You forgot the cost of losing other users because you are hogging the bandwidth and making things slower for everyone else. The overage fees are not there to make a ton of money for the ISP, they are there to get you to modify your usage. If you want to behave like you have a dedicated, unshared line then you can expect to pay for a dedicated, unshared line.
A bar is a pretty obvious thing. I have never seen a bar pretend to be something other than a bar. On the other hand, please tell us what magical method you can use to tell if any given link is porn or not. If you want to avoid porn on the internet, you have basically two choices: avoid all sites whose content is unknown, or filter.
In this case, it IS theft. The whole idea of bitcoin is to generate 'value' by using computing power. That computing power (and the very real actual power behind it) is not his to spend, but he nevertheless was converting it to 'cash' for his own benefit.
SETI also uses very real power (and cooling) to do it's work.
Several problems. First, no-one has been sued for downloading a song. Every case has been about unauthorized distribution. Next, it is a civil case. The judgement (not fine) is to make things whole with the harmed party. The ability to pay has absolutely nothing to do with how much damage you have caused. If you manage to cause a billion dollars of damage, you are on the hook for a billion dollars. That is not cruel and unusual, it is just you causing more damage than you can afford. Since you are in no way forced to work for the party you have harmed, it is in no way indentured servitude.
Which leaves just the question of damages. What are the damages? Some people claim that the damages are the number of times the song has been distributed, but that is not the damage. The Constitution, enacted by the Copyright Act, grants exclusive control to the creator of the work. When you distribute, you have taken away that exclusive control. That is the damage. The only question is: how much is that exclusive control worth? It is impossible to tell, so a statutory value has been set. The thing to remember is: the amount of the value is purely based on the harm to the creator, and has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of an infringer to pay.
Your response to the personal house question shows you still don't get it. It does not matter what your wishes are or were, I have taken your exclusive control away. According to your theory, since you were not going to rent out your house anyway the damages should be exactly zero. You are the one claiming exclusive control has no value in itself, and that is just plain wrong.
However, since you want to pretend that there is a difference because of 'emotions', let's try this. You run a car rental service. I come in one night and take one of your cars. Two days later they find your car. Am I a car thief, deserving a felony charge, or do I just pay two days rental and call it even? If you claim it is just two days rental you are a total liar.
I'm pretty sure that even lifetime+70yrs is a 'limited time'. I mean, I am guessing that if we were discussing bandwidth caps a cap of 'average user+70GB' would be shouted down as 'that is not unlimited!'
People keep bringing up Steamboat Willie as the great example of something that should be out of copyright. I am genuinely curious, what would the benefit of that be? Is the world somehow suffering because not everyone has a copy of an 80 year old cartoon? Surely Mickey Mouse is also a trademark of Disney, so would not be able to be used in any new works anyway.
Yes, George Lucas has made plenty of profit off of Star Wars. So what? Why does anyone else have a right to make a profit off of it?
The number one movie right now is The Avengers. What possible reason is there for saying that the creators of those characters should not benefit from that, just because they created them a long time ago?
Exactly what part of society is being 'killed' by long copyrights, other than the part that just wants free stuff? There are literally hundreds of thousands of new works created every year, far more than anyone could use. How many more (worthwhile) works would be created if copyright were shortened? How many of those works currently being created would NOT be created if copyright was shortened?
Saying that the copyrights on Steamboat Willie are providing no incentive to Disney is missing the point. The copyrights on OLD stuff is not the incentive, the ability to hold a long-term copyright is the incentive to produce NEW works. Or are you claiming the Disney is no longer producing new works because they hold those old copyrights (which would just be flat out wrong)?
They are not paying for the defendants gain, they are paying for the plaintiffs loss. When you torched that house you didn't gain anything either.
Neither you nor anyone else has any idea what the exclusive control would have been worth had they maintained it. It is impossible to know. That is why a value is set by statute. The idea that it would only be $1 is laughable at best.
I'm sure that you would be just as generous with people taking away your exclusive control of things, right? I mean, if I were to make a key to your house and tell a bunch of people that it was OK to use your house when you weren't home or your car when you weren't using it that would be OK, right? I mean, the most I would possibly be liable for is the night's rent.
The problem with all of your calculations is that they are based off the wrong thing. You (and a lot of other people) assume that the 'damage' is a copy of a song. It isn't. The thing that copyright law gives you is exclusive control of your work. THAT is the damage - loss of exclusive control. Since it is impossible to calculate the value of exclusive control, a value was set by statute. So really, the question for a court would be whether or not the amount set by statute is a reasonable amount for the value of exclusive control. Now, is $22500 a reasonable amount for exclusive control of a song? I think it would be pretty hard to argue that it is far too high. I would imagine they can show many cases where at least that much has been paid to gain exclusive distribution rights to a song. If that amount is reasonable, then the amount of the award is not excessive. If you torch a $10M house, you are on the hook for $10M - just because you will never earn that much does not make it excessive, it just means you caused more damage than you can afford. That is your problem, not the law's.
It does not matter how many times he uploaded. What a lot of people (including you) don't seem to understand is that the damage is not loss of a single copy or a single sale, it is loss of the exclusive right to distribute. Since it is impossible to determine the value of that right, an amount was set by statute.
You don't seem to understand the purpose of copyright. As it says in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts", not "to prevent someone else from making a buck". It does not matter WHY someone infringes copyright, because no matter what the reason is the creator has lost his exclusive rights, and that runs counter to the reason for copyright.
In the past, it made sense to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement. There was very little a non-commercial infringer could do to take away the creators exclusive distribution. It cost actual money to make a copy, and every succeeding generation of copies got significantly worse. Only a commercial pirate would have the equipment and money necessary for large-scale infringement.
Today, a non-commercial pirate does potentially more damage than a commercial pirate. A commercial pirate is going to be charging something, and a non-commercial pirate is giving it away for free. Chances are excellent that the non-commercial infringement is causing far more harm than the commercial infringement.
Because then you are teaching people that under some circumstances it is OK to follow instructions from an unexpected/unsolicited source. Imaging the flood of scareware that would arrive after that: THIS IS THE FBI! CHANGE YOUR DNS SETTINGS IMMEDIATELY!
I think that is an awful idea. The last thing you want to do is train people that it is OK, under any circumstances, to do what an unexpected or unsolicited web page says. That is, after all, exactly how scareware winds up getting installed.
The best thing to do is let them fail, and gear up the help desks to be ready with the onslaught of calls.
What do you think allowed Facebook to incorporate in the first place? What do you think allows them to issue stock? What do you think allows private individuals to own property (such as stock)?
Finally, they are not threatening to end his citizenship, HE RENOUNCED IT.
If he gave up his citizenship, he is no longer a citizen of the US and gets none of it's protections. He is not being charged with a crime after the fact, he is just not getting back into the country he renounced.
The churches want to spread their beliefs, and you call that a 'private interest' that should not be served. You seem to want to prevent that from happening, how is that not your own 'private interest'? The only difference I see is that you want the government to serve your interest for you.
First, you surely are either insane or incredibly naive if you believe government programs come with no strings attached.
Second, I don't see how a government program would be as efficient as a church-run program using mostly volunteers and donated goods.
Third, exactly what is wrong with a group of people deciding that there is a problem and they are going to fix it? 'Sit on your ass and wait for the government to act' is about the worst solution I can think of.
The small church I belong to doesn't even have enough money to afford a full-time pastor. All the cleaning and care of the property is done by volunteers. Yet we still manage to run a small soup kitchen that feeds 5-10 people a day. We still have fundraisers to collect money to pay the heating bills of people that can't afford it. We still donate to a local family shelter. There are absolutely NO requirements made of any of the people we serve, but they are told that we are a church and God loves them. I guess that counts as a 'string' or 'indoctrination'. And you know what? Many of them do show up at church on Sunday, and many of them wind up volunteering themselves. It seems that they think that an organization that has people who care enough to voluntarily give of their time and money to help them may be worth joining. I have never heard of anyone having that response to a government.
Well, deductions doesn't tell you anything either, since they are not a matter of public record. You find out how much people contribute the same way you find out other information about people - ask them.
They offer a 'Premium Caesar Salad' without chicken (4g fat), with grilled chicken (5g fat) or crispy chicken (18g fat). Same for the 'Premium Southwest Salad'.
If you reduce power consumption, the only thing that does is lower the cost of fuel (maybe). None of the rest of the costs of generating and delivering power (wires, substations, transformers, maintenance, employees, etc) change just because you are using a little less power. If you are being billed based on consumption then of course the rates will go up as consumption goes down, because the actual costs have not changed that much. This is not that hard to figure out.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeanette Horan is the CIO, not the CEO.
You forgot the cost of losing other users because you are hogging the bandwidth and making things slower for everyone else. The overage fees are not there to make a ton of money for the ISP, they are there to get you to modify your usage. If you want to behave like you have a dedicated, unshared line then you can expect to pay for a dedicated, unshared line.
In what way is distributing unauthorized copies the same as stealing a CD? In no way.
A bar is a pretty obvious thing. I have never seen a bar pretend to be something other than a bar. On the other hand, please tell us what magical method you can use to tell if any given link is porn or not. If you want to avoid porn on the internet, you have basically two choices: avoid all sites whose content is unknown, or filter.
In this case, it IS theft. The whole idea of bitcoin is to generate 'value' by using computing power. That computing power (and the very real actual power behind it) is not his to spend, but he nevertheless was converting it to 'cash' for his own benefit.
SETI also uses very real power (and cooling) to do it's work.
Already illegal. And it wasn't something that was just barely passed either, there was only one vote against.
Several problems. First, no-one has been sued for downloading a song. Every case has been about unauthorized distribution. Next, it is a civil case. The judgement (not fine) is to make things whole with the harmed party. The ability to pay has absolutely nothing to do with how much damage you have caused. If you manage to cause a billion dollars of damage, you are on the hook for a billion dollars. That is not cruel and unusual, it is just you causing more damage than you can afford. Since you are in no way forced to work for the party you have harmed, it is in no way indentured servitude.
Which leaves just the question of damages. What are the damages? Some people claim that the damages are the number of times the song has been distributed, but that is not the damage. The Constitution, enacted by the Copyright Act, grants exclusive control to the creator of the work. When you distribute, you have taken away that exclusive control. That is the damage. The only question is: how much is that exclusive control worth? It is impossible to tell, so a statutory value has been set. The thing to remember is: the amount of the value is purely based on the harm to the creator, and has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of an infringer to pay.
Your response to the personal house question shows you still don't get it. It does not matter what your wishes are or were, I have taken your exclusive control away. According to your theory, since you were not going to rent out your house anyway the damages should be exactly zero. You are the one claiming exclusive control has no value in itself, and that is just plain wrong.
However, since you want to pretend that there is a difference because of 'emotions', let's try this. You run a car rental service. I come in one night and take one of your cars. Two days later they find your car. Am I a car thief, deserving a felony charge, or do I just pay two days rental and call it even? If you claim it is just two days rental you are a total liar.
I'm pretty sure that even lifetime+70yrs is a 'limited time'. I mean, I am guessing that if we were discussing bandwidth caps a cap of 'average user+70GB' would be shouted down as 'that is not unlimited!'
People keep bringing up Steamboat Willie as the great example of something that should be out of copyright. I am genuinely curious, what would the benefit of that be? Is the world somehow suffering because not everyone has a copy of an 80 year old cartoon? Surely Mickey Mouse is also a trademark of Disney, so would not be able to be used in any new works anyway.
Yes, George Lucas has made plenty of profit off of Star Wars. So what? Why does anyone else have a right to make a profit off of it?
The number one movie right now is The Avengers. What possible reason is there for saying that the creators of those characters should not benefit from that, just because they created them a long time ago?
Exactly what part of society is being 'killed' by long copyrights, other than the part that just wants free stuff? There are literally hundreds of thousands of new works created every year, far more than anyone could use. How many more (worthwhile) works would be created if copyright were shortened? How many of those works currently being created would NOT be created if copyright was shortened?
Saying that the copyrights on Steamboat Willie are providing no incentive to Disney is missing the point. The copyrights on OLD stuff is not the incentive, the ability to hold a long-term copyright is the incentive to produce NEW works. Or are you claiming the Disney is no longer producing new works because they hold those old copyrights (which would just be flat out wrong)?
They are not paying for the defendants gain, they are paying for the plaintiffs loss. When you torched that house you didn't gain anything either.
Neither you nor anyone else has any idea what the exclusive control would have been worth had they maintained it. It is impossible to know. That is why a value is set by statute. The idea that it would only be $1 is laughable at best.
I'm sure that you would be just as generous with people taking away your exclusive control of things, right? I mean, if I were to make a key to your house and tell a bunch of people that it was OK to use your house when you weren't home or your car when you weren't using it that would be OK, right? I mean, the most I would possibly be liable for is the night's rent.
The problem with all of your calculations is that they are based off the wrong thing. You (and a lot of other people) assume that the 'damage' is a copy of a song. It isn't. The thing that copyright law gives you is exclusive control of your work. THAT is the damage - loss of exclusive control. Since it is impossible to calculate the value of exclusive control, a value was set by statute. So really, the question for a court would be whether or not the amount set by statute is a reasonable amount for the value of exclusive control. Now, is $22500 a reasonable amount for exclusive control of a song? I think it would be pretty hard to argue that it is far too high. I would imagine they can show many cases where at least that much has been paid to gain exclusive distribution rights to a song. If that amount is reasonable, then the amount of the award is not excessive. If you torch a $10M house, you are on the hook for $10M - just because you will never earn that much does not make it excessive, it just means you caused more damage than you can afford. That is your problem, not the law's.
It does not matter how many times he uploaded. What a lot of people (including you) don't seem to understand is that the damage is not loss of a single copy or a single sale, it is loss of the exclusive right to distribute. Since it is impossible to determine the value of that right, an amount was set by statute.
Yeah, because usually people rip off people who have less than they do.
You don't seem to understand the purpose of copyright. As it says in the constitution: "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts", not "to prevent someone else from making a buck". It does not matter WHY someone infringes copyright, because no matter what the reason is the creator has lost his exclusive rights, and that runs counter to the reason for copyright.
In the past, it made sense to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement. There was very little a non-commercial infringer could do to take away the creators exclusive distribution. It cost actual money to make a copy, and every succeeding generation of copies got significantly worse. Only a commercial pirate would have the equipment and money necessary for large-scale infringement.
Today, a non-commercial pirate does potentially more damage than a commercial pirate. A commercial pirate is going to be charging something, and a non-commercial pirate is giving it away for free. Chances are excellent that the non-commercial infringement is causing far more harm than the commercial infringement.
How many DNS providers (usually your ISP) have business models that depend on knowing as much about people as they possibly can?
Because then you are teaching people that under some circumstances it is OK to follow instructions from an unexpected/unsolicited source. Imaging the flood of scareware that would arrive after that: THIS IS THE FBI! CHANGE YOUR DNS SETTINGS IMMEDIATELY!
I think that is an awful idea. The last thing you want to do is train people that it is OK, under any circumstances, to do what an unexpected or unsolicited web page says. That is, after all, exactly how scareware winds up getting installed.
The best thing to do is let them fail, and gear up the help desks to be ready with the onslaught of calls.
Property taxes ought to be abolished altogether. They are absolutely the most unfair form of taxation there is.
What do you think allowed Facebook to incorporate in the first place? What do you think allows them to issue stock? What do you think allows private individuals to own property (such as stock)?
Finally, they are not threatening to end his citizenship, HE RENOUNCED IT.
Are you really that stupid?
If he gave up his citizenship, he is no longer a citizen of the US and gets none of it's protections. He is not being charged with a crime after the fact, he is just not getting back into the country he renounced.
The churches want to spread their beliefs, and you call that a 'private interest' that should not be served. You seem to want to prevent that from happening, how is that not your own 'private interest'? The only difference I see is that you want the government to serve your interest for you.
First, you surely are either insane or incredibly naive if you believe government programs come with no strings attached.
Second, I don't see how a government program would be as efficient as a church-run program using mostly volunteers and donated goods.
Third, exactly what is wrong with a group of people deciding that there is a problem and they are going to fix it? 'Sit on your ass and wait for the government to act' is about the worst solution I can think of.
The small church I belong to doesn't even have enough money to afford a full-time pastor. All the cleaning and care of the property is done by volunteers. Yet we still manage to run a small soup kitchen that feeds 5-10 people a day. We still have fundraisers to collect money to pay the heating bills of people that can't afford it. We still donate to a local family shelter. There are absolutely NO requirements made of any of the people we serve, but they are told that we are a church and God loves them. I guess that counts as a 'string' or 'indoctrination'. And you know what? Many of them do show up at church on Sunday, and many of them wind up volunteering themselves. It seems that they think that an organization that has people who care enough to voluntarily give of their time and money to help them may be worth joining. I have never heard of anyone having that response to a government.
Well, deductions doesn't tell you anything either, since they are not a matter of public record. You find out how much people contribute the same way you find out other information about people - ask them.
They offer a 'Premium Caesar Salad' without chicken (4g fat), with grilled chicken (5g fat) or crispy chicken (18g fat). Same for the 'Premium Southwest Salad'.
If you reduce power consumption, the only thing that does is lower the cost of fuel (maybe). None of the rest of the costs of generating and delivering power (wires, substations, transformers, maintenance, employees, etc) change just because you are using a little less power. If you are being billed based on consumption then of course the rates will go up as consumption goes down, because the actual costs have not changed that much. This is not that hard to figure out.