The real question is "Did he violate the law as stated?" as there are laws other than Tennessee's at stake here.
Of course there are. There's always another law somewhere. (If there weren't so many laws and the system so convoluted, we wouldn't need lawyers now would we?) But that's not really part of this survey and discussion. What makes this particular survey of any interest at all is that it focuses on one particular law, and the respondents are giving their perspective on whether or not that particular law makes this illegal. It perfectly demonstrates what is known as "the tyranny of the majority". In this particular instance, the majority are wrong in a pretty clear-cut case. This also demonstrates the weakness in the "jury of your peers" system. Most people simply don't have the logic and rational capacity to be truly capable of being on a jury. It also sheds some light on a host of other problems with our judicial system, not the least of which is the fact that usually the side with the most money wins.
People who are 'good at math' are more likely to analyze the law exactly as written and determine logically whether or not he actually violated the law as written. People who are good at math are far more likely to see answers as absolute - either it's absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect.
Most people just look at the first question, which is "Is what he did sick and disgusting, and probably immoral and/or unethical?" To which the answer of course, is an obvious 'yes'. Math people ignore that, because that's not really relevant when it comes to law. The real question is "Did he violate the law as written?" And the answer to that in this case is a pretty clear 'no'.
And what if behind the curve you take blind at 30 mph there is a stopped truck for whatever reason?
Then it is the truck driver's responsibility to post flares, triangles, whatever is needed so that drivers driving the speed limit have sufficient warning to stop before hitting him.
Never drive so fast that you cannot stop in the amount of road you can see.
Never ride your bike in a place where a driver driving the speed limit will be unable to see you in time to avoid hitting you.
Like the motorcyclist that decided he needed to make a left turn right in front of me yesterday? I was in the left turn lane, my left turn arrow on the traffic light turned green, and I was already out of the left-turn lane, partially into the intersection, when he decided he needed to make a left turn and cut over about 5-10 feet in front of me from the straight-ahead lane. I practically had to come to a complete stop to avoid him.
When it comes to being unsafe on the road with slow-moving vehicles though, the Amish win hands-down. Like the time I saw a buggy pull out right in front of a semi, so close that the semi had the choice of hitting them or taking the other lane on the 2-lane highway. Thankfully there was no traffic coming in the other lane, or the semi driver would have had to choose between killing an automobile driver or the people in the buggy. Then there was the time a dump truck had to force me off the road on a state highway while going around a curve after dark because two Amish girls were driving side by side on their bikes with no lights at all, taking up his whole lane.
I'm not sure how long it's been since you've been a teenager, but if I waved my magic wand and tomorrow copyrights were restored to their original (if I recall) 18-year term, I don't think you'd find many teenagers who were willing to live 18 years in the past in terms of their pop music enjoyment.
That's because 18 years is much too long for pop music. When copyright first came into being, the only creative work that was around to be copied and copyrighted was on paper, which at the time took months to print and years to distribute. Today you can have a music track available online to billions of people around the world mere seconds after it's recorded, if you wish. Given how quickly popular music is distributed and sold, today's pop music should probably be restricted to 1-2 years of copyright. If it hasn't made money in that time period it's because a.) it sucks, or b.) there's just too much supply, and no one found it. Either way, the creator or distributor has only himself to blame.
While you purcahsed 8 copies for your 8 computers, someone else purchased one and placed it on all 8 of theirs.
And now instead of buying one copy, they won't buy any at all.
You can still have 8 computers set up in your house to play through battle net if you so desire everyone playing in the same room.
Sure, if you have a fat enough pipe. Of course, then you still have to deal with lag issues, and you won't be able to play at all when the internet connection goes down. Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that it's way more convenient to just set up a LAN.
But hey, if blizzard doesn't want to sell to several million of their potential customers, that's their problem. If they don't want my money bad enough to make a good product, that's their loss not mine. There's plenty other good RTSes out there with good LAN support.
But that last fact is not related to the first two.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The whole point of copyright is to give the creator a limited time to make money off it. Not until death do us part, not for 50 years, not until it's no longer profitable, not until it's obsolete. In fact, for it to serve the intended purpose, the copyright on any particular item has to end while that item is still current, relevant, and profitable. People who want it for free are supposed to be able to get it for free while it's still useful, if they wait a few years. By far, most pirates would gladly wait a few years to get said material for free. The problem is that copyright is now so fubar that the works created in our lifetime will not be legally available for free in our lifetime.
The majority of today's "casual" pirates (the ones the RIAA goes after) are not malicious individuals. Most are relatively poor people who simply find ways to get as much as possible for their money. If something's available for free, they'll take it. The only individuals that could possibly be considered "malicious" in today's P2P environment are the ones that do the initial ripping and/or whatever other preparation is needed to make it available for download by others. Most will not see infringement as unethical despite how illegal it is, because the law itself is so obviously unethical you have to willfully ignore it to not realize it. Until copyright law is made just once again, don't expect today's downloading "pirates" to give a shit.
Then your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor. It doesn't matter if it's for profit or not. It doesn't matter what the intention was. All that matters is if you "performed" it in a public place, as defined by the law quoted.
Also, this discussion is not at all about how difficult it is to prove or not prove. It's about exactly what the law says. And what the law says in the case of copyright is ridiculous beyond belief.
When copyright is so messed up that a company is making $2 million per year on five minutes of work "composing" a 6-note tune ripped off from someone else, written by someone back in the 1890's who's been dead for over 60 years, with words written by no-one-knows-who, then it's no surprise that the public blatantly disregards it.
Go to some member of the RIAA, and negotiate with them to sell you the copyrights to the next song (insert your favorite artist) produces. It shouldn't cost you more than a few hundred dollars.
Apparently you missed this part in the same paragraph you're referencing.
...royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency...
Not only does it have to be on an HDTV, it has to be on a TV that's large enough to see the difference to actually be worth it. So unlike with DVDs, there's no advantage at all on convenient small portable devices.
Yet another step closer to "everything for a price" and another step away from the original vision of the game.
WoW is on its way out. Blizzard is just doing everything they can to get as many subs as possible for the last few months. There won't be another expansion for it. Next year this time, WoW will have less than 2 mil active subs.
The reason for this is basically two-fold:
1. Diablo 3 is going to have multiplayer through battle.net only (no lan support) and battle.net for it will be a fee-based service. Only Starcraft 2 users won't have to pay for it.
2. They've got a new MMO in the works. It'll probably hit beta sometime Q3 or Q4 of next year. Look for the first announcements Q1.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find that most people will consider what he did sick and disgusting even if it didn't involve minors at all.
The real question is "Did he violate the law as stated?" as there are laws other than Tennessee's at stake here.
Of course there are. There's always another law somewhere. (If there weren't so many laws and the system so convoluted, we wouldn't need lawyers now would we?) But that's not really part of this survey and discussion. What makes this particular survey of any interest at all is that it focuses on one particular law, and the respondents are giving their perspective on whether or not that particular law makes this illegal. It perfectly demonstrates what is known as "the tyranny of the majority". In this particular instance, the majority are wrong in a pretty clear-cut case. This also demonstrates the weakness in the "jury of your peers" system. Most people simply don't have the logic and rational capacity to be truly capable of being on a jury. It also sheds some light on a host of other problems with our judicial system, not the least of which is the fact that usually the side with the most money wins.
People who are 'good at math' are more likely to analyze the law exactly as written and determine logically whether or not he actually violated the law as written. People who are good at math are far more likely to see answers as absolute - either it's absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect.
Most people just look at the first question, which is "Is what he did sick and disgusting, and probably immoral and/or unethical?" To which the answer of course, is an obvious 'yes'. Math people ignore that, because that's not really relevant when it comes to law. The real question is "Did he violate the law as written?" And the answer to that in this case is a pretty clear 'no'.
Queue the trolls spewing bullshit about copyright being just fine as it is, blah blah blah.
And yes, I meant queue.
And what if behind the curve you take blind at 30 mph there is a stopped truck for whatever reason?
Then it is the truck driver's responsibility to post flares, triangles, whatever is needed so that drivers driving the speed limit have sufficient warning to stop before hitting him.
Never drive so fast that you cannot stop in the amount of road you can see.
Never ride your bike in a place where a driver driving the speed limit will be unable to see you in time to avoid hitting you.
Like the motorcyclist that decided he needed to make a left turn right in front of me yesterday? I was in the left turn lane, my left turn arrow on the traffic light turned green, and I was already out of the left-turn lane, partially into the intersection, when he decided he needed to make a left turn and cut over about 5-10 feet in front of me from the straight-ahead lane. I practically had to come to a complete stop to avoid him.
When it comes to being unsafe on the road with slow-moving vehicles though, the Amish win hands-down. Like the time I saw a buggy pull out right in front of a semi, so close that the semi had the choice of hitting them or taking the other lane on the 2-lane highway. Thankfully there was no traffic coming in the other lane, or the semi driver would have had to choose between killing an automobile driver or the people in the buggy. Then there was the time a dump truck had to force me off the road on a state highway while going around a curve after dark because two Amish girls were driving side by side on their bikes with no lights at all, taking up his whole lane.
I'm not sure how long it's been since you've been a teenager, but if I waved my magic wand and tomorrow copyrights were restored to their original (if I recall) 18-year term, I don't think you'd find many teenagers who were willing to live 18 years in the past in terms of their pop music enjoyment.
That's because 18 years is much too long for pop music. When copyright first came into being, the only creative work that was around to be copied and copyrighted was on paper, which at the time took months to print and years to distribute. Today you can have a music track available online to billions of people around the world mere seconds after it's recorded, if you wish. Given how quickly popular music is distributed and sold, today's pop music should probably be restricted to 1-2 years of copyright. If it hasn't made money in that time period it's because a.) it sucks, or b.) there's just too much supply, and no one found it. Either way, the creator or distributor has only himself to blame.
While you purcahsed 8 copies for your 8 computers, someone else purchased one and placed it on all 8 of theirs.
And now instead of buying one copy, they won't buy any at all.
You can still have 8 computers set up in your house to play through battle net if you so desire everyone playing in the same room.
Sure, if you have a fat enough pipe. Of course, then you still have to deal with lag issues, and you won't be able to play at all when the internet connection goes down. Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that it's way more convenient to just set up a LAN.
But hey, if blizzard doesn't want to sell to several million of their potential customers, that's their problem. If they don't want my money bad enough to make a good product, that's their loss not mine. There's plenty other good RTSes out there with good LAN support.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
But that last fact is not related to the first two.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The whole point of copyright is to give the creator a limited time to make money off it. Not until death do us part, not for 50 years, not until it's no longer profitable, not until it's obsolete. In fact, for it to serve the intended purpose, the copyright on any particular item has to end while that item is still current, relevant, and profitable. People who want it for free are supposed to be able to get it for free while it's still useful, if they wait a few years. By far, most pirates would gladly wait a few years to get said material for free. The problem is that copyright is now so fubar that the works created in our lifetime will not be legally available for free in our lifetime.
The majority of today's "casual" pirates (the ones the RIAA goes after) are not malicious individuals. Most are relatively poor people who simply find ways to get as much as possible for their money. If something's available for free, they'll take it. The only individuals that could possibly be considered "malicious" in today's P2P environment are the ones that do the initial ripping and/or whatever other preparation is needed to make it available for download by others. Most will not see infringement as unethical despite how illegal it is, because the law itself is so obviously unethical you have to willfully ignore it to not realize it. Until copyright law is made just once again, don't expect today's downloading "pirates" to give a shit.
I'm not your clod, buffoon!
The link to TFA works fine. It's the link to the video that's slashdotted.
But what does all this mean?
Then your reading comprehension is exceptionally poor. It doesn't matter if it's for profit or not. It doesn't matter what the intention was. All that matters is if you "performed" it in a public place, as defined by the law quoted.
Also, this discussion is not at all about how difficult it is to prove or not prove. It's about exactly what the law says. And what the law says in the case of copyright is ridiculous beyond belief.
Company Blizzard(TM) is looking to hire top prosthesis designer to replace left foot.
News at 10.
When copyright is so messed up that a company is making $2 million per year on five minutes of work "composing" a 6-note tune ripped off from someone else, written by someone back in the 1890's who's been dead for over 60 years, with words written by no-one-knows-who, then it's no surprise that the public blatantly disregards it.
Go to some member of the RIAA, and negotiate with them to sell you the copyrights to the next song (insert your favorite artist) produces. It shouldn't cost you more than a few hundred dollars.
FTFY.
Apparently you missed this part in the same paragraph you're referencing.
...royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency...
"Happy Birthday to you" brings in about $2 million in royalties annually
If anyone ever asks why current copyright needs to be changed, that is all the evidence that is needed.
Is that you Pinocchio?
Not only does it have to be on an HDTV, it has to be on a TV that's large enough to see the difference to actually be worth it. So unlike with DVDs, there's no advantage at all on convenient small portable devices.
Most pirates can't afford a large enough TV to tell the difference anyway.
But you know that $5 from the one sale to the guy who couldn't pirate it is worth it all.
Also did you you forget to post anonymously?
Smidge207 is a troll poster. I believe the real Smidge is Smidge204.
Support PETA today!
Yet another step closer to "everything for a price" and another step away from the original vision of the game.
WoW is on its way out. Blizzard is just doing everything they can to get as many subs as possible for the last few months. There won't be another expansion for it. Next year this time, WoW will have less than 2 mil active subs.
The reason for this is basically two-fold:
1. Diablo 3 is going to have multiplayer through battle.net only (no lan support) and battle.net for it will be a fee-based service. Only Starcraft 2 users won't have to pay for it.
2. They've got a new MMO in the works. It'll probably hit beta sometime Q3 or Q4 of next year. Look for the first announcements Q1.
You heard it here first.