Search results

Convince him online play is worth paying for? That's about all you can do. Don't even bother making an attempt to appeal to ethical/moral sensibilities. You have no ground to really stand on in debating that with him. However you could potentially convince him that the content he gets by...

Actually in a price-comparison, you get more this round with Nvidia. Full DirectX 9.0C compatability is a big thing. Pixel/vertex shaders 3.0 allow you to code the same shader with considerably less operations, making them run much faster. The only real downside is the GeForce 6800 Ultra...

As far as debating ethics and morals. There really is no right or wrong, just different opinions. :)

I don't know of any past incidents, but right now in europe there's a giant campaign to stop the EU from passing a directive allowing software patents. I personally hope they can talk sense into these legislators. Software patents, as the USA has now, do nothing to protect anything but are...

And I agree with what you're saying, to an extent. For-profit protections are part of IP law I do agree with. However I do not agree with the idea of using it against not-for-profit fan games or mods. I don't believe ethically you have the right to make money off of another man's ideas, but I...

Actually, you can't name any companies that "suffer" due to piracy, and you know why? Downloads do not equal lost sales. This is something I stressed before and I'll stress again. Piracy is an assumed loss, they assume a download is a lost sale and that it "hurts" them. They assume it hurts...

Inethical? Sounds like you didn't spend enough time in law school. :p And if you're going to take a position on the issue; Please, by all means tell me why is it unethical, in your opinion?

That's just it, there was none. I felt like I needed to make a response to an article I felt portrayed information in a deceptive light. It had zero relevance to any legal matters or your intended point of posting the article.

Ian Clarke's freenet is able to penetrate the chinese government's ultra-strict 'net monitoring. The technology is still a bit raw and unsuited to peer to peer file sharing right now, however within enough time and work it will eventually become one of the ultimate technologies used for things...

legally, no you don't. And I repeat for the umpteenth time, I never argued the legality. Why do you keep bringing this up over and over again?

But that's just IT. You're not stealing the ideas. You're infringing on the owner's government granted monopoly to copy, distribute, and control their idea in the first place. For theft to have taken place you'd have had to have taken something tangible that cannot be replaced, that is not the...

No, but the false information I'd say is pretty good grounds for saying so.

And by the same token, just because something's legally wrong does not necessarily make it ethically wrong.

If they're not the same then how can you steal? You can't steal an idea. I can't go reach in your head, and say, take a recipie for some food dish, or knowledge on how to run a computer, and then make it so you can never use that again. I can learn your skills, but not take them away. As...

Here's an idea, give me a justifacation for your claims. Why are intillectual and physical property the same? how can an idea have any loss associated with its spread? Give something to back up your position other then "just because."

This is based on the faulty notion that intillectual property and physical property are one in the same. An idea is an entirely different concept then an object. An object cannot be owned by more then one person at a time, an idea spreads freely without taking anything from anyone...

Incorrect, the proper term for the crime would be copyright infringement. And now I shall tell you why. Theft, or more appropriately larceny, is the intent of taking one's personal property and depriving the owner. Now, when I go to a store and steal a TV, or go to someone's house and steal a...

It was using misleading and incorrect (in the case of the part that said a company must defend the copyright or lose it) language to try and justify it ethically. It didn't just reflect on the law but rather tried to make people feel like what they're doing is okay from an ethical standpoint...

I was never arguing the legality and even said my statement had nothing to do with the intended point you were trying to make; I even pointed it out several times. I just felt the need to say something about some of what almost seems like propoghanda in the article.

Well, ethics don't have anything to do with administrative decisions, of course not. When it comes down to it you have to keep it legal to keep the site out of trouble first and formost before anything else. I was merely feeling the need to make a statement after deciding to read the heavily...