Actually, physical CDs are covered under normal insurance if you include their value in the info you give the insurance company. You can then use the money to replace them, presuming that there are still copies of the CDs with the music you want on them. Unfortunately, and to my great frustration, record labels have been known to let CDs go out of print.
What I believe the RIAA believes:
Yes, you do own the CDs. You can do anything you like with them as long as it doesn't violate anything in the license for the music on the CDs. You can even sell CDs or give them away. Used CD stores are legal and common. Even Amazon sells used CDs.
But the license to the music on a physical CD is (in the eyes of the RIAA) only valid if you actually have the physical CD. If you sell your CD, then it wants you to give the other person your back-up copies or else destroy your back-ups.
Disclaimers:
I am not an astroturfer for the RIAA, nor am I paid by it. My interest in their ways of thinking happened naturally.
I do not approve of everything the RIAA does. The RIAA would not approve of everything I do with its work.
Of course it does. It's holding a classic "going-out-of business" sale. It may reopen under another name or site--businesses that run "going-out-of-business" sales often do--but it already knows that it won't be allowed to conduct business under its current name the way it had been.
Good thing for its customers that Allofmp3 doesn't use DRM...
It is okay to back-order a magazine to get a copy of a photo.
It is okay to print the photo off a large subscription website whose purpose is to hold photos scanned from all the issues of that 'zine--or at any rate, I think most of us would have no problem doing it. If the subscription website is not being run by the 'zine, however, the 'zine might be irritated at losing possible back-issue/merchandise sales, especially if the 'zine has copyright on most of the photos.
Ah, but what are the terms of the licenses the RIAA issues?
Keep in mind that you are talking about the RIAA. It is generally understood that the RIAA and those record companies it represents are capable of almost anything, possibly excluding anything that appears sensible. I should know: I have kept close watch on the activities of an especially eccentric RIAA label for fifteen years...
So, if I were an RIAA record label, I would probably say this:
You the consumer buy only the media; you only license the music; but your license is valid only if you still possess the media.
Evidence for this interpretation: The RIAA requests that if you sell a piece of media that contains RIAA-licensed music, then you must give the back-ups to the person you sold the media to or else destroy the back-ups.
Disclaimers:
I am not an RIAA astroturfer. I came by my interest in their ways of thinking naturally.
I do not approve of everything the RIAA does. I have done things with RIAA material that it would not approve of.
Correct. If Russia rules out in advance extraditing anyone to another country, even if that (hypothetical) person murdered a citizen of that other country, then Russia certainly won't allow some other country's record industry association to collect enormous fines from one of their own corporations.
The Russian constitution seems to demand that all matters involving Russians be handled by Russia...
Well, there was one bill President Bush vetoed. It was a bill for embryonic stem-cell research, though; while not passing it likely saved the government some money, I don't know how much difference it made. (It did affect the research.)
Of course, from 2000 to 2002, the House of Representatives was Republican. From 2002 to 2006, both Houses were Republican. Now both Houses are Democratic; that could increase the number of bills Bush objects to.
Of course, Bush has been known to write "signing statements" that he thinks edit the bills he signs. I doubt this has helped the budget any.
I thought all states had seatbelt laws. I thought that requiring people to wear seatbelts was one of the many things the federal government requires states to do to get highway funds.
People dying from not wearing a seatbelt or helmet will increase healthcare costs and fill emergency rooms if they don't die right away. There can be a time lag between hitting the windshield/pavement and dying, and medical personnel will try to save the lives of those people during that lag. They have succeeded at this sometimes.
People who almost die from not wearing seatbelts or helmets probably will raise healthcare costs and take up ER and hospital space.
Re:Attempt to Get Death Penalty for Zacarias Mouss
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but simple deterrence is not the sole factor in deciding how serious a punishment should be.
It could be that what is sufficient to deter would still be getting off too lightly. Many people put murder in that class at some level.
It could be that what is sufficient to deter is too strong a punishment: ask anyone on this board who is actively fighting the DMCA. If what the DMCA asks is too strong, imagine how unfair any punishment that actually deterred people from "piracy" would be.
There could be crimes for which deterrence is impossible, but which cannot go unpunished. Sex offenses tend to get placed in this class. We can't let people get away with rape, but we don't think any punishment will deter people from doing it simply by existing. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any idea what a reasonable punishment for rape should be, and even less for the lesser offenses in the chain.
I ask them where their "pro life" stance went when it comes to the death penalty, as well as what happened to "turn the other cheek"?
I know the lines of thought of which you speak. People who are anti-abortion but pro-death-penalty do claim that the death penalty is compatible with all life being sacred: in fact, life is so sacred that they see the only fair punishment for taking one by first-degree murder as death. They are thinking in terms of "a life for a life"--an Old Testament concept, I know.
I cannot help you with the other half of your question, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: I am anti-abortion in general but undecided on the death penalty. I'm not fully decided on "life in prison" either.
True. Steers can't breed.
But they can be cloned--and the clone can then grow up to be a bull. Bulls live to breed.
It's as close as the cattle industry can get to undoing sterilization, and they can still get tender steaks from the steer. No wonder they want cloning.
No, no, no.
European champagne is only sparkling white wine unless it's from the Champagne area of France. (Though I understand some European sparkling whites have their own special appelations.) American champagne is champagne wherever it's grown. I don't think American champagne even has to contain alcohol.
I saw An Inconvenient Truth too.
I don't know that Al Gore actually gave solutions, but he did give ways to lessen our impact on global warming. Those I remember:
1. Use compact fluorescent bulbs. Replacing five incandescents with CF bulbs in your house can reduce CO2 emissions as much in a year as removing your car from the road for that time.
2. Plant trees. Trees absorb CO2.
3. Get one of those thermostats with timers. Tell it to lower temps in winter and raise them in summer in the times when these are the least bothersome. Lowers CO2 at the powerplant. (Jimmy Carter's suggestion--cool all the time in winter, warm all the time in summer--would probably be even more effective, but it would probably be less popular.)
4. Change your furnace filter regularly. Clean furnace filters lower CO2 emissions.
5. Cover your hot water heater with an insulating blanket. This lowers CO2 emissions, presumably at the power plant.
None of these strictly require government involvement.
"6000 odd years ago the bible tells the story of Noah, and a Giant flood. Maybe 6000 years ago an ice shelf in that location also snapped off and melted flooding the earth."
I've read that part of the Bible. Are you suggesting that an arctic ice shelf melted and flooded the entire world? Or even just the entire Middle East? Mind you, this melted arctic ice shelf would cover even the mountains in the area.
Of course, you may be right. It may have happened. But that would be one huge ice shelf.
I believe that it is already scientifically proven that Twinkies are not safe. I don't know if this was known before the '70s, though.
Twinkies do, however, pass all the FDA standards for junk food. People who eat Twinkies and are above the age of reason enjoy living dangerously.
I understand that Hostess has introduced organic Twinkies--or at least I've seen boxes with that notation on store shelves. If organic Twinkies are still sold, I'd like safety tests done on them.
Last I checked, microwaved hamburgers were dead before they went into the microwave. These days, they tend to be well-done.
So, what happens when you get that viable clone of that cow, raise it to market weight, slaughter it, and turn it into microwave hamburgers? Will the minute extra chromosomal changes lead to minute extra chromosomal changes in humans? If it does, will anyone care?
Probably no one will care, even (or especially) if it leads to accelerated global obesity. Probably I shouldn't get excited. But it is something to contemplate.
That Wiki article also says that vCJD (the human vs. of BSE) probably has a long latency period, just like BSE itself. Problem is, there is no way to test for latent BSE or latent vCJD. So, there might be a few hundred more cases that are still latent, but might become active at some future time.
"Nor has it been the case in any recent year I remember."
Ah, but was it the case a hundred years ago? Wasn't there a time when the America's Northeast had snow on Christmas? The literature of New England implies that it did snow there a lot once. (And I don't just mean Buffalo.)
Global warming has been accelerating, in part since the beginning of the industrial revolution, likely somewhat faster since 1950. We've theorized about it for almost two decades now. The data we want for what things were like before it hit probably should come from before most of our lifetimes, not during them.
It's reporter's English.
It translates to "An expert says that the collapse of an ice shelf in the Arctic poses a risk."
Though I suppose it could mean "The collapse of an ice shelf in the Arctic poses the risk that an expert will show up."
Europe already has mass fishing industry havoc. Never mind increases of winter--they have shortages of tasty fish. The related economic ripples likewise are already starting. The havoc increased winters will cause will have to come from other directions.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, physical CDs are covered under normal insurance if you include their value in the info you give the insurance company. You can then use the money to replace them, presuming that there are still copies of the CDs with the music you want on them. Unfortunately, and to my great frustration, record labels have been known to let CDs go out of print.
What I believe the RIAA believes:
Yes, you do own the CDs. You can do anything you like with them as long as it doesn't violate anything in the license for the music on the CDs. You can even sell CDs or give them away. Used CD stores are legal and common. Even Amazon sells used CDs.
But the license to the music on a physical CD is (in the eyes of the RIAA) only valid if you actually have the physical CD. If you sell your CD, then it wants you to give the other person your back-up copies or else destroy your back-ups.
Disclaimers:
I am not an astroturfer for the RIAA, nor am I paid by it. My interest in their ways of thinking happened naturally.
I do not approve of everything the RIAA does. The RIAA would not approve of everything I do with its work.
Of course it does. It's holding a classic "going-out-of business" sale. It may reopen under another name or site--businesses that run "going-out-of-business" sales often do--but it already knows that it won't be allowed to conduct business under its current name the way it had been.
Good thing for its customers that Allofmp3 doesn't use DRM...
It is okay to back-order a magazine to get a copy of a photo.
It is okay to print the photo off a large subscription website whose purpose is to hold photos scanned from all the issues of that 'zine--or at any rate, I think most of us would have no problem doing it. If the subscription website is not being run by the 'zine, however, the 'zine might be irritated at losing possible back-issue/merchandise sales, especially if the 'zine has copyright on most of the photos.
Ah, but what are the terms of the licenses the RIAA issues?
Keep in mind that you are talking about the RIAA. It is generally understood that the RIAA and those record companies it represents are capable of almost anything, possibly excluding anything that appears sensible. I should know: I have kept close watch on the activities of an especially eccentric RIAA label for fifteen years...
So, if I were an RIAA record label, I would probably say this:
You the consumer buy only the media; you only license the music; but your license is valid only if you still possess the media.
Evidence for this interpretation: The RIAA requests that if you sell a piece of media that contains RIAA-licensed music, then you must give the back-ups to the person you sold the media to or else destroy the back-ups.
Disclaimers:
I am not an RIAA astroturfer. I came by my interest in their ways of thinking naturally.
I do not approve of everything the RIAA does. I have done things with RIAA material that it would not approve of.
Correct. If Russia rules out in advance extraditing anyone to another country, even if that (hypothetical) person murdered a citizen of that other country, then Russia certainly won't allow some other country's record industry association to collect enormous fines from one of their own corporations.
The Russian constitution seems to demand that all matters involving Russians be handled by Russia...
Well, there was one bill President Bush vetoed. It was a bill for embryonic stem-cell research, though; while not passing it likely saved the government some money, I don't know how much difference it made. (It did affect the research.)
Of course, from 2000 to 2002, the House of Representatives was Republican. From 2002 to 2006, both Houses were Republican. Now both Houses are Democratic; that could increase the number of bills Bush objects to.
Of course, Bush has been known to write "signing statements" that he thinks edit the bills he signs. I doubt this has helped the budget any.
I thought all states had seatbelt laws. I thought that requiring people to wear seatbelts was one of the many things the federal government requires states to do to get highway funds.
People dying from not wearing a seatbelt or helmet will increase healthcare costs and fill emergency rooms if they don't die right away. There can be a time lag between hitting the windshield/pavement and dying, and medical personnel will try to save the lives of those people during that lag. They have succeeded at this sometimes.
People who almost die from not wearing seatbelts or helmets probably will raise healthcare costs and take up ER and hospital space.
Yes, but simple deterrence is not the sole factor in deciding how serious a punishment should be.
It could be that what is sufficient to deter would still be getting off too lightly. Many people put murder in that class at some level.
It could be that what is sufficient to deter is too strong a punishment: ask anyone on this board who is actively fighting the DMCA. If what the DMCA asks is too strong, imagine how unfair any punishment that actually deterred people from "piracy" would be.
There could be crimes for which deterrence is impossible, but which cannot go unpunished. Sex offenses tend to get placed in this class. We can't let people get away with rape, but we don't think any punishment will deter people from doing it simply by existing. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any idea what a reasonable punishment for rape should be, and even less for the lesser offenses in the chain.
I ask them where their "pro life" stance went when it comes to the death penalty, as well as what happened to "turn the other cheek"?
I know the lines of thought of which you speak. People who are anti-abortion but pro-death-penalty do claim that the death penalty is compatible with all life being sacred: in fact, life is so sacred that they see the only fair punishment for taking one by first-degree murder as death. They are thinking in terms of "a life for a life"--an Old Testament concept, I know.
I cannot help you with the other half of your question, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: I am anti-abortion in general but undecided on the death penalty. I'm not fully decided on "life in prison" either.
The link to the blog of that yachtsman has pix, inc. some pix of the volcano creating land. I was amazed at the pix of the volcano creating land.
True. Steers can't breed.
But they can be cloned--and the clone can then grow up to be a bull. Bulls live to breed.
It's as close as the cattle industry can get to undoing sterilization, and they can still get tender steaks from the steer. No wonder they want cloning.
No, no, no.
European champagne is only sparkling white wine unless it's from the Champagne area of France. (Though I understand some European sparkling whites have their own special appelations.)
American champagne is champagne wherever it's grown. I don't think American champagne even has to contain alcohol.
I saw An Inconvenient Truth too.
I don't know that Al Gore actually gave solutions, but he did give ways to lessen our impact on global warming. Those I remember:
1. Use compact fluorescent bulbs. Replacing five incandescents with CF bulbs in your house can reduce CO2 emissions as much in a year as removing your car from the road for that time.
2. Plant trees. Trees absorb CO2.
3. Get one of those thermostats with timers. Tell it to lower temps in winter and raise them in summer in the times when these are the least bothersome. Lowers CO2 at the powerplant. (Jimmy Carter's suggestion--cool all the time in winter, warm all the time in summer--would probably be even more effective, but it would probably be less popular.)
4. Change your furnace filter regularly. Clean furnace filters lower CO2 emissions.
5. Cover your hot water heater with an insulating blanket. This lowers CO2 emissions, presumably at the power plant.
None of these strictly require government involvement.
"6000 odd years ago the bible tells the story of Noah, and a Giant flood. Maybe 6000 years ago an ice shelf in that location also snapped off and melted flooding the earth."
I've read that part of the Bible. Are you suggesting that an arctic ice shelf melted and flooded the entire world? Or even just the entire Middle East? Mind you, this melted arctic ice shelf would cover even the mountains in the area.
Of course, you may be right. It may have happened. But that would be one huge ice shelf.
I believe that it is already scientifically proven that Twinkies are not safe. I don't know if this was known before the '70s, though.
Twinkies do, however, pass all the FDA standards for junk food. People who eat Twinkies and are above the age of reason enjoy living dangerously.
I understand that Hostess has introduced organic Twinkies--or at least I've seen boxes with that notation on store shelves. If organic Twinkies are still sold, I'd like safety tests done on them.
Last I checked, microwaved hamburgers were dead before they went into the microwave. These days, they tend to be well-done.
So, what happens when you get that viable clone of that cow, raise it to market weight, slaughter it, and turn it into microwave hamburgers? Will the minute extra chromosomal changes lead to minute extra chromosomal changes in humans? If it does, will anyone care?
Probably no one will care, even (or especially) if it leads to accelerated global obesity. Probably I shouldn't get excited. But it is something to contemplate.
That Wiki article also says that vCJD (the human vs. of BSE) probably has a long latency period, just like BSE itself. Problem is, there is no way to test for latent BSE or latent vCJD. So, there might be a few hundred more cases that are still latent, but might become active at some future time.
Does Greenland have hundreds of thousands of people? Or will we end up spreading freedom and democracy to polar bears, seals, and walruses?
"Nor has it been the case in any recent year I remember."
Ah, but was it the case a hundred years ago? Wasn't there a time when the America's Northeast had snow on Christmas? The literature of New England implies that it did snow there a lot once. (And I don't just mean Buffalo.)
Global warming has been accelerating, in part since the beginning of the industrial revolution, likely somewhat faster since 1950. We've theorized about it for almost two decades now. The data we want for what things were like before it hit probably should come from before most of our lifetimes, not during them.
Thank you. I'll take your word (and your friend's word) for that.
And I've got to remember that rain and fog are two different phenomena.
It's reporter's English.
It translates to "An expert says that the collapse of an ice shelf in the Arctic poses a risk."
Though I suppose it could mean "The collapse of an ice shelf in the Arctic poses the risk that an expert will show up."
Last I checked, human beings live in New York, London, and Tokyo!
Great auks, then!
I thought it already rained all year in Washington State?
Europe already has mass fishing industry havoc. Never mind increases of winter--they have shortages of tasty fish. The related economic ripples likewise are already starting. The havoc increased winters will cause will have to come from other directions.