Re: Are you reporting on a report in DUTCH that YOU CAN"T READ
As a native speaker of both Dutch and English, the report does actually say that. Even without speaking Dutch fluently figure 5.1 pretty much speaks for itself.
Speaking of making stuff up, can you tell conclusively that Mike does not speak Dutch, or did you just assume he doesn't to underscore your lack of a point?
"if you get to decide what agreements you keep, why should anyone else be held to any agreement?"
So it's fine for Sony to turn the tables retroactively and without recourse for the purchaser, but the purchaser telling Sony it doesn't work that way is somehow worse?
Do you even see the hypocrisy in your own assertions?
You know what hurts society? Thinking in black/white absolutes.
Also society agreed upon these laws, really? The copyright extensions that were bought and paid for by special interests somehow had popular consensus?
Society had those thrust upon them. Rather than having works enter the public domain as they should have been - which would have been in society's interest - society got the short end of the stick, once more.
So when you're talking about 'deciding what agreeements to keep', make sure to keep that in mind, the other side of the coin, the society who has had far more agreements unilaterally changed upon them. Why should they honor an agreement that was changed from under them when it's no longer what they agreed to?
As an aside, as someone who pays to use Spotify on a rooted Android phone, I'm perfectly fine in reconciling loathing for DRM with paying for music.
See, that version of the analogy I can agree with.
Both rape and DRM have a 3rd party force something on you against your will. Therefore circumvention of DRM should be applauded, not maligned. It's like kneeing a rapist in the groin (and using capsicum spray for good measure).
It suddenly makes a lot more sense when put this way, thanks AC!
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The core of contention appears to be that you think it's perfectly acceptable to deny someone the right to tinker with something he or she owns, whereas I see that as prior constraint.
Unless the device is leased from the manufacturer they should have no say in how you use it unless that use on its own is illegal.
In other words if running Linux on your PS3 is not unlawful (and I think we can agree that it's not, given that it's a former advertised feature), then removing the access controls to reinstate that functionality should not be either.
Trespassing onto someone's property is on its own unlawful.
Modifying something you own on the other hand? Shouldn't what you do with it after your modify it be what is judged? There are after all already perfectly fine laws on the books to deal with the copying and distribution of games.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, why isn't Sony taken to task for removing the OtherOS feature? Users got to choose between being able to play games or using this feature, but either way they lost functionality they paid for.
There is something seriously wrong when circumventing access controls to restore a feature is somehow problematic when the feature being removed to begin with is not.
I went back and reread your post. You mention you cannot morally separate breaking DRM because it's poorly implemented with attacking a woman because she walks alone. You're welcome to think that, of course. I just don't see how they're even remotely the same species of argument or how the morality of one impacts the other.
I'm perfectly fine with condemning attacks on women while at the same time thinking that DRM shouldn't exist, let alone be protected by law. But honestly, why even bring up trespass and rape in a discussion that has nothing to do with it?
You're welcome to think differently, of course. I'll agree to disagree with you.
What happened to the clause I mentioned? Curioser and curioser. Apparently that Catch-22 loophole got 'fixed' not by repealing the turd, but by replacing it with something even more end-user unfriendly. Yay, progress! /sarcasm.
Nevertheless, your equating circumvention of access control on a device you yourself own with breaking and entering or rape is still no less of a strawman argument.
Conflating someone else's property (house) with your own (bought and paid for device). I can understand moral outrage at the former, but to get all riled up about tinkering with your own damn property and comparing it to rape??? In what universe is that even remotely similar? I think you forgot to point out the children we must also be thinking of.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn't the DRM circumvention clause of the DMCA explicitly state that the copy control has to be 'effective'.
Apart from - if read logically - meaning that if broken (and thus no longer, if it ever was, effective) it shouldn't be unlawful to circumvent, it's therefore also quite clearly different from trespassing.
It's hardly a license to do 'whatever one wants', you'd still get to make copies of games and distribute them. I think your strawmen just went up in flames there.
In addition, to be eligible for copyright on DRM'd/paywalled items, an unemcumbered version must be put in escrow. If the item is ever inaccessible for more than a day, it's automagically released into the public domain.
First the teleportation devices will be too large and need lots of energy, meaning they'll only be stationary. Car manufacturers will pay them no attention.
All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.
First the teleportation devices will be too large and need lots of energy, meaning they'll only be stationary. Car manufacturers will pay them no attention.
All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.
Since it's in the public domain I could reproduce it in its entirety, but that would make for a comment that's much too long when just the excerpt suffices: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.'
That's not nearly absurd enough. Before Google you could blame Microsoft for providing the OS most people consume their internets from. Before them you could blame Intel and AMD for providing the processors. Before them you could blame the sand turned into silicon.
Clearly they should blame the Earth, if not the entire universe. After all, these people do seem to argue that where reality disagrees with their point of view, reality is in the wrong.
If their music is so bad that they couldn't give it away and now all of a sudden it's available, I can only conclude they put up that torrent themselves, if only to say, 'See! We told you it was being pirated!'
Re: Re: The problem with inferior people like Pistole...
The TSA keeps rolling natural ones on both Int and Wis. So do the MPAA and RIAA for that matter. I say we should check them for loaded dice. It's unnatural to fumble that much.
On the post: Why Google Should Buy The Recording Industry
Re:
On the post: New Study Shows Many Artists Think File Sharing Helps, Not Hurts
Re: Are you reporting on a report in DUTCH that YOU CAN"T READ
Speaking of making stuff up, can you tell conclusively that Mike does not speak Dutch, or did you just assume he doesn't to underscore your lack of a point?
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's fine for Sony to turn the tables retroactively and without recourse for the purchaser, but the purchaser telling Sony it doesn't work that way is somehow worse?
Do you even see the hypocrisy in your own assertions?
You know what hurts society? Thinking in black/white absolutes.
Also society agreed upon these laws, really? The copyright extensions that were bought and paid for by special interests somehow had popular consensus?
Society had those thrust upon them. Rather than having works enter the public domain as they should have been - which would have been in society's interest - society got the short end of the stick, once more.
So when you're talking about 'deciding what agreeements to keep', make sure to keep that in mind, the other side of the coin, the society who has had far more agreements unilaterally changed upon them. Why should they honor an agreement that was changed from under them when it's no longer what they agreed to?
As an aside, as someone who pays to use Spotify on a rooted Android phone, I'm perfectly fine in reconciling loathing for DRM with paying for music.
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Both rape and DRM have a 3rd party force something on you against your will. Therefore circumvention of DRM should be applauded, not maligned. It's like kneeing a rapist in the groin (and using capsicum spray for good measure).
It suddenly makes a lot more sense when put this way, thanks AC!
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless the device is leased from the manufacturer they should have no say in how you use it unless that use on its own is illegal.
In other words if running Linux on your PS3 is not unlawful (and I think we can agree that it's not, given that it's a former advertised feature), then removing the access controls to reinstate that functionality should not be either.
Trespassing onto someone's property is on its own unlawful.
Modifying something you own on the other hand? Shouldn't what you do with it after your modify it be what is judged? There are after all already perfectly fine laws on the books to deal with the copying and distribution of games.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, why isn't Sony taken to task for removing the OtherOS feature? Users got to choose between being able to play games or using this feature, but either way they lost functionality they paid for.
There is something seriously wrong when circumventing access controls to restore a feature is somehow problematic when the feature being removed to begin with is not.
I went back and reread your post. You mention you cannot morally separate breaking DRM because it's poorly implemented with attacking a woman because she walks alone. You're welcome to think that, of course. I just don't see how they're even remotely the same species of argument or how the morality of one impacts the other.
I'm perfectly fine with condemning attacks on women while at the same time thinking that DRM shouldn't exist, let alone be protected by law. But honestly, why even bring up trespass and rape in a discussion that has nothing to do with it?
You're welcome to think differently, of course. I'll agree to disagree with you.
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nevertheless, your equating circumvention of access control on a device you yourself own with breaking and entering or rape is still no less of a strawman argument.
Conflating someone else's property (house) with your own (bought and paid for device). I can understand moral outrage at the former, but to get all riled up about tinkering with your own damn property and comparing it to rape??? In what universe is that even remotely similar? I think you forgot to point out the children we must also be thinking of.
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony
Re: Re: Re:
Apart from - if read logically - meaning that if broken (and thus no longer, if it ever was, effective) it shouldn't be unlawful to circumvent, it's therefore also quite clearly different from trespassing.
It's hardly a license to do 'whatever one wants', you'd still get to make copies of games and distribute them. I think your strawmen just went up in flames there.
On the post: Dumbest Lawsuit Ever? HuffPo Sued By Bloggers Who Agreed To Work For Free... But Now Claim They Were Slaves
Speaking of depressing
On the post: Can You Copyright Pi? Lawsuit Filed Over Copyright On Pi Symphony
A lawsuit over Pi
On the post: EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension
Re: We need a new system for old works
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame
All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame
All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.
On the post: Denmark Reverses Position On Copyright Extension, May Impact All Of Europe
Marcellus says
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: copy machines
On the post: House Hearing On File Sharing Turns Into 'But Why Can't Google Magically Stop All Bad Things Online' Hearing
Re:
Clearly they should blame the Earth, if not the entire universe. After all, these people do seem to argue that where reality disagrees with their point of view, reality is in the wrong.
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: 100,000 Unauthorized Downloads Of Your Music... Or None?
Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Bio-inspired Robots
On the post: TSA Boss: Naked Scanners Are Great At Stopping The Last Attack; Don't Ask About The Next One
Re: Re: The problem with inferior people like Pistole...
Congratulations, Atkray, you get to run the TSA for the next two years; Lobo Santo will be the next president and Dark Helmet is the new IP Tzar.
On the post: TSA Boss: Naked Scanners Are Great At Stopping The Last Attack; Don't Ask About The Next One
Re: Re: The problem with inferior people like Pistole...
Next >>