Second, there are many possibilities where downloading a movie is not copyright infringement.
Yes downloading that movie isn't infringement but as well, downloading a movie that you don't own isn't infringement either. Infringement is enforceable against the distributors, not the possessor. If you go to say, rapidshare and get a movie, the person who posts it is responsible- you are not, though if you share it via bittorrent, you are the responsible party since you are both sharing and downloading. This is why people like the RiAA, MPAA were so gung ho about CIOCA. They could blanket ban things with no recourse that they couldn't sue for.
actually misuse by the government is blown out of proportion, I would be much more distrustful of private organizations who have no accountability and more to gain from the misuse of information than the government.
In my country, compensation in a civil case is limited to three times the amount of actual damages.
I agree that something like this makes sense but the way that blame is assigned contradicts it. The assignment of fault goes to the distributors, hence why filesharing is considered "illegal" (civil liability and not criminal unless the works are sold for profit as "original" in which case it is counterfeiting) so the RIAA MPAA and any number of other organizations claim that they lose X amount of profits based on the distribution of the product. The main problems with the argument aren't that they don't have a claim in my book (and many others books) but that the numbers assigned make no sense for 2 reasons. 1. there is no quantifiable way to determine profits that have been lost because of so many other factors eg: quality of music, online sales impacting physical sales, economic downturn, etc. etc.
and
2.if this woman has a settlement against her , and others have before then they are officially considered the main parties in sharing the files, hence you have assigned the blame to those parties and you should not be able to assign the same amount to another party unless you can prove that the new party assumes full responsibility for the loss and can then grant an appeal to the first party. That is to say that imagine that you have a $500 piece of jewelry in your house and that 5 people break in and the only thing stolen is your $500 piece of jewelry, that doesn't mean that because 5 people broke in that you should be able to recover $2500 for the loss of the jewelry, or if 100 people broke in $50,000 for it- the price of the jewelry is still $500 and that is still what should be recovered for the loss.
And his argument was that it would hurt his ability to attract talent. Unless by talent he meant himself I fail to see how what he does with his assets has to do with this issue.
agreed - I live in the bay area, California- we have state income tax and between here in SF and down in silicon valley we don't have an problem attracting talent, there are certainly a lot of other things feeding to our economic woes but in general if someone from out of state or the country has an opportunity to move here to the bay area for a position they tend to do it and personal income tax really doesn't play int their decisions. Housing costs can sway them, but not income tax.
yes, but my thought is regardless of memory, wouldn't George McFly suspect that "calvin klein" was actually marty's father since they look so much alike? You would think that years later it would occur to him that marty looked familiar and that at some point george would accuse lorraine of sleeping with "calvin"... at least that would be my sequel.
"not tied to any hardware" I would imagine is one of the big selling points since you can develop a product geared towards different levels of hardware vs. ios where you are stuck with a specific spec. When it comes down to it apple's biggest success in design is also it's biggest limitation.
However, to be fair. A sudden increase of 9% of the tax liability is quite a bit, from the perspective of going from 0 to 9% in one jump
it could certainly be argued though that this is a 9% on what is generally expendable income, as it is a tax on income over $500,000. Most people in washington, if it is anything like the rest of the country, don't even make that 9% for their entire income.
Dr. Ann de Wees Allen is an idiot and doesn't realize that I can say Dr. Ann de Wees Allen without Dr. Ann de Wees Allen having anything to say about it. The only way that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen can complain is if I were to mislead people using the name Dr. Ann de Wees Allen or to claim that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen supports a product or to claim Dr. Ann de Wees Allen as a product name. Dr. Ann de Wees Allen really wouldn't have any recourse if Dr. Ann de Wees Allen was mentioned in any context outside of a Dr. Ann de Wees Allen website or a Dr. Ann de Wees Allen product line.
But I would never use Dr. Ann de Wees Allen's name without her permission so Dr. Ann de Wees Allen can feel safe.
Yes, the pirates are breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the **AAs get to respond by breaking it in kind.
actually the pirates aren't breaking the law, they are doing something which can be brought to civil court (I don't want to explain the DMCA again but trust me the criminal portion is clearly lined out to only target counterfeiting and not piracy) and has minimum damages set (though those are still up for debate) whereas the **AA are doing an activity which is actually criminal.
This sounded like a hammer nailing the first nail into the facebook coffin
not really, if anything it challenges last fm, soundcloud and myspace, which is pretty much only used to host music nowadays. Facebook doesn't really have a lot of options for distributing or networking around music.
if it does I will buy one in a heartbeat since it is cheaper than an xbox and you wouldn't have to mod it... at least before they stop letting them sell it
does anyone else find it strange that this case is coming down to an appeal of a ruling initiated by fox, the same company whose news network purports itself to be the voice of decency and wholesomeness in an otherwise dirty world.
How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position.
It is different because for some reason congress has decided that the RIAA (and MPAA) has access to our police force and unlimited access to our courts as well as broadcast copyright being strong-armed by the ascap/bmi groups (who feel the right to charge for indie artists like myself when broadcast though I am a member of neither and release everything indie or on non-affiliated labels) and it is all legal because there is a huge fear of letting the old business model and old conglomerates die.
I think are being funny, though it is sort of hard to tell since I see so many comments that aren't trying to be funny that sound so similar on other sites. Human beings are sad.
Eminent domain relates to compensation for seizure of property, there is no seizure. Regulating usage of resources does not constitute seizure of property, especially of a public utility (which in the city that I live is AT&T who owns all of the DSL and fiber and leases it to other companies).
this is a stupid mistake that sony made- normally you have to download the entire firmware, this is the first time that sony has experimented in releasing an incremental update so that the update only takes a couple of minutes instead of the usual half hour- most probably they will either need to make the software request additional components that will need to be on the thumb drive or create a drive formatting in the flash that allows for an incremental upgrade or just allow you to download the entire firmware from the website- I have inched my way up the drivespace ladder with spare drives that I have had sitting around so I went from a 40 to a 60 to a 120 so I have gone through the backup/install/load firmware process a few times now.
What the wealthy elite have is not freedom, but license.
no, they have major components to freedom that the rest of us don't
they have time, resources, education and status. All of those things give opportunity that those of us that have had to scrap and grew up in the gutter will never be able to compete with. It means that we don't get the same opportunities to succeed or reach our potentials or live in the end as fulfilling of a life. What you are saying in your statement is the kind of thing the fat ugly kid hears from his mom- "they are just making fun of you because they are jealous"- when in actuality they are making fun of you because they are dicks and couldn't care less about you so long as they are having a good time.
(i) has manufactured, imported, distributed, sold etc, means the sole intended purpose of which is to facilitate the unauthorised removal or circumvention of the technical device;
(ii) knows or has reason to believe that that means will be used to make infringing copies of the computer program.
that is actually scares me a bit, it is akin to the arguments above comparing say owning a baseball bat = responsible for murder. The judge is actually saying right there that because he: "knows or has reason to believe that that means will be used to make infringing copies" that the banning of the device is valid- the key word in the statement isn't "knows" it is "or has reason to believe"
actually the main reason isn't to stop cheaper copies from overseas- the margin is way too small for that to be a threat, it is more to encourage sales in markets where they strategically plan a release schedue prime eg's: nightwatch which was on dvd in russia for over a year before it was in theaters in the US or Kung fu Hustle that was also out for over a year on DVD in asian markets before in theaters here...
the same goes for delayed releases from here in larger markets like india or china
That, or we can try to get the majority of people to wake up and realize how their apathy has led to a situation where megacorps take advantage of them
It isn't apathy so much as ignorance- most of the public doesn't participate in the argument because they don't understand it. Most of the consuming public don't realize the brick walls are in place till they hit one. At that point they think the laws are ludicrous, but it isn't even in their collective peripheral vision, that's why things like the DMCA get passed- people don't immediately notice or make the connection that they ever will.
I think that a lot of the failures you are listing certainly are situations where MS snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, especially courier that could have been a fairly serious competitor to the ipad, for students and businesspeople you would have a device that was cool AND useful
they did accidentally piss in the fan when it came to vista but it seems like they have been purposely making their own screwups ever since then...
Microsoft Windows is really so much harder to use than Ubuntu.
I disagree completely, windows does work out of the box, and it does what you want out of the box- it is though like you say, more fragile- that is, viruses and corruptions are easier to attain. Out of the box though you will find more people having an easier time not having to jump to a terminal to install drivers or setup ppa's in order to get their hardware working - this comes from someone who keeps his machine dual booting since ubuntu doesn't provide the functionality I need but using windows for generally surfing the web is like sleeping with a hooker without a condom unless you disable everything which kinda sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, there are many possibilities where downloading a movie is not copyright infringement.
Yes downloading that movie isn't infringement but as well, downloading a movie that you don't own isn't infringement either. Infringement is enforceable against the distributors, not the possessor. If you go to say, rapidshare and get a movie, the person who posts it is responsible- you are not, though if you share it via bittorrent, you are the responsible party since you are both sharing and downloading. This is why people like the RiAA, MPAA were so gung ho about CIOCA. They could blanket ban things with no recourse that they couldn't sue for.
Just like the commercials say - "The Windows 7 Phone. A phone to save us from our phones".
that's what I don't get as well - how is it a selling point that "our phone is so good that you won't want to use it as much as other phones"?
they have a bad habit of misusing that power.
actually misuse by the government is blown out of proportion, I would be much more distrustful of private organizations who have no accountability and more to gain from the misuse of information than the government.
In my country, compensation in a civil case is limited to three times the amount of actual damages.
I agree that something like this makes sense but the way that blame is assigned contradicts it. The assignment of fault goes to the distributors, hence why filesharing is considered "illegal" (civil liability and not criminal unless the works are sold for profit as "original" in which case it is counterfeiting) so the RIAA MPAA and any number of other organizations claim that they lose X amount of profits based on the distribution of the product. The main problems with the argument aren't that they don't have a claim in my book (and many others books) but that the numbers assigned make no sense for 2 reasons.
1. there is no quantifiable way to determine profits that have been lost because of so many other factors eg: quality of music, online sales impacting physical sales, economic downturn, etc. etc.
and
2.if this woman has a settlement against her , and others have before then they are officially considered the main parties in sharing the files, hence you have assigned the blame to those parties and you should not be able to assign the same amount to another party unless you can prove that the new party assumes full responsibility for the loss and can then grant an appeal to the first party. That is to say that imagine that you have a $500 piece of jewelry in your house and that 5 people break in and the only thing stolen is your $500 piece of jewelry, that doesn't mean that because 5 people broke in that you should be able to recover $2500 for the loss of the jewelry, or if 100 people broke in $50,000 for it- the price of the jewelry is still $500 and that is still what should be recovered for the loss.
And his argument was that it would hurt his ability to attract talent. Unless by talent he meant himself I fail to see how what he does with his assets has to do with this issue.
agreed - I live in the bay area, California- we have state income tax and between here in SF and down in silicon valley we don't have an problem attracting talent, there are certainly a lot of other things feeding to our economic woes but in general if someone from out of state or the country has an opportunity to move here to the bay area for a position they tend to do it and personal income tax really doesn't play int their decisions. Housing costs can sway them, but not income tax.
yes, but my thought is regardless of memory, wouldn't George McFly suspect that "calvin klein" was actually marty's father since they look so much alike? You would think that years later it would occur to him that marty looked familiar and that at some point george would accuse lorraine of sleeping with "calvin"... at least that would be my sequel.
"not tied to any hardware" I would imagine is one of the big selling points since you can develop a product geared towards different levels of hardware vs. ios where you are stuck with a specific spec. When it comes down to it apple's biggest success in design is also it's biggest limitation.
However, to be fair. A sudden increase of 9% of the tax liability is quite a bit, from the perspective of going from 0 to 9% in one jump
it could certainly be argued though that this is a 9% on what is generally expendable income, as it is a tax on income over $500,000. Most people in washington, if it is anything like the rest of the country, don't even make that 9% for their entire income.
Dr. Ann de Wees Allen is an idiot and doesn't realize that I can say Dr. Ann de Wees Allen without Dr. Ann de Wees Allen having anything to say about it. The only way that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen can complain is if I were to mislead people using the name Dr. Ann de Wees Allen or to claim that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen supports a product or to claim Dr. Ann de Wees Allen as a product name. Dr. Ann de Wees Allen really wouldn't have any recourse if Dr. Ann de Wees Allen was mentioned in any context outside of a Dr. Ann de Wees Allen website or a Dr. Ann de Wees Allen product line.
But I would never use Dr. Ann de Wees Allen's name without her permission so Dr. Ann de Wees Allen can feel safe.
Yes, the pirates are breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the **AAs get to respond by breaking it in kind.
actually the pirates aren't breaking the law, they are doing something which can be brought to civil court (I don't want to explain the DMCA again but trust me the criminal portion is clearly lined out to only target counterfeiting and not piracy) and has minimum damages set (though those are still up for debate) whereas the **AA are doing an activity which is actually criminal.
This sounded like a hammer nailing the first nail into the facebook coffin
not really, if anything it challenges last fm, soundcloud and myspace, which is pretty much only used to host music nowadays. Facebook doesn't really have a lot of options for distributing or networking around music.
It probably runs Xbox software backups too.
if it does I will buy one in a heartbeat since it is cheaper than an xbox and you wouldn't have to mod it... at least before they stop letting them sell it
does anyone else find it strange that this case is coming down to an appeal of a ruling initiated by fox, the same company whose news network purports itself to be the voice of decency and wholesomeness in an otherwise dirty world.
How is this any different from a monopoly abusing it's position.
It is different because for some reason congress has decided that the RIAA (and MPAA) has access to our police force and unlimited access to our courts as well as broadcast copyright being strong-armed by the ascap/bmi groups (who feel the right to charge for indie artists like myself when broadcast though I am a member of neither and release everything indie or on non-affiliated labels) and it is all legal because there is a huge fear of letting the old business model and old conglomerates die.
I think are being funny, though it is sort of hard to tell since I see so many comments that aren't trying to be funny that sound so similar on other sites. Human beings are sad.
Eminent domain relates to compensation for seizure of property, there is no seizure. Regulating usage of resources does not constitute seizure of property, especially of a public utility (which in the city that I live is AT&T who owns all of the DSL and fiber and leases it to other companies).
this is a stupid mistake that sony made- normally you have to download the entire firmware, this is the first time that sony has experimented in releasing an incremental update so that the update only takes a couple of minutes instead of the usual half hour- most probably they will either need to make the software request additional components that will need to be on the thumb drive or create a drive formatting in the flash that allows for an incremental upgrade or just allow you to download the entire firmware from the website- I have inched my way up the drivespace ladder with spare drives that I have had sitting around so I went from a 40 to a 60 to a 120 so I have gone through the backup/install/load firmware process a few times now.
What the wealthy elite have is not freedom, but license.
no, they have major components to freedom that the rest of us don't
they have time, resources, education and status.
All of those things give opportunity that those of us that have had to scrap and grew up in the gutter will never be able to compete with. It means that we don't get the same opportunities to succeed or reach our potentials or live in the end as fulfilling of a life. What you are saying in your statement is the kind of thing the fat ugly kid hears from his mom- "they are just making fun of you because they are jealous"- when in actuality they are making fun of you because they are dicks and couldn't care less about you so long as they are having a good time.
(i) has manufactured, imported, distributed, sold etc, means the sole intended purpose of which is to facilitate the unauthorised removal or circumvention of the technical device; (ii) knows or has reason to believe that that means will be used to make infringing copies of the computer program.
that is actually scares me a bit, it is akin to the arguments above comparing say owning a baseball bat = responsible for murder. The judge is actually saying right there that because he: "knows or has reason to believe that that means will be used to make infringing copies" that the banning of the device is valid- the key word in the statement isn't "knows" it is "or has reason to believe"
actually the main reason isn't to stop cheaper copies from overseas- the margin is way too small for that to be a threat, it is more to encourage sales in markets where they strategically plan a release schedue prime eg's: nightwatch which was on dvd in russia for over a year before it was in theaters in the US or Kung fu Hustle that was also out for over a year on DVD in asian markets before in theaters here... the same goes for delayed releases from here in larger markets like india or china
That, or we can try to get the majority of people to wake up and realize how their apathy has led to a situation where megacorps take advantage of them
It isn't apathy so much as ignorance- most of the public doesn't participate in the argument because they don't understand it. Most of the consuming public don't realize the brick walls are in place till they hit one. At that point they think the laws are ludicrous, but it isn't even in their collective peripheral vision, that's why things like the DMCA get passed- people don't immediately notice or make the connection that they ever will.
I think that a lot of the failures you are listing certainly are situations where MS snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, especially courier that could have been a fairly serious competitor to the ipad, for students and businesspeople you would have a device that was cool AND useful
they did accidentally piss in the fan when it came to vista but it seems like they have been purposely making their own screwups ever since then...
Microsoft Windows is really so much harder to use than Ubuntu.
I disagree completely, windows does work out of the box, and it does what you want out of the box- it is though like you say, more fragile- that is, viruses and corruptions are easier to attain. Out of the box though you will find more people having an easier time not having to jump to a terminal to install drivers or setup ppa's in order to get their hardware working - this comes from someone who keeps his machine dual booting since ubuntu doesn't provide the functionality I need but using windows for generally surfing the web is like sleeping with a hooker without a condom unless you disable everything which kinda sucks.
but they are trying to control the internet, the same way that the civil rights bill was a forced eugenics program to eliminate the white race
when you write a contract while stoned and in college.