What these students are doing is basically research and it is completely legal and not "destructive to closure"
if a closed case gets re-opened, it is no longer closed. the closure of that case is now destroyed. closure rates are a big deal for prosecutors. you can't be a district attorney without a good closure rate.
these are lawyers with careers to think of. these "innocence pirates" are ruining the careers of innocent attorneys. won't someone think of these poor defenseless attorneys?
Now on a total different matter, the reason to want caps or tiered schemes may be because the end game is to force higher data prices and offer "bargain" solutions to VoIP and Video without competition from others.
DING! we have a winner.
data caps are the new tiered internet. ISPs want to offer voice and video products, but have to compete with pure play prividers like skype and hulu.
so, if using skype, or vonage, or whomever applied to your cap, while using cable company phone did not, then you have your preferred tier. sure you can use vonage, but if you go over your cap it will cost you dearly, better play is safe and use our phone service instead.
I never have used ebay to sell a product, now I never will. So much for the "freedom" the internet gives. About 10 years ago I (and probably millions of other people) saw the writing on the wall. Over time even though the Internet came from tax paper funding for a majority (see: ARPA), I saw the coming waves of the corporations. These corporations, I thought then, would one day completely take over the once "free exchange" of ideas, open-source vaules, of the internet, and turn it into one big online buisness.
This is exhibit 1 billion of this happening (a rough estimate to be sure). The Internet, like all good ideas, has been largely co-opted by corporate profit taking, and copyright abuse. FUN times.....
It would also stop you behaving like an unauthrosied public library at the expense of the author.
and what's the difference between an authorized library and an unauthorized one? funding by the state?
Have to agree with the poster who says nopt all DRM is pure evil.
Demanding that everything be free just because someone somewhere can get round DRM is not a defensible position.
all DRM is pure evil in that it only ever affects the "innocent". DRM has no effect on piracy. in fact, it encourages it:
1) DRM doesn't work. it's based on a faulty implementation of cryptography: encrypted content is given to the user, who is also the attacker. along with the key to decrypt the content. this is why all DRM schemes get cracked within minutes, the authorization keys are put into the hands of attackers.
2) DRM doesn't stop piracy. pirated versions are not DRM'd. the DRM is either stripped prior to upload, or simply pirated from an unencrypted source.
3) DRM only hurts legitimate users. it only limits the actions of your paying customers and makes pirated versions with no restrictions more valuable than your paid product. meanwhile, piracy continues without ever coming into contact with DRM (see #2)
4) DRM encourages piracy: once the DRM scheme burns a legitimate user, that user will turn to piracy for a usable copy of the media they bought. in the future, what's to stop them from just skipping the buying step?
Demanding that everything be free just because someone somewhere can get round DRM is not a defensible position.
it's not a position. it's a fact of life. everything digital is already out there, for free, in the clear, for whoever wants to take it, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
it's a guarantee, a mathematical certainty, that content will be downloaded without authorization and no amount of whining will fix that. time and money invested attempts to control the copying of bits on the internet is time and money wasted, in fact, it might very well be time and money invested in ill will on the part of paying customers.
All those are not-really-profitable, producing-nothing fashion-driven oddities.
YouTube is a little better, since it actually provide somewhat useful service, but again, not profitable, which meaning it's not really a business.
i agree. if you aren't making money on day 1 then you should kill yourself. all of you small startups need to get a life.
Any _really_ disruptive innovation takes 10+ years to make a difference. Look at CCD vs. film cameras. Look at flash memory vs. magnetic disks. Look at MP3 vs. tapes.
couldn't agree more. innovation can only be had in hardware, and never with software, and on the web? PUH-leaze. web pages are toys. real men program in assembly on bare metal.
Any half-decent ASIC takes about a year to develop + another year to bring to production.
i know, right? that's like 2 years. which anyone with an ounce of sense knows is waaay more than that 5 year nonsense in the original post.
Always funny to read people who call stupidity like twitter "disruptive technology". Calling it "technology" is insult for people who actually know what the word means.
amen brother. ever notice how they all seem to stand around on your lawn too?
your "rule" only works in industries where a startup can easily rock the boat. walmart, home depot, at&t, comcast, and most of the rest of the fortune 500 can ignore your rule.
startups are not fortune 500 companies. that is why they are called startups. they are just starting up.
Re: at least they didn't give him a problem with getting a new card
until identity theft is deemed as just another way to steal from a bank or moneylending institution, they won't offer free credit watches and what not. when the problem falls squarely on their shoulders and they have to deal with the fallout instead of the customer, then they'll start being proactive about it
the banks never see any fallout from credit card fraud. that's why banks don't care.
fraudulent purchases fall on the vendor, not the credit card company.
All the common pirate does is steal a movie, song, or even a whole collection of episodes or albums.
and some exceptional pirates steal whole discographies, whole series, or all the films in a given genre, or made by a particular director, or featuring a particular actor.
it's so easy to do, and so widespread, and so impossible to stop that it hardly feels like stealing at all. it's more like downloading stuff that people don't want you to download.
At the end of the day it's still stealing stuff you don't need to survive (for a side note here I believe even stealing stuff you need is wrong as well, but it's slightly less wrong than this kind of stealing).
i agree. and in the case of unauthorized digital downloads, i'd say it's like the least wrong kind of stealing, since the people you steal from still have the the stuff you stole :-)
thank god we don't change laws just because everyone thinks they're wrong. which is why we still have prohibition, slavery, and women still can't vote.
Only a moral person (or group of people) could structure things such that EVERYONE truly IS better off. Obviously, someone who is not moral would structure the deal such that they would be the only ones better off, or such that though everyone else is also better off, they come out MUCH better off than everyone else.
i disagree. i think that without intervention by third parties, the economics of a situation generally work out to a maximum possible benefit to all concerned parties with a minimum cost those same parties. this is the essence of competition and market efficiency. i think that a market that is kept open and cometitive will find equilibrium on its own.
this "natural" process is almost always short circuited by interference by greedy third parties acting in an immoral manner, but morals themselves are not a requirement to benefit everyone.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
When an industry collapses, there's a lot more people out of work than a few rich execs. There's a ton of people who built lives in the industry who are now losing their jobs because the system that they understand — the system where their skills are useful — no longer exists.
this is america hippie, people get laid off all the time and they adapt and bounce back.
this has been coming for *YEARS* napster was a decade ago. the "innocent" should have seen the writing on the wall.
below the executive level, the skills required to be a rank and file industry worker should translate more or less directly to other industries. an administrative assistant, a warehouse manager, a marketing manager, etc. is still relevant position outside of the content industry. sure, there might be pay cuts and/or re-locations, but the capable people should bounce back fine.
for those whose skill set is so niche, when the content industry finally does collapse/restructure and every artist is an independent, those accidental independents are still going to need people to make/take phone calls, promote/advertise, book events, move merchandise, and a host of other services that the labels used to provide at usurious markups. for those with sufficient talent and entrepreneurial spirit, they can freelance for independent artists providing these services.
this holds true for all industries laid waste by the internet. thanks to cheap communications (made possible by the internet) freelancers can move out of expensive urban centers like LA and NYC (or london, or paris) and still work in their respective industries.
On one side, you have people saying it is immoral for the government to demand (some would even say "steal") an increasing amount of our hard-earned income in taxes. On the other side are those who say it is immoral to not use those funds for the greater good to provide health care to all regardless of whether they can afford it.
you must be new here. healthcare is either right or it's wrong. copyright either needs to be maximized or abolished. no one cares about your middle of the road, mutually beneficial, moderateness. you need to pick a side wishywashy.
On the post: Prosecutors Subpoena Tons Of Info On Student Journalists Who Provided Information To Reopen Murder Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Picking a fight with the press?
On the post: Prosecutors Subpoena Tons Of Info On Student Journalists Who Provided Information To Reopen Murder Case
Re: Re:
if a closed case gets re-opened, it is no longer closed. the closure of that case is now destroyed. closure rates are a big deal for prosecutors. you can't be a district attorney without a good closure rate.
these are lawyers with careers to think of. these "innocence pirates" are ruining the careers of innocent attorneys. won't someone think of these poor defenseless attorneys?
On the post: Trying To Explain The Economics Of Abundance In Two Minutes Or Less With A Whiteboard
Re:
On the post: If Per Byte Pricing Is 'Only Fair' Why Have Telcos Ditched It For Mobile Data Plans?
Re: @dorp:
DING! we have a winner.
data caps are the new tiered internet. ISPs want to offer voice and video products, but have to compete with pure play prividers like skype and hulu.
so, if using skype, or vonage, or whomever applied to your cap, while using cable company phone did not, then you have your preferred tier. sure you can use vonage, but if you go over your cap it will cost you dearly, better play is safe and use our phone service instead.
monopoly anit-competition at it's finest.
On the post: The Death Of File Sharing Is Greatly Exaggerated
understandable
hopefully i can get all my gear lit up in a week or two and those file sharing numbers will be back to normal.
On the post: Nanda's Alarm Clock Not Only Runs Away From You, It Runs Away From eBay Too
Re:
This is exhibit 1 billion of this happening (a rough estimate to be sure). The Internet, like all good ideas, has been largely co-opted by corporate profit taking, and copyright abuse. FUN times.....
from my cabin in the woods, i stab at thee!
On the post: eBook Market Gets More Crowded... But... Still Many Limitations
Re: Re: True lending
and what's the difference between an authorized library and an unauthorized one? funding by the state?
Have to agree with the poster who says nopt all DRM is pure evil.
Demanding that everything be free just because someone somewhere can get round DRM is not a defensible position.
all DRM is pure evil in that it only ever affects the "innocent". DRM has no effect on piracy. in fact, it encourages it:
1) DRM doesn't work. it's based on a faulty implementation of cryptography: encrypted content is given to the user, who is also the attacker. along with the key to decrypt the content. this is why all DRM schemes get cracked within minutes, the authorization keys are put into the hands of attackers.
2) DRM doesn't stop piracy. pirated versions are not DRM'd. the DRM is either stripped prior to upload, or simply pirated from an unencrypted source.
3) DRM only hurts legitimate users. it only limits the actions of your paying customers and makes pirated versions with no restrictions more valuable than your paid product. meanwhile, piracy continues without ever coming into contact with DRM (see #2)
4) DRM encourages piracy: once the DRM scheme burns a legitimate user, that user will turn to piracy for a usable copy of the media they bought. in the future, what's to stop them from just skipping the buying step?
Demanding that everything be free just because someone somewhere can get round DRM is not a defensible position.
it's not a position. it's a fact of life. everything digital is already out there, for free, in the clear, for whoever wants to take it, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
it's a guarantee, a mathematical certainty, that content will be downloaded without authorization and no amount of whining will fix that. time and money invested attempts to control the copying of bits on the internet is time and money wasted, in fact, it might very well be time and money invested in ill will on the part of paying customers.
On the post: The Perils Of Extrapolation: Who Knows What The Next Disruptive Innovation Will Be
Re: Twitter? Facebook? Who the hell are they?
YouTube is a little better, since it actually provide somewhat useful service, but again, not profitable, which meaning it's not really a business.
i agree. if you aren't making money on day 1 then you should kill yourself. all of you small startups need to get a life.
Any _really_ disruptive innovation takes 10+ years to make a difference. Look at CCD vs. film cameras. Look at flash memory vs. magnetic disks. Look at MP3 vs. tapes.
couldn't agree more. innovation can only be had in hardware, and never with software, and on the web? PUH-leaze. web pages are toys. real men program in assembly on bare metal.
Any half-decent ASIC takes about a year to develop + another year to bring to production.
i know, right? that's like 2 years. which anyone with an ounce of sense knows is waaay more than that 5 year nonsense in the original post.
Always funny to read people who call stupidity like twitter "disruptive technology". Calling it "technology" is insult for people who actually know what the word means.
amen brother. ever notice how they all seem to stand around on your lawn too?
On the post: The Perils Of Extrapolation: Who Knows What The Next Disruptive Innovation Will Be
Re:
startups are not fortune 500 companies. that is why they are called startups. they are just starting up.
On the post: World Of Goo Tries A Donation Model, Publishes Results
i didn't buy it
i did buy crayon physics however, because crayon physics was awesome.
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re: So let me get this correct .....
7)?????
8)Profit
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re:
Next, perhaps send obscene messages to little girls won't be bad either.
did you not get the new memo from corporate? the talking points are that filesharing supports terrorism, not child abuse. should i forward you a copy?
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re:
On the post: Cory Doctorow Joins The CwF+RtB Experimental Crew
WTF are the tshirts?
i bought a "geek mafia" tshrit from rick dakan at notacon this year and i wear it with pride. sure would like a little brother T as well :-)
On the post: Using A Security Breach As An Upsell Opportunity?
Re: at least they didn't give him a problem with getting a new card
the banks never see any fallout from credit card fraud. that's why banks don't care.
fraudulent purchases fall on the vendor, not the credit card company.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: I just don't get why this is an argument
and some exceptional pirates steal whole discographies, whole series, or all the films in a given genre, or made by a particular director, or featuring a particular actor.
it's so easy to do, and so widespread, and so impossible to stop that it hardly feels like stealing at all. it's more like downloading stuff that people don't want you to download.
At the end of the day it's still stealing stuff you don't need to survive (for a side note here I believe even stealing stuff you need is wrong as well, but it's slightly less wrong than this kind of stealing).
i agree. and in the case of unauthorized digital downloads, i'd say it's like the least wrong kind of stealing, since the people you steal from still have the the stuff you stole :-)
thank god we don't change laws just because everyone thinks they're wrong. which is why we still have prohibition, slavery, and women still can't vote.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re:
i disagree. i think that without intervention by third parties, the economics of a situation generally work out to a maximum possible benefit to all concerned parties with a minimum cost those same parties. this is the essence of competition and market efficiency. i think that a market that is kept open and cometitive will find equilibrium on its own.
this "natural" process is almost always short circuited by interference by greedy third parties acting in an immoral manner, but morals themselves are not a requirement to benefit everyone.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You have a narrow view of morality
this is america hippie, people get laid off all the time and they adapt and bounce back.
this has been coming for *YEARS* napster was a decade ago. the "innocent" should have seen the writing on the wall.
below the executive level, the skills required to be a rank and file industry worker should translate more or less directly to other industries. an administrative assistant, a warehouse manager, a marketing manager, etc. is still relevant position outside of the content industry. sure, there might be pay cuts and/or re-locations, but the capable people should bounce back fine.
for those whose skill set is so niche, when the content industry finally does collapse/restructure and every artist is an independent, those accidental independents are still going to need people to make/take phone calls, promote/advertise, book events, move merchandise, and a host of other services that the labels used to provide at usurious markups. for those with sufficient talent and entrepreneurial spirit, they can freelance for independent artists providing these services.
this holds true for all industries laid waste by the internet. thanks to cheap communications (made possible by the internet) freelancers can move out of expensive urban centers like LA and NYC (or london, or paris) and still work in their respective industries.
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?
Re: Morality is relative
you must be new here. healthcare is either right or it's wrong. copyright either needs to be maximized or abolished. no one cares about your middle of the road, mutually beneficial, moderateness. you need to pick a side wishywashy.
Next >>