I never said anything against using the tools at your disposal to watch the movie as you will, that's your business. I find it objectionable that 3rd parties can come along and edit as they will and turn a profit on someone else's IP. So, you find Movie theaters, television stations etc objectionable? They all make a profit from someone else's IP.
What exactly is objectionable about me buying a copy of the movie making changes to it and selling that changed copy for a profit? The case in question was not people buying a copy and selling multiple copies. The company in the case paid the creator for every copy they sold.
I believe that such businesses are starting to develop. We forget that the RIAA business model didn't happen overnight. It took time after the development of recording media for businesses which took advantage of the new media to develop and to figure out how best to capitalize on the new market the technology of recording provided. Now, businesses will have to develop that take advantage of the distribution advantages that the internet provides. But that takes time.
What state did Tom Lantos represent? More specifically, what part of what state did Tom Lantos represent? I've heard of Larry Lessig, but before the news of his death, I had never heard of Tom Lantos.
A former Funafuti(Tuvalu) resident wishes to know which islands? Really, why did they leave. Funafuti is still inhabited and the capital of Tuvalu.
The reason I asked which islands is because in the '90's, Tuvalu was listed as the first country that was going to cease to exist because of rising sea levels due to Global Warming. Only in the late '90's someone did some measurements using satellites(the same type of measurements they use to determine how tall mountains like Mt. Everest are) and discovered that the islands in question were not being swamped by rising sea levels, but were actually sinking. That is, the reason that the islands had less area above water was because the elevation of the islands was decreasing, not because the sea level was rising.
Sorry, the passage you quoted does not support your sig. The rich man was not punished for not worshiping God, but for his failure to use his excess resources to alleviate the suffering of his fellow man. "A certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate...and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table". So, the rich man was not condemned for his failure to worship God, but for his actions.
You are arrogant. The facts and available resources we know today are all we will ever know. No one will ever come up with solutions we could not imagine today.
Coal is a non replenishable, yet me have centuries more of coal supply today than we had in 1950, even though we haven't found a significant increase in the amount of known coal reserves. Why? because we don't use as much coal today as we did then. How do you know that the same won't happen with oil?
Unfortunately, people have learned how to avoid natural selection in the short term through unsustainable approaches such as inequity and excess consumption. But this is not going to work in the long term.
(Emphasis mine). The researcher is saying that European/North-American/etc. culture is currently operating in an unsustainable way, and that this works in the short-term (i.e. we are "developing" and "improving" our lives), but that in the long-haul, any culture that hopes to survive must operate in a sustainable way. If they don't, they will consume all available resources until their way-of-life disintegrates around them.
Aikon-
That very quote calls into question the researcher in question as a scientist. There is no evidence that Western Civilization is unsustainable. Intuitively, it seems like it must be. However, Julian Simon made a bet with Paul Ehrlich that resources were becoming less expensive. Paul Ehrlich and several colleagues selected five metals in 1980 that they felt would rise in price over the next decoade. Julian Simon bet them that they would fall or stay the same. Julian SImon won the bet, all five metals fell in price. THis bet does not prove the sustainability of Western Civilization, but it does suggest that the intuitive feeling that it is unsustainable is flawed.
Except that 'slightly warmer' has serious implications, and is already caused the evacuation of a number of islands throughout the world.
No, all that has been agreed upon is the planet is getting/slightly/ warmer. Really, what islands was that?
Trick question: The US (and until recently, Australia) have both been adamant that Kyoto will 'ruin the economy', yet at the same time they both claim to be 'on track' to meeting the Kyoto targets, so which statement is a lie? Neither. If they had signed the Kyoto protocol some groups that use "environmentalism" as an excuse to insist on greater regulation of business would have gone to the courts to implement their pet regulations. Instead, people and businesses have freely taken actions which have reduced CO2 emissions.
Trick question, the members of the EU have signed the Kyoto protocol, yet their emissions of CO2 have risen as rapidly as before signing the protocols. Who really cares about the environment?
What are the problems with Global Warming? I can't address more specifically, unless you tell me what you think the problems are. However, for the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocols, one can save 10 times more polar bears, decrease the incidence of malaria by 50 times, relocate the people who will be displaced by rising sea water, and still have 90% left over.
Anti-trust laws exist to offset the effects of government intervention in the market place. Almost all monopolies that have developed are a result of government policy.
The reason that policy makers have such difficulty dealing with this issue is that reducing CO2 emissions is outrageously expensive. The cost of dealing with the problems created by Global Warming instead is comparatively cheap.
So, let me get this straight. We are going to exchange CO2 emissions (a greenhouse gas) for H2O emissions (another greenhouse gas). In the meantime, we are going to have to consume more energy to accomplish it. I'm sorry, something about this equation doesn't add up.
It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.
VHS didn't beat Beta because people didn't know that Beta was better. VHS was cheaper (both the movies and the players, but especially the players) and had a longer recording time.
I hit 50, and my hypoglycemia reversed into Type 2 diabetes (overactive pancreas finally started falling apart), and I developed heart problems. A job change, and my health insurance didn't carry over. The new job's health insurance wouldn't pick me up because I now have pre-existing conditions. Yes, I can get 'health care', if you wanna call it that, as a single paying 'member', at a cost of my monthly take home pay. No, this coverage will NOT cover my 'pre-existing conditions' or anything they can claim is a problem caused by said conditions, plus the deductable is just this dide of outrageous.
For what it's worth, I've been in favor of national healthcare for decades.
It is illegal for the insurance provider at your new employer to refuse to provide coverage, if you were covered by the insurance at your previous employer. That is assuming that you left one employer and went to work immediately for another. I am not sure how the law works if you were unemployed for awhile and allowed your insurance to lapse. So, your story is bullshit, unless you left out being unemployed for awhile. I know this is fact, because I have type II diabetes and I changed jobs recently with no problems in changing from one insurance provider to another.
"Free Health care", you mean like in the UK where the doctors are saying that the elderly, the fat, smokers and other groups whose behavior (or age) the doctors think make it unproductive to spend the resources to treat?
GMP or in this case the lack thereof. Where was their QA in all of this? For those who don't know, GMP stands for Good Manufacturing Practice. There is an important point mentioned in the article that comes further down than most people read.
"David Elder, director of enforcement in FDA's regulatory affairs office, said pharmaceutical companies generally fix problems on their own and issue recalls if necessary once notified."
This is the important point.
I would agree. My comment was for those who were afraid of having to deal with the original person harassing them in court and running the risk of a low level court finding against them on fair use, thus incurring the additional expense of an appeal. I think that your solution is fairly clear cut under current law, but I can conceive of a court allowing such a suit to go forward. Whereas my solution, I think, would make it very difficult for them to even get a court to give them a hearing.
To reiterate, I believe that it would be very hard to find a court that would take the case using the partial quotation method you advocate and that is the way that I would go in that situation, but if someone is afraid that that wouldn't work, my solution leaves no grounds at all for a court case. Personally, I think my solution is more work than the risk justifies, but there were people suggesting that your solution left people open to too high a risk of legal action (although, even they thought the legal action would probably fail).
There is really a very simple way to combat this. If a lawyer sends you a "confidential" cease and desist letter, instead of posting the letter (which s/he has denied you the permission to copy), you post your interpretation of it. When you interpret it for posting, you take the most ridiculous understanding of the words you possibly can and clearly state that this is your interpretation, you would prefer to post the lawyer's own words but the lawyer has denied you the right to do that, so you are posting your understanding of those words and since the lawyer is obviously an ass one must take that into account when trying to understand what he means by a particular phrase. You, also, state that if the lawyer in question disagrees with your interpretation of his cease and desist letter, you would be happy to post it to allow people to judge whether your interpretation is correct.
As long as you keep your interpretation within the limits of a possible meaning of the phrases, you should be able to point to that offer as defense against a suit for libel or slander.
Of course there is one other action you could take, give the original to someone else to "review". That other person copies it and posts it. If that "other person" was say, the EFF, the lawyer might find himself in a battle bigger than he intended.
My experience with this is in the book business. I was a bookstore manager for many years and a bookstore book buyer for several more. One of the games publishers would play would be to release a new big title and give the bookstores an additional large discount (say enough to make it worth ordering in 3 months supply, when I usually only ordered a weeks worth) if they would pre-order the book. Then the Monday after the book released on Friday they would issue a press release saying "we sold x copies of the book already". Of course they could have issued that very same press release on Thursday of the week before when the book went on sale on Friday, because the only "sales" that the publisher has at this point are pre-orders, no one has had a chance to place a re-order yet. Another thing that makes this bogus is the fact that a certain percentage of the "sold" books will be returned to the publisher down the line for credit.
The other thing that makes these reports deceptive is when they compare the number they sold to retailers over a period of time when they first release a product to the number of a similar product that was released previously sold to the general public.
Most manufacturers do it. Actually, it is one of those things that happens because it is hard to know how many units have been sold by the retailers who are not part of your company. Of course, many manufacturers further game this by giving incentives to retailers that encourage them to stock up on an item beyond what anyone expects them to sell at certain times to make the numbers look better for a particular report (figuring that no one will be paying attention to the next report). Additionally, the manufacturer hopes that the hype created by them "selling" so many units will increase the demand in the following time frame over what it otherwise would have been. This used to work better than it does now because people have figured out that the hyped numbers are exaggerated.
Slashdot Mirror
What exactly is objectionable about me buying a copy of the movie making changes to it and selling that changed copy for a profit? The case in question was not people buying a copy and selling multiple copies. The company in the case paid the creator for every copy they sold.
I believe that such businesses are starting to develop. We forget that the RIAA business model didn't happen overnight. It took time after the development of recording media for businesses which took advantage of the new media to develop and to figure out how best to capitalize on the new market the technology of recording provided. Now, businesses will have to develop that take advantage of the distribution advantages that the internet provides. But that takes time.
What state did Tom Lantos represent? More specifically, what part of what state did Tom Lantos represent? I've heard of Larry Lessig, but before the news of his death, I had never heard of Tom Lantos.
Sorry for misunderstanding you.
I will ask again, what islands are those?
Really, why did they leave. Funafuti is still inhabited and the capital of Tuvalu.
The reason I asked which islands is because in the '90's, Tuvalu was listed as the first country that was going to cease to exist because of rising sea levels due to Global Warming. Only in the late '90's someone did some measurements using satellites(the same type of measurements they use to determine how tall mountains like Mt. Everest are) and discovered that the islands in question were not being swamped by rising sea levels, but were actually sinking. That is, the reason that the islands had less area above water was because the elevation of the islands was decreasing, not because the sea level was rising.
Sorry, the passage you quoted does not support your sig. The rich man was not punished for not worshiping God, but for his failure to use his excess resources to alleviate the suffering of his fellow man. "A certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate...and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table". So, the rich man was not condemned for his failure to worship God, but for his actions.
You are arrogant. The facts and available resources we know today are all we will ever know. No one will ever come up with solutions we could not imagine today.
Coal is a non replenishable, yet me have centuries more of coal supply today than we had in 1950, even though we haven't found a significant increase in the amount of known coal reserves. Why? because we don't use as much coal today as we did then. How do you know that the same won't happen with oil?
(Emphasis mine). The researcher is saying that European/North-American/etc. culture is currently operating in an unsustainable way, and that this works in the short-term (i.e. we are "developing" and "improving" our lives), but that in the long-haul, any culture that hopes to survive must operate in a sustainable way. If they don't, they will consume all available resources until their way-of-life disintegrates around them.
Aikon-
That very quote calls into question the researcher in question as a scientist. There is no evidence that Western Civilization is unsustainable. Intuitively, it seems like it must be. However, Julian Simon made a bet with Paul Ehrlich that resources were becoming less expensive. Paul Ehrlich and several colleagues selected five metals in 1980 that they felt would rise in price over the next decoade. Julian Simon bet them that they would fall or stay the same. Julian SImon won the bet, all five metals fell in price. THis bet does not prove the sustainability of Western Civilization, but it does suggest that the intuitive feeling that it is unsustainable is flawed.Trick question: The US (and until recently, Australia) have both been adamant that Kyoto will 'ruin the economy', yet at the same time they both claim to be 'on track' to meeting the Kyoto targets, so which statement is a lie? Neither. If they had signed the Kyoto protocol some groups that use "environmentalism" as an excuse to insist on greater regulation of business would have gone to the courts to implement their pet regulations. Instead, people and businesses have freely taken actions which have reduced CO2 emissions. Trick question, the members of the EU have signed the Kyoto protocol, yet their emissions of CO2 have risen as rapidly as before signing the protocols. Who really cares about the environment?
What are the problems with Global Warming? I can't address more specifically, unless you tell me what you think the problems are. However, for the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocols, one can save 10 times more polar bears, decrease the incidence of malaria by 50 times, relocate the people who will be displaced by rising sea water, and still have 90% left over.
No, you got that wrong, the Democrats are a crossbreed between communists and nazis.
Anti-trust laws exist to offset the effects of government intervention in the market place. Almost all monopolies that have developed are a result of government policy.
The reason that policy makers have such difficulty dealing with this issue is that reducing CO2 emissions is outrageously expensive. The cost of dealing with the problems created by Global Warming instead is comparatively cheap.
So, let me get this straight. We are going to exchange CO2 emissions (a greenhouse gas) for H2O emissions (another greenhouse gas). In the meantime, we are going to have to consume more energy to accomplish it. I'm sorry, something about this equation doesn't add up.
It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.
VHS didn't beat Beta because people didn't know that Beta was better. VHS was cheaper (both the movies and the players, but especially the players) and had a longer recording time.
I hit 50, and my hypoglycemia reversed into Type 2 diabetes (overactive pancreas finally started falling apart), and I developed heart problems. A job change, and my health insurance didn't carry over. The new job's health insurance wouldn't pick me up because I now have pre-existing conditions. Yes, I can get 'health care', if you wanna call it that, as a single paying 'member', at a cost of my monthly take home pay. No, this coverage will NOT cover my 'pre-existing conditions' or anything they can claim is a problem caused by said conditions, plus the deductable is just this dide of outrageous.
For what it's worth, I've been in favor of national healthcare for decades.
It is illegal for the insurance provider at your new employer to refuse to provide coverage, if you were covered by the insurance at your previous employer. That is assuming that you left one employer and went to work immediately for another. I am not sure how the law works if you were unemployed for awhile and allowed your insurance to lapse. So, your story is bullshit, unless you left out being unemployed for awhile. I know this is fact, because I have type II diabetes and I changed jobs recently with no problems in changing from one insurance provider to another."Free Health care", you mean like in the UK where the doctors are saying that the elderly, the fat, smokers and other groups whose behavior (or age) the doctors think make it unproductive to spend the resources to treat?
The problem is that AOL (Yahoo) bought Time Warner (Microsoft), so that your thought that there is equivalence here is incorrect.
"David Elder, director of enforcement in FDA's regulatory affairs office, said pharmaceutical companies generally fix problems on their own and issue recalls if necessary once notified."
This is the important point.
I would agree. My comment was for those who were afraid of having to deal with the original person harassing them in court and running the risk of a low level court finding against them on fair use, thus incurring the additional expense of an appeal. I think that your solution is fairly clear cut under current law, but I can conceive of a court allowing such a suit to go forward. Whereas my solution, I think, would make it very difficult for them to even get a court to give them a hearing.
To reiterate, I believe that it would be very hard to find a court that would take the case using the partial quotation method you advocate and that is the way that I would go in that situation, but if someone is afraid that that wouldn't work, my solution leaves no grounds at all for a court case. Personally, I think my solution is more work than the risk justifies, but there were people suggesting that your solution left people open to too high a risk of legal action (although, even they thought the legal action would probably fail).
There is really a very simple way to combat this. If a lawyer sends you a "confidential" cease and desist letter, instead of posting the letter (which s/he has denied you the permission to copy), you post your interpretation of it. When you interpret it for posting, you take the most ridiculous understanding of the words you possibly can and clearly state that this is your interpretation, you would prefer to post the lawyer's own words but the lawyer has denied you the right to do that, so you are posting your understanding of those words and since the lawyer is obviously an ass one must take that into account when trying to understand what he means by a particular phrase. You, also, state that if the lawyer in question disagrees with your interpretation of his cease and desist letter, you would be happy to post it to allow people to judge whether your interpretation is correct.
As long as you keep your interpretation within the limits of a possible meaning of the phrases, you should be able to point to that offer as defense against a suit for libel or slander.
Of course there is one other action you could take, give the original to someone else to "review". That other person copies it and posts it. If that "other person" was say, the EFF, the lawyer might find himself in a battle bigger than he intended.
My experience with this is in the book business. I was a bookstore manager for many years and a bookstore book buyer for several more. One of the games publishers would play would be to release a new big title and give the bookstores an additional large discount (say enough to make it worth ordering in 3 months supply, when I usually only ordered a weeks worth) if they would pre-order the book. Then the Monday after the book released on Friday they would issue a press release saying "we sold x copies of the book already". Of course they could have issued that very same press release on Thursday of the week before when the book went on sale on Friday, because the only "sales" that the publisher has at this point are pre-orders, no one has had a chance to place a re-order yet. Another thing that makes this bogus is the fact that a certain percentage of the "sold" books will be returned to the publisher down the line for credit.
The other thing that makes these reports deceptive is when they compare the number they sold to retailers over a period of time when they first release a product to the number of a similar product that was released previously sold to the general public.
Most manufacturers do it. Actually, it is one of those things that happens because it is hard to know how many units have been sold by the retailers who are not part of your company. Of course, many manufacturers further game this by giving incentives to retailers that encourage them to stock up on an item beyond what anyone expects them to sell at certain times to make the numbers look better for a particular report (figuring that no one will be paying attention to the next report). Additionally, the manufacturer hopes that the hype created by them "selling" so many units will increase the demand in the following time frame over what it otherwise would have been. This used to work better than it does now because people have figured out that the hyped numbers are exaggerated.