oops... boy do I feel like an ass now. Maybe god's payback for making a girl in my school look line an ass during my stand-up comedy routine at a talent show I had last night.
Kinda like if I leave my car unlocked on a public street it doesn't mean I'm giving permission for someone to come along and steal it.
Bad analogy, Einstine.
IF you steal a car, they no longer have it, if you steal money from a bank account they lost it, but if you copy a file, they still have it. You can violate IP rights, mutilate, copy IP, but you can not steal it. It may sound illogical, but as far as I know, it makes perfect sense, and apparently the law thinks so too.
(the first dramatically overstating the case, the other using six syllables to make the fact that you're getting something you didn't pay for seem like an inconsequential legal technicality).
Or the fact that the law, or logic for that matter doesn't constitute the act of taking something without payment as theft, but instead it is taking something without permission, payment being A FORM OF permission, as theft. The reason being if the definition was so simple, everybody would in some way be guilty of this moral and legal crime, and have to face punishment, so it was made much more specific to some people, while others, like the RIAA and MPAA/BSA perpetuate this idea to this day.
Stating that copyright infringement is not theft is not only a legal technicality, but also shows people don't buy into over broad definitions either.
You must not be a parent or a recent high school student/graduate.
As a matter of fact, I am a high school student, one that goes to a school that had been through it all, soda ban (I didn't really care), a snack food ban (very recently). even a dodgeball ban which has been defied before.
When I was in high school, I always ate the relatively healthy meals provided by the cafeteria. My parents gave me a check each month to deposit in my lunch account, and I ate from that. However, I also had a lot of friends whose parents just gave them some money every morning. A lot of these kids would avoid the cafeteria food and instead spend their money at the snack bar.
Now, I'm not saying that the cafeteria food was tasty eating, but it was moderately balanced. For my $2.10 each day, I got a half pint of milk, a main item like a cheeseburger or pizza, and two side dishes like french fries, canned fruit, pudding, or mixed nuts. The people spending the money at the snack bar would get a can of pop, a cookie, and either a bagel or a bag of chips.
Not only are prices at my school high, ("popcorn chicken," a brownie and a Gatorade costs over $5.50), but generally the food is over-cooked, over fried, and often the milk and other dairy treats are past expiration.
Of course if I was a parent, they should always try for the healthier option, but I also don't see why some "snack bar" options wouls hurt if they were properly incorporated into the diet.
People don't always need to "know what they are talking about" to know when something is wrong. Maybe this is NOT one of those times, mind you, but it can/has/will happen(ed).
Yes, it ruins the childhood not in that they don't get to play the game though, but in that a parent gave them trust that was restricted by the government.
I know i wont let my kids buy them. I dont see a problem with this at all.
I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.
I think that in this mess, attitudes like this only contribute to the problem. On what basis should teenagers be restricted in what they EAT? I know there is a problem of obesity, but that is not a problem for everybody, so not everybody should be forced to live by standards to help the obese. What about anorexic teenagers? What about the perfectly healthy teenagers? Eating a Big Mac once in a while, or even once a week is not the problem, it's when they eat too much of the food, any food uncontrollably where it becomes a serious issue, as well as when people think they can go around dictating what others can and can't eat that is the problem.
Sheesh, I hate the "one type should be forced on all" attitudes of some people in this country.
Don't let them become the monsters that you see in games? Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after (preferably before) he/she plays the game, is it just me or is this bill being passed with an unusual emotional ovecharge?
) Pull the CD out of your drive, and put it back under the glass of scotch/soda/coffee/etc where it belongs.
Hell, why not just rip out the CD drive and use that?
I think this idea of IBM's is incredibly daft, I question why anybody sees what this can be used for? While you MAY have the option to buy a computer without it NOW, eventually if it isn't stopped, you will have no choice.
I am only going to respond to one of your points for now, considering I had a very long post, but lost it do to some blunder on my part.
Obviously you are technically correct in the legal sense. In a moral sense, it is stealing.
I am sorry, but you have no right to determin what is morally stealing for anybody else but yourslef. Copyright infringement being morally wrong is something I think a lot of (but obviously not all of us, maybe not even the majority) us feel, myself included to an extent, but not everybody feels the "stealing" analogy fits for technical and logical reasons that UI think you will have to accept.
B. The software companies might not gain money, but that is npot always easy to determine.
realize that a lot of slashdotters want to pretend that piracy is not stealing.
Likewise many copyright holders will be too deluded to realize that what these people are saying is factually (not taking about morals) correct. the crime is copyright infringement. Not theft. It has been legally established COUNTLES times, and continuing to call this crime anything other than what it really is, illegal, unauthorized copying, is ignorant, since it doesn't look, act, or quak like a duck, it isn't a duck no matter how much they or you bitch and complain about it. Should copyright holders go against infringers? Absolutely, as long as they have enough proof and are not acting on "good faith" (*hack*).
If some guy invented a new mouse-trap and got a patent on it, and started selling them out of his garage, would you argue that it is OK to copy his mouse-trap and start selling them?
The circumstances are varying on this one.
Do you think it is OK to make photo-copies of books and give them away to friends?
If I was the copyright holder, or the copyright holder gave permission, or the books were in the public domain, then it is no problem to me.
the concept of intellectual property rights plays an important role in promoting the progress of science and the arts. That is why the framers included the progress clause in the constitution.
Way back when, the concept of copyrights and tradmarks were truely in the idea of promoting progress in science and arts, but while that can still be somewhat seen today, it all has been mangled by corporations, and copyrights outlast their usefullness by 60 years. I say we should reform copyrights to what they were at one point in the past, 14 years, with an optional extension. There is NO REASON copyrights should last for more than 100 years easily, IMO.
I think you will feel better if you just admit that you want to get stuff for free that you used to have to pay for.
I will admit nothing that is not true dep down in my hard and soul, despite the fact that others ight think this way, you can't assume everybody does.
Copyrights were originally about promoting creativity. After a short period of time, the finished work would go into the public domain so others can build on it and make it better for everybody else, or provide their own version of that work. Nowadays copyrights can last over 100 years easily, and if somebody sees a similarity, NO MATTER how small, to their work w/yours, you can be sued. Corporations hold the copyrights to most publicly hyped works, and the creators are only motupieces, sometimes (strong emphasis on sometimes) making them say and do things they don't want to, always being tricked into thinking this way is better.
Now tell me, was this really what copyrights were for?
Personally, I don't see why the corporations can't be contempt with 14 years + 1 extension for another 14 years. I bet many copyright holders wouldn't hate it.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Copying protected works is a crime in most parts of the world.
Wrong. Copying progected works without permission is a crime. Case-in-point: Dmusic.com is a website with copyrighted music that the artists put up for free and/or encourage to share.
The whole point of my statement was, incase people mis-understood it, is that making a profit is not gaurenteed, and if it is, not always in the way somebody wants it to be. It is because of that I think they should not be allowed to have the mindset that defies probability is all.
and the perception of most people from the "mp3 era" is that file swapping is not theft.
I disagree about it not being an issue. I think it is an issue when a company, or group of companies try to say "crime Y is the same as crime Z! Agree with me NOW!" when people know that there are (minor and significant) differences, differences that the law does accept.
It really is stealing and it really is hurting them, although not nearly as much as they claim.
No, it is not stealing. Stealing implies loss of something they have in their posession. Downloading a file does not relieve them of that posession. The crime is copyright infringement for a reason. A file was copied without concent. It is a simple accepted philosophical ideaology, and legal fact as well. (I do not condone copyright infringement.) Calling it anything other than whay it really is... that is just plain wrong. Words mean things... laws and philosophy are built on those specific words for a meaning./ Sure words change, but some don't, and for very good reason... usually the one who want to change the unchangable do so for a motive other than truth and education.
If there is no financial incentive to create new works, there will be very little new work.
This one I have thought long and hard about, and have come to the conclusion that the only reason this is stated is that there are too many sheep that believe that profit is the only reason people create works. It is one, but no the only. There are charitible people, hobbiests, ect that create things, others do it because they are bored. I think we need to teach people that profit is no the only reason for creativity, actually... I am happy that you stated "If there is no financial incentive to create new works, there will be very little new work" becaus we will weed out people that brainwash everybody to think that profit is the only reason for creativity, as the statement also shows at the same time.
Lets say you are hosting 1,500 songs, and a portion of each song has been sent from your pc to somebody out there for free an average of a dozen times.
18,000 *.99 = $17,820.00
This is all under the (unknown) assumption that the downloaders would have otherwise bought the album, or will not. Some will not, others will, but the flaw with your (the RIAA/MPAA/BSA's) method of finding out "losses" is all based on the assumption that if it wasn't downloaded, it would be bought, which is NOT always false.
>...copyright is about protecting the right to profit from an otherwise easily copyable work.
what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to profit from.
The right to profit from an easily copyable work is something that should be protected
This is not what copyright laws were about, and to the true die-hard oldschool believer and many creators alike still isn't. Copyrights were not ment to be a way to control revenue. Copyrights were meant to promote creativity through the temporary granting of a monopoly over a particular work, kind of a "You have solo control over this work, do with it as you please until you have to give it up to public domain where others can build upon it." After that limited time, works would go into the public domain where they could be built upon, but as the extentions become more and more, this will be seen less and less often. As far as I am concerned though, creators don't have a right to profit, instead they have a right to try to profit (which I think the law works in that sense too), because quite frankly, you really don't know how well a work will do, popularity or profit wise, beforehand.
Different crime, same effect.. money out of hard working software developers etc. pockets..
100% incorrect way at looking at it... especially since you never had that money in the first place, and when I download, no money appeared on my desk.
You steal from me or you rip off my software.. you're still a scumbag who needs to be hunted down and sent to jail for a nice long stay in my book.
I agree that if you stea software from the story you deserve jail time... oh wait, you are talking about copying. What is it with people like you, where you have to make a accusing attitude, false analogies and emotionally loaded/factually incorrect terminology to make your points? As much as I think you shouldn't be ripped of IF you did a good enough job to ensure that the quality of the software was good, and that whatever demo you have available to others who are not ready to by it yet is also good enough, you really have to stop making false statements. "You steal from me or you rip off my software..." technically is a false statement in terms of what goes on in the idea of copying, since the "profits" you have claimed to have stolen, you didn't even have yet. Who the hell are you to say that you *will* make X ammount of money from software and making less than that makes people theives when (a) You don't even know how much money you will make for sure yet... and (b) the money that was "stoeln" you didn't even have yet?
As for being jailed... that is for the courts to decide, and not the over-emotional programmer. As much as I don't nessecarily agree with piracy (although there are *some* exceptions I can think of) This kind of attitude is as sickening as the RIAA/mPAA/BSA and *a catagory* of p2p downloaders,
Slashdot Mirror
At least my grammer isn't annoying as somebody who spells any word that ends with an 's' with a 'z'
And I am even more amused by somebody being such a hypocrite to complain about something and do it at the same time!
People will find anything here insightful, informative, or funny for some reason.
oops... boy do I feel like an ass now. Maybe god's payback for making a girl in my school look line an ass during my stand-up comedy routine at a talent show I had last night.
Bad analogy, Einstine.
IF you steal a car, they no longer have it, if you steal money from a bank account they lost it, but if you copy a file, they still have it. You can violate IP rights, mutilate, copy IP, but you can not steal it. It may sound illogical, but as far as I know, it makes perfect sense, and apparently the law thinks so too.
Or the fact that the law, or logic for that matter doesn't constitute the act of taking something without payment as theft, but instead it is taking something without permission, payment being A FORM OF permission, as theft. The reason being if the definition was so simple, everybody would in some way be guilty of this moral and legal crime, and have to face punishment, so it was made much more specific to some people, while others, like the RIAA and MPAA/BSA perpetuate this idea to this day.
Stating that copyright infringement is not theft is not only a legal technicality, but also shows people don't buy into over broad definitions either.
As a matter of fact, I am a high school student, one that goes to a school that had been through it all, soda ban (I didn't really care), a snack food ban (very recently). even a dodgeball ban which has been defied before.
Not only are prices at my school high, ("popcorn chicken," a brownie and a Gatorade costs over $5.50), but generally the food is over-cooked, over fried, and often the milk and other dairy treats are past expiration.
Of course if I was a parent, they should always try for the healthier option, but I also don't see why some "snack bar" options wouls hurt if they were properly incorporated into the diet.
People don't always need to "know what they are talking about" to know when something is wrong. Maybe this is NOT one of those times, mind you, but it can/has/will happen(ed).Yes, it ruins the childhood not in that they don't get to play the game though, but in that a parent gave them trust that was restricted by the government.
I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.
Sheesh, I hate the "one type should be forced on all" attitudes of some people in this country.
Don't let them become the monsters that you see in games? Simple, talk to your kid about the game before/after (preferably before) he/she plays the game, is it just me or is this bill being passed with an unusual emotional ovecharge?
Hell, why not just rip out the CD drive and use that?
I think this idea of IBM's is incredibly daft, I question why anybody sees what this can be used for? While you MAY have the option to buy a computer without it NOW, eventually if it isn't stopped, you will have no choice.
I am sorry, but you have no right to determin what is morally stealing for anybody else but yourslef. Copyright infringement being morally wrong is something I think a lot of (but obviously not all of us, maybe not even the majority) us feel, myself included to an extent, but not everybody feels the "stealing" analogy fits for technical and logical reasons that UI think you will have to accept.
Still, I think we can use it to trace back what U.S copyrightsd were meant to do.
Personally, I don't see why the corporations can't be contempt with 14 years + 1 extension for another 14 years. I bet many copyright holders wouldn't hate it.
Wrong. Copying progected works without permission is a crime. Case-in-point: Dmusic.com is a website with copyrighted music that the artists put up for free and/or encourage to share.
The whole point of my statement was, incase people mis-understood it, is that making a profit is not gaurenteed, and if it is, not always in the way somebody wants it to be. It is because of that I think they should not be allowed to have the mindset that defies probability is all.
I disagree about it not being an issue. I think it is an issue when a company, or group of companies try to say "crime Y is the same as crime Z! Agree with me NOW!" when people know that there are (minor and significant) differences, differences that the law does accept.
This is all under the (unknown) assumption that the downloaders would have otherwise bought the album, or will not. Some will not, others will, but the flaw with your (the RIAA/MPAA/BSA's) method of finding out "losses" is all based on the assumption that if it wasn't downloaded, it would be bought, which is NOT always false.
This is not what copyright laws were about, and to the true die-hard oldschool believer and many creators alike still isn't. Copyrights were not ment to be a way to control revenue. Copyrights were meant to promote creativity through the temporary granting of a monopoly over a particular work, kind of a "You have solo control over this work, do with it as you please until you have to give it up to public domain where others can build upon it." After that limited time, works would go into the public domain where they could be built upon, but as the extentions become more and more, this will be seen less and less often. As far as I am concerned though, creators don't have a right to profit, instead they have a right to try to profit (which I think the law works in that sense too), because quite frankly, you really don't know how well a work will do, popularity or profit wise, beforehand.
100% incorrect way at looking at it... especially since you never had that money in the first place, and when I download, no money appeared on my desk.
You steal from me or you rip off my software.. you're still a scumbag who needs to be hunted down and sent to jail for a nice long stay in my book.
I agree that if you stea software from the story you deserve jail time... oh wait, you are talking about copying. What is it with people like you, where you have to make a accusing attitude, false analogies and emotionally loaded/factually incorrect terminology to make your points? As much as I think you shouldn't be ripped of IF you did a good enough job to ensure that the quality of the software was good, and that whatever demo you have available to others who are not ready to by it yet is also good enough, you really have to stop making false statements. "You steal from me or you rip off my software.. ." technically is a false statement in terms of what goes on in the idea of copying, since the "profits" you have claimed to have stolen, you didn't even have yet. Who the hell are you to say that you *will* make X ammount of money from software and making less than that makes people theives when (a) You don't even know how much money you will make for sure yet... and (b) the money that was "stoeln" you didn't even have yet?
As for being jailed... that is for the courts to decide, and not the over-emotional programmer. As much as I don't nessecarily agree with piracy (although there are *some* exceptions I can think of) This kind of attitude is as sickening as the RIAA/mPAA/BSA and *a catagory* of p2p downloaders,
Yes thank you, it does make me sleep well at night knowing people know what the crime that was commited was copyright infringement.