Throughout my life I have read innumerable newspapers for free in waiting rooms at the doctor, the dentist, hair salon, car dealerships, etc. (basically anywhere you have to wait). I have also read them for free at many, many diners and fast food restaurants.
Never once did I feel guilty for doing that. Why? Because, even though I may not have actually paid for those papers, they were still getting my eyes viewing their advertisements, so really I did pay.
Re: Re: Re: Re: It all depends what level of proof that you want
What did Larry Ellison at Oracle say about Open Source software? It's software he can take for free without paying the creators anything.
That's kind of true, but it's really backwards - the creators of Open Source software are GIVING the software away - there is no "taking".
And there nothing in the GPL license that says you can't charge for open source software if you wanted to - you just have to make sure that the source is available everyone (that's the "open" part). Plenty of business are doing well giving open source away (infinite), but charging for other things, like support (scarce).
I will say I hadn't considered the time 'spent' being entertained by pirated materials. It's maybe sorta possible that time could be considered 'wasted' and a potential loss to the economy.
Yeah, that is an interesting line of thought.
On the flip side, though, if time wasted on pirated on materials is to be factored in, then time wasted on legitimate purchases that ended up being utter trash should be counted against the other side too.
Re: Re: It all depends what level of proof that you want
I have given up on trying to debate with ole bob here.
He usually ignores any rebuttal and continues on his merry way with his arguments that boil down to these:
"But...but...what about bob?"
"Get off my lawn, you damn kids"
"If it's big business or the government doing it - it's ALWAYS correct and NEVER correct if it's them damn freeloading couch potato hippies (which appears to be anyone who is not on the big business/government side).
Again, given all the same circumstances, but the person is "joe blow" instead of Lohan, is the tape as valuable? No. They are selling it based on her being in it, her name, etc.
It may be more valuable, but that is irrelevant. Public place, no expectation of privacy what so ever and she was not the creator of the work. The paparazzi's photos of Lohan are more valuable than their photos of Joe Nobody. So what?
Actually, his target was the "decryption keys". Sounds pretty much like a guy trying to circumvent security, no?
Perhaps. But was it a step towards restoring the Other OS feature?
Look, I don't know all the specifics of this case. But it seems to me that the intent of the exception described in the text of the DMCA law at subsection (f) was included by congress for a situation exactly like this one.
No, not really. If GeoHot's intentions (don't know - guessing here) were to replace the Other OS option then what he describes in his blog sounds like the first steps towards that. Still looks like circumventing the technological protections in order to gain interoperability between the PS3's OS and Linux programs to me.
But I thought that circumventing the technological protections in order to reverse engineer software could be considered fair use under the DMCA as long as you are reverse engineering to get "interoperability" between programs.
Wouldn't this be a case of that? He was trying go get his PS3 to talk to his Linux programs.