Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Canadian Firm Sues 22, Claims it Owns Wi-Fi Tech

   (Nov 2, 2007 - 11:09 AM)

   "Your (american) law is just stupid"
   
   "But hey... it's your country, do what you wan't. I have the comfort of living in Europe :)"
   
   WOW! So much arrogance and egotism packed in one short post!
   
   BTW, congratulations on having such a complete and thorough understanding of the legal system of the United States that you can so blithely refer to the whole thing as "stupid"...

2. Comment - Canadian Firm Sues 22, Claims it Owns Wi-Fi Tech

   (Nov 2, 2007 - 11:02 AM)

   "America is not a country. It consists of 3 continents, north, central and south America."
   
   Ummm, last time I checked, only North America and South America are continents. Central America is just a region, mostly part of the continent of North America. Although most people understand that "American law" means the law of the United States.
   
   "How ever the United States is a country. Is that what you are referring to?"
   
   Given that the suit was filed in TEXAS (a state within the United States, for those unaware), I'm betting that yes, the United States is the country being referred to. Call it a hunch.
   
   "Or the plaintiff in this case who is a Canadian company?"
   
   Again, since the suit was filed in Texas, the Canadian origin of the plaintiff isn't really the determining factor here. The plaintiff is suing in the USA, so (United States of) American law applies.
   
   Oh, as a side note, by your initial point of America not being a country, Wi-LAN should be considered an "American" company (located in North America) anyway, right? LOL
   
   "So when you say American law and refer to a country, who's law are you really commenting on?"
   
   One last time, the lawsuit was filed in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the only nation that routinely goes by the name "America". Draw your own conclusions.
   
   Ask a citizen of the United States what nationality they are, will they say they are a "United Statesian"? Or an "American"? And the citizens of what other country will refer to themselves as "American"? Venezuela, perhaps? Maybe Canada? Argentina? None of them.
   
   I'm not sure why your comment in particular ticked me off so, but if you are going to pick someone to bits (and someone whose comment richly deserves picking apart for its arrogance , if nothing else) for a single word, as least have a clue...

3. Comment - New Software Developed to Combat P2P

   (Sep 23, 2005 - 3:04 PM)

   This is an issue with so many twists and turns, sometimes it makes my head spin to consider it. That said, let me break it down the way it seems to me:
   
   #1: The growth of the RIAA and MPAA as middlemen in the relationship between the recording artist and the media-purchasing consumer is itself part of the current problem. These organizations have effective control of both the artists themselves and the prices and indeed content handed to the consumer. This means that it is difficult to look at the RIAA or MPAA and not see the face of corporate greed. By their nature, they produce no product (at least intellectual product), add no benefit to the consumer, and yet suck a large percentage of the profit out of every transaction. "Facilitation" bears a high price, indeed. HOWEVER: Sadly, nothing these organizations are doing is explicityly illegal. They and their member companies have the right to set prices as they choose. Now, as I have seen discussed elsewhere, legal and moral are by no means equivalent, but like most of what transpires in corporate America, if it isn't illegal, we have no real grounds to oppose it legally no matter how much we dislike that. We always, of course, have the right to speak out, and especially to stop buying the music. But does a sense of moral outrage make the next step (copying or "pirating") a valid response?
   
   #2: It is undeniably true "fair use" provisions have, in the past, allowed consumers to back up their purchased recordings. Note, however, that the industry has ALWAYS been careful to avoid allowing consumers the ability to copy works and distibute them. Witness the long gap before the introducion of dual-deck VCRs, CD-burning technology, etc. after they were already both technically feasible and commercially viable. So let this be perfectly clear: if 1 person buys a recording, and 2 end up with it, ILLEGAL ACTIVITY HAS OCCURRED. Whether you copy a VHS tape or CD and give it to someone, or download yourself a copy of your favorite song on MP3, a crime (albeit a minor one) has been committed. Please note that I am in no way commenting on the morality of such an act; while I personally believe it to be wrong, I am not deaf to arguments to the contrary.
   
   [NOTE: Even copying music from the radio (mentioned in this forum) is perhaps not legally as clear-cut as some might think, though up until now (a) the lesser quality of radio broadcasts made them of little value as "copies" of works and (b) the universality of the signals made the concept of "giving them" to another person a difficult one at best. Thus, it has just simply never come up. Now, with the advent of XM and Sirius and the like, which are (a) high quality and (b) purchased, I wonder if the battle may not indeed cross over into this media as well.]
   
   So, combining points 1 and 2 above, the question becomes: do we have a right to engage in a morally-questionable but ILLEGAL activity in order to protest an immoral but LEGAL activity on the part of the industry groups. In this forum, an excellent example was given of the fact that blacks were once required in the Deep South states to ride in the backs of busses (really one of the smaller injustices of the day those people faced, but I digress). This example was used to suggest that an illegal activity (sitting forward in the bus) which was undertaken to combat an immoral legality (the Jim Crow laws) is an acceptable behavior. To this I heartily agree, with these caveats: (a) the above action would be fought directly against a morally reprehensible set of laws, which can (in hindsight) be clearly seen to be perversions of the laws of the various states involved; and (b) aside from the violation of said laws, the action to be taken is not itself even questionable as being "wrong". Indeed, the mere act of sitting forward in a bus has of itself no real moral value at all. My conclusion is that these are the differences between that case and the one we debate: here, (a) there is no direct confrontation of ANY particular law that must be changed, just a sense of outrage that "we're being screwed by the industry"; and (b) the actions themselves (copying or downloading songs, movies, etc.) are, as discussed above, illegal and of questionable morality regardless of the current situation. Even if the RIAA and MPAA did not play their current roles, it would still be illegal to copy and distribute media. This despite comments I have seen saying "I wouldn't do it if they just charged $0.50 a song", etc.
   
   So the only way I can interpret the situation is that file-sharing copyrighted works is simply not justified, and as much as we may dislike corporate activities, we must look for better ways to combat them.
   
   I look forward to others' arguments for/against my position. I definitely think we all fight back a little just by keeping the discussion going.

4. Comment - Microsoft Closes Activation Loophole

   (Feb 25, 2005 - 10:05 AM)

   A couple of quick notes on zridling's comments: first, as far as "The content (and authors) of this report have been thoroughly discredited throughout the blogosphere." While blogs are certainly becoming vastly more popular these days, as unimpeachable sources of information they leave much to be desired. And while we're at it, simply saying the authors have been discredited doesn't mean much unless you are willing to back it up with proof (or at least an explanation) somehow.
   
   Next: was the quote "IF YOU BUY A NEW COMPUTER FROM ONE OF THESE 'MAJOR VENDORS,' YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTIVATE IT. THE SYSTEM MANUFACTURER ACTIVATES YOUR COPY OF WINDOWS WHEN THE COMPUTER IS BUILT" meant to be a part of discrediting the report? Because it seems to agree rather strikingly with the report's note from Joe Wilcox that "'Seeing as how the typical OEM would normally preactivate Windows XP, most legitimate users shouldn't have much need to go through the activation process.'"
   
   Of course, the whole point of the article is that Microsoft was closing a loophole that an unsrcupulous dealer could make use of to in effect gain more licenses, or at least to bypass the proper activation process. This says nothing about those who buy and use PC's obtained from reputable major manufacturers.
   
   If you are going to trash an entire article, please take the time and energy to read it and understand it first.