Um... I don't get your devil;s advocate stance only because... your statement assumes it was proven to be the case - that it saves lives - and even so, just because IT MAY - IF PROVEN - doesn't mean it's the only method, or that it should be automatically supported if less intrusive methods that are equally effective are present. TL;DR: This stance is pure logic fail.
Heh, I'm SURPRISED nobody sued this company - an EULA may state one thing, but I doubt any judge would agree that a company should be allowed to fry another person's computer, destroy property, because it thinks a crime is in progress - whether it is, or a malfunction or programming bug.
Ah, but a backup copy is a copy that explicitly falls outside of that exclusive right in many countries. The exclusive right comes with restrictions, this isn't hard to understand.
you do know that to make a claim, you need to prove it with somehing more than a pompously stated opinion, right?
BTW: Pigs would make great test subjects given how similar their internal systems are to us.... hmmm, kinda scary how similar we are internally to our own breakfast.
I wonder how long it would be before somebody distributes a cracked program with these methods worked around. Now very long I wager depending on how the scheme is implemented.
The only one here who is actually whining is you. So what if you think we're entitled? Sorry, but if we want to be able to REASONABLY use our computer software, our PURCHASES, we have to stand up at some point and say "WE don't like X," or "we really think Y would be better if they did Z instead" - don't like that? Not my fuckin' problem. Point is, DRM is getting more ridiculous every year, and the justifications for it being so absurd even more so - and NATURALLY, we will reach a point where there is a backlash beause people don't like having their purchases controled THAT MUCH. I'm not gonna call you anything, so don't you dare call me entitled for believing I should have reaonable freedoms to use my purchase, you pompous fuck.
No, just no. It doesn't matter if we choose to buy it or not, some actions are just so un-natural that it can't be tolerated, especially WITH the risk of such behavior becoming acceptible and more widespread. pulll your head out of your ass. We have the right to be able to use, keep the disk of software, or whatever form it is, of softare, PERIOD.
In this case, I think that all the airport security is for the general public's peace of mind.
Well, last time I checked, there is no right to FEEL safe, especially at the expense of our rights, health, or well being. A reasonable right to expect to be safe yes, but not a right to merely feel safe.
Are you saying that I as a professional composer should let companies use my older music for free in commercial contexts, to benefit society?
Well, depending on HOW OLD that work is, that answer varies from no, to maybe, to a definitive YES - something that was very much true of copyright laws back when the term was considerably shorter.
*yawn* You assume that because people complain about X then they do so about Y for Z reasons with no proof at all, in a smug and arrogant way.... and we're supposed to take you seriously why?
But this isn't HBO, and this isn't many years ago, you stupid clod... just because you think it is the right thing to do doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to feel differently.
I wouldn't call that solid - reactions to piracy can prove they're scared, but in of itself doesn't show hard facts about damages - and titles not being released is also dubious because other factors can and often do play a role [and you can't just ignore them].
Honestly, I'd be tempted to encourage everybody to write to the FTC over this. There is no way slandering somebody and making them pay to be unslandered is legal.
A lot of presumption there, anon, got any proof about the first part? I'm guessing on the 2nd part, but if they are interfering with legal traffic in an illegal manner no TOS Or any shit like that can prevent them from being sued over it.
That's... kinda not the point. I think what is being asked is, if you aren't sharing the entire work how can somebody reasonably be nailed for sharing the entire work as opposed to part of the work, and how can what they want be considered anywhere near proportional?
(i.e., theft because you did not pay for content intended for sale)
So, if I get a CD as a gift, that is theft?
I got it for free, legally [as it in o itself was legally obtained] - obviously you don't know what heft is... grab a dictionary, and read some law for fuck's sake/
Slashdot Mirror
Um... I don't get your devil;s advocate stance only because... your statement assumes it was proven to be the case - that it saves lives - and even so, just because IT MAY - IF PROVEN - doesn't mean it's the only method, or that it should be automatically supported if less intrusive methods that are equally effective are present. TL;DR: This stance is pure logic fail.
Heh, I'm SURPRISED nobody sued this company - an EULA may state one thing, but I doubt any judge would agree that a company should be allowed to fry another person's computer, destroy property, because it thinks a crime is in progress - whether it is, or a malfunction or programming bug.
"... the social network will gradually introduce video advertising to minimize user disruption."
Bullshit. Video ads are INHERENTLY disruptive.
Ah, but a backup copy is a copy that explicitly falls outside of that exclusive right in many countries. The exclusive right comes with restrictions, this isn't hard to understand.
you do know that to make a claim, you need to prove it with somehing more than a pompously stated opinion, right?
BTW: Pigs would make great test subjects given how similar their internal systems are to us.... hmmm, kinda scary how similar we are internally to our own breakfast.
Either you're kidding, or you're serious, in which case if you're serious I'd ask if you're stupid. Think about it.
I wonder how long it would be before somebody distributes a cracked program with these methods worked around. Now very long I wager depending on how the scheme is implemented.
The only one here who is actually whining is you. So what if you think we're entitled? Sorry, but if we want to be able to REASONABLY use our computer software, our PURCHASES, we have to stand up at some point and say "WE don't like X," or "we really think Y would be better if they did Z instead" - don't like that? Not my fuckin' problem. Point is, DRM is getting more ridiculous every year, and the justifications for it being so absurd even more so - and NATURALLY, we will reach a point where there is a backlash beause people don't like having their purchases controled THAT MUCH. I'm not gonna call you anything, so don't you dare call me entitled for believing I should have reaonable freedoms to use my purchase, you pompous fuck.
No, just no. It doesn't matter if we choose to buy it or not, some actions are just so un-natural that it can't be tolerated, especially WITH the risk of such behavior becoming acceptible and more widespread. pulll your head out of your ass. We have the right to be able to use, keep the disk of software, or whatever form it is, of softare, PERIOD.
Actually, file sharing is not in of itself a crime - file sharing is simply a transfer of date, what is being trnasferred could constitute a crime.
In this case, I think that all the airport security is for the general public's peace of mind.
Well, last time I checked, there is no right to FEEL safe, especially at the expense of our rights, health, or well being. A reasonable right to expect to be safe yes, but not a right to merely feel safe.
Are you saying that I as a professional composer should let companies use my older music for free in commercial contexts, to benefit society?
Well, depending on HOW OLD that work is, that answer varies from no, to maybe, to a definitive YES - something that was very much true of copyright laws back when the term was considerably shorter.
*yawn* You assume that because people complain about X then they do so about Y for Z reasons with no proof at all, in a smug and arrogant way.... and we're supposed to take you seriously why?
But this isn't HBO, and this isn't many years ago, you stupid clod... just because you think it is the right thing to do doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to feel differently.
I wouldn't call that solid - reactions to piracy can prove they're scared, but in of itself doesn't show hard facts about damages - and titles not being released is also dubious because other factors can and often do play a role [and you can't just ignore them].
That would be the 747-100s though, right? They had 747-SPs to about 1993 or so I thought.
Hmmm.... and what relevance does that hold to anything?
Honestly, I'd be tempted to encourage everybody to write to the FTC over this. There is no way slandering somebody and making them pay to be unslandered is legal.
A lot of presumption there, anon, got any proof about the first part? I'm guessing on the 2nd part, but if they are interfering with legal traffic in an illegal manner no TOS Or any shit like that can prevent them from being sued over it.
That's... kinda not the point. I think what is being asked is, if you aren't sharing the entire work how can somebody reasonably be nailed for sharing the entire work as opposed to part of the work, and how can what they want be considered anywhere near proportional?
1 a week out of ... how many torrenters? Millions of millions I'd figure.
I don't know how to respond to this - the irony, the lack of logic, the smugness, the derpiness is overwhelming.
(i.e., theft because you did not pay for content intended for sale)
So, if I get a CD as a gift, that is theft? I got it for free, legally [as it in o itself was legally obtained] - obviously you don't know what heft is... grab a dictionary, and read some law for fuck's sake/
Maybe it is another group of hypocrites - if you actually knew what the word meant / could demonstrate being able to identify hypocrites.
I call bullshit.