If someone takes all your money and/or possessions, you can get those things back. If someone takes your life, well, good luck with all that. I mean seriously, if someone gave you the choice of losing your material possessions or death, you can honestly say you don't see a difference?? If you can't I would say you are placing WAY to much value on your stuff and money.
The RIAA was pretty much damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't on their strategy. If the sue poor, non-powerful students, they will not get any money. If they sue the rich, powerful ones, hopefully their important daddy can fight it. I think they knew from the start it wouldn't last forever, but they probably thought that they could scare enough people by the time it blew up in their faces that it didn't matter. I mean the most attractive thing about this strategy to them was the price tag I'm sure.
$42/month would still be cheaper than I pay for Comcast internet where I live. (Minneapolis) Right now I am paying $100/month for 6Mb and basic digital cable (I could save a whole $1.99 if I wanted analog - with fewer channels). But my only other choices are Qwest DSL (about the same price, lower speed) or the city wide wireless (cheaper but plagued with problems and their tech support is horrible) which all are roguhly in the same neighborhood when it comes to cost. There used to be a few smaller telcos that offered DSL in the surrounding suburbs (MacLeod and Frontier come to mind) but they didn't offer service to my neighborhood and not sure if they are even still around in the burbs. But if you wnet with one of the smaller telcos to save some money, they were just leasing the lines from Qwest. So if you had any problems, the smaller company would just blame Qwest and vice versa. Years ago I had a problem when I had a DSL line from Qwest, and a different ISP providing the DSL service. I went back and forth so many times with each blaming the other that the only way I could resolve it was to do a 3-way call with techs from both companies. (It actually turned out to be BOTH their faults.)
I am also a civil servant working for a state university. I am making at least 1/3 less than I could be working in the corporate IT sector. The reason I stay is because salary isn't everything when it comes to a job. I have no set hours, no dress code, great health and dental benefits, paid vacation and sick time, a great retirement plan, my own office, and only one boss to report to. I also work in a pretty open-minded liberal academic environment. I have worked in the private sector before where I made more money, but had a dress code, inflexible set hours, a tiny cubicle in a huge room full of other cubicles, multiple inept bosses, less benefits, etc. I work on a lot of cancer related studies at my job, so I feel like what I do isn't just meaningless paper shuffling, that it actually may make a difference someday. You have to weigh all the factors besides salary when comparing jobs in different sectors.
I know a woman who wanted a modem installed in her system (this was about 5 years ago). She bought the modem, but couldn't figure out how to install the drivers. She called GeekSquad and they sent over one of their drooling morons. He proceeded to go into her computer room, close the door and was in there for 3 1/2 hours. He eventually came out and handed her a bill for 3 1/2 hours labor and traveling charges - it was just under $300 IIRC. To install a $20 modem. I told her she probably could have bought a brand new system that already had a modem for about $100 more...
That is a movie I would buy! But do they get fed to the sharks before or after the seals shoot them with handguns? Or maybe they could get shot while being eaten by sharks. Hey Hollywood, we actually have an original idea here for a movie. Pay attention!
I never once claimed all torrents are illegal. I know that. We all know that. But if you believe the majority of people going to TPB are downloading perfectly legal torrents, I have some nice oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. I know that there are legal torrents exist, I have even downloaded a few. However, I am also willing to admit that the majority of torrents do not fall into this category. If you don't agree to this you are either - delusional, lying, or very ignorant. I mean for god sakes this is Slashdot. Everyone here KNOWS the main purpose for most torrent sites. Let's not all pretend like we don't, and not pretend that the overwhelming majority of the torrent downloads are the legal ones.
It isn't the license that stops people, it is the startup costs. Hell back in the early 90s there were about a million "mom and pop" dial-up ISPs in my area, and I live in a small city. Back then all you needed was a T-1 line and a boatload of modems. Broadband requirements are a little steeper.
Porn or not, if you don't have a right to the copy you don't have a right to the copy. Did you know that porn movies are copyrighted also? They are no different than mainstream movies as far as that goes. The actual content is irrelevant.
I agree. But the USA is a little different than other countries in land mass and population density. So you can't really compare European telcos to American ones as they have less land to cover and the populations are much more dense. But yeah, obviously the subsidizing of the industry didn't quite have the desired outcome, at least for the customers. But at least we do still have a choice in our providers, or in my case, the choice not to have a provider (for a land line). And in all honesty our highways and bridges infrastructure is looking as poorly maintained as our telecommunications infrastructure. They are both in great shape if it were 1968.
Then the answer is not to have the government control the ISPs decision making abilities, it is to encourage more ISPs to exist. In a capitalistic society, where there is a demand, a supply will almost certainly spring up (if there is a profit to be made). Maybe that is why in the US there are more choices for ISPs. If a business isn't providing what the customer wants (or even worse trying to dictate to the customer what they want), someone else will start offering it. As I said earlier sometimes the decision between ISPs might be like choosing the giant douche or the shit sandwich, but at the very least it is still your decision.
I will agree that if you truly live in an area that only has one choice for an ISP, then the situation is different. (Yet you can still choose not to use the ISP and go without internet services. And if enough people make this choice the ISP will be forced to change or go under.) But in my experience where I live, that is almost never the case. YMMV.
ISP is an independent business selling a service, a pizza shop is an independent business selling a service. The only difference at all is the service, which for the points I am making don't matter. This is what you are failing to grasp. It is not what they provide, it is the decision process on how they decide what to provide that is at the heart of this conversation, and whether or not the individual businesses get to decide for themselves. The government doesn't need to regulate every aspect of a business. That is my fundamental point that you disagree with. As long as a business isn't breaking any laws, they should be free to do what they want. You are familiar with this concept as it is how you want to use your internet access.
We are not "allowing them to block" anything. They are choosing to block some content, and you don't have to have the filter if you don't want it. If an ISP decides to start blocking political blogs, then the customers will choose another ISP if they don't like it. That is how you can stop them - by putting them out of business because they are not giving the people what they actually want (see Napster, the music and film industry for more on this). The governemnt doesn't need to step in and tell the business what they can or cannot provide. So what is the problem with this business model? You don't like the fact the government isn't involved in the decision?? All we are really arguing about now is socialism vs. capitalism. You think the government should decide the will of the people whereas I think the actual people can decide for themselves.
But the ISP is providing the service, so they have a right to provide or not provide whatever they see fit. It is your right to not use an ISP that has policies you don't agree with. Never mind the fact that we are talking about something YOU CAN CHOOSE to opt out of. It's not like we are talking about China and a mandatory content filtering system.
Say I opened a pizza shop. I decide (for whatever reason) that I don't want to serve onions in my business. Should the government have the right to step in and force me to sell onions? I say no. You seem to think yes. We may just have to agree to disagree.
Once they are sending and receiving to space they are beyond the scope of "Brazillian law". It is like international waters.
Think about if you started a discussion group on the police or fire radio frequency. That is an open channel too, but obviously there needs to be some restrictions. Or if you left your front door unlocked, is it reasonable to assume everything in your house is fair game to be taken by anyone who opens it??
If the site were judged to have been run legally, what exactly would the admins be in trouble for? Look I am not condoning the decision (I actually think they got it dead wrong) I am just reporting on what happened. Please don't shoot the messenger, or think that I like the message.
Slashdot Mirror
Day, week, month, whatever. Bottom line is dude was NOT getting laid. (And from the sounds of it, never will without paying.)
Hardcore gamers don't have enough time for porn and vice-versa.
If someone takes all your money and/or possessions, you can get those things back. If someone takes your life, well, good luck with all that. I mean seriously, if someone gave you the choice of losing your material possessions or death, you can honestly say you don't see a difference?? If you can't I would say you are placing WAY to much value on your stuff and money.
The RIAA was pretty much damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't on their strategy. If the sue poor, non-powerful students, they will not get any money. If they sue the rich, powerful ones, hopefully their important daddy can fight it. I think they knew from the start it wouldn't last forever, but they probably thought that they could scare enough people by the time it blew up in their faces that it didn't matter. I mean the most attractive thing about this strategy to them was the price tag I'm sure.
But at least the drivers and apps did exist. Digging isn't a big deal as long as it isn't totally fruitless.
$42/month would still be cheaper than I pay for Comcast internet where I live. (Minneapolis) Right now I am paying $100/month for 6Mb and basic digital cable (I could save a whole $1.99 if I wanted analog - with fewer channels). But my only other choices are Qwest DSL (about the same price, lower speed) or the city wide wireless (cheaper but plagued with problems and their tech support is horrible) which all are roguhly in the same neighborhood when it comes to cost. There used to be a few smaller telcos that offered DSL in the surrounding suburbs (MacLeod and Frontier come to mind) but they didn't offer service to my neighborhood and not sure if they are even still around in the burbs. But if you wnet with one of the smaller telcos to save some money, they were just leasing the lines from Qwest. So if you had any problems, the smaller company would just blame Qwest and vice versa. Years ago I had a problem when I had a DSL line from Qwest, and a different ISP providing the DSL service. I went back and forth so many times with each blaming the other that the only way I could resolve it was to do a 3-way call with techs from both companies. (It actually turned out to be BOTH their faults.)
I am also a civil servant working for a state university. I am making at least 1/3 less than I could be working in the corporate IT sector. The reason I stay is because salary isn't everything when it comes to a job. I have no set hours, no dress code, great health and dental benefits, paid vacation and sick time, a great retirement plan, my own office, and only one boss to report to. I also work in a pretty open-minded liberal academic environment. I have worked in the private sector before where I made more money, but had a dress code, inflexible set hours, a tiny cubicle in a huge room full of other cubicles, multiple inept bosses, less benefits, etc. I work on a lot of cancer related studies at my job, so I feel like what I do isn't just meaningless paper shuffling, that it actually may make a difference someday. You have to weigh all the factors besides salary when comparing jobs in different sectors.
Nudity is never unnecessary. What is wrong with viewing the human body?
Oh hell no. Just ask Michelle Bachmann.
So what you are basically saying is - Jack Thompson/Sarah Palin 2012 ??
What? I thought every country spoke English. But then again I am just a dumb American.
I know a woman who wanted a modem installed in her system (this was about 5 years ago). She bought the modem, but couldn't figure out how to install the drivers. She called GeekSquad and they sent over one of their drooling morons. He proceeded to go into her computer room, close the door and was in there for 3 1/2 hours. He eventually came out and handed her a bill for 3 1/2 hours labor and traveling charges - it was just under $300 IIRC. To install a $20 modem. I told her she probably could have bought a brand new system that already had a modem for about $100 more...
"What if we could feed them to sharks?"
That is a movie I would buy! But do they get fed to the sharks before or after the seals shoot them with handguns? Or maybe they could get shot while being eaten by sharks. Hey Hollywood, we actually have an original idea here for a movie. Pay attention!
"Probably would have been in the best interest of the shark to stick to eating seals "
Undoubtedly. Everyone knows seals are terrible shots with rifles.
"Guess it would have been a pretty lousy movie if all the shark did was eat seals though......"
I would watch that movie over anything starring Kevin Costner or Ben Affleck any day!!
Everyone knows that traffic shaping is just a clever way around Butt Neutrality.
I never once claimed all torrents are illegal. I know that. We all know that. But if you believe the majority of people going to TPB are downloading perfectly legal torrents, I have some nice oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. I know that there are legal torrents exist, I have even downloaded a few. However, I am also willing to admit that the majority of torrents do not fall into this category. If you don't agree to this you are either - delusional, lying, or very ignorant. I mean for god sakes this is Slashdot. Everyone here KNOWS the main purpose for most torrent sites. Let's not all pretend like we don't, and not pretend that the overwhelming majority of the torrent downloads are the legal ones.
It isn't the license that stops people, it is the startup costs. Hell back in the early 90s there were about a million "mom and pop" dial-up ISPs in my area, and I live in a small city. Back then all you needed was a T-1 line and a boatload of modems. Broadband requirements are a little steeper.
Porn or not, if you don't have a right to the copy you don't have a right to the copy. Did you know that porn movies are copyrighted also? They are no different than mainstream movies as far as that goes. The actual content is irrelevant.
I agree. But the USA is a little different than other countries in land mass and population density. So you can't really compare European telcos to American ones as they have less land to cover and the populations are much more dense. But yeah, obviously the subsidizing of the industry didn't quite have the desired outcome, at least for the customers. But at least we do still have a choice in our providers, or in my case, the choice not to have a provider (for a land line). And in all honesty our highways and bridges infrastructure is looking as poorly maintained as our telecommunications infrastructure. They are both in great shape if it were 1968.
Then the answer is not to have the government control the ISPs decision making abilities, it is to encourage more ISPs to exist. In a capitalistic society, where there is a demand, a supply will almost certainly spring up (if there is a profit to be made). Maybe that is why in the US there are more choices for ISPs. If a business isn't providing what the customer wants (or even worse trying to dictate to the customer what they want), someone else will start offering it. As I said earlier sometimes the decision between ISPs might be like choosing the giant douche or the shit sandwich, but at the very least it is still your decision.
I will agree that if you truly live in an area that only has one choice for an ISP, then the situation is different. (Yet you can still choose not to use the ISP and go without internet services. And if enough people make this choice the ISP will be forced to change or go under.) But in my experience where I live, that is almost never the case. YMMV.
ISP is an independent business selling a service, a pizza shop is an independent business selling a service. The only difference at all is the service, which for the points I am making don't matter. This is what you are failing to grasp. It is not what they provide, it is the decision process on how they decide what to provide that is at the heart of this conversation, and whether or not the individual businesses get to decide for themselves. The government doesn't need to regulate every aspect of a business. That is my fundamental point that you disagree with. As long as a business isn't breaking any laws, they should be free to do what they want. You are familiar with this concept as it is how you want to use your internet access.
We are not "allowing them to block" anything. They are choosing to block some content, and you don't have to have the filter if you don't want it. If an ISP decides to start blocking political blogs, then the customers will choose another ISP if they don't like it. That is how you can stop them - by putting them out of business because they are not giving the people what they actually want (see Napster, the music and film industry for more on this). The governemnt doesn't need to step in and tell the business what they can or cannot provide. So what is the problem with this business model? You don't like the fact the government isn't involved in the decision?? All we are really arguing about now is socialism vs. capitalism. You think the government should decide the will of the people whereas I think the actual people can decide for themselves.
But the ISP is providing the service, so they have a right to provide or not provide whatever they see fit. It is your right to not use an ISP that has policies you don't agree with. Never mind the fact that we are talking about something YOU CAN CHOOSE to opt out of. It's not like we are talking about China and a mandatory content filtering system.
Say I opened a pizza shop. I decide (for whatever reason) that I don't want to serve onions in my business. Should the government have the right to step in and force me to sell onions? I say no. You seem to think yes. We may just have to agree to disagree.
Once they are sending and receiving to space they are beyond the scope of "Brazillian law". It is like international waters.
Think about if you started a discussion group on the police or fire radio frequency. That is an open channel too, but obviously there needs to be some restrictions. Or if you left your front door unlocked, is it reasonable to assume everything in your house is fair game to be taken by anyone who opens it??
No, that would be the BBS. Which at least limited the whining to "one at a time".
If the site were judged to have been run legally, what exactly would the admins be in trouble for? Look I am not condoning the decision (I actually think they got it dead wrong) I am just reporting on what happened. Please don't shoot the messenger, or think that I like the message.