He does a point, however, when you realize that many frequencies are completely unused. I have quite a lot of empty stations on my UHF dial.
And the FCC does know how to make rules that work, you know. Just because anyone could get a license to broadcast doesn't mean they could broadcast anything.
The rules could be like ham radio, where you have to broadcast a 'television signal', you have to have station identification, etc. As long as no one else wants to use the frequency (As they apparently do not.), I see no problem with you operating a personal TV station for your own benefit. As long as it doesn't cause other people's TVs to automatically tune into static as the flip past or emit loud beeping noises or something stupid.
Of course, any TV station at all that targets more than one person is automatically going to be more useful, even if it's one continual loop of infomercials, so if we ran out of frequencies, you would be the first to go.
But, I must point out that 'useful', while that is what the FCC should be checking, is not the same thing as 'not indecent', and that is where the FCC thing has fallen apart. I would argue that a porn channel is useful, or at least as useful as a sport channel or TNT. I.e., useful for entertainment purposes.
Instead, the FCC enforced decency at the expense of usefulness. I.e., you can't show serious documentaries that have the word 'Belgium' in them, there's some sort of magical level of 'seriousness' before you can show naked people at all.
News footage! News was the defination of 'useful' when TV came out. We have news footage that blurs out people shooting the bird! It's decent, but is it useful?
Well, as cable companies are required by law (How many times can I use the phrase 'required by law' to refer to this before the spam filter catches on?) to block any cable channels you don't want, I don't see the point.
And it would be a rather interesting for the 40 or so cable channels on my cable to get a piece of my 35 dollar a month bill. I mean, the cable company has to keep the infrastructure working with that money, too.
In reality, some of the cable channels get a small amount of money for each subscriber. Channels that a large amount of people solely get cable for, like ESPN, and companies that have alot of channels, like Viacom (Nickolodean, MTV, VH1, Com Central), throw their weight around and get a small kickback, by threats of not allowing broadcast. Probably about a dollar a month a person
The rest of the cable channels, like Golf and Cartoon Network, hope to God that cable stations carry them. Think about it logically. Cable stations go on the satellite. They pay a lot for that, pushing a channel through a satellite 24/7 is expensive. Then...either the cable company runs a dish, and sends that out to everyone, or no one gets it, and the cable station is pissing in the wind. (This is why they do not encrypt the satellite signal...they want viewers.)
Let's say that 0.1% of people will cancel cable (or never subscribe) if they drop the Golf channel. In addition, carrying the golf channel requires two thousand dollars worth of equipment to receive the channel and send it out. The cable company is, at most, willing to pay 0.1% of the cable rate (Aka, 5 cents on a rather large $50 cable bill) per person, minus the 2000 dollar's worth of equipment the channel is tying up.
The Home Shopping Channel has resorted to buying up broadcasting licenses to force the cable companies to legally carry them for free, because cable companies were charging to carry them.
So bear in mind that you're not paying the cable channels. The 'basic cable' package is paying to run the wires and operate the antennas and amplify that signal, and extended cable is paying to run the dishes and amplify those signals, with a tiny kickback going to a few, select channels.
Cable companies would be happy to, say, deny you access to Viacom if they didn't have to pay Viacom anything. They lose money by having to carry Viacom. (Assuming they can charge you to come out and change what stations you can get, because they have to go on the pole to do that. Also assuming their contract allows something like that.)
However, there is no set of circumstances where you can remove, oh, let's pick channel 28...it's 'HGTV', which I will assume is some home improvement/gardening channel, and get anything cheaper. Yes, in theory, you're not using the amplifier, but in reality, they still have to amplify the signal, they just cut it out before your house. As your money is not going to HGTV, there's really no possible moral objection there. In fact, you've cost the cable company more just dealing with you than they made off HGTV that month.
I.e, the entire premise of 'I don't want to have to pay for channels I morally object to' is crazy, because you're rarely paying for 'channels' at all. You're mainly paying for them to operate a dish farm with repeater system and run wires to your house.
Trying to pay for certain parts of it is like trying to get a mechanical car wash not to wash your driver side front door. Sure, the car wash place can put a plastic cover over it, but it's not cheaper for them. You're not paying to have certain parts of your car washed, you're paying to have a machine operate, and varying that costs more, not less.
If the trusted channels are showing smut, then, logically, they are not trusted channels. um, duh. I'm rather hard pressed to figure out what 'trusted' cable station shows more smut than random broadcast stations, though. Unless you're trusting MTV or something.
However, if you want to invent a special category of cable TV channels called, say, 'Certified Family', and strongly regulate anyone that chooses to join that group, go ahead.
Although I will point out you can do exactly the same thing with a contract law and a consumer group, and not even bothering with the government at all, which surely would be easier. There are already organizations that claim to police the airwaves for smut, why don't they write up a contract and invent a logo for these channels to use? Like a Good Housekeeping Seal, or Underwriter Labs?
If they break the rules they get fined by the organization, which uses the fines to promote wholesome TV. If they break the rules to often or too much, they lose the seal. Any idiot lawyer could write that up. We have a dozen consumer organizations like that.
Everyone wins. If you're really clever, you can figure out how to add random codes to the V-Chip (Or possibly you can already do that.), and people can punch in '3924' or whatever to their V-Chip and only watch channels okayed by that group. (Any sane group of that wrote the protocol would have made it randomly extendable, but sadly all the controls appear hardcoded, at least in the TV I checked.)
Or, you can use what cable companies are required to do by law, and ask them to block off all other channels. If enough people ask for it, they'll make a list of what channels are 'okay' and do it very quickly, although the first dozen people might have to make a list.
Of course, by now you must realize that such a group doesn't exist because no one would watch those channels. No one wants to watch the TV you want to watch, and thus no one wants to provide it.
As these channels doesn't exist, and you've decided watch TV anyway, you complain when other channels do not reach the standards you're randomly set for them and they're making no attempt to follow.
There's been no rational for broadcast filtering ever since we got UHF. Come on, does anyone have the ~60 broadcast channels that VHF+UHF allows? Technically 82 channels total, although you lose some due to inability to cover the country perfectly.
Hell no. I've got the seven networks, I've got TBS (Yes, it's broadcast here in Georgia, hence 'superstation'.), I've got two different PBS, I've got a PAX, I've got Telemundo.
I've got a home shopping channel, which was inexplicable until I learn that broadcasting legally requires the cable company to carry them for free, and I happen to be in the 100 square miles you can pick them up. (Apparently, they got fed up at the cable companies charging them, and bought a bunch of imploded local station's licenses all over the nation, and, I dunno, stuck an thirty foot tall antenna up somewhere near various cable company antenna farms, and started broadcasting at no signal strength at all. I mean, it's really bad quality.)
I've got some weird religious channel (No, not PAX. PAX, despite being belittled all the time, actually shows normal, if a little boring, drama.) where they show churches all the time and run lies about things they don't like, like California, evolution, and animals running around without clothes on.
Not to mention I can pick up another CBS from South Carolina. Which is weird because I can't get anything else from there.
And there's a bunch of other local stations I can't really get that well. Call them 5. Sometimes there's another NBC in there.
So, forget the home shopping channel, which no one at all gets except me and only existed because it's cheaper to operate a station than to pay the cable company, and the extra CBS that I don't need, we have, oh, 20 channels.
A third the amount we could support. There's not a single channel over 69, and, yes, UHF goes to 83. (Hence 'Channel 84' in the movie 'UHF'.)
The job of the FCC isn't to regulate the airwaves by making them safe, it's to regulate the airwaves by making them useful. I don't see why, legally, there would be any ground for them to stand on if I purchased a broadcast license for channel 74 and started broadcasting naked images of me 24/7, as long as there wasn't a more useful thing to do with those airwaves. (Which, admittedly, almost anything else would be.)
Hell, as long as no one else wants it, they should give me it for free, or a nominal fee, as long as I promised to broadcast a signal decipherable by TVs, have a station ID message, and not cause interference on nearby channels. (Aka, something like ham radio rules.) When more people want to broadcast exist than channels, then they can start figuring out who's doing 'useful' stuff and who's continually running an informercial about knifes. Until then, leave us alone.
Sadly, the Surpreme Court has forgotten the point of the FCC, and pretends it's okay to regulate speech because it magically gets into people's head. Which is idiotic, because I can walk down the street swearing at people randomly and that's not illegal.
In fact, cable companies are required by law to filter any channel you want outside the house. We're not talking about cable boxes that can be bypassed, we're talking about up on the pole, where they filter out HBO if you don't pay for it.
You heard me. Required by law. At the pole.
Also, all televisions over a certain size are required by law to come with a V-Chip. And all broadcasting on TV is rated, although that is not required by law.
Remember how we had this debate 10 years ago? I sure do. I was 15, and thought it was absurd. But we got V-Chips, we got filtering of cable, the prudes won all the battles.
And now they've all come back. I'm not giving a fucking inch this time. Not only can they not get cable, they can not get any cable channel they want, and even not get any cable show they want!
The only conclusion possible is that they don't want me to be able to watch certain shows.
I once heard a censored version of Alanis Morrisette's 'You Oughta Know', where the lyrics (Talking about her ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend) go 'Would she go *blank* you in a theater?'.
Imagine my surprise when I learned it went 'Would she go down on you in a theater?'. Because I had mentally filled that in with something a bit cruder. (Helped by the fact they actually do blank something that's actually a 'fuck' later in the song.)
We already have that. TV shows have had ratings for like ten years now in the US! Most TVs have things built in that can automatically screen based on those ratings, called a V-Chip! Otherwise, it's at the top of the screen.
And, legally, any cable subscriber can force the cable company to install a filter on the line to block whatever channels the subscriber wants.
There is no such thing as 'out of the box' Solaris. If you pick up a box, and try to install Solaris, you will not end up with a machine that has ports listing. In fact, you will not end up with a usable machine at all, because, 99 times out of 100, you will have gotten a dependency wrong or set up your slices incorrectly or something.
I'm not saying it matter who the 'typical administrator' is. I'm saying it matters that the level of competance required is so high that any installer is going to know to turn things off. (Granted, it's not an incredibly high level, but it's well out of the reach of people who don't to turn things off.)
Oh, and as an aside, you're just wrong. Even if a clueless person stumbles through an install of Solaris 10, and manages to install the ssh server and the X server, they are not at risk at all by those things, even if they have holes. Why?
Because the end result of an install of Solaris 10 does not have working networking. And hence it doesn't matter if services are 'listening'.
The complaints about Windows isn't just about defaults, they are about the default of an OS that is sold to people who leave defaults as-is. You can't do that on Solaris 10, and thus the 'defaults' are a rather moot point.
Are you on drugs or something? Or are you just repeating FUD?
Solaris 10 is not for end users to install. Sun has classes on how to install it.
Yes, if you handed it to someone who didn't know what they were doing, it's possibly they'd end up with an install that was insecure. It's much more likely, however, that they'd end up without an install at all.
And, perhaps more to the point, Sun boxes are not offered in Walmart that you can take home, plug in, and immediately get infected.
Complaining that Sun is insecure by default is like complaining that a kit for building your own airplane doesn't come with a sun visor, and thus if stupid people purchase it and try to operate it they could get blinded. Um, whatever.
Maybe he was about to be stranded on a desert island with only one item.
Me, I don't know what all the fuss is about. I just carry a standard cheap-ass pocket knife, got it for two dollars at a dollar store. It's got scissors, a saw blade, a very useful hole punch, and a whole lot of things I rarely need. Once in a while, I break the blade, usually doing something I shouldn't have been doing with a knife blade, and I go buy another one for two dollars. I have it as a keychain, along with a triple A powered flashlight.
Plyers, you ask? I carry a pair of actual plyers in my car instead of the crappy things in a multitool.
You know, I'd be happy with DRM if it magically worked. If I could purchase a song, and magically have it follow me around the rest of my life, in whatever form I needed it, with the stipulation I couldn't sell any copies (Just the whole package at once) or let anyone borrow it or even listen to it without me present...
...well, count me down for a few songs. And books, as long as I can get the paperback at as discount. (Or vis versa.) And movies.
Sure, it's restrictive, but understandable. Hell, there are a few artists I would like to purchase everything ever made by them, in advance, if they're willing to assure minimal output. (Or, at least, purchase a discount card towards their output.)
But that's in some hypothetical universe where you actually can actually 'license' copyrighted work.
The system we have now, where music for sell is DRM'd in non-standard formats and they're selling fake CDs that won't play in computers and the alternative is the purchase of a single piece of media that will get lost or damaged and they're sure it's some sort of crime to rip it to my computer or make a copy of it...well, it's idiotic.
Hey, I support Paul and Ringo just fine. George, too, when he was around. I once thought about supporting Yoko Ono, but then I decided that would be stupid.
But I went and looked this up, and the publisher does, indeed, get money when a copy of a Beatles' song is sold. Apple/EMI own the copyrights on all the recordings, but they have to pay the publisher for the right to use the words/music, just like everyone else. (And, in turn, the publisher then has to pay the actual songwriters.) Now, apparently, EMI, instead of paying for each record, have some sort of lease going on, but make no mistake, money is going back to Jackson for all Lennon/McCarthy songs.
Of course, it's also going back to The Beatles, and back to Lennon/McCarthy as the songwriters.
Or maybe people could group together. Find someone who gets a low price on what you like, and for whom you have a low price on what he likes, and purchase for each other.
Don't be absurd. Purchasing music for someone else is clearly illegal!
I agree. Any sane system can give us the ability to count the ballots rapidly. Yes, it's made more annoying by the fact that gerrymandering has made everyone have different ballots, but, honestly, it's cheaper to print a seperate ballot for each set of races anyway.
Now, that's not to say we shouldn't print ballots by computer. And, hell, we can even keep track of what's printed. But the offical result should be 'Here are the paper ballots that were turned in', regardless of how they were printed.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you just tell the cable companies to filter out the channels you don't like, as they are required by law to do?
He does a point, however, when you realize that many frequencies are completely unused. I have quite a lot of empty stations on my UHF dial.
And the FCC does know how to make rules that work, you know. Just because anyone could get a license to broadcast doesn't mean they could broadcast anything.
The rules could be like ham radio, where you have to broadcast a 'television signal', you have to have station identification, etc. As long as no one else wants to use the frequency (As they apparently do not.), I see no problem with you operating a personal TV station for your own benefit. As long as it doesn't cause other people's TVs to automatically tune into static as the flip past or emit loud beeping noises or something stupid.
Of course, any TV station at all that targets more than one person is automatically going to be more useful, even if it's one continual loop of infomercials, so if we ran out of frequencies, you would be the first to go.
But, I must point out that 'useful', while that is what the FCC should be checking, is not the same thing as 'not indecent', and that is where the FCC thing has fallen apart. I would argue that a porn channel is useful, or at least as useful as a sport channel or TNT. I.e., useful for entertainment purposes.
Instead, the FCC enforced decency at the expense of usefulness. I.e., you can't show serious documentaries that have the word 'Belgium' in them, there's some sort of magical level of 'seriousness' before you can show naked people at all.
News footage! News was the defination of 'useful' when TV came out. We have news footage that blurs out people shooting the bird! It's decent, but is it useful?
And maybe you should be asking some tough questions about the organizations that want to regulate cable who have not told you about this option.
And it would be a rather interesting for the 40 or so cable channels on my cable to get a piece of my 35 dollar a month bill. I mean, the cable company has to keep the infrastructure working with that money, too.
In reality, some of the cable channels get a small amount of money for each subscriber. Channels that a large amount of people solely get cable for, like ESPN, and companies that have alot of channels, like Viacom (Nickolodean, MTV, VH1, Com Central), throw their weight around and get a small kickback, by threats of not allowing broadcast. Probably about a dollar a month a person
The rest of the cable channels, like Golf and Cartoon Network, hope to God that cable stations carry them. Think about it logically. Cable stations go on the satellite. They pay a lot for that, pushing a channel through a satellite 24/7 is expensive. Then...either the cable company runs a dish, and sends that out to everyone, or no one gets it, and the cable station is pissing in the wind. (This is why they do not encrypt the satellite signal...they want viewers.)
Let's say that 0.1% of people will cancel cable (or never subscribe) if they drop the Golf channel. In addition, carrying the golf channel requires two thousand dollars worth of equipment to receive the channel and send it out. The cable company is, at most, willing to pay 0.1% of the cable rate (Aka, 5 cents on a rather large $50 cable bill) per person, minus the 2000 dollar's worth of equipment the channel is tying up.
The Home Shopping Channel has resorted to buying up broadcasting licenses to force the cable companies to legally carry them for free, because cable companies were charging to carry them.
So bear in mind that you're not paying the cable channels. The 'basic cable' package is paying to run the wires and operate the antennas and amplify that signal, and extended cable is paying to run the dishes and amplify those signals, with a tiny kickback going to a few, select channels.
Cable companies would be happy to, say, deny you access to Viacom if they didn't have to pay Viacom anything. They lose money by having to carry Viacom. (Assuming they can charge you to come out and change what stations you can get, because they have to go on the pole to do that. Also assuming their contract allows something like that.)
However, there is no set of circumstances where you can remove, oh, let's pick channel 28...it's 'HGTV', which I will assume is some home improvement/gardening channel, and get anything cheaper. Yes, in theory, you're not using the amplifier, but in reality, they still have to amplify the signal, they just cut it out before your house. As your money is not going to HGTV, there's really no possible moral objection there. In fact, you've cost the cable company more just dealing with you than they made off HGTV that month.
I.e, the entire premise of 'I don't want to have to pay for channels I morally object to' is crazy, because you're rarely paying for 'channels' at all. You're mainly paying for them to operate a dish farm with repeater system and run wires to your house.
Trying to pay for certain parts of it is like trying to get a mechanical car wash not to wash your driver side front door. Sure, the car wash place can put a plastic cover over it, but it's not cheaper for them. You're not paying to have certain parts of your car washed, you're paying to have a machine operate, and varying that costs more, not less.
There weren't shows that would have been rated TV-M before the rating, either.
However, if you want to invent a special category of cable TV channels called, say, 'Certified Family', and strongly regulate anyone that chooses to join that group, go ahead.
Although I will point out you can do exactly the same thing with a contract law and a consumer group, and not even bothering with the government at all, which surely would be easier. There are already organizations that claim to police the airwaves for smut, why don't they write up a contract and invent a logo for these channels to use? Like a Good Housekeeping Seal, or Underwriter Labs?
If they break the rules they get fined by the organization, which uses the fines to promote wholesome TV. If they break the rules to often or too much, they lose the seal. Any idiot lawyer could write that up. We have a dozen consumer organizations like that.
Everyone wins. If you're really clever, you can figure out how to add random codes to the V-Chip (Or possibly you can already do that.), and people can punch in '3924' or whatever to their V-Chip and only watch channels okayed by that group. (Any sane group of that wrote the protocol would have made it randomly extendable, but sadly all the controls appear hardcoded, at least in the TV I checked.)
Or, you can use what cable companies are required to do by law, and ask them to block off all other channels. If enough people ask for it, they'll make a list of what channels are 'okay' and do it very quickly, although the first dozen people might have to make a list.
Of course, by now you must realize that such a group doesn't exist because no one would watch those channels. No one wants to watch the TV you want to watch, and thus no one wants to provide it.
As these channels doesn't exist, and you've decided watch TV anyway, you complain when other channels do not reach the standards you're randomly set for them and they're making no attempt to follow.
Hell no. I've got the seven networks, I've got TBS (Yes, it's broadcast here in Georgia, hence 'superstation'.), I've got two different PBS, I've got a PAX, I've got Telemundo.
I've got a home shopping channel, which was inexplicable until I learn that broadcasting legally requires the cable company to carry them for free, and I happen to be in the 100 square miles you can pick them up. (Apparently, they got fed up at the cable companies charging them, and bought a bunch of imploded local station's licenses all over the nation, and, I dunno, stuck an thirty foot tall antenna up somewhere near various cable company antenna farms, and started broadcasting at no signal strength at all. I mean, it's really bad quality.)
I've got some weird religious channel (No, not PAX. PAX, despite being belittled all the time, actually shows normal, if a little boring, drama.) where they show churches all the time and run lies about things they don't like, like California, evolution, and animals running around without clothes on.
Not to mention I can pick up another CBS from South Carolina. Which is weird because I can't get anything else from there.
And there's a bunch of other local stations I can't really get that well. Call them 5. Sometimes there's another NBC in there.
So, forget the home shopping channel, which no one at all gets except me and only existed because it's cheaper to operate a station than to pay the cable company, and the extra CBS that I don't need, we have, oh, 20 channels.
A third the amount we could support. There's not a single channel over 69, and, yes, UHF goes to 83. (Hence 'Channel 84' in the movie 'UHF'.)
The job of the FCC isn't to regulate the airwaves by making them safe, it's to regulate the airwaves by making them useful. I don't see why, legally, there would be any ground for them to stand on if I purchased a broadcast license for channel 74 and started broadcasting naked images of me 24/7, as long as there wasn't a more useful thing to do with those airwaves. (Which, admittedly, almost anything else would be.)
Hell, as long as no one else wants it, they should give me it for free, or a nominal fee, as long as I promised to broadcast a signal decipherable by TVs, have a station ID message, and not cause interference on nearby channels. (Aka, something like ham radio rules.) When more people want to broadcast exist than channels, then they can start figuring out who's doing 'useful' stuff and who's continually running an informercial about knifes. Until then, leave us alone.
Sadly, the Surpreme Court has forgotten the point of the FCC, and pretends it's okay to regulate speech because it magically gets into people's head. Which is idiotic, because I can walk down the street swearing at people randomly and that's not illegal.
You heard me. Required by law. At the pole.
Also, all televisions over a certain size are required by law to come with a V-Chip. And all broadcasting on TV is rated, although that is not required by law.
Remember how we had this debate 10 years ago? I sure do. I was 15, and thought it was absurd. But we got V-Chips, we got filtering of cable, the prudes won all the battles.
And now they've all come back. I'm not giving a fucking inch this time. Not only can they not get cable, they can not get any cable channel they want, and even not get any cable show they want!
The only conclusion possible is that they don't want me to be able to watch certain shows.
Imagine my surprise when I learned it went 'Would she go down on you in a theater?'. Because I had mentally filled that in with something a bit cruder. (Helped by the fact they actually do blank something that's actually a 'fuck' later in the song.)
And, legally, any cable subscriber can force the cable company to install a filter on the line to block whatever channels the subscriber wants.
I don't know what the fuck more anyone wants.
Calling it a broadcast standard is like calling the rule 'You can't murder people with a hammer' a 'hammer regulation'. No, it's a murder regulation.
You can't murder people with [anything]. You can't offer child porn via [anything]. They're not [anything] regulations.
I'm not saying it matter who the 'typical administrator' is. I'm saying it matters that the level of competance required is so high that any installer is going to know to turn things off. (Granted, it's not an incredibly high level, but it's well out of the reach of people who don't to turn things off.)
Oh, and as an aside, you're just wrong. Even if a clueless person stumbles through an install of Solaris 10, and manages to install the ssh server and the X server, they are not at risk at all by those things, even if they have holes. Why?
Because the end result of an install of Solaris 10 does not have working networking. And hence it doesn't matter if services are 'listening'.
The complaints about Windows isn't just about defaults, they are about the default of an OS that is sold to people who leave defaults as-is. You can't do that on Solaris 10, and thus the 'defaults' are a rather moot point.
I think that kept happening until SP2.
Um, he said the hardware was buggy, not the software.
Solaris 10 is not for end users to install. Sun has classes on how to install it.
Yes, if you handed it to someone who didn't know what they were doing, it's possibly they'd end up with an install that was insecure. It's much more likely, however, that they'd end up without an install at all.
And, perhaps more to the point, Sun boxes are not offered in Walmart that you can take home, plug in, and immediately get infected.
Complaining that Sun is insecure by default is like complaining that a kit for building your own airplane doesn't come with a sun visor, and thus if stupid people purchase it and try to operate it they could get blinded. Um, whatever.
Being unable to walk away would technically make it 'crashing', not 'landing'.
Me, I don't know what all the fuss is about. I just carry a standard cheap-ass pocket knife, got it for two dollars at a dollar store. It's got scissors, a saw blade, a very useful hole punch, and a whole lot of things I rarely need. Once in a while, I break the blade, usually doing something I shouldn't have been doing with a knife blade, and I go buy another one for two dollars. I have it as a keychain, along with a triple A powered flashlight.
Plyers, you ask? I carry a pair of actual plyers in my car instead of the crappy things in a multitool.
You know, I'd be happy with DRM if it magically worked. If I could purchase a song, and magically have it follow me around the rest of my life, in whatever form I needed it, with the stipulation I couldn't sell any copies (Just the whole package at once) or let anyone borrow it or even listen to it without me present...
Sure, it's restrictive, but understandable. Hell, there are a few artists I would like to purchase everything ever made by them, in advance, if they're willing to assure minimal output. (Or, at least, purchase a discount card towards their output.)
But that's in some hypothetical universe where you actually can actually 'license' copyrighted work.
The system we have now, where music for sell is DRM'd in non-standard formats and they're selling fake CDs that won't play in computers and the alternative is the purchase of a single piece of media that will get lost or damaged and they're sure it's some sort of crime to rip it to my computer or make a copy of it...well, it's idiotic.
But I went and looked this up, and the publisher does, indeed, get money when a copy of a Beatles' song is sold. Apple/EMI own the copyrights on all the recordings, but they have to pay the publisher for the right to use the words/music, just like everyone else. (And, in turn, the publisher then has to pay the actual songwriters.) Now, apparently, EMI, instead of paying for each record, have some sort of lease going on, but make no mistake, money is going back to Jackson for all Lennon/McCarthy songs.
Of course, it's also going back to The Beatles, and back to Lennon/McCarthy as the songwriters.
Michael Jackson is the reason I have illegal copies of Beatles music. I'm not giving him a penny.
Don't be absurd. Purchasing music for someone else is clearly illegal!
And you can't trust an ATM with your money. Um, duh, there are ATM errors all the time. Usually mechanical failures, but sometimes it's software.
With voting machines, you have no way of confirming anything at all. With ATM, you do.
Now, that's not to say we shouldn't print ballots by computer. And, hell, we can even keep track of what's printed. But the offical result should be 'Here are the paper ballots that were turned in', regardless of how they were printed.
I've always considered death as the main effect of any action that resulted in it. Side effects are the less important effects.
Except the value there is the trademarked name, not the patented drug.