The main argument is the content owners are loosing money due to piracy. But many people claim that the owners aren't loosing money because the pirates wouldn't actually purchase the item in the first place. This is hard to prove when copyright items are copied freely.
But it is much easier to prove monetary damages when people are paying money for the copyright items.
So your (and my) suspicions were correct; reservoirs don't make this problem worse, as the/. summary implies, but instead partially counteract it. Bad/. summary; no biscuit.
TFS says
It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams...
And then you showed evidence ""Artificial reservoirs,... have the opposite effect, locking up water that would otherwise flow into the seas." which seems to be the same thing TFS implies. So how is the summary wrong? I think it is YOU who gets no biscuit.
He's one of those people who thinks his IP address and Gmail cookies shouldn't be conflated with real evidence. Roommates and friends have left their computers open around me all the time --
I'm pretty sure your ISP knows your computer's IP. They don't care (nor should they) that it was your roommate that downloaded the whatever. They aren't accusing you of anything. They are just going to say... This IP is downloading copyright stuff, so this IP is going to be throttled.
If your roommate is doing it, and you aren't, don't let your roommate use your connection.
Pretty much this. A program sells for $700 when a reasonable facsimile is available for free, legitimately.
So why are they then pirating the $700 program instead of using the reasonable facsimile for free? In some cases people don't know about the "reasonable facsimile for free" but in most cases its because that free version isn't quite a reasonable facsimile.
Soon enough, people will realize they don't need buggy siftware when they can get Linux and Open Source software that is better and mostly free
Actually people DO need buggy software, because there is no other kind.
Linux and Open Source software is ALSO buggy software. And free doesn't necessarily mean cheaper, or better.
Why can't you afford college? It's about $60,000 per kid at a state school, or $180,000 for all three.
Whoa... Its been a few years, but I paid about $4500 a year plus books for my state school. I don't think it is much more than double that now. I paid my own way through college. It wasn't the best school, but it sure beat being in debt when I got my degree.
Rather, copyright should be retooled to define it as a protection against plagiarism, rather than a guarantee of profits.
The whole point of copyright is to promote the Arts. Presumably by giving the owners monopoly over their creation so they can reap the rewards, so that they can have money to create more Arts.
Copyright isn't about plagiarism.
Was it excessive? In the grand scheme of things yes, because he wasn't the only person sharing, and if he didn't share someone else would have. I'm not sure why the judge decided on $22,500 per song. Maybe it was because Tenenbaum lied? Maybe it was because he admitted to willing do it (where the damages could have been $150,000 per song.) Maybe it was because the RIAA convinced the court that Tenenbaum cost them lots of money.
He broke the law. Other people who break the law end up in jail for a long time.
The question is, what is excessive? Would it have been excessive if he sold the copies of the songs for $.50 each or ten cents each and made a half million dollars? Does it matter that he gave the songs away instead of selling them? Where do you draw the line?
There is nothing any reasonable person can do to change it... At his point, one cannot attain significant public office without "playing the game".
You are right. No one single person can do much. Even McVeigh didn't accomplish much single handidly. But one person can convince a few others, who can convince a few others, and before you know you have a million man march.
Of course throwing your hands up in the air, and saying one person can't do anything to change it, means just that.
You want to change things, get more active in your democratic system
Fuck you. The system is rigged to prevent any change by average people and you know it.
Rosa Parks would beg to differ.
Just because you are pessimistic doesn't mean the corporations rule the world. You can make a difference. Of course you won't because you'd rather believe some fat rich guy rules everything.
Well there was whitehouse.com...
But I agree, stay away from the porn sites, turn on the family filters (or leave them on, as they usually are by default)
Of course if you are tempted... well I can't help you there. Just like I'm not going to stand outside the strip club to make sure you don't enter.
I don't think many people are disputing that.
Most of HBO's show are pretty decent. For a variety of reasons. Fewer FCC limitations, and more money. But they have more money because you have to pay for the shows. If people aren't paying for the show, they shows will be cancelled.
Wait, isn't MPAA saying they are losing money to piracy?
"Your Honour."
"I was standing in front of the Bently Dealership, waving fistfuls of cash at them... I wanted their car, but they wouldn't take my money. So I took the car instead."
Judge: "You waved fistfuls of $10,000 dollar bills?"
What you are saying is, you are willing to pay, but now as much as what HBO wants you to pay? That doesn't give you the right to just take it.
If such projects can't be made and distributed ethically then they shouldn't be made at all.
I'm not sure what you mean about being distributed ethically, but if everyone believed the way you believed then they wouldn't be made at all. And the only thing we have left to entertain ourselves with is the amateurish tripe on youtube, and icanhascheezburger.
You obviously feel that the digital goods have some sort of value, otherwise you wouldn't be taking them. So your argument that they are valueless is false, and you just don't want to pay for it, because you are greedy.
You know it takes time and effort and money to produce the digital good, that as I mentioned you feel has some value. Because it cost money (and physical objects) to generate the content, it is immoral to just take a copy of the content, if it isn't freely offered. This trumps your "it is immoral to attempt to impose those [physical object] rules in pure thought. Also we aren't talking about pure thought.
It just amounts you are greedy and want your entertainment for free.
This is my case. I don't have a TV. I don't want a TV, I'm not from that generation, that option doesn't event enter my mind. I cannot buy game of thrones from itunes or any other retailer the day it comes out. What realistic choice do I have ?
Huh? You certainly do have a "TV." It just happens to be a computer monitor driven by a computer. But claiming you don't have a TV, and then watching television programs on your computer is just a copout, and a way to say you don't own a television. The fact that you don't own a separate monitor soley for the use of watching television program is irrelevant. Personally I happen to like watch my tv programs on my tv. It is a larger screen, and frees up my computer monitor for doing computery stuff like surfing the internet and programming... It is kind of like have 3 monitors instead of 2.
What other realistic choices do you have? Wait for it on DVD, or don't watch it. I want to watch game of thrones. I watched several hours of it once when I was in a hotel that had HBO. It looked good. But I don't pay for HBO so I don't watch it. Maybe one day I'll buy or rent the DVDs. In the meantime I do something else.
It's an ancient technology, still used by the elderly
We just had this discussion in a meeting at work today, when the "old folks" were the only ones who had cable. The main reason I have cable is for ESPN (and for the handful of network shows, that the networks don't show online)
There really isn't a good (HD) option for watching sports, but ESPN (and the other sports networks). Now I know a some people thing that sports are stupid, (and those same people probably spends lots of time and money play World of Warcraft, so...) But that isn't relevant, as we all have different tastes in entertainment
The general consensus on Slashdot is "piracy doesn't cost the owners money, because people typically won't buy it anyways, or people learn about new things, and then maybe buy them." But reading this thread seems to prove that the MPAA and RIAA are correct. Piracy is costing Game of Thrones a LOT of money. The sad thing is, a lot of people who do pirate this series, know it is wrong, illegal, and could potentially kill the series.
But really, people are just as greedy as they claim the MPAA and RIAA are, and they don't care. They just want their Game of Thrones free.
But what you are saying is, if there is no where else to eat lunch, you'll sneak in the back and take the sandwich stuff from the kitchen for free.
If the only game in town is overcharging you... it doesn't mean you can just take it instead.
Slashdot Mirror
The main argument is the content owners are loosing money due to piracy. But many people claim that the owners aren't loosing money because the pirates wouldn't actually purchase the item in the first place. This is hard to prove when copyright items are copied freely.
But it is much easier to prove monetary damages when people are paying money for the copyright items.
It can't be legal to gain access to someone's house under false pretences, can it?
Sure it can be, for a private citizen. Of course using the information gained in a court of law is another matter.
. Eventually, they get full, and inflow equals outflow, or we draw them down, and outflow exceeds inflow.
If only the water went somewhere else than just the ocean...
So your (and my) suspicions were correct; reservoirs don't make this problem worse, as the /. summary implies, but instead partially counteract it. Bad /. summary; no biscuit.
TFS says
It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams...
And then you showed evidence ""Artificial reservoirs, ... have the opposite effect, locking up water that would otherwise flow into the seas." which seems to be the same thing TFS implies. So how is the summary wrong? I think it is YOU who gets no biscuit.
For instance, the Great Lakes in the US are rising. As they rise, the more and more water runs out of them and eventually finds its way to the sea.
How do the lakes rise AND more water runs out of them?
Also... there aren't many Great Lakes in the US. Or do only half of the lakes rise?
He's one of those people who thinks his IP address and Gmail cookies shouldn't be conflated with real evidence. Roommates and friends have left their computers open around me all the time --
I'm pretty sure your ISP knows your computer's IP. They don't care (nor should they) that it was your roommate that downloaded the whatever. They aren't accusing you of anything. They are just going to say... This IP is downloading copyright stuff, so this IP is going to be throttled.
If your roommate is doing it, and you aren't, don't let your roommate use your connection.
Pretty much this. A program sells for $700 when a reasonable facsimile is available for free, legitimately.
So why are they then pirating the $700 program instead of using the reasonable facsimile for free? In some cases people don't know about the "reasonable facsimile for free" but in most cases its because that free version isn't quite a reasonable facsimile.
The blame lies 100% at the door of the greedy corporations who are gouging.
The blame lies 100% at the door of the greedy users.
Soon enough, people will realize they don't need buggy siftware when they can get Linux and Open Source software that is better and mostly free
Actually people DO need buggy software, because there is no other kind.
Linux and Open Source software is ALSO buggy software. And free doesn't necessarily mean cheaper, or better.
Why can't you afford college? It's about $60,000 per kid at a state school, or $180,000 for all three.
Whoa... Its been a few years, but I paid about $4500 a year plus books for my state school. I don't think it is much more than double that now. I paid my own way through college. It wasn't the best school, but it sure beat being in debt when I got my degree.
Rather, copyright should be retooled to define it as a protection against plagiarism, rather than a guarantee of profits.
The whole point of copyright is to promote the Arts. Presumably by giving the owners monopoly over their creation so they can reap the rewards, so that they can have money to create more Arts.
Copyright isn't about plagiarism.
Was it excessive? In the grand scheme of things yes, because he wasn't the only person sharing, and if he didn't share someone else would have. I'm not sure why the judge decided on $22,500 per song. Maybe it was because Tenenbaum lied? Maybe it was because he admitted to willing do it (where the damages could have been $150,000 per song.) Maybe it was because the RIAA convinced the court that Tenenbaum cost them lots of money.
He broke the law. Other people who break the law end up in jail for a long time.
The question is, what is excessive? Would it have been excessive if he sold the copies of the songs for $.50 each or ten cents each and made a half million dollars? Does it matter that he gave the songs away instead of selling them? Where do you draw the line?
There is nothing any reasonable person can do to change it... At his point, one cannot attain significant public office without "playing the game".
You are right. No one single person can do much. Even McVeigh didn't accomplish much single handidly. But one person can convince a few others, who can convince a few others, and before you know you have a million man march.
Of course throwing your hands up in the air, and saying one person can't do anything to change it, means just that.
You want to change things, get more active in your democratic system
Fuck you. The system is rigged to prevent any change by average people and you know it.
Rosa Parks would beg to differ.
Just because you are pessimistic doesn't mean the corporations rule the world. You can make a difference. Of course you won't because you'd rather believe some fat rich guy rules everything.
Well there was whitehouse.com...
But I agree, stay away from the porn sites, turn on the family filters (or leave them on, as they usually are by default)
Of course if you are tempted... well I can't help you there. Just like I'm not going to stand outside the strip club to make sure you don't enter.
I don't think many people are disputing that.
Most of HBO's show are pretty decent. For a variety of reasons. Fewer FCC limitations, and more money. But they have more money because you have to pay for the shows. If people aren't paying for the show, they shows will be cancelled.
Wait, isn't MPAA saying they are losing money to piracy?
"Your Honour."
"I was standing in front of the Bently Dealership, waving fistfuls of cash at them... I wanted their car, but they wouldn't take my money. So I took the car instead."
Judge: "You waved fistfuls of $10,000 dollar bills?"
What you are saying is, you are willing to pay, but now as much as what HBO wants you to pay? That doesn't give you the right to just take it.
If such projects can't be made and distributed ethically then they shouldn't be made at all.
I'm not sure what you mean about being distributed ethically, but if everyone believed the way you believed then they wouldn't be made at all. And the only thing we have left to entertain ourselves with is the amateurish tripe on youtube, and icanhascheezburger.
You obviously feel that the digital goods have some sort of value, otherwise you wouldn't be taking them. So your argument that they are valueless is false, and you just don't want to pay for it, because you are greedy.
You know it takes time and effort and money to produce the digital good, that as I mentioned you feel has some value. Because it cost money (and physical objects) to generate the content, it is immoral to just take a copy of the content, if it isn't freely offered. This trumps your "it is immoral to attempt to impose those [physical object] rules in pure thought. Also we aren't talking about pure thought.
It just amounts you are greedy and want your entertainment for free.
This is my case. I don't have a TV. I don't want a TV, I'm not from that generation, that option doesn't event enter my mind. I cannot buy game of thrones from itunes or any other retailer the day it comes out. What realistic choice do I have ?
Huh? You certainly do have a "TV." It just happens to be a computer monitor driven by a computer. But claiming you don't have a TV, and then watching television programs on your computer is just a copout, and a way to say you don't own a television. The fact that you don't own a separate monitor soley for the use of watching television program is irrelevant. Personally I happen to like watch my tv programs on my tv. It is a larger screen, and frees up my computer monitor for doing computery stuff like surfing the internet and programming... It is kind of like have 3 monitors instead of 2.
What other realistic choices do you have? Wait for it on DVD, or don't watch it. I want to watch game of thrones. I watched several hours of it once when I was in a hotel that had HBO. It looked good. But I don't pay for HBO so I don't watch it. Maybe one day I'll buy or rent the DVDs. In the meantime I do something else.
It's an ancient technology, still used by the elderly
We just had this discussion in a meeting at work today, when the "old folks" were the only ones who had cable. The main reason I have cable is for ESPN (and for the handful of network shows, that the networks don't show online)
There really isn't a good (HD) option for watching sports, but ESPN (and the other sports networks). Now I know a some people thing that sports are stupid, (and those same people probably spends lots of time and money play World of Warcraft, so...) But that isn't relevant, as we all have different tastes in entertainment
You do know there is more to the internet than YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and iTunes?
All they care about is money.
It's funny. You seem to only care about money as well. You want your Game of Thrones for free, and you want to keep your money.
Once again the entertainment industry is failing to provide people what they want and so people are taking matters into their own hands.
Apparently what people want is free entertainment. The entertainment industry will NEVER provide free entertainment. It can't as it isn't sustainable.
The general consensus on Slashdot is "piracy doesn't cost the owners money, because people typically won't buy it anyways, or people learn about new things, and then maybe buy them." But reading this thread seems to prove that the MPAA and RIAA are correct. Piracy is costing Game of Thrones a LOT of money. The sad thing is, a lot of people who do pirate this series, know it is wrong, illegal, and could potentially kill the series.
But really, people are just as greedy as they claim the MPAA and RIAA are, and they don't care. They just want their Game of Thrones free.
You would go somewhere else to get lunch.
But what you are saying is, if there is no where else to eat lunch, you'll sneak in the back and take the sandwich stuff from the kitchen for free.
If the only game in town is overcharging you... it doesn't mean you can just take it instead.