I especially love how he's a 'long-time loyal iPhone customer' though, when he switched from T-mobile, 'the only reason was the iPhone'. Not even 2 and a half years on the market, which means not even a 2 and a half year customer, who received an early upgrade when the 3G came out in July of '08, less than 12 months ago. I get 18 month upgrades after 8 and a half years as an AT&T customer; you don't hear me bitching, do you? No, even though I had to wait a few extra months to get the Bold when it came out, you don't hear me bitching.
Ask how many students' tuition go toward paying the jerkwad who instituted the policy. Round up that many students, plus yourself; all of you write letters to said jerkwad stating that you will no longer be attending this university if this policy is not changed. Forward copies of these letters to the dean; when he sees that this jerkwad is costing the uni more than twice his salary, he'll be faced with a "fix it or fuck off" proposition.
This is how things get done. Make him realize that you pay his salary and show him that his policy is going to cause the loss of said salary.
Intention does count, you're right. Negligence is a crime. Knowing you can and should have protection, and choosing not to, is negligence. Knowing that not having such protection can lead to your property being used in the commission of a criminal offense, and choosing not to, is criminal negligence.
Intent is implied by "choosing".
What I would do is irrelevant; there has been at least one case in which the owner of a legally and properly parked vehicle was sued by someone who plowed into said legally and properly parked vehicle... and lost. They lived at the corner of an unlit street (with a no parking ordinance and signs every 100 feet); the city had agreed to move the no parking sign from the corner or their yard to the end of their property when they installed lighting that allowed other drivers to see their parked vehicle clearly. The bulb burned out and someone came down the street doing about 50MPH and totaled their parked car. Driver sued and won.
Would I? No. Would you? I'd like to think not. Is what you or I would do relevant? Again, no; the above account (property owner was a friend of mine, I was there at the time of the accident, so I know it happened, making it an account, rather than an anecdote) acts as proof of that.
Well, if there was a widely advertised and discussed "gas tank shield" that their mechanic friends kept telling them they really HAVE TO HAVE INSTALLED to protect them from such an occurrence... and when such protection can be HAD AND MAINTAINED FOR FREE...
I just totally selected text from a snopes page. I'm not sure what problem YOU'RE having, but it seems to be YOUR problem.
Plus, this is slashdot; if you can't View Source and grab the text from there, you owe us a geek card. Once you're returned it to us, these nice gentlemen behind me will put down their guns and offer you a drink as they kindly escort you from the premesis...
Or they'll through you through a plate glass window; we don't like geek posers.
My post in the other discussion sums up my views on copying, so I won't touch on that here. Instead, I'll risk going off-topic a bit here and, perhaps enlightening you as to our real economic situation. I'm always open to being shown how I'm wrong about this particular subject, and would actually find great comfort in it.
You're using the same logic that allowed the financial industry to trade on nonexistent funds, leading to our current economic situation
Lol.. Your one of those. Ok, I know my intelligence is wasted now. First, the funds were not non-existent. They were devalued when the contents of the packaged defaulted. That is a mechanic of the type of trade that was happening and a condition created by improper government regulation.
Actually, the funds were nonexistent. What I'm talking about is fractional reserve banking.
You do realize that, in 2008, the Federal Reserve had committed $8.5T to bailing out the banking industry, right? Do you also realize that, at the same time, the Federal Reserve was reporting a money supply of just under $8T. That tells me that over a half of a trillion dollars of nonexistent funds were placed into circulation and traded.
I'm interested to hear whether I'm still "one of those" after you realize what actually happened to us.
Realize that more money is owed in derivatives than there is in existence. Please, explain to my how this can be so if we're not trading nonexistent funds?
Further discussion on this topic should probably be taken to another forum, but I'd be more than happy to entertain your thoughts on the information I've just presented to you here, before we continue this discussion elsewhere.
Ok, I misspoke when I said my previous reply would be my last.
Despite trying, and trying again, I still can't bring myself to see it your way. Perhaps it's that we simply define profit differently and, for our individual definitions of profit, our individual logical paths work out.
Also, in spite of the demeaning tones we have taken with each other at various times throughout this argument, we have always returned to civility by the end of each post.
That said, I'll lay my point of view on the line and that will be that; forget everything else.
When one copies with no intent to purchase, I fail to see how any loss is created. It is nothing like when one steals a car with no intent to purchase; the car is still in the garage, and you can still use, or sell, the car.
When one copies, who previously had intent to purchase, I fully agree that loss has occurred. There's no doubt in my mind that, by getting, for free, something that one would have ordinarily paid for, they have deprived someone of funds or property, which they ordinarily would have received.
When the above occurs, and said subject concurrently makes a purchase, I believe that the effect is two-fold; negating the original loss, and generating direct profit. Even I had to rethink that a couple of times before finishing typing it; I fully understand is someone does not see it that way. Though, at the very least, it would negate the prior loss.
When one copies, with the intent to form intent to purchase, I would agree that loss is generated if the subject determines that they are interested in purchasing. Likewise, when such purchase is made, I maintain that any such loss would be negated. Whether such a subject would generate loss upon determining that they would not be interested in purchasing is somewhat of a gray area for me. On one hand, I'm inclined to lump them in with the no-intent copiers; on the other hand, there's an inkling of intent to purchase directing these subjects. In my mind, this category of copiers is a wash; statistically, they're likely to generate as much loss as they do profit.
One who purchases from a bootlegger, or purchases counterfeit goods, has generated profit for the bootlegger or counterfeiter, but has neither generated profit or loss for the rights holder. In these instances, it is the bootlegger or counterfeiter who has generated loss for the rights holder.
That's how I see it, plain and simple.
I have seen (not purchased) many bootlegs and counterfeits, the packaging and outward appearance of which were indistinguishable from the original. In these instances, it was only a combination of the questionable location of the shop and the questionable nature of some other merchandise in the shop which led me to inquire as to the authenticity of the media. In each of these such cases, I was informed that the seller "could not confirm the authenticity of the product" but did not "want to remove it from the shelf, due to the possibility of legal repercussions if the product is legitimate". A bullshit line if I ever heard one. One retailer even went so far as to play a DVD for me, to prove its authenticity; when I saw the distribution team's logo in the menu into, I walked out.
I do download, in order to determine whether I want to purchase an album or a single track. I do acknowledge that, from the time I determine that I will be purchasing, up to the time that I make the purchase, I have caused a loss; an imaginary one, but a loss, nonetheless. As stated above, and for the reasons stated above, I'm undecided as to whether I cause any loss in the instances in which I decide not to purchase.
I'm certainly not claiming that unauthorized copying never leads to lost profits. Obviously, that would be a flawed statement; though, no more flawed than claims that unauthorized copying always leads to lost profits. Copyright law simply isn't that absolute, and fair use is (even if slightly) broader than the examples spelled out in the legislation.
I'm tired of restating the same thing in different ways in order to get you to understand what I'm saying. I've had several other people read this discussion and all of them were able to explain what I meant just fine; the problem is your comprehension, not my explanation.
That said, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on a few points; it seems the only place where we agree is that the laws need to change and that there are moral issues regarding violating the current laws. That's fine, this life would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
DRM is very much a part of this discussion, especially when inserting a DRM protected disc into my computer can result in that disc installing software that restricts my use of my hardware, in ways entirely unrelated to that disc, without my consent, and often without my knowledge. Do you remember the Sony root-kit debacle? That software completely disabled CD-ROM drives in a lot of computers, along with the numerous other problems it caused for those who were unlucky enough to have fallen victim to it. It didn't prompt to install, it didn't notify you that it was installed, there was no mention of it anywhere on the package, the disc, or the booklet included with the disc, it just installed and devastated many PCs. Simply avoiding this risk would most certainly be protected; that's what makes it relevant.
That said, I also have a life outside of slashdot, and this will be the last post I make in this thread.
Slashdot Mirror
I especially love how he's a 'long-time loyal iPhone customer' though, when he switched from T-mobile, 'the only reason was the iPhone'. Not even 2 and a half years on the market, which means not even a 2 and a half year customer, who received an early upgrade when the 3G came out in July of '08, less than 12 months ago. I get 18 month upgrades after 8 and a half years as an AT&T customer; you don't hear me bitching, do you? No, even though I had to wait a few extra months to get the Bold when it came out, you don't hear me bitching.
I think the real news here is that Apple fans are all whiny little twerps... except, that's not really news to those who already think so.
Me? Just playing devil's advocate. I'm not an apple fan, by any means; but, to each, his own.
Even if the machines were free, you're right. When the cost is our nation and our freedom, the cost is just too high.
Giving one entity three names is a tad confusing. My replies were a tad tongue-in-cheek.
Trolling and having excellent karma really is possible!
Ford = ?
Ford-AV = ?
Why would FFmpeg's use of MPEG-AV's technology infringe on Ford's patents?
How does Google license MGEG-AV's technology from Ford-AV?
I'm confused!!!!!
I think I understood it better before I read that.
Ever heard of a high-profile Windows shop being compromised during the last five years? No? Didn't think so.
Of course we don't hear about it anymore. It's not news!
Ask how many students' tuition go toward paying the jerkwad who instituted the policy. Round up that many students, plus yourself; all of you write letters to said jerkwad stating that you will no longer be attending this university if this policy is not changed. Forward copies of these letters to the dean; when he sees that this jerkwad is costing the uni more than twice his salary, he'll be faced with a "fix it or fuck off" proposition.
This is how things get done. Make him realize that you pay his salary and show him that his policy is going to cause the loss of said salary.
Intention does count, you're right. Negligence is a crime. Knowing you can and should have protection, and choosing not to, is negligence. Knowing that not having such protection can lead to your property being used in the commission of a criminal offense, and choosing not to, is criminal negligence.
Intent is implied by "choosing".
What I would do is irrelevant; there has been at least one case in which the owner of a legally and properly parked vehicle was sued by someone who plowed into said legally and properly parked vehicle... and lost. They lived at the corner of an unlit street (with a no parking ordinance and signs every 100 feet); the city had agreed to move the no parking sign from the corner or their yard to the end of their property when they installed lighting that allowed other drivers to see their parked vehicle clearly. The bulb burned out and someone came down the street doing about 50MPH and totaled their parked car. Driver sued and won.
Would I? No. Would you? I'd like to think not. Is what you or I would do relevant? Again, no; the above account (property owner was a friend of mine, I was there at the time of the accident, so I know it happened, making it an account, rather than an anecdote) acts as proof of that.
Well, if there was a widely advertised and discussed "gas tank shield" that their mechanic friends kept telling them they really HAVE TO HAVE INSTALLED to protect them from such an occurrence... and when such protection can be HAD AND MAINTAINED FOR FREE...
I say, at that point, yes.
Hey, I happen to like the KDE beatboxing app... KRap
read that as "Zune HD Unveiled, Set For Failed Release"?
Then they should have done everything they could to keep him alive at least long enough to pay that bill.
Here's your award. Sorry, I only have one to give; you've earned two, though.
Oh, before I forget, here's your two swift kicks in the ass.
And it's comments like yours (and, now, mine... thanks) that bring it down further.
eh... typo... first one to find it wins the Pedant of the Year award...
and a swift kick in the ass.
I just totally selected text from a snopes page. I'm not sure what problem YOU'RE having, but it seems to be YOUR problem.
Plus, this is slashdot; if you can't View Source and grab the text from there, you owe us a geek card. Once you're returned it to us, these nice gentlemen behind me will put down their guns and offer you a drink as they kindly escort you from the premesis...
Or they'll through you through a plate glass window; we don't like geek posers.
Only after it's too late to do anything about it.
First Sale Doctrine much?
Actually, I was being serious...
I was seriously going for funny mods... And maybe a couple insightfuls.
irony: captcha fixating
It had better controls and playability than anything on the PS3 or XBOX 360.
Yes, but psot's dog, spot, saves him by biting tops' neck before he can pull the trigger.
My post in the other discussion sums up my views on copying, so I won't touch on that here. Instead, I'll risk going off-topic a bit here and, perhaps enlightening you as to our real economic situation. I'm always open to being shown how I'm wrong about this particular subject, and would actually find great comfort in it.
You're using the same logic that allowed the financial industry to trade on nonexistent funds, leading to our current economic situation
Lol.. Your one of those. Ok, I know my intelligence is wasted now. First, the funds were not non-existent. They were devalued when the contents of the packaged defaulted. That is a mechanic of the type of trade that was happening and a condition created by improper government regulation.
Actually, the funds were nonexistent. What I'm talking about is fractional reserve banking.
You do realize that, in 2008, the Federal Reserve had committed $8.5T to bailing out the banking industry, right? Do you also realize that, at the same time, the Federal Reserve was reporting a money supply of just under $8T. That tells me that over a half of a trillion dollars of nonexistent funds were placed into circulation and traded.
I'll leave you to do your own research, beyond the following artcle: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11600
I'm interested to hear whether I'm still "one of those" after you realize what actually happened to us.
Realize that more money is owed in derivatives than there is in existence. Please, explain to my how this can be so if we're not trading nonexistent funds?
Further discussion on this topic should probably be taken to another forum, but I'd be more than happy to entertain your thoughts on the information I've just presented to you here, before we continue this discussion elsewhere.
Ok, I misspoke when I said my previous reply would be my last.
Despite trying, and trying again, I still can't bring myself to see it your way. Perhaps it's that we simply define profit differently and, for our individual definitions of profit, our individual logical paths work out.
Also, in spite of the demeaning tones we have taken with each other at various times throughout this argument, we have always returned to civility by the end of each post.
That said, I'll lay my point of view on the line and that will be that; forget everything else.
When one copies with no intent to purchase, I fail to see how any loss is created. It is nothing like when one steals a car with no intent to purchase; the car is still in the garage, and you can still use, or sell, the car.
When one copies, who previously had intent to purchase, I fully agree that loss has occurred. There's no doubt in my mind that, by getting, for free, something that one would have ordinarily paid for, they have deprived someone of funds or property, which they ordinarily would have received.
When the above occurs, and said subject concurrently makes a purchase, I believe that the effect is two-fold; negating the original loss, and generating direct profit. Even I had to rethink that a couple of times before finishing typing it; I fully understand is someone does not see it that way. Though, at the very least, it would negate the prior loss.
When one copies, with the intent to form intent to purchase, I would agree that loss is generated if the subject determines that they are interested in purchasing. Likewise, when such purchase is made, I maintain that any such loss would be negated. Whether such a subject would generate loss upon determining that they would not be interested in purchasing is somewhat of a gray area for me. On one hand, I'm inclined to lump them in with the no-intent copiers; on the other hand, there's an inkling of intent to purchase directing these subjects. In my mind, this category of copiers is a wash; statistically, they're likely to generate as much loss as they do profit.
One who purchases from a bootlegger, or purchases counterfeit goods, has generated profit for the bootlegger or counterfeiter, but has neither generated profit or loss for the rights holder. In these instances, it is the bootlegger or counterfeiter who has generated loss for the rights holder.
That's how I see it, plain and simple.
I have seen (not purchased) many bootlegs and counterfeits, the packaging and outward appearance of which were indistinguishable from the original. In these instances, it was only a combination of the questionable location of the shop and the questionable nature of some other merchandise in the shop which led me to inquire as to the authenticity of the media. In each of these such cases, I was informed that the seller "could not confirm the authenticity of the product" but did not "want to remove it from the shelf, due to the possibility of legal repercussions if the product is legitimate". A bullshit line if I ever heard one. One retailer even went so far as to play a DVD for me, to prove its authenticity; when I saw the distribution team's logo in the menu into, I walked out.
I do download, in order to determine whether I want to purchase an album or a single track. I do acknowledge that, from the time I determine that I will be purchasing, up to the time that I make the purchase, I have caused a loss; an imaginary one, but a loss, nonetheless. As stated above, and for the reasons stated above, I'm undecided as to whether I cause any loss in the instances in which I decide not to purchase.
I'm certainly not claiming that unauthorized copying never leads to lost profits. Obviously, that would be a flawed statement; though, no more flawed than claims that unauthorized copying always leads to lost profits. Copyright law simply isn't that absolute, and fair use is (even if slightly) broader than the examples spelled out in the legislation.
Though my tone and d
I'm tired of restating the same thing in different ways in order to get you to understand what I'm saying. I've had several other people read this discussion and all of them were able to explain what I meant just fine; the problem is your comprehension, not my explanation.
That said, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on a few points; it seems the only place where we agree is that the laws need to change and that there are moral issues regarding violating the current laws. That's fine, this life would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
DRM is very much a part of this discussion, especially when inserting a DRM protected disc into my computer can result in that disc installing software that restricts my use of my hardware, in ways entirely unrelated to that disc, without my consent, and often without my knowledge. Do you remember the Sony root-kit debacle? That software completely disabled CD-ROM drives in a lot of computers, along with the numerous other problems it caused for those who were unlucky enough to have fallen victim to it. It didn't prompt to install, it didn't notify you that it was installed, there was no mention of it anywhere on the package, the disc, or the booklet included with the disc, it just installed and devastated many PCs. Simply avoiding this risk would most certainly be protected; that's what makes it relevant.
That said, I also have a life outside of slashdot, and this will be the last post I make in this thread.