Unless it can be done with a "reasonable accomodation". Obviously you cannot accomodate a blind chauffeur but you can fairly easily accomodate someone with a "pornography addiction". What, with Vasoline and a come-rag?
But you don't really think that copyright infringement and mugging share a common moral space, do you? Death penalty for speeders while we're at it?
Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in jail. All he did was cost people a "few" million dollars. Surely this isn't in the same moral space as mugging, is it?
The problem here is that the question is not valid. Don't mistake equal (or harsher) punishment to mean that the nature of the crimes are equivalent. Crimes of different moral nature can certainly be deserving of the same punishment.
If they really want to reduce piracy they should lower the prices of CD's even more. Yar! And I'm gonna download my music for free until they do! After all, it's far better than the artists get $0.00 cents per song than some insulting amount from the record company.
These cases are not about downloading; based on past cases, I'm hazarding a guess that the downloading isn't even an issue in the case. Instead, it's about disseminating files via a file-sharing mechanism -- whether they own the CD(s) or not, doing this is illegal.
When M$ tries to pull this lark on them, you can pretty well guarantee that 9 out of 10 will switch to open source, whether they had to pay or not. What dream world do you live in? You have your stats backwards -- 9 out of 10 will do whatever is required to end it quickly and quietly, since they are not in business to Fight for a Cause; nor do they want to undertake the risk/expense of switching operating systems.
Mods use overrated to mod according to their agenda because it doesn't get metamoderated. IMO the overrated mod should result in negative karma immediately (but silently) and be completely abolished some time later (perhaps replaced with "not [insightful/funny/etc]" antimods that undo the respective upmods but can't be applied to posts that haven't been modded that way so downmods would still have to justify themselves with flamebait or troll and get metamodded). That would be entirely too logical.
Um... did a mod seriously waste a mod point marking my default "+1 registered" as overrated? Y'all are damned funny. Um... did a mod seriously waste a mod point marking my default "+1 registered" as offtopic? Y'all are damned funny.
Isn't the most effective way to "protest" it just not buy, to explain to your friends and workplaces why they shouldn't buy it, and most particularly, to aggressively pursue a refund for any bundled versions that you're forced to buy with hardware? Stop spreading FUD -- we all know that electronic petitions are the most effective means to sway the minds of corporations, politicians, and parents everywhere!
Moron's who try to fight Supply and Demand by messing with supply get no pity from me. Where there is enough demand, and supply is not flat impossible, there will be supply. The only way to prevent the sale of in-game artifacts is to make them non-transferable, and that's never going to happen.
Next you'll be telling me that banning alcohol would create a whole generation of moonshiners! And that people will buy drugs even though they're illegal!
Oh? You wanted the complete offer in writing? I'm sorry. You must accept and sign that offer in one week or it will be retracted. We're sorry. We can't make any changes to the language of the offer. That's dictated by the legal department. Would you like to be homeless instead? That's the only offer you're getting.
Maybe you've never been screwed. Maybe you've always been handed a prime piece of pie. The fact is this: companies love to play hardball to screw employees especially when it comes to NDAs, pre-employment agreements, and relocation packages.
Maybe it's just me, but isn't this the point at which you walk away? Why would you let them walk all over you by making weak excuses? Now if this is the only offer you're getting and you have no job, that's a different story -- but the person in TFA had a job before accepting this one.
Even if no one ever responds, it won't stop as long as the people paying to have it sent think it works. It's like burning candles to St. Balderdash for scam marketing morons. As long as there is a steady supply of rubes who think that sending spam is their road to riches, and are willing to pay some brighter but no more honest spam lord to send their dreck to a bazillion hapless victims for them, spam will contine to flow.
This is true even if no one ever responds to, falls for, or even opens a spam message ever again.
--MarkusQ
I think this is pretty far from the mark. While there might be some who would continue to use the service, most wouldn't. Face it, if you're paying for any kind of advertising (and that's all spam is, really), you want results. If it doesn't make a significant difference in your sales -- easily measurable -- you won't continue to pay for it. Even stupid people know when they're losing money.
You might get a steady stream of first-timers who fall for the lure of sending spam, but the volume would be a trickle compared to what we have today.
And I will be one of the parents that does take the responsibility on himself, but there are tons of irresponsible parents out there who's children still need to be protected
Therein lies the heart of "think of the children" issues. Of course anybody with an ounce of common sense will say, "If the parents did their job, this wouldn't be a problem." The problem is that those who don't have that requisite ounce are not the ones to pay the price -- it's their children.
And how will you do that. Spammers get the stupidest of stupid people
That's often the case, but not always. It might be that reasonably intelligent people see a private, discrete way to get Cialis or Viagra. Worst-case, they're out a few dollars and have to quickly cancel a credit card. Best case, they got what they wanted without the perceived embarrassment of going to their physician.
Don't confuse ignorant (or greedy, in the case of stock-spam) with stupid.
...rotary press holograms...TiO2 using crystal growth...anhydrous methanol solution...glass vapor deposition I can almost guarantee that you'll be modded up. We like holograms and big words here on Slashdot.
What a load of M$=B$ nonsense You know what makes posts like this a lot funnier? If in your head, you read "$" as "eth", so that poster essentially has an affected lisp. "Em-eth equals Bee-eth".
gas, clutch out, clutch in, brake...gas, clutch out, clutch in, brake... Still more satisfying than driving an auto. Are you really that hard on your clutch?
I saw that as well; one person quoted the actual text of the bill, only to have respondent quote another blog interpretation at him. I tried similar postings of actual bill text with explanation, but the groupthink washed it away.
If you read the actual bill, and not a lobbying organization's kneejerk reaction to it, you'd know that this applied to people PAID to blog, who also have a readership of 500+. In that light, it's a shame this bill was defeated.
thomas.loc.gov: search s.1, then go to 220. Specifically:
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
Again -- the only time '500' comes into play is to exclude PAID bloggers with audiences of less than 500 from this legislation.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers
Ah, spoken like a true 8 year-old.
How about next time you be original and quote something like Ren and Stimpy? Wouldn't being original defeat the purpose of using another person's quote to make your point?
By demanding protectionist measures you are hurting the people you intend to protect.
History is littered with examples of people acting in good faith but commiting major blunders.
I could list numerous countries that descended into poverty by supporting misguided protectionist measures. If you want to add the US to that list feel free, the rest of the world can sit down and watch the show. I'm not sure how your point is relevant to mine? I don't see anywhere that I "demanded protectionist measures".
Slashdot Mirror
Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in jail. All he did was cost people a "few" million dollars. Surely this isn't in the same moral space as mugging, is it?
The problem here is that the question is not valid. Don't mistake equal (or harsher) punishment to mean that the nature of the crimes are equivalent. Crimes of different moral nature can certainly be deserving of the same punishment.
Grow up.
These cases are not about downloading; based on past cases, I'm hazarding a guess that the downloading isn't even an issue in the case. Instead, it's about disseminating files via a file-sharing mechanism -- whether they own the CD(s) or not, doing this is illegal.
Um... did a mod seriously waste a mod point marking my default "+1 registered" as overrated? Y'all are damned funny.
Next you'll be telling me that banning alcohol would create a whole generation of moonshiners! And that people will buy drugs even though they're illegal!
Pfft. Such nonsense.
Oh? You wanted the complete offer in writing? I'm sorry. You must accept and sign that offer in one week or it will be retracted. We're sorry. We can't make any changes to the language of the offer. That's dictated by the legal department. Would you like to be homeless instead? That's the only offer you're getting.
Maybe you've never been screwed. Maybe you've always been handed a prime piece of pie. The fact is this: companies love to play hardball to screw employees especially when it comes to NDAs, pre-employment agreements, and relocation packages.
Maybe it's just me, but isn't this the point at which you walk away? Why would you let them walk all over you by making weak excuses? Now if this is the only offer you're getting and you have no job, that's a different story -- but the person in TFA had a job before accepting this one.
Even if no one ever responds, it won't stop as long as the people paying to have it sent think it works. It's like burning candles to St. Balderdash for scam marketing morons. As long as there is a steady supply of rubes who think that sending spam is their road to riches, and are willing to pay some brighter but no more honest spam lord to send their dreck to a bazillion hapless victims for them, spam will contine to flow.
This is true even if no one ever responds to, falls for, or even opens a spam message ever again.
--MarkusQ
I think this is pretty far from the mark. While there might be some who would continue to use the service, most wouldn't. Face it, if you're paying for any kind of advertising (and that's all spam is, really), you want results. If it doesn't make a significant difference in your sales -- easily measurable -- you won't continue to pay for it. Even stupid people know when they're losing money.
You might get a steady stream of first-timers who fall for the lure of sending spam, but the volume would be a trickle compared to what we have today.
Therein lies the heart of "think of the children" issues. Of course anybody with an ounce of common sense will say, "If the parents did their job, this wouldn't be a problem." The problem is that those who don't have that requisite ounce are not the ones to pay the price -- it's their children.
That's often the case, but not always. It might be that reasonably intelligent people see a private, discrete way to get Cialis or Viagra. Worst-case, they're out a few dollars and have to quickly cancel a credit card. Best case, they got what they wanted without the perceived embarrassment of going to their physician.
Don't confuse ignorant (or greedy, in the case of stock-spam) with stupid.
...rotary press holograms...TiO2 using crystal growth...anhydrous methanol solutionI saw that as well; one person quoted the actual text of the bill, only to have respondent quote another blog interpretation at him. I tried similar postings of actual bill text with explanation, but the groupthink washed it away.
In Soviet Russia, the joke is on you.
Actually, it was only defined that way by a blogger who in turn got his/her definition from this alarmist writing: http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-home /articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=398&CMSCate goryID=24
If you read the actual bill, and not a lobbying organization's kneejerk reaction to it, you'd know that this applied to people PAID to blog, who also have a readership of 500+. In that light, it's a shame this bill was defeated. thomas.loc.gov: search s.1, then go to 220. Specifically:
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
Again -- the only time '500' comes into play is to exclude PAID bloggers with audiences of less than 500 from this legislation.People will take you more seriously on slashdot if you register.
Ah, spoken like a true 8 year-old.
How about next time you be original and quote something like Ren and Stimpy? Wouldn't being original defeat the purpose of using another person's quote to make your point?
History is littered with examples of people acting in good faith but commiting major blunders.
I could list numerous countries that descended into poverty by supporting misguided protectionist measures. If you want to add the US to that list feel free, the rest of the world can sit down and watch the show. I'm not sure how your point is relevant to mine? I don't see anywhere that I "demanded protectionist measures".