1. You have, I hope, noticed how radios always cut off part of the song at the beginning or the end? This is precisely to make it less attractive for people to simply record songs off the air.
2. Radio stations either pay huge royalties (IIRC from what someone in the business told me, this can be several thousand US$ per track - please note, this was from at least 10-20 years ago, and I would imagine licensing costs have gone up since) OR they play exactly the tracks the labels want them to play, and nothing more, thereby serving as advertising for the "latest and greatest" works the labels want to promote.
the burden is on him to say "yes, but this guy infringed first, so he's the one who's really responsible."
And again (as I posted elsewhere) it's clear in the brief that Nesson is assuming this is already a known fact, but you raise a good point - perhaps this is an assumption he should not be making, and is the weak point in his arguments so far?
No, because Tenenbaum never presented any evidence that he wasn't the initial seeder.
I would think that would be assumed, as all the infringement took place solely on Kazaa. It's also clear from the brief that Nesson is assuming this to be a known fact as well. Else, he wouldn't be bothering to distinguish Tenenbaum's actions from that of the original seeder.
Nonetheless, the statute doesn't make that distinction: it doesn't matter if you're the first person or the hundredth to infringe, you're still infringing. And that's correct, or it would create a loophole where person A could infringe by making one copy for person B, who is outside of the US and outside of the jurisdiction of US courts, and could then freely distribute the work.
Yes, you're guilty of infringement, but that is entirely different from being guilty of mass distribution. And perhaps that loophole scenario demonstrates precisely WHY the statute should make that distinction. Person A as the original seeder clearly needs to be held responsible for all the distributions of person B, whom they can't even target.
Is it really necessary to repost the exact same thing? It's not really any more applicable to Tenenbaum than it was before.
Again, taking what you said at face value, it applies ONLY to the original seeder. Once it's available for free on any given distribution network, it's available, and any number of additional distributors on the same network has no effect on the value you discus. Ergo, none of it is applicable to Tenenbaum, as he only redistributed what was already available for free.
You keep arguing that it's not just the original distributor (or seeder) that should be held responsible [for massive damages and faced with statutory damages], but then you say that as soon as it's available for free, the value goes down dramatically due to the loss of exclusive distribution rights, and that this is where the real damages occur. So which is it? It can be both, they are mutually exclusive.
But that logic only supports Nesson's assertion that only the original seeder is truly responsible for distribution damages. So we're right back where we started - anything you share that you downloaded for free does zero damages beyond the copy you downloaded and each copy you upload. And Tenenbaum's "distribution" again, means nothing.
And by the way, they don't allow flash photography in museums, because all the UV from the flashes destroys the pigment in the paints. It really isn't a neutral activity.
Which rule I am sure said hypothetical looters will carefully obey.
Seriously, did you even *think* before you posted that? Probably not, looking at the cumulative quality (or rather lack thereof) of your posts.
1. In this case, the "stones" are the equivalent of tiny pebbles tossed by toddlers, if you're talking about the damage done.
2. The victim didn't, can't, and won't die from these "stones".
However, let's pretend for a second that your analogy was a good one. In that case, the original "seeder" represents a guy who went around and gathered up people to throw stones, and then passed out EVERY stone thrown. Now, who do you think should bear the most responsibility and face the most damage?
No, you entirely missed the point. The point is that the only multiplayer servers are hosted by the publisher (EA) and now, a mere THREE years after release they have axed them all. It doesn't matter how many players the game might have, because the servers don't exist.
MMOs can get away with not allowing legit private servers because they have a monthly subscription, and the kind of content that warrants said subscription. The ones that don't, fail. Usually within the first year.
You would be right, if they could or even wanted to distinguish between those who pirate and those who simply don't buy. They can't, and they don't give a shit. If you're a gamer of any kind and you didn't buy their game, you're a pirate, end of story. How else do you think they come up with ridiculous figures like 85%?
Formally correct software does not fail in the sense that it 'suddenly' stops working. If it has a 'bug', then the 'bug' has always been there. That's what I mean with failing, because the parent of my post made an analogy between bridges and computer programs. And hardware failure is not software failure. Bridges fail due to forces outside of your control, but well-formed computer programs do not. Changes to the platform or hardware would mean a new specification is needed, which means redesign. If the platform and hardware is static, it is possible to make a perfect computer program, but it is far from feasible. There is always time and budget constraints, (I acknowledge that, I'm not stupid) but that doesn't change that software which is shipped with flaws is per definition, unfinished, or is based on a flawed specification.
I understand what you're getting at, but that's only true in the real world when the software is installed and used in such a way that it can never be altered by other software, or even faulty hardware. (A console video game is a good example of such software, and that is also why console video games in general have far less problems than PC games and software.) And that is precisely what makes it impossible to code "invincible" software, which is what all the irate people responding to you are getting at.
Right, because a bogus petition has everything to do with whether or not their evidence is accurate.
You're also welcome to take the source that deletes evidence, twists data, and withholds peer reviews that disagree with them. But for me, that's where I say... No, thanks.
Prove to me human produced CO2 can't affect weather the way naturally occurring CO2 does?
Neither affects the weather. Increases in CO2 generally follow increases in global temperature. Increased sun activity is what causes global temperature increases, not greenhouse gases.
Yo dawg, we put a biker video game about a biker playing a video game in a video game on your bike so you can game while you game and bike while you bike!
My mom had Graves as well. They completely killed her thyroid. And you know what? She's in better physical shape than I am. Since that's happened to her, she's been at most 30 pounds overweight, before she decides she wants to get it back where it needs to be. Right now, she's maybe 5 over her minimum healthy weight.
End result - your weight is ALWAYS a choice. You can blame it on medical problems, genetics, or anything else you want. But in the end, it still boils down to a personal lack of discipline.
And how exactly do you propose airlines make up the money they'd lose by making seats larger, and thereby reducing the number of passengers they can book and carry per flight? Many airlines are already barely making a profit, and some are taking significant losses.
We as consumers (myself included) have spoken with our wallets, and what we have told them is that we will nearly always take the cheapest ticket we can find, based on price alone. Sometimes even if we have to drive an hour or two further to get to a different airport to save only a hundred bucks.
So genius, let's see your brilliant idea for how to make everyone happy and comfortable without going bankrupt in today's market.
The other problem with BMI is that it assumes everyone has the exact same bone density and skeletal proportions.
At what I know to be my ideal weight, my BMI still comes up as 29 - all but "obese". I'm not sure I could get to a "healthy" weight without killing myself first.
I'd have to say you have no clue what 235 looks like. From the pictures, he's much closer to 335. I know all too well what 235 looks like. I've weighed that and more. I'm 5'6" btw. And I've *never* had a problem fitting in one seat.
So how come the one choice is contemptible and subhuman, and all the other choices are fine?
1. You don't get obese overnight. Usually not even in one year. It's generally possible to realize it's happening and put a stop to it before it gets out of control.
2. Becoming crippled is not a natural, expected result of playing football or driving in a race. Sure, everyone knows it's possible. It's also possible to become crippled while crossing the street or driving to work. It's what's known as an "accident". Perhaps you've heard the term? On the other hand, continued gross overeating when you're already overweight IS expected to result in obesity.
And I say this as someone who has a chronic problem keeping weight in check. I've never let it get so severe as to require two seats, but I know it could if I let it. Yes, some people have a harder time keeping a reasonable weight than others. (Yes, it's possibly even genetic.) But it's still possible to do it.
Which is all well and good if you have the money or influence to get a good lawyer on your case for you. Some of these bloggers may actually have the influence, if not the money. But how many of them don't? And how many other wrongful DMCA notices and take-downs occur each year that go unpunished?
To which I responded about the need to stress test your entire setup to verify that it works. In point of fact, I'd still recommend that option to the person who asked the question in the first place because ultimately that's what's going to tell them where they need to investigate.
And nobody's saying that's not ultimately what you want to test. But in this particular scenario that is clearly not the best test to start with, because we don't know much about the capabilities of the current UPS systems. And your next post about "what if the power goes down on wednesday" further emphasizes the fact that you're missing this. You don't test a system's capability to withstand a certain disaster by causing that very disaster when you have no real clue what its current capabilities are - particularly not "right now", just because the disaster "might happen on wednesday". It's like testing your building's fire resistance by setting it on fire, when you have no clue as to what it's capabilities might be at the moment. (And no, that analogy isn't as absurd as you'd think at first. Think about it.)
Plan a full-scale power-down test while nothing mission critical is happening and investigate and document the failures and come up with a comprehensive plan to attack the situation.
That's the only proper course of action when you're as unsure of your system's current capabilities as the original asker-of-the-question seems to be. If you're really concerned, you test the most important parts as best you can in the meantime, without causing the very thing you're trying to prevent.
But simply killing the power this very minute (which is what you've been arguing in favor of, whether you realized it or not) is, as I said, foolish at best, and potentially disastrous beyond belief.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things:
1. You have, I hope, noticed how radios always cut off part of the song at the beginning or the end? This is precisely to make it less attractive for people to simply record songs off the air.
2. Radio stations either pay huge royalties (IIRC from what someone in the business told me, this can be several thousand US$ per track - please note, this was from at least 10-20 years ago, and I would imagine licensing costs have gone up since) OR they play exactly the tracks the labels want them to play, and nothing more, thereby serving as advertising for the "latest and greatest" works the labels want to promote.
the burden is on him to say "yes, but this guy infringed first, so he's the one who's really responsible."
And again (as I posted elsewhere) it's clear in the brief that Nesson is assuming this is already a known fact, but you raise a good point - perhaps this is an assumption he should not be making, and is the weak point in his arguments so far?
No, because Tenenbaum never presented any evidence that he wasn't the initial seeder.
I would think that would be assumed, as all the infringement took place solely on Kazaa. It's also clear from the brief that Nesson is assuming this to be a known fact as well. Else, he wouldn't be bothering to distinguish Tenenbaum's actions from that of the original seeder.
Nonetheless, the statute doesn't make that distinction: it doesn't matter if you're the first person or the hundredth to infringe, you're still infringing. And that's correct, or it would create a loophole where person A could infringe by making one copy for person B, who is outside of the US and outside of the jurisdiction of US courts, and could then freely distribute the work.
Yes, you're guilty of infringement, but that is entirely different from being guilty of mass distribution. And perhaps that loophole scenario demonstrates precisely WHY the statute should make that distinction. Person A as the original seeder clearly needs to be held responsible for all the distributions of person B, whom they can't even target.
Is it really necessary to repost the exact same thing? It's not really any more applicable to Tenenbaum than it was before.
Again, taking what you said at face value, it applies ONLY to the original seeder. Once it's available for free on any given distribution network, it's available, and any number of additional distributors on the same network has no effect on the value you discus. Ergo, none of it is applicable to Tenenbaum, as he only redistributed what was already available for free.
You keep arguing that it's not just the original distributor (or seeder) that should be held responsible [for massive damages and faced with statutory damages], but then you say that as soon as it's available for free, the value goes down dramatically due to the loss of exclusive distribution rights, and that this is where the real damages occur. So which is it? It can be both, they are mutually exclusive.
But that logic only supports Nesson's assertion that only the original seeder is truly responsible for distribution damages. So we're right back where we started - anything you share that you downloaded for free does zero damages beyond the copy you downloaded and each copy you upload. And Tenenbaum's "distribution" again, means nothing.
Edit:
Oh, I see where you're going with that. Sorry, that doesn't hold any water. One flash photo won't do it any noticeable damage. Please try again.
And by the way, they don't allow flash photography in museums, because all the UV from the flashes destroys the pigment in the paints. It really isn't a neutral activity.
Which rule I am sure said hypothetical looters will carefully obey.
Seriously, did you even *think* before you posted that? Probably not, looking at the cumulative quality (or rather lack thereof) of your posts.
Taking your analogy...
1. In this case, the "stones" are the equivalent of tiny pebbles tossed by toddlers, if you're talking about the damage done.
2. The victim didn't, can't, and won't die from these "stones".
However, let's pretend for a second that your analogy was a good one. In that case, the original "seeder" represents a guy who went around and gathered up people to throw stones, and then passed out EVERY stone thrown. Now, who do you think should bear the most responsibility and face the most damage?
No, you entirely missed the point. The point is that the only multiplayer servers are hosted by the publisher (EA) and now, a mere THREE years after release they have axed them all. It doesn't matter how many players the game might have, because the servers don't exist.
MMOs can get away with not allowing legit private servers because they have a monthly subscription, and the kind of content that warrants said subscription. The ones that don't, fail. Usually within the first year.
You would be right, if they could or even wanted to distinguish between those who pirate and those who simply don't buy. They can't, and they don't give a shit. If you're a gamer of any kind and you didn't buy their game, you're a pirate, end of story. How else do you think they come up with ridiculous figures like 85%?
Formally correct software does not fail in the sense that it 'suddenly' stops working. If it has a 'bug', then the 'bug' has always been there. That's what I mean with failing, because the parent of my post made an analogy between bridges and computer programs. And hardware failure is not software failure. Bridges fail due to forces outside of your control, but well-formed computer programs do not. Changes to the platform or hardware would mean a new specification is needed, which means redesign. If the platform and hardware is static, it is possible to make a perfect computer program, but it is far from feasible. There is always time and budget constraints, (I acknowledge that, I'm not stupid) but that doesn't change that software which is shipped with flaws is per definition, unfinished, or is based on a flawed specification.
I understand what you're getting at, but that's only true in the real world when the software is installed and used in such a way that it can never be altered by other software, or even faulty hardware. (A console video game is a good example of such software, and that is also why console video games in general have far less problems than PC games and software.) And that is precisely what makes it impossible to code "invincible" software, which is what all the irate people responding to you are getting at.
Right, because a bogus petition has everything to do with whether or not their evidence is accurate.
You're also welcome to take the source that deletes evidence, twists data, and withholds peer reviews that disagree with them. But for me, that's where I say... No, thanks.
Prove to me human produced CO2 can't affect weather the way naturally occurring CO2 does?
Neither affects the weather. Increases in CO2 generally follow increases in global temperature. Increased sun activity is what causes global temperature increases, not greenhouse gases.
Here's one page to get you started: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Quick! To my parents' minivan!
Yo dawg, we put a biker video game about a biker playing a video game in a video game on your bike so you can game while you game and bike while you bike!
Cool anecdote. Guess what - I've got one too.
My mom had Graves as well. They completely killed her thyroid. And you know what? She's in better physical shape than I am. Since that's happened to her, she's been at most 30 pounds overweight, before she decides she wants to get it back where it needs to be. Right now, she's maybe 5 over her minimum healthy weight.
End result - your weight is ALWAYS a choice. You can blame it on medical problems, genetics, or anything else you want. But in the end, it still boils down to a personal lack of discipline.
And how exactly do you propose airlines make up the money they'd lose by making seats larger, and thereby reducing the number of passengers they can book and carry per flight? Many airlines are already barely making a profit, and some are taking significant losses.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aQSs9CGd9Auc&pid=20601087
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/2009-u-s-airline-profitloss-results-%E2%80%94-airtran-earns-and-aa-loses-the-most/
We as consumers (myself included) have spoken with our wallets, and what we have told them is that we will nearly always take the cheapest ticket we can find, based on price alone. Sometimes even if we have to drive an hour or two further to get to a different airport to save only a hundred bucks.
So genius, let's see your brilliant idea for how to make everyone happy and comfortable without going bankrupt in today's market.
Exercise has a lot to do with keeping fit, but not so much with maintaining weight. How much you eat has a LOT more to do with that.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/exercise-still-doesnt-work
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/
And there's plenty more you can find with a quick google search, as I just did.
The other problem with BMI is that it assumes everyone has the exact same bone density and skeletal proportions.
At what I know to be my ideal weight, my BMI still comes up as 29 - all but "obese". I'm not sure I could get to a "healthy" weight without killing myself first.
I'd have to say you have no clue what 235 looks like. From the pictures, he's much closer to 335. I know all too well what 235 looks like. I've weighed that and more. I'm 5'6" btw. And I've *never* had a problem fitting in one seat.
So how come the one choice is contemptible and subhuman, and all the other choices are fine?
1. You don't get obese overnight. Usually not even in one year. It's generally possible to realize it's happening and put a stop to it before it gets out of control.
2. Becoming crippled is not a natural, expected result of playing football or driving in a race. Sure, everyone knows it's possible. It's also possible to become crippled while crossing the street or driving to work. It's what's known as an "accident". Perhaps you've heard the term? On the other hand, continued gross overeating when you're already overweight IS expected to result in obesity.
And I say this as someone who has a chronic problem keeping weight in check. I've never let it get so severe as to require two seats, but I know it could if I let it. Yes, some people have a harder time keeping a reasonable weight than others. (Yes, it's possibly even genetic.) But it's still possible to do it.
and the air of someone who might actually pay for the reasonably difficult to perform professional services you receive
Which is all well and good if you have the money or influence to get a good lawyer on your case for you.
I've heard reading comprehension helps. Just sayin'.
Which is all well and good if you have the money or influence to get a good lawyer on your case for you. Some of these bloggers may actually have the influence, if not the money. But how many of them don't? And how many other wrongful DMCA notices and take-downs occur each year that go unpunished?
This.
Pay for ALL the seat space you're using, or GTFO.
Simple as that.
To which I responded about the need to stress test your entire setup to verify that it works. In point of fact, I'd still recommend that option to the person who asked the question in the first place because ultimately that's what's going to tell them where they need to investigate.
And nobody's saying that's not ultimately what you want to test. But in this particular scenario that is clearly not the best test to start with, because we don't know much about the capabilities of the current UPS systems. And your next post about "what if the power goes down on wednesday" further emphasizes the fact that you're missing this. You don't test a system's capability to withstand a certain disaster by causing that very disaster when you have no real clue what its current capabilities are - particularly not "right now", just because the disaster "might happen on wednesday". It's like testing your building's fire resistance by setting it on fire, when you have no clue as to what it's capabilities might be at the moment. (And no, that analogy isn't as absurd as you'd think at first. Think about it.)
Plan a full-scale power-down test while nothing mission critical is happening and investigate and document the failures and come up with a comprehensive plan to attack the situation.
That's the only proper course of action when you're as unsure of your system's current capabilities as the original asker-of-the-question seems to be. If you're really concerned, you test the most important parts as best you can in the meantime, without causing the very thing you're trying to prevent.
But simply killing the power this very minute (which is what you've been arguing in favor of, whether you realized it or not) is, as I said, foolish at best, and potentially disastrous beyond belief.