Sorry, didn't mean you specifically. Should have phrased it better.
I think the point I was trying to make is that whether or not my sense of visual tidiness is offended, that doesn't give me the right to dictate what others are allowed to do on their own private property.
From what I've seen though, the biggest fans of HOAs are typically control freaks.
"We've decided to stop paying artists entirely, that is up to them. From now on we expect them to largely give their work away for free, and will offer some advertising for the first 5000 to sign up".
Exactly, this is the REAL threat that filesharing represents to the RIAA/MPAA, and why they're terrified. It has nothing to do with "piracy" and everything to do with competition to their monopoly distribution model.
"Those people" only care about whether there is a donkey or an elephant on the president's jersey. If he plays for "their" team then they'll make up reasons to love him. If he plays for the "other" team then they'll make up reasons to hate him. That's about all they are capable of understanding.
Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that any political candidate from either of the major parties is actually going to try and change anything significant is too stupid to realize they've been conned.
I've even had pilots tell me we are going to be early before we take off when we're slightly behind schedule.
Probably based off of the pre-flight weather data. The pilot will know they're going to be flying with a tailwind before they take off, which means you're going to get to the destination faster than expected.
Is that 63 minutes for one particular flight (that you were on)? I would assume the flight time between two airports could be different depending on weather, head/tail wind, etc.
They would save space by hashing files and sending multiple links created by multiple users to the same single file on their servers.
Which is fairly common. From what I understand, courts have already said this is fine.
Then, when a DMCA request was issued, they'd remove the single users' link that they had gotten the request for, and not the file itself.
Of course they only remove the link. What do you expect them to do?
Say two people upload the same file to the file hosting service. User A does so for legitimate purposes and doesn't share his link with anybody. User B does so and then shares the link. A DMCA request is issued against User B. Should the hosting service remove User B's shared link, or should they remove the file itself, meaning that the completely innocent User A loses access to their data just because someone else was pirating a copy of the same file?
Democracy is two wolves and 1000 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But in this case, the sheep are all idiots and the only thing you hear from them is... "But it's a two party system, if I don't vote for one of the wolves I'm throwing my vote away!"
You'd have to be pretty foolish to actually believe that. Piracy is the red herring that provides the excuse for them to force DRM on legitimate consumers, but preventing piracy is not what DRM exists for. It's not even very useful for preventing it.
That's exactly what they want to do. Sharing technology is a direct threat to their distribution monopoly. I'm sure the copyright cartel would love nothing more than to kill/scare off all file sharing sites.
Yeah, you'd be wrong. Copyright infringement includes distribution - e.g. "uploading" as you note. However, it also includes copying - e.g. "downloading". Under US law, downloading material under copyright without permission is illegal.
Type a random word into Google. Hold your mouse over the first link that it returns. Point is, you have no clue what content you're about to download and have no idea where it's coming from. Click on the link... did you just commit copyright infringement by downloading the contents of that web page? You certainly didn't get permission from the copyright holder before clicking on the link. In most cases, you have no way of knowing who the copyright holder is before you visit a website, nor do you know if the site is authorized to distribute that content.
If what you say is true, that downloading material under copyright without permission is illegal, then that means using the internet at all puts you at risk to potentially violate copyright every time you click on something.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, didn't mean you specifically. Should have phrased it better.
I think the point I was trying to make is that whether or not my sense of visual tidiness is offended, that doesn't give me the right to dictate what others are allowed to do on their own private property.
From what I've seen though, the biggest fans of HOAs are typically control freaks.
"We've decided to stop paying artists entirely, that is up to them. From now on we expect them to largely give their work away for free, and will offer some advertising for the first 5000 to sign up".
I thought that's how the RIAA already does it.
Exactly, this is the REAL threat that filesharing represents to the RIAA/MPAA, and why they're terrified. It has nothing to do with "piracy" and everything to do with competition to their monopoly distribution model.
So your sense of "visual tidiness" applies to other people's property?
"Those people" only care about whether there is a donkey or an elephant on the president's jersey. If he plays for "their" team then they'll make up reasons to love him. If he plays for the "other" team then they'll make up reasons to hate him. That's about all they are capable of understanding.
Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that any political candidate from either of the major parties is actually going to try and change anything significant is too stupid to realize they've been conned.
Why do you care if someone hangs their laundry out or parks their car on the lawn?
No, the point is to design your system so that if it fails 2 weeks down the line... it isn't a problem.
I've even had pilots tell me we are going to be early before we take off when we're slightly behind schedule.
Probably based off of the pre-flight weather data. The pilot will know they're going to be flying with a tailwind before they take off, which means you're going to get to the destination faster than expected.
Is that 63 minutes for one particular flight (that you were on)? I would assume the flight time between two airports could be different depending on weather, head/tail wind, etc.
I guess they don't mind free advertising, but they HATE competition.
This is likely the real reason they are attacking P2P/filesharing. It threatens their distribution monopoly.
It makes the more problematic variety of piracy—people selling pirated copies of movies—much harder or even impossible
Cinavia has already been defeated by the "pirates".
Think about what you just wrote for a second...
FastPlay means the movie starts in 5-7 minutes after the ads.
If you skip FastPlay, then you can manually start the movie in 10-20 seconds.
Shouldn't they have named it "SlowPlay"? I believe that was the grandparents point.
They would save space by hashing files and sending multiple links created by multiple users to the same single file on their servers.
Which is fairly common. From what I understand, courts have already said this is fine.
Then, when a DMCA request was issued, they'd remove the single users' link that they had gotten the request for, and not the file itself.
Of course they only remove the link. What do you expect them to do?
Say two people upload the same file to the file hosting service. User A does so for legitimate purposes and doesn't share his link with anybody. User B does so and then shares the link. A DMCA request is issued against User B. Should the hosting service remove User B's shared link, or should they remove the file itself, meaning that the completely innocent User A loses access to their data just because someone else was pirating a copy of the same file?
You're assuming that random internet users and the heads of the BPI are treated equally under the law.
Democracy is two wolves and 1000 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But in this case, the sheep are all idiots and the only thing you hear from them is... "But it's a two party system, if I don't vote for one of the wolves I'm throwing my vote away!"
Pretty soon they'll just come right out and tell the government "Give us all your money and don't ask any questions".
Oh wait... they just did.
"without court oversight as well as takedowns with no due process and unlimited statutory damages"
Piracy is the reason DRM exists.
You'd have to be pretty foolish to actually believe that. Piracy is the red herring that provides the excuse for them to force DRM on legitimate consumers, but preventing piracy is not what DRM exists for. It's not even very useful for preventing it.
That's exactly what they want to do. Sharing technology is a direct threat to their distribution monopoly. I'm sure the copyright cartel would love nothing more than to kill/scare off all file sharing sites.
They did have a DMCA takedown system. The complaints usually center around "how" they were handling takedowns, not that they were ignoring them.
The DMCA is still missing the provision for a penalty for an invalid takedown request
I think there already is one, but it never gets enforced.
An EULA that contains unenforceable claims? How unexpected!
What happens if you keep notes via simple pen/paper using a code. Can a judge force you to tell the prosecutor what your code is?
Yeah, you'd be wrong. Copyright infringement includes distribution - e.g. "uploading" as you note. However, it also includes copying - e.g. "downloading". Under US law, downloading material under copyright without permission is illegal.
Type a random word into Google. Hold your mouse over the first link that it returns. Point is, you have no clue what content you're about to download and have no idea where it's coming from. Click on the link... did you just commit copyright infringement by downloading the contents of that web page? You certainly didn't get permission from the copyright holder before clicking on the link. In most cases, you have no way of knowing who the copyright holder is before you visit a website, nor do you know if the site is authorized to distribute that content.
If what you say is true, that downloading material under copyright without permission is illegal, then that means using the internet at all puts you at risk to potentially violate copyright every time you click on something.
I would think that once that piracy really does start killing studios and distributors, the moral situation will change.
Not if artists and consumers realize that they're both better off without the middle men.