i don't have tivo but I have to say that this is a shame that tivo has done this. I hate having my rights infringed upon and told what to do when I'm doing nothing wrong. If I want to keep an episode or a movie for months or years then I should be allowed to. I guess it's a paid service so you have to live with it but it still doesn't make it right.
I'm beginning to think they just want some free uncontested money from people instead of really trying to get rid of piracy. It's pretty obvious that the lawsuits aren't doing anything so just give it up already.
The wireless network invited the person in by authenticating him and giving him an IP address. It's the same as if you gave someone the key to your front door. The owner needs to take some part of the blame for this.
so in theory, can the FBI or police set up a dummy open wireless network and then arrest anyone that connects to it? that seems like entrapment to me.
is possession of copyrighted material the same as possession of stolen goods? i think at most, that's what they can get you on. People are bringing up the drug analogy. if someone reaches into your pocket and takes your drugs, are you really liable for distributing it?
they were put out of business by the movie industry and now they concede it's perfectly fine to make copies. With that revelation, 321 studios should be allowed to sell dvdxcopy again.
i still don't understand how P2P companies should be held liable. Many people out there burn and pirate DVD's and music CD's and sell them on the street. By the RIAA and MPAA logic, won't they be suing the makers of CD and DVD burners next?
what's the point of disabling people from manually going into windows update when it will still update through automatic update. and even if they block both ways, can't a typical person just simply go to microsoft.com and download the.exe version of a patch and install it manually that way? it'll be a pain in the butt, especially if you have 3 or 4 machines but couldn't it be done nonetheless?
Slashdot Mirror
i don't have tivo but I have to say that this is a shame that tivo has done this. I hate having my rights infringed upon and told what to do when I'm doing nothing wrong. If I want to keep an episode or a movie for months or years then I should be allowed to. I guess it's a paid service so you have to live with it but it still doesn't make it right.
this is just stupid if they are allowed to do this. This is like Honda remotely disabling your engine because you modified the car.
I'm beginning to think they just want some free uncontested money from people instead of really trying to get rid of piracy. It's pretty obvious that the lawsuits aren't doing anything so just give it up already.
The wireless network invited the person in by authenticating him and giving him an IP address. It's the same as if you gave someone the key to your front door. The owner needs to take some part of the blame for this. so in theory, can the FBI or police set up a dummy open wireless network and then arrest anyone that connects to it? that seems like entrapment to me.
I can't believe the justices were this stupid. So are there going to be lawsuits against the makers or cd burners then? I'm completely disappointed.
is possession of copyrighted material the same as possession of stolen goods? i think at most, that's what they can get you on. People are bringing up the drug analogy. if someone reaches into your pocket and takes your drugs, are you really liable for distributing it?
they were put out of business by the movie industry and now they concede it's perfectly fine to make copies. With that revelation, 321 studios should be allowed to sell dvdxcopy again.
i still don't understand how P2P companies should be held liable. Many people out there burn and pirate DVD's and music CD's and sell them on the street. By the RIAA and MPAA logic, won't they be suing the makers of CD and DVD burners next?
what's the point of disabling people from manually going into windows update when it will still update through automatic update. and even if they block both ways, can't a typical person just simply go to microsoft.com and download the .exe version of a patch and install it manually that way? it'll be a pain in the butt, especially if you have 3 or 4 machines but couldn't it be done nonetheless?