People don't pay for their news in traditional newspapers: they pay for the paper, which typically costs the company more than it charges for the finished product. So in theory, giving away the news without the paper looks like a good deal for newspapers, if they can keep the advertising.
I don't really understand your analogy about Walmart & shelves. Your original post said news aggregators get first swing at displaying ads. Sure, no problem there... kinda obivous.
I'll even grant ya that the search engine is tracking what news you read. But if you're searching or just browsing at news.google.com or even news.yahoo.com, there are zero ads.
It would seem that the established search engines which do news aggregation have considered the pitfall you pointed out and choosen to avoid it. As for the tracking, that information won't become useful until you leave their news section and do a general search.
Agreed, it is quite a bit more complicated. For some interesting reading go check out the history of when the US moved away from the Gold Standard.
Money, anything from colon to zloty, is a representation of work performed.
Nah, not really. Money is just an item with agreed upon value. It can be exchanged for work.
Printing money to pay these debts would technically pay those debts off, but because of the introduction of the new currency into the system, all that undone work would be shifted onto all us grunts of the system. That would be work that we as a people have already received pay for. We would have to work unpaided to revalue our currency.
You would still get paid but due to inflation won't be able to purchase the same amount of goods&services.
Revalution of currency can be a tool to reduce debt burden. Of course if the currency has lost too much value it makes it harder to sell future debt. Or to put it another way inflation reduces the cost of outstanding debt but can increase the cost of future debt.
It is the job of the Treasury to monitor the physical and electronic currency and ensure that the total amount of currency does not excessivly exceed the amount of work being done.
Or in other words the Fed's job is to keep inflation at managable levels.
just like real money shows how much you work.
ROFL. Trust me sunny, money is a terrible indiction of how much work someone does.
You are paying for the seller's time. Time you do not want to sit in front of the game, earning the money yourself, playing a game
Makes prefect sense to me. If my time is limited, why would I want to spend it grinding away farming cash? When I could just convert some dollars into game cash and then be off on merry adventures within the game.
That is like paying someone else to play in the touch football game you play every Friday because you don't want to play that week. What sense does that make?
If I don't want to play that week and find a replacement to take my place. It's wrong of me to offer to pay for his beer?
True enough. And I know some proposals were for it to be semi-mobile for just such a reason. Is there some reason it couldn't be retractable? I.e. just pull some of it back in if some piece of debris needs to fly over the top of it.
Ummm, because the top of it is in geosynchronous orbit aka ~22,000 miles off the surface of the planet?
No, because the slingshot is only used for short periods of time. It doesn't have to be kept in tension 24x7 for no good reason. Besides the slingshot was an (apparently bad) attempt at humor.
Sure, sure but even when not in use the slingshot is still exposed to the same dangers, but much less risk involved because it doesn't have to perform 24x7. Nah, wasn't a bad attempt at humor. The idea of a giant "rail-gun"(slingshot ala aircraft carrier) to launch material into space has been kicked around before.
I hope not, because if that's the case we're all screwed. I think America's spirit is alive and well, personally.
The 6 train halted in liquid bomb scare"This is a new level of fear, watching for people carrying drinks on the subway," said Wallis Post, 25, of Manhattan, who was on the train searched by cops at the 51st St. station and again at Grand Central Terminal.
"Is anyone carrying a liquid?" a uniformed cop asked after boarding the train with another officer at 51st St., according to Post and another passenger.
Another cop then said into her hand-held radio: "We're looking for the high alert," prompting a few frightened passengers to get off the train, the witnesses said.
yup, alive & well. New York City subway riders afraid of someone carrying a drink. No Fear there.;)
Money in a bank is real money, usually backed by some government, and limited in supply.
Real money? Sure, real as in you can hold it in your hands. Cash today is just a meat-space representive of the 1s & 0s in your bank account. A bank's vault doesn't hold enough cash to cover everyone's account, it barely has enough to cover a fraction of that.
"Back by some government", I think ultimately the value of a fiat currency is determined more by the faith in the government that issues it.
"Limited in supply", sure physical cash is limited in supply but don't let that you fool into believing the US Gov't isn't happily "printing" money everyday. Where do you think the dollars to pay off US debt's(e.g. T-Bills) and debt interest come from?
The only reason the US is able to get away with printing money so freely is because the world's oil producers only sell oil in dollars. You want oil? You have to buy dollars first. I believe the term is "Petro-dollars".
If the bank were to just add more money to your account, they would be taking it from someone else. Unless that person (or entity) agreed to them transferring funds from their account(s) to another, that would be larceny.
Nah, the money in my account is really just 1s&0s in a computer. A bank can change those 1s&0s without affecting anyone else's account. I believe "fraud" would be the category of this kind of crime. I would also guess there are banking regulation against this kind of thing.
Tornado's, earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding... Mother nature probably poses a very large threat to this thing. As opposed to space debris huddling along at 17000+ mph?
And yes, an aircraft could just aim for it Oh, noes!!!!11 the terrorist are coming.
I'm still waiting for a giant slingshot. Don't the same hazards apply to your slingshot?
Success is never final and failure never fatal. It's courage that counts. --Abraham Lincoln
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. --JFK
What happen to America's spirit? Are we too busy cowering in fear hoping our gov't protects us? Man up, America.
ICANN who can hopefully use them to enhance the infrastructure of the Internet
I think you are confused about what ICANN actually does and who actually builds network infrastructure and what the internet actually is.
From ICANN's website: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions.
Or in other words they are a committee that works out naming & numbering procedures that a network needs to follow if they want to exchange traffic with other networks across a public network like the internet. ICANN does not build or maintain any physical infrastructure.
No single entity is responsible for "the infrastructure of the internet". The internet is a collection of individual networks all interconnected.
You are also confused about who is actually collecting the money from tier domain pricing. The money charged by the registar(a different entity than ICANN) for a domain is paid to the registar not to ICANN. ICANN only collects fees from registars for "certifying" them.
Maybe Oil companies should be encouraged to get into the space game. Exxon Mobil earn $4.7 Million in profit per HOUR between April-June 2006; $10.4 Billion profit for second quarter 2006. Source
It would seem they have the cash on hand for space exploration. I don't think space tourism is going to interest them but resource "mining" might.
I think the point was more along the lines of "why is it is news(or even good news) when a corporate entity decides to allow citizens to exerise their rights?". Why do corporate entities get to "decide" which rights a citizen can exercise? Everyone should be free to exercise their rights without artifical restraint(e.g. CSS).
Maybe you could take a moment to look at copyright and why it was originally created.
I expect this judge will ignore all the emotive arguments and get right down to the question of whether it's legal to award attorneys' fees to the defendant, including whether the appropriate standard for awarding has been met.
FTFA "Awarding attorney's fees here would also further the policies of the Copyright Act by encouraging innocent defendants to fight against erroneous legal theories rather than settle. As the Court recognized in Fogerty, "a successful defense of a copyright infringement action" could help further the policies of copyright law by demarcating the boundaries of copyright law "as clearly as possible." Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 527. The RIAA's drift net legal strategy blurs rather than sharpens the boundaries of copyright law by sending misleading messages about the scope of secondary infringement doctrines. Such overenforcement tips the balance of copyright in favor of the copyright owners and allows them to steal away from the public a set of rights that legitimately belong to them."
In case you missed it... You might want to read this Amicus Brief filed by the EFF, ACLU, American Association of Law Libraries, Public Citizen, ACLU of Oklahoma in support of awarding attorney fees to a wrongly accused person of copyright infrigment by the RIAA.
From the brief "Where, as here, one of these innocent defendants prevails in clearing her name and the plaintiff knew or should have known that she was innocent but continued to harass the defendant, the court should award attorney's fees to compensate the victim, to deter the legal assailant, to encourage future innocent defendants to fight back, and to maintain the proper administration and balance of copyright law."
Thanks for the continuing help. Do you have anything positive and/or constructive to add?
Maybe you could enlighten me on how letters sent to the RIAA explaining one's actions and intents would be dismissed as "heresay"?
hersay n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony, when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.
No need to worry about a lawsuit in that case.
That's kinda the point, eh? To know the RIAA doesn't have a case against one if/when they bring you into court. Or do you mean/think the letters will prevent the RIAA from bring a lawsuit? Isn't that dependent upon the evidence the RIAA has and how well "the right hand is talking to the left hand"? Maybe they know about the letters but don't believe them and to make things worst they don't currently have a copy of the files in question. What course of action do you think they'll take at that point?
All well and good, but try getting a judge and jury to believe any of these arguments.
How about a preemptive strike? Send a letter via registered mail to the attorney of record for the RIAA explaining what you are doing before you actually start doing it. Something along the lines of "I am researching P2P behavior & traffic and I am using bogus files with file titles of popular songs."
Months later if/when the RIAA brings a lawsuit against you, send them an affidavit via registered mail reminding them of your previous letter; maybe even include a copy of it and the fact that you are not sharing material which their members have a copyright on. If they continue you can easily claim the RIAA lawsuit is frivolous and have paperwork to show your intentions were not to bait them into filing a lawsuit.
Nobody would feel sorry for this guy, hence no damages for attorney fees. Yes, that's the way it really works. Technicalities and legal hairsplitting don't always hold up.
So, you're just talking out of your ass then? No actual law or case examples that you can point me to?
Maybe he was just trying to help the RIAA by poluting the P2P network with bogus files? Maybe he is just trying to determine how the RIAA gathers their info? He can't help it if the RIAA didn't believe him when he told them he wasn't "making available" any copyrighted material belonging to their members.
I am curious about the "baiting a lawsuit" bit. Could you point me to some law and/or cases(USA based)? I think a RIAA Honeypot could be an interesting. A network of them passing files around would be even more interesting.
If the copyright on the file the RIAA downloads belongs to another, are they now infriging that copyright and can the copyright owner sue them?
The liquid armor is absorbing the kinetic energy and using it to transform itself from a liquid state to a solid state. This change uses up some energy, no? The downside being it affects the underlaying material's ability to deform and absorb energy away from the passgeners.
The change should be measureable, so with structural changes a car should be able to use the energy absorbing feature of the liquid armor to divert more energy away from the passgeners. Or maybe just use it on/in the frame around the passgeners to improve rigidity&energy absorbing characteristics in the parts you don't want to crumple.
There is nothing unjust about me as a business owner telling you to leave my property, nor is there anything unjust about arresting you if you return after I have told you that you are not welcome back in my store. The key point that you missed is that I will tresspass you first
The injustice I was speaking against was the requirement of having to show ID to buy food. You are so wrapped up in yourself and your business, you're blind to or just care don't about unjust policies and/or the whittling away of civil liberties.
Shoudl you refuse or return you are then in violation of tresspass laws and you can and will legaly be arrested.
Besides I will only be arrested if I'm there when the police arrive. I'm sure they'll be in a hurry to come arrest a trespasser at a grocery store.
Clearly you've never been in a store where a customer is making a public display.
I have and I have been known make a display myself. They can be quite effective when done properly. I agree that coming off as an irrational spoil-brat isn't going to win any points.
The store owner requiring me to show ID to buy peaches is going to come off as the irrational one in that public display.
Except you aren't being arrested for refusing to show ID. In this case you are lying which also does not help your cause.
The root cause of my arrest is my refusal to show ID when buying peaches. I am not lying. If a patron asks you if what I'm saying is true, are you going to tell the complete truth? Nah, you're just going to say no he was arrested for trepassing and then not explain why or how I could be arrested for trepassing in a public store? I suppose you'll simply say I was a disruptive customer without offering to explain why I was disruptive. I'm sure that will work in your flavor.
Because they're my peaches, not yours. If I want you to show ID for every purchase I can. If you don't want to, you can leave. Simple.
Are you as a customer, ok with being required to show ID to buy peaches?
Maybe you missed the part in my original post where I suggested extactly that course of action. Show up every day with a shopping cart full of stuff plus eight peaches, then when asked for ID say no and just walk out.
Why as a owner of a slim-profit margin business would you want to introduce a measure(showing ID) that introduces inefficienty and extra hassle & time into the check-out process? Isn't the idea to get the customer checked out as quick as possible you can increase the volume of sales per hour? The business logic of your decision eludes me.
What security benefits are gained from having everyone show ID to purchase food? What about fake IDs?
You missed the point, I can pull all the identifying information I need about you from your credit card if I wanted to.
The original point is fighting against the requirement of having to show ID to buy peaches. Being forced to show ID is completely different than voluntarily choosing a payment method that allows the purchases to be tracked a to purchaser.
the simple principle of not wanting to show ID for a food purchase, which is of course your right.
Ok, so I have the right to not show ID when purchasing food. Why are you arguing with me? Why do hate our freedoms? Do you have an actual point or reason why I should be required to show ID to buy peaches? "Its your store and I'll do what you say"?
But it's my right to ask for ID and refuse a sale when you won't provide it.
Maybe. What if I don't have any ID? Are you still going to refuse to sell to me? Or a minor buying some peaches? Are you now refusing to s
Your reply is either a Troll or you've never had a job interacting with the public. I say that because your chosen course of action wouldn't defuse the situation only inflate it. And I can't understand why as a business owner you would want to inflate the situation; especially because you claim to have no interest in entertaining my diatribes or helping my cause.
And when you do that, I will tresspass you from my property. And when you come back I will have you arrested.
America was built on civil disobedience. The forefathers designed the jury system as protection against unjust laws and unjust application of law. Put down the xbox and open a book.
But if you make a big public display about it not only will you hurt your cause, but you will be kicked out of my store
How does making a big public display hurt my cause? Wouldn't that actually work in my favor?
Hey, Everybody look at me I'm being arrested because I refuse to show ID when buying peaches. I think that might actually get a few people to question the current situation. Do you think I would stop after being arrested? I'm thinking picketing your business and drawing more attention to the situation would be the logical next step. Hell, I could be back at your store the same fucking day with a sign in hand.
your diatrabes about the injustice of showing a piece of plastic to me
So being required to show ID to buy food is ok with you? Could you enlighten me as to why I should be required to show ID to buy peaches?
especialy because I KNOW you're paying with a credit card which has more information about you than you could ever imagine attached to it
Pfft. strawman argument. A credit card is not ID and the store will accept either cash or a credit card. Paying with a credit card is NOT the same as being REQUIRED to show ID.
You don't matter
And you're a fool for believing one man can't make a difference.
Also: salt. Despite what you hear about salted fries and such, the average human eats VASTLY less salt today than they did 50 or 100 years ago
I agreed people use & eat much less salt today than 50-100 years ago. But your concept of time is a bit off. 100 years ago would be 1906. In 10 years the first World War starts.
"Alexander Twining began experimenting with vapor-compression refrigeration in 1848 and obtained patents in 1850 and 1853. He is credited with having initiated commercial refrigeration in the United States by 1856." Source
50 years ago puts you at 1956, baby boomers have been born and already half-way thru grade school. Hell, in another 13 years man walks on the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a related article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 538652-2,00.html
People don't pay for their news in traditional newspapers: they pay for the paper, which typically costs the company more than it charges for the finished product. So in theory, giving away the news without the paper looks like a good deal for newspapers, if they can keep the advertising.
I don't really understand your analogy about Walmart & shelves. Your original post said news aggregators get first swing at displaying ads. Sure, no problem there... kinda obivous.
I'll even grant ya that the search engine is tracking what news you read. But if you're searching or just browsing at news.google.com or even news.yahoo.com, there are zero ads.
It would seem that the established search engines which do news aggregation have considered the pitfall you pointed out and choosen to avoid it. As for the tracking, that information won't become useful until you leave their news section and do a general search.
http://news.google.com/ aka Google News doesn't have ads.
Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that.
Agreed, it is quite a bit more complicated. For some interesting reading go check out the history of when the US moved away from the Gold Standard.
Money, anything from colon to zloty, is a representation of work performed.
Nah, not really. Money is just an item with agreed upon value. It can be exchanged for work.
Printing money to pay these debts would technically pay those debts off, but because of the introduction of the new currency into the system, all that undone work would be shifted onto all us grunts of the system. That would be work that we as a people have already received pay for. We would have to work unpaided to revalue our currency.
You would still get paid but due to inflation won't be able to purchase the same amount of goods&services.
Revalution of currency can be a tool to reduce debt burden. Of course if the currency has lost too much value it makes it harder to sell future debt. Or to put it another way inflation reduces the cost of outstanding debt but can increase the cost of future debt.
It is the job of the Treasury to monitor the physical and electronic currency and ensure that the total amount of currency does not excessivly exceed the amount of work being done.
Or in other words the Fed's job is to keep inflation at managable levels.
just like real money shows how much you work.
ROFL. Trust me sunny, money is a terrible indiction of how much work someone does.
You are paying for the seller's time. Time you do not want to sit in front of the game, earning the money yourself, playing a game
Makes prefect sense to me. If my time is limited, why would I want to spend it grinding away farming cash? When I could just convert some dollars into game cash and then be off on merry adventures within the game.
That is like paying someone else to play in the touch football game you play every Friday because you don't want to play that week. What sense does that make?
If I don't want to play that week and find a replacement to take my place. It's wrong of me to offer to pay for his beer?
Ummm, because the top of it is in geosynchronous orbit aka ~22,000 miles off the surface of the planet?
Sure, sure but even when not in use the slingshot is still exposed to the same dangers, but much less risk involved because it doesn't have to perform 24x7. Nah, wasn't a bad attempt at humor. The idea of a giant "rail-gun"(slingshot ala aircraft carrier) to launch material into space has been kicked around before.
The 6 train halted in liquid bomb scare "This is a new level of fear, watching for people carrying drinks on the subway," said Wallis Post, 25, of Manhattan, who was on the train searched by cops at the 51st St. station and again at Grand Central Terminal.
"Is anyone carrying a liquid?" a uniformed cop asked after boarding the train with another officer at 51st St., according to Post and another passenger.
Another cop then said into her hand-held radio: "We're looking for the high alert," prompting a few frightened passengers to get off the train, the witnesses said.
yup, alive & well. New York City subway riders afraid of someone carrying a drink. No Fear there.
Money in a bank is real money, usually backed by some government, and limited in supply.
Real money? Sure, real as in you can hold it in your hands. Cash today is just a meat-space representive of the 1s & 0s in your bank account. A bank's vault doesn't hold enough cash to cover everyone's account, it barely has enough to cover a fraction of that.
"Back by some government", I think ultimately the value of a fiat currency is determined more by the faith in the government that issues it.
"Limited in supply", sure physical cash is limited in supply but don't let that you fool into believing the US Gov't isn't happily "printing" money everyday. Where do you think the dollars to pay off US debt's(e.g. T-Bills) and debt interest come from?
The only reason the US is able to get away with printing money so freely is because the world's oil producers only sell oil in dollars. You want oil? You have to buy dollars first. I believe the term is "Petro-dollars".
If the bank were to just add more money to your account, they would be taking it from someone else. Unless that person (or entity) agreed to them transferring funds from their account(s) to another, that would be larceny.
Nah, the money in my account is really just 1s&0s in a computer. A bank can change those 1s&0s without affecting anyone else's account. I believe "fraud" would be the category of this kind of crime. I would also guess there are banking regulation against this kind of thing.
Tornado's, earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding... Mother nature probably poses a very large threat to this thing. As opposed to space debris huddling along at 17000+ mph?
And yes, an aircraft could just aim for it Oh, noes!!!!11 the terrorist are coming.
I'm still waiting for a giant slingshot. Don't the same hazards apply to your slingshot?
Success is never final and failure never fatal. It's courage that counts. --Abraham Lincoln
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. --JFK
What happen to America's spirit? Are we too busy cowering in fear hoping our gov't protects us? Man up, America.
ROFL. I want one of those. A little group policy editing and I'd be entertained for the day.
Booo Mods. Parent is a joke. It's funny because it's true.
Maybe something like Darwin?
ICANN who can hopefully use them to enhance the infrastructure of the Internet
I think you are confused about what ICANN actually does and who actually builds network infrastructure and what the internet actually is.
From ICANN's website:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions.
Or in other words they are a committee that works out naming & numbering procedures that a network needs to follow if they want to exchange traffic with other networks across a public network like the internet. ICANN does not build or maintain any physical infrastructure.
No single entity is responsible for "the infrastructure of the internet". The internet is a collection of individual networks all interconnected.
You are also confused about who is actually collecting the money from tier domain pricing. The money charged by the registar(a different entity than ICANN) for a domain is paid to the registar not to ICANN. ICANN only collects fees from registars for "certifying" them.
Maybe Oil companies should be encouraged to get into the space game. Exxon Mobil earn $4.7 Million in profit per HOUR between April-June 2006; $10.4 Billion profit for second quarter 2006. Source
It would seem they have the cash on hand for space exploration. I don't think space tourism is going to interest them but resource "mining" might.
I think the point was more along the lines of "why is it is news(or even good news) when a corporate entity decides to allow citizens to exerise their rights?". Why do corporate entities get to "decide" which rights a citizen can exercise? Everyone should be free to exercise their rights without artifical restraint(e.g. CSS).
Maybe you could take a moment to look at copyright and why it was originally created.
Cirumventing DRM is a criminal act under the DMCA act. CSS is DRM for DVDs.
One could say using an unlicensed DVD player to play a DVD encrypted with CSS is cirumventing the DRM of the disc and thus illegal.
I expect this judge will ignore all the emotive arguments and get right down to the question of whether it's legal to award attorneys' fees to the defendant, including whether the appropriate standard for awarding has been met.
FTFA "Awarding attorney's fees here would also further the policies of the Copyright Act by encouraging innocent defendants to fight against erroneous legal theories rather than settle. As the Court recognized in Fogerty, "a successful defense of a copyright infringement action" could help further the policies of copyright law by demarcating the boundaries of copyright law "as clearly as possible." Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 527. The RIAA's drift net legal strategy blurs rather than sharpens the boundaries of copyright law by sending misleading messages about the scope of secondary infringement doctrines. Such overenforcement tips the balance of copyright in favor of the copyright owners and allows them to steal away from the public a set of rights that legitimately belong to them."
You can read about the Fogerty Case here or just google Fogerty vs Fantasy.
The Fogerty vs Fantasy established the "right" of defendants to collect attorney fees upon successful defense in copyright infrigment cases.
In case you missed it... You might want to read this Amicus Brief filed by the EFF, ACLU, American Association of Law Libraries, Public Citizen, ACLU of Oklahoma in support of awarding attorney fees to a wrongly accused person of copyright infrigment by the RIAA.
From the brief "Where, as here, one of these innocent defendants prevails in clearing her name and the plaintiff knew or should have known that she was innocent but continued to harass the defendant, the court should award attorney's fees to compensate the victim, to deter the legal assailant, to encourage future innocent defendants to fight back, and to maintain the proper administration and balance of copyright law."
Thanks for the continuing help. Do you have anything positive and/or constructive to add?
Maybe you could enlighten me on how letters sent to the RIAA explaining one's actions and intents would be dismissed as "heresay"?
hersay n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. 2) a common objection made by the opposing lawyer to testimony, when it appears the witness has violated the hearsay rule. 3) scuttlebutt or gossip.
No need to worry about a lawsuit in that case.
That's kinda the point, eh? To know the RIAA doesn't have a case against one if/when they bring you into court. Or do you mean/think the letters will prevent the RIAA from bring a lawsuit? Isn't that dependent upon the evidence the RIAA has and how well "the right hand is talking to the left hand"? Maybe they know about the letters but don't believe them and to make things worst they don't currently have a copy of the files in question. What course of action do you think they'll take at that point?
All well and good, but try getting a judge and jury to believe any of these arguments.
How about a preemptive strike? Send a letter via registered mail to the attorney of record for the RIAA explaining what you are doing before you actually start doing it. Something along the lines of "I am researching P2P behavior & traffic and I am using bogus files with file titles of popular songs."
Months later if/when the RIAA brings a lawsuit against you, send them an affidavit via registered mail reminding them of your previous letter; maybe even include a copy of it and the fact that you are not sharing material which their members have a copyright on. If they continue you can easily claim the RIAA lawsuit is frivolous and have paperwork to show your intentions were not to bait them into filing a lawsuit.
Nobody would feel sorry for this guy, hence no damages for attorney fees. Yes, that's the way it really works. Technicalities and legal hairsplitting don't always hold up.
So, you're just talking out of your ass then? No actual law or case examples that you can point me to?
Thanks for the help.
Maybe he was just trying to help the RIAA by poluting the P2P network with bogus files? Maybe he is just trying to determine how the RIAA gathers their info? He can't help it if the RIAA didn't believe him when he told them he wasn't "making available" any copyrighted material belonging to their members.
I am curious about the "baiting a lawsuit" bit. Could you point me to some law and/or cases(USA based)? I think a RIAA Honeypot could be an interesting. A network of them passing files around would be even more interesting.
If the copyright on the file the RIAA downloads belongs to another, are they now infriging that copyright and can the copyright owner sue them?
The liquid armor is absorbing the kinetic energy and using it to transform itself from a liquid state to a solid state. This change uses up some energy, no? The downside being it affects the underlaying material's ability to deform and absorb energy away from the passgeners.
The change should be measureable, so with structural changes a car should be able to use the energy absorbing feature of the liquid armor to divert more energy away from the passgeners. Or maybe just use it on/in the frame around the passgeners to improve rigidity&energy absorbing characteristics in the parts you don't want to crumple.
There is nothing unjust about me as a business owner telling you to leave my property, nor is there anything unjust about arresting you if you return after I have told you that you are not welcome back in my store. The key point that you missed is that I will tresspass you first
The injustice I was speaking against was the requirement of having to show ID to buy food. You are so wrapped up in yourself and your business, you're blind to or just care don't about unjust policies and/or the whittling away of civil liberties.
Shoudl you refuse or return you are then in violation of tresspass laws and you can and will legaly be arrested.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the term "civil disobendience".
Besides I will only be arrested if I'm there when the police arrive. I'm sure they'll be in a hurry to come arrest a trespasser at a grocery store.
Clearly you've never been in a store where a customer is making a public display.
I have and I have been known make a display myself. They can be quite effective when done properly. I agree that coming off as an irrational spoil-brat isn't going to win any points.
The store owner requiring me to show ID to buy peaches is going to come off as the irrational one in that public display.
Except you aren't being arrested for refusing to show ID. In this case you are lying which also does not help your cause.
The root cause of my arrest is my refusal to show ID when buying peaches. I am not lying. If a patron asks you if what I'm saying is true, are you going to tell the complete truth? Nah, you're just going to say no he was arrested for trepassing and then not explain why or how I could be arrested for trepassing in a public store? I suppose you'll simply say I was a disruptive customer without offering to explain why I was disruptive. I'm sure that will work in your flavor.
Because they're my peaches, not yours. If I want you to show ID for every purchase I can. If you don't want to, you can leave. Simple.
Are you as a customer, ok with being required to show ID to buy peaches?
Maybe you missed the part in my original post where I suggested extactly that course of action. Show up every day with a shopping cart full of stuff plus eight peaches, then when asked for ID say no and just walk out.
Why as a owner of a slim-profit margin business would you want to introduce a measure(showing ID) that introduces inefficienty and extra hassle & time into the check-out process? Isn't the idea to get the customer checked out as quick as possible you can increase the volume of sales per hour? The business logic of your decision eludes me.
What security benefits are gained from having everyone show ID to purchase food? What about fake IDs?
You missed the point, I can pull all the identifying information I need about you from your credit card if I wanted to.
It was irrevalant, it is a strawman
The original point is fighting against the requirement of having to show ID to buy peaches. Being forced to show ID is completely different than voluntarily choosing a payment method that allows the purchases to be tracked a to purchaser.
the simple principle of not wanting to show ID for a food purchase, which is of course your right.
Ok, so I have the right to not show ID when purchasing food. Why are you arguing with me? Why do hate our freedoms? Do you have an actual point or reason why I should be required to show ID to buy peaches? "Its your store and I'll do what you say"?
But it's my right to ask for ID and refuse a sale when you won't provide it.
Maybe. What if I don't have any ID? Are you still going to refuse to sell to me? Or a minor buying some peaches? Are you now refusing to s
my ass on the line
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." -- Ben Franklin 1776
Your reply is either a Troll or you've never had a job interacting with the public. I say that because your chosen course of action wouldn't defuse the situation only inflate it. And I can't understand why as a business owner you would want to inflate the situation; especially because you claim to have no interest in entertaining my diatribes or helping my cause.
And when you do that, I will tresspass you from my property. And when you come back I will have you arrested.
America was built on civil disobedience. The forefathers designed the jury system as protection against unjust laws and unjust application of law. Put down the xbox and open a book.
But if you make a big public display about it not only will you hurt your cause, but you will be kicked out of my store
How does making a big public display hurt my cause? Wouldn't that actually work in my favor?
Hey, Everybody look at me I'm being arrested because I refuse to show ID when buying peaches. I think that might actually get a few people to question the current situation. Do you think I would stop after being arrested? I'm thinking picketing your business and drawing more attention to the situation would be the logical next step. Hell, I could be back at your store the same fucking day with a sign in hand.
your diatrabes about the injustice of showing a piece of plastic to me
So being required to show ID to buy food is ok with you? Could you enlighten me as to why I should be required to show ID to buy peaches?
especialy because I KNOW you're paying with a credit card which has more information about you than you could ever imagine attached to it
Pfft. strawman argument. A credit card is not ID and the store will accept either cash or a credit card. Paying with a credit card is NOT the same as being REQUIRED to show ID.
You don't matter
And you're a fool for believing one man can't make a difference.
Also: salt. Despite what you hear about salted fries and such, the average human eats VASTLY less salt today than they did 50 or 100 years ago
I agreed people use & eat much less salt today than 50-100 years ago. But your concept of time is a bit off. 100 years ago would be 1906. In 10 years the first World War starts.
"Alexander Twining began experimenting with vapor-compression refrigeration in 1848 and obtained patents in 1850 and 1853. He is credited with having initiated commercial refrigeration in the United States by 1856." Source
50 years ago puts you at 1956, baby boomers have been born and already half-way thru grade school. Hell, in another 13 years man walks on the moon.