System Shock 2 is purer horror GOLD. It's the scariest game i've ever played aside from Silent Hill (1)
Argh. You're making me want to play it all over again... And i've already finshed it three times. Too bad the last few levels are a bit boring compared to the first.
If i understand this correctly it means that even if a movie is no longer under copyright law if it is broadcast that particular film will fall under this new "copyright" law for 50 years.
For example, if a channel would broadcast the old movie Nosferatu (1922) then the company broadcasting it would own the copyright to the copy they broadcast on television. This means that you would not be allowed to spread around a copy of this version that was shown on television unless you have the actual film rheel (for 50 years).
Essentially it would be an extra layer of copyright granting the broadcaster a 50 years copyright on whatever they show.
My point is that in some cases making money can be done through other means than providing a quality service. For example, american ISPs. (i've heard enough about these on slashdot to believe that they base their income on a monopoly, rather than loyal customers)
I believe Diablo became popular because it had the qualities of simplistic gameplay (simple is not always bad) while catering to "collectors". There were LOTS of things to collect and discover. Lots of weird magical weapons just waiting to be found. Ever noticed that lots of people likes to collect things? Yeah, exactly.
Well yeah probably. I'm not a native english speaker. I know that whatever i write probably isn't 100% gramatically correct.
However, i don't know a single non-native english speaker who makes the mistake of using "have" instead of "of". It's like writing "applepie" instead of "the".
The irony is that a site like The Pirate Bay might be illegal while a site like AllOfMP3 is not.
One site provides a way to, for no money at all, get almost as much music as you can imagine. The selection might not be good, but whatever.
The other provides a good selection of music for very little money. Of whch nothing goes to the artists.
You could say that one is a fly and the other is a mosquito. They both fly and they can both tend to be irritating, but one sucks blood and the other doesn't.
Use pirate bay instead of allofmp3.com, thank you.
A more important question is: Why would you NOT support them?
If tv has reported the incident as what has actually happened then this is what happened 1: The MPAA contacted Thomas Bodström about the pirate bay (he's the minister of justice, ironically) 2: The minister commanded the police to raid the pirate bay (this goes directly against the swedish constitution because a minister is not permitted to "command" anything like he did) 3: There was no crime commited according to swedish law 4: Servers not related to the pirate bay were taken (an ISP lost their server, The Pirate Party lost their's) 5: In a time were the police is constantly claiming that they don't have enough people to deal with more serious crimes, they can send FIFTY men on something like this.
Even worse is that this raid might be the action of one single minister. This minister might also be acting under pressure from the MPAA (as reported by swedish television). If it's case, it's against the swedish constitution. A minister can't just order the police to raid someone.
I can't really figure out from your post what your opinion on this exactly IS, but there are several kinds of copyright opponents.
I am the kind that supports the right for people to share music and stuff online for free, but i oppose commercial infringement.
If you can share stuff for free, there's really no reason (apart from some kind of "freedom" argument) to support commercial infringement. Commercial infringement now is where the real problem lies because as an author you cannot self publish at high quality without investing money in it. A corporation CAN do that however, so they would just snoop around until they find a book they like and then publish making money on someone else's work. This is where it's going to have an impact on society. Sharing online is perfectly fine by me.
Now the dedicated copyright opponent will argue that this would lead to better quality printing. Well it's certainly possible, but many creators would simply stop producing and releasing anything to the public, not because people can download their stuff for free, but because corporations can make money of their work without paying them anything.
That's true, of course. I hope you can excuse me for flipping out there a bit. I'm not an american myself, so the rather radical outlook of your party made me jump.
"All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man."
No it fucking isn't.
"Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."
These guys are religious fucking nutjobs.
"We oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property."
What the hell?
No. Do NOT vote for these shitheads. I admit that SOME of their points do make sense (gun de-regulation for example) but most of that list is nuts.
"All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man."
No it fucking isn't.
"Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."
These guys are religious fucking nutjobs.
"We oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property."
What the hell?
No. Do NOT vote for these shitheads. I admit that SOME of their points do make sense (gun de-regulation for example) but most of that list is nuts.
One must also consider if the damage done by removing copyright entirely is worth the gain.
I would certainly feel VERY iffy about releasing my own music for free online in such scenario. I do it right now and i let them circulate freely (commercial use exception). I would not do this if it was legal to commercially use my music without my permission.
I bet this would also hit webcomics heavily.
In addition, a whole industry would be built on copying other people's works and selling them.
Yeah. And because you own the machine within which the programs in question are stored you are free to do as you wish with the apps as long as you don't distribute them.
Slashdot Mirror
System Shock 2 is purer horror GOLD. It's the scariest game i've ever played aside from Silent Hill (1)
Argh. You're making me want to play it all over again... And i've already finshed it three times. Too bad the last few levels are a bit boring compared to the first.
You are totally psycho.
If i understand this correctly it means that even if a movie is no longer under copyright law if it is broadcast that particular film will fall under this new "copyright" law for 50 years. For example, if a channel would broadcast the old movie Nosferatu (1922) then the company broadcasting it would own the copyright to the copy they broadcast on television. This means that you would not be allowed to spread around a copy of this version that was shown on television unless you have the actual film rheel (for 50 years). Essentially it would be an extra layer of copyright granting the broadcaster a 50 years copyright on whatever they show.
My point is that in some cases making money can be done through other means than providing a quality service. For example, american ISPs. (i've heard enough about these on slashdot to believe that they base their income on a monopoly, rather than loyal customers)
Why should the work not be "prurient"? (excluding photographical/filmed child porn from the question)
You're wrong. Profit-driven sites have an interest in making money, not in providing a good service. Mostly, these two will coincide, but not always.
I believe Diablo became popular because it had the qualities of simplistic gameplay (simple is not always bad) while catering to "collectors". There were LOTS of things to collect and discover. Lots of weird magical weapons just waiting to be found. Ever noticed that lots of people likes to collect things? Yeah, exactly.
Well yeah probably. I'm not a native english speaker. I know that whatever i write probably isn't 100% gramatically correct.
However, i don't know a single non-native english speaker who makes the mistake of using "have" instead of "of". It's like writing "applepie" instead of "the".
The police lost their website for a while as well. DDoS attack i'm sure.
Grammar for fucks sake! It's HAVE, not OF.
"Index would HAVE been really nice"
Some other typos as well, but who cares about those >_>;
The irony is that a site like The Pirate Bay might be illegal while a site like AllOfMP3 is not.
One site provides a way to, for no money at all, get almost as much music as you can imagine. The selection might not be good, but whatever.
The other provides a good selection of music for very little money. Of whch nothing goes to the artists.
You could say that one is a fly and the other is a mosquito. They both fly and they can both tend to be irritating, but one sucks blood and the other doesn't.
Use pirate bay instead of allofmp3.com, thank you.
A more important question is: Why would you NOT support them?
If tv has reported the incident as what has actually happened then this is what happened
1: The MPAA contacted Thomas Bodström about the pirate bay (he's the minister of justice, ironically)
2: The minister commanded the police to raid the pirate bay (this goes directly against the swedish constitution because a minister is not permitted to "command" anything like he did)
3: There was no crime commited according to swedish law
4: Servers not related to the pirate bay were taken (an ISP lost their server, The Pirate Party lost their's)
5: In a time were the police is constantly claiming that they don't have enough people to deal with more serious crimes, they can send FIFTY men on something like this.
Even worse is that this raid might be the action of one single minister. This minister might also be acting under pressure from the MPAA (as reported by swedish television). If it's case, it's against the swedish constitution. A minister can't just order the police to raid someone.
That looks more like dutch than swedish to me. (if you want authenticity: remove the double vocals. they're rare in swedish)
I can't really figure out from your post what your opinion on this exactly IS, but there are several kinds of copyright opponents.
I am the kind that supports the right for people to share music and stuff online for free, but i oppose commercial infringement.
If you can share stuff for free, there's really no reason (apart from some kind of "freedom" argument) to support commercial infringement. Commercial infringement now is where the real problem lies because as an author you cannot self publish at high quality without investing money in it. A corporation CAN do that however, so they would just snoop around until they find a book they like and then publish making money on someone else's work. This is where it's going to have an impact on society. Sharing online is perfectly fine by me.
Now the dedicated copyright opponent will argue that this would lead to better quality printing. Well it's certainly possible, but many creators would simply stop producing and releasing anything to the public, not because people can download their stuff for free, but because corporations can make money of their work without paying them anything.
It sounds to me like you should go after child molesters rather than pedophiles. Or are you going to arrest people purely based on sexual orientation?
That's true, of course. I hope you can excuse me for flipping out there a bit. I'm not an american myself, so the rather radical outlook of your party made me jump.
From their party program:
"All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man."
No it fucking isn't.
"Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."
These guys are religious fucking nutjobs.
"We oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property."
What the hell?
No. Do NOT vote for these shitheads. I admit that SOME of their points do make sense (gun de-regulation for example) but most of that list is nuts.
"All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man." No it fucking isn't. "Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy." These guys are religious fucking nutjobs. "We oppose environmental treaties and conventions such as the Biodiversity Treaty, the Convention on Climate Control, and Agenda 21, which destroy our sovereignty and right to private property." What the hell? No. Do NOT vote for these shitheads. I admit that SOME of their points do make sense (gun de-regulation for example) but most of that list is nuts.
One must also consider if the damage done by removing copyright entirely is worth the gain. I would certainly feel VERY iffy about releasing my own music for free online in such scenario. I do it right now and i let them circulate freely (commercial use exception). I would not do this if it was legal to commercially use my music without my permission. I bet this would also hit webcomics heavily. In addition, a whole industry would be built on copying other people's works and selling them.
A stripclub is like a restaurant where you're not allowed to eat the food. Why bother?
Not everyone has fallen victim to the shield. Several ISPs do not use it.
Seen any good SAW apps with vst support on linux?
Well there's no alternative. MS has a monopoly.
Yeah. And because you own the machine within which the programs in question are stored you are free to do as you wish with the apps as long as you don't distribute them.