While I undersnad that you may have concerns about your privacy, you do not need to worry because you are not doing anything that the FBI will be intersted in.
Sorry, sugar coat it all you want, but that is jsut another variant of the fallacy that "If You're Doing Nothing Wrong There's No Need to Worry". For one you as the average citizen have no idea what kidns of clasified things the FBI does behind your back, or for that matter how that would work in with this issue, two even if there are promises from govt. officials about keeping provacy secure, histroy will tell you that this will either isn't true at all, will not be true for long, or is an honest ida gon awry.
If you aarre, than the system is working and you have no right to complain anywy.
What if you are doing what is "not wrong" tpo the average person and law abiding citizen then? Didn't think of that huh? Look back in history: Sacco and Vanzetti, the Red Scare, people of Japanese DECENT for christ's sake being sent to camps - even internationally things like the Jewish concentration camps in Germany tell you that this is not true all the time, and can not be treated that way safely.
Only those who do illegal things are worried about government snopping.
Hmmm.... are you absolutely serious about this? If so, I reccomend you look at events in history to see that even the "innocent" were target, snooped on, and prosecuted without due process.
The US Government can snoop on me all they want. I got nothing to hide.
Oh really?
Does the government know how you diet, who you have/had sex with, what things you do in your spare time that your friends/family don't?
Point: Nobody has absolutely nothing to hide, unless they are completely open about everything they do in life. To say somebody has nothing to hide is nothing short of a naive fallacy
Why doesn't someone make a game like this for piano/keyboard playing?
Konami has had just the game you seek for years in Japan, however I don't see it getting an American release anytime soon. You may be able to find it in some arcades that specialize in Japanese imports, however.
Keyboardmania on Wikipedia.
Never heard of this one before... sounds cool. ^_^
Don't forget the game that Guitar Hero wouldn't even be around without - Beatmania (I, III, IIDX, etc) - that game is killer addicting (and a source for a large number of the songs in DDR too. ^_^)
I wish that, as much as I like Guitar Hero, Red Octane pressured Roxor to release In the Groove 2 (as they are their distributor) as well as focus on their own games. Some people are dying to play Bloodrush Expert at home and not in an arcade. ~_~
http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php - Video Downloader, allows you to download videos from Google, My Space, Yahoo, Youtube, and many many more places. I used it to download many videos from Youtube already without much of a problem/
All I ever heard, 3 or 4 years ago, was, "WAAAHH!! The RIAA is attacking ISPs and file-sharing programs! They should attack the REAL violators instead!", and "WAAAAHH!! If ONLY the RIAA got with the times and introduced a legal way to digitally download songs for a reasonable price!"
Well, problem is, the method the RIAA is using to do what we thought they should have done from the start is very prone to, and has brought up false positives like people who didn't own a computer, had one without P2P software, or were dead. Your point would only hold ground if this wasn't occuring.
The argument that p2p sharing actually entices people to buy more CD's is ridiculous, that is just a pseudo moral justification to convince oneself that it is OK to keep doing it.
Yeah, and the Earth is flat... (:rolls eyes:) look, as rediculous as it sounds, it does happen. Some people do use it as a justification, others are true to the heart about it, but you lack in seeing this doesn't automatically make it not so, likewise my seeing that it does happen doesn't automatically make my case on the argument always true either.
I'll be that I can find at least 10 people who don't buy the whole album after downloading a song.
Still, I would on the other side of the coin bet I can also find 10 who will - further proving the point that this point is multifaced, and proving it to be one way or the other difinitively is impossible, completely at least.
This justification of simple thievery is laughable, and a sign of just how disconnected people are, especially those pseudo-academic, activist students who will use any reason to justify stealing.
1) You can not accurately determine that this is solely used, or not used as justification, 2) while you may think it is a form of staling, others do not, and if you were debating anything other than moralities (or not) the mention of stealing in place of copyright infringement used to be/still is a source of pestering on/. just as a heads up.
Look, sharing music files via p2p or any other method is not a valid form of protest.
How not? I personally may not agree with it, but civil disobedience is civil disobedience.
Just because you are a student doesn't give you the right to pilfer and purloin because you are "poor".
It is apparent that your post is a source of emotional grabbing, given how you use terms that do not apply (and weren't even put into context).
Oh yeah, and you aren't "poor", you are cheap. Get a job hippie.
Some people are poor, some are cheap, some are both, but don't gloss over every P2P user as one type of person, and use that glossing as a justification for childish namecalling.P>
People who get busted for sharing their music need to own up to their own folly. Most, I would gather, were at least vaguely aware that it wasn't entirely legal, and therefore shouldn't have done it.
Agreed, though I would recomend for the sake of accuracy revising this to note the exception being legally free/sharable music, as in independent artist created.
What people are doing is a form of stealing
in your opinion. ^_^
If I stole a dollar from you everyday, I am not sure that you would mind, but in a few years, I am sure that'd you's have a problem with it.
Though I do get where you are going, taking money away from somebody != not giving them money.
yes, I am anal, and no I am not completely heartles. ^_^
No, there aren't. Theft is taking something without paying.
You are a moron - if that was the definition alone, then EVERYBODY would be in jail, and you would also wind up falsely arresting people... For example, I download music for free from sites like Dmusic.com, where the artist puts his/her/their music up there for free.... did I do anything illegal or immoral by downloading that? no, was it theft? In your dreams prehaps.... the crime here is copyright infringement if and only if you distribute copyrighted works that you don't have permission to share(And unlike the RIAA's BSspeak, not that you didn't pay for, or "own" since that not only contridicts their own ideals about licensing music, but it leaves out obvious exceptions.
While the whole big brother fear crowd CAN get out of hand - THIS is reason to be concrned, especially if it gets out of hand (and a history lesson might teach you a thing or two about it almost always doing so) - I don't want to be watched. If I got nothing to hide, they don't have any reason to watch me. PERIOD... sheeple.... baaa baaaaaaaah!
Patents protect the idea, not merely its expression.
This site disagrees with the definition just slightly:
Patent: A patent is granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the right to stop others from making, using or selling an invention in the United States for a limited period of time. An idea itself is not patentable; patents are only appropriate for useful things or methods of doing something.
Would it make you happier if copyright infringement was finally defined as theft in the criminal code and not simply in legislation? ( The NET Act, No Electronic Theft)
P>Theft title in crime != equating the crimes of copyright infringement and theft. Unless you can show me a passage or two in the actual act itself to prove that it equates the two, you are just jumping the gun with a poorly constructed argument.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just ask people to respect the intellectual property of others and to not download things they have not purchased? Or would that be too much to ask?
The problem with that is not only conforming to a belief that not everybody believes in, but the fact that you would also be telling people to respect the wishes that people may not hold - meaning that independent artists share their music, and your wishes would wrongly hurt this trend. Next time, it'd be wiser to think it all the way through. ^_-
Copyright theft? Either I have been smoking some heavy shit lately, or I magically obtained the legal copyright to the works illicitly when I dwnloaded them. 0_o
Re:Backups shouldn't be fair use.
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 1
Normal use doesn't scratch CDs.
How praytell did my PS2/xbox DDRMAX2 and Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix disks get so scratched (to the point where the steps andmsic were out of sync) when I did not mishandle them at all then? Just because you were fortunate to not have this happen to your music CDs (getting heavily scratch) doesn't mean you can completely rule out regular use scratching the disk, can you?
on't try to justify your theft (and yes, it is theft) by saying that I'm an idiot for paying for my music.
Thats why it is an opinion - TO YOU it is theft - factually (by which I mean legally) it isn't theft, morally on the other hand, that is again an opinion - some think it is theft, dome don't, others think it is as bad as theft, some don't. I don't think you are an idiot for paying for your music, but I do think you are on shaky grounds for failing to distingusih between fact and opinion.
That's precisely the GP's point. "stolen kisses," "stolen thunder," and all the other examples given don't make sense when you apply a literal analysis.
The problem is, last year I was unfortuante to run into people who use the "steal an idea" in a serious, almost literal and serious tone - as if they almost actually believed it possible to apply to non figurative things, hence my reaction to the concept now.
the group think will cut you down or drown you out before you can even get started.
Well, I would think that using industry groupthink to argue your point would make you unpopular - groupthink combatting groupthink, in a way. I don't nessecarily think that copyrights are bad, only the way it is implemented now.
Think of it this way:
If someone stole* a term paper you spent 6 months working on to turn it in before you, would it be wrong? According SlashLogic, it wouldn't be. It would just be copyright infringement.
*Stole in this case would mean "Grabbed a copy off of your hard drive, while not removing the original." I know, I know, "Not theft, I'm stupid, blah blah blah."
This isn't really a case of groupthink more than it is just mis-using language - more dishonesty and fraud in play. Still doesn't take on the definition I was taught as a child (going back to that mentioned in your post) where your definition was always explained to our generation(s) and generations past using examples where people always lost something they had - which is most likely the reason for this line of thinking here on/.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, sugar coat it all you want, but that is jsut another variant of the fallacy that "If You're Doing Nothing Wrong There's No Need to Worry". For one you as the average citizen have no idea what kidns of clasified things the FBI does behind your back, or for that matter how that would work in with this issue, two even if there are promises from govt. officials about keeping provacy secure, histroy will tell you that this will either isn't true at all, will not be true for long, or is an honest ida gon awry.
What if you are doing what is "not wrong" tpo the average person and law abiding citizen then? Didn't think of that huh? Look back in history: Sacco and Vanzetti, the Red Scare, people of Japanese DECENT for christ's sake being sent to camps - even internationally things like the Jewish concentration camps in Germany tell you that this is not true all the time, and can not be treated that way safely.
Now if only Slashdot woild only patent all variants of the "First Post" s the ACs would fear lawsuits for posting them.
Clearly? When you used an unrealistic senario?
Hmmm.... are you absolutely serious about this? If so, I reccomend you look at events in history to see that even the "innocent" were target, snooped on, and prosecuted without due process.
Oh really?
Does the government know how you diet, who you have/had sex with, what things you do in your spare time that your friends/family don't?
Point: Nobody has absolutely nothing to hide, unless they are completely open about everything they do in life. To say somebody has nothing to hide is nothing short of a naive fallacy
Don't forget about Beatmania, the latest release was recent, a U.S release too. ^_^
Never heard of this one before... sounds cool. ^_^
Don't forget the game that Guitar Hero wouldn't even be around without - Beatmania (I, III, IIDX, etc) - that game is killer addicting (and a source for a large number of the songs in DDR too. ^_^)
Sorry, I already don't shoplift. ^_^
I wish that, as much as I like Guitar Hero, Red Octane pressured Roxor to release In the Groove 2 (as they are their distributor) as well as focus on their own games. Some people are dying to play Bloodrush Expert at home and not in an arcade. ~_~
http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php - Video Downloader, allows you to download videos from Google, My Space, Yahoo, Youtube, and many many more places. I used it to download many videos from Youtube already without much of a problem/
Of course you could easily come to that conclusion because it was a 757 that crashed there!
Yes, there are photos of wreckage from this crash too, btw
Well, problem is, the method the RIAA is using to do what we thought they should have done from the start is very prone to, and has brought up false positives like people who didn't own a computer, had one without P2P software, or were dead. Your point would only hold ground if this wasn't occuring.
Yeah, and the Earth is flat... (:rolls eyes:) look, as rediculous as it sounds, it does happen. Some people do use it as a justification, others are true to the heart about it, but you lack in seeing this doesn't automatically make it not so, likewise my seeing that it does happen doesn't automatically make my case on the argument always true either.
Still, I would on the other side of the coin bet I can also find 10 who will - further proving the point that this point is multifaced, and proving it to be one way or the other difinitively is impossible, completely at least.
1) You can not accurately determine that this is solely used, or not used as justification, 2) while you may think it is a form of staling, others do not, and if you were debating anything other than moralities (or not) the mention of stealing in place of copyright infringement used to be/still is a source of pestering on /. just as a heads up.
How not? I personally may not agree with it, but civil disobedience is civil disobedience.
It is apparent that your post is a source of emotional grabbing, given how you use terms that do not apply (and weren't even put into context).
Some people are poor, some are cheap, some are both, but don't gloss over every P2P user as one type of person, and use that glossing as a justification for childish namecalling.P>
Agreed, though I would recomend for the sake of accuracy revising this to note the exception being legally free/sharable music, as in independent artist created.
in your opinion. ^_^
Though I do get where you are going, taking money away from somebody != not giving them money.
yes, I am anal, and no I am not completely heartles. ^_^
You are a moron - if that was the definition alone, then EVERYBODY would be in jail, and you would also wind up falsely arresting people... For example, I download music for free from sites like Dmusic.com, where the artist puts his/her/their music up there for free.... did I do anything illegal or immoral by downloading that? no, was it theft? In your dreams prehaps.... the crime here is copyright infringement if and only if you distribute copyrighted works that you don't have permission to share(And unlike the RIAA's BSspeak, not that you didn't pay for, or "own" since that not only contridicts their own ideals about licensing music, but it leaves out obvious exceptions.
While the whole big brother fear crowd CAN get out of hand - THIS is reason to be concrned, especially if it gets out of hand (and a history lesson might teach you a thing or two about it almost always doing so) - I don't want to be watched. If I got nothing to hide, they don't have any reason to watch me. PERIOD... sheeple.... baaa baaaaaaaah!
This site disagrees with the definition just slightly:
Top 10 Patent Myths: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/0,4621,296849, 00.html
Would it make you happier if copyright infringement was finally defined as theft in the criminal code and not simply in legislation? ( The NET Act, No Electronic Theft)
P>Theft title in crime != equating the crimes of copyright infringement and theft. Unless you can show me a passage or two in the actual act itself to prove that it equates the two, you are just jumping the gun with a poorly constructed argument.
Copyright theft? Either I have been smoking some heavy shit lately, or I magically obtained the legal copyright to the works illicitly when I dwnloaded them. 0_o
How praytell did my PS2/xbox DDRMAX2 and Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix disks get so scratched (to the point where the steps andmsic were out of sync) when I did not mishandle them at all then? Just because you were fortunate to not have this happen to your music CDs (getting heavily scratch) doesn't mean you can completely rule out regular use scratching the disk, can you?
Thats why it is an opinion - TO YOU it is theft - factually (by which I mean legally) it isn't theft, morally on the other hand, that is again an opinion - some think it is theft, dome don't, others think it is as bad as theft, some don't. I don't think you are an idiot for paying for your music, but I do think you are on shaky grounds for failing to distingusih between fact and opinion.
So? They are still misleading kids, and teenagers alike about the use of self defense!
The problem is, last year I was unfortuante to run into people who use the "steal an idea" in a serious, almost literal and serious tone - as if they almost actually believed it possible to apply to non figurative things, hence my reaction to the concept now.
Well, I would think that using industry groupthink to argue your point would make you unpopular - groupthink combatting groupthink, in a way. I don't nessecarily think that copyrights are bad, only the way it is implemented now.
This isn't really a case of groupthink more than it is just mis-using language - more dishonesty and fraud in play. Still doesn't take on the definition I was taught as a child (going back to that mentioned in your post) where your definition was always explained to our generation(s) and generations past using examples where people always lost something they had - which is most likely the reason for this line of thinking here on /.