The problems come in when management goes from leader to boss or when the role of leadership gets conflated with importance. A good manager sees himself as part of the team with a job to do. A boss sees himself as the person above the team who makes people do things.
Of course, you have to also consider the probability that many of those copied media would never have been a sale. Either the person didn't have the money or didn't value it as high as the price.
The standard of proof HAS to be high considering that the penalties are ruinous. Beyond that, If I am to be deputized as a defender of other people's copyrights in my home, I better be getting a paycheck from the beneficiaries.
But beyond that, the movie industry is showing no signs of damage from copyright infringement. Their profits are higher than ever.
Correction: Someone in that household, or leeching that household's WiFi or someone with a hacked cable modem or someone at the ISP downloaded that content that they may or may not have known was copyrighted.
Or due to a clerical error, perhaps it was another household.
My concern is that if 'the powers that be' don't soon learn that keeping the lid on the pressure cooker by suppressing protest is a losing strategy, it will explode soon (if it's not already too late for that). I would rather see a measured response where cops end up in handcuffs than one where cops end up dead. Yje lesson in humility might also be helpful.
Also, that would be the sort of moral victory that could get people motivated to vote for unconventional candidates with some hope they might win.
I also prefer a non-violent solution. My fear is that the current 'leaders' will not understand until they are personally in danger. I would like to see a measured violence though. Next demonstration, it would be nice to see when the cops break out the tear gas if they get gassed even harder themselves. Even better if they end up tasered and zip tied to lamp posts.
Any thought of people doing un-needed busywork is your own fantasy since I certainly never proposed it. Personally, I think it would make a lot more sense to reduce the workweek to accommodate full employment. I also never claimed a utopia, just an improvement over the current situation. You *DO* favor improvement, don't you?
The topic is the US, friend. Yes, East Elbonia sucks, but then those jobs are often the best available in-country, so there's no easy answers there.
Yes, it is, such as the U.S. corporation that sells the shoes for $200 a pair and refuses to employ a person from the U.S. to make them because they can chain a woman to a bench somewhere else and get it done for slave wages. So the U.S. worker that should be employed isn't and the lady from wherever gets nothing like the real value of her labor.
You don't deserve a job as a reward for breathing.
You may not mind stepping over the bodies of those who didn't get a job, but I have a problem with that. If you are going to make having a job necessary to live, you damn well better have jobs available that actually pay enough to live. Otherwise, they are well justified in defying any law necessary to make that living. Other than the disabled, everyone is capable of doing something useful, but there simply don't seem to be enough jobs available for them to all have one now. That condition will continue to get worse.
As for training, do you suggest they steal the money they need for tuition? Because that's pretty much their only option right now other than do without. Of course, you assume for some reason there will actually be jobs for all of them once they are better trained, but I see no reason to believe that is true. For those that do get employed that way, they will still be paid less than their productivity would justify, just like nearly everyone that does have a job.
I'm thinking we need to send a petition to the other signatories stating that consent has been withdrawn and so no American signatory is authorized. That is, that the treaty cannot be properly signed.
This is about ethics, not law. I was also referring to allegations of Apple's wrongdoing resulting in Apple punishing the accuser (sort of a vigilante version of SLAPP), but you knew that, didn't you?
Of course, corporate charters are conditional on being in the public interest. Free Speech is in the public interest and so restrictions on it imply that the charter should be revoked. Apple doesn't HAVE to support other's speech but ethically it should not impede it either. They could satisfy that by allowing side-loading.
So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.
Yes, that is correct, or at least threaten to sue if iFixit doesn't voluntarily remove the app.
The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech) from a significant portion of all phones for any slight real or imagined. They should either surrender that power by allowing side loading or they should run these things past a judge to provide due process.
Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing. Or perhaps someone supports the "wrong" presidential candidate.
If you think labor is getting 90%, you are living in fantasy land. $5 worth of materials + $0.50 paid to labor becomes a $200 pair of shoes. Do you really think the lady chained to her bench in wherethefuckisthatistan got 90% of the value of her labor? In a properly free market, do you really think the most odious jobs would fetch the lowest pay?
Labor will capture it's fair share when unemployment is actually 0%. That is, everyone who needs or wants a job has one and if you want labor, you have to convince people to prefer you over their current employer. Meanwhile, corporate profits are way up even as wages remain flat.
Are we obligated to have police officer's lives at risk?
Actually, cops are already not supposed to escalate to lethal force unless/until they or a bystander have been placed under such a threat. If the threat became impossible somehow, then they presumably wouldn't be permitted to carry guns.
As for adults without children, they are still expected to get the vaccines themselves except in the rare cases where the vaccine is significantly more risky to adults.
So you want them to go to court against themselves to get themselves to stop selling something in their own store.
Don't be silly! If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google. Or at the very least they would have prepared a suit and "suggested" that iFixit voluntarily withdraw the app.
Given Apple's history, that's exactly what I would expect them to do if they thought they had any chance at all in court.
As for "vigilante", Yes! What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?
As for what I want, I want Apple to enable side-loading and in the process, shed the ethical obligation they clearly have no intention of living up to anyway.
Honestly, you and the U.S. government sound like a cheeky child. No, you may not hit your sister in the house, in the car, at school, in a boat, on a plane, or anywhere else, FULL STOP. You may not hit her with a stick or a sponge or a baseball bat or a pillow, or an old shoe or anything else. Blah blah blah.
The U.S. government is restricted to doing only what is authorized in the Constitution and and may not do the things forbidden to it by the Bill of Rights in the U.S., in Mexico, in Canada, on the ocean, on the moon, on mars, or anywhere else in the universe, FULL STOP. The laws of other nations may add additional restrictions (and do) when in their jurisdiction. Most commonly it amounts to "you are just a tourist here, you have no authority whatsoever".
My comments about a clause in the Constitution are based on the fact that the only way their argument (or yours) could possibly work would be if such a special clause existed. Note that it does not. The 4th Amendment is in full effect upon the U.S. government all throughout time and space.
Any claim to the contrary is just that cheeky (and somewhat petulant) child attempting to declare that yes is no and no is yes.
No one said there was a clause saying outside the US anything goes, so that is a strawman.
Re-read the thread, the entire claim of not needing a warrant is based on that 'strawman' AND the claim that the port of entry is not itself U.S. territory. If the latter is true, they have no jurisdiction at all at the port of entry INCLUDING the international concourse of an airport and that 100miles inward from the border they so enjoy claiming. The former is clearly not true.
The 4th Amendment is a limitation that applies to otherwise Constitutional activities. It is understood to mean they need a warrant for anything beyond a cursory search in all but the most extreme circumstances. Their flimsy claims that the border isn't in the U.S. is just that, they are still restricted from that activity. While I have heard of a logic bomb, they don't blow things up in a literal sense, so your reliance on Article I section 8 is weak as well as far as examining the data on a laptop or phone.
The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It outlines what the U.S. government is permitted to do. Anything not permitted in the Constitution is forbidden to the government. There is no clause that says outside of the U.S. anything goes.
Any weak excuses to the contrary are further damaged when the action is taken against a U.S. citizen.
And as a final death blow, are they trying to claim that if a wanted criminal was spotted in the international concourse of an airport, they would just watch as he boards a plane bound for Argentina because there was no jurisdiction there to arrest him? Or would the U.S. government suddenly assert territorial rights?
If we take other decisions that will kill innocents for what we consider greater goals (for example, mandatory vaccinations, which kill a handful to save millions), we don't demand that the decision makers up their personal stake.
The decision makers are expected to get themselves and their kids vaccinated as well.
The laborer agrees to a wage under the gun though. They can't afford to just withdraw from the job market nor can they import new employers from overseas if they don't like the jobs on offer. The playing field is consistently slanted through political manipulation.
Fundamentally, money attracts money, it's an unstable system that without correction tends to leave a few holding the bulk of it while the rest starve. The next step, of course is all the money loses it's value and the whole thing starts over. Really, that's not good for anyone concerned.
Socialism focuses on giving "the rest of us" more of the benefits of our labor. It is more the people in opposition like you who seem interested in continuing to take away.
A few actors make boatloads of cash because they become stars. Most make very little. CEOs make a fortune because tyhey sit on each other's boards and vote each other raises on a quid pro quo basis. Same thing would happen if janitors were responsible for deciding what other janitors get paid.
As for the rest, it sounds a lot more like hipster cynicism than actual philosophy. Fair is actually hard wired into most people's brains.
"Cause to happen"? You mean "tell other people to do". I have no idea of the size of your company or your compensation, but I did say above that things are different in smaller companies.
It is clearly not already fair. Perhaps you have Stockholm syndrome.
Executive compensation isn't a matter of envy, it's a matter of fairness. If the CEO is worth a million a year for 6 hour days and a retirement package that can support him for life, even if he gets fired for non-performance, why isn't the guy putting in 60 hr/week designing the products that the company can't stay in business without? Why not the people actually making the products that the company cannot bring in even a penny without?
As for the bailouts and such, how many times has Trump folded the tent in bankruptcy? He doesn't look broke to me.
Al Dunlap has a net worth estimated at $100 million. That after a lifetime of fraud and corruption earning him the 'award' of 6th worst CEO of all time (not to mention a number of lawsuits and SEC fines).That is the norm. The many many people he 'chainsawed' didn't fare that well. I would not call a net worth of $100,000,000 'broke'.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems come in when management goes from leader to boss or when the role of leadership gets conflated with importance. A good manager sees himself as part of the team with a job to do. A boss sees himself as the person above the team who makes people do things.
Of course, you have to also consider the probability that many of those copied media would never have been a sale. Either the person didn't have the money or didn't value it as high as the price.
The standard of proof HAS to be high considering that the penalties are ruinous. Beyond that, If I am to be deputized as a defender of other people's copyrights in my home, I better be getting a paycheck from the beneficiaries.
But beyond that, the movie industry is showing no signs of damage from copyright infringement. Their profits are higher than ever.
Correction: Someone in that household, or leeching that household's WiFi or someone with a hacked cable modem or someone at the ISP downloaded that content that they may or may not have known was copyrighted.
Or due to a clerical error, perhaps it was another household.
My concern is that if 'the powers that be' don't soon learn that keeping the lid on the pressure cooker by suppressing protest is a losing strategy, it will explode soon (if it's not already too late for that). I would rather see a measured response where cops end up in handcuffs than one where cops end up dead. Yje lesson in humility might also be helpful.
Also, that would be the sort of moral victory that could get people motivated to vote for unconventional candidates with some hope they might win.
When it's to please Microsoft, sure.
I also prefer a non-violent solution. My fear is that the current 'leaders' will not understand until they are personally in danger. I would like to see a measured violence though. Next demonstration, it would be nice to see when the cops break out the tear gas if they get gassed even harder themselves. Even better if they end up tasered and zip tied to lamp posts.
Yes, it is important to keep in mind. Kill *HALF* of the people in charge and the other half will become more reasonable.
Any thought of people doing un-needed busywork is your own fantasy since I certainly never proposed it. Personally, I think it would make a lot more sense to reduce the workweek to accommodate full employment. I also never claimed a utopia, just an improvement over the current situation. You *DO* favor improvement, don't you?
The topic is the US, friend. Yes, East Elbonia sucks, but then those jobs are often the best available in-country, so there's no easy answers there.
Yes, it is, such as the U.S. corporation that sells the shoes for $200 a pair and refuses to employ a person from the U.S. to make them because they can chain a woman to a bench somewhere else and get it done for slave wages. So the U.S. worker that should be employed isn't and the lady from wherever gets nothing like the real value of her labor.
You don't deserve a job as a reward for breathing.
You may not mind stepping over the bodies of those who didn't get a job, but I have a problem with that. If you are going to make having a job necessary to live, you damn well better have jobs available that actually pay enough to live. Otherwise, they are well justified in defying any law necessary to make that living. Other than the disabled, everyone is capable of doing something useful, but there simply don't seem to be enough jobs available for them to all have one now. That condition will continue to get worse.
As for training, do you suggest they steal the money they need for tuition? Because that's pretty much their only option right now other than do without. Of course, you assume for some reason there will actually be jobs for all of them once they are better trained, but I see no reason to believe that is true. For those that do get employed that way, they will still be paid less than their productivity would justify, just like nearly everyone that does have a job.
If someone covers your eyes, puts a pen in your hand, guides it to the contract and says sign here, there is every reason to believe it's a bad idea.
I'm thinking we need to send a petition to the other signatories stating that consent has been withdrawn and so no American signatory is authorized. That is, that the treaty cannot be properly signed.
This is about ethics, not law. I was also referring to allegations of Apple's wrongdoing resulting in Apple punishing the accuser (sort of a vigilante version of SLAPP), but you knew that, didn't you?
Of course, corporate charters are conditional on being in the public interest. Free Speech is in the public interest and so restrictions on it imply that the charter should be revoked. Apple doesn't HAVE to support other's speech but ethically it should not impede it either. They could satisfy that by allowing side-loading.
So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.
Yes, that is correct, or at least threaten to sue if iFixit doesn't voluntarily remove the app.
The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech) from a significant portion of all phones for any slight real or imagined. They should either surrender that power by allowing side loading or they should run these things past a judge to provide due process.
Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing. Or perhaps someone supports the "wrong" presidential candidate.
If you think labor is getting 90%, you are living in fantasy land. $5 worth of materials + $0.50 paid to labor becomes a $200 pair of shoes. Do you really think the lady chained to her bench in wherethefuckisthatistan got 90% of the value of her labor? In a properly free market, do you really think the most odious jobs would fetch the lowest pay?
Labor will capture it's fair share when unemployment is actually 0%. That is, everyone who needs or wants a job has one and if you want labor, you have to convince people to prefer you over their current employer. Meanwhile, corporate profits are way up even as wages remain flat.
Are we obligated to have police officer's lives at risk?
Actually, cops are already not supposed to escalate to lethal force unless/until they or a bystander have been placed under such a threat. If the threat became impossible somehow, then they presumably wouldn't be permitted to carry guns.
As for adults without children, they are still expected to get the vaccines themselves except in the rare cases where the vaccine is significantly more risky to adults.
So you want them to go to court against themselves to get themselves to stop selling something in their own store.
Don't be silly! If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google. Or at the very least they would have prepared a suit and "suggested" that iFixit voluntarily withdraw the app.
Given Apple's history, that's exactly what I would expect them to do if they thought they had any chance at all in court.
As for "vigilante", Yes! What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?
As for what I want, I want Apple to enable side-loading and in the process, shed the ethical obligation they clearly have no intention of living up to anyway.
Honestly, you and the U.S. government sound like a cheeky child. No, you may not hit your sister in the house, in the car, at school, in a boat, on a plane, or anywhere else, FULL STOP. You may not hit her with a stick or a sponge or a baseball bat or a pillow, or an old shoe or anything else. Blah blah blah.
The U.S. government is restricted to doing only what is authorized in the Constitution and and may not do the things forbidden to it by the Bill of Rights in the U.S., in Mexico, in Canada, on the ocean, on the moon, on mars, or anywhere else in the universe, FULL STOP. The laws of other nations may add additional restrictions (and do) when in their jurisdiction. Most commonly it amounts to "you are just a tourist here, you have no authority whatsoever".
My comments about a clause in the Constitution are based on the fact that the only way their argument (or yours) could possibly work would be if such a special clause existed. Note that it does not. The 4th Amendment is in full effect upon the U.S. government all throughout time and space.
Any claim to the contrary is just that cheeky (and somewhat petulant) child attempting to declare that yes is no and no is yes.
No one said there was a clause saying outside the US anything goes, so that is a strawman.
Re-read the thread, the entire claim of not needing a warrant is based on that 'strawman' AND the claim that the port of entry is not itself U.S. territory. If the latter is true, they have no jurisdiction at all at the port of entry INCLUDING the international concourse of an airport and that 100miles inward from the border they so enjoy claiming. The former is clearly not true.
The 4th Amendment is a limitation that applies to otherwise Constitutional activities. It is understood to mean they need a warrant for anything beyond a cursory search in all but the most extreme circumstances. Their flimsy claims that the border isn't in the U.S. is just that, they are still restricted from that activity. While I have heard of a logic bomb, they don't blow things up in a literal sense, so your reliance on Article I section 8 is weak as well as far as examining the data on a laptop or phone.
The Constitution is quite clear on the matter. It outlines what the U.S. government is permitted to do. Anything not permitted in the Constitution is forbidden to the government. There is no clause that says outside of the U.S. anything goes.
Any weak excuses to the contrary are further damaged when the action is taken against a U.S. citizen.
And as a final death blow, are they trying to claim that if a wanted criminal was spotted in the international concourse of an airport, they would just watch as he boards a plane bound for Argentina because there was no jurisdiction there to arrest him? Or would the U.S. government suddenly assert territorial rights?
If we take other decisions that will kill innocents for what we consider greater goals (for example, mandatory vaccinations, which kill a handful to save millions), we don't demand that the decision makers up their personal stake.
The decision makers are expected to get themselves and their kids vaccinated as well.
The laborer agrees to a wage under the gun though. They can't afford to just withdraw from the job market nor can they import new employers from overseas if they don't like the jobs on offer. The playing field is consistently slanted through political manipulation.
Fundamentally, money attracts money, it's an unstable system that without correction tends to leave a few holding the bulk of it while the rest starve. The next step, of course is all the money loses it's value and the whole thing starts over. Really, that's not good for anyone concerned.
Socialism focuses on giving "the rest of us" more of the benefits of our labor. It is more the people in opposition like you who seem interested in continuing to take away.
A few actors make boatloads of cash because they become stars. Most make very little. CEOs make a fortune because tyhey sit on each other's boards and vote each other raises on a quid pro quo basis. Same thing would happen if janitors were responsible for deciding what other janitors get paid.
As for the rest, it sounds a lot more like hipster cynicism than actual philosophy. Fair is actually hard wired into most people's brains.
"Cause to happen"? You mean "tell other people to do". I have no idea of the size of your company or your compensation, but I did say above that things are different in smaller companies.
It is clearly not already fair. Perhaps you have Stockholm syndrome.
Executive compensation isn't a matter of envy, it's a matter of fairness. If the CEO is worth a million a year for 6 hour days and a retirement package that can support him for life, even if he gets fired for non-performance, why isn't the guy putting in 60 hr/week designing the products that the company can't stay in business without? Why not the people actually making the products that the company cannot bring in even a penny without?
As for the bailouts and such, how many times has Trump folded the tent in bankruptcy? He doesn't look broke to me.
Al Dunlap has a net worth estimated at $100 million. That after a lifetime of fraud and corruption earning him the 'award' of 6th worst CEO of all time (not to mention a number of lawsuits and SEC fines).That is the norm. The many many people he 'chainsawed' didn't fare that well. I would not call a net worth of $100,000,000 'broke'.