US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

Mercantilism Ahoy! And at the hands of the same government agency who declared Microsoft an "illegal monopoly" (an oxymoron if there ever were one)!

http://news.com.com/Linux+felon+forced+t...=html.alert.hed

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice forces person convicted of computer crimes on probation to buy Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
FYT

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

I think it's more appalling that he served jail time for sharing a movie.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

MPAA & RIAA >> fascists

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

Everything about this case just makes me angry.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's more appalling that he served jail time for sharing a movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

He served jail time for being a torrent site admin.

As to the particulars, would you rather the government spent lots more money to ensure the monitoring software was Linux-friendly? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
He served jail time for being a torrent site admin.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read that he
[ QUOTE ]
pleaded guilty in 2006 to two copyright-related charges over the uploading of Star Wars: Episode III to the Internet. As a result, he was sentenced to five months in jail and five months' home confinement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But assuming you're correct, operating a [censored] site in and of itself isn't illegal--it's copyright infringement that's the problem and I don't see any justification for jailing file swappers.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice forces person convicted of computer crimes on probation to buy Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
FYT

[/ QUOTE ]


lol seriously. This thread topic is really stupid.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He served jail time for being a torrent site admin.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read that he
[ QUOTE ]
pleaded guilty in 2006 to two copyright-related charges over the uploading of Star Wars: Episode III to the Internet. As a result, he was sentenced to five months in jail and five months' home confinement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But assuming you're correct, operating a [censored] site in and of itself isn't illegal--it's copyright infringement that's the problem and I don't see any justification for jailing file swappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, a civil lawsuit might be appropriate but I don't see why copyright infringment should be a jailable offense.

sidenote: as I've long said, the federal government has WAY too much power.

Thanks for reading.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

It's theft.

You wouldn't steal a VCR. You wouldn't steal a Car....

^Kidding, but isn't that how the commercials for this stuff go?

Why shouldn't theft be jailable?

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

I have to blame Clinton and the Congress of 1998 on this one. The DMCA was passed and it added a new facet to tyranny in government. "Fair use" disappeared with this piece of legislation and the industry still wants more powers.

The MPAA and RIAA can [censored] off as far as I am concerned. No one should have that much power. We have had this debate go on for many pages on here before, so I won't rehash it.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice forces person convicted of computer crimes on probation to buy Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
FYT

[/ QUOTE ]


lol seriously. This thread topic is really stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? A thread started by pvn? I don't believe it.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice forces person convicted of computer crimes on probation to buy Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
FYT

[/ QUOTE ]


lol seriously. This thread topic is really stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid? A thread started by pvn? I don't believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really was expecting a no-content reply from dvault before you, but it's good to know you're still prowling around, keeping us safe.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

Err, excuse me, I wasn't calling pvn stupid, or even the thread stupid. I meant the topic - er what I really meant was the "subject" line, I was in a rush. Let me rephrase my statement, in all seriousness because I mis-spoke,

"The thread subjet is extremly misleading." There, that's what I really meant. The thread itself provides for discussion of theft and copyright infringment, which is important.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's theft.

You wouldn't steal a VCR. You wouldn't steal a Car....

^Kidding, but isn't that how the commercials for this stuff go?

Why shouldn't theft be jailable?

[/ QUOTE ]b/c it's a victimless crime...like punching someone in the dark!

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ ] Thread delivers

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

What are the chances of being prosecuted for merely downloading copyrighted material on the web? Ive always assumed that if the Feds found out you downloaded a movie you could just say your mouse went spasm and downloaded it by accident or your 2 year old nephew did it by mistake and as a results they wouldn;t be able to do anything.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

first, you will get one of these and then you roll the dice.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice

[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
forces

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
people

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
to buy

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
1 out 5 ain't bad!

[ QUOTE ]
Mercantilism Ahoy! And at the hands of the same government agency who declared Microsoft an "illegal monopoly" (an oxymoron if there ever were one)!

http://news.com.com/Linux+felon+forced+t...=html.alert.hed

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have had an organism when you saw that title, and rushed to the computer in a daze. Too bad you didn't read the actual story.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

They look like letters regarding the hosting and not specifically downloading.

The letter seems more like a warning than anything. I once sold a VCD on ebay, got a letter in the post about copyright 5 years ago, ignored it and nothing happend since.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

If they follow up, they take you to court and make you pay $$$ per violation, however they never pay legal fees even if they are wrong (the figure is 30% or more are wrong).

Random Related Article

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
Err, excuse me, I wasn't calling pvn stupid, or even the thread stupid. I meant the topic - er what I really meant was the "subject" line, I was in a rush. Let me rephrase my statement, in all seriousness because I mis-spoke,

"The thread subjet is extremly misleading." There, that's what I really meant. The thread itself provides for discussion of theft and copyright infringment, which is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was intentionally misleading. I often post stories like this with a topic line that is intentionally twisted to highlight a strange angle of an interesting story. In this case, the fact that the DOJ is *mandating* that someone use a product that they have prosecuted as an illegal monopoly was too ironic to pass up.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who, then? This prosecution was a result of an FBI investigation. He wasn't in the county pokey.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
forces

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
people

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
to buy

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how you would characterize it.

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
According to the Web site TorrentFreak, McCausland and his attorney will fight the situation. "It isn't the fact that I have to be monitored that bothers me, it is the fact that I have (to) restructure my life (different OS, different software on that OS) and that they would require (force) me to purchase software while I am currently unemployed and relatively unemployable with the two felonies that they gave me," McCausland said. "It is just a ridiculous situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
1 out 5 ain't bad!

So we have an article about one particular person. I guess you got me there, but the policy of requiring microsoft's "illegal monopoly" operating system is not particuarly aimed at this one guy. We'll give you half a point for that. So 0.5 out of four for you, significantly worse than the 1 out of 5 you (incorrectly) claimed I hit.

Good show.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
So we have an article about one particular person. I guess you got me there, but the policy of requiring microsoft's "illegal monopoly" operating system is not particuarly aimed at this one guy. We'll give you half a point for that. So 0.5 out of four for you, significantly worse than the 1 out of 5 you (incorrectly) claimed I hit.

Good show.

[/ QUOTE ]
The judge made the ruling, not the justice department, if I'm not mistaken.

The guy is not in any way forced, no matter how much he whines. It is a simply a condition of his using a computer that he must have tracking software installed on it. That the tracking software only works on 95% of computers is a symptom of government efficiency. I'm sure they could have developed a Linux version for the benefit of hacker-crims everywhere. Then you'd be whining about government inefficiency....catch 22, no?

And yes, person, convicted felon person seeking freedom, in fact, is very different to "people". I could make a new post now: GOVERNMENT FORCES PEOPLE TO WEAR TRACKING DEVICES!. Well, yes, they do. Convicted felons. Who are given an option between this and jail.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on those of us who have to read these posts.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

Internet propagandist makes absurdly misleading thread title.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
may God have mercy on those of us who have to read these posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely have pity on your pour soul, I wouldn't want someone pointing a gun at me, making me read a website either.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's theft.

You wouldn't steal a VCR. You wouldn't steal a Car....

^Kidding, but isn't that how the commercials for this stuff go?

Why shouldn't theft be jailable?

[/ QUOTE ]
"But if my friend bought a new car and said 'hey, would you like me to burn you a copy?'..." -some comedian

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

in an information-based world, why shouldn't people have the same regard for intellectual property rights as physical property rights?

is anyone able to provide a convincing reason that the government should not protect property rights?

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property.

Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

well, it is still stealing Sklansky dollars.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property.

Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a fallacy that IP is not "scarce". The ACers twist the definition of "scarcity" into a pretzel to fit their world view.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property.

Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no difference between intangible property and tangible property - if there's a difference then it's between public and private goods. Even if intellectual property was non-rivalrous free-riding still poses the problems for efficient production of those.

It's a matter of externalities - in presence of transaction cost probably the biggest issue AC'ism faces.

As for PVN - just put him on ignore, like everyone whoever browses this forum should for mental health purposes.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
in an information-based world, why shouldn't people have the same regard for intellectual property rights as physical property rights?

is anyone able to provide a convincing reason that the government should not protect property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I want a movie and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I hurt no one by downloading it. They weren't getting my money anyway.

If I want a car and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I am unable to obtain one without hurting someone else.

If "taking" something doesn't hurt anyone, it's not property.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I want a movie and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I hurt no one by downloading it. They weren't getting my money anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if you can afford it? What if a friend asks for it, who can afford it, and would buy it if it were unavailable through other means, and you give it to him?

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property.

Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ACers use the economic definition of "scarcity" which fits their world view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property.

Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a fallacy that IP is not "scarce". The ACers twist the definition of "scarcity" into a pretzel to fit their world view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under Copernicus's definition, quality posts by him are extremely scarce.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I want a movie and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I hurt no one by downloading it. They weren't getting my money anyway.

If I want a car and can't afford it or am unwilling to pay the price, I am unable to obtain one without hurting someone else.

If "taking" something doesn't hurt anyone, it's not property.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the argument behind any public good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods

And it DOES hurt.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no difference between intangible property and tangible property - if there's a difference then it's between public and private goods. Even if intellectual property was non-rivalrous free-riding still poses the problems for efficient production of those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a difference. If I share intellectual "property" with you, I still have the IP, and you have the IP.

If I give you an apple, I no longer have the apple.

If you don't think that's a difference, there's not much that can be done to help you.

As most people who argue against the AC position, you are completely oblivious to the fact that under a system of voluntary agreements, copyright protections ARE possible, without a coercive government.

[ QUOTE ]
As for PVN - just put him on ignore, like everyone whoever browses this forum should for mental health purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal attacks FTW!

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a difference. If I share intellectual "property" with you, I still have the IP, and you have the IP.

If I give you an apple, I no longer have the apple.

If you don't think that's a difference, there's not much that can be done to help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a difference... It's the difference between public and private goods. You're trying to tell me about the difference between a tomato and an apple while I am aware that one is a fruit and the other a vegetable.

The question that obviously needs to be answered is whether intangible intellectual goods are always public goods.

[ QUOTE ]

As most people who argue against the AC position, you are completely oblivious to the fact that under a system of voluntary agreements, copyright protections ARE possible, without a coercive government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never even mentioned the government here, lol. Paranoia ftw as you'd put it.
Trust me I am aware of the conditions under which the market mechanism can provide public goods and they are fairly restrictive and even then in most likely lead to "inefficient" results.

Anyways, do you realize what transaction costs do to your little AC-world, do you? Ronald Coase certainly did.

[ QUOTE ]
Personal attacks FTW!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just trying to help people here! It would be a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Re: US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a difference. If I share intellectual "property" with you, I still have the IP, and you have the IP.

If I give you an apple, I no longer have the apple.

If you don't think that's a difference, there's not much that can be done to help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there's a difference... It's the difference between public and private goods. You're trying to tell me about the difference between a tomato and an apple while I am aware that one is a fruit and the other a vegetable.

The question that obviously needs to be answered is whether intangible intellectual goods are always public goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, now there IS a difference? Which is it?

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "public goods"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As most people who argue against the AC position, you are completely oblivious to the fact that under a system of voluntary agreements, copyright protections ARE possible, without a coercive government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never even mentioned the government here, lol. Paranoia ftw as you'd put it.
Trust me I am aware of the conditions under which the market mechanism can provide public goods and they are fairly restrictive and even then in most likely lead to "inefficient" results.

Anyways, do you realize what transaction costs do to your little AC-world, do you? Ronald Coase certainly did.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Government cannot eliminate or reduce transaction costs. It simply shifts them, transfers them, and masks them.

As for Coase, he himself explicitly recognized and pointed out cases of private production of so-called "public" goods.