1. It keeps the merchant responsible for the vendors they choose to do business with 2. It puts the onus of dealing with the vendor on the merchant, whose bargaining power is presumably much more in parity.
I think that something needs to be done about orphan works.
That said, Google's method of mopping up exclusive rights is completely out of line.
If someone does their due diligence and tries well to steer clear of infringing intellectual property, they should be rewarded for their efforts by not getting slammed with a submarine.
I think that "bona vacantia" should apply and that any orphan works should be the property of the federal government, held in trust for the public unless AND until the true owner wishes to assert ownership. Google, at most, should get compensated for their labor and time.
I think Google would make a wonderful contractor working for the LoC doing digitization, and paid a handsome fee. But getting copyright ownership and then relying on "opt in for benefits but opt out for res judicata" nature of class action suits is just plain sleazy.
OTOH, DRM that denies you the freedom to make your own copies and keep them to yourself is out of line.
Especially when the RIAA says that you should just suck it up when the auth servers go down. That right there proves they don't give a shit about anything but their bottom line,a nd that they have no qualms about cheating...or extorting settlements out of people.
Criminals are going to have guns whether it's illegal or not. The very definition of being a criminal, after all, is willful disregard of the law.
If you give citizens the means to defend themselves instead of helplessly bending over to an armed robber, then people looking to make an easy buck will be less apt to go after someone that they realize just might shoot back.
The problem with doing things for "the greater good" is that by and large people are by their very nature selfish bastards who, if given an opportunity to enrich themselves (expense to others be damned), they will do so.
That's the trouble with the phrase "benevolent dictator". Anyone with the inclinations to actually succeed at the "dictator" part is doomed to flunk out on the "benevolent" part.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's the way a company SHOULD protect itself from headhunters.
Why are credit checks even needed in the first place?
Hell, of course you're going to have a few problems. That's why you're, I dunno, looking for work?
A good policy.
1. It keeps the merchant responsible for the vendors they choose to do business with
2. It puts the onus of dealing with the vendor on the merchant, whose bargaining power is presumably much more in parity.
Doing a chargeback on your credit card is probably a violation of the EULA.
I praise EA then, as it's a nice stupid tax for giving such an evil company direct access to your bank account.
On the contrary, an online identity can be just as persistent as a real one. Signing up for an account is just like getting a birth certificate.
Paywalls are just a pain in the ass to deal with.
I don't object to them much on moral grounds as long as the fees aren't exorbitant.
But whipping out a credit card for a sub-dollar transaction is hardly worth the time it takes to track down my wallet.
Just curious how the states can get involved in copyrights at all.
Last time I checked it was reserved as a federal matter.
I think the clitoris, which AFAIK has no practical function, is strong evidence that sex was literally designed to be enjoyed.
God invented it, says I.
I think that something needs to be done about orphan works.
That said, Google's method of mopping up exclusive rights is completely out of line.
If someone does their due diligence and tries well to steer clear of infringing intellectual property, they should be rewarded for their efforts by not getting slammed with a submarine.
I think that "bona vacantia" should apply and that any orphan works should be the property of the federal government, held in trust for the public unless AND until the true owner wishes to assert ownership. Google, at most, should get compensated for their labor and time.
I think Google would make a wonderful contractor working for the LoC doing digitization, and paid a handsome fee. But getting copyright ownership and then relying on "opt in for benefits but opt out for res judicata" nature of class action suits is just plain sleazy.
And here YOU are, posting on slashdot.
Wait...
...feels the irony of his own post...
I think that by taking place over an electronic medium the FCC already has the authority to regulate the internet.
You'd think that interstate commerce would give the feds standing.
I suspect that the judge got some under table money to rule the way he did.
The feds shouldn't have given them a windfall without attaching some strings.
If we had a loser pays system the EFF would be able to fight a lot more battles without running its treasury down with non refundable legal expenses.
People should pay for stuff if they want it.
OTOH, DRM that denies you the freedom to make your own copies and keep them to yourself is out of line.
Especially when the RIAA says that you should just suck it up when the auth servers go down. That right there proves they don't give a shit about anything but their bottom line,a nd that they have no qualms about cheating...or extorting settlements out of people.
The key word is "salary"
If you're punching a clock, it's not a salary.
What about second hand smoke?
Exactly.
Criminals are going to have guns whether it's illegal or not. The very definition of being a criminal, after all, is willful disregard of the law.
If you give citizens the means to defend themselves instead of helplessly bending over to an armed robber, then people looking to make an easy buck will be less apt to go after someone that they realize just might shoot back.
That doesn't work if the cops are chummy with one of the judges who in turn is more than happy to fire off an instant search warrant.
Seems like there's regulatory capture in the legal system itself even.
The problem with doing things for "the greater good" is that by and large people are by their very nature selfish bastards who, if given an opportunity to enrich themselves (expense to others be damned), they will do so.
That's the trouble with the phrase "benevolent dictator". Anyone with the inclinations to actually succeed at the "dictator" part is doomed to flunk out on the "benevolent" part.
Any true religion would happily COOPERATE with science.
Any religion that shuns science is shunning the creative mind that God gave us.
Reliable postal service FOR ALL ADDRESSES is a public good.
I think it's entirely appropriate for the government to be in charge of it.
http://xkcd.com/156/
Isolate them, and ask each one who the other says is guilty.