So if I buy a Metallica CD, and someone swipes it, Metallica gets the money when the thief is caught? Bizarre.
I feel that, if at all possible, the rules would be re-written in such a way where in that situation, you would be found at fault for all infringement as you, the "owner" of the music failed to keep it from being pirated.
If the RIAA is attempting to collect damages from secondary piracy that originally resulted from sharing the file even once, I fear they would do it with physical media if at all possible.
I'm an Xbox Live Silver Account user and quite honestly, I don't have a problem with this. Were I a Gold Account user, I would probably want as much value for my dollar as possible, even if it was something as simple as adding advanced downloads. It's not as if Silver Accounts will never get the opportunity to download the demos.
This method will not create passwords that are strong enough.
That's why I use the inkblot test, run it through a script that converts random letter combinations to MD5, convert 25% of that end result to l33t, and then randomly add a non-latin character at two locations within that result. I then write it down on my desk calendar.
I actually wonder about this as well, but propose a different outcome:
If Steve Jobs promotes these DVDs that allow you to copy the movie, and it only costs $4 to avoid a very in-depth discussion of your rights as a consumer in regards to intellectual property, there may be quite a few people who adopt to this format.
Now suppose, and this probably isn't too likely, the public begins to purchase these slightly-more expensive DVDs. Would we see price cuts in the original format as well as this new format? Furthermore, would we eventually see this new format become the standard? Interesting to ponder.
If you're really innocent, then no matter how much you lie, use nasty, sneaky tactics, act dirty and play a cunning villain, the ruling should be "not guilty".
More along the lines of the punishment fitting the crime and not exceeding that, actually.
How can it be unfair when THEY were the ones at fault? When THEY were the ones lying and making false claims? Whatever they get now is perfectly fair game.
Contrary to how the US Justice System is viewed today, despite the actions of any party accused or convicted of wrong-doing, there is a widely-held belief that party should be judged with objectively and conviction be dealt without malicious intent or a decision be made against the party based on personal opinion.
I believe this is being equated to the Defendant serving as an enabler, where the RIAA can argue had the Defendant not made these files available, other parties would not have been able to download said files from the Defendant only to upload them to other, additional parties. While this argument doesn't hold very much water when considering the odds of the Defendant as the sole distributor of the material (which was most likely not the case) it does have a hint of logic to it.
While I've seen a decline in multiple e-mail accounts I use, I've noticed an increase in spam posts on a forum I now help run. Of course this could be due to a security hole in phpBB2 that we haven't patched, but with all the mods a previous admin made, it's now a pain in the butt to attempt.
So what's the use of a law if you're not to enforce it?
To secure contributions from corporations this law would benefit, as well as try to prove to the public that something is actually being done about anything.
See, the argument doesn't really hold up then. If they fear the use of such a feature and view it as dangerous to their business model, they wouldn't offer it all. I'm sure it was offered more by request than for the sake of convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
If the RIAA is attempting to collect damages from secondary piracy that originally resulted from sharing the file even once, I fear they would do it with physical media if at all possible.
So that's where Jesus hid them all!
I'm ready to be modded down, now.
In retaliation, CmdrTaco has filed a trademark for "slashies"
// had to do it
/ sorry
I'm an Xbox Live Silver Account user and quite honestly, I don't have a problem with this. Were I a Gold Account user, I would probably want as much value for my dollar as possible, even if it was something as simple as adding advanced downloads. It's not as if Silver Accounts will never get the opportunity to download the demos.
"Hi! Looks like you're trying to right the election! Need some help?"
I actually wonder about this as well, but propose a different outcome:
If Steve Jobs promotes these DVDs that allow you to copy the movie, and it only costs $4 to avoid a very in-depth discussion of your rights as a consumer in regards to intellectual property, there may be quite a few people who adopt to this format.
Now suppose, and this probably isn't too likely, the public begins to purchase these slightly-more expensive DVDs. Would we see price cuts in the original format as well as this new format? Furthermore, would we eventually see this new format become the standard? Interesting to ponder.
That's why I chose the words "a widely-held belief" rather than "rock-hard evidence". :)
Link to said ruling
What's that you say? Oil deposits on Mars???
I believe this is being equated to the Defendant serving as an enabler, where the RIAA can argue had the Defendant not made these files available, other parties would not have been able to download said files from the Defendant only to upload them to other, additional parties. While this argument doesn't hold very much water when considering the odds of the Defendant as the sole distributor of the material (which was most likely not the case) it does have a hint of logic to it.
While I've seen a decline in multiple e-mail accounts I use, I've noticed an increase in spam posts on a forum I now help run. Of course this could be due to a security hole in phpBB2 that we haven't patched, but with all the mods a previous admin made, it's now a pain in the butt to attempt.
While we're splitting hairs on the issue, I will admit that I did misread the content. It has been a long few days with very little sleep.
Remember, until some evidence proves otherwise, it is an unfounded claim.
Guess we'll have to line the tubes with latex.
See, the argument doesn't really hold up then. If they fear the use of such a feature and view it as dangerous to their business model, they wouldn't offer it all. I'm sure it was offered more by request than for the sake of convenience.
Dare we credit this blatant act of piracy to, yet again, a Sharpie?