Don't be an idiot. Do you think stores would build wheelchair ramps just to make a few extra dollars from the few people with wheelchairs who shop in their stores? Of course not. The inevitable result of the free market would be no stores having wheelchair ramps, because the market is too small to be worth it. And as a result, nobody with a wheelchair would be able to shop. We protect minority disability groups because it's more important that they be able to live life than that stores have complete and unregulated freedom to maximize their profit.
If Target makes 0.1% more profit this year, no one gives a crap. But if one million Americans who can use a wheelchair are suddenly able to live their lives, this makes a significant difference in the world. (And yes, blindness and business websites can be considered the same as wheelchairs and physical buildings, hence the analogy.) Leave your idealistic philosophy at home and consider the real-world impact of your ideas.
Well, this is of course different, because you are the end user, and not someone who is trying to sell copies of your computer over and over again to make a bunch of money.
But this is the ridiculous thing about the RIAA's stand. They assume that everyone who "steals" a song would, if unable to "steal" it, purchase it.
That is such shit. Over the last eleven years, I would doubt that the majority of people who download songs for free would have bought them if they hadn't been available for the taking.
Seriously, it's more of a "oooooh, looky, there's that song that I kinda like, might as well get it for free" instead of "DAMN I was going to go out and buy that tomorrow, but now I don't have to!!!"
Honestly, of all the mp3s you have downloaded over the past decade, how many would you have actually bought had you not found them on Napster or Kazaa or what-have-you?
Er, I meant "juror," not "jurist" =)
And yes I know that you don't need a unanimous verdict for a civil trial, but still, the fact remains, you get a bunch of citizens who think that their peer is being treated unfairly by the law, and that does say something.
I think that the views of twelve people, on the spirit of the law, for a single case, should overrule the views of the judge.
If they think that the letter of the law was applied contrary to the spirit of the law to one of their PEERS, it should be a good indication that they are right and the judge is wrong... for that case.
We're not talking about the jury rewriting the law here. We are talking about them saying, "Hmm, in this case, we disagree with the judge."
Judges aren't omniscient beings, my friend. And we aren't talking about one jurist disagreeing. This is all twelve.
The even scarier thing is that it was not Kent who said that, but Thompson himself.
GP has been unable to reach attorney Norm Kent for comment so far. Via e-mail, Thompson told GamePolitics:
I'm not the one in trouble. The judge found a certain lawyer's material obscene. I absolutely love it. This is the best thing to happen to me in a long, long time. Check my [case] filings, sweetie.
Another way to look at it is that some technologies, in order to move forward, need to use current, patented technologies as a basis. If other companies are not allowed to use these existing technologies as a jumping-off point for further innovation, only the patent-holders will be able to do it... and if they AREN'T doing it for whatever reason, then it will remain stagnant.
There is no chance in hell MIT will expel her for this. Not a fucking chance. MIT is actually run by intelligent people, not by scared Middle Americans who think they are going to live forever as long as "terrorists" don't get them.
Profit margins are irrelevant except for Apple ownership.
This isn't always true. What about buyers who are opposed, in principle, to companies charging what they (the buyers) feel to be an exorbitantly inflated amount (based on the price to the company)?
Hmm, I don't think that your usage is typical. I don't know a single person who does the kind of stuff you mentioned. Then again, I am not a "technology guy"... but most of the Comcast customers aren't, either.
Slashdot Mirror
And perhaps your "friends" here are ignorant citizens, like the majority of the denizens of this country.
I wish I knew you in real life.
Amazing post.
OK, "post" to me, then.
Don't be an idiot. Do you think stores would build wheelchair ramps just to make a few extra dollars from the few people with wheelchairs who shop in their stores? Of course not. The inevitable result of the free market would be no stores having wheelchair ramps, because the market is too small to be worth it. And as a result, nobody with a wheelchair would be able to shop. We protect minority disability groups because it's more important that they be able to live life than that stores have complete and unregulated freedom to maximize their profit.
If Target makes 0.1% more profit this year, no one gives a crap. But if one million Americans who can use a wheelchair are suddenly able to live their lives, this makes a significant difference in the world. (And yes, blindness and business websites can be considered the same as wheelchairs and physical buildings, hence the analogy.) Leave your idealistic philosophy at home and consider the real-world impact of your ideas.
Well, this is of course different, because you are the end user, and not someone who is trying to sell copies of your computer over and over again to make a bunch of money.
But this is the ridiculous thing about the RIAA's stand. They assume that everyone who "steals" a song would, if unable to "steal" it, purchase it.
That is such shit. Over the last eleven years, I would doubt that the majority of people who download songs for free would have bought them if they hadn't been available for the taking.
Seriously, it's more of a "oooooh, looky, there's that song that I kinda like, might as well get it for free" instead of "DAMN I was going to go out and buy that tomorrow, but now I don't have to!!!"
Honestly, of all the mp3s you have downloaded over the past decade, how many would you have actually bought had you not found them on Napster or Kazaa or what-have-you?
Not many, is my guess.
Er, I meant "juror," not "jurist" =) And yes I know that you don't need a unanimous verdict for a civil trial, but still, the fact remains, you get a bunch of citizens who think that their peer is being treated unfairly by the law, and that does say something.
I think that the views of twelve people, on the spirit of the law, for a single case, should overrule the views of the judge.
If they think that the letter of the law was applied contrary to the spirit of the law to one of their PEERS, it should be a good indication that they are right and the judge is wrong... for that case.
We're not talking about the jury rewriting the law here. We are talking about them saying, "Hmm, in this case, we disagree with the judge."
Judges aren't omniscient beings, my friend. And we aren't talking about one jurist disagreeing. This is all twelve.
Yes, and we have the corporation-dick-sucking Republicans to thank for this.
Hell, why shouldn't the government bleed us for more money? Lost debt revenue = lost PAC money.
Fuck this system.
I think we should all move to Iceland. The weather isn't that bad, and the women are a lot hotter.
Congratulations, you just cost me my entire paycheck.
The even scarier thing is that it was not Kent who said that, but Thompson himself.
GP has been unable to reach attorney Norm Kent for comment so far. Via e-mail, Thompson told GamePolitics:
I'm not the one in trouble. The judge found a certain lawyer's material obscene. I absolutely love it. This is the best thing to happen to me in a long, long time. Check my [case] filings, sweetie.
Another way to look at it is that some technologies, in order to move forward, need to use current, patented technologies as a basis. If other companies are not allowed to use these existing technologies as a jumping-off point for further innovation, only the patent-holders will be able to do it... and if they AREN'T doing it for whatever reason, then it will remain stagnant.
On a side note: McG worked on "The O.C".
Don't call it that.
if people are still doing the highway driving in twenty years instead of computers, it shows that our society is fundamentally irresponsible
I can tell you right now that our society is fundamentally irresponsible.
God, I love this place. It is the best city in the northeast. Seriously, no one fucks with us.
There is no chance in hell MIT will expel her for this. Not a fucking chance. MIT is actually run by intelligent people, not by scared Middle Americans who think they are going to live forever as long as "terrorists" don't get them.
Besides I'm starting to think Boston rivals Florida on the sheer idiocy factor now.
Why do you people believe that the actions of Boston law enforcement reflect the "idiocy" of the city as a whole?
How DARE you compare Boston to Florida.
Profit margins are irrelevant except for Apple ownership.
This isn't always true. What about buyers who are opposed, in principle, to companies charging what they (the buyers) feel to be an exorbitantly inflated amount (based on the price to the company)?
Hmm, I don't think that your usage is typical. I don't know a single person who does the kind of stuff you mentioned. Then again, I am not a "technology guy"... but most of the Comcast customers aren't, either.
I am fairly certain that you are suffering from schizophrenia, or another psychotic disorder.
Aaron Schweinsberg.