Stop dancing around the issue, trying to shift the goalposts, and answer the fucking question.
This is about scripps trying to claim copyright over a NASA BROADCASTED FEED, NASA BEING A GOVERNMENT agency that doesn't have ccopyright over [most?] of its videos, etc.
If said "hippie" didn't care about obtaining credit for something this significant 40+ years ago, care to tell me why the internet masses care so much about this today?
You do know the difference between the "hippie" himself, and the people who heard about this / want to find out, or how stupid this sounds?
Because it was an idiotic assumption - just not wanting to use iTunes isn't whiny, whining [learn2English], nor a sign that one only pirates, or pirates at all for that matter - compatibility, quality, selection, all variables that get factored in.
My keyboard is being weird, probably omitted a few 0s when working with the calculations. Either way, it is still a mind boggling number of 1s and 0s.
Wonder how long, in continual transfer, one would theoretically have to go to hit transfer of over a googolplex bits of information.
Roughly, assuming you can round it off to 53 weeks/year, if you do 1Petabyte/ear, and transferred that much constantly, that would be roughly 2887200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 BITS [individual 1s or 0s] per year
Yeah, that only works in a perfect world - which this is not. People get stuff wrongly flagged, not always gettig it restored, companies abuse the DMCA blatantly w/o recourse.
yeah... All I hear is essentially "I don't like this for [reason]". That's not whining. Consult a dictionary next time, you'll look like kess of an ass.
I wear a fedoa going into / out of a bank at least 2 - 3 times a week - and I mean a rabbit fur fedora, not one of those douchebag-y cotton ones, or one off the good-looking-until-a-heavy-rainstorm wool fedoras, but real animal fur. Had no problems so far.
Um... he never suggested that. Try reading the post without whatever glasses turn "X and Y are not the same" into X is victimless because it isn't the same as Y"
That doesn't make a lick of sense. If not making the money you wanted to was theft, then people window shopping, seeing something they want and simply deciding not to buy it, or those who open up shop to compete legitimately with another would be theft. The fact is, that is absurd since you can't have money stolen from you that you don't even have, and not making money is not the same as having money you have taken from you.
Yes, because all creativity will screech to a halt if these laws were revoked, or more reasonably, overhauled to be more like they were originally intended *rolls eyes*
Maybe you gt troll because people consider the creation of a false hypocrisy, and using it to slam a group of people as if it were an intelligent point is trollish? Just a thought.
Sorta. Regardless of how shorthand things become, it doesn't quite work in the way where factually something wrong becomes acceptable without challenge or question.
Um... if you read it yourself, you'd see the reason copyright exists is to stimulate the progress of science and creativity by giving EXCLUSIVE CONTROL to the creator for a LIMITED TIME in which he or she does whatever he or she wants, and after which, it goes back to the public. It doesn't say anything more, or less.
Um... copyright was meant to encourage creating by ensuring the artists had control for a limited time - absolute control to do whatever he or she wanted - nothing more, nothing less. Wish people would stop looking into things too deeply - but then again, I overanalyze the shit out of everything.
No service agreement can protect a company against defamation of character, or outright fraud - not saying those are applicable, but to act like a company SAYING it is final because it is in the agreement is rather ignorant, and devoid of acts. I don't argue that to fight is time consuming, tiring, difficult, and money draining, but that isn't exactly the same as impossible.:D
It is hard to be frank when the person calling for being frank is making generalized statements - and ones that are absolutes to boot - to deny the possibility of it affecting those who aren't intended targets in ignorance to cases in the past where it ha happened [with the lawsuits specifically], with the technical possibility.
Prove it. Saying "it is" doesn't prove it. Putting "period" in your sentence doesn't make it factual.
"piracy does not hurt profit". If one produced a song that was 100% pirated, profit would be 0. So, piracy does hurt profit
First off, aside from most people not actually arguing something like this, your argument is really bad. You make one clearly exaggerated scenario that is not entirely realistic AT ALL as proof.
"a pirated song is not a lost sale". It is a lost sale, because it denies profit to the owner of the song.
Circumstantial - not buying [OR pirating] the song, not listening to the song in the first place, for example, does the same thing.
copyright exists for the promotion of arts and culture". No, no matter how it is being said, copyright exists to protect profit.
RTFC [read the fucking constitution]. It is to promote the progress of the arts, bu securing a limited period of time of absolute control over the work after which it becomes fair game for anyone to use. Period. THAT'S ALL. Whether the creator uses it for a revenue stream, or not, it boils down the the control.
"piracy is not immoral because corporations are evil"
Red herring [or strawman]- people arguing against the notion of piracy == theft don't argue this.
"copyright should only be for 15 years, anything beyond that is stupid". No, it is not. You would pay money for a 30 year old car, why not for a 30 old song?
That question dodges the point of those arguing for a limited copyright term. Let me try to spell it out for you. COPYRIGHT is meant to be for a LIMITED TIME, maybe 15 is too short, maybe not, but 50, 70, 100, 200 years is way beyond anything the founding fathers intended,, and the wording in the constitution shows it.
Honestly, if you're gonna argue, argue points actually be made, don't generalize, don't characterize, you'll look like less of a stuck up asswipe... and you still have yet to prove your point of "piracy is theft," so I'll wait.
Slashdot Mirror
Pointing out a limitation != whining. People should learn what a word means before trying to be an asshole while misusing it.
Stop dancing around the issue, trying to shift the goalposts, and answer the fucking question. This is about scripps trying to claim copyright over a NASA BROADCASTED FEED, NASA BEING A GOVERNMENT agency that doesn't have ccopyright over [most?] of its videos, etc.
[citation needed]
If said "hippie" didn't care about obtaining credit for something this significant 40+ years ago, care to tell me why the internet masses care so much about this today?
You do know the difference between the "hippie" himself, and the people who heard about this / want to find out, or how stupid this sounds?
Because it was an idiotic assumption - just not wanting to use iTunes isn't whiny, whining [learn2English], nor a sign that one only pirates, or pirates at all for that matter - compatibility, quality, selection, all variables that get factored in.
Maybe its the Tunes client, the selection, or the quality/format. .. no, it has to be that he has to pay for songs... what are you, stupid?
My keyboard is being weird, probably omitted a few 0s when working with the calculations. Either way, it is still a mind boggling number of 1s and 0s. Wonder how long, in continual transfer, one would theoretically have to go to hit transfer of over a googolplex bits of information.
Roughly, assuming you can round it off to 53 weeks/year, if you do 1Petabyte/ear, and transferred that much constantly, that would be roughly 2887200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 BITS [individual 1s or 0s] per year
Yeah, that only works in a perfect world - which this is not. People get stuff wrongly flagged, not always gettig it restored, companies abuse the DMCA blatantly w/o recourse.
yeah... All I hear is essentially "I don't like this for [reason]". That's not whining. Consult a dictionary next time, you'll look like kess of an ass.
I wear a fedoa going into / out of a bank at least 2 - 3 times a week - and I mean a rabbit fur fedora, not one of those douchebag-y cotton ones, or one off the good-looking-until-a-heavy-rainstorm wool fedoras, but real animal fur. Had no problems so far.
Um... he never suggested that. Try reading the post without whatever glasses turn "X and Y are not the same" into X is victimless because it isn't the same as Y"
That doesn't make a lick of sense. If not making the money you wanted to was theft, then people window shopping, seeing something they want and simply deciding not to buy it, or those who open up shop to compete legitimately with another would be theft. The fact is, that is absurd since you can't have money stolen from you that you don't even have, and not making money is not the same as having money you have taken from you.
Yes, because all creativity will screech to a halt if these laws were revoked, or more reasonably, overhauled to be more like they were originally intended *rolls eyes*
Maybe you gt troll because people consider the creation of a false hypocrisy, and using it to slam a group of people as if it were an intelligent point is trollish? Just a thought.
Sorta. Regardless of how shorthand things become, it doesn't quite work in the way where factually something wrong becomes acceptable without challenge or question.
Um... if you read it yourself, you'd see the reason copyright exists is to stimulate the progress of science and creativity by giving EXCLUSIVE CONTROL to the creator for a LIMITED TIME in which he or she does whatever he or she wants, and after which, it goes back to the public. It doesn't say anything more, or less.
Obviously less than you substantial == types of uses, not what % of people use X for use A, use B, or use C, jackass.
Um... copyright was meant to encourage creating by ensuring the artists had control for a limited time - absolute control to do whatever he or she wanted - nothing more, nothing less. Wish people would stop looking into things too deeply - but then again, I overanalyze the shit out of everything.
No service agreement can protect a company against defamation of character, or outright fraud - not saying those are applicable, but to act like a company SAYING it is final because it is in the agreement is rather ignorant, and devoid of acts. I don't argue that to fight is time consuming, tiring, difficult, and money draining, but that isn't exactly the same as impossible. :D
... you idiot.
People with the time and money have proven that it being written != it being legal all the time.
It is hard to be frank when the person calling for being frank is making generalized statements - and ones that are absolutes to boot - to deny the possibility of it affecting those who aren't intended targets in ignorance to cases in the past where it ha happened [with the lawsuits specifically], with the technical possibility.
... since when did this have to do with modesty,as opposed to the potential breach of the 4th by forcing digital strip searches?
Piracy is theft. Period.
Prove it. Saying "it is" doesn't prove it. Putting "period" in your sentence doesn't make it factual.
"piracy does not hurt profit". If one produced a song that was 100% pirated, profit would be 0. So, piracy does hurt profit
First off, aside from most people not actually arguing something like this, your argument is really bad. You make one clearly exaggerated scenario that is not entirely realistic AT ALL as proof.
"a pirated song is not a lost sale". It is a lost sale, because it denies profit to the owner of the song.
Circumstantial - not buying [OR pirating] the song, not listening to the song in the first place, for example, does the same thing.
copyright exists for the promotion of arts and culture". No, no matter how it is being said, copyright exists to protect profit.
RTFC [read the fucking constitution]. It is to promote the progress of the arts, bu securing a limited period of time of absolute control over the work after which it becomes fair game for anyone to use. Period. THAT'S ALL. Whether the creator uses it for a revenue stream, or not, it boils down the the control.
"piracy is not immoral because corporations are evil"
Red herring [or strawman]- people arguing against the notion of piracy == theft don't argue this.
"copyright should only be for 15 years, anything beyond that is stupid". No, it is not. You would pay money for a 30 year old car, why not for a 30 old song?
That question dodges the point of those arguing for a limited copyright term. Let me try to spell it out for you. COPYRIGHT is meant to be for a LIMITED TIME, maybe 15 is too short, maybe not, but 50, 70, 100, 200 years is way beyond anything the founding fathers intended,, and the wording in the constitution shows it.
Honestly, if you're gonna argue, argue points actually be made, don't generalize, don't characterize, you'll look like less of a stuck up asswipe... and you still have yet to prove your point of "piracy is theft," so I'll wait.