101–110 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This pretty surprising. Given the industry standard with mining similar communications I'm surprised that Apple gave up a gigantic pool of user information like that.
Apple is not an advertising company. They have also made other similar moves to the same effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a musician who would never deal with RIAA, instead we put both our albums on The Pirate Bay to download and spread for free. Now I cannot link to those albums in Microsoft software because they censor all links? That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes society not the sharing and copying of files.
Can you link them here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. > I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. It doesn't matter, because most people don't profit from their works…
This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. Yes, those pirate bay users are all about remixing and building upon stuff... /s How about inventing something new?
Well, kind of. But when I suggest creating something "new", I'm not saying don't remix/use old ideas, I say don't remix/use actual previous existing artifacts.
And let's be clear here, the Pirate Bay is not about creating, it's about consuming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a musician who would never deal with RIAA, instead we put both our albums on The Pirate Bay to download and spread for free. Now I cannot link to those albums in Microsoft software because they censor all links? That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes society not the sharing and copying of files.
I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA). That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging…
No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech.
And no worries, I do not use any Microsoft products, but I can IM people who do use live messenger from Linux IM apps. I am guessing I will be censored anyway, which is just horrible and outrageous.
Also, as behavior like this increases in frequency, we'll finally be forced to address the current usability issues with point-to-point cryptography and adopt it more broadly. Microsoft shouldn't be able to read anything you write unless you choose to share it with them.
A world where all communication is encrypted requires more software development effort, but ends up better for everyone in the long run. Calls, emails, text messages - none of them should be intelligible to anyone other than the parties explicitly involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? Please don't take the sarcasm personally; it was just the best way to illustrate my point.
It's not like it's unprecedented. Patents expire after 20 years. Many people and organizations get very good use out of that 20 year term. I'm not sure why there's such a disparity between patents (which cost thousands of dollars and expire after 20 years), trademarks (which cost thousands of dollars, and have to be actively defended), and copyright (which costs nothing, is automatic, and expires after your grandchil…
Patents are applications of scientific discoveries. Other people are likely to make the same discoveries and want to apply them in a similar way, and that's legitimate.
Copyright covers things that are purely creations of the author. The author holding a copyright on something doesn't prevent or restrict anyone, except people who want to directly use the copyrighted work, which they wouldn't have come up with anyway (e.g. even if I write a novel about wizards, it would not be Harry Potter).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People expect something that was not intentionally sent by their friends to be actively intercepted. While making the technical distinction may sometimes be tricky, the emotional distinction is fairly straight forward.
You're right, it's an emotional distinction. Let me illustrate. A man operates a gay rights message board that includes private messages. He tolerates alternate viewpoints, but after a particularly bad flamefest he uses a plugin to ban linking to a hate speech site that is especially contrary to the aims of the forum that he pays for out of his own pocket. It extends to PMs. He explains that if you want to trade such…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA). That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging…
Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders all you say is rubbish and plain wrong. No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. And no worries, I do not use any Microsoft products, but I can IM people who do use live messenger from Linux IM apps. I am guessing I will be censored anyway, which is just horrible and outrageous.
We've already established why your use of the words "free speech" is invalid, and rather than addressing that, you're just making arbitrary assertions (which, because they are arbitrary, should be ignored).
Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders
It's been proven, and is also quite obvious, but again, you're just going on emotion and arbitrary assertion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it. Yes, those pirate bay users are all about remixing and building upon stuff... /s How about inventing something new?
There is nothing new under the sun. Nearly everything is a remix of older ideas. Even many of Shakespeare's plays were retellings of popular contemporary stories — we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in. Your suggestion would work better if it were in response to "20 years isn't long enough for a copyright term."
Nonsense. It's still not possible to copyright the idea of a "love story involving two feuding families," or something. You can't copyright ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is not an advertising company. They have also made other similar moves to the same effect.
Not to call you out, but what other moves are you thinking of (legitimately curious)?
Now I just wish they would make it easy for me to set DuckDuckGo as my default search engine in Safari.