Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves
What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.
Dropbox's New Policy of Scanning Files For DMCA Issues
Yet again its forced outrage against basically something which is common sense
*sighs*... I hate these phrases - faux outrage, forced outrage, since they are used in the least applicable places. Misleading outrage isn't forced - it's still misleading, but it's still real. I's like when you mishear that somebody was banging your GF, and you momentarily get pissed before the person repeats themselves... the outrage in that split second was no less real.
Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy
It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases
Personally, just a side note, I've seen people use that alone to justify the position of it being theft - it annoys the hell outta me since the criterion those people use is idiotic - legitimate, legal competition does the same, but their reasoning would label it such. Heh, sidetracks from the discussion at hand, pay no mind. :P
Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?
Definitely would not be legal to do - and no waiver would save their asses from being sued over it.
Report: Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) Scans Your DNS History
...but all Steam users have agreed to abide by specific online conduct and not to use cheats.
Doesn't necessarily mean "any means necessarily" is necessarily what they agreed to, or legal - especially something to goes that far without being explicitly confined. *sighs* I wish people who cite the EULA, etc not as an argument, but as a shutout to opposing arguments would just shut up and learn that it doesn't cancel out all arguments, particularly since it being written doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, nor does it negate that people will/can have an opinion about it.
House Committee Approves Bill Banning In-Flight Phone Calls
This wouldn't even be a Constitutional challenge. A plane is private property
Exactly, so why should congress make the law instead of leaving it up to the airlines?
(Hint: READ the fucking article!!!)
Online, You're Being Watched At All Times; Act Accordingly.
is that it becoming the default means it will become a norm, and then more accepted - instead of people asking "Why should it be this way? Why can't we do more to ensure less surveillance? "
Fuck it becoming a norm.
Polar Vortex Sends Life-Threatening Freeze To US
Doubting AGW != denying all climate change - climate does change over time, it's just the science behind AGW is very much up for debate in favor of, or in opposition of, it doesn't matter. Skepticism != outright denial, skepticism of one aspect of something != outright denial of it or something similar to it.
Facebook Being Sued Over Mining of Private Messages
Fine, to which FB will reply "Read the TOS/EULA" and then win.
Only in a world where it being in a TOS automatically makes it legal and unchallengeable, which this is only if you are an idiot.
Not saying this is one of those times, but whether they win or lose is not based on it being in the TOS, but it being in there + either FB being able to prove it is legal, or the plaintiffs being able to argue its illegality. TOses, contracts, have been deemed either in whole or in part illegal/void before.
US Customs Destroys Virtuoso's Flutes Because They Were "Agricultural Items"
The irony is that most of the posters attacking the USA, calling them Nazis (as in Godwin's Law) and vowing never to visit, refuse to reveal their home countries
Irony how? And you do know that all that Godwin's law states is that as a discussion goes on, the likelihood of mentioning Nazis, Nazi Germany, etc increases - and that it is only the corollary that actually attempts to make use of the law to set forth any judgements - illogically too, IMO - about such uses?
DoD Public Domain Archive To Be Privatized, Locked Up For 10 Years
Title copied from Boing Boing, and the article there is full of hyperbole. T3 is providing digitization to the over 1 million physical media, organize and catalog everything, and then will charge a fee for access (however access for authorized government personnel is FREE). T3 is NOT claiming copyright, they just have an exclusive license for 10 years.
NOBODY is claiming that T3 is claiming copyright on anything. Ironic, you claim FUD and misunderstanding, and misunderstand what is being said right in front of you. The problem is the DoD licensing out, restricting access to public domain stuff they made.
Piracy Offers Heavy Metal a New Business Model
A typical pro-piracy comment in Slashdot is that "if I make a copy, no one loses anything"
Pro-piracy, or a response against the act of comparing it to literal theft? Those are not the same thing [being pro-piracy, using a statement to express the idea that an analogy is bad] in of itself.
Piracy Offers Heavy Metal a New Business Model
Do you ever see any anti-piracy posts that are modded up on Slashdot so they can be read without drilling down?
When the post is actually rational, does not involve assumptions, does not involve being hostile, does not involve taking people's words out of context? Yes. It's not often it is seen, however, because a lot of the posts flame people, take their words out of context, or just try to pass off opinion as fact without any citations... so no shit, they get modded down and responded to w/ hostility more often than not.
Image Lifted From Twitter Leads to $1.2M Payout For Haitian Photog
*yawns* usual misinterpretation of an argument some make, and misapplication of that misinterpretation to everybody creating a false contradiction/double standard that ignores that Slashdot is not a singular hive-mind entity, but a site made up of lots of people with opinions - shared, similar, and completely different about different matters.
Remind me again, how in the fuck is this insightful?
FCC To Consider Cellphone Use On Planes
People act like the FCC and.or FAA changing things will be the end of the world. These changes won't prevent airlines from acting their own policies, and odds are they will have their own rules... and why the hell would you want the FCC governing this - and not the airlines?
Boston Cops Outraged Over Plans to Watch Their Movements Using GPS
Please, mr. Anon. Coward, read my sig. It is quite applicable to your sentiment.
Can the US Be Weaned Off Ethanol?
The question I'd ask in response: Why should we be weaned off Ethanol completely?
Because corn ethanol is a disaster?
Corn ethanol is IMO a disaster, but that doesn't mean the CONCEPT of using plants to make fuel is a disaster, or that alternatives - algae, sugar cane, etc - for making ethanol cease to exist/stop being better alternatives to look at/explore/refine... something that REALLY pisses me off about the 'ditch Ethanol' crowd.
Battlefield 4 DRM Locking Out Part of North America Until EU Release
No, copying is copying, no matter how arrogant you get, no matter how much "period"ing you do [do get some sanitary napkins while you're at it].
Your argument "You obtained a non-free product, good, or service that you didn't pay for." ignores that we're talking legality, and this is not the definition of theft - nor does a copyright infringer get the charge of theft because it is copyright infringement, not theft.
If you want to believe morally it is theft, that's your opinion. If you're gonna continue arguing that it is legally such, you're a blooming moron.
RMS: How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
Never mind that privacy is hiding, by nature, regardless of good, bad, moral, immoral, legal, illegal, etc - the premise, IMO of course - along with other premises that use any variation of "is hiding from," "nothing to hide, " "something to hide," etc is inherently flawed out the ass.
UK MPs: Google Blocks Child Abuse Images, It Should Block Piracy Too
Piracy is a hurdle to be jumped over, if it hasn't killed media in the decades it has existed, and even the recent post-Napster age, what makes your assertion plausible? People will create, people will find ways to monetize that should they choose to, and so far it seems like the industries are surviving in spite of these challenges.
Take your doom and gloom, and cool it.
Travelsonic hasn't submitted any stories.
Has the logic behind "stealing"/Theft been stolen?
I am one of possibly few left growing up being taught that stealing (or theft if talking legal terminology) requires loss. That in order for something to be stolen somebody has something, but somebody else took it away from you, depriving you of it, while gaining him/her possession of said item. Slowly this concept is being replaced rapidly every day with a different, easier to use concept. Now people are growing accustomed to the idea that theft/stealing doesn't require the "owner" to loose things they had "stolen," or that loosing something you don't even have but wish you had is theft. This surfacing ideology really scares me from a philosophical viewpoint. Before I try to reason why this is scary, I will first attempt to identify reasoning behind this. I think the answer as to why the definition was changed in the mindset of possibly millions is due in part from the pushing of certain agendas on people, which shall be a basis on my explanation.
The agenda pushing is in part from the recording and movie industries attempt to show people a negative side to file-sharing, mainly that it can be used to violate copyright. Either through thinking copyright infringement was too light of a word to stir up support, or possibly because they though copyright infringement was too complex for somebody to explain, they instead went with calling unauthorized duplication of data theft or stealing. This brings in another factor right into the issue, that is that they might be too lazy to try and define in a balanced way fee from biased the basic ideas behind copyright laws without resorting to toying with the sometimes fragile world of emotions.
The flaw with the decision here is, if you followed the definition of theft/stealing I was taught, duplicating pieces of data, simple 1's and 0's, without depriving them of the same bits of data doesn't fall under this definition. Sure copying something copyrighted without permission in some cases is wrong, but why not call it what it really is, and try to make it wrong in it's own sense instead of "stealing" stealing. The only thing that somebody would possibly be deprived of is the potential to earn some money. The potential meaning they have a chance, but fate can work in or out of their favor, but is not required under law to fall in their favor. I shall close this explanation of this piece with a fitting analogy. If we follow the mindset of the industries at work in media (music and movies), maybe it can be considered theft to tell people that a particular movie, or CD, or book is bad/not worth spending money on because you decrease the value of it to those people who want to buy it. The only flaw here might be that freedom of speech is protected under law here in the U.S, but there have been cases where the justice system has failed us on protecting the first amendment.
You the reader have probably been reading through this and wondered where the reasoning for the redefining being scary will come into play. The English language is very rich in words and phrases. There is more than one way to describe one act, but only one way to describe it accurately. To me, what we were taught in elementary school, piled on to what "copying" is, and adding on to that what is being fed into our brains from debates on controversial issues like the file-sharing debates can be a lot of acts to sort through, but if you think though it logically, copying a file on a CD, and shoplifting a new CD from a store have fundamental differences that don't negate any wrongness they might have, but keep them from being complete equals. It is the combining of these differences as true similarities that is the scary part, manipulating different acts as the same either because a message you want to get out isn't being effective, or out of sheer educational laziness that threatens the barriers that keep logic thinking that one act and another that are different as different acts. This is truly a wrong that must be recognized now, because the sooner we say two fundamentally different acts are the same for whatever reason, the sooner we start to try manipulating logic or truth to further dreadful goals or achievements that no man wants to face, but may be facing already without knowing it because it is being well hidden under manipulated language, almost in a way like in George Orwell's 1948 classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Copying something, whether it's a book, an audio-recording, or
a computer program, is not the same as stealing it. It may be
infringement; at times even a type of fraud. But it is not theft.
The belief that it is has become the popular superstition of the
information age; the modern equivalent of the belief that
photographing a person is the same as stealing that person's soul.
- Kevin Poulsen (The Condor Brief)