I think you underestimate the sophistication of terrorists. Couple this with technical support from states like Iran and its not very hard to come up with a specialised weapon. Having said that it much easier to rely on other ways of taking down an aircraft (ie bomb inside), or just going after an altogether different and easier target. As the French know, if you build your walls too big then the Germans just go around them. Damn Germans.
Tho I don't particularly agree or disagree with you I would just like to point out that for that analogy to be complete, the attacker needs to offer some lure to the victim which plays on their greed.
So it would looks something like:
If you are stupid enough to follow a man offering you a million dollars in cash to an alley at night, you deserve to be mugged or raped.
I also offer analogy correction for corporate customers.
I'm not a lawyer but if they sent them a cease and desist letter, and they stopped infringing then they don't have much of a case. The best they can hope for is to get all the infringing models destroyed.
New software will not help - there isn't some amazing algorithm out there that takes data from crappy sensors and makes it 100% accurate. Now if they were able to duplicate some of the hardware that went with the software then it could be of some use - but the point is that the hardware is the hard part.
That means that she believes in the theory of activity. Activitist is a term made up by people who are anti-activity (i.e. the couch institute) to make it sound like a political cause. They propose an alternative "stationary activity" theory which in practice just an euphemism for sitting down.
While that might seem a valid comparison it unfortunately wrong on to points
1. The role of your bacteria in your gut is not to prevent bad bacteria from living there but to help with digestion. However since bacteria on your skin do have this competition role I'll accept it as a valid point.
2. Viruses come, ursurp the mechanisms of the cell to make it produce copies, and then kill the cell to move on (in most cases). Hence using "good" viruses isn't going to make the bad viruses go away. What has happened with the "good" viruses is that they were once bad, but as part of their attack on a cell they merged their rna into our dna which become deactivated and over time changed into a new and positive role.
I called it wages instead of money to make the distinction that its earned. Its not about artificial scarcity vs actual scarcity but that as the copyright owner you get to choose how much you charge for it. If I made a dodgy piece of software and demanded a million dollars for its purchase and you stole it, the judge wouldn't take into consideration if the software was worth the price, or if there was an 'inflated' demand as it was just ones and zeros - its my right to charge what I want for my stuff.
Your point about artists wanting exposure it true but irrelevant, as in this case they have signed a contract giving their intellectual property to the record companies for however much (which is irrelevant as a contract is a contract) which means that the record companies decide for the artist how to distribute the stuff. If the artists want their stuff shared they should look into alternative means of distribution or some other kind of contract with the record companies (which they are not likely to get). I'm not sure what you mean by the last line, but just as in software so it is in music that the cost of making a copy of the record is insignificant, and the real cost comes from making the first one! So that its inexpensive to reproduce is irrelevant as they are trying to recover and profit on the capital expense, not on the costs of reproduction!
This is a bit of a straw man attack - if someone cut you off, and it was illegal for them to do so (it would be difficult to prove in court) then you can recoup your damages in court - If it caused a substaticial amount of damage to you (i.e. they cut you off so you had an accident). Same here this woman caused damage to the record companies and so they have a right to recoup the cost (not lost profits but cost of the damage).
Its a bit of a straw man you attacked there - I didn't say it was because of the money that you would feel differently but because it would be your wages that are being stolen. That its a large faceless evil corporation its happening to dosen't really change the law.
In your list you are assuming that this is how the decision was made. The jury could have easily used estimates to make their damages based on probabilities, having said that - the people that downloaded without paying SHOULD have paid, so the damages are real even if the lost profits are not.
As for financial ruin of the defendant, while unfortunate, is what happens when you do stuff that is wrong. And that you know is wrong I might add. While they should get good PR and forgive a part of the damages, they are not under any obligation do to so.
Typically from bootleggers you can get stuff for 90%+ off the normal price this way hence you could extend you argument to cover them as well. Copyright holders do lose out because the only thing of value they have is the right to distribute. If someone takes that from you then you lose out irrelevant of if they charge for it or not.
I think the logic that the punishment for a crime should be to pay the normal price is a bit interesting. If that was the case what would be the point in following the law and getting a licence for anything when the worst that would happen is that you would be forced to pay the normal cost!
Distributing for profit and for free is no different to the owner of the copyright. In both cases they lose out the same amount - and I think its disingenuous to pretend that there wasn't any intent to distribute if those files were made available for anyone on the P2P network to take!
Can you summarise your argument? It seems you are all over the place. I think you would feel about the situation differently if it was your music or software that was illegally being distributed.
Its fairly common for juries to award an estimate of possible damages when actual losses are disputed. In this case the jury obviously thought there was some damage done to the copyright owners.
At the risk of being stoned here I would like to say I agree with that argument.
The amount presented per song as damages are not just "to buy that song" as some have argued here, but the equivalent of buying the right to distribute that song. When you purchase an album it does not give you the right to give it out to people, it just gives you the right to listen to it. Its also not unconceivable that the record companies lost that much money from her actions either, especially if she was one of the first to make it available for download.
The argument that making something available on a P2P network constitutes copyright infringement is quite logical. Imagine you were on a street corner giving out illegally burned cds, and the police come and arrest you. Do you think they would buy the argument that you haven't actually given out yet? Or that you were blindfolded so you don't know if you have given one out? Of course not. You could make the argument that she was unaware that they were available for download, but ignorance has rarely been a good argument to make in court (except for politicians).
So far efforts by the big oil to enter the renewables market are only token and serve for good PR. Oil is still very profitable, and its more profitable too keep drilling for oil then to spend money on other, more risky technology.
They would have released it earlier but they knew that it was such a great game it would destroy society by causing everyone to stay at home and play it. They did the right thing and pretended it was still in works.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you underestimate the sophistication of terrorists. Couple this with technical support from states like Iran and its not very hard to come up with a specialised weapon. Having said that it much easier to rely on other ways of taking down an aircraft (ie bomb inside), or just going after an altogether different and easier target. As the French know, if you build your walls too big then the Germans just go around them. Damn Germans.
Tho I don't particularly agree or disagree with you I would just like to point out that for that analogy to be complete, the attacker needs to offer some lure to the victim which plays on their greed.
So it would looks something like:
If you are stupid enough to follow a man offering you a million dollars in cash to an alley at night, you deserve to be mugged or raped.
I also offer analogy correction for corporate customers.
While SETI just looks for aliens, it also finds abnormalities or unusual signals which then further our understanding of cosmology.
It always breaks my heart when I see it happening.
I'm not a lawyer but if they sent them a cease and desist letter, and they stopped infringing then they don't have much of a case. The best they can hope for is to get all the infringing models destroyed.
Wow, I seriously thought that if anyone had the balls and brains to support evolution it would be ronny boy. Lucky I live in Australia.
You're wrong.
New software will not help - there isn't some amazing algorithm out there that takes data from crappy sensors and makes it 100% accurate. Now if they were able to duplicate some of the hardware that went with the software then it could be of some use - but the point is that the hardware is the hard part.
That means that she believes in the theory of activity. Activitist is a term made up by people who are anti-activity (i.e. the couch institute) to make it sound like a political cause. They propose an alternative "stationary activity" theory which in practice just an euphemism for sitting down.
While that might seem a valid comparison it unfortunately wrong on to points
1. The role of your bacteria in your gut is not to prevent bad bacteria from living there but to help with digestion. However since bacteria on your skin do have this competition role I'll accept it as a valid point.
2. Viruses come, ursurp the mechanisms of the cell to make it produce copies, and then kill the cell to move on (in most cases). Hence using "good" viruses isn't going to make the bad viruses go away. What has happened with the "good" viruses is that they were once bad, but as part of their attack on a cell they merged their rna into our dna which become deactivated and over time changed into a new and positive role.
I called it wages instead of money to make the distinction that its earned. Its not about artificial scarcity vs actual scarcity but that as the copyright owner you get to choose how much you charge for it. If I made a dodgy piece of software and demanded a million dollars for its purchase and you stole it, the judge wouldn't take into consideration if the software was worth the price, or if there was an 'inflated' demand as it was just ones and zeros - its my right to charge what I want for my stuff.
Your point about artists wanting exposure it true but irrelevant, as in this case they have signed a contract giving their intellectual property to the record companies for however much (which is irrelevant as a contract is a contract) which means that the record companies decide for the artist how to distribute the stuff. If the artists want their stuff shared they should look into alternative means of distribution or some other kind of contract with the record companies (which they are not likely to get). I'm not sure what you mean by the last line, but just as in software so it is in music that the cost of making a copy of the record is insignificant, and the real cost comes from making the first one! So that its inexpensive to reproduce is irrelevant as they are trying to recover and profit on the capital expense, not on the costs of reproduction!
This is a bit of a straw man attack - if someone cut you off, and it was illegal for them to do so (it would be difficult to prove in court) then you can recoup your damages in court - If it caused a substaticial amount of damage to you (i.e. they cut you off so you had an accident). Same here this woman caused damage to the record companies and so they have a right to recoup the cost (not lost profits but cost of the damage).
Thankyou for your reply.
Its a bit of a straw man you attacked there - I didn't say it was because of the money that you would feel differently but because it would be your wages that are being stolen. That its a large faceless evil corporation its happening to dosen't really change the law.
In your list you are assuming that this is how the decision was made. The jury could have easily used estimates to make their damages based on probabilities, having said that - the people that downloaded without paying SHOULD have paid, so the damages are real even if the lost profits are not.
As for financial ruin of the defendant, while unfortunate, is what happens when you do stuff that is wrong. And that you know is wrong I might add. While they should get good PR and forgive a part of the damages, they are not under any obligation do to so.
Thanks for your reply
There was nothing proven, nothing proven...
Typically from bootleggers you can get stuff for 90%+ off the normal price this way hence you could extend you argument to cover them as well. Copyright holders do lose out because the only thing of value they have is the right to distribute. If someone takes that from you then you lose out irrelevant of if they charge for it or not.
That is true, I concede that point.
I think the logic that the punishment for a crime should be to pay the normal price is a bit interesting. If that was the case what would be the point in following the law and getting a licence for anything when the worst that would happen is that you would be forced to pay the normal cost!
Distributing for profit and for free is no different to the owner of the copyright. In both cases they lose out the same amount - and I think its disingenuous to pretend that there wasn't any intent to distribute if those files were made available for anyone on the P2P network to take!
Can you summarise your argument? It seems you are all over the place. I think you would feel about the situation differently if it was your music or software that was illegally being distributed.
Its fairly common for juries to award an estimate of possible damages when actual losses are disputed. In this case the jury obviously thought there was some damage done to the copyright owners.
Congrats for wilfully ignoring the more logical understanding of that sentence and choosing the most absurd understanding.
Its not the size of your UID, its how you use it.
Remember kids, winners don't do drugs.
At the risk of being stoned here I would like to say I agree with that argument.
The amount presented per song as damages are not just "to buy that song" as some have argued here, but the equivalent of buying the right to distribute that song. When you purchase an album it does not give you the right to give it out to people, it just gives you the right to listen to it. Its also not unconceivable that the record companies lost that much money from her actions either, especially if she was one of the first to make it available for download.
The argument that making something available on a P2P network constitutes copyright infringement is quite logical. Imagine you were on a street corner giving out illegally burned cds, and the police come and arrest you. Do you think they would buy the argument that you haven't actually given out yet? Or that you were blindfolded so you don't know if you have given one out? Of course not. You could make the argument that she was unaware that they were available for download, but ignorance has rarely been a good argument to make in court (except for politicians).
So far efforts by the big oil to enter the renewables market are only token and serve for good PR. Oil is still very profitable, and its more profitable too keep drilling for oil then to spend money on other, more risky technology.
They would have released it earlier but they knew that it was such a great game it would destroy society by causing everyone to stay at home and play it. They did the right thing and pretended it was still in works.
Why drop food, which fixes the problem for a few days at most, when dropping a bomb will permanently fix the problem.