Re: Re: Re: what is an illegal internet pharmacy????
actually, obviously IT IS !!!!
Saying something multiple times does not make it true. If I send a letter to you without a return address it will still be sent. The post office will have no idea who sent it and will deliver it anyway. This is not illegal nor even against policy. The same is true of UPS.
They are liable, and they are required to know the contents of the parcels they transport. They are required by law to follow all the importation laws, and all the laws that relate to the transport of illegal materials.
This is also not true. I worked for UPS for three years. The only time packages were "inspected" is if they gave indications of being hazardous; i.e. leaking, smoking, moving, etc. Packages would often break open if not properly packed and these would be placed in a new box (and obviously employees would see the contents). There were never any notices to watch out for packages from a specific sender and the only address we were concerned about was the destination address. I packed hundreds, maybe thousands, of boxes with no return address.
The action may have been illegal for another reason, but it certainly isn't because UPS was required to know what was in the packages and take action to avoid transporting illegal material, because such a requirement simply does not exist.
This is not black and white. The drug company may be committing a crime in the U.S., but not in their own country, so their action is not illegal. UPS is not required to inspect nor deny packages based on suspicion of illegal activity without a court order (which would then have to be more than suspicion).
UPS would have had to spend far more than $40 million fighting this in court, so they took the cheaper end of the deal and moved on. They're just another company trolled by the DOJ, as has been happening for years.
Given the DOJ's recent track record I believe they need to regain the U.S.'s trust and cannot assume they have it. The entire justice system has become corrupt and are not being held accountable for their actions. This is far more of an issue than UPS sending drugs that are legal to purchase and use in Canada, a country with arguably much better health care standards than the U.S., to U.S. consumers.
If legal issues were so simple as you describe, we wouldn't need incredibly expensive lawyers that spend years and years in school in order to understand and manipulate those laws. But we do because it really is that complicated. The American public has every right to be skeptical when it comes to rulings passed by the DOJ.
Sorry, the rest of us were talking about illegal downloads. You do understand the difference, right?
NO. The rest of us were talking about copyright infringement. Six strikes is about copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is NOT "illegal downloads." Please, please go do some actual research since you still don't grasp what we're talking about here.
If I buy a movie, then play a 30 second clip of it on YouTube, I have participated in possible copyright infringement. If I buy a movie and then rip it to play on my tablet, I have participated in copyright infringement. If I buy SimCity, then hack it to play offline, I have participated in copyright infringement.
Not one of these examples involve illegal downloads. Yet all would be considered violations under copyright law and the six strikes policy. None of these things are unethical or immoral.
You do understand the difference between something that is unethical and something that is illegal, right?
So don't pay. If you didn't steal it, you shouldn't have a problem. PS, there's an old saying: "You can't get fucked unless you assume the position." Maybe you should think of that before you download Game of Thrones instead of being reminded at your hearing.
Huh, so it's OK for the police to set up cameras in your house and watch you 24 hours a day? Hey, you don't have anything to hide, right?
Hey, wait a minute! You're using your neighbor's lawnmower! YOU MUST HAVE STOLEN IT! You say he let you borrow it? OK, we'll just arrest you until you can prove that it wasn't stolen.
@Wally - What are you talking about? Just because these things are handled server side doesn't meant they *have* to be. It would be easy to create a random generator that takes the average economic situation of neighboring cities, puts in a couple profiles of city types, throw in some random values with constraints, and *poof* single player game. We have plenty of games with bots and AI that are substantially more complex than the level of interaction SimCity requires between players.
The point is players should have the OPTION of both. There's nothing inherently wrong with the multiplayer. But what if I don't want to bother with other people's cities? What if I just want to make my own metropolis and burn it to the ground? The game even has a mode like this...yet you still need to be connected online. Why?
You even say that you don't have to participate in the online economy. So if you choose not to, why do you still need to be online? At least Starcraft II has an offline mode.
Which incidentally is the key to all of this. Online games are fine. Multiplayer features are fine. It's only when you take a logically single-player game and force online connectivity that you p*ss people off. People don't mind Steam's DRM because it's fairly unobtrusive; if you lose internet connectivity you simply press "Restart in Offline Mode" and continue on your merry way. And in return you get a lot of great game enhancing features; automatic updates, sales and stable downloads, *optional* cloud saving, and unlimited installation across your account. Origin and SimCity took only the annoying part (DRM) and none of the benefits...then made that DRM *worse*.
Then they have the gall to act surprised when this bugs people. Just wow.
I get reminded of the technicalities when I use the more descriptive term, "thief"
I think "freeloader is an apt term for someone who takes something of value, to which they;'re unentitled without due compensation.
What is a pirate stealing? Please, explain this to me. If I walk in to a Wal Mart and look at a poster, then walk out of the store without buying it, did I just steal that poster? Or if I buy the poster, and take it home and then draw mustaches on the people in the poster, and there's a sticker on the back that says "By opening this poster, you agree to not modify this poster in any way.", did I just steal the poster? What if I take a picture in my room, and the poster is in the background, now did I steal the poster? Please, take your time.
There has never been more distribution, more content and greater access to the creation of content than there is today.
This has NOTHING to do with copyright. This is in spite of copyright and the entertainment industry. All this new content, all this greater access has been fought tooth and nail. Does HBO legally allow me to purchase the new episodes of Game of Thrones the day they're released, to watch on any device I own? No. Why? I'll tell you one thing, it's not because they can't. It's because they won't. Not at any price. That's restriction of distribution, not more access. The only reason we have the access we do is because the demand is so overwhelming they simply can't ignore. The fact is that the raw *service* provided by piracy is better than most legal distribution systems.
Wherever they are, it seems to be making a ding in freeloading.
Citation needed. I have not seen a single report that demonstrates evidence the six strikes system, which to my knowledge has not even been particularly advertised (kind of silly to put out a "punishment" if no one knows about it; great deterrent there). This is pure conjecture and most likely not true.
The part about your post that is so incredibly small-minded is the use of the term "freeloader." You obviously have no clue what the conflict relating to copyright even is. This issue is not, and never really has been, a conflict between people who want free stuff (the "pirates") and the entertainment industry who just wants to be paid for their product. The issue is that the entertainment industry has legislated, through copyright, the ability to compete with complete disregard for consumer demand by making competition illegal.
It sickens me to see someone trying to take the moral high ground when they don't even know what the conflict is.
Re: We do this all of the time-- it's called public policy
A safety on a gun is completely different from DRM. The comparison doesn't make any sense. A safety is designed to protect and assist the user. DRM is designed to limit access by the user. If you had a gun that could only be fired by the registered owner, and if they want to teach someone else to shoot the other person needs to buy their own gun first, plus the gun prevents any type of magazine other than ones sold by the gun manufacturer, NOW you're in DRM territory.
It is artificial scarcity because the development costs are heavily self-imposed. License costs, $3,675 dollar 3d graphics programs which are only slightly superior to freeware (3d Studio vs. Blender), and publisher limitations all dramatically inflate the cost to create content. Many of these things exist due to legacy industry and backroom deals, not because they have that much inherent value.
As technology improves, and costs to create (as well as barriers to entry) are reduced, the logical thing is for the prices to drop as well. If you expect people to spend $15 for a CD they can burn at home for a cent (or more likely do without the CD completely), which is the same as before that technology existed, you're delusional.
It would be like someone trying to sell a Trio smartphone for $300. It's obsolete technology and no one is going to pay the old price. Gone are the days of idiot consumers who only have the word of advertisements provided by a select few corporations to go on. If consumers aren't willing to pay what you want them to pay, stop making your stuff. Someone else, probably better than you, will fill the void at the price people are willing to pay, and nobody will miss you.
The sad part is that the only ones really inconvenienced by DRM are paying customers. I can't think of a single piece of mainstream software that hasn't been pirated at some point.
The only purpose I can think of for DRM is to set up lawsuits via the anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA. That way someone with a legitimate copyright use can be sued due to breaking the ineffective DRM.
OK, the other purpose is so that developers/publishers can put in a check box next to the "anti-piracy" spreadsheet that makes CEOs feel like they're solving the problem. It saddens me that we have such powerful analytical tools available yet we've forgotten how to use the analysis. If only they'd add a "Customers lost due to our business practices" column next to the "Sales lost due to piracy" column we might actually get somewhere.
Unfortunately it's much easier to be a person who places blame on others rather than be a person who takes responsibility for themselves.
AC, you do realize that "censored" comments can be viewed by clicking them, right? They're still there, TD is just giving people the option to avoid reading dangerous stupidity. It's so good of you to not only post the same idiocy twice, but do so in a way that makes you look even dumber!
Just in case it's not clear:
Point 1: the law assumes innocence until guilt is proved. Accusations are NOT convictions. The six-strikes policy turns accusations into convictions that you must appeal.
Point 2: the six-strikes policy is not a law. It's a policy made up by a corporate entity that has no legal authority.
Point 3: artists have been exploited by the entertainment industry FAR more than every pirate combined. At least pirates let the artist keep the rights to their own work. The industry won't even let them keep that.
WoW teaches you how to be social *online*, which is used in the vast majority of businesses today. Nonverbal communication is not the only form of human communications (and this is completely ignoring the typical use of emotes in games and online communication).
TV and video games are very different from the perspective of the one participating. TV requires no input from the viewer; you passively accept the story or actions as they happen. Video games require input, reflexes, critical thinking, and social interaction (depending on the game) in order to be successful. You may want to read about "gamification" and how turning traditional passive learning into active "video game" learning has improved retention and application of real-world skills.
I agree that parents need more interaction with their children, but I would argue that it's better to do so by engaging with your children in the video games themselves, not by discouraging them from having fun. You can't fix bad parenting by outlawing video games, music, TV, books, or whatever scapegoat you decide is "destroying the country" today.
Oh, and if the fruits of the garden are our reduced violent crime rates among children, then that's awesome news!
1) Wrong. Creators are granted a limited right to maintain a monopoly on their works. If creators had the sole right to copy their work, publishers couldn't exist, because they are by definition copying someone else's work.
2) Difficulty of creation has no relevance to a creator's rights, it doesn't now, and never has. This is completely off-topic.
3) Law for copyright exists to grant creators a limited exclusive right to a new idea before it is added to the public domain for the improvement of society. This is to incentivise creation.
4) Wrong. Copyright specifies who can distribute original copies. Other individuals can profit besides the original owner. This is painfully obvious if you think about the concept of, I don't know, every store in existence.
5) Technically true. Life + 70 years (or 120+ in the case of corporations) is not effectively limited. Anything that is limited for two lifetimes may as well be unlimited for all practical purposes.
6) There may not be a right to copy, but there is freedom of speech and the freedom to do what I want with things I have. Copyright prevents me from doing something I could otherwise do, therefore it is removing a right by definition. We, as a society, accept this in a limited degree in order to incentivise creation. Since the limitation is gone, and my rights are being ignored, I see no reason why I should respect the rights I am granting another person if they refuse to respect mine.
7) The method of copying is irrelevant, both in reality and in copyright law.
Your all-caps opening is wrong, too. If I buy something, it's mine. I can give it to whoever I want. Copyright is removing that right.
You can copy and paste as many times as you want but it will never be true.
YES, my points are ALL valid, aligned with facts, or so I believe.
But just because Big Media is bad doesn't make Little Pirates right. My admonition to NOT STEAL applies equally to both groups.
Key words..."NOT STEAL." Piracy is NEVER stealing. If I go into an art gallery and take a painting, that is stealing. If I take a picture of the painting, and post it online, that's (sort of) piracy. Heck, even if I made an exact copy of the painting I still never stole the painting.
If your points are all aligned with "facts" how can you ignore this fact? There can be no debate on this topic. It's like saying that driving without your seatbelt is the same thing as murder. While the ultimate result may be similar (someone dying) the two things are NOT the same, ever.
If you want to engage in an actual debate on a topic it helps to learn the basic concepts first. I recommend looking up the Wikipedia page on "Copyright Infringement", read the link to Dowling v. United States where the courts ruled specifically that copyright infringement is not theft. Note specifically that, under the law, the owner must be "wholly deprived" of the object in question to constitute theft, which piracy never does.
You can believe your points are aligned with facts all you want. Until you learn what a fact is, however, all your opinions are worthless. Extra credit assignment: learn the difference between opinions and facts. Hint: they aren't the same.
Re: Re: Re: "figuring out ways to help provide the public what they want."
Bullshit. It's like a car company complaining that someone figured out to make exact copies of their cars and distribute them for free.
Not at all. For that to be true the products would have to be the same. They aren't...the service the consumers demand is not being met by the industry.
Let's use an obvious example. Let's say I want to buy the first two seasons of Game of Thrones from HBO to put on my tablet so I can watch it on the plane. Guess what? There is no legal way to do this. My options are to buy the DVDs and rip them (illegal due to DMCA anti-circumvention), rip the streams from HBO Go (illegal for the same reason and requires a cable subscription to HBO), or...well, pirate them.
The service I want is not being sold. Here's a better comparison to your example...a car company is selling a car that only allows you to drive from 6am-10pm, prevents you from ever driving over the speed limit, requires you to pay again if someone else drives, and doesn't allow you to use aftermarket pieces for your car.
So someone releases an identical car that allows you to drive whenever you want, as fast as you want, with as many drivers as you want, and you can add spinning rims and heavy tinting to your heart's content. Oh, and it's free.
Which are you going to choose? Because that's exactly the situation consumers are in right now...we CAN'T BUY the better product because it isn't being offered by anyone other than the "pirates." Sell something that's even close and legit and people will flock to it (*cough* Netflix, Hulu, both of which are inferior to pirate offerings *cough*).
I was being generous with my public transit comparison because in the real world public transit is at least usually inferior in service to cars and still has a cost. Piracy is free *and* has better service. Remove the better service as a variable and you'll find a lot more people are willing to pay. It's not that complicated.
No, no, this is normal irony...it is ironic that someone who states "Here's where you flatly go wrong" proceeds to make a flatly wrong statement.
Nowhere, not in the law, not in the dictionary, and not in ethics, are "theft" and "copyright infringement" considered the same thing. Even a child knows the difference between taking another child's crayons and drawing the same picture.
Then again, maybe we should all stop trying to have a serious debate against someone who apparently has less concept of property versus intellectual rights than your average kindergartener.
Re: "figuring out ways to help provide the public what they want."
The "public" is a potential customer. They are always *potential* customers, pirates or not. We spend millions of dollars collectively on advertising to encourage potential customers (the public) to pay for products. Just becaues one of those individuals chooses against paying for your product does NOT mean they are not customers or have somehow wronged you.
All pirates are potential customers that have chosen, for one reason or another, to not pay for your product. As someone who wishes to profit off your product, it is YOUR job to sell your product, not the potential customer's job to pay you for what you feel entitled to.
The stupid wasp analogy aside (really? That's the best you could come up with?), increasing levels of piracy are only an issue if there is a corresponding decrease in sales. Imaginary profits can't be lost. As media consumption increases, and the market refuses to meet the demand, more of that demand is going to be supplied by pirates.
The entertainment industry is not losing any money because they aren't offering the same service. It's like a car company trying to claim buses caused them to lose money and lobbied for legislation to ban public transit. You can't lose money when you aren't offering the same product.
So yes, pirates won't pay for a product that doesn't exist. Obviously that will destroy the entertainment industry. I can only hope it dies sooner rather than later so someone with some brains can make a fortune on providing customers with the product they want to buy, not the product you want to sell. There's a difference. Try not to think too hard about it.
Re: Not inconsistent to catch two thieves at once.
Ooob, are you being serious or is this a joke? I honestly can't tell.
Let me see if I understand. So a person deposits stolen money into a bank. The police find out there is stolen money in the bank. The police should charge the bank with aiding criminal activity? Or for not identifying that the money was stolen before accepting it?
Never mind. The only rational solution is to ban banks altogether. Obviously.
What market costs? This is where the old way of doing business is WAY out of line with the new. You don't need production and promotion costs!
Modern technology has made what used to be the domain of hollywood and big studios available to the home user. Production can be done at a fraction of the cost it used to require; the only reason it still costs so much is because of all the licensing deals with the old systems that drive the prices through the roof.
And promotion is now essentially free. All a creator has to do is make something good and stick it online. If it's on a service that someone suscribes to or is paid by advertising (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, etc.) word will get around. The internet will, for free, promote the heck out of anything it likes.
If these services weren't profitable and couldn't compete with free they wouldn't exist at all. They do, despite ridiculous licensing fees and inane distribution restrictions (*cough* Hulu Plus *cough*). Remove those restrictions and artificial costs, take out the useless middlemen, and the creators make more profit than ever.
If companies spent even a fraction of the money they now spend on lawyers on production instead this whole copyright issue would be irrelevant. If you want to know where all the money is going it's not the internet "pirate," it's the copyright pirate-er, lawyer.
I've always been skeptical about this law. Let's think about the classic example...someone shouts "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. What do you honestly expect is going to happen? Everyone is going to flee for the exits, trampling women and children?
Yeah, right. Everyone is going to look around, see there isn't a fire, and tell the idiot to shut up and stop talking in a movie. Heck, even if there was a fire half the theater would walk calmly out and the other half would probably walk over and stare at the flames like idiots.
Just last week in Hawaii there was a tsunami warning and half of Honolulu went down onto the beach to watch the water receed. Thankfully there was only a six-foot draw but these guys KNEW that there was potential danger.
This is just like when people said Wikipedia would never work because people would go in and add bogus information to all the pages. Does that happen? Sure. But then 50 more people call out their BS and it goes away.
Let's be perfectly honest here. Can anyone think of a single social issue, ever, that has been solved solely by making more laws? Sure, some of these issues had laws regarding them as well, but it was always pressure from society that actually made the change.