Were I to decide, I would ask Apple why they did not complain about the licensing cost earlier, instead of waiting to be sued. The best they could hope is convincing me that there was some failed attempt to abuse monopoly from Nokia, but they would still be infringing.
Obviously, I wish for a patent reform as much as you do, but I am pessimistic as well.
"20 times more effective over 100 years" should have told you something... Probably it is around 80 times more effective in the short period and the shorter decay rate helps a bit on the long run. And 20 times is still a lot in case you did not notice.
You forget the other reason: gizmodo would pay. In fact this is the only reason not to go to the police instead, and the main reason they are in trouble.
Maybe they should... Is it necessary for us as a society to protect that? Is it free speech at all?
It's the fine line that the law should adjust carefully and is hard to get it right. Google adds some elaboration on top of that (formatting etc...). They even backup it! Me and you, we know the internet works that way, but the law was not written with the internet in mind, this is sure.
There is a fine line of responsibility and if you keep exagerating you can prove everything. I want to try and make a (hopefully) more relevant example.
Two radios host opinions from the customers and an anonymous calls both to say person X is a pedophile (let's say it is libel). Now, radio A lets him talk live, while radio B registers the opinion and has its DJ speak it. I consider radio A in the clear and radio B guilty, because it hands out the opinion with its own authority. Google may fall in the second cathegory by current law. I'm not saying it *should*, but the judge has no power to hand out exceptions.
The holier than thou attitude is what I am taking issue with. "Yay America" is not an opinion, it is mocking another country for its laws. It does not earn any goodwill.
I sincerely hope that US people are less dickheaded than you. In civil law countries (like Italy too) the judges have little choice in applying the law.
If I yell in the streets something libelous I am responsible, even if someone else told me first. The same applies to Google and the judges have no power to make exceptions. Which, if you think is a good way to make the law equal for everyone.
Now, wearing my reasonable person hat I would say that it is actually better that Google took the bullet, since they are a foreign company and there is little damage they can receive from Brazilian (and italian) justice. They will defend themselves better than anyone and may publicize the issue so that the parliament can change the law for online postings. Civil law is slow to answer to changes in society, because it values consistency and equality more. There is more good and bad in there than can be said in a Slashdot comment.
I will also admit that this is too ideal of a situation for Italy. We suck as a country and having a mafia supported/supporting government kind of kills any hope for a good reform...
But wearing the pissed off person hat, you are an asshole and can shove your nationalistic pride up your ass. You can live in a place where corporations can do anything and people can do nothing. Call it freedom if you want and go away.
if you cannot distinguish between crossing in a countryside road and crossing on a highway and why the second is forbidden there is nothing we can do to convince you.
It could also be said that the state of consumer technology has caught up with Bill Gates original vision of a tablet PC in 2000. Steve Jobs has a praeternatural ability in creating a demand for his products and/or understanding the market needs, but is hardly a visionary.
Stealing is better because it leaves the company unharmed (while hurting the individual)? What kind of reasoning is that?
I just wanted to point out that trying to confuse the two is counterproductive. People feels that there is no harm done in pirating things and all the industry looks silly in comparison. Same reason that if one law is disproportionate every law seems disproportionate.
As for games I stopped paying and playing when I switched to linux a lot of time ago. I only buy music on magnatune after many plays. I cannot avoid hearing big labels' music everywhere on the street so I feel compelled to have it. Seeing the profits of the industry I have a hard time feeling guilty.
Distribution is overpriced nowadays. Just deal with it.
I think you are missing the point: the problem is not the encumbrance (though it is a factor) but about formulating a response. If you passively hear radio talk does not hinder your decision faculties. Answering a text does, as does talking on the phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Were I to decide, I would ask Apple why they did not complain about the licensing cost earlier, instead of waiting to be sued. The best they could hope is convincing me that there was some failed attempt to abuse monopoly from Nokia, but they would still be infringing.
Obviously, I wish for a patent reform as much as you do, but I am pessimistic as well.
"20 times more effective over 100 years" should have told you something... Probably it is around 80 times more effective in the short period and the shorter decay rate helps a bit on the long run. And 20 times is still a lot in case you did not notice.
Is XBill... try it and learn from it.
And if you want to be very very cruel: /etc/hosts
echo "67.55.70.177 icanhascheezburger.com" >>
actually you are wrong. It is confusing and ugly, but it is a legitimate name.
Your hatred of Apple must be pretty extreme if you become an apologist for thieves just to spite them.
That or his thirst of new gadgets is insatiable!
You forget the other reason: gizmodo would pay. In fact this is the only reason not to go to the police instead, and the main reason they are in trouble.
Maybe they should... Is it necessary for us as a society to protect that? Is it free speech at all?
It's the fine line that the law should adjust carefully and is hard to get it right. Google adds some elaboration on top of that (formatting etc...). They even backup it! Me and you, we know the internet works that way, but the law was not written with the internet in mind, this is sure.
There is a fine line of responsibility and if you keep exagerating you can prove everything. I want to try and make a (hopefully) more relevant example.
Two radios host opinions from the customers and an anonymous calls both to say person X is a pedophile (let's say it is libel). Now, radio A lets him talk live, while radio B registers the opinion and has its DJ speak it. I consider radio A in the clear and radio B guilty, because it hands out the opinion with its own authority. Google may fall in the second cathegory by current law. I'm not saying it *should*, but the judge has no power to hand out exceptions.
My issue is that "haha you are less free" is not a criticism, just a way for him to feel better about his own country.
The holier than thou attitude is what I am taking issue with. "Yay America" is not an opinion, it is mocking another country for its laws. It does not earn any goodwill.
Google was not hacked: they invited everyone to post content, so the similarity is lost.
I sincerely hope that US people are less dickheaded than you. In civil law countries (like Italy too) the judges have little choice in applying the law.
If I yell in the streets something libelous I am responsible, even if someone else told me first. The same applies to Google and the judges have no power to make exceptions. Which, if you think is a good way to make the law equal for everyone.
Now, wearing my reasonable person hat I would say that it is actually better that Google took the bullet, since they are a foreign company and there is little damage they can receive from Brazilian (and italian) justice. They will defend themselves better than anyone and may publicize the issue so that the parliament can change the law for online postings. Civil law is slow to answer to changes in society, because it values consistency and equality more. There is more good and bad in there than can be said in a Slashdot comment.
I will also admit that this is too ideal of a situation for Italy. We suck as a country and having a mafia supported/supporting government kind of kills any hope for a good reform...
But wearing the pissed off person hat, you are an asshole and can shove your nationalistic pride up your ass. You can live in a place where corporations can do anything and people can do nothing. Call it freedom if you want and go away.
if you cannot distinguish between crossing in a countryside road and crossing on a highway and why the second is forbidden there is nothing we can do to convince you.
Only if they move their mouse fast enough!
The advertisers: usually the users don't pay.
It could also be said that the state of consumer technology has caught up with Bill Gates original vision of a tablet PC in 2000. Steve Jobs has a praeternatural ability in creating a demand for his products and/or understanding the market needs, but is hardly a visionary.
But at Apple they do it shinierly! They even patented the word "shinierly", "shiny", "shinier", and "wowcool!!!" for good measure.
Do you mean where he fails to note that multitouch is not patented?
Stealing is better because it leaves the company unharmed (while hurting the individual)? What kind of reasoning is that?
I just wanted to point out that trying to confuse the two is counterproductive. People feels that there is no harm done in pirating things and all the industry looks silly in comparison. Same reason that if one law is disproportionate every law seems disproportionate.
As for games I stopped paying and playing when I switched to linux a lot of time ago. I only buy music on magnatune after many plays. I cannot avoid hearing big labels' music everywhere on the street so I feel compelled to have it. Seeing the profits of the industry I have a hard time feeling guilty.
Distribution is overpriced nowadays. Just deal with it.
Copyright infringement remains different from stealing. As in "we will stop stealing when you stop calling it stealing".
When you feel a headache it will not be because I hit you with my anti-meme-abuser-sledgehammer...
Insightful? Really? It's a single event for god's sake! No one says that there is correlation!
If that's how you match your braces I feel very sad for your compiler.
It got redacted, as is evident by comparing to the original post on WikiLeaks.
I think you are missing the point: the problem is not the encumbrance (though it is a factor) but about formulating a response. If you passively hear radio talk does not hinder your decision faculties. Answering a text does, as does talking on the phone.