles on which files, etc). Props to the guy.
There's nothing wrong that that statement though - proving one vague sufficiently proves the other, but to prove the other it is not necessary to prove the first.
[sales to IT] We need (something that is a huge security risk).
[IT to sales] No.
[sales to administration] waaaahhh.
[admin to IT] Do it.
[Competent IT with minimal people skills] No, and here's why
[Admin] Ok, it was a dumb idea.
I guess if you're on Windows it sucks to be you, but I cant' say I care :)
Wait, what?
Which monopoly supported MP3? MPEG-4 Part 2? H264? Zip?
It's not special, it's just another player in that arena. But they're not forcing any developers to use SilverLight by bundling the SDK or something, so it's not anticompetitive.
Since Microsoft has no competitors for SilverLight runtimes, I don't see how this is a problem.
Your incorrect conclusion that quotation marks are logically wrong arose from the fact that you don't understand how quotation marks work.
I bought a copy. I OWN a copy.
You OWN the license to play it in private at home.
Forget this bogus "licensing" nonsense you're trying to push.
I did not recieve an unlicensed copy and I did not transfer an unlicensed copy to anyone else.
I don't understand. What do you think a "licensed" copy means? It means that the copy has been licensed to you and you must abide by the license terms.
A public performance is something else entirely.
How is it something else? Playing it in public amounts to the exact same thing - violation of your licensing terms.
Why do people insist on spreading RIAA propaganda.
If I were more paranoid I would think you were a paid shill.
So this is what it comes down to? Any opinion critical of slashdot groupthink is obviously the work of a paid *AA/Sony/Microsoft/Chinese government shill, right?
I suggest you read up on fallacies.
I think you are the one that doesn't understand how rights work. The constitution starts with the assumption that God has granted humans certain rights. I'm not really a fan of that idea so I'm going to pretend the constitution gave you those basic rights. But those rights were in the end given to you by another party, not something that you have by default.
Imagine in a society without a body to grant rights to people. Do you have the right to life? Nope, I can kill you as I please. Do you have the right to property? Nope, I can take whatever I want from you. You can attempt to defend yourself, but the point is there is no one else to come to your defense should your imaginary "rights" be violated. This is why prior cultures had to rely on God as the ultimate granter of rights, it came down to my-dad-could-beat-your-dad-up.
Rights are only meaningful when they are granted by a party that could protect them.
And you're free to set up a camcorder to record it from your TV.
I'm not familiar with the iTunes system, but if it's like other online music stores then what I've purchased is a license to play that music, under their term. This same license is implied with the purchase of physical media.
Actually, look at it this way. If you broke your disk or it got scratched up, can you take it to the reseller and demand a new copy because what you own is the content, not the media? I think this should demonstrate exactly what you've purchased.
I think we fundamentally disagree what it is you're purchasing. I say you're purchasing the media which is a delivery path for the content, and you say you're purchasing the content itself. I don't think we can agree with each other no matter how much we quibble over the details.
Can't you just ask for an EEG? I don't know why any doctor would refuse to perform one.
When I had chronic stomach cramps, I asked my doctor if there's any procedure they could do to check it out. He said "weeeell, I could do a colonoscopy, but that's gonna suck for you." I didn't take it ;)
If you honestly believe in copyright etc. as a tool to promote culture, more power to you. Same thing if you just want free stuff and are honest about it.
It is the hypocrites who use it as an excuse to demand free entertainment I'm attacking here.
Well, they don't have to explicitly state that you can't copy it for personal use, since they've restricted such that you can't. And if you bypass their restrictions you should already know what you're getting into.
As to other restrictions such as on reselling, retransmission, etc, it is on the case, not to mention the FBI warning screens (do those exist on Bluray?). If you want to make the writing bigger you'll have to talk to your government representative.
I'm not sure what rights you are talking about. Before copyright, we had those rights. There was no restriction on copying, shifting in time, format, or anything else.
You're confusing something here. "Historically unrestricted" doesn't mean "granted right". The right to bear arms in the US, for example, is an explicit right that was granted to US citizens. On the other hand, there is no restriction for US citizens throwing themselves into the Sun - but that doesn't mean throwing yourself into the Sun is your right. Once we get to the point where we're technologically capable of throwing ourselves into the Sun, there may well be limitations against it, and "throwing ourselves into the Sun is our right because there was no restriction on doing so" would be just as poor an argument as the above.
I think you have to understand that a person at the start of life (whenever you define that to be, that's another sticky topic altogether) has zero rights. Some rights are instantaneously granted by the State due to the agreement between the State and its people, citizens or otherwise. In a region where no State has influence, one's rights are determined solely by the current social hierarchy, and you could be simply snuffed at birth simply because someone has determined that you haven't been granted the right to live.
There is no right to prevent someone from using them however they want once purchased.
It is their product, which they're offering for sale, so they can do with it as they please. That is their right to their property as granted by the State.
You can remix it in your own home, as long as you show no one. You can pause, shift, transfer, or whatever else you want
Not if they've restricted their property such that you cannot do so. Keep in mind what they are offering for sale is such a restricted product, and you're free to accept the restrictions or not to purchase it.
as long as you don't distribute it.
Actually, distribution may be permissible under fair use in some cases.
However, if copyright does not promote the creation of arts and sciences, it is illegal.
And "remix it in your own home, as long as you show no one [...] pause, shift, transfer, or whatever else you want" is just as illegal if it is not for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.
...Huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Duration
I could give you the same advice.