You free/leftards always sound the same. You keep asking others to apply critical thought to things while sounding as morons. No, lets not call things by their names as it might hurt feelings. Criminals are not criminals. No, they're victims. Victims? Those are the real criminals. Jeee.. give us a break.
You are a moron. How's that for calling things by their proper names?
If someone puts an item up for sale, regardless of its form, and does not intend for it to be distributed any other way than by sale, and you take it without paying, it is theft.
So... if the person selling it givers it to you to take, it's still theft? After all, it was not meant to be distributed any other way with your reasoning... or of a friend buys it for me?
Then, I suppose, it is impossible to steal someone else's ideas
Uh.. duh? This is a ludicrous concept that presumes the impossibility of coming up with the same idea as somebody else independently, ignores that a work is not an idea but a accumulation of ideas - idea being the raw bi-product, ignores the difference between fraud and theft, ignores the difference between copying, and taking/depriving somebody of something they had, all while making the concept of plagiarism harder to understand instead of easier.
Or a copy of their homework. Or a copy of their source code. Or a copy of their credit card report.
Uh.. duh? Taking a copy of the work, leaving the original?
Wow, talk about missing the point. Oh, and a basic lesson in logic: Some hackers are pirates, and some pirates cheat, but that doesn't mean that all hackers are cheaters or pirates.
"not easy to modularize and reuse?" What exactly do you mean by this? So far in my studies, I've been learning about making my classes as generic as possible just for the explicit possibility of finding use for it in another project, later on. 0_o
We did have nice things, until some smug, self righteous pirates and punks with entitlement issues decided to hide under the skirts of the FOSS and civil rights communities and fuck things over for the rest of us.
yeah sure, got any proof besides your mere speculation? Last I checked, GeoHot didn't pirate, didn't use it for piracy, and did something that didn't immediately enable piracy.
With the dream of perpetual free games and complete freedom to jack the PSN network in jeopardy...
Yes piracy may have been made easier, but only so much - the games are ginormous, and not everybody who enjoys hacking pirates.
, the pirates freaked out and began a smear campaign against Sony and the PS3 community....
[citation needed]
, even going so far as to deliberately sabotage online play and destroy user accounts.
[citation needed[
tl;dr: Please educate yourself. You made my brain throw up.
Homebrew is much harder as even when you can get the data to the machine, it will simply be refused due to an invalid signature and working around that can be anything from quite tricky to being pretty much impossible.
Hard yes, but never impossible. Question: What would stop somebody from spoofing a valid signature?
Mod up? Are you nuts? The post you replied to doesn't come anywhere near addressing the point that was being made, that this is not the best use of resources to make this stuff a felony for kids-P2Ping-mp3s level stuff, wasting resources on more valuable things... the post is just flamebait in and out.
The problem with the "do you work for free" argument is that it compares different things - making something, and continually receiving revenue from it, to working, and making money off the labor as you continually have to do it. Not IMO the//best// analogy.
First and foremost, copyright exists to FAIRLY reward creation by means of COMPENSATION. Only after the creator has been FAIRLY COMPENSATED is the public at large intended to receive the works. I
Compensated? As in monetarily? Copyright law at its core says no such thing. Copyright law is about control, and nothing more - that is, a temporary monopoly over control for a period of time before which it goes back to the public... control to do with it as the owner sees fit - selling it, giving it away under particular terms, etc. Case in point: People copyrighting their works to prevent it from being ripped off by others in some form, but allowing free distribution/sharing of said work [or doing so under licensing schemes that rely on the existence of copyright law - like Creative Commons].
tealing before the creator can be compensated is completely contrary to the notion of encouraging creation.
Of course that beggs the question of whether theft, or stealing is at all applicable or relevant. And this also ignores the fact that creativity is not ENTIRELY about financial gain - and to treat it as such is intellectually dishonest.
This is such a simple concept and one which is extremely well document. Its really hard for me not to look down on those who come to some other conclusion as somehow being mentally deficient. Literally.
Pardon my snarky nature, but the irony is kinda dripping profusely.
On what world is it possible for creation to not be rewarded and it to concurrent encourage creation?
I think that is a false premise - one that assumes a lot. For one, people created before copyright exited, and even with the challenge of wrestling with piracy they have adapted and succeeded - the ones whom proved capable. Even if the concept was to go into the shitter, people will find a way to make money off their works, people WILL make money off their works, people will create - whether for profit or on for their own reasons. The doom and gloom shtick has been perpetuated since the 60s, with audio tapes, and here we are almost 50 years later, adaptation has occurred successfully.
They are free to upload it to other sites. It doesn't suddenly mean that - in he scope of their website - the textbook definition of censoring, or censorship suddenly doesn't appliey [since things are being edited, removed, or otherwise blocked from display on that site]... it just means that it may be an ACCEPTABLE FORM of censorship.
The case in question is antiquated, surely more modern examples of the Supreme Court's take on the issue of schools dictating what goes on in a child's private time off campus exist.
But who says the Supreme Court is always right, how can you presume their word is never changed? That ruling is 42 years old, back before the internet, computing, existed as we know it today, before the issue was revisited in a more relevant scope.
I guess you missed privacy settings, as in my profile requires me being logged in, or the person trying to view it be my friend before they can//see// it. Granted not everybody uses it, but it is becoming increasingly used.
Slashdot Mirror
You free/leftards always sound the same. You keep asking others to apply critical thought to things while sounding as morons. No, lets not call things by their names as it might hurt feelings. Criminals are not criminals. No, they're victims. Victims? Those are the real criminals. Jeee.. give us a break.
You are a moron. How's that for calling things by their proper names?
How about if someone took the information that represents your bank account balance and moved them to his bank account.
In this case, you had something removed.... derp.
If someone puts an item up for sale, regardless of its form, and does not intend for it to be distributed any other way than by sale, and you take it without paying, it is theft.
So... if the person selling it givers it to you to take, it's still theft? After all, it was not meant to be distributed any other way with your reasoning... or of a friend buys it for me?
I think you're lumping different peopel together and attempting to paint a gross and/or false generalization here.
Perhaps you should consider your own statement ;)
The irony seems to be that your post is entirely grasping at straws, begging questions.
Then, I suppose, it is impossible to steal someone else's ideas
Uh.. duh? This is a ludicrous concept that presumes the impossibility of coming up with the same idea as somebody else independently, ignores that a work is not an idea but a accumulation of ideas - idea being the raw bi-product, ignores the difference between fraud and theft, ignores the difference between copying, and taking/depriving somebody of something they had, all while making the concept of plagiarism harder to understand instead of easier.
Or a copy of their homework. Or a copy of their source code. Or a copy of their credit card report.
Uh.. duh? Taking a copy of the work, leaving the original?
Sony is evil? No fucking way, they provide a service, a network where anyone can play without cheats and hacks equal for everyone.
Are you .. stupid? The evil part isn't THAT - L:OOK at the LAWSUIT and TREATMENT of the PERSON whose STORY SPURRED this posting on /s, you idiot.
But account owner does not automatically == infringer
Just PRINT the damn thing!
Wow, talk about missing the point. Oh, and a basic lesson in logic: Some hackers are pirates, and some pirates cheat, but that doesn't mean that all hackers are cheaters or pirates.
"not easy to modularize and reuse?" What exactly do you mean by this? So far in my studies, I've been learning about making my classes as generic as possible just for the explicit possibility of finding use for it in another project, later on. 0_o
We did have nice things, until some smug, self righteous pirates and punks with entitlement issues decided to hide under the skirts of the FOSS and civil rights communities and fuck things over for the rest of us.
yeah sure, got any proof besides your mere speculation? Last I checked, GeoHot didn't pirate, didn't use it for piracy, and did something that didn't immediately enable piracy.
With the dream of perpetual free games and complete freedom to jack the PSN network in jeopardy...
Yes piracy may have been made easier, but only so much - the games are ginormous, and not everybody who enjoys hacking pirates.
, the pirates freaked out and began a smear campaign against Sony and the PS3 community....
[citation needed]
, even going so far as to deliberately sabotage online play and destroy user accounts.
[citation needed[
tl;dr: Please educate yourself. You made my brain throw up.
Homebrew is much harder as even when you can get the data to the machine, it will simply be refused due to an invalid signature and working around that can be anything from quite tricky to being pretty much impossible.
Hard yes, but never impossible. Question: What would stop somebody from spoofing a valid signature?
Yeah, so the government that implemented the draconian measures is not AT ALL atfalut for said hypothetical situation? Bullshit.
Mod up? Are you nuts? The post you replied to doesn't come anywhere near addressing the point that was being made, that this is not the best use of resources to make this stuff a felony for kids-P2Ping-mp3s level stuff, wasting resources on more valuable things... the post is just flamebait in and out.
The problem with the "do you work for free" argument is that it compares different things - making something, and continually receiving revenue from it, to working, and making money off the labor as you continually have to do it. Not IMO the //best// analogy.
First and foremost, copyright exists to FAIRLY reward creation by means of COMPENSATION. Only after the creator has been FAIRLY COMPENSATED is the public at large intended to receive the works. I
Compensated? As in monetarily? Copyright law at its core says no such thing. Copyright law is about control, and nothing more - that is, a temporary monopoly over control for a period of time before which it goes back to the public... control to do with it as the owner sees fit - selling it, giving it away under particular terms, etc. Case in point: People copyrighting their works to prevent it from being ripped off by others in some form, but allowing free distribution/sharing of said work [or doing so under licensing schemes that rely on the existence of copyright law - like Creative Commons].
tealing before the creator can be compensated is completely contrary to the notion of encouraging creation.
Of course that beggs the question of whether theft, or stealing is at all applicable or relevant. And this also ignores the fact that creativity is not ENTIRELY about financial gain - and to treat it as such is intellectually dishonest.
This is such a simple concept and one which is extremely well document. Its really hard for me not to look down on those who come to some other conclusion as somehow being mentally deficient. Literally.
Pardon my snarky nature, but the irony is kinda dripping profusely.
On what world is it possible for creation to not be rewarded and it to concurrent encourage creation?
I think that is a false premise - one that assumes a lot. For one, people created before copyright exited, and even with the challenge of wrestling with piracy they have adapted and succeeded - the ones whom proved capable. Even if the concept was to go into the shitter, people will find a way to make money off their works, people WILL make money off their works, people will create - whether for profit or on for their own reasons. The doom and gloom shtick has been perpetuated since the 60s, with audio tapes, and here we are almost 50 years later, adaptation has occurred successfully.
They are free to upload it to other sites. It doesn't suddenly mean that - in he scope of their website - the textbook definition of censoring, or censorship suddenly doesn't appliey [since things are being edited, removed, or otherwise blocked from display on that site]... it just means that it may be an ACCEPTABLE FORM of censorship.
Opinion in of itself != whining, get a dictionary and shut the fuck up.
Or learn the difference between asking questions and whining, you pompous dick.
In Soviet Russia, floppy copy you! /groan
The case in question is antiquated, surely more modern examples of the Supreme Court's take on the issue of schools dictating what goes on in a child's private time off campus exist.
But who says the Supreme Court is always right, how can you presume their word is never changed? That ruling is 42 years old, back before the internet, computing, existed as we know it today, before the issue was revisited in a more relevant scope.
I did - 2001 I used AIM [and AOL >_] and I was 11.
I guess you missed privacy settings, as in my profile requires me being logged in, or the person trying to view it be my friend before they can //see// it. Granted not everybody uses it, but it is becoming increasingly used.