Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Cool (Score 1) 188

So a study funded by Big Megacorp would be more reliable than a study funded by the Green Party? Maybe, maybe not. The money-driven science argument cuts both ways. The way the world seems to be going, we mere mortals might as well flip a coin on this and many other really important issues.

Cheers!

Comment Re:10,000 users a day... (Score 1) 302

Grants Geeknet. Geeknet has the right to make and distribute copies of the post. And since the downloaders are receiving the files from an entity authorized to copy and distribute, there is no infringement of any kind. What happens if the downloader makes further copies is not clear, yet I seriously doubt there is much (if any) of that going around.

Comment Re:10,000 users a day... (Score 1) 302

Stupid me! Wrong button.

From the ToS (emphasis by me):

...the submitting user grants Geeknet the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content...

Geeknet's method of reproduction, publishing and distribution is through web downloads to whoever requests them. I think this goes well beyond any "reasonable man" standards. With the usual IANAL and IANAA (I Am Not An American), so any opinions from me regarding American law might as well be a brainfart.

Cheers!

Comment Re:10,000 users a day... (Score 1) 302

This is the text you're arguing about: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."

Not that text. The one in the actual Terms of Service that can be found at the bottom of the page. Check section 6, paragraph 2. Better luck next time.

Comment Re:10,000 users a day... (Score 1) 302

You don't really believe that, do you? you realize that by the act of posting the message to this site, the message and it's licensing becomes governed by the site's Terms of Service, which include a license for the site to serve the message and the site's users to download it, so the is NO infringement whatsoever. He posted, ergo he licensed. Period.

As for the "damages" you claim he would be suffering by your "infringing", you cant judge those upfront without further knowledge of his motivation. If his motivation is to proselytize for IP enforcement, then getting the message posted in a high traffic site for many to read means your downloading and reading of his post did not damage him, but actually rewarded him. As for why he might want to proselytize, for all we know he could make a living out of IP and thus have a vested interest in the subject. I'm not claiming any of these are his motives, but just claim you don't know either.

Next time try a better argumentative line.

Cheers!

Comment Re:Prioritization can work... (Score 1) 390

The usual Slashdot response is that there is no way prioritization is compatible with net neutrality, but we only have to look at the post office to see that it can be done. You have the choice to send by standard mail, or to pay more to speed up delivery. I'll grant that it's not a perfect analogy, but there are models that would work.

Not sure about where you live, but does the post office charge the recipient for delivered mail also? If yes, you may have a point and the post office would be performing the exact behavior that is being criticized. Otherwise, your analogy would only hold if the ISP wanted to charge the content providers instead of the content consumers.

Cheers!

Comment Re:Wow, there's a shock! (Score 1) 318

Another very important point is that the economic situation in Chile allows for a stricter building code. With a GDP per capita about 10% that of Chile, if housing costs due to regulation were the same in Haiti, most Haitians would be homeless instead of better housed. Not saying this is a good situation, but sometimes reality has an ugly face.

Cheers!

Comment Re:Mispleling in summory (Score 1) 275

The question is , is it normal that people , who had absolutely no part in creating music ( they just bought the rights when they were cheap ) , have the right to get profit from an artist who is long dead ?

As much right as an investor who buys stock cheap can receive dividends later. Once you own stock in a company, you keep getting dividends as long as the company makes money, and you don't need to even have worked in the company. What is so different?

Cheers!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...