I think the SCOTUS just wants to be hip like everyone else in Hollywood. Fighting the man made global warming cause is hip.
Like it or not, corporations are positioning themselves to profit off of any and all legislation against the carbon economy.
Even if found guilty there is no corporate equivalent of a prison sentence. uhhh... I'm pretty sure a huge ass fine that puts the company into bankruptcy and/or out of business could be equated to a loss in freedoms.
I've paid for them all. But I know what music is worth to me. I'm virtually NEVER going to pay even $10 for an album anymore if I only want one or two or three tunes off of it. Since some time in 2002, the only places I've been getting new music have been free publicity offerings by bands/labels or allofmp3. Cut that off, and I'll just stop consuming. I can perform well enough to get my musical kicks, and I have a decent library of existing music. $1 a song is a ridiculously overinflated price, for digital delivery, by at least an order of magnitude. $1 a song is over inflated? C'mon.
Sure, if you are a mega superstar that goes Multi-platinum then you just made a boat load of cash. But if you are like most smaller artists you may sell 100,000 or 50,000 units if you are lucky. An album takes months of hard work to create and years of work before that to craft ones talent.
So say an album brings in a million dollars.
You have to pay to transport that data over a network, or package in a CD case.
You have to pay for fees to register the creative work.
You have to pay for lawyers to write up licenses and what not
You have to pay the people that advertise and distribute your work
You have to pay for the time to use the equipment to make a good album
There isn't a whole hell of a lot to go around in todays world.
Do I think the music industry takes advantage of artists by not giving them a fair cut? Yes. Do I think DRM sucks? Yes. Do I think that music is over priced on iTunes? no way.
Not only That but much of the wiring installed in homes across the country may not stand-up to a houseful for CFLs.
CFLs are not a purely resistive load like a tungsten based incandescent light. They have reactive, capacitive, and inductive properties too.
Loads like these in older homes with outdated wiring may over heat neutral wires and cause fires. This is akin to computer labs where the neutral conductor must be double the size of the feeder wires because computers cause a lot of noise and harmonic currents on the neutral.
This legislation is not well thought out IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the SCOTUS just wants to be hip like everyone else in Hollywood. Fighting the man made global warming cause is hip. Like it or not, corporations are positioning themselves to profit off of any and all legislation against the carbon economy.
Not only That but much of the wiring installed in homes across the country may not stand-up to a houseful for CFLs. CFLs are not a purely resistive load like a tungsten based incandescent light. They have reactive, capacitive, and inductive properties too. Loads like these in older homes with outdated wiring may over heat neutral wires and cause fires. This is akin to computer labs where the neutral conductor must be double the size of the feeder wires because computers cause a lot of noise and harmonic currents on the neutral. This legislation is not well thought out IMO.