I don't have to register anything, it doesn't matter if its public or private. There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either. If anyone did this in the UK, they would have their asses sued off and they would lose.
Fair Dealings - similar to fair use. Look it up. I don't know how it works in the U.K, but in the U.S, works automatically fall under copyright but you still need to register before ever hoping to be able to collect damages. It isn't as black/white or difinitive as you make it out to be.
What's really interesting here is that the AP won't let other people base articles on their reporting, but they regularly pull quotes from small local newspapers on stories that they deem not worth sending their own reporters to.
I believe the phrase is "Do as I say, not as I do."
As much as I have come to strongly dislike Rapidshare's glitches (saying something is downloading when it isn't, sometimes up to a day after a download has finished or been disrupterd for example), this is horseshit.
Filtering doesn't work anyways.
For fuck's sake, anon. coward: "dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's ow" is called fraud, lying, not stealing, unless you are a moron (like the person who write that definition is).
Mot to worry. Pretty soon there will be no more record labels and no more music to buy as the piracy puts everyone out of business.
Not to worry, this pipe-nightmare will NEVER happen. Piracy has not put anybody out of business (by that I mean piracy alone), people will always find a way to / will profit off of content and/or create content.
And I hope everyone that cheers on piracy remembers this.
Says somebody sipping the doom-aide? sure, I'll believe you *wink wink nudge nudge*
If someone steals from a store, the police come and put them in jail.
Actually, they get fined OR they go to jail (or both) - they don't get bankrupted like what happens if sued by the record industry. (BTW: Comparing copying data illegally to actually stealing from a store = legally and logically inaccurate for many a reason.
If we don't afford IP businesses the same protection from theft, then how can we expect to keep IP?
1) IP rights don't cover theft - theft requires deprival of property from somebody, copying a copyrighted file without permission violates the creator's exclusive rights. You should, when talking facts, keep note to this important factual difference.
2) IP will still be created, IP will still be profited off of. Stop drinking the doom-aide.
But they should go to jail just as if they were to steal anything else.
Good luck, since they aren't stealing anything to behin with, that won't happen.
...because the billions a year lost from music piracy affects the entire economy.
Did you ever think for a minute as to twhether or not those statistics you defend are accurate?
...law decides to help out by enforcing the law and throwing thieves in jail,
Again, ironic you talk about the law since it is obvious you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
My suggestions: Look up the laws you are talking about, stop drinking the doom-aide, and get some sleep.
Yes, they stole , hours or perhaps days/months of work.
If nothing went missing, it isn't theft or stealing. Logic dictates that. Emotions do not.
is stealing. They stole a digital artifact, they stole "information", "knowledge".
You can't just repeat "it is, it is, it is." You have to prove it, especially since the burden of proof is on you. Data, knowledge, information is non-tangible, it can't be stolen.
You REALLY like stretching definitions to rediculous lengths, don't you?
hey took something without doing something required or giving something required
That is a dangerously BROAD definition that nobody in their right mind would accept (and is why the legal codes internationally require deprival of something - property - they had.
It is not a movie, don't go into "but it is not stealing" mode immediately.
Same concepts still apply - same differences still exist.
It is 2009 already and you people have issues with understanding the difference between "virtual" and "real" things
Obviously "we" are the ones who are trying to give data, and abstract ideas the properties of physical objects, obviously we have the issues./s
oh yes, pirating a Hollywood movie is stealing too... Like I explained above. I don't really care if producer is Satan himself.
Actually, it still isn't, thanks for showing you are incapable of backing up your assertions with anything other than "it is" though.
Of course I have nothing to hide, therefore you have no reason to be spying on private citizens.
makes no sense. Everybody has something to hide. That is the idea of privacy. Whether or not one is indenial about this truth is no excuse to allow this as a parameter for allowing or disallowing warrantless wiretapping.
Can we stop saying torrenting is illegal when you mean torrenting IP covered by copyright is illegal?
But legally fre does not mean exempt from copyright, it just means they copyrighted it and want it distributed/shared for free. Creative commons relies on copyright law to work... so even your statement there is wrong-ish.
No, she is fighting the ACCUSATION of infringing on their copyrights. ACCUSATION doesn't mean she did it, fighting it doesn't mean she did it. If there is evidence against her being found guilty, then, assuming that she has the means, fighting it is smart.
Maybe they aren't SHOWING confusing, but that doesn't make it that they aren't confused, and that you shouldn't be clearer.
A LOT (majority?) of people take your words literally.
P.s: IQs are bullshit, not that you had a high enough IQ to realize that to begin with.
[quote]can't expect constitutional protection from someone who wasn't acting as an agent of the government.[/quote]
Well, generally no, but then again, businesses are not exempt from the law. They can't discriminate, they can't seize your property or detain you without really good reason.
So in a way, yes, you can... it is harder though to maintain/hold up.
Questioner became violent during interrogation, an you think you'd win if somebody you interrogated this way fought back?
Go rot somewhere else, trollbag.
So something being factually accurate in the bounds of a factual discussion means nothing to you? IMO, dismissing it as semantics enforces my point. It doesn't make it theft because THEFT isn't about payment or lack therefore in of itself. Think about the implication of using such a term so willy nilly outside of that in which one can actually be prosecuted for.
First, if you are a company of any size your volume licensing agreement allows them to do these audits, and you can be liable in damages for breach of contract
Considering contracts, or parts of contracts are voided all the time, I wouldn't say this as 100% no-alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not the victim.
Tell that to the deceased, those without a computer, and those who were mis-identified (IP address)and were targeted by the RIAA.
ince the average person probably isn't sharing copyrighted material, he probably won't have anything to fear from the RIAA.
I am having a hard time telling if this sarcasm or not. If it isn't you might want to read up on some of the recent MPAA/RIAA related cases.
I don't have to register anything, it doesn't matter if its public or private. There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either. If anyone did this in the UK, they would have their asses sued off and they would lose.
Fair Dealings - similar to fair use. Look it up. I don't know how it works in the U.K, but in the U.S, works automatically fall under copyright but you still need to register before ever hoping to be able to collect damages. It isn't as black/white or difinitive as you make it out to be.
What's really interesting here is that the AP won't let other people base articles on their reporting, but they regularly pull quotes from small local newspapers on stories that they deem not worth sending their own reporters to.
I believe the phrase is "Do as I say, not as I do."
Must not feed the troll... must not feed... the... troll...
I see your patent and raise you one case of prior art. :P
That assumes that the /. crowd is comprised of one group of people / one mindset, which is patently false.
As much as I have come to strongly dislike Rapidshare's glitches (saying something is downloading when it isn't, sometimes up to a day after a download has finished or been disrupterd for example), this is horseshit. Filtering doesn't work anyways.
For fuck's sake, anon. coward: "dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's ow" is called fraud, lying, not stealing, unless you are a moron (like the person who write that definition is).
/. fucked up my formatting. I did something similar.
Still distorting the word. Try again.
Mot to worry. Pretty soon there will be no more record labels and no more music to buy as the piracy puts everyone out of business.
Not to worry, this pipe-nightmare will NEVER happen. Piracy has not put anybody out of business (by that I mean piracy alone), people will always find a way to / will profit off of content and/or create content.
And I hope everyone that cheers on piracy remembers this.
Says somebody sipping the doom-aide? sure, I'll believe you *wink wink nudge nudge*
If someone steals from a store, the police come and put them in jail.
Actually, they get fined OR they go to jail (or both) - they don't get bankrupted like what happens if sued by the record industry. (BTW: Comparing copying data illegally to actually stealing from a store = legally and logically inaccurate for many a reason.
If we don't afford IP businesses the same protection from theft, then how can we expect to keep IP?
1) IP rights don't cover theft - theft requires deprival of property from somebody, copying a copyrighted file without permission violates the creator's exclusive rights. You should, when talking facts, keep note to this important factual difference. 2) IP will still be created, IP will still be profited off of. Stop drinking the doom-aide.
But they should go to jail just as if they were to steal anything else.
Good luck, since they aren't stealing anything to behin with, that won't happen.
...because the billions a year lost from music piracy affects the entire economy.
Did you ever think for a minute as to twhether or not those statistics you defend are accurate?
...law decides to help out by enforcing the law and throwing thieves in jail,
Again, ironic you talk about the law since it is obvious you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
My suggestions: Look up the laws you are talking about, stop drinking the doom-aide, and get some sleep.
This is re-branding someone else's work and marketing it as if you created it, in complete violation of their property rights. This is theft.
No, this is lying - fraud, plagiarism. Not right, but not theft either. nice try though
Are we being politicians now?
Nice straw man
Yes, they stole , hours or perhaps days/months of work.
If nothing went missing, it isn't theft or stealing. Logic dictates that. Emotions do not.
is stealing. They stole a digital artifact, they stole "information", "knowledge".
You can't just repeat "it is, it is, it is." You have to prove it, especially since the burden of proof is on you. Data, knowledge, information is non-tangible, it can't be stolen. You REALLY like stretching definitions to rediculous lengths, don't you?
hey took something without doing something required or giving something required
That is a dangerously BROAD definition that nobody in their right mind would accept (and is why the legal codes internationally require deprival of something - property - they had.
It is not a movie, don't go into "but it is not stealing" mode immediately.
Same concepts still apply - same differences still exist.
It is 2009 already and you people have issues with understanding the difference between "virtual" and "real" things
Obviously "we" are the ones who are trying to give data, and abstract ideas the properties of physical objects, obviously we have the issues. /s
oh yes, pirating a Hollywood movie is stealing too... Like I explained above. I don't really care if producer is Satan himself.
Actually, it still isn't, thanks for showing you are incapable of backing up your assertions with anything other than "it is" though.
Of course I have nothing to hide, therefore you have no reason to be spying on private citizens.
makes no sense. Everybody has something to hide. That is the idea of privacy. Whether or not one is indenial about this truth is no excuse to allow this as a parameter for allowing or disallowing warrantless wiretapping.
If it isn't theft, why isn't it acceptable?
Because not all that is unacceptable is theft, stupid.
Can we stop saying torrenting is illegal when you mean torrenting IP covered by copyright is illegal?
But legally fre does not mean exempt from copyright, it just means they copyrighted it and want it distributed/shared for free. Creative commons relies on copyright law to work... so even your statement there is wrong-ish.
No, she is fighting the ACCUSATION of infringing on their copyrights. ACCUSATION doesn't mean she did it, fighting it doesn't mean she did it. If there is evidence against her being found guilty, then, assuming that she has the means, fighting it is smart.
If they can't PROVE she did the crime though, then she shouldn't do the time. Let's see how this works out.
Maybe they aren't SHOWING confusing, but that doesn't make it that they aren't confused, and that you shouldn't be clearer. A LOT (majority?) of people take your words literally. P.s: IQs are bullshit, not that you had a high enough IQ to realize that to begin with.
[quote]can't expect constitutional protection from someone who wasn't acting as an agent of the government.[/quote] Well, generally no, but then again, businesses are not exempt from the law. They can't discriminate, they can't seize your property or detain you without really good reason. So in a way, yes, you can... it is harder though to maintain/hold up.
It isn't simply "copyrighted" v "non-copyrighted" - there are lots of legally free things that ARE indeed copyrighted or rely on a copyright system.
Questioner became violent during interrogation, an you think you'd win if somebody you interrogated this way fought back? Go rot somewhere else, trollbag.
So something being factually accurate in the bounds of a factual discussion means nothing to you? IMO, dismissing it as semantics enforces my point. It doesn't make it theft because THEFT isn't about payment or lack therefore in of itself. Think about the implication of using such a term so willy nilly outside of that in which one can actually be prosecuted for.
First, if you are a company of any size your volume licensing agreement allows them to do these audits, and you can be liable in damages for breach of contract
Considering contracts, or parts of contracts are voided all the time, I wouldn't say this as 100% no-alternative.