I was reading this e-mail thinking, "my god what do these guys DO to their poor PS2s", then I realised I too had to replace one (but it did suffer some serious abuse). And then I thought some more and realised I've now got one of those small-and-quieter ones, so I must've replaced it again, but I don't even remember when or why! So yeh, I'm on my third PS2.
This one seems to be fine so far, but it definitely doesn't get anything like the same amount of abuse that the previous two got.
Here's an unrelated question - what gives with the 720/1080(i/p) modes offered by the next gen consoles. Most 50" plasmas I've seen offer 768 lines which is too high or too low depending. Are there plasma 50"+ HDTVs available which support 1080p? If not, will there be a problem scaling to suit the tvs natural resolution?
I'm still in the throes of a OMG-that-was-so-cool frenzy, so forgive me if I go a little overboard, but that is one of the best web-sites I've seen in ages.
I am in work right now, so I can't keep a colourful magnetic-letter game on my screen for too long without attracting attention, but I am gonna mess with that as soon as I get home.
I like the way you can see emergent cooperation, and the human mind at work on an individual basis too. You can see plans formulating in peoples heads and then you can see them executed briefly, before being sabotaged.
ALthough at one stage, someone decided to hide all the letters in the corner, and I joined in, and pretty soon almost all of us were doing it, and they all got there. I like the way that goal was achieved without any direct communication between the participants.
I have to do some more thinking, but to reiterate - I LIKE THIS LINK!
I'm not sure why you think this guy Peaker is from the US, or why you think it's obvious that he is, but either way what he says is
"Copyright for unlimited times has no basis in the Constitution, and thus it is legally wrong."
My point is, whether any given consitution has particular provision or not for copyright, does not automatically mean that copyright is legally wrong. It's that simple.
Also,
I don't know where you're getting "28 years" from, this is what I can find on the subject -
"For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of a joint work, copyright lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, copyright lasts 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever ends first. "
I said "only 80 years" because I was comparing against eternity.
Your second point is not even remotely relevant to ongoing software theft, which is what we've been discussing.
Copyright for unlimited times has no basis in the Constitution, and thus it is legally wrong.
First up, which constitution? Lots of countries don't even have constitutions, but they still have legal systems.
Also, I'm no legal expert, but I thought under the I-forget-it's-name Convention, copyright only lasted 80 years? Isn't this the reason we can now read Darwin/Dickens etc online without any law being broken?
In your second point, you are making an overly-simplistic, and may I say naieve, case. The purpose of copyright is different in its details depending on whom you ask, but I'm pretty sure most people would agree, that (in theory at least) it is supposed to promote novel works by protecting the earning-rights of the originator of those works. I don't see how "binary code" is so different. (And I'm pretty sure it's not the binary code which is copyrighted anyway, though again I am no legal expert).
In your third point, you assume paying for the copy is "out of the question" and I am afraid I disagree with your premise. Is *IS* the question!
I feel it is you who is wrong on all counts (and just plain obtuse on the third).
I dunno dude,
Webster's Legal dictionary (at least I *think* that's where this is coming from, it's quite hard to read on www.dictionary.com) has the following definition for "theft":
"a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"
I think that pretty much overlaps (in this case) your usage of "copyright infringement". So I, personally speaking, think "theft" is a perfectly good, perfectly accurate word to use.
If you're saying that I, the BBC, Websters, and the good people at dictionary.com are involved in some mass conspiracy to hijack the word "theft" for some socio-political gain, then I think you've lost the plot.
Who exactly are you accusing of having "deliberately manipulated" the word "theft" in order to "influence people's emotions"?
I can only re-iterate, that I am not involved in some grand conspiracy, and I think "theft" is a perfectly good word to use. Not just in the sense that it seemed a natural application/extension of a word which pre-dated this type of crime. But also, when doubts were raised, I checked my dictionary, and found it agreed with me.
For the record, when I was younger, I copied Amiga games like there was no tomorrow, never thinking there was anything wrong with it. Once I got a bit older and developed my own sense of self, I realised/decided (your choice) that it was wrong, and have not copied software/movies/music since then.
You bet your ASS there are lots of CDs, DVDs, and software products I would like to have, but I think software theft is wrong, and I will not engage in it.
Please excuse my ignorance on this... but I thought that the movies are *SHOT* on those 24 frames per second films, and it is that reel which is then transferred to DVD/whatever.
The 100Hz is to do with the scanline refresh rate of your tv, *NOT* the frame-rate.
I don't think there's any home-cinema (based off DVD or even the new HD-DVD (blu-ray, or whatever) that can beat the real-cinema for picture quality as in the cinema's case you're seeing the actual reel (ok, a 1st gen copy of the actual reel).
If you will,
please answer me this simple question.
What word would you use?
Language is a flexible thing, people can very easily equate one concept with another. Fluid concepts and creative analogies. There are some dectionary definitions whereby theft does indeed cover the topic at hand, and some where (on a technicality) it does not.
Instead of getting stuck over word-definitions, let's talk about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG. Morally, ethically, legally. In all cases, it is WRONG.
You may (and in fact you probably will) argue (whinge) that the big business are wrong first with their over-pricing and bugged s/w and 72 minute albums with 6 filler tracks of crap forced on the artist by the record studio. How very childish.
The rules are the rules, legally.
The rules are the rules, ethically.
The rules are the rules, morally.
Software boloxology* is wrong on all counts. You know it, but you are re-jinking your moral-compass to allow yourself to continue to get away with it.
People do this all the time, I'm not saying I am flawless, but please do not try to skip out of it on a technicality "Uh, I wasn't wearing an eye-patch, so it's not piracy", or "Uh, I didn't rob the cd, and WarezCorp still have their bits, so it's not theft".
The only people who fall for that crock are people who are copying stuff ilegally already.
*boloxology = word to describe what's going on, seeing as i'm not allowed use any other words. But I await your word of choice.
I re-iterate my simple question. If it's not theft, not piracy, what word would you use?
*yawn*
Ok, so there are 14 cities in the entire world more populous than London.
However, Seoul only takes up half the area London does, and the point I was making was to do with the previous users comment which seemed to imply London was some kind of quaint village with no need for anyone to take a cab-ride anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
How on earth is this a troll? Because he used to word "fag"? *sigh*
Gay.
Ha ha ha, where are my mod points ... brilliant ...
I was reading this e-mail thinking, "my god what do these guys DO to their poor PS2s", then I realised I too had to replace one (but it did suffer some serious abuse). And then I thought some more and realised I've now got one of those small-and-quieter ones, so I must've replaced it again, but I don't even remember when or why! So yeh, I'm on my third PS2.
This one seems to be fine so far, but it definitely doesn't get anything like the same amount of abuse that the previous two got.
Here's an unrelated question - what gives with the 720/1080(i/p) modes offered by the next gen consoles. Most 50" plasmas I've seen offer 768 lines which is too high or too low depending. Are there plasma 50"+ HDTVs available which support 1080p? If not, will there be a problem scaling to suit the tvs natural resolution?
I'm still in the throes of a OMG-that-was-so-cool frenzy, so forgive me if I go a little overboard, but that is one of the best web-sites I've seen in ages.
I am in work right now, so I can't keep a colourful magnetic-letter game on my screen for too long without attracting attention, but I am gonna mess with that as soon as I get home.
I like the way you can see emergent cooperation, and the human mind at work on an individual basis too. You can see plans formulating in peoples heads and then you can see them executed briefly, before being sabotaged.
ALthough at one stage, someone decided to hide all the letters in the corner, and I joined in, and pretty soon almost all of us were doing it, and they all got there. I like the way that goal was achieved without any direct communication between the participants.
I have to do some more thinking, but to reiterate - I LIKE THIS LINK!
I never saw the movie, but if this is true it's priceless!
(In my best Apu accent)
"I can't believe you don't shut up."
OK, so the guy who bought the Island last December for 26,500, did he DEFINITELY make a profit? If so, how much?
Who cares?
This whole sub-thread is, in case you've forgotten, "Re:Breach of contract isn't theft".
Please take your freedom fighting elsewhere.
I'm not sure why you think this guy Peaker is from the US, or why you think it's obvious that he is, but either way what he says is
"Copyright for unlimited times has no basis in the Constitution, and thus it is legally wrong."
My point is, whether any given consitution has particular provision or not for copyright, does not automatically mean that copyright is legally wrong. It's that simple.
Also, I don't know where you're getting "28 years" from, this is what I can find on the subject -
"For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of a joint work, copyright lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, copyright lasts 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever ends first. "
I said "only 80 years" because I was comparing against eternity. Your second point is not even remotely relevant to ongoing software theft, which is what we've been discussing.
Ya know, as I read your post, this was *SO OBVIOUSLY* your point, that Iwas flabbergasted at how people mis-interpreted. People are nuts, eh? Oh well.
D'oh, my post vanished.
...
Briefly
I naturally, and by myself, extended the pre-existing word "theft" for the novel context of software. It seemed a perfectly good usage to me.
When this usage was questioned, I checked my dictionary (it seems a legal one, but I'm not sure) and found it agreed with me.
Theft is the right word if you ask me. I'm not being dishonest, I'm not in some conspiracy, I think it's the right word to describe what's going on.
Copyright for unlimited times has no basis in the Constitution, and thus it is legally wrong.
First up, which constitution? Lots of countries don't even have constitutions, but they still have legal systems.
Also, I'm no legal expert, but I thought under the I-forget-it's-name Convention, copyright only lasted 80 years? Isn't this the reason we can now read Darwin/Dickens etc online without any law being broken?
In your second point, you are making an overly-simplistic, and may I say naieve, case. The purpose of copyright is different in its details depending on whom you ask, but I'm pretty sure most people would agree, that (in theory at least) it is supposed to promote novel works by protecting the earning-rights of the originator of those works. I don't see how "binary code" is so different. (And I'm pretty sure it's not the binary code which is copyrighted anyway, though again I am no legal expert).
In your third point, you assume paying for the copy is "out of the question" and I am afraid I disagree with your premise. Is *IS* the question!
I feel it is you who is wrong on all counts (and just plain obtuse on the third).
I dunno dude, Webster's Legal dictionary (at least I *think* that's where this is coming from, it's quite hard to read on www.dictionary.com) has the following definition for "theft":
"a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"
I think that pretty much overlaps (in this case) your usage of "copyright infringement". So I, personally speaking, think "theft" is a perfectly good, perfectly accurate word to use.
If you're saying that I, the BBC, Websters, and the good people at dictionary.com are involved in some mass conspiracy to hijack the word "theft" for some socio-political gain, then I think you've lost the plot.
Who exactly are you accusing of having "deliberately manipulated" the word "theft" in order to "influence people's emotions"?
I can only re-iterate, that I am not involved in some grand conspiracy, and I think "theft" is a perfectly good word to use. Not just in the sense that it seemed a natural application/extension of a word which pre-dated this type of crime. But also, when doubts were raised, I checked my dictionary, and found it agreed with me.
For the record, when I was younger, I copied Amiga games like there was no tomorrow, never thinking there was anything wrong with it. Once I got a bit older and developed my own sense of self, I realised/decided (your choice) that it was wrong, and have not copied software/movies/music since then.
You bet your ASS there are lots of CDs, DVDs, and software products I would like to have, but I think software theft is wrong, and I will not engage in it.
Please excuse my ignorance on this ... but I thought that the movies are *SHOT* on those 24 frames per second films, and it is that reel which is then transferred to DVD/whatever.
The 100Hz is to do with the scanline refresh rate of your tv, *NOT* the frame-rate.
I don't think there's any home-cinema (based off DVD or even the new HD-DVD (blu-ray, or whatever) that can beat the real-cinema for picture quality as in the cinema's case you're seeing the actual reel (ok, a 1st gen copy of the actual reel).
With sound granted, it can be a different story.
If you will, please answer me this simple question.
What word would you use?
Language is a flexible thing, people can very easily equate one concept with another. Fluid concepts and creative analogies. There are some dectionary definitions whereby theft does indeed cover the topic at hand, and some where (on a technicality) it does not.
Instead of getting stuck over word-definitions, let's talk about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG. Morally, ethically, legally. In all cases, it is WRONG.
You may (and in fact you probably will) argue (whinge) that the big business are wrong first with their over-pricing and bugged s/w and 72 minute albums with 6 filler tracks of crap forced on the artist by the record studio. How very childish.
The rules are the rules, legally.
The rules are the rules, ethically.
The rules are the rules, morally.
Software boloxology* is wrong on all counts. You know it, but you are re-jinking your moral-compass to allow yourself to continue to get away with it.
People do this all the time, I'm not saying I am flawless, but please do not try to skip out of it on a technicality "Uh, I wasn't wearing an eye-patch, so it's not piracy", or "Uh, I didn't rob the cd, and WarezCorp still have their bits, so it's not theft".
The only people who fall for that crock are people who are copying stuff ilegally already.
*boloxology = word to describe what's going on, seeing as i'm not allowed use any other words. But I await your word of choice.
I re-iterate my simple question. If it's not theft, not piracy, what word would you use?
*yawn* Ok, so there are 14 cities in the entire world more populous than London. However, Seoul only takes up half the area London does, and the point I was making was to do with the previous users comment which seemed to imply London was some kind of quaint village with no need for anyone to take a cab-ride anywhere.