jamesb

Which is why I'll generally use my blockbuster rental subscription to try out films if I'm unsure about buying them. I don't want to buy things I won't use, which is why I generally look at reviews, listen to word of mouth, and so on. They're selling their music, I'd say that's catering to their demographic. With an international audience why should an artist have to do tours over the world in order to make money? What about an artist who works purely in the studio? How do they tour? Merchandising has been mentioned, but why bother buying a band t-shirt when you could just download the design and print it onto a t-shirt yourself? I agree, I'm not a fan of demos but I still won't download a game (exceptions made for digital distribution games obviously, but I'll still pay for those). I might ask around and see what people's opinions are, consider whether I've enjoyed similar sorts of games in the past, and so forth. No it doesn't, there's also campaigning, petitioning, lobbying and so on. Besides which it doesn't seem to be the law as such that's the problem, but the industry. Hearing it on the radio, samples on band websites, spotify and so forth. Legal methods, all. Besides, its not like I'm refusing to pay a price for something and still feeling entitled to it, I'm accepting that I don't want to pay for it, and therefore I don't have it. Yep. Hadopi 2 is a very successful result, as are the various lovely court-cases going around. Boycotting would've been a better option maybe. It depends how you view something. I view something I've made, whether it by code, art or otherwise, as a product of my time, creativity and effort. All of those are worth money and so I expect a fair reward for them. The fact that I have created something does not entitle others to access to it, except under my terms. If I choose to open-source some code then that's all well and good. If on the other hand I choose not to open-source it but to charge for it, why should others be entitled to my creation? They are taking my time and effort for their own gain, even if it is only a tiny portion that they take. However, I'm trying not to call copyright infringement theft. I just feel that if I make something then I am entitled to determine how others should be able to make use of it, and in return for what. If others don't like those terms then they have the option of not making use of it - in no way are they entitled to make a copy of my work, against my will, because they feel I charge too much or use an archaic mode of licensing.

Try somewhere else online? Some band sites allow you to listen to their songs on-site. Or, god forbid, go out to a music store where they let you listen to music before you buy. I think all he was saying was that he didn't know what the copyright situation was in that case.

There are various bits of software which do a selective restore, which might work. Or (and again I'm not sure if this would work) you could try a restore using the stsadm restore command (Restore: Stsadm operation (Office SharePoint Server)) and then export the document library into your new site.

Thank you, an actual reason at last. However I don't see why the fact that I disagree with copyright infringement means automatically that I support the music industry. I agree completely that the music industry is archaic, draconian, and incredibly short-sighted. Isn't that what trailers are for? This argument does seem to get rolled out a lot, but to take an example if I were to download an electronic copy of a book for free, bypassing the copyright, and find that I liked it but not enough to actually buy a physical copy, this doesn't apply. What about those who download episodes of things they have seen on television instead of buying the copies that are available legally? I can see that there's some validity to the argument, but it doesn't apply in many cases. I've heard it rolled out with relation to music and movies, but what about games and other software, or music where the artist doesn't actually do shows, or simply doesn't have a tour date within reasonable distance of the downloader? Yes, why don't they do that? It would be a good idea (in many cases, there are exceptions). However the point isn't whether it would be a good idea or not, the point is that they don't do this at the moment. Again, I seem to be being accused of music industry sympathies - I don't have them, and I agree with many of the things that people say about them needing to update and revamp. The difference is I don't feel that this justifies my, or anyone else's, copyright infringement. If I object to the way that they sell music, I won't buy it, and I won't hear the music. Same applies with films and games. Why does their bad practice justify other's illegal practices? At no point have I said that. I do not defend the music industry, and I do not agree with them. I also hold out hopes that things will change. What I don't do is engage in illegal practices because I disagree with the way things are, and then try to justify it by saying that someone's out of date. Okay, so if I go into a bookshop and photocopy a book, its okay so long as I use my own materials and disagree with the publishing industry? I am, by the way, now convinced by the 'not theft' arguments and will stop using that term. I still don't see any reasonable justifications for illegal activity however.

So because its not stealing, its perfectly moral? I've still yet to see an actual reason put forward that it isn't wrong, despite the fact that personal attacks are now being used. Shoplifting is the closest real-world comparison I can think of. If you can think of a better one, go ahead.

Why? Should I make the same distinction between someone who shoplifts a chocolate bar because they're hungry, and who shoplifts a bar they wouldn't eat otherwise?

When did I say that ripping CDs wasn't wrong? I said that I'd done it, and at the time I was unaware of the law. So yes, my mistake and ignorance isn't a defense, but knowing otherwise now I wouldn't rip CDs. But what I still want to know is why you believe that (illegal rather than legal) filesharing is morally right?

Yes, I'll admit I did leave myself open to that. I just still don't get how its considered acceptable. I've had friends (not for long) who I could never get to understand that shoplifting was wrong. It just becomes irritating that a large proportion of the world seems to act as though copyright infringement is perfectly acceptable, and even defensible.

In that case, what would you call the illegal downloading of copyrighted material without payment to the copyright holder?

Because, simply put, I choose not to steal copyrighted material. I did in the past through ignorance, but not now. I'm not lecturing about artists being paid too much. I just honestly cannot understand how people can happily steal something and then justify it with such comments as 'everyone does it', or 'they charge too much'. Its interesting that people are so quick to attack me for not stealing. I have similar reactions when I try to explain that I don't watch television and so don't have a television license. Apparently both downloading and watching television are healthy, normal activities and someone who makes a choice not to do them should be attacked and ridiculed.

Depending on what you're planning to use the server for it can make a lot of difference. Make sure whatever software you want it running is supported before making a decision.

Simply put, you're not meant to. This is why there are various proposals around to stop this being illegal. In the US I believe that it is legal to rip music, so you can always take a quick holiday. At the time I ripped music, I wasn't aware it was illegal. This was back before I went to university. Nowadays the only music I have is bought through the Nokia download store, or free music from sites like Jamendo.

However, in comparison to downloading music you haven't paid for its relatively minor, so I do feel comfortable in saying that I haven't stolen music, software, video or similar.

I've ripped CDs to my own MP3, and that's it. I have never downloaded music that I haven't paid for, never downloaded a game or software which I didn't have the appropriate license for, and never downloaded a pirated eBook. So yes, I can actually take a moral stance here.

Shorthand, going the way of handwriting. Still probably one of the most useful skills I've picked up though, in any situation where I need to take notes or write something for only my own use.

Same here, though my current favourite is the N85. I've got no need for a smartphone, but the FM transmitter, decent camera and the N-Gage games keep me happy.

I reckon with a bit of OCR training something like the digiscribble could be taught to pick up Teeline and convert it to the normal alphabet, from there it'd be relatively simple to turn it into genuine text.

One of these maybe - Amazon.co.uk: Secretarial & Office Skills - Reference & Education: Books? Combined with one of these - EmpTech: Product Details: Digiscribble

The radio pays in order to play songs. Word of mouth leads to people buying albums in order to listen to songs. Someone downloading your product, regardless of what it is, illegally and free in no way profits you. I've heard all sorts of excuses, ranging from 'well its only the fat cats at the top who make any money from it really, so I'm standing up for the artist' to 'I wouldn't be able to afford to listen to music if I didn't steal it, so they're not losing any money because of me'. Self-justifications, all of them. I still don't understand when theft became acceptable, and how people can feel justified in defending it.

Makes you wonder what facebook is worth - given that they think they may actually make some money next year. I suppose it could be the value of the personal data they've gathered from users (mobile numbers for one) should they decide to sell it?

Welcome to Woking. I used to live there. I left when I got fed up of your average flat rental running to about £800 a month.

You've seen those fantasy films or war films with a wave of darkness sweeping over the world, swallowing all in its path and plunging it into evil? Most people would say its pretty similar. Its an initiative intended to improve schools and school buildings, but part of that is managed IT services which is where the objections come in.

Does the laptop have a touchpad or nipple mouse? If so, try disabling that.

Is it completing the sync? It may be that its downloading them all, but then failing when trying to mark all e-mails as downloaded. Just a thought. No idea how to fix it if that is the case though.

When I was your age, television was called books. A free point to anyone who can recognise the quote.