People don't like seeing a good product wrapped in a turd sandwich. That's what the entertainment distribution industry is doing. They have a great product on rye, then take a dump on top of that and hand it to you in a soiled diaper.
It doesn't matter if there's a good product in it, it's still a shit sandwich, and nobody wants it.
Pirates have developed a way to perfectly de-shit the official industry sandwich, and distribute it for free.
Which would make you happier? Paying a lot for a shit sandwich you can only eat at a specific mealtime, on a specific plate, with only one choice of beverage? Or getting an illegal clean sandwich for free, whenever you're hungry, and eat it however you want?
What you paid for was Up To 1.5 mbps which is ~187.5 KiB/s, so in some unit of measurment conversion you're getting what you paid for. And all the ISP has to provide contractually is that you might get up to 1.5 mbps, which means they can provide you an 8 bit/s connection and still be holding up their end of the deal....
I'd say since the 1950s after the Korean War, when the US pretty much rebuilt it's entire economy into a western style of market. South Korea is a huge trading partner with the US, and has so much immigration back and forth it's pretty much a western country.
That, or promoting ugh MyCleanPC. With the exact same sob story about their grandma that's in about 20,000 other /. posts. Their IP should just get banned.
The most popular torrent clients all have peer-blocking capabilities built in, if not turned on by default. These include:
uTorrent
Transmission (comes default with Ubuntu and variants)
Deluge
Azureus, and Vuze.
There are other security features available in bittorrent as well, such as using encryption, and blocking peers dynamically when they send too many bad packets.
Finally, there are also pseudonymous file sharing services like anomos, and others that can guarantee at the very least, plausible deniability.
Any attempt to try and destroy filesharing is bound to fail. People HATE being censored, and that is what blocking the transfer of ANY information is.
Even if society is willing to tolerate low levels of censorship, there will always be those who can't stand it.
"Like a splinter in their mind" as stated in The Matrix (fair use goddamnit, I can quote small passages without anyone's permission)
I did do some research, and in the discussion page for this piece, they determined with a lot of specific references that the original date of publication is most likely 1910, from an architectural journal, in addition, it was also exhibited from 1916 to 1917, which doesn't technically count as publication. There are likely further publications perhaps lost to history from between 1910 and 1923, but from the current evidence, I think there's a pretty strong case for the painting belonging to the public domain.
I also found a filing for the painting in the US Copyright Office's database from 1994, on the basis for photolithographic reproduction, and claiming it was a pre-existing work. The link is Here
It all seems utterly rediculous that something made in 1907, and published almost certainly before 1923 is being claimed under copyright.
I couldn't find any original registration for Les demoiselles d'Avignon itself before 1994, just objects that incorporated it.
Copyright is so broken. How can you promote creativity if it's illegal to copy other's work (with attribution). And I find it obscene to deny the public all artwork created by people who are long dead.
For Godsake! You used a strawman car metaphor in an attempt to compare using an idea without permission to using a physical object without permission.
The commenter was pointing out how laughably irrelevant your car analogy is in this debate.
Let me explain in very simple terms what's very wrong with your astoundingly shortsighted argument:
A car is a physical object. If I take your car, you are unable to use it. That is called theft.
If, on the other hand, I copy your idea/expression, the "original" is left unaffected, and still in your "possession". It is still intact. What's more, now I have a copy of the idea, and it can be used by both of us.
Your repulsively stupid, and blatantly misleading car metaphor is tissue thin, and doesn't apply to the debate at all.
In summary: I sincerely hope you realize how terribly thoughtless, inept and generally uneducated you sound.
If you can't tell the difference between intellectual "property" and physical property, you simply don't belong on the internet.
It would have a net charge of 0, exactly the same as Hydrogen.
An antiproton has a charge of -1, a positron has a charge of +1, making a neutral particle.
The "surface" of antihydrogen would be positive and attracted to the "surface" of regular matter.
The general consensus is that antimatter has regular positively signed energy-matter of the same values as it's matter counterparts, and would fall towards regular matter and antimatter alike.
I actually have some experience with closed systems of media distribution.
It was with my cellphone back in the early 2000s. TMobile offered a music store for it, that was terrible. It was mostly popular music. Nobody bought any. It was too expensive. Granted people decided to just use mp3 players instead. I was determined to get the music I wanted.
My phone was "perfectly" locked down. I couldn't download via http. I couldn't listen to anything on the SD card that didn't have the correct DRM signature.
Does this sound like a way to make money? I bought the phone because it said "music capabilities." in the end it had piss me off capabilities. In the end I was able to hack the phone to pieces and play whatever the fuck I wanted on it.
If there was a decent offering, and the ability to play whatever I wanted to from anywhere I got it, I might have bought music to play on it.
When I was attending technical school, every first login of the quarter I was met with the "Academic Honesty and Network usage policy" boilerplate.
The terms I saw in the student handbook said I would certainly lose credit for the quarter for copyright violation of any kind, and that I would be kicked out entirely if I repeated offended. They lumped all copyright infringement in with plagiarism.
I'm pretty sure that devaluing the dollar would penalize the poorest segments of the population first. If you think about it marginally, then someone who makes, say, $100 a month experiences a much harsher effect from their $100 reducing in value by $0.01 per dollar than a millionaire who makes $300 million a year.
It would be cutting off your nose, to spite your face. While the poor may lose less money in absolute terms, their real wealth will suffer astronomically compared to the richest people. Is it worth taking money away from the most impoverished?
Economies require at least one relatively stable element to trade on. If the currency becomes too unstable, nobody will want to use it because the fair value of exchanges for goods and services can't be determined accurately (or in the case of hyperinflation, the value of currency isn't even able to be approximately determined)
The lack of a counter point statistic to your statement does not validate your statement's accuracy.
If logic could work that way, I'd have an infinite amount of money in my bank account as long as I never checked my balance, since there wouldn't be evidence to the contrary.
While you make a cogent point in regard for avoiding being hassled by the police, it isn't really the point.
Whether the police like it or not, we as citizens shouldn't have to worry about whether we will get in trouble for recording our public servants in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.
An officer of the law has no legal grounds (yet) to detain a citizen for doing something legal.
Everyone has uncomfortable experiences all the time, whether it's getting a filling, or paying your taxes.
The police should stop being pussies and ignore the camera, and follow their training. If they stay true to the fact that they work for us, then they don't need to worry about liability.
I'm just outraged. Is it as common as i think it is for ISPs to simply crush independent content makers like me and the boys at popoki.org? I just am so mad. That was an outlet we had set up for our fans to learn about our music. We purposefully wanted to give out OUR MUSIC for free. An ISP in its "infinite wisdom" judged our art as worthless, then stole it from us. I'm pretty sick with anger. It's my music, I have the rights to it. If the ISP had a problem with hosting music in general, then it should say so.
On the post: Tougher Enforcement In Sweden Doesn't Slow Down Public's File Sharing
Re:
People don't like seeing a good product wrapped in a turd sandwich. That's what the entertainment distribution industry is doing. They have a great product on rye, then take a dump on top of that and hand it to you in a soiled diaper.
It doesn't matter if there's a good product in it, it's still a shit sandwich, and nobody wants it.
Pirates have developed a way to perfectly de-shit the official industry sandwich, and distribute it for free.
Which would make you happier? Paying a lot for a shit sandwich you can only eat at a specific mealtime, on a specific plate, with only one choice of beverage? Or getting an illegal clean sandwich for free, whenever you're hungry, and eat it however you want?
On the post: Broadband In Crisis: Does The US Need Regulation To Force Meaningful Competition?
Re: WHAT WE DO NEED
On the post: Broadband In Crisis: Does The US Need Regulation To Force Meaningful Competition?
Re: Did I miss something in Geography?
On the post: Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals
Re: Re:
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not censorship
Anyone can take a peek, and it could be gone tomorrow.
But it's a REALLY BIG cardboard box. You could put anything in it!
On the post: Microsoft-Funded BitTorrent Disruptor Won't Make Pirates Pay, But Might Break The Law
Re: Easily blocked...
The most popular torrent clients all have peer-blocking capabilities built in, if not turned on by default. These include:
uTorrent
Transmission (comes default with Ubuntu and variants)
Deluge
Azureus, and Vuze.
There are other security features available in bittorrent as well, such as using encryption, and blocking peers dynamically when they send too many bad packets.
Finally, there are also pseudonymous file sharing services like anomos, and others that can guarantee at the very least, plausible deniability.
Any attempt to try and destroy filesharing is bound to fail. People HATE being censored, and that is what blocking the transfer of ANY information is.
Even if society is willing to tolerate low levels of censorship, there will always be those who can't stand it.
"Like a splinter in their mind" as stated in The Matrix (fair use goddamnit, I can quote small passages without anyone's permission)
On the post: Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder
Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
I also found a filing for the painting in the US Copyright Office's database from 1994, on the basis for photolithographic reproduction, and claiming it was a pre-existing work. The link is Here
It all seems utterly rediculous that something made in 1907, and published almost certainly before 1923 is being claimed under copyright.
I couldn't find any original registration for Les demoiselles d'Avignon itself before 1994, just objects that incorporated it.
Copyright is so broken. How can you promote creativity if it's illegal to copy other's work (with attribution). And I find it obscene to deny the public all artwork created by people who are long dead.
What a corporate load of shit.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: Re: Re: chilling
The commenter was pointing out how laughably irrelevant your car analogy is in this debate.
Let me explain in very simple terms what's very wrong with your astoundingly shortsighted argument:
A car is a physical object. If I take your car, you are unable to use it. That is called theft.
If, on the other hand, I copy your idea/expression, the "original" is left unaffected, and still in your "possession". It is still intact. What's more, now I have a copy of the idea, and it can be used by both of us.
Your repulsively stupid, and blatantly misleading car metaphor is tissue thin, and doesn't apply to the debate at all.
In summary: I sincerely hope you realize how terribly thoughtless, inept and generally uneducated you sound.
If you can't tell the difference between intellectual "property" and physical property, you simply don't belong on the internet.
On the post: DailyDirt: If I Could Catch Time In A Bottle...
Re: Charge
An antiproton has a charge of -1, a positron has a charge of +1, making a neutral particle.
The "surface" of antihydrogen would be positive and attracted to the "surface" of regular matter.
The general consensus is that antimatter has regular positively signed energy-matter of the same values as it's matter counterparts, and would fall towards regular matter and antimatter alike.
On the post: UK Labour Party: Let's Just Get On With Kicking People Offline Over Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was with my cellphone back in the early 2000s. TMobile offered a music store for it, that was terrible. It was mostly popular music. Nobody bought any. It was too expensive. Granted people decided to just use mp3 players instead. I was determined to get the music I wanted.
My phone was "perfectly" locked down. I couldn't download via http. I couldn't listen to anything on the SD card that didn't have the correct DRM signature.
Does this sound like a way to make money? I bought the phone because it said "music capabilities." in the end it had piss me off capabilities. In the end I was able to hack the phone to pieces and play whatever the fuck I wanted on it.
If there was a decent offering, and the ability to play whatever I wanted to from anywhere I got it, I might have bought music to play on it.
On the post: Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany
Harmful
Techdirt Harmful, Considered Harmful
On the post: Paramount Wants To Talk To Students About How They're All Thieves & Then Ask For Ideas On What To Do
Re:
The terms I saw in the student handbook said I would certainly lose credit for the quarter for copyright violation of any kind, and that I would be kicked out entirely if I repeated offended. They lumped all copyright infringement in with plagiarism.
On the post: DailyDirt: In Money, We Trust (Sometimes)
Re: A new economic stimulus strategy?
It would be cutting off your nose, to spite your face. While the poor may lose less money in absolute terms, their real wealth will suffer astronomically compared to the richest people. Is it worth taking money away from the most impoverished?
Economies require at least one relatively stable element to trade on. If the currency becomes too unstable, nobody will want to use it because the fair value of exchanges for goods and services can't be determined accurately (or in the case of hyperinflation, the value of currency isn't even able to be approximately determined)
On the post: Righthaven Screws Up (Again); Appeal Dismissed
Righthaven
On the post: Copyright Tourism: Korean Companies Sue Guy From Australia For Copyright Infringement... In California
Re: Re:
On the post: Patent Troll Lawyers Smacked Down, Made To Pay Sanctions, For Mass Lawsuits Followed By Quick Settlement Offers
Re: Re: Re: Re: It just occurred to me
....For great justice...
On the post: Return To The Days Of Hoover's Enemy List? FBI Raiding Activists As Terrorists
Re: Terrorist Sympathizer
**Or drive or take a bus or board a train or put a saddle on your tauntaun.**
On the post: Can We Kill Off This Myth That The Internet Is A Wild West That Needs To Be Tamed?
Talk about Fallacy
If logic could work that way, I'd have an infinite amount of money in my bank account as long as I never checked my balance, since there wouldn't be evidence to the contrary.
On the post: Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'
Re: tips
Whether the police like it or not, we as citizens shouldn't have to worry about whether we will get in trouble for recording our public servants in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.
An officer of the law has no legal grounds (yet) to detain a citizen for doing something legal.
Everyone has uncomfortable experiences all the time, whether it's getting a filling, or paying your taxes.
The police should stop being pussies and ignore the camera, and follow their training. If they stay true to the fact that they work for us, then they don't need to worry about liability.
On the post: Why ISPs Shouldn't Be Copyright Cops
Commonplace?
Next >>