I did not say that removing your memory destroyed that memory, merely that it would be taken from you.
The word you used was 'removed'.
Would it make a difference to you if a copy was made prior to your drives being erased? I am saying that pirating software is creating a copy without payment or the effort required to create that piece of software.
You're saying that using words like 'removed' and 'erased'. That's not what's happening here.
If your employer decided not to pay you for your work last week, the money would be in their pocket instead of yours, no money actually disappeared, but the money is clearly not where it belongs.
There's no relevance between your example and piracy. In fact, this is exactly the sort of rationale Jack Valenti tried to use to prevent VCRs from becoming household gadgets. You have demonstrated a couple of times now that, fundamentally, you do not understand a very critical piece of this puzzle. Copying means you lose nothing, that isn't the picture you painted. Here is a partial fix to your example:
You did work for a company and was paid for it. A completely different company, who you have no association whatsoever with, used your work in some way and you weren't paid for it. You wouldn't have known about it if nobody had told you. (i.e. you didn't have to send them any files or email them or anything like that.) You would have us believe that you have no issue with that?
Now, you didn't ask me that question, but I'll answer it anyway: It has happened before, and no. I have potential for more work because of it.
You're talking to somebody who has written and sold software. You're also talking to somebody that works in the entertainment industry. Things like Wolverine getting leaked actually affect my working life. You're not talking to somebody who's trying to justify piracy, but you are talking to somebody who's livelihood would be destroyed if piracy ran to a ridiculous extreme. And.... guess what? I'm not worried that people will put me out of business. I am worried that sales will go down if the product is devalued over FEAR of piracy. Broken rationalizations like yours fuel that fire.
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.
Which just means that those of us who pay for software have to jump through extra hoops to keep it activated.
By your definition, somebody could take a photo of me, publish it in the media so everybody can see it, and I'd be able to call the whole world a bunch of freeloaders.
You'll be right once you can show us what the app's author is doing to support pirates that he isn't already doing with existing customers.
Taking something that has value to you, and not paying for it (when it hasn't been made free by the author/developer/producer/etc), is stealing.
No, it's not.
There are costs associated to producing and distributing the software and you are depriving the author/developer/producer/etc from compensation for the copy you didn't pay for.
No, you're not.
Taking something that isn't 'free' without paying for it is stealing whether it's a digital item or food at a restaurant.
No, it's not.
The critical flaw in your line of thinking here is that there is no detectable loss of money or property anywhere. You cannot say "here's what we could have made". There are no stories, for example, of somebody creating a new copy protection mechanism and sales going up. This is is why the whole element of 'critical thought' is important. You've taken a simplistic view, claim to be seeing smoke, but can't point to a fire. I wouldn't normally mind but this sort of broken logic is exactly why those of us who do pay for software have to jump through extra hoops to keep it activated.
Excuse me for wanting a little mystery and romance and nuance to my April Fool's jokes instead of a dump truck worth of poop slathered all over the internet.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was your first year on the internet.
People are not being creative, just corny and blatant. Neither of which are a good laugh.
Have you read what passes for funny around here? We're still on BSOD and flying chair jokes. The only real difference with today (which has been an annual tradition for at least the 10 years I've been lurking around here) is that the lame jokes are above the comments section.
In other words: Shut up. If it bothers you so much, go set your calendar to remind you on March 31st 2012 that you want to spend the day outside.
Or, if the government is going to rescue them, then why not charge the people who caused the government to have to come out?
Don't know. Nobody is complaining about it, though. This is probably because it's about community and not about who's rich and who's poor.
I just don't see why people expect rescue services to be some free thing provided by the government.
They're not free. That's what taxes are for.
In cases where the rescue isn't something likely to be needed by the average citizen (such as a heart attack or getting locked in a room), it should be payed by the party who caused it.
It doesn't matter. If the helicopter crashes in a lake, it's not isolated like in your mountain climbing example. They also don't assess the fee for this service and then do it. Is that fair or not fair? That's not what this topic is about, nor is this the case to change how that works. Like I said the last time you responded to me, the big fucking difference here is he's flying a vehicle that can cover a lot of space in a very little time.
A. Won't happen. B. It's on a lake, stuff goes down stream. C. The fee is was not established with helicopters in mind.
I don't know when gov'ts never act retarded. Doesn't matter anyway, though he's flying a vehicle that can cover lots of ground. That's an important point no matter how much you piss away important details.
So you spend alot of money on a device you wont use much at all now? Why didn't you play the 3DS at a store before you bought it?
There's a lot more going on with that system than just the stereo display. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the 3d screen isn't the biggest whoop-de-doo about it, it's just the bit that makes it the most distinct from other systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there's any dispute about that. It's the ratio of copy to shouldapaid that's not widely understood.
Wow, it's really easy to post a rebuttal using your method.
Heh. That really could have stung... if you hadn't intentionally skipped the whole bit with the rebuttal.
I did not say that removing your memory destroyed that memory, merely that it would be taken from you.
The word you used was 'removed'.
Would it make a difference to you if a copy was made prior to your drives being erased? I am saying that pirating software is creating a copy without payment or the effort required to create that piece of software.
You're saying that using words like 'removed' and 'erased'. That's not what's happening here.
If your employer decided not to pay you for your work last week, the money would be in their pocket instead of yours, no money actually disappeared, but the money is clearly not where it belongs.
There's no relevance between your example and piracy. In fact, this is exactly the sort of rationale Jack Valenti tried to use to prevent VCRs from becoming household gadgets. You have demonstrated a couple of times now that, fundamentally, you do not understand a very critical piece of this puzzle. Copying means you lose nothing, that isn't the picture you painted. Here is a partial fix to your example:
You did work for a company and was paid for it. A completely different company, who you have no association whatsoever with, used your work in some way and you weren't paid for it. You wouldn't have known about it if nobody had told you. (i.e. you didn't have to send them any files or email them or anything like that.) You would have us believe that you have no issue with that?
Now, you didn't ask me that question, but I'll answer it anyway: It has happened before, and no. I have potential for more work because of it.
You're talking to somebody who has written and sold software. You're also talking to somebody that works in the entertainment industry. Things like Wolverine getting leaked actually affect my working life. You're not talking to somebody who's trying to justify piracy, but you are talking to somebody who's livelihood would be destroyed if piracy ran to a ridiculous extreme. And.... guess what? I'm not worried that people will put me out of business. I am worried that sales will go down if the product is devalued over FEAR of piracy. Broken rationalizations like yours fuel that fire.
So what you're saying is that downloading a pirate copy of software.... makes another copy of it disappear somewhere....?
Well that explains why so many people here dont understand the topic.
You all should thank me for not making a 'com-pile' joke.
That is because you are a faggot.
Homosexuality isn't an insult anymore.
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.
Which just means that those of us who pay for software have to jump through extra hoops to keep it activated.
Uh, yeah, speaking of motivating pirates....
I hope someone will be annoyed enough to start a fork which removes this gimmicky crap but keeps the security fixes.
You don't see no-more-reliance-on-the-Adobe-PDFViewer as a security fix?
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader
"a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return"
Please tell me how the use of that term was incorrect.
By your definition, somebody could take a photo of me, publish it in the media so everybody can see it, and I'd be able to call the whole world a bunch of freeloaders.
You'll be right once you can show us what the app's author is doing to support pirates that he isn't already doing with existing customers.
Taking something that has value to you, and not paying for it (when it hasn't been made free by the author/developer/producer/etc), is stealing.
No, it's not.
There are costs associated to producing and distributing the software and you are depriving the author/developer/producer/etc from compensation for the copy you didn't pay for.
No, you're not.
Taking something that isn't 'free' without paying for it is stealing whether it's a digital item or food at a restaurant.
No, it's not.
The critical flaw in your line of thinking here is that there is no detectable loss of money or property anywhere. You cannot say "here's what we could have made". There are no stories, for example, of somebody creating a new copy protection mechanism and sales going up. This is is why the whole element of 'critical thought' is important. You've taken a simplistic view, claim to be seeing smoke, but can't point to a fire. I wouldn't normally mind but this sort of broken logic is exactly why those of us who do pay for software have to jump through extra hoops to keep it activated.
Yo mama's so fat, we can se here she lives on this map!
There's really no point... ...in reading Slashdot today.
Derr. Cos, you know, Slashdot spends every April 1st at the height of it's journalistic value.
enough.
This happens every year, chill.
Excuse me for wanting a little mystery and romance and nuance to my April Fool's jokes instead of a dump truck worth of poop slathered all over the internet.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was your first year on the internet.
Why did I have to get mod points today? Useless.
You know they last for more than one day, right?
Its fun to look for one slightly plausible "april fool" among genuine articles. A whole stream of them just gets boring.
So does a whole stream of 'this is boring' comments every... fucking... year.
People are not being creative, just corny and blatant. Neither of which are a good laugh.
Have you read what passes for funny around here? We're still on BSOD and flying chair jokes. The only real difference with today (which has been an annual tradition for at least the 10 years I've been lurking around here) is that the lame jokes are above the comments section.
In other words: Shut up. If it bothers you so much, go set your calendar to remind you on March 31st 2012 that you want to spend the day outside.
Why does the government have to be involved?
For the reasons I mentioned already.
Or, if the government is going to rescue them, then why not charge the people who caused the government to have to come out?
Don't know. Nobody is complaining about it, though. This is probably because it's about community and not about who's rich and who's poor.
I just don't see why people expect rescue services to be some free thing provided by the government.
They're not free. That's what taxes are for.
In cases where the rescue isn't something likely to be needed by the average citizen (such as a heart attack or getting locked in a room), it should be payed by the party who caused it.
It doesn't matter. If the helicopter crashes in a lake, it's not isolated like in your mountain climbing example. They also don't assess the fee for this service and then do it. Is that fair or not fair? That's not what this topic is about, nor is this the case to change how that works. Like I said the last time you responded to me, the big fucking difference here is he's flying a vehicle that can cover a lot of space in a very little time.
A. Won't happen.
B. It's on a lake, stuff goes down stream.
C. The fee is was not established with helicopters in mind.
I don't know when gov'ts never act retarded. Doesn't matter anyway, though he's flying a vehicle that can cover lots of ground. That's an important point no matter how much you piss away important details.
It's also National Cleavage Day. How are you celebrating?
I'd tell you but it's too long to type without using both hands.
Companies still need to keep selling their stuff, the world economy needs to keep moving.
You speak as if "the world economy" were some sort of religion with rituals which must be adhered to for the good of the Invisible Hand.
Sadly, entirely appropriate.
Pardon us for preferring that we have roofs over our heads.
So you spend alot of money on a device you wont use much at all now? Why didn't you play the 3DS at a store before you bought it?
There's a lot more going on with that system than just the stereo display. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the 3d screen isn't the biggest whoop-de-doo about it, it's just the bit that makes it the most distinct from other systems.
I see no admission of guilt. Instead I see an answer to a question that probably didn't use the word 'keylogger'.
My idea of an "improved tablet" is something that I can treat like a PC and be in full control over.
I can print from it without any nonsense.
I can move files on and off of it without any nonsense.
I can run whatever apps I want without any nonsense.
Plus, sometimes a puny SSD just doesn't cut it.
How many TabletPCs did you end up buying over the last 7 years?
Good jokes are always insightful at heart, and only superficially funny.
Right, the operative word being 'good'. I stand by my statement.