Thanks, and I agree completely - it's not that there aren't problems with copyright law, it's that people simply aren't entitled to the work of others just because they don't like the terms of it's availability. If people want to stick their fingers in their ears, mod us down, and say "I'm not listening" because they don't like the realization that they are part of the problem and not the solution, then so be it.
Ok, look, I completely understand your position, but it's just that there are copyright laws for a reason, and the laws may be somewhat broken, but that does NOT give you the right to arbitrarily decide what "a reasonable price" is. You don't need this content; you don't have a "right" to watch Game of Thrones. If the content providers are not giving you a way to watch it in what you consider a reasonable fashion, your option is to NOT WATCH AT ALL; your option should never be to violate someone else's copyright to watch Game of Thrones just because you don't like terms. That's like a movie theater charging $20, you declaring it's not worth it, and sneaking in. Hey, the theater wasn't full, so it's not like you were stealing, right?
Agreed with both you and the post you were responding to. I do have problems with copyright law, but having a copyright law is better than not having it, and if you don't like the terms the content providers are setting, then don't buy the product - violating their copyright is not acceptable so that you can watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms without paying.
They are profiting... what makes you think they aren't? Are you saying the content being withheld isn't available in Canada at all? And if the content is available through other legal means in Canada, where's the justification for stealing? Just because it's not part of the service you use?
Wrong - you're entitled to stream netflix, not download and keep a copy. Even if I agreed that the balance of power was in their favor (of course it is), if the public isn't happy about it, the public should STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT until content providers realize they need to make changes. Yes, it's not going to happen, because believe it or not, enough people are paying the higher prices (both in money and freedoms) to view the content. Blame them, they are the ones making the system profitable for the content providers. The problem is we're so entitled, we can't just not buy (or steal) things.... we can't just live without Dumb and Dumber for a while for the sake of changing the system. The people HAVE spoken, and that's what they've said.
Yes, it was modded troll... ridiculous, but to people who have justified their illegal copying, the truth hurts.
I don't see it happening, either, because what IS happening is that the content IS available in Canada, just not through Netflix. So what's happening isn't that the content isn't available, it's that enough people are actually buying it at higher prices from other vendors to justify the content providers putting restrictions on distribution for the sake of profit. There's actually nothing wrong with that - that's the free market at work. The problem is there's a significant number of people who are NOT willing to pay the higher price for content, and so they steal it.... then blame the content providers for forcing them to resort to stealing their movies. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.... and it most definitely comes down to a sense of entitlement.
That's not both ways - you people will do anything to justify your copyright infringement; the content providers have NO responsibility to make their content available to you at all, but that's not even the issue - the issue is they aren't making it available to you in the ways that you want at the prices you want to pay. Respect is respecting their right to charge whatever they want, and them respecting you for saying "then go f#@k yourselves, I'm just not going to buy it." Sorry if things aren't as cheap and easy as you want them to be, there's still no justification for violating someone else's copyrights for the sake of you watching TV.
No, what you did there was moronic, because people need to take the bus to get to work. There's a huge difference between a PUBLIC BUS SYSTEM and a private content provider not wanting to sell you content as cheaply as you'd like.... I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference.
The problem is you're comparing Jim Crow laws (in fact, I already mentioned the back of the bus analogy in another post) to illegally copying... for the purposes of your entertainment. No, that's not a moral or legal high ground.
I understand completely - but you just freely admit you're violating copyright instead of trying to bend logic in order to justify it - you just freely admit you do it because you want to, not because you're taking some kind of high ground in defiance of content providers.
Of course - your friend is allowed to watch movies with his friends. If you put that in a public place, it'd be a different story. So no, your analogy doesn't work. Copyright infringement for the sake of entertainment is really not justifiable.
Some may have spoken, but they've done it the wrong way. If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws - you don't just wantonly break laws you disagree with. This isn't like sitting in the front of the bus... this is the entertainment industry. You'd all be better off abstaining, but instead you justify to yourself violating someone else's property rights for the sake of crappy movies and shows.
Moreover, my taxes pay to enforce laws that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them. It's unbelievable to me the lengths to which people will go to justify copyright infringement - especially of something so non-essential as games, movies, and music. If the content provider won't sell it to under terms YOU agree with, then DON'T BUY IT. You're not entitled to it.
All you're doing is justifying to yourself that it's OK to violate copyright... so you can watch a TV show. No, it's not OK. I can't believe it's really that hard to just not watch a TV show or movie, and the lengths people will go to in order to bend logic to justify their illegal activity.
Because it's not like that at all - the content producers are price discriminating in Canada. I'm going to bet the content is available in Canada, just not through netflix. If enough Canadians are paying higher fees to access that content, then THEY are the ones to blame for allowing the content providers to screw Canadians, and copyright infringement - especially of a non essential thing like movies - is not an acceptable behavior in this case. I think region encoding (or limiting) sucks - but they wouldn't do it if consumers didn't let them. I know, I know - the ones who abstain from playing the provider's game are in a minority, but that doesn't change anything. I may be stuck with Trump as a president, but it won't be because I voted for him. The difference is that Trump can screw up my life - not having access to a particular movie won't. So take the high road... advocating copyright infringement is NOT taking the high road. Only when enough people take the high road will the content provider's rethink their strategy.
What responsibilities? Again, we're not talking about an essential service, we're talking about entertainment; the content provider is NOT responsible to you....they don't owe you anything. And, frankly, as I stated below, if people could restrain themselves from allowing the content providers to do things like this by, you know, NOT buying the content in their own country, then content providers might rethink their position. But as long as enough Canadians are buying this content at higher prices through other means, then it's THEIR fault.
In nearly all these cases I blame the consumer - it's a f#@king game or movie - you don't need it. Is it really that hard to NOT buy a product that has been purposely f#@ked up for legal purchases? If people could just exhibit some restraint, we wouldn't have these problems with content providers, but they keep giving us s#!t and you people keep buying it.
Of course they are exercising a sense of entitlement - you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free, and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right. Netflix aren't punishing Canadians for no reason, they're doing it because their content providers are restricting it. Even though it sucks, it doesn't make it "right" to obtain it in violation of copyright. We're not talking about essentials, we're talking about f#@king movies.
I can understand the frustration, and frankly - while I can't condone illegal copying of someone else's work - would tend to look the other way in this instance, but it most certainly a clear case of a sense of self entitlement to other people's work in violation of their terms. There's not even a "gray" area here - it's entertainment. You have no natural "right" to it.
"Dependency Hell" is what I called it before automatic dependency checking with dpkg and "apt-get." I used Linux (and other Unix like OSes) for some long time, and when I tried to build something by hand, I'd be met with a list of prerequisites, and those prerequisites would have prerequisites, and so on. It sucked. The newer package systems may not be perfect, but they're heavenly compared to that era.
Reminds me of Big Bang Theory... in one episode Sheldon muses that "Windows 7 is so much easier than Windows Vista. I don't like that." In another, he calls Ubuntu his favorite Linux distribution.
If I was taking dictation, I'd want to type, but at the kinds of meetings I'm in we're constantly making diagrams and sketching graphics. The designer I work with tries his tablet, but even he still has problems and generally ends up taking notes on paper.
Yup. It wasn't against technology. I wasn't even necessarily against harvesting natural resources. It was against being greedy douchebags about it, putting profit before life.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, and I agree completely - it's not that there aren't problems with copyright law, it's that people simply aren't entitled to the work of others just because they don't like the terms of it's availability. If people want to stick their fingers in their ears, mod us down, and say "I'm not listening" because they don't like the realization that they are part of the problem and not the solution, then so be it.
Ok, look, I completely understand your position, but it's just that there are copyright laws for a reason, and the laws may be somewhat broken, but that does NOT give you the right to arbitrarily decide what "a reasonable price" is. You don't need this content; you don't have a "right" to watch Game of Thrones. If the content providers are not giving you a way to watch it in what you consider a reasonable fashion, your option is to NOT WATCH AT ALL; your option should never be to violate someone else's copyright to watch Game of Thrones just because you don't like terms. That's like a movie theater charging $20, you declaring it's not worth it, and sneaking in. Hey, the theater wasn't full, so it's not like you were stealing, right?
Agreed with both you and the post you were responding to. I do have problems with copyright law, but having a copyright law is better than not having it, and if you don't like the terms the content providers are setting, then don't buy the product - violating their copyright is not acceptable so that you can watch Dumb and Dumber on your own terms without paying.
They are profiting... what makes you think they aren't? Are you saying the content being withheld isn't available in Canada at all? And if the content is available through other legal means in Canada, where's the justification for stealing? Just because it's not part of the service you use?
Wrong - you're entitled to stream netflix, not download and keep a copy. Even if I agreed that the balance of power was in their favor (of course it is), if the public isn't happy about it, the public should STOP BUYING THE PRODUCT until content providers realize they need to make changes. Yes, it's not going to happen, because believe it or not, enough people are paying the higher prices (both in money and freedoms) to view the content. Blame them, they are the ones making the system profitable for the content providers. The problem is we're so entitled, we can't just not buy (or steal) things.... we can't just live without Dumb and Dumber for a while for the sake of changing the system. The people HAVE spoken, and that's what they've said.
Yes, it was modded troll... ridiculous, but to people who have justified their illegal copying, the truth hurts.
I don't see it happening, either, because what IS happening is that the content IS available in Canada, just not through Netflix. So what's happening isn't that the content isn't available, it's that enough people are actually buying it at higher prices from other vendors to justify the content providers putting restrictions on distribution for the sake of profit. There's actually nothing wrong with that - that's the free market at work. The problem is there's a significant number of people who are NOT willing to pay the higher price for content, and so they steal it.... then blame the content providers for forcing them to resort to stealing their movies. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.... and it most definitely comes down to a sense of entitlement.
That's not both ways - you people will do anything to justify your copyright infringement; the content providers have NO responsibility to make their content available to you at all, but that's not even the issue - the issue is they aren't making it available to you in the ways that you want at the prices you want to pay. Respect is respecting their right to charge whatever they want, and them respecting you for saying "then go f#@k yourselves, I'm just not going to buy it." Sorry if things aren't as cheap and easy as you want them to be, there's still no justification for violating someone else's copyrights for the sake of you watching TV.
No, what you did there was moronic, because people need to take the bus to get to work. There's a huge difference between a PUBLIC BUS SYSTEM and a private content provider not wanting to sell you content as cheaply as you'd like.... I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference.
Please... are you seriously comparing civil rights to illegally copying Dumb and Dumber?
The problem is you're comparing Jim Crow laws (in fact, I already mentioned the back of the bus analogy in another post) to illegally copying... for the purposes of your entertainment. No, that's not a moral or legal high ground.
I understand completely - but you just freely admit you're violating copyright instead of trying to bend logic in order to justify it - you just freely admit you do it because you want to, not because you're taking some kind of high ground in defiance of content providers.
Of course - your friend is allowed to watch movies with his friends. If you put that in a public place, it'd be a different story. So no, your analogy doesn't work. Copyright infringement for the sake of entertainment is really not justifiable.
Some may have spoken, but they've done it the wrong way. If they want copyright laws changed, they need to change the copyright laws - you don't just wantonly break laws you disagree with. This isn't like sitting in the front of the bus... this is the entertainment industry. You'd all be better off abstaining, but instead you justify to yourself violating someone else's property rights for the sake of crappy movies and shows.
Moreover, my taxes pay to enforce laws that I vehemently disagree with. The answer is not to violate them. It's unbelievable to me the lengths to which people will go to justify copyright infringement - especially of something so non-essential as games, movies, and music. If the content provider won't sell it to under terms YOU agree with, then DON'T BUY IT. You're not entitled to it.
All you're doing is justifying to yourself that it's OK to violate copyright... so you can watch a TV show. No, it's not OK. I can't believe it's really that hard to just not watch a TV show or movie, and the lengths people will go to in order to bend logic to justify their illegal activity.
Because it's not like that at all - the content producers are price discriminating in Canada. I'm going to bet the content is available in Canada, just not through netflix. If enough Canadians are paying higher fees to access that content, then THEY are the ones to blame for allowing the content providers to screw Canadians, and copyright infringement - especially of a non essential thing like movies - is not an acceptable behavior in this case. I think region encoding (or limiting) sucks - but they wouldn't do it if consumers didn't let them. I know, I know - the ones who abstain from playing the provider's game are in a minority, but that doesn't change anything. I may be stuck with Trump as a president, but it won't be because I voted for him. The difference is that Trump can screw up my life - not having access to a particular movie won't. So take the high road... advocating copyright infringement is NOT taking the high road. Only when enough people take the high road will the content provider's rethink their strategy.
So you're suggesting that content is not available in Canada by any other means?
What responsibilities? Again, we're not talking about an essential service, we're talking about entertainment; the content provider is NOT responsible to you....they don't owe you anything. And, frankly, as I stated below, if people could restrain themselves from allowing the content providers to do things like this by, you know, NOT buying the content in their own country, then content providers might rethink their position. But as long as enough Canadians are buying this content at higher prices through other means, then it's THEIR fault.
In nearly all these cases I blame the consumer - it's a f#@king game or movie - you don't need it. Is it really that hard to NOT buy a product that has been purposely f#@ked up for legal purchases? If people could just exhibit some restraint, we wouldn't have these problems with content providers, but they keep giving us s#!t and you people keep buying it.
Of course they are exercising a sense of entitlement - you aren't entitled to anyone else's work for free, and if they choose not to make it available to you, that's their right. Netflix aren't punishing Canadians for no reason, they're doing it because their content providers are restricting it. Even though it sucks, it doesn't make it "right" to obtain it in violation of copyright. We're not talking about essentials, we're talking about f#@king movies.
I can understand the frustration, and frankly - while I can't condone illegal copying of someone else's work - would tend to look the other way in this instance, but it most certainly a clear case of a sense of self entitlement to other people's work in violation of their terms. There's not even a "gray" area here - it's entertainment. You have no natural "right" to it.
"Dependency Hell" is what I called it before automatic dependency checking with dpkg and "apt-get." I used Linux (and other Unix like OSes) for some long time, and when I tried to build something by hand, I'd be met with a list of prerequisites, and those prerequisites would have prerequisites, and so on. It sucked. The newer package systems may not be perfect, but they're heavenly compared to that era.
Reminds me of Big Bang Theory... in one episode Sheldon muses that "Windows 7 is so much easier than Windows Vista. I don't like that." In another, he calls Ubuntu his favorite Linux distribution.
If I was taking dictation, I'd want to type, but at the kinds of meetings I'm in we're constantly making diagrams and sketching graphics. The designer I work with tries his tablet, but even he still has problems and generally ends up taking notes on paper.
FF was simply not that great. Slow moving, stiff movements.... it was not the groundbreaking movie it was supposed to be.
Yup. It wasn't against technology. I wasn't even necessarily against harvesting natural resources. It was against being greedy douchebags about it, putting profit before life.