Sorry, I have a law teacher, a unbiased and factual source
Getting something for nothing when everyone else has to pay for it is illegal, period, regardless of whether you "would have paid for it" if you couldn't get it for free.
Illegality doesn't always have to do with payment, don't you know? Using your logic, IF a friend gives me a legally bought CD I broke the law because of your logic because I didn't pay. Makses sense now? Your logic is again illogical, Indie bands have free music online, and CDs you can buy, to you downloading would still be illegal, right?
Jonesy, you flunked reading comprehension 101. Go back and read and see where I stated anything was legal or illegal. You will see I haven't supported illegla donwnloading but instead punched holes in your, sorry, the RIAA's arguments.
Not exactly. If I download 1,000 MP3's (truly many people have more than this), and each song sells for $0.99 then I have just stolen $1,000 from someone.
No you haven't, you didn't give $1,000 to them. If they don't have your $1,000, how can you take it back, or remove it? You can't. saying "they can make money, but potentially won't make what they want" and saying "I won't make it because people are taking money away from me by downloading" are two different things because in the first instan ce they don't have money you have, in the second, they already had money and you might be taking it away somehow, but I cannot see how though. I cannot see the logic because this is another "I made something, pay me" argument. An argument where the person had set a high monetary gain for a goal, and also slipped into the logic that they had it already and were loosing it by free downloading, which in reality isn't the case because of the fact that you don't have it you can't loose it.
Why do you all post "just didn't get it at all doesn't make it legal or even "more legal."" esque endings? I NEVER SAID it was legally or morally right, but that the arguments are illogical, or did everybody replying with this kind of ending flunk reading comprehension?
Not exactly. If I download 1,000 MP3's (truly many people have more than this), and each song sells for $0.99 then I have just stolen $1,000 from someone.
Impossible. They don't have the money in the first place.
Wording it as "money they can potentially make" is just a nice way of saying "money they didn't make cause someone took it away from them by illegally downloading music."
No, again because they don't have the money already. They don't have it, and they might not get it. Your logic is illogical because you assume that they already have the money in the first place, you can not make and not make money, and have money taken away from you in the same instance.
Re:"stole that intellectular property"?
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
Fine. Call it copyright infringement -- which is illegal beyond any doubt.
Jesus, it's like talking to a snooty clique girl from High School. I NEVER said copyright infringement is legal at all. I will continue to call it copyright infringement because that is what is the crime being commited by people who share copyrighted works without permission.
understand where everyone is coming from, "Hey, we had a good thing going and they took it away from us. We were walking into 7/11 stores and taking a penny from the penny tray, sure, every once in a while someone stole a couple million from a bank, but they just got the wrong directions to the 7/11."
This is a bad example, since the issue with music is more involved with money they can potentially make, but didn't, as opposed to loosing (via theft) something they had.
I do not see why Mapster is complaining, since if you don't keep up your napster subscription, you can't keep the music you "bought." Like mentioned above it expires like a magazine subscription.
DRM I think should be ditched. It has been, and most likely always be hacked so it fails, and while it in many cases protects rights while not impeeding on Fair Use, there are companies who have DRM that does this, and maintaining a basic DRM format that allows rights protectuions with some basic fair use reconition is diffucult. Basically some DRM says "you are a criminal" by not allowing ANY copying at all, even when individual users didn't commit a crime, even though there are those that did.
Basically, DRM should either be tweaked so it is fair for everybody, or it should be ditched. I am leaning more towards ditching DRM ideas at this time.
Is this a parody? Seriously, you understand that stealing is a crime and protecting your property is not.
Seriously, did you get that line from the MPAA "Piracy: It's a Crime" trailer, or something? The isue behind DRM and music has nothing to do with theft ("Stealing" ISN'T EVEN A LEGAL TERM, THEFT IS. besides, copyright infringement is not a form of theft, although it IS illegal.), but instead about whether or not we have to deal with people deciding for others to use a format that risks (or already has) restricting fair use rights because people are abusing a system.
How would you feel if you and a group of friends were told that you can't do something harmless (in this case, making a backup copy of a CDs) because people were abusing this? You are basically getting punished for something you could *potentially* do, EVEN IF you don't plan to commit the crime, it is pure industry bullshit.
C and C++ are the languages compiled by VC++ and MinGW. Which other compiler were you thinking of?
DevC++, Borland are two others, compile for Windows platform, linux, the point is that VC++ is not the only compiler for C/C++ windows programs.
Assembler too.
Not at the level of functional complexity characteristic of modern PC video games.
I mean internet controlled video content methods, and how people recieve media via that, and standard television methods, and how the interface is made?
The patents purchased reportedly have to do with audience research and measurement, integration of television signals with internet access, automatic rescheduling of recordings, content screening, enhanced program information search and electronic program guide interface enhancements. For those of you privacy advocates out there you will love Patent No. 5,872,588: Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber. "
This all slipped by me like water, so now they control a method of how people reciecve and view content online/on TV?
It should be (what I define as) fair $9-$10, otherwise thats wrong, but don't criticize me if I put it out for free.
I realized that is what I should have stated, and I apologize. I think that price is another subjective issue.
But in the same breath you have told other people what price they should charge for their music AND then criticized others for doing the same exact thing! This is rich!
Prove it.
Nowhere did I say that people shouldn't charge anything. Nowhere did I say anybody is wrong for charging, I feel you are mis-understanding what I have said.
...And if your game runs on Windows, yes. Or are most Windows games made with MinGW rather than Microsoft Visual C++?
You are forgetting that VC++ and MinGW ARE NOT the only languages you can program windows based games and applications., there is C and C++, Java, Assembler too.
Nothing, so long as the price is fair (not more than $9 - $10 an album, $0.99 - $1.50 for individual songs), there isn't DRM (if there is, it doesn't interfere with my backing it up on my computer for personal use), and that if I was making the music, I had that choice. Lately people have been putting down others who make music and distribute it (what THEY make) for free which is quite irritating.
Suddenly, the included 32MB stick can hold a web browser as well as games and software obtained freely off the Internet (or cheaply) that Sony doesn't see a dime off from.
IF sony didn't make the software (IE: Not pirated, legal) and IF (IF, this may not be true) the games/software are anywhere like the diversity/availability of hme brewed GB/GBA/Genesis games, what is the problem? This circulates the "I made something, so pay me every time somebody makes something to add to it" attitude that fails. Do you pay M$ every time you make a PC game or somebody makes a Windows XP compatable game?
In fact, it may even serve to draw attention away from the games Sony does make money on in those people who would have bought them otherwise.
That is a big may, wouldn't you say? I mean, yeah if they are good enough in comparison then Sony will have to worry, but if not, I din't see the need for concern.
And I would also go to say it isn't wise to assume a certain person would buy {Game X} if an alternative game, or even pirated versions of the game were freely available, I mean, I download certain games, and buy copies of them after, some people just download games, some people just buy games, it really is a crapshoot, you never know exaqctly what will happen.
The current hacks aren't people writing C and asm code for the thing. It's generally things like PC utility programs to resize jpegs, reformat video to mpeg4, converting text to jpeg for lack of a general text viewer, etc.
Granted this IS true to an extent, there ARE people programming in C/C++ and ASM hacks and home-brewed for certain systems, but the technology and skill/howto isn't quite thre with PS/PS2/PSP systems YET, but eventually it wil. Heck, now you can program SEGA Genesis games in C/C++ using a unlicensed C/C++ SDK.
"Just slipped m mind" as in that there are home brewed games for the GBA legally made, I mean.
Of course the only legal trouble with home brewed games that could POTENTIALLY (if the companies make a fuss about home brewed games, that is) is about whether or not they are licensed.
GBA pirates, Dreamcast hacks, NES/GB/Sega Genesis home brewed games are all examples.
There also exist GBA homebrew games such as mine. I hope you didn't intend a subtle slam against the gbadev community.
I didn't intend that at all, it just slipped my mind. I am learning ARM Assembler to program GBA games myself.
It is not something that a group of people could get together and say "we like this device, we want to make games for it".
Regardless, people WILL do it, licensed or not, organized in a group or not. GBA pirates, Dreamcast hacks, NES/GB/Sega Genesis home brewed games are all examples.
I really wish they would release a SKD for the PSP, it would make way for more diversity in content for the PSP in terms of games and applications. Attempting to port Flight Simulator to PSP anybody?
Radio is closed to indie artists because honestly most of them suck.
No, closed off because you folk ASSUME they mostly suck. I have heard some very good indie bands, one not very well known called Polaris for example.
I'm sorry, but if you goto the streets and talk to "real people" and show them a coldplay song and then show them some indie song, most likely they'd pick the cold play song to be on the radio.
First, just because you talk online doesn't make the people you communicate to on the other side more or less existant or real. Secondly, this is VERY subjective. It depebds on the indie artist, and the person and if that person has heard/likes indie music. Just because the majority likes mainstream doesn't mean that that is the only thing they should play. Everybody should have an equal chancem, no matter how much they rock or suck.
I'm sorry, but your subjective opinion based examples don't sway me.
You take something that you should have paid for. I call that STEALING.
That is a really broad definition of stealing, isn't it? Why not using your definition to arrest people who didn't pay plants and trees for the oxygen they produce, or the deer people shoot for food then?
No, they were infringing on copyrights. Grokster might not be, because they don't actually index the files in a database, neither does this, but that is yet to be determined.
No one is going to make music for nothing
How do you know? There are people who do it, it's called a hobby. Not the largest group, but still a group that exists. I'll make an even bolder statement here; I do it! I make music for nothing because it is my hobby!
There is a differene that you seem to miss between "making something for nothing" and "making somthing, and not caring whether or not you recieve something for it or not." The bands that encourage sharing are those that usually fit into group B.
no one is going to pay for something they can get for free.
How the heck do you know? I downloaded music from Green Day (who also placed.ra files of their old albums up on the website for free too), and a week later I bought 3 CDs by that band. Apparently your logic, sorry, the RIAA's logic doesn't apply to everybody.
Orwell was afraid of, and loathed Communism - which seems to be the goal of the FOSS information wants to be free set.
I disagree strongly. I think that the FCC controlling the radio, cable, and the RIAA trying to shut down services because it was used illegally despite the possible legal uses is more akin to the Orwellian world than those who want to resist this by sharing files online.
Orwell would think the average slashdotter is a douchebag with his head up his ass, and he'd be right to think so.
I think you are one of the many who muis-understands the/. crowd because you have your head too far up the intestional track. Orwell would see the logical crowd at/., accept them and think of them as the equivilant to 1984's "Brotherhood", and the minority, those you feel as douches would be rejected.
Slashdot Mirror
*Napster, not Mapster. Sorry.
I do not see why Mapster is complaining, since if you don't keep up your napster subscription, you can't keep the music you "bought." Like mentioned above it expires like a magazine subscription. DRM I think should be ditched. It has been, and most likely always be hacked so it fails, and while it in many cases protects rights while not impeeding on Fair Use, there are companies who have DRM that does this, and maintaining a basic DRM format that allows rights protectuions with some basic fair use reconition is diffucult. Basically some DRM says "you are a criminal" by not allowing ANY copying at all, even when individual users didn't commit a crime, even though there are those that did. Basically, DRM should either be tweaked so it is fair for everybody, or it should be ditched. I am leaning more towards ditching DRM ideas at this time.
I mean internet controlled video content methods, and how people recieve media via that, and standard television methods, and how the interface is made?
Nothing, so long as the price is fair (not more than $9 - $10 an album, $0.99 - $1.50 for individual songs), there isn't DRM (if there is, it doesn't interfere with my backing it up on my computer for personal use), and that if I was making the music, I had that choice. Lately people have been putting down others who make music and distribute it (what THEY make) for free which is quite irritating.
"Just slipped m mind" as in that there are home brewed games for the GBA legally made, I mean. Of course the only legal trouble with home brewed games that could POTENTIALLY (if the companies make a fuss about home brewed games, that is) is about whether or not they are licensed.
I really wish they would release a SKD for the PSP, it would make way for more diversity in content for the PSP in terms of games and applications. Attempting to port Flight Simulator to PSP anybody?