The same applies here: the RIAA now has the unenviable task of distinguishing between their owners' approved content, legitimate content and unapproved copyrighted content, and then launching an infinity of DMCA takedown notices and/or lawsuits. And only they or their owners can know what's approved copyright content.
No, they just assume everything is unapproved content.
HDCP means that I can't play my legally purchased discs using my legally purchased blu-ray disc drive except at a crummy resolution.
There is a flag that will restrict you from viewing HD over the analog outputs, but as far as I know none of the studios are using it. Do you know of one who is, or are you referring to "HD over component" vs "HD over HDMI" as "crummy resolution"?
So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.
Then you sue your friend for distribution of your copyrighted recording. It still has nothing to do with the RIAA. The fact that they download a song, regardless of who they get it from, does not make them guilty of distribution. The uploader is the one who potentially violates copyright (either you or your friend).
Actually, Amazon is taking a loss on the ebooks right now. That's why the kindle version of an ebook is almost always cheaper than alternative formats of the same book.
Right now they're focused on market share, not profit.
I much rather live in a country where I need to dig out of my own pocket for Broadband and pay more, then to have to pay a fine/tax for activity that I am not guilty of (Even if the tax plus additional cost is less then what I am paying now).
I wouldn't get too excited. If you remember they used to sell "Music" CD-Rs as well as "Data" CD-Rs in the US (not sure if they still do). Ever wonder why the ones labeled "Music" were more expensive?
If you do write a letter to your member of Congress, you'd better include a check that is larger than the one the RIAA gave them in order to get the law set that way in the first place.
Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot.
That would be theft, but has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. Your analogy isn't even close.
So you're making fun of people joking about splitting the bill not being innovative. But splitting the bill "on a computer"... now that's patent worthy!
If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.
On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.
Replace "Vista" with whatever the latest version of Windows is, and that's pretty much true for all of them at the time they're released. The only shocking part is that some people seem to be surprised by this.
Monty Python has been pretty friendly to their fans using/viewing their material for a long time. I was a regular on the alt.fan.monty-python USENET newsgroup back in the early 90s, and used to host an ftp site with lots of scripts from the movies/shows. They gave their blessing and said they had no problem with it as long as we also put something up about where to buy copies of the "official" books with the scripts if people wanted them.
I also ran a ewtoo talker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talker (kind of like the old telnet MUD, but more social based instead of combat based) that had a strong Monty Python based theme. Not only were they completely fine with that, they also offered to host it on their official pythonline website. A lot of other MUDs at the time were being sued over trademarks/copyrights.
They pretty much looked at it as free advertising and encouraged people to trade scripts/etc, as long as you weren't profiting from it.
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted.
It's the uploader's job to figure out if something they want to distribute is covered under copyright. They're the ones getting taken to court.
Slashdot Mirror
The same applies here: the RIAA now has the unenviable task of distinguishing between their owners' approved content, legitimate content and unapproved copyrighted content, and then launching an infinity of DMCA takedown notices and/or lawsuits. And only they or their owners can know what's approved copyright content.
No, they just assume everything is unapproved content.
You can't display HD on an old VGA monitor anyway, that has nothing to do with HDCP.
HDCP means that I can't play my legally purchased discs using my legally purchased blu-ray disc drive except at a crummy resolution.
There is a flag that will restrict you from viewing HD over the analog outputs, but as far as I know none of the studios are using it. Do you know of one who is, or are you referring to "HD over component" vs "HD over HDMI" as "crummy resolution"?
The file name and description allowed us to verify that the complaint was for a legitimately copyrighted work.
Really? You can tell the contents of the file just by looking at the name? You can tell that the supposed file even existed based on a notice?
Then they can't use the fact that I download a song to get my internet access cut off.
They don't. Every case has been about uploading.
So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.
Then you sue your friend for distribution of your copyrighted recording. It still has nothing to do with the RIAA. The fact that they download a song, regardless of who they get it from, does not make them guilty of distribution. The uploader is the one who potentially violates copyright (either you or your friend).
Actually, Amazon is taking a loss on the ebooks right now. That's why the kindle version of an ebook is almost always cheaper than alternative formats of the same book.
Right now they're focused on market share, not profit.
Slashdot in 2009:
"Suing individual copyright infringers is evil!..."
Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to what "Slashdot in 2009" has been saying.
I'm pretty sure the poster meant "download a pirated copy of the game for personal use" and not "share the pirated copy with all and sundry".
Technically it's not copyright infringement either.
I much rather live in a country where I need to dig out of my own pocket for Broadband and pay more, then to have to pay a fine/tax for activity that I am not guilty of (Even if the tax plus additional cost is less then what I am paying now).
I wouldn't get too excited. If you remember they used to sell "Music" CD-Rs as well as "Data" CD-Rs in the US (not sure if they still do). Ever wonder why the ones labeled "Music" were more expensive?
If you do write a letter to your member of Congress, you'd better include a check that is larger than the one the RIAA gave them in order to get the law set that way in the first place.
Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot.
That would be theft, but has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. Your analogy isn't even close.
I don't think this case is about distributing, just downloading, but in the typical cases it is about distributing..
All of their cases are about distributing.
Despite sharing the same GOD DAMN ISLAND, economic and environmental conditions are extremely different.
Good point. These critters wouldn't want to stay if they couldn't get a decent job.
Mythical?
The BBC are reporting that footage of one of the world's most strange and elusive mammals has been captured by scientists.
A Slashdot member with a girlfriend?
Lets have a little bit of perspective and not put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around.
Good thing nobody did that.
Yep. There's already enough confusion surrounding the digital conversion, we don't need to add more.
Whether or not the TV is CRT has nothing to do with it. It's the tuner in the TV that matters.
So you're making fun of people joking about splitting the bill not being innovative. But splitting the bill "on a computer"... now that's patent worthy!
If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.
On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.
Replace "Vista" with whatever the latest version of Windows is, and that's pretty much true for all of them at the time they're released. The only shocking part is that some people seem to be surprised by this.
Monty Python has been pretty friendly to their fans using/viewing their material for a long time. I was a regular on the alt.fan.monty-python USENET newsgroup back in the early 90s, and used to host an ftp site with lots of scripts from the movies/shows. They gave their blessing and said they had no problem with it as long as we also put something up about where to buy copies of the "official" books with the scripts if people wanted them.
I also ran a ewtoo talker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talker (kind of like the old telnet MUD, but more social based instead of combat based) that had a strong Monty Python based theme. Not only were they completely fine with that, they also offered to host it on their official pythonline website. A lot of other MUDs at the time were being sued over trademarks/copyrights.
They pretty much looked at it as free advertising and encouraged people to trade scripts/etc, as long as you weren't profiting from it.
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted.
It's the uploader's job to figure out if something they want to distribute is covered under copyright. They're the ones getting taken to court.
That's what I was referring to, and no infrared mouse or remote or whatever is going to penetrate a metal wall.
What about transparent aluminum?