Karma
 

This story amused me:

Man Sells Fake Bronze, Gets Paid in Counterfeit

A Vietnamese man who used cow fat and paint to pass off a lump of iron as valuable black bronze found buyers -- but was paid $64,000 in counterfeit bills. A justice official said 12 people involved in both frauds were arrested and were undergoing trial in southern An Giang province.

Eight were accomplices of the accused metal fraudster, while three were involved in the alleged counterfeiting, the prosecutor said.

State-run Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper reported that Huynh Van Gat confessed he had painted a one kg iron lump with cow fat and black paint and tried to pass it off as black bronze and sought to sell it for one billion dong ($64,683). Black bronze is used in making jewelry and ornamental objects like statues.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...etnam_fraud_dc

Could I be creating the art of stealing?

No? Ok Then.


Personally, I think that downloading music from the Internet if you do not own the EXACT song you are downloading already, is stealing. I know there are many arguments that it is not, I believe them to be nothing more than rationalizations. Of course reasonable minds can differ on this. But in the end, whether you figure Kazaa is responsible or not, Napster was responsible or not, it doesn't matter. Because the user that downloads a song knows that em is taking something em didn't pay for, period. Most people wouldn't walk into a store, take a cd, walk out without paying. Why is this different?

Oh I understand downloading music, I do it from time to time myself, sometimes for legitimate research purposes, but most often not. But I don't think we should delude ourselves. Does this make me a thief? Why yes, I think it does in fact. I don't lose any sleep over the handful of songs I have, but I don't pretend it is something else. I also speed too much. I don't lose sleep over that either.

I think however that RIAA is fighting a losing battle. I think they need to reconsider how they sell their music and what they charge for it, and until they do, the average every day person will keep downloading music. Add to that movies and software too. People just have a real problem paying 150 bucks for the newest version of Windows, or whatever it costs these days.

The companies need to wake up and accept the fact that people feel they are being overcharged, and until they stop feeling that way, many of them who are otherwise law abiding, respectful people, are going to take advantage of the ability to download music for free.

Attacking computers, suing individuals, all these things will do is make people more resentful and look for even more ways to download the music for free. Just to screw the companies that are screwing with them. We'll find ourselves in a technology arms race, and the industry simply cannot outlast everyone else.

music...poker
 

Veddy nice Jack, I like the interface better than most online poker places, and you can create your own table, which is nice. Even, ncs, you ought to download the software and get on board....let's coordinate a time sometime to play...it would be best if we had at least 8 players, but 4 handed would be interesting too.

Bon chance,

Flinty

reality show quiz
 

I'll see you on Road Rules.
I won't see you at the poker table. Anyone else intimidated by gambling? I like casinos, the people watching is great, but the idea of sitting down to play a game for money frightens me. Money-wise I'm very conservative.

music...poker
 

Sorry, y'all, but that mac-hating game is not compatible with my system.

So, have fun without me.

Well, if you beleive that all property is theft, then I'll agree; otherwise...
 

So, e/o, having accepted the RIAA's reasoned and unbiased analysis as persuasive, would you then agree with the following statement?

Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting, which encompasses everything from CNN to TNT and is a part of AOL Time Warner, was asked in an interview why PVRs were bad for his industry. He responded that it's "because of the ad skips ... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial ... you're actually stealing the programming."

Link to the full Salon article.

Why is TiVOing "Friends" and skipping the commercials distinguishable from walking into BestBuy and stealing a "Friends" DVD? How soon until Mr. Kellner proclaims that there is no difference?

Confidential to Anne Elk: the truepoker site has a "play money" option. I wasn't planning on playing for real money.

Your point is well taken Jack, it is illegal because of the present state of the law. The law could easily be changed. Not everything that is illegal should be so. Case in point just last Friday after all.

However, no one signed a contract or agreed that they have to watch commercials when they watch tv. I don't know about you, I normally change the channel or leave the room. Does that mean I am breaking the law? To my knowledge there is no such law that says so. However there are laws about copyright violation, and also, about walking into a store and stealing a cd.

A lot of laws haven't caught up to technology and copyright is a huge problem area.

I think that the laws need to be changed and/or made more clear in the file trading area and, as I already suggested, that the companies need to embrace this situation somehow, instead of alienating more and more potential customers.



And on a sad note, Katherine Hepburn has died.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movi...bit/index.html

last Friday was doing away with laws that shouldn't be. copyright law is tougher and really hasn't caught up to the internet at all. on the other hand maybe last friday was just catching up with the times.
"skipping commercials" as theft is simply a desperate cry from a tv exec who revenues are drying up. fuck him.*
file sharing is copyright theft- ain't no question. i work in an IP boutique and for awhile we were afraid about being a test defendant for Napster use. Plaintiffs in copyright cases often pick out an IP firm as an example. but it is a type of copyright violation which can't be effectively policed. say each of us infringed a patent each day- plaintiff couldn't come after us- too expensive. its silly to talk of zapping/destroying peoples computers etc. the record industry has to realize that it is inevitable that files will be shared. we used to tape each other's albums- the record industry survived. the people file sharing aren't costing them sales, to the contrary (point made previously- this is already too long). but independant bands you shouldn't cheat- don't burn an Avoid One Thing CD- buy it, okay?
*BofL trivia in early eighties I wrote Dave Letterman a viewer mail letter saying Ivideotaped him each night and watched the next day and fast forwarded throught the commercials and the commercials became subliminal advertising and I was walking around with a Big Mac jones all day. He didn't read it, but it sounds like I was cheating the networks.

poker sites
 

Tried out True Poker tonight. Was fun. But we need e/o in for any FB tournament, so tomorrow I will be trying out yahoo. Missed SATC. If we have a FB game, my SO will join from another computer (have I mentioned we are hooked?).

another IP issue-calling mr penske
 

from the other board, Penske I know this isn't what you meant by metrosexual
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AF0894DB404482

there is a potential Trademark/dillution claim here. you need to act quickly or your description wil be coopted NTTAWWT.

Well, if you beleive that all property is theft, then I'll agree; otherwise...
 

Jamie Kellner's handlers should keep him away from the press, because if he thinks that either (a) he's right as a matter of copyright law or (b) this argument will resonate with anyone other than his mom, his assistant, and flaks within the industry, then he's a drooling idiot.

On the merits, though, e/o's articulation of copyright (muddled as copyright is these days) does not make her an RIAA apologist. Copyright is struggling to keep up with technological advances, and the technology is enabling consumers to gleefully stick it to an industry that deserves to get shafted for decades of doing it to artists and consumers. Watching it get sorted out in the coming years will be fun, so long as we're not among the individuals that RIAA chooses to sue for being prolific downloaders from Kazaa, Firewire, etc.

But in the meantime, we shouldn't assume that downloading and watching a free copy of The Hulk is permissible under copyright law simply because we can do so.

for love or money II
 

reality blurred -

A week after the conclusion of the first For Love or Money season on July 7, NBC will debut a second season, this time featuring a woman being courted by a group of men. The format for the already-taped show will be the same. However, NBC says there will be "yet another twist[:] the lovely lady that they are all vying for now has her own motivation to earn the gentleman’s admiration -- prompting viewers to question the intentions of everyone involved."

reality show quiz
 

Also road rules. I guess bc I said I like road trips?

Well, if you beleive that all property is theft, then I'll agree; otherwise...
 

So, all these years I've been waiting until the commercials to go to the bathroom, I've been stealing? I'd better move to England, where I'm only in for 35 years and £5000.

Well, if you beleive that all property is theft, then I'll agree; otherwise...
 

I have never understood the "I'm not stealing, I'm sampling" argument. I have a gigantic MP3 collection (and will probably be on the prolific downloaders list the RIAA goes after), and I freely admit that it is stealing. I don't sample a song, realize I like it and then run off to my local music store to purchase the CD. I download the song, purchase a new MP3 jukebox (see prior post on Nomad Zen v. iPod), load the music into the sucker and workout harder at the gym.

I guess the main question is whether I would have bought the CD if the free MP3 were not available. I think 95% of the time, the answer is no. CDs are too expensive when all I really want is the one or two songs on the album that are actually good. But that 5% of the time is definitely what is eating into music sales. And, I don't see how people deny that. (To me, it's like denying that abortion isn't killing a child--I am pro-choice, BTW.) I honestly don't think I have bought a single CD since I became a serious music thief.

Now that the risk of getting caught is higher and the cost of downloading legally is lower (thanks Apple), I will honestly consider paying what I think is probably a reasonable price to stay out of trouble. But, the Napsters of the world (and freeloaders like me) are what are forcing this paradigm shift, so we should all be thankful for that.

Zak (pro-stealing, pro-infanticide, happy I could do my patriotic duty)

Edited to add missing word...