Many musicians, myself included, do just that. We release albums and other releases without any copyright restrictions and pay the bills with other jobs. Separating music from money removes any sense of making music just for money and shifts the focus back to the music. This may be bad for industry, but it is good for music.
Sure, if you do generic indie rock kind of music, which you can play after learning a few chords. But music requiring real skill requires a much bigger time commitment; besides just the actual performing for money part, there's also the intensive practicing part.
There isn't much fame in "I lost from Laurence Lessig in a sham litigation"..
Sure there is. Trial lawyers hate losing, but they all understand that that will occasionally happen. But you can still get bragging rights even if you lose.
And they still have a chance. How badass do you look with "I beat Lessig where I had absolutely no case."?
Needless to say, they went after the wrong guy on this.
If I was a lawyer for Warner, and my boss said I should try to legally stop Lessig from talking, my reaction would be "COOL! I get to go up against Lessig." It is entirely possible they knew exactly who they were going against, and wanted to make a public example. Do you know how cutthroat the music industry is? Do you think these guys are easily intimidated?
The average IP case is one that involves patent infringement and requires a tremendous amount of investigation and research. This case is simpler.
I think you are the one that doesn't realize how expensive this is. Nothing is decided in one hearing.
There are plenty of things that can be decided in one hearing, and this may be one of them.
And even if it was it there is lots of stuff that goes on aside from hearings. Even if it cost them a mere 300k that would doom most people. I know I can't afford a loss equivalent to a decent sized house.
I can't see this case costing anywhere near that much.
Not even a lawyer can competantly answer how much a particular case will cost. Remember, a big company can send a team of 20 lawyers, with 100 legal aids (remember Big Tobacco lawsuits) and hold things up in court and create thousands upon thousands of pages of paperwork.
The longest, most time-consuming part of litigation tends to be discovery, and that's where the big lawyer/staff advantage really helps. The Big Tobacco cases involved tremendous amounts of discovery. But in this case I can't really see much discovery going on.
Simple rear-end car accidents can be held up in courts by insurance companies for years and you think this issue is less complex then a rear-end car accident?
But those rear-end car accident cases aren't generally kept up for years with lawyers racking up constant legal fees, but rather just prolonged scheduling. Expert witness depositions can take months to arrange, and high court workloads could mean hearings take months to schedule. And honestly, this case could be factually less complex than a rear-end car accident. There's no question of liability; everyone agrees that these pages were posted, the question just becomes a legal one, of whether they violated Apple's rights.
That's pretty big talk. You do realize that being sued, even if you win, you still lose because of the lawyer fees. Apple can afford to spend millions on their lawyers, can you afford millions on your lawyers? Do you think Sam can?
A lot of people here seem to have a vastly skewed idea of what lawyers cost; there is no way this case would cost MILLIONS. It's actually a fairly simple issue that comes down to an interpretation of law that could be decided in one hearing.
Thankless? Everyone here (and there are a few hundred thousand) bend over backwards to extoll the virtues of the EFF (and overlook its flaws). They are especially well-funded for a single-issue legal advocacy group, and their members are quoted in the press constantly.
How is that "thankless"? I do not think that word means what you think it does.
That I don't know. But it certainly is a sign that the Second Circuit judges consider the issues raised by John Doe #3 in the lower court to be serious and important.
What makes you think he isn't going to kill you anyway once he has your wallet? By pointing that gun at you, he has placed your life in mortal danger. I'd shoot the SOB as soon as I had an opening to do so.
Statistics. The vast majority of times when that situation occurs, the mugger walks away after getting the wallet.
I suppose you can shoot someone as they walk away, but I don't really think my wallet is worth a life, even a mugger's.
I think he's failing to recognize the challenges of enabling meaningful emergent play.
It must be challenging if nobody's managed to do it yet...Or, at least, when something actually emerges that wasn't planned by the creators, they immediately make sure it's out of the game.
There's an international legal principle called ius cogens, or laws recognized by all nations. Piracy is one of these, and it has been a tradition for several hundred years that all countries have jurisdiction to act against pirates on the high seas.
And how long do we intend to pay tribute and put up with the situation?
"We"? It's the shipowners who are paying, not me, not you, and not our government. It's the actions of private individuals.
Honestly, I can understand it to a certain extent. If someone walks up to me, points a gun at me, and demands my wallet, I will give it to him. If, for whatever reason, I happen to be armed, I'm still giving my wallet because the risks inherent in a firefight aren't really worth a few dollars and the aggravation of having to replace a few credit cards and ID cards.
The shipowners have decided it's worth it to just pay off the pirates. Note that even after paying off the pirates, they still send their ships through the same shipping channels. That should tell you that economically, paying off the pirates may be justified.
This guy isn't a spammer in the typical sense. He's a hack 'lawyer' that's been permanently disbarred in Florida for false statements, disparaging remarks, and humiliating litigants.
It was funny, right after being disbarred he sent a long, impassioned letter to all of the rest of us in the Florida Bar asking us to rally around him. I always wondered if anyone did.
I have 13 e-mail addresses. E-mail the public one, and you get sent a riddle, which if you answer correctly gets you the next e-mail address. Each riddle is more fiendish than the last, and nobody has reached the 13th e-mail address.
It annoys me that it's not more prevailant. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I LOVE spectating games... oftentimes more than playing them.
You are the exception to the rule. It is boring. And you are actually annoyed that the rest of us don't like it? You sound like one of those European guys, furious that Americans don't care about soccer...
"How you can tell when you are in perilous times. That's when people go out of their way to listen to the advice of engineers." -- DOOM Novel 3 "Internal Sky" p. 70.
Know who you should never go to for advice? Someone who reads DOOM novels...
Slashdot Mirror
Many musicians, myself included, do just that. We release albums and other releases without any copyright restrictions and pay the bills with other jobs. Separating music from money removes any sense of making music just for money and shifts the focus back to the music. This may be bad for industry, but it is good for music.
Sure, if you do generic indie rock kind of music, which you can play after learning a few chords. But music requiring real skill requires a much bigger time commitment; besides just the actual performing for money part, there's also the intensive practicing part.
There isn't much fame in "I lost from Laurence Lessig in a sham litigation"..
Sure there is. Trial lawyers hate losing, but they all understand that that will occasionally happen. But you can still get bragging rights even if you lose.
And they still have a chance. How badass do you look with "I beat Lessig where I had absolutely no case."?
Needless to say, they went after the wrong guy on this.
If I was a lawyer for Warner, and my boss said I should try to legally stop Lessig from talking, my reaction would be "COOL! I get to go up against Lessig." It is entirely possible they knew exactly who they were going against, and wanted to make a public example. Do you know how cutthroat the music industry is? Do you think these guys are easily intimidated?
Frankly I'm surprised to hear of such blatant FUD coming from someone like ESR.
Frankly I'm surprised that YOU'RE surprised. ESR's a fruitcake, and he's been spewing this kind of idiocy for years.
The AVERAGE IP case costs 800,000$.
The average IP case is one that involves patent infringement and requires a tremendous amount of investigation and research. This case is simpler.
I think you are the one that doesn't realize how expensive this is. Nothing is decided in one hearing.
There are plenty of things that can be decided in one hearing, and this may be one of them.
And even if it was it there is lots of stuff that goes on aside from hearings. Even if it cost them a mere 300k that would doom most people. I know I can't afford a loss equivalent to a decent sized house.
I can't see this case costing anywhere near that much.
You would be surprised by how frequently emotion is the driving force behind litigation, even with corporations.
Not even a lawyer can competantly answer how much a particular case will cost. Remember, a big company can send a team of 20 lawyers, with 100 legal aids (remember Big Tobacco lawsuits) and hold things up in court and create thousands upon thousands of pages of paperwork.
The longest, most time-consuming part of litigation tends to be discovery, and that's where the big lawyer/staff advantage really helps. The Big Tobacco cases involved tremendous amounts of discovery. But in this case I can't really see much discovery going on.
Simple rear-end car accidents can be held up in courts by insurance companies for years and you think this issue is less complex then a rear-end car accident?
But those rear-end car accident cases aren't generally kept up for years with lawyers racking up constant legal fees, but rather just prolonged scheduling. Expert witness depositions can take months to arrange, and high court workloads could mean hearings take months to schedule. And honestly, this case could be factually less complex than a rear-end car accident. There's no question of liability; everyone agrees that these pages were posted, the question just becomes a legal one, of whether they violated Apple's rights.
That's pretty big talk. You do realize that being sued, even if you win, you still lose because of the lawyer fees. Apple can afford to spend millions on their lawyers, can you afford millions on your lawyers? Do you think Sam can?
A lot of people here seem to have a vastly skewed idea of what lawyers cost; there is no way this case would cost MILLIONS. It's actually a fairly simple issue that comes down to an interpretation of law that could be decided in one hearing.
They keep doing very useful (and thankless) work.
Thankless? Everyone here (and there are a few hundred thousand) bend over backwards to extoll the virtues of the EFF (and overlook its flaws). They are especially well-funded for a single-issue legal advocacy group, and their members are quoted in the press constantly.
How is that "thankless"? I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Now how many takers do I have who in spite of what I think and feel are angry and want to control me somehow?
Paranoid much?
I want a pony.
Misjoinder means you've basically brought the wrong defendant into the lawsuit.
Short shrift means quick rejection, but it is not a legal term.
That I don't know. But it certainly is a sign that the Second Circuit judges consider the issues raised by John Doe #3 in the lower court to be serious and important.
Or at least their law clerks do...
What makes you think he isn't going to kill you anyway once he has your wallet? By pointing that gun at you, he has placed your life in mortal danger. I'd shoot the SOB as soon as I had an opening to do so.
Statistics. The vast majority of times when that situation occurs, the mugger walks away after getting the wallet.
I suppose you can shoot someone as they walk away, but I don't really think my wallet is worth a life, even a mugger's.
I'm sure loads of people would disagree, but I always thought Star Trek games had the potential to be awesome, but were consistently mediocre.
I think the same of the TV show.
I think he's failing to recognize the challenges of enabling meaningful emergent play.
It must be challenging if nobody's managed to do it yet...Or, at least, when something actually emerges that wasn't planned by the creators, they immediately make sure it's out of the game.
There's an international legal principle called ius cogens, or laws recognized by all nations. Piracy is one of these, and it has been a tradition for several hundred years that all countries have jurisdiction to act against pirates on the high seas.
And how long do we intend to pay tribute and put up with the situation?
"We"? It's the shipowners who are paying, not me, not you, and not our government. It's the actions of private individuals.
Honestly, I can understand it to a certain extent. If someone walks up to me, points a gun at me, and demands my wallet, I will give it to him. If, for whatever reason, I happen to be armed, I'm still giving my wallet because the risks inherent in a firefight aren't really worth a few dollars and the aggravation of having to replace a few credit cards and ID cards.
The shipowners have decided it's worth it to just pay off the pirates. Note that even after paying off the pirates, they still send their ships through the same shipping channels. That should tell you that economically, paying off the pirates may be justified.
Just stop posting stories about him.
It's a for-profit website. They want views and articles about him tend to get them.
This guy isn't a spammer in the typical sense. He's a hack 'lawyer' that's been permanently disbarred in Florida for false statements, disparaging remarks, and humiliating litigants.
It was funny, right after being disbarred he sent a long, impassioned letter to all of the rest of us in the Florida Bar asking us to rally around him. I always wondered if anyone did.
I have 13 e-mail addresses. E-mail the public one, and you get sent a riddle, which if you answer correctly gets you the next e-mail address. Each riddle is more fiendish than the last, and nobody has reached the 13th e-mail address.
It annoys me that it's not more prevailant. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I LOVE spectating games... oftentimes more than playing them.
You are the exception to the rule. It is boring. And you are actually annoyed that the rest of us don't like it? You sound like one of those European guys, furious that Americans don't care about soccer...
University of California law school
That narrows it down...
The saddest bit is that there are lots of Americans who like it that way. So much for justice and democracy in Iraq.
The same Americans who like it that way in Iraq also like it that way in the US.
"How you can tell when you are in perilous times. That's when people go out of their way to listen to the advice of engineers." -- DOOM Novel 3 "Internal Sky" p. 70.
Know who you should never go to for advice? Someone who reads DOOM novels...