They isolate themselves, dont join in the international community, and they want whole 250+ countries in the world to listen to what they say.
So?
In at most 2 years i assure you they will be proposing laws to eu that every eu member should mandatorily use their anti spam shit.
So?
Theres spamcop, we will use it, and we will ignore whatever shit you "invent" as if new.
Oh I see. You're a spammer, and now you are whining because a democratic government is putting the good of its people over your own selfish, antisocial habits. I'm guessing from your post, you don't even live in France, but in some other EU country that isn't even currently considering this proposal, paranoid that you may have to think of others before unthinkingly spraying your crap over our email addresses. How pathetic.
Disbarring the lawyer is a little extreme. You'd be permanently ruining the livelihood of the lawyer, which is particularly unjust if the lawyers are on staffs who's employers force them to pursue frivolous lawsuits. I don't believe it's wise to create a situation where a person risks punishment no matter what action they take.
If you insist on disbarring the lawyers, perhaps you should permanently ban the plaintiffs from litigation as their maximum sentence. It would at least even a little inequality.
Your comment made me think. Copyright has to start at somewhere definite in order for it to end. Where does the copyright period begin for software? Does it begin upon the entire package's completion? Does it begin (and therefore end) in a staggered way, with certain parts of the code being copyrighted as they are written? If it is the former, wouldn't the already written code be protected only as a trade secret, and therefore anyone could leak the code?
Therefore, it is purposeful, intended to drive up traffic and replies.As is the case with all non-inflammatory articles on these free magazine-style sites.I also contest the idea that it drums up "fake" controversy. The controversy is real, and it simply summons it. Think about it. How is someone meant to rebut the anti-copyright argument if you are being a troll, one way or another?
Of course. Companies are being greedy even when they rationally discuss their position with you in the form of intellectual debate. What, are you afraid that they may convince^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H brainwash someone else (or, God forbid, yourself) into having The Wrong Opinion?
And frankly, without them, most open-source projects would rapidly wither away: without an intellectual property behemoth like Microsoft to fight, what would be the point?
The media executives have for so long held onto their positions of power, privilege and wealth, that they have lost any notions of reality. As far as they are concerned, they are gods, and the consumers are the worshipers.
Bull. They realise they have to work to keep their customers. They know they have competition. That statement is just wrong, but it doesn't end here:
When they get a whiff of even a minute challenge to this doctrine, they are engulfed in rage, because it is something they cannot control, regardless of how much money they throw at the issue. After all, as far as they're concerned, the consumers are the commodity - they own your eyes, and sell them as they please (not quite that simple in the case of HBO, but you get the idea). So they get angrier and angrier, until this rage spills over as utter stupidity.
They get angry because they are competing against piracy, which shouldn't exist in their eyes, and their profit margins are suffering as a result. It's not about "owning your eyes" or any such bullshit, it's resentment towards piracy, and fair enough too.
Would you trust a "brane surgeon" to operate on you?
Nope. Would I dismiss their views? No. There's a world of difference between operating on a brain and forming a coherent and valid argument.
Besides, your position betrays ignorance. Why should arguments be judged on spelling? Can you not communicate without perfect English, or with typos? If you are so damn clever, why do you need an argument-filtering system based on spelling to judge the argument?/anti-elitist rant
Doesn't work, sorry. The point of the license is not to compromise, it's to plant the power squarely in the **AA's hands. Currently (depending on the laws in your community), you are licensing the disk and everything on it. You want it in another format? You have to pay for it.
I like how it is here in Australia. For an agreement or license to be legally valid, it must be agreed to by the end user before they purchase the product. No licensing movies/software for me!
I doubt we'd have the small number of souless, mindless crap artists who are marketed so heavily dominating music.
I originally thought so myself, but I then realised that these are the most lucrative kind of *ehem* artist. Assuming the music industry doesn't collapse, these artists would be the safest bets for the music industry, and I think the industry would pounce on them.
You would have all the rights to use whatever code you wanted or could get hold of.
How will you get a hold of the source? There's no regulations saying that the source has to be provided. I predict that most of the rich pool of open source code will eventually trickle away into the sea of binary blobs.
The GPL requires the distribution of source code. That is something that needs to be enforced by copyright, otherwise people would save on bandwidth and distribute binary blobs.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they cop a lot of crap from people. Why wouldn't they be guarded when asked a question?
Really, you gotta admire them. How they flagrantly keep their absurd beliefs and survive as a member of society. It's simply amazing.
No. I'm sure you wouldn't if you could prove that the image was changed later.
I'm not sure about "biggest, baddest, and the best", but they are certainly the easiest target.
Disbarring the lawyer is a little extreme. You'd be permanently ruining the livelihood of the lawyer, which is particularly unjust if the lawyers are on staffs who's employers force them to pursue frivolous lawsuits. I don't believe it's wise to create a situation where a person risks punishment no matter what action they take.
If you insist on disbarring the lawyers, perhaps you should permanently ban the plaintiffs from litigation as their maximum sentence. It would at least even a little inequality.
Now I just have to make sure you don't go after my IANAL hole...
Your comment made me think. Copyright has to start at somewhere definite in order for it to end. Where does the copyright period begin for software? Does it begin upon the entire package's completion? Does it begin (and therefore end) in a staggered way, with certain parts of the code being copyrighted as they are written? If it is the former, wouldn't the already written code be protected only as a trade secret, and therefore anyone could leak the code?
Are there any lawyers who could help me out here?
Therefore, it is purposeful, intended to drive up traffic and replies.As is the case with all non-inflammatory articles on these free magazine-style sites.I also contest the idea that it drums up "fake" controversy. The controversy is real, and it simply summons it. Think about it. How is someone meant to rebut the anti-copyright argument if you are being a troll, one way or another?
Of course. Companies are being greedy even when they rationally discuss their position with you in the form of intellectual debate. What, are you afraid that they may convince^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H brainwash someone else (or, God forbid, yourself) into having The Wrong Opinion?
You forgot Die Hard 2: Die Harder, and my all time favourite, Die Hard 3: Die Hard With a Vengance
What's with all the animosity towards the zombie box?
Come to think of it, the RIAA would probably prefer the shoplifting. At least by then they've made a sale.
Think of the artist! Do your stealing physically!
Dial-up could be likened to providing water through an optical fibre.
I'll get my grandma right on it!
Besides, your position betrays ignorance. Why should arguments be judged on spelling? Can you not communicate without perfect English, or with typos? If you are so damn clever, why do you need an argument-filtering system based on spelling to judge the argument?
Doesn't work, sorry. The point of the license is not to compromise, it's to plant the power squarely in the **AA's hands. Currently (depending on the laws in your community), you are licensing the disk and everything on it. You want it in another format? You have to pay for it.
I like how it is here in Australia. For an agreement or license to be legally valid, it must be agreed to by the end user before they purchase the product. No licensing movies/software for me!
Selflessly standing up for our rights in a time when no other corporation would!
Ahh, but were they used CDs? No? Don't feel too bad. It's a common noob's mistake.
The GPL requires the distribution of source code. That is something that needs to be enforced by copyright, otherwise people would save on bandwidth and distribute binary blobs.