[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by TraVelSonic

No, though while we are on the topic of changing things, If he is going to put facts on his website, I think it wise to make sure that they are accurate.


Case in point:



Sorry, but just using a software association for all your info on that qestion is not getting all the facts. IIRC, that view is skewed and incorrect.. Ripping a game, or dumping a cartridge you own through a device like a rom dumper, whether it be a Sega Genesis, Nintendo/Super Nintendo, or even a Nintendo 64 or Atari game is legal if you do not cirumvent any copy-protection and you do not distribute the work. If the emulator does NOT use external bios, illegally distributed online, of which most console emulators pre-PSX/Saturn/Dreamcast don't, then the emulator has grounds to be legal as reverse-engineering usually isn't used anymore. Such use of an emulator, kept in the strict confines of these conditions would/can be proven to constitute fair use, whether a company authorized it, or thinks that should be allowed being irrelivant post-point.

Such as it has been legally ruled that P2P is legal, it is HOW it is used that is legal, or illegal.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by valis

when it's your site, you can make the rules. End of discussion. Can I go onto your site and begin to use it as a site to post cracks for Vista? I highly doubt that you would enjoy that, and neither would the lawyers at MS.

The entire point is, this is Mike's site. If he says we can't talk about elephants, then guess what; you need to to talk about elephants someplace else.

Thanks, again, for understanding.

True -- so seeing as he has not objected to this topic, nor has he closed and locked it (and being HIS SITE he has the ability to do so) then it is safe to conclude that we can not only continue this topic -- but you can continue to attempt to derail it with nonsense rebuttles that have nothing to do with the topic and only serve as passive-agressive statements, seeing as he has not forbidden you to do so. :-P

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by TraVelSonic

End of discussion = "I have fingers in my ears and don't want to try to understand the argument, let alone respond rationally."

Stop copping out, stop justifying inconsistancy.

The website is, supposively, dedicated to pointing out the facts. One happened to be dubious or challengable and I stated my reasoning. It is strongly urged, for reputation's sake, that research be done to keep facts straight, as one's point will be stronger and people will be more inclined to listen and bring others to the site.

If anybody is dedicated to point out a fact on a question, you can't rely on one place with a shoddy interpretation of the law. End of story.



That is relevant how?

I am arguing that how?

It isn't, and I am not. Strawman = burned.





And Mike is not nearly stupid enough to believe that user commentary is not helpful or a constructive thing to have.




If you are talking about discussing Mike's site, he hasn't prohibited it in reason (or else this topic would be locked), and I doubt YOU would even convince me for a nanosecond that constructive criticism is bad. Do you think everything a person in power of a country should be done without constructive input from those he/she watches over? I rest my case.

Exactly. No one has attacked Mike or attempted to cause trouble. In fact -- whether factual or in error -- his intelligent and articulate means of voicing his opinions is what brought him our attention. We're here because his stature has impressed us, not to cause a ruckus.

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by Flrman1

valis,

Please refrain from making any more posts about these guys coming to "Mike's house to rearrange the furniture". That isn't what this thread is about. You have posted something to that affect in this thread two or three times already. I have been keeping up with this thread from the beginning and I don't see anything here that justifies it. The discussion has been fair and constructive. Let's keep it that way please.

I concur. Thanks!

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by TraVelSonic

Best to you too.

Maybe I did come off a bit snappy, but when I wrote that I was consumed with other things. For that I myself apologize.

Snappy was required. It would be rude that would be uncalled for. You were certianly NOT rude by any means. To be outspoken is nothing to appologize for :-)

[Flrman1]

Originally Posted by Time Warrior

you can continue to attempt to derail it with nonsense rebuttles that have nothing to do with the topic and only serve as passive-agressive statements, seeing as he has not forbidden you to do so. :-P

Mike hasn't, but I have on his behalf as part of my duty as a mod here. That goes for anyone who's posts may be seen as an attempt to derail this discussion. We will keep it civil!

[Time Warrior]

Originally Posted by Flrman1

Mike hasn't, but I have on his behalf as part of my duty as a mod here. That goes for anyone who's posts may be seen as an attempt to derail this discussion. We will keep it civil!

I know. I was using sarcasm rather than hostility to make the point :-)

[guitar]

who's stealing really! read this http://archive.salon.com/tech/featur...ove/print.html

[Dreddnik]

Old article, yet still so true, Guitar.

We've been trying for a very long time to point out who the 'real' thieves are.
Courtney Love may be a bit ... ummm .. skanky, but she was absolutely right
and put it much better than most of us could.

BUYING from a major label = condoning stealing from artists :P

[Ifta]

Everyone should condemn and resist the RIAA, and others, using lawsuits or DRM or any other method to prevent an individual from copying a legally purchased cd or music file. They are absolutely trying to destroy the right of Fair Use. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use The ACLU is active in opposing them: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/anon/15613lgl20030929.html

But condemnation and resistance do not include theft or other violation of the copyright holder’s interests. I do not think anyone on this forum would approve of stealing cds, or dvds, or cars, for that matter. Data files may be intangible property, but they are still property. But now that they are infinitely copiable at virtually no cost, how can they be protected. If they cannot, then how will creative people earn a living?

To keep this debate in perspective, I think it is important to understand the reasons for protecting intellectual property. I am a lawyer and have some understanding of copyright law and its enforcement (almost 20 years ago I had a client charged in federal court with criminal copyright infringement for using grey market boards to make game machines almost identical to current commercial successes: “Pacman” become “Gobbler,” “Donkey Kong” became “Congorilla,” etc. We won for reasons not relevant here.)

However remote it seems now, the basic reason behind copyright is to encourage creation. Artists could not survive if anyone could pirate their works: they would earn nothing for their efforts. Since there are very few artists who do their own production, manufacture, marketing, and distribution, industries arose to provide these services (though Tom Lehrer did a pretty good job http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer) BTW Tom Leher was praised by Dr. Demento as "the best musical satirist of the 20th Century." Orwellian as the music industry has become, there would be no music (or film or book or drama) industry without profits. There are of course many instances of cruel and immoral uses of the copyright laws – John Fogerty’s career being a good example.

For a good general understanding of copyright and its purposes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright. Arguments against copyright are summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright. The copyright laws are at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html Of particular importance, US CODE: TITLE 17,107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE and TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS/CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT. The big question remains: how do we get the money to the artist?