 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> Something like: If my car gets stolen, I get to take your money to
>> make up for it.
>
> That's called mandatory auto insurance.
Not for theft. For medical bills others have to pay. Theft falls under
"comprehensive", which isn't mandatory.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 5/10/2009 2:11 AM, scott wrote:
>>> The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
>>> downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a bigger
>>> crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to make
>>> money.
>>
>> It's not the music industry's fault that the software industry does not
>> go after illegal software as vigorously. There's nothing stopping
>> Microsoft or similar other software giants trying to take the same route
>> as the music industry. I wonder why they don't?
>
> Haven't you heard of the Business Software Alliance? Basically the same
> thing for MS software, except they use more heavy handed strategy (ie,
> things like showing up at your business and threatening you if you don't
> let them inspect all your computers to verify you aren't stealing
> software).
Send 'em over to my ex-employer. There is only one legal copy of Windows in
the whole office and that's because it came with the laptop.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 May 2009 11:39:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
> downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a bigger
> crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to make
> money.
Even better, the music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a
7yo girl downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a
bigger crime than people who make illegal copies of CDs and DVDs and sell
them on the streets for actual profits.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they have
> no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet).
You're mistaken in this. Even just sticking to the world in which guns are
pointed at people, there are two uses for such guns: shooting people, and
threatening people. Numbers everywhere seem to imply that guns used to
threaten people save more lives than guns used to kill people, outside of
soldiers and wars. Indeed, if you are being attacked on the street by a
criminal in the USA, having a firearm is the only mechanism more likely to
keep you safe than submitting meekly.
While there are places where general citizens having firearms is probably a
bad idea (e.g., courtrooms), I'd say general citizens having firearms the
power of pistols and revolvers is probably not a bad idea. If it comes to a
simple mugger, that should be enough. If it comes to fighting an oppressive
government, I think enough people would be able to steal the higher-powered
weapons needed to fight an army by using smaller firearms to start with.
(I.e., if you want the weapons only cops can have, mug a cop. :-)
> Private citizens should
> not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.
Prey tell, what is an "assault weapon"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> Something like: If my car gets stolen, I get to take your money to
>> make up for it.
>
> That's called mandatory auto insurance. And you and I both pay upfront.
OK - Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Mandatory
auto insurance does not cover theft.
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>>> Something like: If my car gets stolen, I get to take your money to
>>> make up for it.
>> That's called mandatory auto insurance. And you and I both pay upfront.
>
> OK - Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Mandatory
> auto insurance does not cover theft.
Plus, it's a bad example, because it's insurance. Even if it was a good
example, it just means that the fines should be paying the costs of the
legitimate users. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2009 7:22 AM, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers"<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:4a082f86$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
>>> So, if people start stealing tomatoes, farmers should adopt a new
> business
>>> model instead of seeking protection?
>> Completely different. A tomato is a tangible object, of which a farmer
>> has a limited number.
> Typical fallacy.
How so? I'm not sure what the fallacy is you're referring to; would you
please enlighten me?
>> It's not like Apple can only sell X downloads of any given song, and
>> then it's gone.
>
> Same difference. A tomato does not represent value to a farmer as a fruit
> that he can eat. It's value is as a commodity that he can sell to make
> income. Steal a tomato, a farmer has one less to sell. Steal a song, Apple
> has one (OK, maybe 0.125 for you who say not all those would buy it anyway)
> to sell. It's about stealing away legitimate business by illegal means.
That is, of course, completely false. A farmer has a limited number of
tomatoes in their possession which they may then sell.
Apple has no such limit on the number of songs that the iTunes store may
sell; they may sell as many copies of each song as they wish.
>> Whether you like it or not, music downloads are here to stay.
>> Technologically, there's nothing you can do that would seriously prevent
>> piracy.
>
> Just as car thieves are here to stay. All protection schemes can be broken.
> But both technologically and legally, there's much to be done to minimize
> the damage.
Of course there is. However, stealing a car is not nearly as easy as
copying a song. For one thing, the car exists as a tangible object,
whereas the copy of the song is not. In fact, calling such actions
"theft" is quite inaccurate, because the owner retains the original;
really, it's unauthorized usage of the copyrighted material.
>> it makes sense that businesses
>> find a viable means of support rather than continuing to sue their own
>> customers.
>
> By definition, one who steals is not a customer.
Not true; you're assuming that piracy and purchase are mutually
exclusive, while it is certainly possible to both copy music illegally
and still purchase authorized copies.
The music industry's heavy handed tactics of suing individual file
sharers, many of whom do indeed purchase music, has had a hugely
negative impact on the image of the industry as a whole.
This has, in fact, spurred piracy as people begin to see the issue as a
moral one rather than an economic one. Many people are now completely
unwilling to purchase retail music because the proceeds will be going to
support the so-called "evil music companies."
Really, the issue has three separate parts, and the music industry comes
out on the losing side of two of them.
1) Legally, unauthorized copying is currently outlawed. Because of
this, the music industry as a whole is within their rights to prosecute
those who illegally copy music.
2) Technologically, there is no practical way to impede the illegal
copying of unauthorized materials. Making a digital copy is so
incredibly easy (especially compared to stealing a tangible item, such
as a car, or even something as small as a tomato) that any attempt to
place a technical limit on it has, and will continue to, fail horribly.
3) Philosophically, there are very few people who think the current
legal situation is fair. The way compensation currently works is based
on the difficulty of mass production, distribution and marketing of
physical items (LPs, CDs or audiocassettes). Little of that has to do
with the music itself; in fact, if anything artists are currently being
undercompensated by the very corporations masquerading as their advocates.
The current system, where a large corporation reaps massive rewards for
the time, efforts and creativity of the artists they represent, is an
aberration of history. It came about with the introduction of LPs, and
will apparently soon go away with the revenues again returning to the
creators of the music (the writers and performers).
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2009 11:23 PM, somebody wrote:
> Some of the businesses may be big (many are not), but they are
> providing livelihood to many individuals, down to the janitor who cleans the
> studios.
The fact that they are providing jobs also is irrelevant.
As a counterexample, look at the tax prep industry in the US. It is a
huge waste of money; in fact, I think the citizenry should file a class
action lawsuit against the IRS and Congress for being forced to resort
to third party help to prepare their taxes.
If something like paying taxes is required by law, then it should be
made accessible to a reasonable majority of citizens rather than
creating an entire industry based on helping you comply with said law.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2009 10:10 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Haven't you heard of the Business Software Alliance? Basically the same
>> thing for MS software, except they use more heavy handed strategy (ie,
>> things like showing up at your business and threatening you if you don't
>> let them inspect all your computers to verify you aren't stealing
>> software).
>
> Send 'em over to my ex-employer. There is only one legal copy of Windows in
> the whole office and that's because it came with the laptop.
I believe the BSA offers a cash reward system for tips such as this. If
you're really OK with it, call them in.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 1) Legally, unauthorized copying is currently outlawed.
... here.
Remember there are plenty of places (including for example Spain) where
sharing such files without profit isn't illegal.
> 2) Technologically, there is no practical way to impede the illegal
> copying of unauthorized materials. Making a digital copy is so
> incredibly easy (especially compared to stealing a tangible item, such
> as a car, or even something as small as a tomato) that any attempt to
> place a technical limit on it has, and will continue to, fail horribly.
No matter the technical limitations, there are two things working against DRM:
1) The legitimate user has to be able to produce the content. It's not a
cryptography problem, where you're defending against someone who shouldn't
see the content.
2) Once it's cracked, it's easy to distribute the cracked form vs the
hard-to-crack form, so it only takes one person to crack the DRM.
> in fact, if anything artists are currently being
> undercompensated by the very corporations masquerading as their advocates.
I saw lawsuits where the artists are suing the labels because the labels
aren't paying them anything from the Apple store, for example.
> will apparently soon go away with the revenues again returning to the
> creators of the music (the writers and performers).
We can only hope. What was the group that put up their new album online a
few months ago for free, asked for a donation of "what you think it's
worth", and brought in many-fold the amount of money they would have selling it?
Heh heh heh...
http://torrentfreak.com/donate-your-piracy-savings-to-reduce-poverty-081015/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
