In some countries, it is legal to make a single dump of a cartridge you own and use it so long as you aren't playing the original at the same time.
I've heard this, but wonder WHERE exactly does it limit the number of backup copies you can make, and WHERE it puts that use limitation into place.... just out of curiosity.
No, he didn't take 1s and 0s. But people use the word "stealing" because it is the simplest, closest, and quickest to understand. The average person is not a lawyer. We don't say "pedestrian crossing against a traffic light", we say "jaywalking".
This, IMO, is intellectually dishonest. You discribed two - technical and layman's way - to describe the same act. We are talking about calling copyright infringement - copying 1s and 0s illegal - to theft - taking and depriving somebody of their property - two legally, logically, and very different acts.
On the other hand, copyright infringement often involves stealing one's formerly sole right to copy the 1s and 0s; and that pilferage is usually undoable. I think the word "stealing" is accurately descriptive and appropriate.
BS.
Part of the exclusive rights is to go after those who try to butt in and distribute/sell their works without permission/payment. They still have their rights.
I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.
Though that doesn't give private businesses the right to do ANYTHNG willy-nilly (and I am not, for the record, saying you are implying this), for example, a store can not detain you just because you refuse to show a receipt on the way out, they need probable cause - proof you actually shoplifted, lest they face all sorts of legal hell.:D
No, piracy is piracy, theft is theft, rape is rape, so on and so forth.
[quote]
You're taking something from someone else that does not belong to you.
[/quote]
No, you are making a copy of something, and taking that, leaving the person with the original.
Wonder why piracy and theft are covered by completely different sets of law?
[quote]
Of course, most people have no problem rationalizing this until it's their stuff that's being taken.
[/quote]
Sounds like you are trying to justify your skewed perspective by labeling those who argue others as something they may not be. Intellectually dishonest much?
. When you buy a plane ticket, you consent to those security measures
If walking into a store doesn't give the owners probable cause to search you, as backed up by case law, walking into an airport and wanting to travel is not, IMO, probable cause to strip search,especially not by incompetent GOVERNMENT employees... I call bullshit on your premise. The TSA's influence is extending to bus and train too you know, and I'd like to se you try driving to Europe.
Pragmatically, this is not failure, it will make the traveling public more aware of the issues that come with keeping a person about to burst with urine seated and not allowing him near a lav due to this asinine rule. Sometimes the shocking [and legitimately occuring] situations act as catalyst to change.
Once could argue though that the FAs have a choice in exercising common sense... which dictates that when a guy/gal [or a baby/toddler] has to go, you let them go.
With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it... not my fault you guys tied to keep me from using the bathroom despite pointing out how badly I needed it a dozen++ times.
I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. The TSA has gone beyond asinine now.
...and 3) ask people who are recording to delete the recording. C
They can ASK, as they can ASK somebody to do anything, but that's it. They have no legal authority to make somebody delete their photos/video for any reason.
"Sorry but the idea that because there is no demo justifies theft is just silly."
And the idea that you don't like his justify it so therefore it is invalid, but calling copyright infringement theft when it isn't is even more valid? Right./dumbass.
Your post is nothing but generalization, you can't pigeonhole pirates into one category or another since there are many reasons and types of pirate. Psychopath? Do you even hknow how irrelevant such a term is to piracy?
I think in this case it comes down to us having a rightful sense of expectancy that a DVD or CD will work as it is presented for as long as it is kept in working order like ANYTHING ELSE WE BUY. WHY should they be able to do that, and expect a continual pay-per-play in this fashion?
Yeah, GUIs are flashy and cool, but of course you'll need to get into the fundamentals of programming too., which is far more than just "printing a few lines to the screen."
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard this, but wonder WHERE exactly does it limit the number of backup copies you can make, and WHERE it puts that use limitation into place.... just out of curiosity.
This, IMO, is intellectually dishonest. You discribed two - technical and layman's way - to describe the same act. We are talking about calling copyright infringement - copying 1s and 0s illegal - to theft - taking and depriving somebody of their property - two legally, logically, and very different acts.
BS. Part of the exclusive rights is to go after those who try to butt in and distribute/sell their works without permission/payment. They still have their rights.
All of which I - albiet very vaguely - acknowledged.
Though that doesn't give private businesses the right to do ANYTHNG willy-nilly (and I am not, for the record, saying you are implying this), for example, a store can not detain you just because you refuse to show a receipt on the way out, they need probable cause - proof you actually shoplifted, lest they face all sorts of legal hell. :D
No, piracy is piracy, theft is theft, rape is rape, so on and so forth.
[quote] You're taking something from someone else that does not belong to you. [/quote]
No, you are making a copy of something, and taking that, leaving the person with the original. Wonder why piracy and theft are covered by completely different sets of law?
[quote] Of course, most people have no problem rationalizing this until it's their stuff that's being taken. [/quote]
Sounds like you are trying to justify your skewed perspective by labeling those who argue others as something they may not be. Intellectually dishonest much?
If walking into a store doesn't give the owners probable cause to search you, as backed up by case law, walking into an airport and wanting to travel is not, IMO, probable cause to strip search,especially not by incompetent GOVERNMENT employees... I call bullshit on your premise. The TSA's influence is extending to bus and train too you know, and I'd like to se you try driving to Europe.
Go blow it out your apathetic asshole, bub.
Wrong.
Sharing copyrighted works without permission from the copyright holder is illegal.
Except in Nebraska!
Pragmatically, this is not failure, it will make the traveling public more aware of the issues that come with keeping a person about to burst with urine seated and not allowing him near a lav due to this asinine rule. Sometimes the shocking [and legitimately occuring] situations act as catalyst to change.
Once could argue though that the FAs have a choice in exercising common sense... which dictates that when a guy/gal [or a baby/toddler] has to go, you let them go.
With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it... not my fault you guys tied to keep me from using the bathroom despite pointing out how badly I needed it a dozen++ times. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. The TSA has gone beyond asinine now.
...and 3) ask people who are recording to delete the recording. C
They can ASK, as they can ASK somebody to do anything, but that's it. They have no legal authority to make somebody delete their photos/video for any reason.
I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.
As somebody who has been arrested while doing nothing wrong, fuck you. That's all I can/will say.
"Sorry but the idea that because there is no demo justifies theft is just silly." And the idea that you don't like his justify it so therefore it is invalid, but calling copyright infringement theft when it isn't is even more valid? Right. /dumbass.
Your post is nothing but generalization, you can't pigeonhole pirates into one category or another since there are many reasons and types of pirate. Psychopath? Do you even hknow how irrelevant such a term is to piracy?
I think in this case it comes down to us having a rightful sense of expectancy that a DVD or CD will work as it is presented for as long as it is kept in working order like ANYTHING ELSE WE BUY. WHY should they be able to do that, and expect a continual pay-per-play in this fashion?
Isn't that called theft?
Yeah because it isn't like you can teach them to use cell phones to collaborate effective and in an academically positive way. :rolleyes:
You gotta be kidding me. This is the most ass backwards thinking on DRM the RIAA has come forth with yet.
C++ utter trash? Is that serious?
Yeah, GUIs are flashy and cool, but of course you'll need to get into the fundamentals of programming too., which is far more than just "printing a few lines to the screen."
Just one question: What the fuck is tickey-tackey? The cousin to the tic-tac?
Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty much perfect.
Perfectly full of shit. Come on, go back to Troll School, you flunk.
I'm 100% sure that your statistic is pulled out of your ass without ANY logical or realistic basis whatsoever.
Of course we don't hear that many of the cases, and most of these cases are settled before reaching court in the first place.