No, I purchased hardware running firmware with a specific set of features; additionally, I purchased a license to use said firmware and features. If Sony wants to add features to future firmwares, they have the option of doing so for free or charging a nominal fee for those additional features; however, it becomes (theft, fraud, breach of contract, some other criminal or civil offense, IANAL but I do know it's a legal liability) when they take away some feature I have paid for without at least offering me a choice between selling the entire system back to them, at the original sale price, or receiving reasonable monetary compensation for the removed feature.
Why the choice? Because someone who bought the unit only for the feature being removed is left with a paperweight they shouldn't be forced to take a loss on, while someone who didn't use the feature or used some other features as well may still want the unit but still deserves compensation for the reduction in functionality.
When you buy a DVD, you buy a license to play it on any equipment bearing the DVD logo. If you buy a DVD that uses nonstandard (but somehow compatible with all existing player firmwares) copy protections and, one day, manufacturers release firmware updates patching their players to better follow the standard; now your DVD won't play; should you be out the money you spent on that DVD just because the DVD manufacturer chose to break the standard for their copy protection? Are player manufacturers liable for updating their firmware to better follow the standard, is the DVD manufacturer liable for selling something that they knew didn't follow the standard (while labeling it as following the standard), or is nobody liable because, I mean, fuck, they already have your money and you agreed to their license terms?
If you buy a smartphone made by RIM, Apple, HTC, Samsung, or, really, any other company that makes phones (note that none of those actually own networks), why in the fuck would you think you owned AT&T's, T-Mobile's, Verizon's, Sprint's, or any other carrier's network? Fuck. Just... fuck. However, if you buy a smartphone capable of being used on AT&T's network AND T-Mobile's network and the phone manufacturer later releases a firmware update that disables compatibility with T-Mobile's network, it doesn't matter whether you're using it with ST&T or T-Mobile, you've lost functionality and should be compensated; if you're using it with T-Mobile the manufacturer should buy the phone back from you at the original sale price, if you're using AT&T the manufacturer should refund the portion of the purchase price that came from the dual-network capability. Are you fucking stupid?
If you buy a Linux netbook, it's probably shipping with some distro that's not Ubuntu, so I'm gonna say probably fucking not. You do, however, get a license to do whatever you want with the source code of the Linux kernel, including (provided that you release under the same license) release and distribute that product. Most, if not all, of the software included on that netbook will have the same license. If you bought that netbook, obtained the source code, developed your own distro that people thought was worth paying you for, began selling it, and suddenly the netbook manufacturer retroactively changes their licensing (assume, for a moment, that they buy this right from the entirety of the Linux community) such that your distro is now illegal, that would be breach of contract on their part.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut... Since you disagree with all of this, I have a proposition for you. How would you like to work for me? I can offer you a position as a software developer, with 100% of any revenue your work generates going directly to you on the first day of your second year working for me (you get no pay during the first year, with all revenue being placed in an account for you, not to be touched by me). I can't fire you, no matter what you do, but the terms of your employment can be changed at any time. Surely you have no issues with me making a few changes to your employment terms on day 365. Sound good? You can start tomorrow if you want.
It was used (as advertised) for making it possible to run your own software. It was used in conjunction with a hardware hack to gain full access to the hypervisor; something that likely could have been done (as evidenced by the fact that it has been) without the availability of the feature. It, in itself, was not used for hacking the console.
There are, as of now, only 3 BB models with touchscreens. Two of those don't have the mouse or clickwheel. Those two can't use apps developed to rely on the mouse (or clickwheel) that was, up until those models were released, present on every BB.
The mouse is there for compatibility with apps which rely on it; I rarely use it on my Torch. It is useful sometimes on poorly-designed websites, like Slashdot, to navigate the pointer to the tooooooo-small link you want to click but can't quite manage to pick out with your finger, from between the other tooooooo-small links on the page that just so happen to be slammed up against the one you want.
They have pirated it. Legally, they have committed copyright infringement.
If they have taken your name off of it and are claiming it as their own, giving it away as though there is no paid "legit" version, I'd go so far as to say they are committing fraud.
If someone puts an item up for sale, regardless of its form, and does not intend for it to be distributed any other way than by sale, and you take it without paying, it is theft.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is. If you take it, it's theft, they no longer have it. However, piracy refers to copying, not taking. Copying is not theft, it's copying, the original is still there, nothing has been taken; therefor, it is not theft. Taking it is theft.
Right, because driving on that road causes wear on the road; e.g. is has an actual cost to the owner of the toll road. It is that cost that makes it theft or "stealing".
However, downloading a copy of an application has no cost to the owner of the application. It is that lack of cost that makes it not theft or "not stealing".
Did they lose a sale? Probably not and here's why: I pay for the vast majority of the software I use. The rest is either free software, trial versions I haven't gotten around to buying (haven't expired yet or don't plan to keep using), or shit I straight up can't afford to pay for that, assuming I don't get sued by the owner, I intend to purchase when I *can* afford it. I know 100% or certain that I'm not alone but, for the sake of argument, let's remove that last clause: I pay for the vast majority of the software I use. The rest is either free software, trial versions I haven't gotten around to buying (haven't expired yet or don't plan to keep using), or shit I straight up can't afford to pay for. Ok, now I'm REALLY not alone.
Someone care to explain to me how you lose a sale to someone who can't afford to pay you? Explain that and I'll buy into the "every copy is a lost sale, which has a cost, which makes it theft" argument so many people try to make. I'm pretty sure no company has ever lost a sale to my piracy and quite a few have gained my business by my ability to fully utilize their product before I was able to pay for it; e.g. when I had they money, they got the money.
Of course, there are those out there who quite simply won't pay. Let's look at that group for a moment. If they couldn't get it for free, would they buy it? No. They, quite simply, won't pay. How can you count a copy made by someone whose money you never would have gotten anyway as a lost sale? Explain that and I'll buy into the "every copy is a lost sale, which has a cost, which makes it theft" argument so many people try to make. I'm pretty sure no company has ever lost a sale to someone who had no intention of being their customer. Of course, the counterargument that said companies have gained customers in this way is largely nullified, as well; though it has been known to happen.
Then, of course, we have commercial piracy. Here's where the theft, the lost sales, comes into play. If I'm making copies of your product and selling them, each of those *is* a lost sale. If I'm using your product in my business and that business is turning a profit, I can afford to buy your product and, if I do not, that *is* a lost sale. In those cases, and only those very few and rare cases, is piracy comparable to theft. Only in those cases is it "stealing". The burden of proof falls on the owner of the product; prove that I can afford your product and that I would have paid for it if piracy were not an option (that I could and would be your customer), or prove that I made profitable commercial use of your product. If you can't prove this, kindly fuck off and stop wasting my time, your time, and the court's time until such time that you can prove at least one of your arguments.
According to Napster (current day Napster, that is) you are buying an "Ownership License". They used this argument to deny me a refund after I bought a single track, then later bought the album that single track came from; note that albums are sold at a discount when compared to the sum total of the price of their individual tracks. They ended up giving me the refund when I pointed out that if I had "Ownership", I wouldn't need their "License"; once they realized I knew they were talking out of their asses and I could see through their bullshit, they dropped the act and refunded me my $0.99, responsibly eating the $0.62 for which they're "financially responsible to the copyright holder for [my] purchase" as cost of doing business, to keep a customer.
I strongly suggested to them that they implement a system that reviews prior purchases and if a user attempts to buy the same track (same version from the same album) twice, either by buying the single twice or by buying the single and later buying the album, alert them that they already own the track before completing the purchase. In the case of a single, the user would have the option to remove the track from their cart or keep it in the cart (e.g. to replace a lost or deleted copy). In the case of an album, the user would have the option to receive credit for tracks already owned (and no further copies of those tracks will be provided with the album) or to receive an additional (or replacement) copy of those tracks.
I'm not sure if they've implemented this, but I was told it would be considered. I'm pretty sure they considered it long enough to reach for the delete key, but I made my case and I think it's a pretty fucking valid one.
I replace the dedicated VM with an account on someone else's system, is this legal?
I'm pretty sure "someone else" is Amazon. Whether all of the steps are followed or the user opts to truncate them into something like
I rip my CDs and... store it... on my... account on someone else's system... and... stream the ripped music from my... account on someone else's system... to whichever computer / device I want to use.
the answer to "Is it legal?" doesn't change. We know this much; what we don't know (though it should be a glaringly obvious "YES!" on all counts) is "Is it legal?".
Let's see... In the US, we have 1.6L engines getting 37-38MPG. Since the imperial gallon is 1.2 US gallons and 45 is 1.2 37.5's (stated that way to make a point), I'd say europe isn't doing fuck all better than the US on fuel economy.
GP and I discovered a new element yesterday and named it Adhomineum. Of course, I have no proof of this, as, while experimenting to determine of the stuff could get me high, I ingested all of it.
You pay $50/month for 500 text messages? You said the 600 minutes are free, right? So you're happy about 10 cents per message?
Or are you being fleeced by T-Mo's marketing?
I've been with AT&T for 11 years now with no issues; in fact, I left T-Mo for them back in 99 because they started jacking with my bill. My fiancee tried getting a phone through them and, even given two months (billed months, at that) they couldn't even manage to get her phone activated. In the end, they refunded those 2 months of service, let her out of her contract with no ETF, and let her keep the phone. She ended up as a second line on my plan.
I've used AT&T in the Detroit, MI area, all around Cleveland, OH, and am currently using it in the SF Bay area. I'm not talking about weekend trips, either, I've lived in these areas and I've never had a reception or coverage issue. Hell, even on the 3 day drive from Cleveland to the bay, I had full coverage including data (I was using my GPS and listening to Pandora the whole way so I know it was working the whole time). There was one city we stopped in in Utah where I couldn't get data at the hotel and that was it; literally outside the room it worked, in the room GSM only. Those 8 hours are the only time I've had a coverage issue in 11 years.
I truly don't get why people jump on AT&T so much. Yes, they're a huge evil corporation. Yes, their execs should rot in hell for all eternity. However, I see no issues whatsoever with their service; haven't in 11 years. Meanwhile, I've had close friends and family members with never-ending issues with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon; many of them have since moved to AT&T after some careful convincing on my part and, once I put a phone in their hand that cost more than a penny and wasn't an iPhone, none of them have complained.
Your mileage may vary based on handset and/or location but I've never had an issue in MI, OH, or CA (or any state you drive through between OH and CA) with a decent Nokia or BlackBerry in the past 11 years.
correction, northern and mid cali are under warnings. I live on the 3rd floor of my apartment building, work on the 4th floor and park on the roof of my office, i think i'm covered, though i may have to swim home
What, exactly, do they think instituting a $10 "download all you want and now we can't sue you for it" tax will do for sales?
How about just saying "we're not assholes, so we're not going to sue you for downloading (or uploading in a torrent), but we'd better not catch you selling pirated copies"? I think that would do wonders for sales; especially given that I don't buy an album until I've listened to the whole thing and people I know who listen to the same music I do are all the same way, so borrowing it from someone else is straight out.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I purchased hardware running firmware with a specific set of features; additionally, I purchased a license to use said firmware and features. If Sony wants to add features to future firmwares, they have the option of doing so for free or charging a nominal fee for those additional features; however, it becomes (theft, fraud, breach of contract, some other criminal or civil offense, IANAL but I do know it's a legal liability) when they take away some feature I have paid for without at least offering me a choice between selling the entire system back to them, at the original sale price, or receiving reasonable monetary compensation for the removed feature.
Why the choice? Because someone who bought the unit only for the feature being removed is left with a paperweight they shouldn't be forced to take a loss on, while someone who didn't use the feature or used some other features as well may still want the unit but still deserves compensation for the reduction in functionality.
When you buy a DVD, you buy a license to play it on any equipment bearing the DVD logo. If you buy a DVD that uses nonstandard (but somehow compatible with all existing player firmwares) copy protections and, one day, manufacturers release firmware updates patching their players to better follow the standard; now your DVD won't play; should you be out the money you spent on that DVD just because the DVD manufacturer chose to break the standard for their copy protection? Are player manufacturers liable for updating their firmware to better follow the standard, is the DVD manufacturer liable for selling something that they knew didn't follow the standard (while labeling it as following the standard), or is nobody liable because, I mean, fuck, they already have your money and you agreed to their license terms?
If you buy a smartphone made by RIM, Apple, HTC, Samsung, or, really, any other company that makes phones (note that none of those actually own networks), why in the fuck would you think you owned AT&T's, T-Mobile's, Verizon's, Sprint's, or any other carrier's network? Fuck. Just... fuck. However, if you buy a smartphone capable of being used on AT&T's network AND T-Mobile's network and the phone manufacturer later releases a firmware update that disables compatibility with T-Mobile's network, it doesn't matter whether you're using it with ST&T or T-Mobile, you've lost functionality and should be compensated; if you're using it with T-Mobile the manufacturer should buy the phone back from you at the original sale price, if you're using AT&T the manufacturer should refund the portion of the purchase price that came from the dual-network capability. Are you fucking stupid?
If you buy a Linux netbook, it's probably shipping with some distro that's not Ubuntu, so I'm gonna say probably fucking not. You do, however, get a license to do whatever you want with the source code of the Linux kernel, including (provided that you release under the same license) release and distribute that product. Most, if not all, of the software included on that netbook will have the same license. If you bought that netbook, obtained the source code, developed your own distro that people thought was worth paying you for, began selling it, and suddenly the netbook manufacturer retroactively changes their licensing (assume, for a moment, that they buy this right from the entirety of the Linux community) such that your distro is now illegal, that would be breach of contract on their part.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut... Since you disagree with all of this, I have a proposition for you. How would you like to work for me? I can offer you a position as a software developer, with 100% of any revenue your work generates going directly to you on the first day of your second year working for me (you get no pay during the first year, with all revenue being placed in an account for you, not to be touched by me). I can't fire you, no matter what you do, but the terms of your employment can be changed at any time. Surely you have no issues with me making a few changes to your employment terms on day 365. Sound good? You can start tomorrow if you want.
It was used (as advertised) for making it possible to run your own software. It was used in conjunction with a hardware hack to gain full access to the hypervisor; something that likely could have been done (as evidenced by the fact that it has been) without the availability of the feature. It, in itself, was not used for hacking the console.
It does, but moving a cursor (1 finger) is quicker and easier.
There are, as of now, only 3 BB models with touchscreens. Two of those don't have the mouse or clickwheel. Those two can't use apps developed to rely on the mouse (or clickwheel) that was, up until those models were released, present on every BB.
The mouse is there for compatibility with apps which rely on it; I rarely use it on my Torch. It is useful sometimes on poorly-designed websites, like Slashdot, to navigate the pointer to the tooooooo-small link you want to click but can't quite manage to pick out with your finger, from between the other tooooooo-small links on the page that just so happen to be slammed up against the one you want.
Calculators.
You're not breaking anything to me. I summed up everything you just said in 2 words in the post to which you just replied.
Yes, but Google does not know my gender, or everyplace I go all day.
Like hell.
And what is this?
They have pirated it. Legally, they have committed copyright infringement.
If they have taken your name off of it and are claiming it as their own, giving it away as though there is no paid "legit" version, I'd go so far as to say they are committing fraud.
Copying the card data is piracy, not theft, you're right.
Using that data to make purchases, however, has a cost. That's theft.
So if I pirate the first copy, I've stolen all of the developer's time, right?
So when the developer sells a copy, he's stolen half of his time back? And another half with the next copy, so on and so forth.
How, then, is the developer any better than me?
DISCLOSURE: I'm a developer. You're an ass.
If someone puts an item up for sale, regardless of its form, and does not intend for it to be distributed any other way than by sale, and you take it without paying, it is theft.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is. If you take it, it's theft, they no longer have it. However, piracy refers to copying, not taking. Copying is not theft, it's copying, the original is still there, nothing has been taken; therefor, it is not theft. Taking it is theft.
Right, because driving on that road causes wear on the road; e.g. is has an actual cost to the owner of the toll road. It is that cost that makes it theft or "stealing".
However, downloading a copy of an application has no cost to the owner of the application. It is that lack of cost that makes it not theft or "not stealing".
Did they lose a sale? Probably not and here's why:
I pay for the vast majority of the software I use. The rest is either free software, trial versions I haven't gotten around to buying (haven't expired yet or don't plan to keep using), or shit I straight up can't afford to pay for that, assuming I don't get sued by the owner, I intend to purchase when I *can* afford it. I know 100% or certain that I'm not alone but, for the sake of argument, let's remove that last clause:
I pay for the vast majority of the software I use. The rest is either free software, trial versions I haven't gotten around to buying (haven't expired yet or don't plan to keep using), or shit I straight up can't afford to pay for. Ok, now I'm REALLY not alone.
Someone care to explain to me how you lose a sale to someone who can't afford to pay you? Explain that and I'll buy into the "every copy is a lost sale, which has a cost, which makes it theft" argument so many people try to make. I'm pretty sure no company has ever lost a sale to my piracy and quite a few have gained my business by my ability to fully utilize their product before I was able to pay for it; e.g. when I had they money, they got the money.
Of course, there are those out there who quite simply won't pay. Let's look at that group for a moment. If they couldn't get it for free, would they buy it? No. They, quite simply, won't pay. How can you count a copy made by someone whose money you never would have gotten anyway as a lost sale? Explain that and I'll buy into the "every copy is a lost sale, which has a cost, which makes it theft" argument so many people try to make. I'm pretty sure no company has ever lost a sale to someone who had no intention of being their customer. Of course, the counterargument that said companies have gained customers in this way is largely nullified, as well; though it has been known to happen.
Then, of course, we have commercial piracy. Here's where the theft, the lost sales, comes into play. If I'm making copies of your product and selling them, each of those *is* a lost sale. If I'm using your product in my business and that business is turning a profit, I can afford to buy your product and, if I do not, that *is* a lost sale. In those cases, and only those very few and rare cases, is piracy comparable to theft. Only in those cases is it "stealing". The burden of proof falls on the owner of the product; prove that I can afford your product and that I would have paid for it if piracy were not an option (that I could and would be your customer), or prove that I made profitable commercial use of your product. If you can't prove this, kindly fuck off and stop wasting my time, your time, and the court's time until such time that you can prove at least one of your arguments.
Gah, sorry, got off on a rant there.
DISCLOSURE: I'm a software developer.
They know how to put stuff together for real life.
So much so that there's almost no incidence of iPhone screen breakage and the new MacBook Pros never crash!
Of course! DHCP does stand for Designed to Hide Child Pornographers, afterall.
According to Napster (current day Napster, that is) you are buying an "Ownership License". They used this argument to deny me a refund after I bought a single track, then later bought the album that single track came from; note that albums are sold at a discount when compared to the sum total of the price of their individual tracks. They ended up giving me the refund when I pointed out that if I had "Ownership", I wouldn't need their "License"; once they realized I knew they were talking out of their asses and I could see through their bullshit, they dropped the act and refunded me my $0.99, responsibly eating the $0.62 for which they're "financially responsible to the copyright holder for [my] purchase" as cost of doing business, to keep a customer.
I strongly suggested to them that they implement a system that reviews prior purchases and if a user attempts to buy the same track (same version from the same album) twice, either by buying the single twice or by buying the single and later buying the album, alert them that they already own the track before completing the purchase. In the case of a single, the user would have the option to remove the track from their cart or keep it in the cart (e.g. to replace a lost or deleted copy). In the case of an album, the user would have the option to receive credit for tracks already owned (and no further copies of those tracks will be provided with the album) or to receive an additional (or replacement) copy of those tracks.
I'm not sure if they've implemented this, but I was told it would be considered. I'm pretty sure they considered it long enough to reach for the delete key, but I made my case and I think it's a pretty fucking valid one.
I replace the dedicated VM with an account on someone else's system, is this legal?
I'm pretty sure "someone else" is Amazon. Whether all of the steps are followed or the user opts to truncate them into something like
I rip my CDs and ... store it ... on my ... account on someone else's system ... and ... stream the ripped music from my ... account on someone else's system ... to whichever computer / device I want to use.
the answer to "Is it legal?" doesn't change. We know this much; what we don't know (though it should be a glaringly obvious "YES!" on all counts) is "Is it legal?".
Let's see... In the US, we have 1.6L engines getting 37-38MPG. Since the imperial gallon is 1.2 US gallons and 45 is 1.2 37.5's (stated that way to make a point), I'd say europe isn't doing fuck all better than the US on fuel economy.
GP and I discovered a new element yesterday and named it Adhomineum. Of course, I have no proof of this, as, while experimenting to determine of the stuff could get me high, I ingested all of it.
I believe the quote was actually 640kW
You pay $50/month for 500 text messages? You said the 600 minutes are free, right? So you're happy about 10 cents per message?
Or are you being fleeced by T-Mo's marketing?
I've been with AT&T for 11 years now with no issues; in fact, I left T-Mo for them back in 99 because they started jacking with my bill. My fiancee tried getting a phone through them and, even given two months (billed months, at that) they couldn't even manage to get her phone activated. In the end, they refunded those 2 months of service, let her out of her contract with no ETF, and let her keep the phone. She ended up as a second line on my plan.
I've used AT&T in the Detroit, MI area, all around Cleveland, OH, and am currently using it in the SF Bay area. I'm not talking about weekend trips, either, I've lived in these areas and I've never had a reception or coverage issue. Hell, even on the 3 day drive from Cleveland to the bay, I had full coverage including data (I was using my GPS and listening to Pandora the whole way so I know it was working the whole time). There was one city we stopped in in Utah where I couldn't get data at the hotel and that was it; literally outside the room it worked, in the room GSM only. Those 8 hours are the only time I've had a coverage issue in 11 years.
I truly don't get why people jump on AT&T so much. Yes, they're a huge evil corporation. Yes, their execs should rot in hell for all eternity. However, I see no issues whatsoever with their service; haven't in 11 years. Meanwhile, I've had close friends and family members with never-ending issues with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon; many of them have since moved to AT&T after some careful convincing on my part and, once I put a phone in their hand that cost more than a penny and wasn't an iPhone, none of them have complained.
Your mileage may vary based on handset and/or location but I've never had an issue in MI, OH, or CA (or any state you drive through between OH and CA) with a decent Nokia or BlackBerry in the past 11 years.
correction, northern and mid cali are under warnings. I live on the 3rd floor of my apartment building, work on the 4th floor and park on the roof of my office, i think i'm covered, though i may have to swim home
In all fairness, the EAS alert I heard as I was reading your comment said it was 8.8, as well.
What, exactly, do they think instituting a $10 "download all you want and now we can't sue you for it" tax will do for sales?
How about just saying "we're not assholes, so we're not going to sue you for downloading (or uploading in a torrent), but we'd better not catch you selling pirated copies"? I think that would do wonders for sales; especially given that I don't buy an album until I've listened to the whole thing and people I know who listen to the same music I do are all the same way, so borrowing it from someone else is straight out.
I think GP was referring to the arsefark doing 20 under in the left lane. YOU know who YOU are.