No, you are wrong. In both the case of the ISP and the example I gave, you knew ahead of time that the phrase 'up to' was used. If you are unclear what that means, ask the ISP before you sign up for service. In the twisted example you gave, you had every reason to believe it was a whole sweater, and were not informed otherwise until AFTER you made your purchase. Huge difference.
As far as capping goes: you probably either have a pay-as-you-go plan, or a contract. If you have a pay-as-you-go plan, you are both free to walk away from the deal at any time, and the terms of the deal can change at any time. The most they have to do is notify you before your next bill of any changes. Nothing deceptive there. If you have a contract, it should state in there what service you get. If there is no specific mention of data volume, you are out of luck - you should have had it put into the contract (if it was important to you). Again nothing deceptive. If it does say you get unlimited data volume, and they are now capping you, sue them for breach of contract. I doubt there are many cases of the latter.
You pay for an 'up to' 70Mbps connection. 'Up to' means exactly what is sounds like - you are never going to go above that rate. It says absolutely nothing about the minimum or average rate. Since they make no claims at all about minimum or average rate, there is no false advertising. Every consumer is well familiar with what 'up to' means. How many times do you see an ad that says 'Sale! Save up to 50%'. Does that imply that you are in fact going to save 50% on everything you buy? No, it implies that somewhere in the store is at least one item that is 50% off - every other item may be full price, or more likely, discounted at a rate less than 50%.
Look, you are the one who said fair use is under constant attack. If you don't even know what it is, how can you say it is under attack? Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack. The AC is entirely correct - it is not under attack, because there is nothing to attack. By linking to an article discussing backups, you try to insinuate that at some point it was considered fair use to make backups, and now it is not. The fact is, there has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make backups'. There has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make a copy on a different medium for your own use'. All there has ever been is a rule that says the copyright owner is the only one allowed to make copies or allow others to do so, and that there are a few exemptions to this rule which as decided on a case by case basis. It is pretty funny that you claim the IP proponents are overzealous. It seems to me that the overzealous ones are the ones making claims such as 'fair use is under attack', and that somehow copyright holders have used laws, etc to swing things in their favor. Except for length of copyright, name ONE change to copyright law that gives anything new to copyright holders, or takes away a right consumers already had. And please, don't say the DMCA. All that did was say it is OK for copyright holders to enforce their existing rights through technological means.
Very good, you managed to find a citation. Now see if you can actually read and understand it. Notice how it says 'factors to be considered'. Who would be doing the considering? Why, it would be a JUDGE and JURY. Notice the 'distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined'. Hmm, I wonder who would make that distinction? Damn, it's that same JUDGE and JURY. Notice there is not one word in there saying the copyright holder is REQUIRED to allow fair use, only a list of things that 'may' be considered fair use. I wonder at what point such a determination would be made? Perhaps it is when somebody is accused of infringement and is DEFENDING their use. Notice how it says 'there is no specific number or words, lines, or notes that may be copied without permission'. So who sets the limit? Is it the copyright holder? Nope. How about the copier? Again, nope. It is the JUDGE and JURY deciding an individual case.
Fair use is a defense, nothing else. Just because it has been codified does not change that.
So maybe you are the one who should actually try to understand something instead of simply Googling it before calling someone else an ass.
Don't be ridiculous. The only way any company could do this is to only 'sell' their total bandwidth/number of users, and then cap each user at that level. That would give you a ridiculously low bandwidth, but you would be guaranteed to be able to use it all. Of course, they could build more infrastructure, but to get to the point where they have enough bandwidth to guarantee everyone the service you get now would probably require thousands of times as much infrastructure as there is now, and an infinitely wide spectrum to carry all that data. Would you pay $30000/mo to have your bandwidth guaranteed? Or, they could do what any sane person would do, and realize that at any given moment only a tiny fraction of their users are using ANY bandwidth, and build out to cover your average (not peak) usage. I am not sure how 'if they can't provide it they shouldn't sell it' benefits anyone. If you really think you would be better off with NO service (which is what not selling it means), then drop the service all together and stop complaining about it.
What are you talking about? This is no different than a regular old police sketch artist, just quicker. I highly doubt anyone has been convicted based solely on a sketch. This just provides the police with an image of someone they should be looking for. Once they find that person they can interview him, get an ID from witnesses, obtain fingerprints, get a search warrant, and all the other stuff that goes along with a criminal investigation. The sketch will never get to court because it is not evidence, it is just a tool.
I have never seen an emergency alert (the type issued by the government) for 'news' (yes, the local TV stations sometimes do that, but that is to get people to watch the news). A storm front moving in that generates an alert has most likely already caused damage somewhere, and they are trying to protect others. Amber Alerts are there because most people are not selfish pricks and will help out if they can. If I was at the cinema and I got a 'this just in - tornado approaching - seek shelter' message I (and I imagine most people) would probably be thankful. None of these alerts require anyone know anything about YOU except that you are in the area and are, until proven otherwise, considered a human being worth notifying.
Everything distorts sound. That doesn't mean it as always a bad thing. It is more pleasing to hear an orchestra in an anechoic chamber or in Carnegie Hall? Why? Is the sound of an electric guitar 'better' with or without effects? It is all a matter of perception and taste. Sometimes it is the artist affecting perception (effects on a guitar), sometimes it is the listener affecting perception (playback system). Just because a given system has better fidelity does not mean it is more pleasing to any given listener.
The problem with your argument is that the ones being hurt by Amazon NOT collecting the tax are the small businesses. Most small businesses are local operations, not internet businesses. These businesses must collect the sales tax, so they are already x% more expensive than Amazon. So the states get hit twice - first by not having the sales tax revenue from Amazon purchases, and again by local businesses failing.
You are not being taxed, the purchaser (in the state where he has representation) is. All you are doing is collecting the tax and forwarding it to the state. Yes, you are being asked to do work for the state, but you are not being taxed.
'Legally due' makes it sound like Amazon is being taxed. That is not what this is about. This is about collecting taxes from the residents of a state when they purchase something, and forwarding that to the state. The residents (of some states anyway) are supposed to pay this even if Amazon doesn't collect it, but many don't.
Are you kidding? The price of a single copy of a single song has remained the same at about $1 since the 1930s, over 70 years. By far, the biggest expenses in the recording industry are people (artists, musicians, engineers, secretaries, janitors, managers, producers, etc), equipment (instruments, amps, mixers, recorders, etc), real estate costs (studios, energy, taxes), and marketing. None of that stuff costs the same as it did 70 years ago. So how can you stay in business when your price is fixed, and your costs are skyrocketing? Increase the number of copies sold. Make absolutely certain that everything you release will be a hit. Analyze the crap out of tastes and trends and carefully craft a product to suit. Take no chances on some talented artist who is doing something different. In other words, invest heavily in R&D and leave 'art' out of the picture - exactly what you are proposing. Did you ever stop to think that the reason the music industry is such a mess is because the consumers like you DEMANDED it?
Why do people on here have such an obsession with 'cost to produce'? If you want to minimize the value of human achievement (whether muscle power or brain power), the only thing that truly has any value is land (in both the surface area and mineral composition senses). Do we really want to go back to a world where the landowners are the only ones who have anything? Most people would say no, so we do attach value to human achievement, and that value is expressed as money. Of course, wherever you have money you have unscrupulous people getting involved, so unfortunately we need laws like copyright.
Now, please explain how the government is legislating benefit to one person at the expense of another (in regards to copyright). It seems to me that copyright is ensuring fairness: you get entertained (a benefit to you), the entertainer gets paid (a benefit to him). I don't see a tilt to one side or the other there. Where there is a very strong tilt is in the 'you get entertained, the entertainer gets nothing' scenario. If you don't think the benefit to the entertainer is worth the benefit to you, fine, don't use that particular entertainment. If enough people do that, the value of the entertainment (and it's price) will fall, the entertainment will change to become more valuable, or that particular entertainment will just vanish (if it has no value, who cares). Somehow the anti-copyright people always try to make it seem like somehow copyright laws are forcing them to buy something they don't want, which is just nonsense.
This is a central point that many slashdotters miss. Yes, you can technically run a business with little profit, but without profit you are not going to attract investors, and without investors you are going to die.
Do you want the food you eat to be safe? Do you want to go into a building and be reasonably sure that it isn't going to collapse, and if there is a fire you can get out? Do you want your landlord to be able to turn off your heat in the middle of winter? Do you want your local gas station to be able to charge you for a gallon of gas but only give you.9 gal? Do you want the street in front of your house to have drag races? Do you want your neighbor to open a public bar in his living room? All those things are determined by laws. Only a very few local laws apply to individual citizens, and they are for the most part obvious; pay your taxes, don't build without a permit, generally be a good neighbor.
So "the Schenectady Public Library, Schenectady County Supreme Court Library, the Schenectady County Community College Library and several other locations" are not available to citizens? Now granted he would have had to have walked all the way across the street to get to the library...
How do you come up with that number? The quote is referring to times when the outcome of a trial is wrong, not the outcome of all trials, and it is referring to the burdens placed on the parties, not the number of people in jail. And obviously there should be no innocent people in jail, but the only way to ensure that is to have no-one in jail, and that would mean there is just anarchy. No doubt some innocent people are in jail, that sucks. But innocent people also are victims of crimes, get diseases, starve, and have other bad things happen to them. None of it is good, but it is life. If you have the solutions to those problems (including innocent people in jail), we would love to hear them.
Look up dram shop laws. If you over serve someone, and they go out and kill or injure someone, you are liable. Depending on what state you live in even a private individual has this liability if the overserve someone at their house.
No, no, and no. The GPL is the license by which the distributor may give you the code (binaries and source). If he does not live up to the license (providing the source), he has no authority to distribute the code at all. You do not have a valid license, because he had no authority to give it to you. If he is distributing, he is guilty of copyright violations. That is between the distributor and the copyright holder, not you.
Now, whether or not you can sue because something was misrepresented to you depends on several things: did you purchase the product because of the misrepresentation? If not, you still have what you thought you were getting, so you were not harmed. If you did purchase the product (or otherwise provide benefit to the distributor) because of the misrepresentation, you may be able to sue him to recover your damages (the purchase price). Only the fact the HE (no-one else) represented to you that you would get the source matters. Every other issue is between the distributor and the copyright holder.
The other day I was in a liquor store, and the owner got a shipment of gift packs which had a bottle of liquor packed with some glasses. He was sitting there opening every pack and separating the glasses and bottle. He then priced the bottles the same as the non-packaged bottles, and put them on the shelf. If you go into his store tomorrow and buy one of those bottles, can you sue him for the glass? Of course not, you thought you were getting a bottle of liquor, you paid for a bottle of liquor, and you got a bottle of liquor. Now, what if when he is boxing up your purchase for you he puts it back in the box that it was originally in? Can you sue him for the glass because now your know that you SHOULD have gotten a glass? No, same reasons as above. What if the bottle was in the box on the shelf, but when you got home you found there was no glass? Now you may be able to sue him, and the outcome may be you get a glass, or maybe you return the liquor and get a refund of the purchase price. But, what if the liquor manufacturer sold it to HIM with the understanding that the boxes were not to be broken up? Well, that is a matter between those two, and you have no stake in that game.
No such thing is in the compliance guidelines, and if it was, it would be wrong. If you get some GPL code from someone, and they pass along the license that says you get source, you may be able to sue them on the grounds that they didn't provide what they said they would. But that would just fall under normal business transaction law. The court may decide to compel them to give you the source, or they may simply tell them to refund your money (and if there was no money, you really have no standing to sue, as you have not been harmed at all). None of that has anything at all to do with the GPL. If you get some GPL code from someone and they don't pass along the license, you have absolutely no standing to sue, as they have not said you will get the source. The only one who can sue for GPL violations is the copyright holder.
Not as cut-and-dried as you might think. First, it is not just modifying that is a problem, it is linking with. Here is a real example. My company developed a fairly large system for internal use, which linked to some GPL components. This system contains some trade secrets. All perfectly legal under the GPL, and not evil. Several years go by, and the company decides to contract out some work. This contracted work means the contractor needs a copy of this software: extremely big problem. Because of the GPL'ed code, we must provide source to the software, including the trade secrets. Furthermore, unlike normal business deals where we have confidentiality agreements with contractors, we can't stop them from releasing the source code. This resulted in two things: a delay in the project while the software was recoded to remove all GPL components, and a new company rule saying no GPL code, period.
If you have an agreement with your distributor that says you get source, you have standing to sue. The GPL is not such an agreement - that agreement is between the copyright holder and the distributor, or the copyright holder and you, but not you and the distributor. You have no standing to sue based on an agreement between him and HIS supplier.
No debate about it? Really? Was he selling counterfeits (looks exactly like the real thing), through the same channels, for the same price as EMI? If not, there can be plenty of debate as to whether it was a lost sale. If his price was lower, you have people buy it because it was cheap. If it is packaged as something different, you have people buy it because it is different, even if they have the original. If it was marketed through different channels you have people who buy it because it was available. If it is obviously a rip-off, you have people who buy it because they want it and hate EMI. Every one of those situations resulted in a sale to him but would most likely not have resulted in a sale to EMI.
Some places (like NYC) have a box painted around the intersection. If you stop inside that box you will get a ticket. It is your responsibility to know you can make it all the way though before you enter it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are wrong. In both the case of the ISP and the example I gave, you knew ahead of time that the phrase 'up to' was used. If you are unclear what that means, ask the ISP before you sign up for service. In the twisted example you gave, you had every reason to believe it was a whole sweater, and were not informed otherwise until AFTER you made your purchase. Huge difference.
As far as capping goes: you probably either have a pay-as-you-go plan, or a contract. If you have a pay-as-you-go plan, you are both free to walk away from the deal at any time, and the terms of the deal can change at any time. The most they have to do is notify you before your next bill of any changes. Nothing deceptive there. If you have a contract, it should state in there what service you get. If there is no specific mention of data volume, you are out of luck - you should have had it put into the contract (if it was important to you). Again nothing deceptive. If it does say you get unlimited data volume, and they are now capping you, sue them for breach of contract. I doubt there are many cases of the latter.
A more accurate way to put it is this: the telcos want you to pay for a 1Mbps line, but let you run it at 70Mbps if resources are available.
You pay for an 'up to' 70Mbps connection. 'Up to' means exactly what is sounds like - you are never going to go above that rate. It says absolutely nothing about the minimum or average rate. Since they make no claims at all about minimum or average rate, there is no false advertising. Every consumer is well familiar with what 'up to' means. How many times do you see an ad that says 'Sale! Save up to 50%'. Does that imply that you are in fact going to save 50% on everything you buy? No, it implies that somewhere in the store is at least one item that is 50% off - every other item may be full price, or more likely, discounted at a rate less than 50%.
Look, you are the one who said fair use is under constant attack. If you don't even know what it is, how can you say it is under attack? Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack. The AC is entirely correct - it is not under attack, because there is nothing to attack. By linking to an article discussing backups, you try to insinuate that at some point it was considered fair use to make backups, and now it is not. The fact is, there has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make backups'. There has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make a copy on a different medium for your own use'. All there has ever been is a rule that says the copyright owner is the only one allowed to make copies or allow others to do so, and that there are a few exemptions to this rule which as decided on a case by case basis. It is pretty funny that you claim the IP proponents are overzealous. It seems to me that the overzealous ones are the ones making claims such as 'fair use is under attack', and that somehow copyright holders have used laws, etc to swing things in their favor. Except for length of copyright, name ONE change to copyright law that gives anything new to copyright holders, or takes away a right consumers already had. And please, don't say the DMCA. All that did was say it is OK for copyright holders to enforce their existing rights through technological means.
Very good, you managed to find a citation. Now see if you can actually read and understand it. Notice how it says 'factors to be considered'. Who would be doing the considering? Why, it would be a JUDGE and JURY. Notice the 'distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined'. Hmm, I wonder who would make that distinction? Damn, it's that same JUDGE and JURY. Notice there is not one word in there saying the copyright holder is REQUIRED to allow fair use, only a list of things that 'may' be considered fair use. I wonder at what point such a determination would be made? Perhaps it is when somebody is accused of infringement and is DEFENDING their use. Notice how it says 'there is no specific number or words, lines, or notes that may be copied without permission'. So who sets the limit? Is it the copyright holder? Nope. How about the copier? Again, nope. It is the JUDGE and JURY deciding an individual case.
Fair use is a defense, nothing else. Just because it has been codified does not change that.
So maybe you are the one who should actually try to understand something instead of simply Googling it before calling someone else an ass.
Don't be ridiculous. The only way any company could do this is to only 'sell' their total bandwidth/number of users, and then cap each user at that level. That would give you a ridiculously low bandwidth, but you would be guaranteed to be able to use it all. Of course, they could build more infrastructure, but to get to the point where they have enough bandwidth to guarantee everyone the service you get now would probably require thousands of times as much infrastructure as there is now, and an infinitely wide spectrum to carry all that data. Would you pay $30000/mo to have your bandwidth guaranteed? Or, they could do what any sane person would do, and realize that at any given moment only a tiny fraction of their users are using ANY bandwidth, and build out to cover your average (not peak) usage. I am not sure how 'if they can't provide it they shouldn't sell it' benefits anyone. If you really think you would be better off with NO service (which is what not selling it means), then drop the service all together and stop complaining about it.
What are you talking about? This is no different than a regular old police sketch artist, just quicker. I highly doubt anyone has been convicted based solely on a sketch. This just provides the police with an image of someone they should be looking for. Once they find that person they can interview him, get an ID from witnesses, obtain fingerprints, get a search warrant, and all the other stuff that goes along with a criminal investigation. The sketch will never get to court because it is not evidence, it is just a tool.
I have never seen an emergency alert (the type issued by the government) for 'news' (yes, the local TV stations sometimes do that, but that is to get people to watch the news). A storm front moving in that generates an alert has most likely already caused damage somewhere, and they are trying to protect others. Amber Alerts are there because most people are not selfish pricks and will help out if they can. If I was at the cinema and I got a 'this just in - tornado approaching - seek shelter' message I (and I imagine most people) would probably be thankful. None of these alerts require anyone know anything about YOU except that you are in the area and are, until proven otherwise, considered a human being worth notifying.
Everything distorts sound. That doesn't mean it as always a bad thing. It is more pleasing to hear an orchestra in an anechoic chamber or in Carnegie Hall? Why? Is the sound of an electric guitar 'better' with or without effects? It is all a matter of perception and taste. Sometimes it is the artist affecting perception (effects on a guitar), sometimes it is the listener affecting perception (playback system). Just because a given system has better fidelity does not mean it is more pleasing to any given listener.
The problem with your argument is that the ones being hurt by Amazon NOT collecting the tax are the small businesses. Most small businesses are local operations, not internet businesses. These businesses must collect the sales tax, so they are already x% more expensive than Amazon. So the states get hit twice - first by not having the sales tax revenue from Amazon purchases, and again by local businesses failing.
You are not being taxed, the purchaser (in the state where he has representation) is. All you are doing is collecting the tax and forwarding it to the state. Yes, you are being asked to do work for the state, but you are not being taxed.
'Legally due' makes it sound like Amazon is being taxed. That is not what this is about. This is about collecting taxes from the residents of a state when they purchase something, and forwarding that to the state. The residents (of some states anyway) are supposed to pay this even if Amazon doesn't collect it, but many don't.
Are you kidding? The price of a single copy of a single song has remained the same at about $1 since the 1930s, over 70 years. By far, the biggest expenses in the recording industry are people (artists, musicians, engineers, secretaries, janitors, managers, producers, etc), equipment (instruments, amps, mixers, recorders, etc), real estate costs (studios, energy, taxes), and marketing. None of that stuff costs the same as it did 70 years ago. So how can you stay in business when your price is fixed, and your costs are skyrocketing? Increase the number of copies sold. Make absolutely certain that everything you release will be a hit. Analyze the crap out of tastes and trends and carefully craft a product to suit. Take no chances on some talented artist who is doing something different. In other words, invest heavily in R&D and leave 'art' out of the picture - exactly what you are proposing. Did you ever stop to think that the reason the music industry is such a mess is because the consumers like you DEMANDED it?
Why do people on here have such an obsession with 'cost to produce'? If you want to minimize the value of human achievement (whether muscle power or brain power), the only thing that truly has any value is land (in both the surface area and mineral composition senses). Do we really want to go back to a world where the landowners are the only ones who have anything? Most people would say no, so we do attach value to human achievement, and that value is expressed as money. Of course, wherever you have money you have unscrupulous people getting involved, so unfortunately we need laws like copyright.
Now, please explain how the government is legislating benefit to one person at the expense of another (in regards to copyright). It seems to me that copyright is ensuring fairness: you get entertained (a benefit to you), the entertainer gets paid (a benefit to him). I don't see a tilt to one side or the other there. Where there is a very strong tilt is in the 'you get entertained, the entertainer gets nothing' scenario. If you don't think the benefit to the entertainer is worth the benefit to you, fine, don't use that particular entertainment. If enough people do that, the value of the entertainment (and it's price) will fall, the entertainment will change to become more valuable, or that particular entertainment will just vanish (if it has no value, who cares). Somehow the anti-copyright people always try to make it seem like somehow copyright laws are forcing them to buy something they don't want, which is just nonsense.
This is a central point that many slashdotters miss. Yes, you can technically run a business with little profit, but without profit you are not going to attract investors, and without investors you are going to die.
Do you want the food you eat to be safe? Do you want to go into a building and be reasonably sure that it isn't going to collapse, and if there is a fire you can get out? Do you want your landlord to be able to turn off your heat in the middle of winter? Do you want your local gas station to be able to charge you for a gallon of gas but only give you .9 gal? Do you want the street in front of your house to have drag races? Do you want your neighbor to open a public bar in his living room? All those things are determined by laws. Only a very few local laws apply to individual citizens, and they are for the most part obvious; pay your taxes, don't build without a permit, generally be a good neighbor.
So "the Schenectady Public Library, Schenectady County Supreme Court Library, the Schenectady County Community College Library and several other locations" are not available to citizens? Now granted he would have had to have walked all the way across the street to get to the library...
How do you come up with that number? The quote is referring to times when the outcome of a trial is wrong, not the outcome of all trials, and it is referring to the burdens placed on the parties, not the number of people in jail. And obviously there should be no innocent people in jail, but the only way to ensure that is to have no-one in jail, and that would mean there is just anarchy. No doubt some innocent people are in jail, that sucks. But innocent people also are victims of crimes, get diseases, starve, and have other bad things happen to them. None of it is good, but it is life. If you have the solutions to those problems (including innocent people in jail), we would love to hear them.
Look up dram shop laws. If you over serve someone, and they go out and kill or injure someone, you are liable. Depending on what state you live in even a private individual has this liability if the overserve someone at their house.
No, no, and no. The GPL is the license by which the distributor may give you the code (binaries and source). If he does not live up to the license (providing the source), he has no authority to distribute the code at all. You do not have a valid license, because he had no authority to give it to you. If he is distributing, he is guilty of copyright violations. That is between the distributor and the copyright holder, not you.
Now, whether or not you can sue because something was misrepresented to you depends on several things: did you purchase the product because of the misrepresentation? If not, you still have what you thought you were getting, so you were not harmed. If you did purchase the product (or otherwise provide benefit to the distributor) because of the misrepresentation, you may be able to sue him to recover your damages (the purchase price). Only the fact the HE (no-one else) represented to you that you would get the source matters. Every other issue is between the distributor and the copyright holder.
The other day I was in a liquor store, and the owner got a shipment of gift packs which had a bottle of liquor packed with some glasses. He was sitting there opening every pack and separating the glasses and bottle. He then priced the bottles the same as the non-packaged bottles, and put them on the shelf. If you go into his store tomorrow and buy one of those bottles, can you sue him for the glass? Of course not, you thought you were getting a bottle of liquor, you paid for a bottle of liquor, and you got a bottle of liquor. Now, what if when he is boxing up your purchase for you he puts it back in the box that it was originally in? Can you sue him for the glass because now your know that you SHOULD have gotten a glass? No, same reasons as above. What if the bottle was in the box on the shelf, but when you got home you found there was no glass? Now you may be able to sue him, and the outcome may be you get a glass, or maybe you return the liquor and get a refund of the purchase price. But, what if the liquor manufacturer sold it to HIM with the understanding that the boxes were not to be broken up? Well, that is a matter between those two, and you have no stake in that game.
No such thing is in the compliance guidelines, and if it was, it would be wrong. If you get some GPL code from someone, and they pass along the license that says you get source, you may be able to sue them on the grounds that they didn't provide what they said they would. But that would just fall under normal business transaction law. The court may decide to compel them to give you the source, or they may simply tell them to refund your money (and if there was no money, you really have no standing to sue, as you have not been harmed at all). None of that has anything at all to do with the GPL. If you get some GPL code from someone and they don't pass along the license, you have absolutely no standing to sue, as they have not said you will get the source. The only one who can sue for GPL violations is the copyright holder.
Not as cut-and-dried as you might think. First, it is not just modifying that is a problem, it is linking with. Here is a real example. My company developed a fairly large system for internal use, which linked to some GPL components. This system contains some trade secrets. All perfectly legal under the GPL, and not evil. Several years go by, and the company decides to contract out some work. This contracted work means the contractor needs a copy of this software: extremely big problem. Because of the GPL'ed code, we must provide source to the software, including the trade secrets. Furthermore, unlike normal business deals where we have confidentiality agreements with contractors, we can't stop them from releasing the source code. This resulted in two things: a delay in the project while the software was recoded to remove all GPL components, and a new company rule saying no GPL code, period.
If you have an agreement with your distributor that says you get source, you have standing to sue. The GPL is not such an agreement - that agreement is between the copyright holder and the distributor, or the copyright holder and you, but not you and the distributor. You have no standing to sue based on an agreement between him and HIS supplier.
No debate about it? Really? Was he selling counterfeits (looks exactly like the real thing), through the same channels, for the same price as EMI? If not, there can be plenty of debate as to whether it was a lost sale. If his price was lower, you have people buy it because it was cheap. If it is packaged as something different, you have people buy it because it is different, even if they have the original. If it was marketed through different channels you have people who buy it because it was available. If it is obviously a rip-off, you have people who buy it because they want it and hate EMI. Every one of those situations resulted in a sale to him but would most likely not have resulted in a sale to EMI.
Some places (like NYC) have a box painted around the intersection. If you stop inside that box you will get a ticket. It is your responsibility to know you can make it all the way though before you enter it.