Does this decision in of itself have any real significance in terms of the RIAA's plethora of lawsuits? I'm not entirely sure how this works. Does this set precedent, or is the judge in question not high up enough in the hierarchy for this decision to become case law?
I realize that every victory counts, but what I want to know is whether this will affect similar cases in the future.
According to court documents, a user on the site named "STANFORDtroll" began a thread in 2005 seeking to warn Yale students about one of the women in the suit
If he had just changed his name to STANFORDanonymouscoward, this would have never happened...
If you listen to an audio CD produced by a person who signed a contract with a megacorp and they let them tell them how to make their music more "saleable", then you don't listen to music (expression), you listen to some sounds designed to make you feel happy. If that's what you want to listen to, then it's okay. But please call it sound, not music.
First you advocate a holistic approach to selecting music, and then you come right back and slam all music that is produced by a major label for bowing to the whims of their corporate masters - and since you have no idea of knowing the creative process of any particular artist, you have no idea which ones have been influenced artistically by the producers - the only solution to ensure that you are receiving unfiltered artistic communication is to label anything produced by a major label as "sound" and dismiss it as without any value. Since most musicians are likely unaware of any means of distributing their music outside the major labels, you are closing yourself off to a huge percentage of music created in this country out of the fear that it might just be "sound," and not "music."
Keep in mind that most people - myself, an artist, included - don't expose themselves to art (theatre, music, cinema, whatever) to experience the emotions the artist is trying to communicate. People want to be entertained, and any message the artist is trying to convey would be lost anyway if the audience were not entertained. I personally don't see why I should not allow myself to experience some art that might entertain me just because I don't approve of what I assume the artist's creative process to be. And yes, I do call it art, because who am I to judge how another artist goes about his work?
I read this argument a lot on/. and it's never made a whole lot of sense to me. So I should base my choice in music based solely off of how it's distributed? I should not listen to my favorite songs to make a statement about the music industry? If people were willing to make that kind of sacrifice I doubt the major labels would be able to set music prices as high as they do and get away with it. I personally pick the bands I like based on how good they are.
If he's using Doritos' money to fund his show, and he's using his show to promote his campaign, that definitely makes him guilty of using corporate money for political purposes (as per the Transitive Property of Campaign Finance Law).
* Technology left them Dazed and Confused.
* They resisted when they had plenty of money during the Good Times, Bad Times currently prevail, though.
* They wanted to ensure that The Song Remains the Same during the analog to digital conversion.
* They wanted to do it earlier, but there was a Communication Breakdown - during the discussions, it seemed that one of the parties would just Ramble On.
* They weren't sure what the analog to digital conversion would do to their Rock and Roll, and were considering Going to California to get it all straightened out.
These puns are Wearing and Tearing on my sense of humor.
I'll give you No Quarter if you continue saying them.
It'll be your fault When the Levee Breaks...the levee of my SANITY, that is. ........... Immigrant Song
In Norway we have a socialistic government, and we are currently rated as the best country in the world to live in.
One of the first lessons of political science is that all nations are different, and just because one political ideology works in one location doesn't mean it will work the same or as effectively somewhere else. Norway is a lot smaller than the States (not to mention more homogeneous), meaning that a centralized bureaucracy is going to be a lot sleeker and efficient than one here - our government is hopelessly mired down in red tape as it is (as a side note, this is exactly what our federal system was meant to prevent, but the integrity of that system has been hopelessly compromised in recent years through such things as horribly broad readings of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, particularly the Commerce Clause). Effectively managing the centralized economy necessary for socialism to work would be impossible here. I'm not saying that "going to a capitalistic extreme" as you put it is a good thing (it isn't), but I'm doubtful that simply importing Norway's example will be much better.
I'm so fed up with US politicians and officials covering their asses with "anonymous" comments, and the press core lapping it up.
While on principle I agree with you, I imagine government officials would be far less likely to talk to the press if they knew their identities would be revealed - especially in an administration such as this, where complete lockstep is required from everyone in the executive branch. The recent testimony) of the former surgeon general is a perfect example of this - he described how Bush is extremely controlling of everything his underlings say. If government officials talked to the press without the safety of anonymity, their jobs would be on the line. This is the only way we'll be able to hear what these people have to say, and while I agree that it is less than ideal, it's probably the best we're going to get.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this decision in of itself have any real significance in terms of the RIAA's plethora of lawsuits? I'm not entirely sure how this works. Does this set precedent, or is the judge in question not high up enough in the hierarchy for this decision to become case law?
I realize that every victory counts, but what I want to know is whether this will affect similar cases in the future.
Internet funnyman David Wong wrote a very in-depth article about the future possibilities of MMO's awhile ago, which can be found here.
Keep in mind that most people - myself, an artist, included - don't expose themselves to art (theatre, music, cinema, whatever) to experience the emotions the artist is trying to communicate. People want to be entertained, and any message the artist is trying to convey would be lost anyway if the audience were not entertained. I personally don't see why I should not allow myself to experience some art that might entertain me just because I don't approve of what I assume the artist's creative process to be. And yes, I do call it art, because who am I to judge how another artist goes about his work?
I read this argument a lot on /. and it's never made a whole lot of sense to me. So I should base my choice in music based solely off of how it's distributed? I should not listen to my favorite songs to make a statement about the music industry? If people were willing to make that kind of sacrifice I doubt the major labels would be able to set music prices as high as they do and get away with it. I personally pick the bands I like based on how good they are.
If he's using Doritos' money to fund his show, and he's using his show to promote his campaign, that definitely makes him guilty of using corporate money for political purposes (as per the Transitive Property of Campaign Finance Law).
These puns are Wearing and Tearing on my sense of humor.
I'll give you No Quarter if you continue saying them.
It'll be your fault When the Levee Breaks...the levee of my SANITY, that is.
Immigrant Song
I've always preferred "Conan the Republican."
One of the first lessons of political science is that all nations are different, and just because one political ideology works in one location doesn't mean it will work the same or as effectively somewhere else. Norway is a lot smaller than the States (not to mention more homogeneous), meaning that a centralized bureaucracy is going to be a lot sleeker and efficient than one here - our government is hopelessly mired down in red tape as it is (as a side note, this is exactly what our federal system was meant to prevent, but the integrity of that system has been hopelessly compromised in recent years through such things as horribly broad readings of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, particularly the Commerce Clause). Effectively managing the centralized economy necessary for socialism to work would be impossible here. I'm not saying that "going to a capitalistic extreme" as you put it is a good thing (it isn't), but I'm doubtful that simply importing Norway's example will be much better.
Combined with a form of fusion, this will be all the power we'll ever need.
While on principle I agree with you, I imagine government officials would be far less likely to talk to the press if they knew their identities would be revealed - especially in an administration such as this, where complete lockstep is required from everyone in the executive branch. The recent testimony) of the former surgeon general is a perfect example of this - he described how Bush is extremely controlling of everything his underlings say. If government officials talked to the press without the safety of anonymity, their jobs would be on the line. This is the only way we'll be able to hear what these people have to say, and while I agree that it is less than ideal, it's probably the best we're going to get.
2006 - Year of the Dog
2007 - Year of the Pig
2008 - Year of Linux Desktop