I bought one of these a few weeks ago. My first cell phone! No one can believe it (geek of the family). I've just never really needed one though. Still don't I guess, but this Nokia with a Tracfone account that comes out to around $9 a month finally convinced me to buy. Anyway, long-story-short, I'm loving it. I got a belt attachment for $5 so I don't really ever need to worry about it being in my pocket. Charges seem to last me around a week and a half (like I said, I don't make many calls). And, I've actually used the flashlight in a real situation already!
I can't even imagine signing up for one of those $60 a month contracts with a mini-computer/phone thingy!
I found this out recently when I had to scrounge through old computer junk for a floppy drive. Yep, even in 2005, you can't set up XP on my brand new computer (3 months ago now) equipped with only a SATA hard disk in it. Sheesh.
Me too. I've just started ordering from them recently. I've received everything I've ordered, and was able to easily return the couple of items that didn't work.
Everybody bitches about rebates, but I don't mind them at all. They're easy to fill out (internet makes 'em easier than ever) and, apparently, a lot of people have a problem with the whole concept which empowers companies to offer larger rebates = more money back for me.
Literally, my recent order saw ~$250 in rebates come back to me in less than a month. In fact, I don't know that I've ever had rebate problems with any company.
YMMV, I guess.
Yeah -- I'm not a jerk. I see what you are saying - and agree, for the most part.
But my larger point was based on the future. I contend that in the future, it will only get more difficult to tell the difference.
Audio files can be this way now. If you find a link to a song (maybe a friend of yours simply recommended the song/link to you), how are you to know if that song is copyrighted or not? Are there not thousands of people in the world creating music files that are to be freely shared? Not for profit, but simply because they want to?
The world is a big place. Billions of people in the future will literally be empowered to create professionally produced audio and video on their own for whatever reason they wish. They may or may not want money for copies of their work, but the point is that there is nothing inherently identifiable in an audio or video file that says "you may copy this, or you may not". And there probably is no realistic way that there ever could be.
I also understand your point that it is my responsibility to determine whether I have legal access to the file that I am downloading, but is this really feasible? Especially in the future with trillions of files floating around on the P2P network.
I truly believe that the future will see all of us being 'pirates' without our even realizing it.
On the one side, P2P on the Internet is 'stealing'. Individuals that participate in such actions are criminals and deserve whatever actions they get.
On the other side, P2P is a paradigm shift not contemplated when individuals first dreamed up copyright. At the time, copying materials had cost. Developing materials also had cost. The 'pirate' then would have an advantage over the content creator in that he/she skips the developer costs, while they both share the materials cost. Now, however, materials cost have dropped to nearly zero (It's not free, but for the sake of this discussion, it might as well be). This fundamentally changes the variables, and thus P2P should be allowed.
-----
Now here's where I am (and you too, maybe). I've given up (for the most part) on paying for media content. I just don't care anymore. I rarely see movies at the theater. Don't get the newspaper or cable/satellite. And I never buy CDs. I will, however, consume media via P2P. I do this for entertainment. It's not that I particularly care about what media I am consuming, just as long as it sufficiently entertains me at that time.
Here's where the problem comes in. I mean it when I say that I don't care about what I'm consuming. That means that an entertaining non-copyrighted media file can be just as fun as something that is copyrighted.
My contention is that as this wacky world of the Internet marches on, the distinction between something that is copyrighted (BAD in P2P-land) and something that is not (GOOD in P2P-land) gets blurred for someone like me. In other words, it's entirely possible that I can/will/do consume media files that I honestly don't realize shouldn't be consumed by me without some sort of payment to somebody. If I knew, I'd just skip it. In fact, I do. I skip it everyday by not subscribing to cable, the newspaper, or going to movies/buying CDs. When it comes to the Internet, however, I would like to consume content freely and legally, but I can't!!
Here's where I look to the other side of the looking glass. The argument these days frames Internet users and the bad guys. The media interests are forever using the world's court systems in an effort to prosecute and punish people who have attained their files via P2P. But it's entirely possible (and will be even more so in the future) that there are people like me who can't discern between copyrighted material and free materials! In the future, innocent people simply trying to entertain themselves freely on the Internet can (and will) be prosecuted for obtaining files that they honestly didn't know were 'bad' files.
Personally, I think this sucks. I think it's time someone brought this argument forward and went on the offensive (in courts) against the media companys for polluting the Internet by allowing their copyrighted materials (prosecutable files) to exist at all.
I realize that there is nothing that can be done to stop the proliferation of these legal bombs, but they sure as hell don't have to keep pushing for the inane idea that everyone who shares these files does so intentionally, and in an effort to hurt their financial positions.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm pretty sure it means that each customer gets 1.4 million disks every day!
I bought one of these a few weeks ago. My first cell phone! No one can believe it (geek of the family). I've just never really needed one though. Still don't I guess, but this Nokia with a Tracfone account that comes out to around $9 a month finally convinced me to buy. Anyway, long-story-short, I'm loving it. I got a belt attachment for $5 so I don't really ever need to worry about it being in my pocket. Charges seem to last me around a week and a half (like I said, I don't make many calls). And, I've actually used the flashlight in a real situation already! I can't even imagine signing up for one of those $60 a month contracts with a mini-computer/phone thingy!
I found this out recently when I had to scrounge through old computer junk for a floppy drive. Yep, even in 2005, you can't set up XP on my brand new computer (3 months ago now) equipped with only a SATA hard disk in it. Sheesh.
Me too. I've just started ordering from them recently. I've received everything I've ordered, and was able to easily return the couple of items that didn't work. Everybody bitches about rebates, but I don't mind them at all. They're easy to fill out (internet makes 'em easier than ever) and, apparently, a lot of people have a problem with the whole concept which empowers companies to offer larger rebates = more money back for me. Literally, my recent order saw ~$250 in rebates come back to me in less than a month. In fact, I don't know that I've ever had rebate problems with any company. YMMV, I guess.
Yeah, sorry dude, but that's totally disputed in The Lost World. Sequel's rules always take precident -- see Star Wars for reference.
I'll try this again.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html
But my larger point was based on the future. I contend that in the future, it will only get more difficult to tell the difference.
Audio files can be this way now. If you find a link to a song (maybe a friend of yours simply recommended the song/link to you), how are you to know if that song is copyrighted or not? Are there not thousands of people in the world creating music files that are to be freely shared? Not for profit, but simply because they want to?
The world is a big place. Billions of people in the future will literally be empowered to create professionally produced audio and video on their own for whatever reason they wish. They may or may not want money for copies of their work, but the point is that there is nothing inherently identifiable in an audio or video file that says "you may copy this, or you may not". And there probably is no realistic way that there ever could be.
I also understand your point that it is my responsibility to determine whether I have legal access to the file that I am downloading, but is this really feasible? Especially in the future with trillions of files floating around on the P2P network.
I truly believe that the future will see all of us being 'pirates' without our even realizing it.
On the one side, P2P on the Internet is 'stealing'. Individuals that participate in such actions are criminals and deserve whatever actions they get.
On the other side, P2P is a paradigm shift not contemplated when individuals first dreamed up copyright. At the time, copying materials had cost. Developing materials also had cost. The 'pirate' then would have an advantage over the content creator in that he/she skips the developer costs, while they both share the materials cost. Now, however, materials cost have dropped to nearly zero (It's not free, but for the sake of this discussion, it might as well be). This fundamentally changes the variables, and thus P2P should be allowed.
-----
Now here's where I am (and you too, maybe). I've given up (for the most part) on paying for media content. I just don't care anymore. I rarely see movies at the theater. Don't get the newspaper or cable/satellite. And I never buy CDs. I will, however, consume media via P2P. I do this for entertainment. It's not that I particularly care about what media I am consuming, just as long as it sufficiently entertains me at that time.
Here's where the problem comes in. I mean it when I say that I don't care about what I'm consuming. That means that an entertaining non-copyrighted media file can be just as fun as something that is copyrighted.
My contention is that as this wacky world of the Internet marches on, the distinction between something that is copyrighted (BAD in P2P-land) and something that is not (GOOD in P2P-land) gets blurred for someone like me. In other words, it's entirely possible that I can/will/do consume media files that I honestly don't realize shouldn't be consumed by me without some sort of payment to somebody. If I knew, I'd just skip it. In fact, I do. I skip it everyday by not subscribing to cable, the newspaper, or going to movies/buying CDs. When it comes to the Internet, however, I would like to consume content freely and legally, but I can't!!
Here's where I look to the other side of the looking glass. The argument these days frames Internet users and the bad guys. The media interests are forever using the world's court systems in an effort to prosecute and punish people who have attained their files via P2P. But it's entirely possible (and will be even more so in the future) that there are people like me who can't discern between copyrighted material and free materials! In the future, innocent people simply trying to entertain themselves freely on the Internet can (and will) be prosecuted for obtaining files that they honestly didn't know were 'bad' files.
Personally, I think this sucks. I think it's time someone brought this argument forward and went on the offensive (in courts) against the media companys for polluting the Internet by allowing their copyrighted materials (prosecutable files) to exist at all.
I realize that there is nothing that can be done to stop the proliferation of these legal bombs, but they sure as hell don't have to keep pushing for the inane idea that everyone who shares these files does so intentionally, and in an effort to hurt their financial positions.