No you only sell them in packs of 6. Steal one, you steal 6...
and anarchists... and radical communists... and hate preacher... Basically any speech that is advocating changing or undermining the democratic order. Basically you can say anything, except burn down the government and kill all XXX. (And actually mean it.) Remember this is the country that banned the Communist Party, because they where advocating an armed revolution. To bad the borderline right wing parties are a bit more clever about it all. (They would be banned if they came out, what they say behind closed doors.) The good news is, they are becoming more and more irrelevant and stopped getting parliamentary seats in states.
Great messed up the quote... s/Oceania/Eurasia/
Oceania is the "county" it takes place in.
Death to Eastasia! Save our friends from Oceania!
Death to Oceania! Save our friends from Eastasia!
Even in dictatorships the leading class changes their mind. Be sure to change yours quicker.
The modus operendi of the Stasi was based solely on technological restrictions. The important part was that everybody felt like they where watched and monitored. The number of IMs (Inoffizieller Mittarbeiter = unofficial employee) was way lower than most people thought and that was the entire point. (1 in 10 is still awesomely high though.) The main goal was to make organised dissension impossible. When it all fell together it showed that the Stasi's power was solely based on intimidation.
Today you simply don't need that many people, you can tap into almost anybody. Again the important bit about mass surveillance is not about the actual surveillance, they probably do not have the resources to act on all or even many accounts, but that you feel under surveillance and government scrutiny.
The current state if the US similar to the DDR in the early years and comparing it with fully fledged dictatorships does not make it better. THE US WAS FOUNDED TO REPEL OPPRESSION AND GRANT CIVIL LIBERTIES TO IT'S CONSTITUENTS!!!
How many independent artists have submitted their stuff for ContentID signatures?
Be careful many jurisdictions have stringent laws on door to door sales.
As a matter of fact copyright also covers performances. A large amount of the mechanical royalties are actually collected for cover performances. There is no debate that without any recorded music you would have a similar situation with infringement. And historically that was the case, musicians would play the music and plays that was performed at the kings court. They did definitely not pay anything to the original author of the works.
It is funny that for many Americans history begins around 400 years ago. Blame it on the history course in high school, that basically begins with the Mayflower. Not that I can apply UsCulturalAsumption to the P or GGP with certainty.
In general terms I think copyright is a step forward. Especially Spottify is going beyond and above, they could just shell out the mechanical royalties and be done with it. I doubt much comes around to the artist through mechanical royalties.
Yet they miss the point totally and fully. They should compare the iTunes giftcard with a giftcard from a mustic service that is DRM free. Likewise the comparison of YouTube to MediaGoblin is stupid. It is like saying you should not buy a Mercedes SLK, instead use this open source motor block. The list is pretty lame, but it unfortunately falls in line with much of the FSF communication: "trying to improve the work, but slightly missing the point". Why am I a FSFE fellow again?
That is why any sane legal system allows some leeway to the decision makers. In many jurisdictions a judge has a wide range of sentencing room, like from 1 to 5 years in prison. He can than look at the specific case at hand and precedents and decide appropriately. Recently all those "zero tolerance" laws are producing absurd situations, for example where a 10 year old boy is expelled from school because he brought a toy gun or knife. (I need to look that article up some time again.) The problem is not the law as intended, it is that the added zero tolerance addition. This makes the administrative staff liable when no action is taken. This creates the stupid situation where people get prosecuted even when the situation runs totally against the intent of the law.
"even if you might be sitting there using slashdot all day"
That would be nice, but Slashdot unfortunately can not fill an entire work day...
I suppose I'm lucky in that for the past 15 years I've never accidentally entered the wrong terms, because I've never seen anything I'd regard as an image of child abuse.
That actually applies to all porn, the filtering works quite well. You used to only see porn with safe search disabled, now you need to enter obvious terms. And this is sort of good, if my children happen so search for "plug". On the other hand I am quite sure that if you searched for the right trigger term you would occasionally get results that not filtered.
THAT is exactly the point. With the stuff somewhat freely available almost nobody will pay for it. This is exactly what happened to porn once free porn sites started to pop up on the internet. The only revenue they get is though ads and most ad networks have provisions in place to prevent cash flow toward cp. (How well they work is a different issue.)
Once you severely restrict remove free access to the content, you reduce the total volume of consumption but the remaining users will actually pay a premium to get access to the material. This in turn makes it profitable to produce the stuff commercially. This defies the entire purpose and actually makes it worse.
How fitting, the current quote:
Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?
+1 Insightful (No modpoints today...)