It's amazing the lengths you'll go to to avoid admitting you are wrong. Yes, they used tricks to inflate the DAMAGES. But they would never have been able to win at all if downloading wasn't illegal. It's right there in what you quoted.
This left the jury with nothing to decide. She admitted she'd copied the songs, leaving only the question of damages Yes, it's one case. But that's all it takes to disprove your argument. That's how logic works. I could probably find more, but frankly the ball is in YOUR court at this point. You need to show somehow that this ruling was wrong by statute and that it will be/should be overturned. Not your opinion, but actual law.
I know it's embarrassing but it's much more embarrassing to keep clinging to something that's already been proven false. Downloading unauthorized copyrighted works is illegal. It's not just uploading that's illegal. The RIAA DID sue someone for downloading - and won. They won because it's illegal. Please just listen to reason, admit you're wrong and we'll just move along.
And I quote:
Have you noticed that the RIAA has sued an insanely huge number of people? Do you notice a common trait in these cases? Are they sued for DOWNloading (There's the hard word again!) copyrighted works? No... They're sued for UPloading copyrighted works... BMG Music v. Gonzalez, Cecilia Official Judgement Explanation Sued for downloading, not uploading music. Lost court case, via summary judgement.
I don't know how much clearer I can make it that you are wrong.
This is pointless. Other than being an ass, I don't see any point to your comments. You continue to fail to post any actual links to law, court cases or legal analysis that back up your wild hypotheses. Please enjoy your fantasy.
If you'd like to actually DISCUSS this instead of being an ass, please feel free to get back to me.
No, the RIAA is bringing civil suits, therefore the penalties are limited to civil statues. What people miss is that the point of these suits aren't to get money or to actually punish people. They usually just settle. The point is to be in the news and be talked about, spreading the idea that downloading music will get you put in jail. It's all PR. Also, as I pointed out in another post, if they did start pressing for criminal charges, especially against the typical target of some 15 year old girl, the political backlash could result in a major rethink of copyright law. They do NOT want that.
I think it's pretty obvious from the context of the discussion that everyone is talking about unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material. No one would actually try to convince you it's illegal to download Gulliver's Travels. It's a bit silly that some of the posters think they are being clever pointing this out. Please don't make us have to type out "unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material" every single time.
I wish there was a moderation option for "-1 Pompous Ass."
Anyway, do you have any backup for your little rant? Like actual cites of actual statues? Something where it says downloading is fine but uploading is not?
So far all I can see in your post is armchair lawyering. Well, here's some armchair lawyering for you, then. I borrow my friends movie collections and make copies of them. I rent from blockbuster and copy all the movies I rented. I buy some software, copy it, then resell it. By your definitions, all these things are perfectly legal.
Saying copyright only affects those making the original copies and not those making copies of copies (that's what downloading is), is just ignorant. It is true that whether an infringement was "willful" comes into play, but if someone gives you an obviously non-original cd of a known artist, good luck in court.
As for the RIAA only going for civil suits, that's a no-brainer. Civil suits are much more easily won or, even better, settled. The burden of proof is much lower. This is important in cases where it can be difficult to prove the facts of the case. The whole point of these suits is not to make money. They're getting chump change. The point is to scare people, thus trying to reduce the amount of pirating. Also, if they really started pressing for putting 15 year old girls in jail for downloading music, the political backlash might actually get copyright gutted. While it's arguable how effective all this is, it does fully explain why they go for civil suits and not criminal.
Much like you, I can't believe your statement got such high moderation points.
First off, just because something is a matter for civil courts does not mean it's not illegal. Civil court cases are still based on laws and statues. Illegal means "forbidden by law or statute." Also, you used the term "civil crime", which actually is a contradiction in terms. If something is a matter of civil court, it's not a "crime."
Go back and research it yourself. Measuring of literacy rates from that era is specious enough to be thrown out completely. One popular method is looking at how many people signed their name versus putting an X. It's very shaky ground, indeed. Not to mention that often when you find articles like on Wikipedia, they'll mishmash measurements that are sometimes based solely on white adult males. And if that wasn't enough, do you actually KNOW what the literacy rate is supposed to be in the US now, under our supposedly horrible education system? 99%. Yes, 99%. That's as of 2003. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
But all of that is really beside the point. While literacy rates in the colonies may possibly have been as high as some of the sketchy measurements suggest, it doesn't tell you much beyond whether a person could read or write. You go on to say Once you have a good number of these treatises, essays and debates, I want you to ponder whether the son of some (average) working class family today would even be able to read these at all, much less properly analyze, criticize or "think at that level". But you haven't shown whether the some of some (average) working class family of colonial times could have read, analyzed, criticized or "thought at that level." You're just basing it on what you FEEL was the situation back then.
I think beyond saying that there definitely were people in the working class back then and today that would be able to do all those things, beyond that you are extrapolating wildly. You may say the same of my original post and that would be a fair criticism.
But I still stand by my statement about the modern accessibility of a good education, one beyond just literacy an basic math and teaching historical context and fostering critical thinking. And that accessibility extends not just to white males, but to those of all races and of both genders. It's still hard to work your way up from the bottom economic rung of society, but it's MUCH more likely today than at any other point in the history of the planet.
While I agree with most of your posts, I have to question the education aspect. First off, I think if you look at the educational system in place pre-revolution, you have to admit it's a bit lacking. Especially for the "workers" you talked about. I think it's much more likely today that some son of a working class family will get an education that allows them to think on the level of the revolutionary thinkers. I think in revolutionary times, the lack of education more likely allowed the "thinkers" to be able to control and direct the population towards rebellion. Second, it was the wealthy that actually got any kind of good education in revolutionary times. The wealthy can still get such an education. Things haven't really changed that much in those terms.
I'm not sure how rights that are about physical objects apply to data. A very basic assumption in them is that it's a zero-sum game. One person sells the object, the other receives it. With copyright, it's not really like that. Copyrights really should have their own very basic set of rules that are based on their attributes, not those of physical objects.
That's a pretty bad comparison. Skates are equipment, as are running shoes. All participants are free to use whatever equipment is allowed. It's an inescapable fact of Olympics. Otherwise they'd have to go back to the original Olympic regulations.
This prosthetics, on the other hand, are not simply equipment. They are replacements for his legs. Other participants cannot choose the same equipment without mutilating themselves.
Also, it can be approached from the standpoint of how the prosthetics would change the event. Bicycles would not be allowed in a running competition. Neither would jetpacks. It would fundamentally change the event.
Though it is likely that there is a competition involving jetpacks and bicycles on ESPN3 right now.
A VERY long time, that's how long. They will keep producing DVDs as long as their is a large amount of consumer demand. LaserDisc was never anything other than a marginal format.
A better comparison is VHS = DVD, LaserDisc = HDDVD/BluRay. Notice how when they started making LDs, they didn't stop selling VHS?
Well, it's not just a matter of it being on film or not. Many times special effects and sets are built to be believable on a TV screen. Even worse in this case, a TV screen from a few decades ago. You may get such a nice, crisp picture you can see all the strings on the puppet.
Except that it works fine except in (apparently) defectively manufactured units. So clearly, it is not a defect. Just because it's not the way you would design it doesn't mean it's broken.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy some homemade premium ice cream made by an ice cream maker with a motor on the bottom.
As someone who used to be assigned to doing the cranking, I have to say nostalgia tends to inflate how good something used to be. I think the old-fashioned hand cranked ice cream was good when you grew up in a world without access to pints of premium ice cream at 3am. But even in this brave new world, the ice cream I've made with the frozen canister machine is some of the best I've had. Especially when I get to put exactly what I want in it and never have to worry about some ice cream maker discontinuing my favorite selections. I'll take the new-fangled device any day.
Have you considered that the one you tried was simply a defective unit or an inferior product? Alton Brown lives near Atlanta, AKA "Hot-lanta." Also, I've used my cuisinart one in an un-air conditioned apartment in the heat of summer. Worked like a charm.
When I was younger, we made it at home from real milk, sugar and a bit of flavoring agent in a hand-turned ice-cream maker and it was yuumm. Very different from the goo they sell today Just curious, but have you ever tried making it at home NOW? These days they have some pretty spiffy ice cream makers in the $40 range. Here's the one I have: http://www.cuisinart.com/catalog/product.php?product_id=45&item_id=82&cat_id=10
It has a sealed bucket filled with some goo with an incredibly low freezing point. You just leave it in the freezer and pull it out when you are ready for ice cream. Put the bucket on the machine and plug it in. You mix up your incredients, which are typically real milk/cream, sugar and a bit of flavoring and dump it in the bucket. Then you turn the machine on. Thirty minutes later, you have ice cream that is already cold enough to eat. MUCH more solid than a lot of the old hand-cranked ones. Stick what you don't eat immediately in a tupperware container in the freezer and finish it at your leisure. Clean up is, as they say, "a breeze."
Alton Brown did a couple of Good Eats episodes on making ice cream this way. The second one is dedicated to making "premium" style ice cream at home.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's embarrassing but it's much more embarrassing to keep clinging to something that's already been proven false. Downloading unauthorized copyrighted works is illegal. It's not just uploading that's illegal. The RIAA DID sue someone for downloading - and won. They won because it's illegal. Please just listen to reason, admit you're wrong and we'll just move along.
Official Judgement
Explanation
Sued for downloading, not uploading music.
Lost court case, via summary judgement.
I don't know how much clearer I can make it that you are wrong.
This is pointless. Other than being an ass, I don't see any point to your comments. You continue to fail to post any actual links to law, court cases or legal analysis that back up your wild hypotheses. Please enjoy your fantasy.
If you'd like to actually DISCUSS this instead of being an ass, please feel free to get back to me.
No, the RIAA is bringing civil suits, therefore the penalties are limited to civil statues. What people miss is that the point of these suits aren't to get money or to actually punish people. They usually just settle. The point is to be in the news and be talked about, spreading the idea that downloading music will get you put in jail. It's all PR. Also, as I pointed out in another post, if they did start pressing for criminal charges, especially against the typical target of some 15 year old girl, the political backlash could result in a major rethink of copyright law. They do NOT want that.
I think it's pretty obvious from the context of the discussion that everyone is talking about unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material. No one would actually try to convince you it's illegal to download Gulliver's Travels. It's a bit silly that some of the posters think they are being clever pointing this out. Please don't make us have to type out "unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material" every single time.
I wish there was a moderation option for "-1 Pompous Ass."
Anyway, do you have any backup for your little rant? Like actual cites of actual statues? Something where it says downloading is fine but uploading is not?
So far all I can see in your post is armchair lawyering. Well, here's some armchair lawyering for you, then. I borrow my friends movie collections and make copies of them. I rent from blockbuster and copy all the movies I rented. I buy some software, copy it, then resell it. By your definitions, all these things are perfectly legal.
Saying copyright only affects those making the original copies and not those making copies of copies (that's what downloading is), is just ignorant. It is true that whether an infringement was "willful" comes into play, but if someone gives you an obviously non-original cd of a known artist, good luck in court.
As for the RIAA only going for civil suits, that's a no-brainer. Civil suits are much more easily won or, even better, settled. The burden of proof is much lower. This is important in cases where it can be difficult to prove the facts of the case. The whole point of these suits is not to make money. They're getting chump change. The point is to scare people, thus trying to reduce the amount of pirating. Also, if they really started pressing for putting 15 year old girls in jail for downloading music, the political backlash might actually get copyright gutted. While it's arguable how effective all this is, it does fully explain why they go for civil suits and not criminal.
Much like you, I can't believe your statement got such high moderation points.
First off, just because something is a matter for civil courts does not mean it's not illegal. Civil court cases are still based on laws and statues. Illegal means "forbidden by law or statute." Also, you used the term "civil crime", which actually is a contradiction in terms. If something is a matter of civil court, it's not a "crime."
But it's kind of a moot point. As you didn't specify the country you are in, I'm going to have to assume the US. Here's a post explaining why downloading copyrighted material IS a criminal offense in the US:
http://innovationlost.org/free-the-lyrics/2006/04/23/copyright-infringement-is-a-criminal-offense/
And while it varies from country to country, in some of those countries it is also a criminal offense.
Go back and research it yourself. Measuring of literacy rates from that era is specious enough to be thrown out completely. One popular method is looking at how many people signed their name versus putting an X. It's very shaky ground, indeed. Not to mention that often when you find articles like on Wikipedia, they'll mishmash measurements that are sometimes based solely on white adult males. And if that wasn't enough, do you actually KNOW what the literacy rate is supposed to be in the US now, under our supposedly horrible education system? 99%. Yes, 99%. That's as of 2003.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
But all of that is really beside the point. While literacy rates in the colonies may possibly have been as high as some of the sketchy measurements suggest, it doesn't tell you much beyond whether a person could read or write. You go on to say Once you have a good number of these treatises, essays and debates, I want you to ponder whether the son of some (average) working class family today would even be able to read these at all, much less properly analyze, criticize or "think at that level". But you haven't shown whether the some of some (average) working class family of colonial times could have read, analyzed, criticized or "thought at that level." You're just basing it on what you FEEL was the situation back then.
I think beyond saying that there definitely were people in the working class back then and today that would be able to do all those things, beyond that you are extrapolating wildly. You may say the same of my original post and that would be a fair criticism.
But I still stand by my statement about the modern accessibility of a good education, one beyond just literacy an basic math and teaching historical context and fostering critical thinking. And that accessibility extends not just to white males, but to those of all races and of both genders. It's still hard to work your way up from the bottom economic rung of society, but it's MUCH more likely today than at any other point in the history of the planet.
While I agree with most of your posts, I have to question the education aspect. First off, I think if you look at the educational system in place pre-revolution, you have to admit it's a bit lacking. Especially for the "workers" you talked about. I think it's much more likely today that some son of a working class family will get an education that allows them to think on the level of the revolutionary thinkers. I think in revolutionary times, the lack of education more likely allowed the "thinkers" to be able to control and direct the population towards rebellion. Second, it was the wealthy that actually got any kind of good education in revolutionary times. The wealthy can still get such an education. Things haven't really changed that much in those terms.
I'm not sure how rights that are about physical objects apply to data. A very basic assumption in them is that it's a zero-sum game. One person sells the object, the other receives it. With copyright, it's not really like that. Copyrights really should have their own very basic set of rules that are based on their attributes, not those of physical objects.
Please do not feed the troll.
First event: 300 lb Salad Toss
That's a pretty bad comparison. Skates are equipment, as are running shoes. All participants are free to use whatever equipment is allowed. It's an inescapable fact of Olympics. Otherwise they'd have to go back to the original Olympic regulations.
This prosthetics, on the other hand, are not simply equipment. They are replacements for his legs. Other participants cannot choose the same equipment without mutilating themselves.
Also, it can be approached from the standpoint of how the prosthetics would change the event. Bicycles would not be allowed in a running competition. Neither would jetpacks. It would fundamentally change the event.
Though it is likely that there is a competition involving jetpacks and bicycles on ESPN3 right now.
A VERY long time, that's how long. They will keep producing DVDs as long as their is a large amount of consumer demand. LaserDisc was never anything other than a marginal format.
A better comparison is VHS = DVD, LaserDisc = HDDVD/BluRay. Notice how when they started making LDs, they didn't stop selling VHS?
I was actually thinking more of the sets, costumes and puppets. I always noticed the cheesiness in those more than the space scenes.
Well, it's not just a matter of it being on film or not. Many times special effects and sets are built to be believable on a TV screen. Even worse in this case, a TV screen from a few decades ago. You may get such a nice, crisp picture you can see all the strings on the puppet.
But that's just the OP's point. It's NOT just on BRD. It's on DVD.
Cue MarioKart delay in 5, 4, 3...
Except that it works fine except in (apparently) defectively manufactured units. So clearly, it is not a defect. Just because it's not the way you would design it doesn't mean it's broken.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy some homemade premium ice cream made by an ice cream maker with a motor on the bottom.
As someone who used to be assigned to doing the cranking, I have to say nostalgia tends to inflate how good something used to be. I think the old-fashioned hand cranked ice cream was good when you grew up in a world without access to pints of premium ice cream at 3am. But even in this brave new world, the ice cream I've made with the frozen canister machine is some of the best I've had. Especially when I get to put exactly what I want in it and never have to worry about some ice cream maker discontinuing my favorite selections. I'll take the new-fangled device any day.
Have you considered that the one you tried was simply a defective unit or an inferior product? Alton Brown lives near Atlanta, AKA "Hot-lanta." Also, I've used my cuisinart one in an un-air conditioned apartment in the heat of summer. Worked like a charm.
Just as long as you don't confuse "podiatrist" with "pederast."
What, no bacon?
http://www.cuisinart.com/catalog/product.php?product_id=45&item_id=82&cat_id=10
It has a sealed bucket filled with some goo with an incredibly low freezing point. You just leave it in the freezer and pull it out when you are ready for ice cream. Put the bucket on the machine and plug it in. You mix up your incredients, which are typically real milk/cream, sugar and a bit of flavoring and dump it in the bucket. Then you turn the machine on. Thirty minutes later, you have ice cream that is already cold enough to eat. MUCH more solid than a lot of the old hand-cranked ones. Stick what you don't eat immediately in a tupperware container in the freezer and finish it at your leisure. Clean up is, as they say, "a breeze."
Alton Brown did a couple of Good Eats episodes on making ice cream this way. The second one is dedicated to making "premium" style ice cream at home.