In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Right. She used Kazaa, which is illegal because you're uploading as well.
Right, it's illegal because you're uploading as well as illegal because you're downloading.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
Unless you wrote the software, or were personally authorized to run it by the person who did, you have no such "intrinsic right".
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Meanwhile in Canada:
e: I thought "Hang on, I've used Crackle before" but apparently,
Crackle's Canadian operations shut down on June 28, 2018, with its content moving to Bell Media's new CTV Movies and CTV Vault services.[52]
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit They don't actually show you any ads, they just fail to load on any blocked by client error.
Someone needs to make an adblocker that runs all the ads in a sandbox but shows nothing to the user and reports everything as a-ok.
And while they're at it, make something that automates opening developer console, removing all the blurry modals and
overflow: hidden;
that news sites and Quora like to abuse.Inb4 blakey or some other ad industry personality denounces these as the actions of a horrible human being.
I usually make a userscript whenever it gets annoying enough.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
My claim made in the OP still stands.
This one?
actually, a lot of cracked software has a custom installer that doesn't show you a license agreement, meaning you're not bound by the terms.
Maybe you're not bound by the term of the license, but you're still doing copyright infringement
This goes back to my Ship of Theseus problem (which no one has heretofore addressed). Cracked software is not a strict copy of the software. It is a derivative work.
Creating a derivative work is subject to copyright just like copying is. An illegal copy and a cracked illegal copy don't make much of a difference with regards to copyright. With regards to other idiotic laws, removing copy protections is itself illegal.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@djls45 said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
I didn't agree to the agreement that I am not authorized access, therefore I'm not legally bound to comply with anything.
It's not an agreement situation. You have to seek explicit authorization to access the computer; otherwise, it's illegal to access it.
I don't get it. I'm saying laws are on the books about this stuff and you're talking about agreements. When I talk about agreements, it's because there aren't laws on the books and the agreements are meant to take their place.
but of course, accessing isn't accessing if you do it with your eyes closed.
Have you anything meaningful to add, or are you just going to keep repeating the same jokes?
I'm going to repeat the joke so long as you uphold the idea that copying is not what happens when you obtained a copy of something.
What happens when you buy a CD? Are you copying the CD since you're obtaining a copy of the CD?
Yes, and you are also obtaining a license to use that copy (presuming that the seller similarly has obtained rights to resell that content which was copied and licensed for the intent to sell).
So you're copying a CD whenever you buy a CD. Glad we could clear up that you're willing to stick to insanity.
We already knew you are willing to stick to insanity, and it doesn't cost me anything to reciprocate.
You should go get @djls45 so he can tell me about how property = IP because you can build more stories on land which is like copying.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
You never fail to disappoint.
Failing is what this site is all about, right?
It's worse than that, actually.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gribnit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor Huh, looks related. Hope you can back up that blanket denial.
NARRATOR: He
can'twon't.I've been watching way too much Arrested Development these last few days.
-
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
My claim made in the OP still stands.
This one?
actually, a lot of cracked software has a custom installer that doesn't show you a license agreement, meaning you're not bound by the terms.
Maybe you're not bound by the term of the license, but you're still doing copyright infringement
This goes back to my Ship of Theseus problem (which no one has heretofore addressed). Cracked software is not a strict copy of the software. It is a derivative work.
Creating a derivative work is subject to copyright just like copying is. An illegal copy and a cracked illegal copy don't make much of a difference with regards to copyright. With regards to other idiotic laws, removing copy protections is itself illegal.
But that's not copy protection, it's license forcing.
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
Unless you wrote the software, or were personally authorized to run it by the person who did, you have no such "intrinsic right".
There is no law saying I can't.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
Unless you wrote the software, or were personally authorized to run it by the person who did, you have no such "intrinsic right".
There is no law saying I can't.
Yes there is.
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
Unless you wrote the software, or were personally authorized to run it by the person who did, you have no such "intrinsic right".
There is no law saying I can't.
Yes there is.
Please quote the section where it says I can't use unlicensed software.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Please quote the section where it says I can't use unlicensed software.
Please stop ignoring all the times this and more has been pointed out.
-
@pie_flavor Please quote the section that says you can use copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. Because pretty much the whole thing says that you can't.
inb4 "fair use". That only allows you to use copyrighted material that you obtained from legal, authorized sources.
-
@anotherusername No, it does not. It has a lot to say about making copies, breaking copy protection, automated file sharing servers, etc., but it has absolutely nothing to say about actually using the software in question. The law does not say what I can do, the law says what I can't do, and anything not encompassed by the law I am free to do. So, I repeat: Quote any part of the law that says I can't use unlicensed software.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Quote any part of the law that says I can't use unlicensed software.
Quote me the part where you legally got the unlicensed software.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Quote any part of the law that says I can't use unlicensed software.
Quote me the part where you legally got the unlicensed software.
He's not doing a very good job of being cute with his posts on this, but I think he's describing this situation:
I steal or randomly find a book. Copyright law doesn't say I can't read it. Therefore any crime I may have done will not include copyright infringement.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@dcon Yes, and then the server elects to send you that file.
The server didn't "elect" to send you the file. You requested it; the server is responding to your explicit request. It didn't send you some file of its own accord. It might elect not to send you a file that you request (for example, if you fail to provide proper credentials, or if the server is malfunctioning), but servers are generally (Windows updates and spam notwithstanding) not in the habit of sending you unsolicited files.
-
@mikehurley said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Quote any part of the law that says I can't use unlicensed software.
Quote me the part where you legally got the unlicensed software.
He's not doing a very good job of being cute with his posts on this, but I think he's describing this situation:
I steal or randomly find a book. Copyright law doesn't say I can't read it. Therefore any crime I may have done will not include copyright infringement.
I'm sure he believes that.
-
@pie_flavor The part where it says you can't download it in the first place. Downloading is making a copy. You are the person who clicked the link or pushed the button to download it to your computer. You didn't have authorization from the copyright holder to do that. Therefore, you are just as much responsible for illegally copying it as the uploader was.
Additionally, since your copy is unauthorized, you don't get to claim fair use. Fair use is what allows you to make copies of copyrighted material if it's necessary in order to actually use it. But you're not allowed to copy it for fair use, which means you couldn't possibly use it legally. In order to use it, you'd have to have it copied from your computer's hard disk into its memory, so good luck trying to actually use it. Even if you play dumb with "I don't know how those 1s and 0s got on my hard disk, officer! I didn't put them there, some computer on the interwebs did!", you're still SOL.
Aside, you're venturing into sovcit-type foolishness here. Seriously. The law does not agree with you, and furthermore, there's not a court in the land that would rule that it does. So stop trying to act like it does, and just admit that you think it's dumb and you're willfully breaking it. Civil disobedience is a marginally respectable position here... denial isn't.
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
So stop trying to act like it does, and just admit that you think it's dumb and you're willfully breaking it. Civil disobedience is a marginally respectable position here... denial isn't.
Exactly. Copyright law (and IP in general) is full of all sorts of and stuff. But trying to go "I found the secret code to breaking the law without actually breaking the law" is just stupid and dangerous.
-
@japonicus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
While not wanting to venture down @pie_flavour's rabbit hole, copyright law does seem a bit strange:
If I buy a book (subject to copyright) then I'm explicitly allowed to read it to myself (no license required). I'm not sure if I'm allowed to perform it (i.e. read it to someone else) - I almost certainly can't if instead it was a song lyric or music manuscript.
You're allowed to perform it privately, e.g. read it to your kids. You're allowed to read it publicly to people if you're in a classroom at a non-profit educational institution and you're teaching a class. You're allowed to read it publicly if your use is permitted under the broader category of fair use -- e.g., if you're citing it for the purposes of commenting on it, that may be permitted under fair use. Otherwise, you'll need to get a license to perform it, which is not what you purchased by buying the book. And the same goes for song lyrics and music manuscripts, by the way.
(The exemptions for educational and fair use apply to the whole category of copyright, including the items below. I'm not going to repeat them every time, though, because that would be excessive.)
If the copyright artefact is a picture then I can publicly exhibit it without a license (and probably even charge other people to view it)
Nope. You could privately exhibit it, but you'd need the author's permission to publicly exhibit it.
If it's software then I can do nothing at all without a licence.
This is pretty much accurate. You can get a license to privately use the software in the same way that you'd get a license to privately use a book or CD. You buy the material from an authorized seller, and that sale also carries a license to privately use it.
It does not, by the way, automatically carry a license to publicly or commercially use it. You're only allowed to do that if the license explicitly grants you those rights. This is why a lot of software will have a "free for personal use" or "for personal use only" license -- they can charge more for a commercial license.
If it's Disney then I won't be able to copy it for the next 10 000 years.
Yep.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The server didn't "elect" to send you the file.
Yes it did. I don't believe the protocol mandates that a file response must be generated, so responding with file data would then be an affirmative decision made by the server.
You requested it; the server is responding to your explicit request. It didn't send you some file of its own accord.
What constitutes my request? Pushing a button or clicking a link? What if said control is labeled in a contrarian manner (e.g. "Click here to not download the file!") ? Does the user then have to peer at any JS on the page to determine the intent of clicking on a link?
Also, URL redirection? It doesn't have respond with the file you expect.
It might elect not to send you a file that you request (for example, if you fail to provide proper credentials, or if the server is malfunctioning), but servers are generally (Windows updates and spam notwithstanding) not in the habit of sending you unsolicited files.
Is there an implicit caveat in there about ads and annoywalls? If not, I'm going to reiterate that Quora and plenty of news sites inject unsolicited blurs and
overflow: hidden;
s into the files they serve.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
And I am still declaring that it is legal.
Thank you, Glorious Leader!
What, you're not the Glorious Leader? Then the law doesn't give a fig about your declaration.
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor The part where it says you can't download it in the first place. Downloading is making a copy. You are the person who clicked the link or pushed the button to download it to your computer. You didn't have authorization from the copyright holder to do that. Therefore, you are just as much responsible for illegally copying it as the uploader was.
Right; we've moved past that.
As I just said: The law talks about making copies. The law does not talk about using. Quote me the part that talks about using.Additionally, since your copy is unauthorized, you don't get to claim fair use. Fair use is what allows you to make copies of copyrighted material if it's necessary in order to actually use it. But you're not allowed to copy it for fair use, which means you couldn't possibly use it legally. In order to use it, you'd have to have it copied from your computer's hard disk into its memory, so good luck trying to actually use it. Even if you play dumb with "I don't know how those 1s and 0s got on my hard disk, officer! I didn't put them there, some computer on the interwebs did!", you're still SOL.
I highly doubt that'd hold up. Copying something to RAM in order to execute it is about as significant as copying a song to the air in order to hear it.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
More specifically, when talking about software, using == copying. Copies are made into memory from the original format.
I'm pretty sure this specific reasoning has been ruled wrong. Intermediate copies in operational memory don't count as copies for the purposes of copyright laws. That doesn't change the fact that using software without license is illegal.
They do count as copying, but if (and only if) that copying is necessary in order for you to enjoy content that you legally purchased, then that copying is allowed under fair use.
(also, backup copies are a special case of this)
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
This is an argument I expect to have with a 3 year old
Who knows how old he/she is?
He's 19.
Oh, to be an omniscient teenager again...
Filed under: I didn't know how much I didn't know.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I highly doubt that'd hold up. Copying something to RAM in order to execute it is about as significant as copying a song to the air in order to hear it.
20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Systems Corp. / Opinion of the Court - Buffer “Copies"
tl;dr: copying information into RAM is putting it in a "fixed media", while playing something over the air is not because of the "transitory duration" of the sound.
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I highly doubt that'd hold up. Copying something to RAM in order to execute it is about as significant as copying a song to the air in order to hear it.
20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Systems Corp. / Opinion of the Court - Buffer “Copies"
tl;dr: copying information RAM is putting it in a "fixed media", while playing something over the air is not because of the "transitory duration" of the sound.
One of my old assembler textbooks defines CPU registers as a type of memory. Does that mean even reading the binary data is copyright infringement?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
I work with IP all day long, and I can assure you that if you somehow manage to get ahold of any of the IP I work with, you most assuredly may not use it in any way. You are not authorized to possess it, much less use it, and neither am I, outside my specific job duties. If you try to use it, my employer (rather, their client, since my employer is not the owner of the IP) will sue you up, down, backward, forward, and sideways.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
I work with IP all day long, and I can assure you that if you somehow manage to get ahold of any of the IP I work with, you most assuredly may not use it in any way. You are not authorized to possess it, much less use it, and neither am I, outside my specific job duties. If you try to use it, my employer (rather, their client, since my employer is not the owner of the IP) will sue you up, down, backward, forward, and sideways.
Under what provisions of the law?
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I highly doubt that'd hold up. Copying something to RAM in order to execute it is about as significant as copying a song to the air in order to hear it.
20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Systems Corp. / Opinion of the Court - Buffer “Copies"
tl;dr: copying information into RAM is putting it in a "fixed media", while playing something over the air is not because of the "transitory duration" of the sound.
Amazing how it takes hundreds of posts before someone posts something relevant. Although I must once again ask what would happen if, rather than copying a program into RAM, it was loaded as a memory-mapped file. And I maintain my statement of significance. The law needs some updating.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
If they were totally different why did they use the same words? Stupid law makers, not saying what they mean...
... are you seriously asking that? Terminology means almost fuck-all; that's why a giant portion of each bill explains exactly what each word in it means.
If it's meaningless, why are they so careful to define the meaning? Also, where a law doesn't explicitly define a word, courts will use the common definition. I read a judgement yesterday in which a judge actually cited Merriam-Webster in his opinion, telling some idiot that a word didn't mean what he was trying to make it mean.
-
@Groaner That sounds like a question for a very old and technologically-illiterate judge to answer.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Although I must once again ask what would happen if, rather than copying a program into RAM, it was loaded as a memory-mapped file.
You still end up copying it into RAM, just with a bit less overhead.
-
@cvi No, not really. You're not copying it anywhere; the OS just takes RAM requests and interprets them as disk requests.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
If they were totally different why did they use the same words? Stupid law makers, not saying what they mean...
... are you seriously asking that? Terminology means almost fuck-all; that's why a giant portion of each bill explains exactly what each word in it means.
If it's meaningless, why are they so careful to define the meaning?
What? If it were meaningful they wouldn't need to define the meaning. They need to carefully define the meaning because it is otherwise meaningless.
Also, where a law doesn't explicitly define a word, courts will use the common definition. I read a judgement yesterday in which a judge actually cited Merriam-Webster in his opinion, telling some idiot that a word didn't mean what he was trying to make it mean.
Right. IP is not subject to that.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Right. IP is not subject to that. Because I say so.
-
@pie_flavor Yes, really. The OS marks the address range as used, and when you access it, you get a page fault. The OS handles the page fault by copying data from disk to RAM.
-
@cvi Straight from Wikipedia:
Secondly, in most operating systems the memory region mapped actually is the kernel's page cache (file cache), meaning that no copies need to be created in user space.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@cvi Straight from Wikipedia:
Secondly, in most operating systems the memory region mapped actually is the kernel's page cache (file cache), meaning that no copies need to be created in user space.
no copies IN USER SPACE =/= no copies at all. The copies are still made, just in kernel space.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Further proving my point that RAM copies are irrelevant, then, if it's literally impossible to access something without a copy being made.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
meaning that no copies need to be created in user space.
No, there are no copies in user space. The copy is performed by the kernel (or via some other mechanism, most likely DMA). But the same holds true for streaming IO if you use the right interfaces. And even when receiving over the network or via other peripherals ... for example, if you do high-performance network stuff, you want to avoid all unnecessary copies, and have the networking hardware write directly into RAM.
For disk access, memory mapping is just the easiest way to limit the number of copies to a single one, namely the initial one from disk to RAM.
Edit: 'd by @Benjamin-Hall
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Straight from Wikipedia
I'm convinced!
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Further proving my point that RAM copies are irrelevant, then, if it's literally impossible to access something without a copy being made.
You're allowed to make a copy to RAM if, and only if, YOU HAVE A VALID LICENSE
-
@TimeBandit Yes, yes, roll your eyes at me. That makes what you just said make more sense for sure.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit Yes, yes, roll your eyes at me. That makes what you just said make more sense for sure.
Fuck! Is that all it took to make you see sense?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
actually
and there's your problem
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
a lot of cracked software has
100% percent of cracked software isn't talked about in polite company, regardless of everyone's stance.
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
meaning you're not bound by the terms.
This is as dumb-as-fuck as fucking dumb can get.
A giant block of cocaine is illegal. If I steal it, then resell it, it isn't magically not illegal (aka: legal) just because I said so.
Or better: fertilizer over a certain quantity needs a license to purchase. If I buy a whole bunch of it, I can't turn around and sell it to someone without the same license. And if I go and STEAL a whole bunch of fertilizer-- thus bypassing any license agreements or requirements-- that doesn't give me permission to sell it. It's still illegal (on top of stolen).
This thread is "not fucking reading it because the arguments are still happening on the final page", so if this is a duplicate of something anyone has said-- well, fuck you.
-
@Lorne-Kates Congratulations on understanding exactly none of the point.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
well, fuck you.and give me money
FTFY
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Lorne-Kates Congratulations on understanding exactly none of the point.
Your point is stupid and wrong. There's nothing to understand.