What interesting logic this is. The fact is that [in most cases] whoever did create the content willingly agreed to let the corporation handle distribution of it. Whatever deal they have cut between them has no bearing on whether you should 'pirate' or not.
In summary, if can't put the money directly into the hand of the person who created the work, it's better not to pay for it at all, and it's better to help others to also not pay for it at all.
This I agree with. Assuming that you mean "if I don't want to support the corp doing this, I will not own this, and will encourage others to also not own it". This is the same kind of choice we have to make with tangible goods: either we want it enough that we pay for it despite moral qualms; or we do without in hopes that enough people doing without will make a difference.
When I buy someting, I don't buy a format. I buy the content. I'll put that content into any format I damn well please. If I'm not sharing it, it's nobody's business.
You made an implicit connection between deregulation and Enron; but the problems ran much deeper than that, to the point where when deregulation occurred, it had practically no impact - Enron was already in deep over its head.
How are your going to be able to explain NOT fixing a bug that got through in your code when you had time to include an un-spec'ed Easter egg?
That's often the kind of response I see here when this discussion comes up. However, it's a false dilemma. Nobody said anything about diverting time from other necessary activities. It's not a question of "Hmm, shall I fix this bug or add an easter egg?" More accurate would be "All the known bugs are fixed, and I have a couple of hours of personal time to spend."
On the other hand, responses such as yours provide a valid reason not to add such easter eggs to professional software -- perception is all that counts.
It will be more effective than downloading/sharing content we don't have the rights to.
Safe bet that RIAA is monitoring nearly all of the major P2P networks and trackers. If they see piracy going/down/ at the same time their sales go/down/, they're going to have a hard time convincing their paid congress critters to pass laws for them.
Presently their sales go down while piracy continues to go up (presumably); it's awfully easy for them to draw a line connecting the two.
Your post gave me an idea. What if I pretend to be stupid and write down a fake password? Then I configure the computer so that, when the fake password is entered, the data is scrambled. (The real password is the fake password backwards, or every other letter, or something else.)
Hah, I think that would be remarkably effective. When faced with stupidity, most people are going to make the obvious assumption (ie, the owner is stupid).
Indeed; though my understanding is that the criteria for proof is more stringent in a criminal case. I'd hope that the crap they're foisting off as evidence for civil cases would not pass muster in criminal cases. On the other hand, it might encourage them to find real proof before filing thousands of blind lawsuits - since our civil justice system is failing to prevent this so far.
I hear ya there brother who knows what kind of schemes they are hatching in that 263kb install file! Such poor reasoning...
Yes, because we all know it's impossible to put a 4 byte IP address and a call to existing download or tracking code somewhere into 263,000 bytes of unknown binary.
Oh, I wasn't downloading whatever I want to make a point to RIAA. I was downloading whatever I want because it was free. I think most people would acknowledge on some level that it's wrong to do that
Fair enough - I've just seen that used as a justification for it often enough that I tend to jump to conclusions on the matter.
what I would dispute is that the person who engages in file-sharing deserves to be punished more harshly than the person who shoplifts a CD.
On the other hand, shoplifting a CD can get you jail time if you do it often enough. At least they haven't successfully reached that point in their lobbying (yet).
Multiple thousand dollar fines is/extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.
That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive/proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.
Conversely, there's an even bigger difference between throwing the book at someone whom you captured stealing CDs on video; and doing the same against someone who happened to be in the store when the theft took place. I think that's a pretty accurate analogy for what RIAA is doing.
This doesn't even get into the sheer intimidation factor that they are applying with their tactics - whether someone 'made available' or not can be made irrelevant when you scare them into settling because they can't afford to fight you.
If you're using hardware encryption.. you don't need useless features like this.
Hahaha, good one.
I've seen encrypted laptops at work where people write the password on an index card, and tape the card to the top of the laptop; or store it in their laptop case.
I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.
The latter is far more likely than the former to have the desired effect. It seems to me that downloading whatever you want has been proven repeatedly to be used by the RIAA to justify their tactics.
On the other hand, enough people doing what you are doing now (and I like to think those numbers are growing) sends a very clear message that can't be spun.
If you are not innovating, then you and your competitor can drop prices until it is effectively zero. Commodity software eventually drops to zero with or without open source. Innovative design is worthwhile. Besides, how many engineers do you see out of work because they can't design a better bridge?
Got it, thanks. It definitely makes more sense in this context:) Still, perhaps I've been driving in the wrong states, but I've never really had difficulty knowing the speed limit. If I rely on cruise control so much that I stop paying attention to things like speed limit signs... perhaps I should not be driving?
That opens a terrible door though. Do you really want the government with the power to declare an individual randomly "incapble of telling right from wrong" (maybe you voted for the wrong political party and now fit this criteria) and then institutionalized for it? Remember: it's for your own good.
Erm, they already have that ability, yes? That's practically the definition of legally insane.
If a person isn't willing to work with the team then you don't want them on your team. I've met plenty of people that are unwilling to listen to a good answer from a young person because the young person is young and by extension inexperienced.
Conversely, I've met plenty of young people who aren't willing to listen to someone older because someone older can't possibly have an understanding of all these fresh, new ideas that they're bringing to the table. (Hell, just a few years ago, I was/one/ of those young people - back before I lacked the experience to know that there are things I don't know. ) Nevermind that the 'fresh new ideas' are variations on the same themes that have been playing through the industry for decades.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's just as easy to get a young recruit with a bad attitude than an older recruit. That's part of what the interview process is for, to weed out the people not compatible with your organization. INterviewing people with the assumption that "older = stuck in their ways" and "younger = innovative and yet willing to learn" is a mistake that can cost you some potentially good hires.
You've never booted from a remote disk on the other end of a slow connection, have you?
On the other hand, I/have/ watched co-workers boot their computers, log in, wander off to the water cooler/coffee machine, far around for a while, then come back 30 minutes later. These same people complain about how their login takes 30 minutes every day.
nope, we're pretty safe. I'll run AV once a month or so from linux boot, to make sure that nothing (detectable) has snuck in. 20 years and counting virus (and anti-virus) free...
Yes, English steals words shamelessly. It's proud of it even.
It sure does! Just the other day I was looking for my dear old ----, but I didn't have a word to call her anymore! And now, because I can't tell people who I'm looking for, she's lost forever. ("Excuse me, buddy, have you seen my ----? She's about 5'6", and getting on in years" "Your... what?" "My ----, she's missing and hasn't had her medication!" "Buzz off, freak.")
Slashdot Mirror
"Give it back" costs a lot more than "don't take it".
In summary, if can't put the money directly into the hand of the person who created the work, it's better not to pay for it at all, and it's better to help others to also not pay for it at all.
This I agree with. Assuming that you mean "if I don't want to support the corp doing this, I will not own this, and will encourage others to also not own it". This is the same kind of choice we have to make with tangible goods: either we want it enough that we pay for it despite moral qualms; or we do without in hopes that enough people doing without will make a difference.
Why should this be different?
When I buy someting, I don't buy a format. I buy the content. I'll put that content into any format I damn well please. If I'm not sharing it, it's nobody's business.
You made an implicit connection between deregulation and Enron; but the problems ran much deeper than that, to the point where when deregulation occurred, it had practically no impact - Enron was already in deep over its head.
How are your going to be able to explain NOT fixing a bug that got through in your code when you had time to include an un-spec'ed Easter egg?
That's often the kind of response I see here when this discussion comes up. However, it's a false dilemma. Nobody said anything about diverting time from other necessary activities. It's not a question of "Hmm, shall I fix this bug or add an easter egg?" More accurate would be "All the known bugs are fixed, and I have a couple of hours of personal time to spend."
On the other hand, responses such as yours provide a valid reason not to add such easter eggs to professional software -- perception is all that counts.
The issues with Enron went back way further than one year...
Safe bet that RIAA is monitoring nearly all of the major P2P networks and trackers. If they see piracy going /down/ at the same time their sales go /down/, they're going to have a hard time convincing their paid congress critters to pass laws for them.
Presently their sales go down while piracy continues to go up (presumably); it's awfully easy for them to draw a line connecting the two.
Your post gave me an idea. What if I pretend to be stupid and write down a fake password? Then I configure the computer so that, when the fake password is entered, the data is scrambled. (The real password is the fake password backwards, or every other letter, or something else.)
Hah, I think that would be remarkably effective. When faced with stupidity, most people are going to make the obvious assumption (ie, the owner is stupid).
Indeed; though my understanding is that the criteria for proof is more stringent in a criminal case. I'd hope that the crap they're foisting off as evidence for civil cases would not pass muster in criminal cases. On the other hand, it might encourage them to find real proof before filing thousands of blind lawsuits - since our civil justice system is failing to prevent this so far.
I hear ya there brother who knows what kind of schemes they are hatching in that 263kb install file! Such poor reasoning...
Yes, because we all know it's impossible to put a 4 byte IP address and a call to existing download or tracking code somewhere into 263,000 bytes of unknown binary.
Oh, I wasn't downloading whatever I want to make a point to RIAA. I was downloading whatever I want because it was free. I think most people would acknowledge on some level that it's wrong to do that
Fair enough - I've just seen that used as a justification for it often enough that I tend to jump to conclusions on the matter.
what I would dispute is that the person who engages in file-sharing deserves to be punished more harshly than the person who shoplifts a CD.
On the other hand, shoplifting a CD can get you jail time if you do it often enough. At least they haven't successfully reached that point in their lobbying (yet).
Multiple thousand dollar fines is /extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.
That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive /proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.
Conversely, there's an even bigger difference between throwing the book at someone whom you captured stealing CDs on video; and doing the same against someone who happened to be in the store when the theft took place. I think that's a pretty accurate analogy for what RIAA is doing.
This doesn't even get into the sheer intimidation factor that they are applying with their tactics - whether someone 'made available' or not can be made irrelevant when you scare them into settling because they can't afford to fight you.
If you're using hardware encryption.. you don't need useless features like this.
Hahaha, good one. I've seen encrypted laptops at work where people write the password on an index card, and tape the card to the top of the laptop; or store it in their laptop case.
Encryption can't protect against stupid.
I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.
The latter is far more likely than the former to have the desired effect. It seems to me that downloading whatever you want has been proven repeatedly to be used by the RIAA to justify their tactics.
On the other hand, enough people doing what you are doing now (and I like to think those numbers are growing) sends a very clear message that can't be spun.
If the threats are just paranoia, why is Novell paying Microsoft for patent coverage for all their GPL distributions?
Just because Novell was a Good Guy in the SCO suit doesn't make them smart...
If you are not innovating, then you and your competitor can drop prices until it is effectively zero. Commodity software eventually drops to zero with or without open source. Innovative design is worthwhile. Besides, how many engineers do you see out of work because they can't design a better bridge?
We'll tell that to Microsoft ;)
Got it, thanks. It definitely makes more sense in this context :) Still, perhaps I've been driving in the wrong states, but I've never really had difficulty knowing the speed limit. If I rely on cruise control so much that I stop paying attention to things like speed limit signs... perhaps I should not be driving?
You insensitive clod, I'm a sociopath, and that really hurt my feelings! Hey... waitaminute...
That opens a terrible door though. Do you really want the government with the power to declare an individual randomly "incapble of telling right from wrong" (maybe you voted for the wrong political party and now fit this criteria) and then institutionalized for it? Remember: it's for your own good.
Erm, they already have that ability, yes? That's practically the definition of legally insane.
Arg. "with a bad attitude *as an older recruit"
If a person isn't willing to work with the team then you don't want them on your team. I've met plenty of people that are unwilling to listen to a good answer from a young person because the young person is young and by extension inexperienced.
Conversely, I've met plenty of young people who aren't willing to listen to someone older because someone older can't possibly have an understanding of all these fresh, new ideas that they're bringing to the table. (Hell, just a few years ago, I was /one/ of those young people - back before I lacked the experience to know that there are things I don't know. ) Nevermind that the 'fresh new ideas' are variations on the same themes that have been playing through the industry for decades.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's just as easy to get a young recruit with a bad attitude than an older recruit. That's part of what the interview process is for, to weed out the people not compatible with your organization. INterviewing people with the assumption that "older = stuck in their ways" and "younger = innovative and yet willing to learn" is a mistake that can cost you some potentially good hires.
You've never booted from a remote disk on the other end of a slow connection, have you?
On the other hand, I /have/ watched co-workers boot their computers, log in, wander off to the water cooler/coffee machine, far around for a while, then come back 30 minutes later. These same people complain about how their login takes 30 minutes every day.
nope, we're pretty safe. I'll run AV once a month or so from linux boot, to make sure that nothing (detectable) has snuck in. 20 years and counting virus (and anti-virus) free...
Yes, English steals words shamelessly. It's proud of it even.
It sure does! Just the other day I was looking for my dear old ----, but I didn't have a word to call her anymore! And now, because I can't tell people who I'm looking for, she's lost forever. ("Excuse me, buddy, have you seen my ----? She's about 5'6", and getting on in years" "Your... what?" "My ----, she's missing and hasn't had her medication!" "Buzz off, freak.")
Damn you, English! Damn youuuu!
as evidenced by the way that in a recent essay, Slashdot stated that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha
How can you read that and /not/ chuckle?
And switches never fail, right? ;)